Form revised: December 14, 2010





Contact Person/Phone:

CBO Analyst/Phone:

Department of Transportation

Larry Huggins/4-5001

Rebecca Guerra/4-5339


Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the sale of City property, in Block 72 of D.T. Denny’s Home Addition to the City of Seattle, to the Washington State Department of Transportation for transportation purposes and the temporary lease back of the site located at 401 Aurora Avenue North; authorizing the Director of Transportation to execute, deliver and administer the agreement, deed, lease and related documents; authorizing other actions related to the use and disposition of the property; and ratifying and confirming prior acts.  


Summary and background of the Legislation:


The proposed Council Bill authorizes the Director of the Department of Transportation (the “Director”) to enter into an Escrow Agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation (the “State”) to sell property located at 401 Aurora Avenue North in Seattle (“Rubble Yard Property”). 


It also authorizes the Director to enter into a Commercial Displacee Lease with the State that allows the Seattle Department of Transportation (the “City”) to occupy the Rubble Yard Property through September 30, 2011 for use as a centralized maintenance yard. 


The City currently utilizes the Rubble Yard Property as a centralized maintenance and material storage facility.  Per this sale agreement, the State will pay the City $19.8 million for the property, which will be deposited into the Transportation Operating Fund.  The State has also agreed to provide $50,000 for the City to relocate the Rubble Yard to a temporary location at the Charles Street facility.



Please check one of the following:


____    This legislation does not have any financial implications.  

(Stop here and delete the remainder of this document prior to saving and printing.)


_X__   This legislation has financial implications.  (Please complete all relevant sections that follow.)




This legislation does not impact the current appropriation.


Per Ordinance 98605, the Rubble Yard Property was initially purchased from a combination of City (Arterial City Street Fund reimbursable from General Street Improvement Bonds) and State (Urban Arterial Trust Account) funds.  Following the disapproval by the voters of the use of the 1960 Bond funds, the Bay Freeway project was discontinued.  Per Ordinance 103485, the City of Seattle reimbursed the State of Washington Urban Arterial Trust Fund for its share of the right of way costs, including the Rubble Yard Property.  The City reimbursed the State with funds from the City Street Fund; therefore, the proceeds of the current sale to the State would be deposited into the Transportation Operating Fund and subsequently to the City Street Fund. 


It should be noted that in addition to the $19.8 million purchase price of the Rubble Yard Property, the State will fund the first $50,000 of relocation costs.  Any additional costs will be paid for by the City, taken from the proceeds of the sale.


Anticipated Revenue/Reimbursement: Resulting from this Legislation:

This table should reflect revenues/reimbursements that are a direct result of this legislation.  In the event that the issues/projects associated with this ordinance/resolution have revenues or reimbursements that were, or will be, received because of previous or future legislation or budget actions, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.


Fund Name and Number


Revenue Source





Transportation Operating Fund/10310


Property Sale









Revenue/Reimbursement Notes:


The proceeds would subsequently be transferred to the City Street Fund. 


Total Regular Positions Created, Modified, or Abrogated through this Legislation, Including FTE Impact: 

This table should only reflect the actual number of positions affected by this legislation.   In the event that positions have been, or will be, created as a result of other legislation, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.


Position Title and Department

Position # for Existing Positions

Fund Name & #






2012 Positions*

2012 FTE*

































* 2012 positions and FTE are total 2012 position changes resulting from this legislation, not incremental changes.  Therefore, under 2012, please be sure to include any continuing positions from 2011.


Position Notes:



Do positions sunset in the future

(If yes, identify sunset date)


Spending/Cash Flow:

This table should be completed only in those cases where part or all of the funds authorized by this legislation will be spent in a different year than when they were appropriated (e.g., as in the case of certain grants and capital projects).  Details surrounding spending that will occur in future years should be provided in the Notes section below the table.


Fund Name & #


Budget Control Level*



2012 Anticipated Expenditures











* See budget book to obtain the appropriate Budget Control Level for your department.


Spending/Cash Flow Notes:


The use of these funds will be determined via upcoming budget processes.


What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation?  

(Estimate the costs to the City of not implementing the legislation, including estimated costs to maintain or expand an existing facility or the cost avoidance due to replacement of an existing facility, potential conflicts with regulatory requirements, or other potential costs.)


The City would lose the opportunity to receive $19.8 million through the sale of the property. 


Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? 

(If so, please list the affected department(s), the nature of the impact (financial, operational, etc), and indicate which staff members in the other department(s) are aware of the proposed legislation.) 





What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives?  (Include any potential alternatives to the proposed legislation, such as reducing fee-supported activities, identifying outside funding sources for fee-supported activities, etc.)


The State would be able to acquire the property through eminent domain.  This is certainly not the method that we propose, or would even look forward to the State acquiring by that method, but the State could condemn the parcel.          


Is the legislation subject to public hearing requirements? 

(If yes, what public hearings have been held to date, and/or what plans are in place to hold a public hearing(s) in the future?)




Other Issues: (Include long-term implications of the legislation.)




List attachments to the fiscal note below:


Attachment A:  Rubble Yard Map