By Kim McDarison

Upon receiving a modified version and on the advice of its attorney, the Whitewater Common Council earlier this month withheld its approval of the most recent draft of a proposed Whitewater Aquatic and Fitness Center operational and lease agreement, sending it back to the Whitewater Unified School District Board of Education for further negotiation.

Following its regularly scheduled meeting, held Nov. 7, the council entered into a closed session meeting to discuss the modified draft. Council reconvened in open session and announced that it was directing City Manager John Weidl to work with its legal counsel to continue negotiations with the school district regarding operations of the aquatic and fitness center. 

Information within the meeting’s open session packet included a letter received by Weidl on Nov. 1, from von Briesen and Roper Firm attorney Christopher Smith. In his capacity as contracted counsel representing the city, Smith wrote that the version of the contract he had most recently received contained two changes made from the previously authorized draft, which had been agreed upon by the two bodies — the council and the school board, describing the changes as “substantive.”

In his letter, Smith advised that the draft be brought back to the common council for further review, adding that, in his opinion, “incorporating the (district’s) proposed modification would change the agreement to the point that executing it would be beyond the scope of the authority granted by the common council.”

As noted in his letter, Smith wrote that the district had “inserted language (into the previously approved draft) that would give it broad discretion over (the Whitewater Aquatic and Fitness Center’s) scheduling.”

Additionally, he wrote: “This insertion, coupled with their addition of separate language that would require the city to pay for any excesses in operation cost, presents a problem. Practically, this arrangement would allow (the school district) to schedule use of the (aquatic center), which could increase operation costs beyond what (the district) has agreed to contribute, leaving the city to pay for those costs.”

Smith recommended to the city council that the two parties “come to a fair agreement regarding scheduling and use of the (aquatic center), with either party paying for any operational cost overruns it may cause.”

Further, Smith wrote that the district had, within its language changes, “removed practically all authority of the joint oversight committee contemplated in the agreement.”

He continued: “I do not have a problem with this, because this oversight would then shift to the city. My recommendation is to remove the committee altogether, because as it stands, I believe that it would operate as a committee without a purpose.”

Within his letter, Smith recommended that, moving forward, a “best path toward final agreement” would be achieved by allowing him to “directly engage” with the district’s attorney “to negotiate the remaining issues.”

Responding recently to WhitewaterWise’s questions regarding the status of the aquatic center’s operational and lease agreement, Weidl said that “based on independent review by staff and legal, the version (the city) received back from the school district is much different then what was agreed to verbally in the last joint meeting and approved by the common council.”

Weidl cited changes made by the school district to the previously approved draft, which had been identified by city staff members and within the letter received from Smith, calling them “material and fundamental,” which, he said, necessitated the council’s inability to sign the agreement.

A timeline of events

Negotiations between the Whitewater Unified School District Board of Education and the Whitewater Common Council to develop a lease and operation agreement for the Whitewater Aquatic and Fitness Center between the two parties began in March when a subcommittee, composed of representatives from each of the two bodies — the school board and the council — assembled.

Negotiations were required after the city noted that a contract, which had previously been in place between the two parties, lapsed in 2021, further noting that the city had been operating the facility without a contract for two years.

In advance of the March meeting, in February, representative from both the school district and the city were given a tour of the aquatic center, during which time its assets, improvements, and need for additional improvements were discussed.

In March, members appearing as part of the subcommittee and its supporting panel included: Whitewater Finance Director Steve Hatton, Whitewater Parks and Recreation Director Eric Boettcher, Whitewater City Manager John Weidl, Common Council President Lisa Dawsey Smith, Whitewater Common Council members Jim Allen and Jill Gerber, Whitewater Unified School District Board of Eduction members Larry Kachel, Jennifer Kienbaum and board President Thayer Cobern, school district Superintendent Caroline Pate-Hefty, school district Director of Business Services Ben Prather, and school district Director of Buildings and Grounds David Friend.

A second meeting of the subcommittee was held in April.

March, April

During the subcommittee’s initial meetings, city officials shared revenue sources used to support the aquatic center, the bulk of which had traditionally come through a 50-50 split contributed by each of the two entities. The city, in its initial presentations, proposed that each entity contribute $219,000 toward operational expenditures and each entity contribute $70,000 annually towards the cost of capital improvements. The city proposed a length of contract of 15 years.

The school district proposed a contract that would place the full operational burden of the facility on the city, obligating the district to pay an annual fee of $7,500 for its use of the facility in the form of athletic and summer swimming programming. The district proposed a length of contract of 1 to 3 years.

During the initial meetings, the city noted that the center, through memberships and other resources, had not been covering its operational costs, but had, instead been operating at a deficit. The city had been covering those expenditures. To adjust for the deficit, the city proposed that each entity pay $222,000. The school district instead proposed that it contribute $150,000 and the city $300,000.

Looking at capital expenditures, the city noted that it had included the cost of improvements within its Capital Improvements Plan and budget, setting aside some $140,000 annually. The school district provided a study it had commission from JP Cullen, identifying some $5 million worth of improvements which it advised should be made over a five-year period. The district proposed that each entity contribute $500,000 annually, over the course of five years, to cover those costs.

Earlier stories about the subcommittee’s initial meetings, held in March and April, are here: http://whitewaterwise.com/officials-share-proposals-in-advance-of-upcoming-aquatic-center-subcommittee-meeting/, http://whitewaterwise.com/aquatic-center-subcommittee-discusses-operations-finances/, http://whitewaterwise.com/city-school-district-to-hold-aquatic-center-operating-lease-agreement-joint-negotiation-meeting/, and here: http://whitewaterwise.com/aquatic-center-subcommittee-considers-5-million-in-improvements-non-binding-referendum/. 

Also in April, a citizen’s group, called “Save the Pool,” assembled. During the group’s initial meeting, attendees talked about their concerns regarding any potential closure of the pool would the two entities, the district and the city, become unable to secure a contract through negotiations.

An earlier story about the Save the Pool meeting is here: http://whitewaterwise.com/save-the-pool-community-members-assemble-regarding-aquatic-center-negotiations/.

May

In May, the subcommittee assembled to debate the merits of the proposals submitted by each of the negotiating parties, the district and the city.

During the meeting, the city offered its proposal, outlining a 15-year length of contract, with a split obligation between the two parties for center-related expenses. The proposed agreement stipulated that each party would contribute $219,000 toward annual facility-related expenses, with $70,000 of those funds earmarked for capital expenditures. Operational expenditures would increase annually by 3% to adjust for inflation. The proposed contract further carried a split obligation to pay for the facility’s existing accumulated debt, with each entity becoming responsible for a payment of $222,000.

The school district proposed a 1- to 3-year length of contract, with the organization assuming no responsibility — beyond the payment of a $7,500 fee for pool use by the school’s athletic department and summer programming — for operational expenses, but taking full responsibility for maintenance and capital improvements made to the facility up to $250,000, an amount which the district proposed to make available through its “Fund 80,” which is dedicated to community-oriented expenditures. The district, within its written proposal, further offered to assume responsibility for one-third of the facility’s existing debt, in an amount of $150,000.

Robust debate ensued following the exchange of written proposals.

An earlier story about the May meeting, including a link to position statements presented to the media by each entity, is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/aquatic-center-subcommittee-debates-merits-of-contractual-proposals-city-to-extend-new-draft/.

June

In June, as negotiations continued, tensions between the two parties intensified.

During the subcommittee meeting, representatives from the school district offered a new proposal which outlined the district’s desire to assume operational responsibilities for the center’s lap pool, leaving the operations of the leisure pool and the fitness center with the city. The agreement further proposed that the district would become responsible for maintenance and repair to the center’s roof over the lap pool and its utilities room, along with any maintenance to the center’s parking lot, while the city would become responsible for the roof over the center’s leisure pool and fitness center.

The city, too, offered some revisions to its earlier proposal, with Weidl stating that the new proposal called for a four-year agreement between the city and the district, calling for each entity to earmark $219,000 for facility operations in 2024, with that number increasing by 3% in subsequent years of the contract. The proposal also called for each entity to set aside $70,000 for a combined total of $140,000 for capital expenditures. In addition, the city would take responsibility for any operational deficits moving forward.

Weidl called the proposal a “starting point,” noting that he believed the council’s objective was to create a “multi-year agreement” that would support “the service levels and hours as they exist.

An earlier story about the June meeting is here: http://whitewaterwise.com/tensions-escalete-during-aquatic-center-subcommittee-meeting-district-proposes-operating-lap-pool/.

July

In July, the negotiating parties remained at odds with each group seeking to achieve its goals.

During the subcommittee’s monthly meetings, WhitewaterWise reported, tensions were growing between the two groups as the city worked to achieve a commitment from the district to support a portion of the center’s operating costs, and the district worked to shift its obligations away from operating expenditures, opting instead, to increase its support of the center through capital and maintenance financing.

While the negotiating parties found agreement on peripheral issues, such as a contract length and a committee structure to provide aquatic center oversight, finding resources to continue to operate the facility in its current format continued as an ongoing challenge.

By July, the two groups had agreed to a contractual period of six years, with both entities making annual contributions in support of the center that would be subject to a 3% annual inflationary adjustment.

A proposal offered by the city in July, increased the city’s annual operating contribution to $250,000, which was a $70,000 increase over the annual amount paid by the city in 2023, Weidl said.

In July, the city’s updated agreement proposed that each entity would provide $100,000 for capital expenditures, with those funds to be managed by the district, and used for facility maintenance, including HVAC systems, parking lots, roof and building repairs, pool mechanical and heating equipment, and other capital equipment related to the facility. However, expenses such as fitness equipment replacement, leisure pool play structures, lockers, audio and security equipment, and other IT infrastructure would be covered by the facility’s “cost center, the city, or other sources of funding.” 

The agreement further stipulated that oversight of the facility would be removed from the city’s Park Board, and transferred to a new seven-member “shared leadership committee.” The committee would be composed of one member from each of the collaborating entities, and several members of the public.

The city agreed that it would be the recipient of all revenues received by selling services at the facility, and the city would become responsible for any operational overruns as part of the new contract.

The two entities agree that the district will become responsible for chemical maintenance of the lap pool, provided, Weidl wrote, that the district is also responsible for chemical maintenance of the leisure pool.

Among items the city would decline, Weidl noted a proposal made by the district which stipulated that each entity would become responsible for HVAC equipment within a designated area, including future costs of maintenance and repairs. The proposal stated that the district would be responsible for maintenance of the center’s older boilers, nos. 3 and 4.

Also declined was a provision made by the district requiring the city to pay for half of the facility’s utility costs in the first two years of the contract, which it estimated at approximately $202,934. Within its proposal, the district suggested the installation of separate meters. It asked the city to continue to split the cost of utilities until the new metering system was in place.

Further, the city declined suggested changes to the operating hours of the facility’s lap pool. Within the proposal, the district suggested that it would become responsible for governing the lap pool’s hours of operations. The city declined the provision, noting that, as a renter, it would maintain control over the pool’s operations, including its hours of operation.

Also during the July meeting, Kachel, on behalf of the district, proposed that the district increase its proposed payment for capital expenditures by $100,000, bringing its total annual obligation to $200,000, but it would then reduce its operational obligations by the same amount, bringing its annual operational payment down to $78,000. 

During discussion, members of the city council and staff explained to school board members that the proposed arrangement would not benefit the city in terms of operating expenses because money earmarked by the city in its capital improvement plan, including its $100,000 annual contribution for aquatic center capital expenditures, would likely come from a borrowing. State statutes prohibit the city from using funds obtained through borrowing to cover operational expenses.

Councilwoman Lisa Dawsey Smith noted that, would the district contribute $100,000 less to the aquatic center’s operating funds, the city would need to make up the difference by finding $100,000 in its general fund operating budget, which likely would be achieved by cutting other city services.

Kachel said the district’s proposal offered the city an opportunity to save $100,000.

“We cannot borrow the money and put it into operations legally,” Weidl said.

He added that the city could increase its capital contribution to $200,000, but it would still need $178,000 from the school district in order to keep the aquatic center open. Without those funds, he said, “we’d have to make cuts.”

Council unanimously approved a motion made by Dawsey Smith, requesting that city staff create a spread sheet showing an increase by $100,000 to the aquatic center’s capital budget, making the city’s contribution to capital expenditures $200,000. The motion further asked staff to create a forecasting model, showing the increase through 2029.

In addition, Kachel noted the district’s desire to form a new committee to oversee management of the aquatic center, further suggesting that the committee have five members instead of seven, with representation from the city council, school board, and members of the community with particular expertise that could aid in the smooth management of an aquatic and fitness facility. 

Following the July meeting, and in a memo from Weidl, the city released what it termed its “final” offer.

Within his memo, Weidl outlined a “framework” of the proposal, which, he said would break down the contributions made by each entity — the district and the city — into two categories: operational and capital.

Outlining annual contributions, the city’s newest proposal assigns a responsibility of $178,000 for operational expenses to the school district, with a first payment made in 2024. The contribution would increase for inflation by 3% annually over the life of a six-year contract. 

The proposal assigns a responsibility of $250,000 to the city with a first payment, made in 2024, subject to a 3% annual increase for inflation over the life of the contract.

Regarding capital contributions, the district will provide $100,000 and the city will provide $200,000 in the contract’s first year. The contributions will increase annually throughout the life of the contract by 3% for inflation.

The proposal further identifies a new oversight committee for the aquatic center. The five-member “shared leadership committee” will be composed of one member from the school board, one member from the city council, with the remaining three members appointed as at-large representatives from within the community.

“Although this committee will not have direct employment or budgetary authority, it will participate in the annual development, recommendation, and adoption of business and marketing plans for WAFC operations,” Weidl wrote, adding that the committee will serve as a recommending body to the school board and the council.

Review of all committee candidates will be undertaken by the city manager and council president, with final appointment made by the city council.

In addition, the proposal addresses the center’s outstanding and accrued operational deficit in 2023, noting that any such debt accrued before July will be split equally between the two entities, with a payment made by the district to the city no later than Dec. 31.

An earlier story about the July meeting is here: http://whitewaterwise.com/district-proposes-new-contract-adjustments-to-aquatic-and-fitness-center-capital-expenditures-city-responds-with-final-offer/.

August

In August, during its regular meeting, the city council agreed in principle to a 6-year lease and operational agreement for the Whitewater Aquatic and Fitness Center.

Members of both parties, the council and the school board, agreed during an earlier held joint meeting that they could continue their partnership after selecting one of three options presented by the city for a lease and operational agreement, with the council members voting unanimously to accept the option, labeled “Option B,” within their meeting packets, and board members noting that they will bring the matter into closed session for discussion during their next meeting, which was planned for Aug. 28.

Would the school board approve the proposal, it would go into effect in 2024. 

In a followup interview with WhitewaterWise, Kachel said that he, at the time, anticipated that the board would emerge from its closed session meeting and announce its decision in open session.

The council approved and the school board was set to consider Option B, with some contingencies.

The full agreement included a split in operational obligations such that in 2024, the district would pay $178,000 and the city will pay $258,767. Amounts contributed for operational use by each entity — the school district and the city — would increase annually by 3% to adjust for inflation.

The proposed contract called for each entity to contribute $100,000 towards capital improvements at the aquatic center. As requested by the district, removed from the contract was an annual 3% adjustment for inflation regarding capital contributions over the course of its first three years, with an option to revisit the annual adjustment for inclusion within the second three years of the contractual period.

The entities agreed that any profits realized by the center annually would be put in a separate fund, with the opportunity to split the profits in accordance with the percentage of operational dollars each entity contributed.

The agreement included a stipulation that a new committee will be created to oversee aquatic center operations, with that body composed of members from each entity, the board and the council, and members of the community who have some expertise in the aquatic services industry. With the creation of the new committee, the city’s Park and Recreation Board would no longer have oversight and recommending responsibilities associated with the aquatic center. 

A story about the circumstances associated with the anticipated approval of the proposed draft in August is here: http://whitewaterwise.com/city-approves-aquatic-center-proposed-lease-operational-agreement-school-district-to-vote-on-monday/.

Also in August, during its regular monthly school board meeting, the board approved the lease and operational agreement as approved in principal by the city council.

Both bodies, in August, approved the proposal unanimously.

As part of the motion to approve the proposal, Kachel at the school board meeting, read the following:

• The district will provide an operational contribution in 2024 of $178,000 indexed to inflation at 3% annually for the full six-year contract.

• The district will provide a capital contribution in 2024 of $100,000 per year for the first three years of the agreement. In the fourth year of the agreement, the $100,000 contribution will be indexed to inflation at 3% annually, and will continue with the index included in contractual years five and six.

• The city of Whitewater will provide the remainder of the operational contribution in 2024 estimated at $258,767, and will contribute the required operational contribution needed to fill the gap in funding, or deficit, and will be responsible for any operational overages, or surplus, for the remainder of the six-year agreement.

• The city of Whitewater will provide a capital contribution of $100,000 per year for the first three years of the agreement. Beginning with year four of the contract, the $100,000 contribution will be indexed for inflation at 3%, and will continue with an indexed contribution in contractual years five and six.

Not addressed was the deficit which the city has already accumulated on its books which, according to city officials, is projected to reach $221,938 by Dec. 31, 2023.

Not included within the motion approved by the board and read Monday by Kachel, but included as part of the discussion held between the two groups and within the city’s motion to approve last Monday, were the following:

• The entities agreed that any profits realized by the aquatic center annually will be put in a separate fund, with the opportunity to split the profits in accordance with the percentage of operational dollars each entity contributes.

• The agreement, as approved by the city council, includes a stipulation that a new committee will be created to oversee aquatic center operations, with that body composed of members from each entity, the board and the council, and members of the community who have some expertise in the aquatic services industry. With the creation of the new committee, the city’s Park and Recreation Board will no longer have oversight and recommending responsibilities associated with the aquatic center. 

Also discussed last Monday, but not included in either entity’s motion, were the following:

• A request by the district to keep the funds contributed towards capital improvements by both entities in a segregated fund which would be managed by the district.

• There also was some debate over how much authority the new oversight committee might have. Council members suggested the group would have an advisory role and report to both entities.

• Also left undetermined was the structure of payments for a remaining balance associated with prior operational debt accrued on the city’s books, which, city officials have said, was traditionally split by the two entities.

An earlier story about the August school board meeting is here: http://whitewaterwise.com/school-board-approves-whitewater-aquatic-center-lease-and-operational-agreement/.

September

In September, members of the two bodies, the city and the school district, met jointly to examine a 21-page draft of the 6-year agreement.

Both entities approved motions outlining operational and capital contributions over the six-year period during separate meetings held in August. 

Kachel reminded joint meeting attendees that the district’s attorney had not yet reviewed the 21-page document that had been supplied by the city.

Those in attendance during the September joint meeting parsed through the document on a page-by-page basis, with members of both boards offering comments, concerns and language changes.

During the meeting, a motion to change language in the document allowing for school board approval of members appointed to a new board titled: Aquatic Center Committee (ACC) was approved by a vote of 5-1 by the city council, with councilwoman Jill Gerber casting the ‘no’ vote. Council member Lukas Schreiber was not in attendance.

Kachel said that the board would not participate in motions during the meeting, but would instead bring language changes back to its full board during its next regularly scheduled meeting for discussion.

Along with Kachel, School board members in attendance Monday, included Stephanie Hicks, Lisa Huempfner, and Miguel Aranda who joined the meeting virtually. Absent from the meeting were board members Jennifer Kienbaum, Maryann Zimmerman, and Christy Linse.

Information provided through a board packet by the school district noted that the board was prepared to “further negotiate,” several items, and advanced the following statements:

• Maintenance of the lap and leisure pool, including pool chemistry, will be managed by the city of Whitewater.

• Maintenance of the parking lot, including snow removal during school hours will be managed by the district.

• Capital contributions will be housed in segregated accounts and not co-mingled with operational funds.

• Capital improvements/maintenance costs will be shared by both entities 50/50.

• A Capital Replacement Schedule, which was provided within the document, will be attached to the contract.

• “Further negotiations to (be) completed by attorney.”

A story about the September joint meeting of the council and school board in here: http://whitewaterwise.com/city-district-consider-first-draft-of-six-year-aquatic-center-contract-language-changes-discussed/.

October

In October, a joint meeting of the city council and school board was held, at which time a new consideration, that of snow removal from the aquatic center parking lot, was discussed.

Opening the joint meeting, Common Council President Jim Allen, describing events from previously held meetings, said: “I think, for our (city) side, we were down to the nitty-gritty and left everything preliminarily approved once our attorneys had a chance to look at everything.” 

Allen noting that he had, earlier that day and in advance of the meeting, been in communication with Kachel, and the two had “preliminarily approved” the concept that, Allen said: “the school board would allow a city truck to come into the school property on such times, like over Christmas break — something where we got a snow, school was out, and they wouldn’t be there to plow — rather than to pay them — someone to come in full-time — our (city) trucks would just swing in and make a spot as long as they don’t make any big piles that would have to be removed by an end loader or something like that.”

