Fiscal Note

Each piece of legislation that appropriates funds, creates position authority, or will create a financial impact through policy direction or otherwise, requires a fiscal note. The fiscal note should be drafted by department staff and should include all relevant financial information. After preparation by departmental staff, the Department of Finance will review and make necessary revisions before transmittal to Council.

Department:	Contact Person/Phone:	DOF Analyst/Phone:
Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT)	Noel Schoneman / 684 7572	Jeff Davis 684 8071

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE relating to signs on public property, amending Seattle Municipal Code Chapters 15.12 and 15.48 to regulate the posting of signs on City-owned utility poles, lamp poles and traffic control devices that the court has held to be a traditional public forum.

Summary of the Legislation:

This legislation enacts regulations regarding the posting of notices on public property, specifically, utility poles, lamp poles and traffic control devices that the court has held to be traditional public forums. The Court of Appeals has held that the prohibition on posting handbills or notices on utility poles and lamp poles was a violation of constitutional right to free speech, because these are traditional public forums. The Appeals decisions also allowed the City to regulate the manner in which handbills may be posted, so long as they are not prohibited outright. This legislation changes the code to bring it into conformity with the decision. Handbills are prohibited on certain traffic signs: Stop and Yield signs; and the posting of handbills is otherwise regulated as to length of time, removal, and placement.

The Department will publish a Director’s Rule that will have all the requirements for lawful posting of handbills and notices.

The Legislation authorizes the Department to bill the responsible party or parties for the labor costs of removal of handbills, if the Department does any removal. The Department does not need appropriation authority for this, as it is anticipated that existing forces will be redirected to do whatever removal work necessary, and it is further expected that it will not be a significant amount.

Appropriations (in $1,000’s):

Fund Name and Number	Department	Budget Control Level*	2002 Appropriation	2003 Anticipated Appropriation
TOTAL			N/A	N/A

* This is line of business for operating budgets, and program or project for capital improvements

Notes:

Expenditures (in $1,000’s):

Fund Name and Number	Department	Budget Control Level*	2002 Expenditures	2003 Anticipated Expenditures
TOTAL			N/A	N/A

* This is line of business for operating budgets, and program or project for capital improvements

Notes:

Anticipated Revenue/Reimbursement (in $1,000’s):

Fund Name and Number	Department	Revenue Source	2002 Revenue	2003 Revenue
TOTAL			N/A	N/A

Notes:

Total Permanent Positions Created Or Abrogated Through Legislation, Including FTE Impact; Estimated FTE Impact for Temporary Positions:

Fund Name and Number	Department	Position Title*	2002 FTE	2003 FTE
TOTAL			N/A	N/A

* List each position separately

Do positions sunset in the future? (If yes, identify sunset date):

Background (Include brief description which states the purpose and context of legislation and include record of previous legislation and funding history, if applicable):

In 1994 the City of Seattle banned the posting of temporary signs on City-owned structures. The City cited three reasons for the ordinance: (1) the safety hazard to utility workers posed by signs attached to utility poles; (2) the public safety hazard posed by signs posted on traffic control devices; and (3) the visual blight and clutter caused by the proliferation of signs on public structures. A program was established to keep the City facilities clear of the handbills, posters, and other temporary signing. A fine was established to pay for the City’s on-going poster removal efforts. Over time, as fewer temporary signs were posted, the fines no longer supported routine patrolling and the enforcement was reduced to a complaint basis.

The constitutionality of the anti-posting ordinance was contested. In August, 2002, the Washington State Court of Appeals invalidated that portion of the ordinance affecting utility poles, lamp poles, and traffic control posts. The court held that these facilities constituted a traditional public forum and that the City’s ordinance violated the first amendment rights of the public. The court did find, however, that the City could regulate the time, place, and manner of displaying such handbills, signs, and posters to effect public purposes. The proposed regulations will help ensure that the postings will not unreasonably contribute to a traffic hazard by distracting attention from traffic signs, contribute to a safety hazard to anyone working on utility poles, lamp poles, or traffic control posts, contribute to a risk of fire, contribute to a visual blight, or damage City property.

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 if the legislation is not implemented):

The costs to the City for not regulating the temporary signing would be from claims and increased maintenance costs. The claims would likely come from motorists distracted from the important messages displayed on traffic signing, from bicyclists and pedestrians who run or walk into signing, and from utility workers who get cut on metal fasteners or slip on poles because the signs or buildup of signs prevent their safety equipment from operating properly. Increased maintenance costs would result from the need to remove signs and buildup of posters before performing maintenance work on poles and sign posts.

Possible alternatives to the legislation which could achieve the same or similar objectives (Include any potential alternatives to the proposed legislation, including using an existing facility to fulfill the uses envisioned by the proposed project, adding components to or subtracting components from the total proposed project, contracting with an outside organization to provide the services the proposed project would fill, or other alternatives):

None. Failure to enact the legislation would subject the City to constitutional liability.

Is the legislation subject to public hearing requirements (If yes, what public hearings have been held to date):

No public hearings have been held to date. The legislation is being sent to the City Council.

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

The posting of temporary signing on traffic sign posts will be monitored to see if the regulations need further modification.

FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS ONLY

Background (Include brief description that states the purpose and context of legislation, the expected useful life, anticipated customers/users, assumed level of LEED or other sustainable design elements. Also include record of previous legislation and funding history, if applicable):

Project Name:

Project Location:

Start Date:

End Date:

Spending Plan and Future Appropriations for Capital Projects (Estimate cost of legislation over time; list timing of anticipated appropriation authority requests and expected spending plan. Please identify your cost estimate methodology including inflation assumptions and key assumptions related to the timing of appropriation requests and expected expenditures. In addition, include the projected costs of meeting the LEED Silver standard in all facilities and buildings with over 5,000 gross square feet of occupied space. Also, be sure to include percent for art and percent for design as appropriate):

Spending Plan and Budget	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	Total
Spending Plan
Current Year Appropriation
Future Appropriations

Key Assumptions:

Funding source (Identify funding sources including revenue generated from the project and the expected level of funding from each source):

Funding Source	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	Total
TOTAL

Bond Financing Required (If the project or program requires financing, please list type of financing, amount, interest rate, term and annual debt service or payment amount. Please include issuance costs of 3% in listed amount):

Type	Amount	Assumed Interest Rate	Term	Timing	Expected Annual Debt Service/Payment
TOTAL

Uses and Sources for Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Project (Estimate cost of one-time startup, operating and maintaining the project over a six year period and identify each fund source available. Estimate the annual savings of implementing the LEED Silver standard. Identify key assumptions such as staffing required, assumed utility usage and rates and other potential drivers of the facility’s cost):

O&M	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	Total
Uses
Start Up
On-going
Sources (itemize)

Key Assumptions:

Periodic Major Maintenance costs for the project (Estimate capital cost of performing periodic maintenance over life of facility. Please identify major work items, frequency):

Major Maintenance Item	Frequency	Cost	Likely Funding Source
TOTAL

Funding sources for replacement of project (Identify possible and/or recommended method of financing the project replacement costs):