Form revised August 25, 2003

FISCAL NOTE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS ONLY

Department:	Contact Person/Phone:	DOF Analyst/Phone:
Parks and Recreation	Eric Friedli / 4-8369	Marilynne Gardner / 3-5109

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE approving a Master Plan for the development of wetlands and wildlife habitat and an athletic field complex at Magnuson Park; superceding Resolutions 30063 and 30293 as they pertain to the wetland and wildlife habitat and athletic field complex; and authorizing expenditure of appropriations in the 2004 Adopted Budget for athletic field renovation and wetlands development projects at Magnuson Park.

Summary of the Legislation:

Background:

In November 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 30063 approving the Magnuson Park Concept Design, and in April 2001, adopted Resolution 30293 amending the Magnuson Park Concept Design. Resolution 30063 and Resolution 30293 reflected the City Council’s evolving preferences for the future development of Magnuson Park, recommended development priorities including the development of an athletic field complex, and indicated that the Executive should develop a phasing plan and environmental review. The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) hosted a series of public meetings, including a wetland design forum in June 2001; workshops in August 2001; public design workshops in March and September 2001; athletic field lighting education forums and displays in October and November 2001; a public design workshop in March 2002. DPR also mailed newsletters to over 15,000 households describing the proposal and giving notice for public input opportunities in the Spring and Fall of 2001, and Winter and Summer 2002. DPR issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement in July 2002, issued a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in May 2003, and issued an addendum to the Final and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in December 2003.

The City Council adopted Resolution 30530, which included a section stating that the Council may want to impose unique conditions on the development of the athletic fields when approving changes to the Sand Point Magnuson Park Master Plan, separate from consideration of the Joint Athletic Fields Development Program. The Board of Park Commissioners held a public hearing on the development of a wetland and habitat complex, and athletic fields, at Magnuson Park and made recommendations in October 2003.

The City Council, as part of adopting the 2004 Budget, limited expenditures on this project stating they would authorize additional expenditures following approval of a project plan. Specifically, this 2004 Budget Proviso states the following:

“A total of no more than $100,000 appropriated for the Seattle Parks Department for 2004 can be spent to pay for either the Sand Point Magnuson Park – Athletic Fields Renovation Project (Project ID = K733140) or the Sand Point Magnuson Park – Wetlands Development Project (Project ID = K733133), until authorized by future ordinance. It is anticipated that Council will authorize additional expenditures after receiving, reviewing and approving the proposed plan for the Sand Point Magnuson Park that will be presented to Council in early 2004.”

Project Name:	Project Location:	Start Date:	End Date:
Sand Point Magnuson Park – Athletic Field Renovation Project K733140 Sand Point Magnuson Park – Wetlands Development Project K733133	Sand Point Magnuson Park 6500 Sand Point Way NE	3^rd quarter 2000 Same as above	4^th quarter 2006 Same as above

· Please check any of the following that apply:

____ This legislation creates or funds or anticipates a new CIP Project (Please note whether the current CIP is being amended through this ordinance, or provide the Ordinance or Council Bill number of the separate legislation that has amended/is amending the CIP.)

____ 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 the boxes below and all relevant sections that follow.)

Appropriations: The proposed legislation does not request appropriation authority above what has already been approved in the 2004 Adopted Budget.

Fund Name and Number	Department	Budget Control Level*	2004 Appropriation	2005 Anticipated Appropriation
TOTAL

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

Notes: DPR’s 2004 Adopted Budget includes the necessary appropriations for the two projects at Sand Point Magnuson Park. The proposed legislation approves the Master Plan per a 2004 budget proviso (Green Sheet #020-1-A) and removes restrictions imposed by the proviso of already appropriated funds for projects that are included in the Department’s 2004-2009 Adopted CIP.

Anticipated Revenue/Reimbursement: Not applicable.

Fund Name and Number	Department	Revenue Source	2004 Revenue	2005 Revenue
TOTAL

Notes:

Spending Plan and Future Appropriations for Capital Projects: ($s in 000s)

Spending Plan and Budget	2003 LTD	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Total
SPMP – Athletic Field Renovation Project K733140 – Spending Plan	2,200	700	3,000	3,379	-	-	-	9,279
SPMP – Athletic Field Renovation Project K733140 – Current Year Appropriation	-	700						700
SPMP – Wetlands Development Project K733133 – Spending Plan	600	750	750	900	-	-	-	3,000
SPMP – Wetlands Development Project K733133 – Current Year Appropriation	-	750						750
Total Future Appropriations			3,750	4,279	-	-	-	8,029

Key Assumptions:

The above spending plan is based on planned cash flow per DPR’s 2004-2009 Adopted CIP. The above spending plan relates to 2000 Parks Levy funding only. Other funding includes a $25,000 allocation of 2002 NSF/CRF Neighborhood Program funding for the athletic field renovation project; a 2000 grant from the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development in the amount of $500,000 for the wetlands development project; and a $500,000 Shoreline Park Improvement Fund appropriation for the wetlands development project.

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

Funding Source	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Total
2000 Parks Levy Fund (33850)	1,450	3,750	4,279	-	-	-	9,479
TOTAL	1,450	3,750	4,279	-	-	-	9,479

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): Not applicable

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

Uses and Sources for Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Project: $s in 000s

O&M	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Total
Uses
SPMP – Wetlands Development	-	-	85	117	120	122	444
SPMP – Athletic Field Renovation	-	-	88	157	183	187	615
Sources (itemize)
2000 Parks Levy Fund	-	-	173	274	303		750
TBD						309	309

Key Assumptions:

The above estimates reflect O&M costs for both the Sand Point Magnuson Park – Athletic Field Renovation and Sand Point Magnuson Park – Wetlands Development projects in DPR’s 2004-2009 Adopted CIP. Operational funding includes allowance for monitoring the success of the wetlands development.

Periodic Major Maintenance costs for the project (Estimate capital cost of performing periodic maintenance over life of facility. Please identify major work items, frequency): Not applicable

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):

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

Position Title*	Part-Time/ Full Time	2004 Positions	2004 FTE	2005 Positions**	2005 FTE**
TOTAL

· Fund Name and Number: _________________________________________

· Department: ___________________________________________________

* List each position separately

** 2004 positions and FTE are total 2004 position changes resulting from this legislation, not incremental changes from 2003.

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

Not applicable.

· 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 if the legislation is not implemented):

Not implementing the project would result in the loss of a $300,000 State IAC Grant. CRF funds ($614,000) have been allocated for the project. The 2000 Park Levy Fund provides the remaining funding.

· What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that 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):

Alternatives include developing a smaller project such as fewer athletic fields or smaller wetland/habitat complex. This proposal is the result of various previous City Council Resolutions and public processes that have lead to the current proposal.

· 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.):

No public hearing is required for this legislation.

There have been extensive public hearings on this project dating back to 1999. Seattle Parks and Recreation hosted a series of public meetings including a wetland design forum in June 2001, workshops in August 2001, public design workshops in March and September 2001, athletic field lighting education forums and displays in October and November 2001, a public design workshop in March 2002, and mailed newsletters to over 15,000 households describing the proposal and giving notice for public input opportunities in Spring and Fall 2001 and Winter and Summer 2002.

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

The cost estimates for implementation of the full Master Plan is approximately $60,000,000. As indicated above, only a portion of that funding is available. The project is proposed to be developed in phases with only the first two phases funded. Phase 1 includes only the multi-purpose sports meadow. Phase 2 will develop a portion of the wetlands and 4-5 additional fields. The final scope of phase 2 will depend on additional non-city funds (grants, private contributions, in-kind donations) that may be secured. Each phase will be designed to result in a completed, stand alone project. Future phases are dependent on funding availability.