Recounting a previously held joint meeting discussion about snow removal at the center, Allen said: “I know we went back and forth, and kind of just left that one in the air.”

He asked fellow council members if they were in agreement with the tentative solution he and Kachel had discussed. 

Weidl directed council members to a memo from the city’s Public Works Director Brad Marquardt, Within his memo, dated Sept. 21, Marquardt wrote that “in regards to plowing the parking lot at the Whitewater Aquatic and Fitness Center, I do not believe we have sufficient staff and/or time to accomplish this work and would need to hire an outside contractor.”

Marquardt continued: “Our first priority during a snowstorm is trying to keep the 50 miles of city streets in a drivable condition so people can (traverse) from one end of town to the other. This typically is accomplished using seven plow trucks. Depending on the timing of the snow storm, and the severity, crews will either continue during the day plowing city streets or be sent home to return around 2 a.m. to start back up. When arriving at 2 a.m., crews typically stay until 3:30 p.m., working on cleanup. Larger snow events will require crews to return again at 2 a.m. to continue with cleanup.”

He said city skid steers and a loader are used to clear 11 downtown parking lots, municipal areas and “miles of public sidewalk.”

Additionally, he wrote: “Could the city swing through the parking area while we are plowing Elizabeth Street? Yes, however, that would only be to plow the driving aisle. Our snow plows are not designed to maneuver amongst and around parked cars. We would have to send a skid steer or the loader to plow that small area of the parking lot. This would entail removing someone from a designated street plow route or interrupting the plowing of the city-owned parking lots and sidewalks.

“There is also the logistics and public perception. If the city was to plow the parking area, we may be there before or after the school plows, leaving the possibility — depending on the amount of snow — of windrows being left behind for motorists to drive through. And if one area is plowed while another area is not, people are going to be confounded as to why.”

Within his memo, Marquardt noted that the cost to hire a contractor to plow could range between $160 and $225 per hour.

Citing the memo, Weidl described the proposal advanced by Allen as “a bad idea.”

Kachel said he did not believe a situation during which the district would not plow the parking lot would occur frequently.

“It won’t happen very often because during the school year going on, during the week, we always have school the next day, we are going to be in there plowing and we’ll plow the entire lot, like we always have. It might be on a weekend — let’s say we’re snowing on Friday, and snow is expected to continue through the weekend, we have nothing going on there from the high school, going on until Monday, we would not normally come back in and plow it until Sunday.”

Additionally, he said, plowing could become an issue over the district’s Christmas break. 

Weidl said that city staff would not be using city equipment to plow the district’s parking lot. He cited the possibility of a bidding process to hire a contractor as described in Marquardt’s memo.

Addressing Weidl, Allen spoke in support of the plan, saying: “I don’t think there’s going to be that many times that you need to put it out to bid, really.” 

Council members made various changes to language within several pages, much of it relating to pages that had been picked up from previous contracts signed between the two entities that had been included in the packeted materials received during the meeting.

With four council members in attendance — Allen, Stone, Hicks and Dawsey Smith — council voted unanimously to approve pages 3-21 of the city’s document, pending final review from the city attorney. 

Board of Education members in attendance Wednesday included Kachel, Stephanie Hicks, Miguel Aranda, Maryann Zimmerman and Lisa Huempfner.

Common Council members absent from the meeting included Jill Gerber, Lukas Schreiber and Brienne Brown. School board members absent from the meeting included Jennifer Kienbaum and Christy Linse.

Following the vote taken by council members, Kachel said: “We obviously, we never voted at this meeting, we always go back to our school board and go into closed (session).” He, again, noted the district’s October meeting date, saying, “so that’s the deadline we’re kind of shooting for with you, back and forth with attorneys.” 

“Can we ask that at this time you don’t have any foreseen changes when you’re going to come back again?” Allen queried of Kachel. 

Said Stephanie Hicks: “I think at this point it’s just between the two lawyers in particular. None of the district, itself, would be asking or trying to change; I think it would just be between the two lawyers.” 

An earlier story about the October joint meeting is here: http://whitewaterwise.com/city-school-district-discuss-aquatic-center-plowing-agreement-move-closer-to-signing-center-lease/.