Form revised March 16, 2004

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

Department:	Contact Person/Phone:	DOF Analyst/Phone:
Fleets and Facilities	Mary Pearson/4-0407 Karen Tsao/3-5101	Candice Chin/3-7014

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE relating to relocation assistance, amending and repealing various sections of, and adding new sections to, Chapter 20.84 of the Seattle Municipal Code, to provide for a uniform and equitable relocation assistance policy for Persons displaced as a direct result of City funded Projects and Programs.

· Summary of the Legislation:

This legislation revises the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) to clarify that, pursuant to RCW 8.26.010(2), the City elects to comply with State relocation assistance requirements for projects and programs using funding from the state, but none from the federal government,  Furthermore, this legislation creates procedures for, and extends relocation assistance benefits to, persons displaced by projects funded solely with City funds. These provisions are modeled on state and federal guidelines. Codifying this policy in the SMC will provide consistency in the provision of benefits across City projects and departments. 

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

In 1972, the City Council passed Resolution 23390 calling for a citywide policy to uniformly provide fair and equitable relocation assistance for all persons displaced by public projects.  This policy was in response to differing City relocation assistance practices among City departments.  In addition, projects receiving federal and/or certain state funds provided greater relocation benefits due to fund source requirements than projects funded through other City sources.

The policy called for in Resolution 23390 was never adopted via ordinance or codified into the Seattle Municipal Code.  As a result, the City continues to approach relocation benefits in a disparate manner based upon funding source restrictions and departmental philosophy.  For the most part, however, City departments have provided some form of relocation assistance to property owners and tenants impacted by City-funded projects when appropriate.

In response to a recommendation from the former Strategic Planning Office and members of the Real Estate Oversight Committee (REOC), policy direction was provided by former Mayor Paul Schell in 1999, and reiterated by Mayor Nickels in 2003, that all City projects should provide uniform relocation assistance, regardless of funding source or cost.

Staff from FFD subsequently worked with the Law department to draft this legislation to adopt this policy direction based on the Revised Code of Washington and the regulations adopted in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC).  The legislation also contemplated recent revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations providing federal regulations for relocation assistance adopted by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.  FFD has circulated the legislation to City departments and non-profit housing providers.

· 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.)

Note: There are no appropriations associated with this legislation.  Appropriations necessary to support the provision of relocation assistance in accordance with this legislation will be addressed in future, project-specific legislation.

· 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.)

Potentially, if a project does not conform to State and federal relocation assistance guidelines, it risks becoming ineligible for State or federal funding during later phases of the project even when the initial phase is funded solely by the City.

· 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.)

Legislation is necessary to provide relocation assistance regardless of the public funding source, including projects and programs with only City funding.  The scope of the code amendments could be limited to compliance with State and federal funding requirements and not cover projects funded only by the City.  City departments could continue to provide some relocation benefits to facilitate projects; however, without legislation, these would remain inconsistent across departments.

· 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.

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

The table below identifies potential relocation assistance expenses for projects planned during the next six years.  As noted earlier, both historically and for ongoing projects, departments have provided, where needed, some form of relocation assistance. Barring an explicit policy decision to not pay relocation assistance, departments would likely continue to do so.  Consequently, the relocation assistance estimates noted below are not intended to reflect anticipated additional expense but to provide illustration of the overall magnitude of the expense.  No new budget authority will be granted for any additional relocation expenses, except for on a case-by-case basis.

Not included below are potential relocation assistance costs for a proposed new City Light substation at South Lake Union.  At this time, too little is known to estimate the fiscal impact, though the uses to be relocated are non-residential.  However, because sites under consideration are in a densely developed urban area, relocation assistance could be significant.

Project	Project Budget	Relocation - Low	Relocation - High
Parks
Pro Parks Levy Green Spaces	6,800,000	100,000	350,000
Pro Parks Levy Opportunity Fund	5,200,000	20,000	70,000
	Subtotal	$120,000	$420,000
SPU N. Transfer Stn expansion	37,000,000	15,000	40,000
Fleets and Facilities
Fire Facilities	22,700,000	220,000	480,000
	Grand Total	$355,000	$940,000

Please list attachments to the fiscal note below:

None.