Form revised March 5, 2009

FISCAL NOTE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS ONLY

Department:	Contact Person/Phone:	DOF Analyst/Phone:
Legislative	Dan Eder/206-684-8147

Legislation Title: AN ORDINANCE relating to the Mercer Corridor project; amending the 2009 Adopted Budget of the Seattle Department of Transportation by restricting the use of the appropriation for the Major Projects Control Level (19002).

Summary and background of the Legislation:

Project Name:	Project I.D.	Project Location:	Start Date:	End Date
Mercer Corridor	TC365500	South Lake Union	2009	2012

· Please check any of the following that apply:

____ This legislation creates, 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 all relevant sections that follow.) 

Appropriations:  This table should detail existing appropriations and reflect appropriations that are a direct result of this legislation If this legislation does not directly change an appropriation, but has budget impacts, please explain in the notes section below:

Fund Name and Number	Department	Budget Control Level*	Existing 2009 Appropriation	New 2009 Appropriation (if any)	2010 Anticipated Appropriation
Transp. Operating Fund	SDOT	Major Projects 19002	$82,450,000		$39,100,000
TOTAL

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

Notes:

This ordinance would impose a proviso restricting spending from SDOT’s Major Projects Budget Control Level for the Mercer Corridor project.  The proviso would allow SDOT to complete design, real estate acquisition, advertise the construction contract, and evaluate bids.  The proviso would not allow SDOT to award the construction contract or otherwise encumber construction contract funding until a future ordinance is passed by the City Council.

Notes:

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

· 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):

Council has approved all appropriations needed for the project in 2009.  This legislation provides an opportunity for Council to review a revised financing plan, results of the contract bidding process, and potentially other information prior to commencing construction.

· 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):

None identified.

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

None identified.

Please list attachments to the fiscal note below:

No attachments.