Form revised April 10, 2006

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

Department:	Contact Person/Phone:	DOF Analyst/Phone:
Seattle Public Utilities	Jean White, 684-5185	John McCoy, 615-0768

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into two interlocal agreements to provide for the implementation of Chinook salmon conservation plans for the Lake Washington/Cedar River/Sammamish Watershed and the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. 

· Summary of the Legislation:

This ordinance authorizes Seattle Public Utilities to enter into two interlocal agreements (ILAs) for the purpose of carrying out salmon conservation plans in two key urban watersheds. They are: 

• an agreement between Seattle, King County and 15 other jurisdictions to provide a mechanism, governance structure and funding structure to implement the Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 salmon recovery plan.
• an agreement between Seattle, King County and 25 other jurisdictions to provide a mechanism, governance structure and funding structure to implement the WRIA 8 salmon recovery plan.

The ILAs create two governing bodies, the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council and the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum to oversee the implementation of each WRIA’s salmon recovery plan.  To pay for staffing and implementation, each participating jurisdiction will contribute funds pursuant to a formula based on population, amount of impervious surface and assessed value.  King County will act as the fiscal agent for both agreements. 

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

The City of Seattle has collaborated over the last 6 years with other jurisdictions in the Lake Washington/Cedar River/Sammamish watershed (WRIA 8) and the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed (WRIA 9) to develop salmon recovery plans for these watersheds and implement early actions to conserve salmon. Interlocal agreements (ILAs) were previously signed for each WRIA to fund the development of the salmon recovery plans and were scheduled to expire in 2005. The plans were completed and in 2005, the Seattle City Council adopted Resolutions 30781 and 30824 ratifying the salmon recovery plans for WRIA 8 and 9 respectively. The jurisdictions in both WRIA 8 and 9 extended their ILAs for one year in 2006 to allow time to transition from planning into implementation. This one year extension will expire at the end of 2006. 

To implement the recovery plans, the cooperating jurisdictions for each WRIA have proposed to enter into new interlocal agreements that would create two governing bodies to implement the plans, the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council and the WRIA 9 Watershed Forum, as outlined in the proposed ILAs.  Each jurisdiction signing the ILA (27 jurisdictions for WRIA 8 and 17 jurisdictions for WRIA 9) will have a representative on the governing body and will contribute towards the costs of shared staffing to coordinate the work of the WRIA governing body to implement the plans.  King County will act as the fiscal agent for both ILAs, and it is expected that King County will be the primary service provider to the WRIA governing bodies.  The annual budget and work program for implementing the plans are to be determined by the governing body. 

Over the past six years Seattle has contributed approximately $135,000 annually in WRIA 8 and approximately $80,000 annually in WRIA 9.

· 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.)

Appropriations:  This table should reflect appropriations that are a direct result of this legislation.  In the event that the project/ programs associated with this ordinance have appropriations that were, or will be, received because of previous or future legislation or budget actions, please provide details in the Notes section below.

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

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

Notes: This ordinance does not appropriate funds directly; however, it authorizes SPU to enter into interlocal agreements that commit SPU to contributing a share of the annual expenses of the governing bodies created for each WRIA using a proportional share system as described in the corresponding interlocal agreement. The governing bodies’ budgets, and consequently SPU’s share, are to be voted upon by the members of the governing body each year.  It is anticipated that these amounts will be paid to King County DNR, which will serve as the fiscal agent for both WRIAs and is also expected to be the primary service provider for each WRIA’s governing body.  The anticipated amounts to be contributed to each WRIA per year are:

	2006	2007
WRIA 8	$135,972	$133,491
WRIA 9	$66,080	$87,720

Although the legislation authorizing SPU to enter into these interlocal agreements does not directly require budget revisions, SPU may request additional appropriation in 2007 to fund the payments. SPU currently has partial funding ($105,926) for the 2007 costs of these agreements included in the 2007 Proposed Budget. Please see the table below for the appropriations requests SPU may submit for Council decision in 2007.

Fund Name and Number	Department	Budget Control Level*	2006 Appropriation	2007 Anticipated Requested Appropriation
Water Fund - 43000	SPU	N400B		$69,171
Drainage & Wastewater Fund - 44010	SPU	N400B		$46,111
TOTAL				$115,285

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	Department	Revenue Source	2006 Revenue	2007 Revenue
TOTAL

Notes:  No revenue anticipated from this legislation.

Total Regular Positions Created Or Abrogated Through This Legislation, Including FTE Impact:  This table should only reflect the actual number of positions created by this legislation  In the event that positions have been, or will be, created as a result of previous or future legislation or budget actions, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.

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

*   List each position separately

** 2007 positions and FTE are total 2007 position changes resulting from this legislation, not incremental changes.  Therefore, under 2007, please be sure to include any continuing positions from 2006

Notes: No positions created or abrogated.

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

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

Notes:

· 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.)

If the City of Seattle is not a party to the interlocal agreements, it will lose access to Salmon Recovery Funding Board and King Conservation District grants that are managed through the WRIAs.  The City will also miss opportunities to cost share with other jurisdictions on salmon recovery efforts such as monitoring and technical modeling.

· 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 City and other jurisdictions in the WRIA 8 and 9 watersheds could implement actions recommended in the salmon recovery plans independently; however, there would likely be duplication of effort and reduced efficiency.

· 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.)

This legislation is not subject to public hearing requirements.

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

Please list attachments to the fiscal note below: