Form revised April 10, 2006

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

Department:	Contact Person/Phone:	DOF Analyst/Phone:
Parks and Recreation	Terry Dunning / 684-4860 (DPR) Larry Huggins /  684-5001 (SDOT)	Tyler Running Deer / 684-8075

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE relating to the portions of various unopened streets generally considered part of Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and designating them as public park, drive and  boulevards; amending Appendices I and II to Ordinance 117569 and to Title 15 of the Seattle Municipal Code (Description and Maps of Park Drives and Boulevards); transferring administrative jurisdiction over those unopened streets, more specifically, portions of Gilman Avenue W., Albert Place W., North View Pl. W., 34^th Avenue W., 35^th Avenue W., W. Fort Street, and the alleyway between W. Fort Street and 34^th Avenue W. and the alleyway between Brygger Drive W. and 33d Avenue W., from the Seattle Department of Transportation to the Department of Parks and Recreation; and providing for continued use of the rights of way for transportation and utility purposes.

· Summary of the Legislation:  This legislation proposes to transfer jurisdiction over portions of the street rights of way noted in the title from the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and to designate them as Park Boulevards.  The legislation will allow for orderly and efficient management by a single department of the overall Kiwanis Ravine, which is a significant natural area and wildlife habitat.  This legislation will also protect the rights of neighboring private property owners that use some of the streets for access or other traditional street purposes.

· Background: Kiwanis Memorial Park Preserve (Park) and its surrounding area, generally referred to as Kiwanis Ravine, is a significant habitat area best known for its substantial blue heron rookeries.  The area, including the many intervening unopened streets is heavily infested with non-native and noxious plants such as Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotweed.

Various efforts by the City of Seattle (City) and the community have been directed toward restoring the ravine to a natural condition by removing non-native plants and replacing them with native vegetation.  For example the local community and the Heron Habitat Helpers organization have applied for wetland restoration funds through Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) to expand the initial Sound Transit work throughout much of the Ravine.  In order for all of this work to be effective, the intervening and largely unopened streets need to be subject to the same restoration and management efforts.  This can best be achieved by placing these streets under the jurisdiction of DPR.

While the majority of the street rights of way are unimproved, a few do provide access and utility services to adjacent private properties.  The rights of the private property owners will be preserved by designating the streets as Park Boulevards.  Access and utilities are normal boulevard functions.  In addition, if any of the private property owners elect to develop new homes requiring street improvements these needs can be accommodated. The resulting improvements will be maintained and operated consistent with the existing Boulevard Agreement between SDOT and DPR.  This agreement assigns responsibilities for maintenance of Park Boulevards to SDOT for transportation related improvements (street surfaces, sidewalks and related features) and to DPR for the landscaped areas.  Designation as Park Boulevards will also assure that future development will be reviewed and conditioned consistent with the objectives of maintaining adjacent park areas appropriately.

This proposed legislation will add approximately 6.95 acres to DPR’s jurisdiction.  The overwhelming majority of this property is undeveloped and steeply sloped. 

· Please check one of the following:

____ This legislation does not have any financial implications.

__X__ This legislation has financial implications.

Appropriations: 

Fund Name and Number	Department	Budget Control Level*	2006 Appropriation	2007 Anticipated Appropriation
N.A.
TOTAL

Uses and Sources for Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Project:

O&M	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Total
Uses
Start Up
On-going	$7,473	$18,932	$19,311	$19,697	$20,091	$20,493	$105,997
Sources (itemize)
2000 Parks Levy Fund (33850)	$7,473	$18,932	$19,311				$45,716
The funding source is TBD				$19,697	$20,091	$20,493	$60,281
Total	$7,473	$18,932	$19,311	$19,697	$20,091	$20,493	$105,997

Notes:  These costs reflect necessary new facility operations and maintenance costs to maintain this site in accordance with Park standards.  The general O&M tasks to maintain these sites will include the following: litter removal, watering new plantings, tree maintenance, illegal encampment removal, removing invasive and noxious plants, volunteer project assistance, clean green tipping fees, graffiti removal, regulatory signage, and equipment repairs. In 2006 only six months of costs are reflected based on the transfer of jurisdiction date.  In 2007, the full year costs based on 2006 figures is increased for 2% inflation.

Anticipated Revenue/Reimbursement: Resulting From This Legislation: Not applicable.

Fund Name and Number	Department	Revenue Source	2006 Revenue	2007 Revenue
N.A.
TOTAL

Notes: 

Total Regular Positions Created Or Abrogated Through This Legislation, Including FTE Impact:  Not applicable.

Position Title and Department*		Fund Name	Fund Number	Part-Time/ Full Time	2006 Positions	2006 FTE	2007 Positions**	2007 FTE**
	TOTAL

Notes:

· Do positions sunset in the future?  Not applicable.

Spending/Cash Flow: Not applicable.

Fund Name and Number	Department	Budget Control Level*	2006 Expenditures	2007 Anticipated Expenditures
TOTAL

Notes:

· What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation? The costs would be generally administrative in nature and would be difficult to estimate without knowledge of future projects that may be implemented in the ravine. Costs to be considered would include the duplication of efforts by two departments for public outreach, permitting, planning, and other capital project-related activities.  Additionally, operations staff from both departments deal with noxious plants, slide issues and wildlife management, where one department can more efficiently be dispatched to deal with the whole area.

· What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives? There are no reasonable alternatives to achieving the desired outcomes.

· Is the legislation subject to public hearing requirements:  No

· Other Issues:  None

Please list attachments to the fiscal note below: