Form revised: December 6, 2011

 

 

 

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

 

Department:

Contact Person/Phone:

CBO Analyst/Phone:

Department of Transportation

Larry Huggins/4-5001

Rebecca Guerra/4-5339

 

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Burke-Gilman Trail; accepting an Easement Agreement between Inland Properties, Inc., as grantor, and the City of Seattle, as grantee, dated March 10, 1992, and an Easement Agreement among Inland Properties, Inc. and Fremont Dock Company, as grantors, and the City of Seattle, as grantee, dated March 10, 1992; authorizing the Director of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record, on behalf of the City of Seattle, a Trail Easement Agreement among Fremont Dock Co., The Quadrant Corporation, Fremont Lake Union Center LLC, Park View Waterside LLC, SMB of Seattle, LLC, Limpopo Properties, LLC, BBK Lake View, LLC, and Quadrant Lake Union Center Owners’ Association, as grantors, and the City of Seattle, as grantee; placing the real property interests conveyed by such easement agreements under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

 

Summary of the Legislation:

 

This proposed legislation accepts three easement agreements in connection with the Burke-Gilman Trail for property located along the Ship Canal in the Wallingford and Fremont neighborhoods of Seattle, places the real property interests in those agreements under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation, and ratifies and confirms prior acts in connection with the extension of the Burke-Gilman Trail.  

 
 
 


Background:  

 

In 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution 27933 approving agreements between the City and Inland Properties, Inc. (“Inland”), and between the City and Inland, Fremont Dock Company (“FDC”), and The Quadrant Corporation (“Quadrant”), both concerning terms and conditions for grants of easements for extension of the Burke-Gilman Trail.  In 1992, Inland granted a trail easement to the City by Easement Agreement as required by its 1989 agreement with the City.  The City constructed, opened and continues to maintain that portion of the Burke-Gilman trail, but the Easement Agreement was never accepted by ordinance.  Also in 1992, Inland and FDC granted a trail easement to the City for another portion of the Burke-Gilman trail by Easement Agreement as required by their 1989 agreement with the City.  The City constructed, opened and continues to maintain that portion of the trail, but the Easement Agreement was never accepted by ordinance.  A third section of the Burke-Gilman trail, through what is commonly known as the Quadrant property, was constructed and maintained by Quadrant and later reconstructed by the City, but FDC, Quadrant and the City did not complete a trail easement agreement for conveyance of property interests to the City as required by their 1989 agreement.  The original parties and additional parties in interest are now prepared to complete the trail easement conveyance to the City.

 

Please check one of the following:

 

__X_   This legislation does not have any financial implications.

 

Other Implications: 

 

a)      Does the legislation have indirect financial implications, or long-term implications?

 

Pursuant to the terms of the Trail Easement Agreement attached to this legislation, the City will be responsible for maintaining what is commonly known as the Quadrant property segment of the Burke-Gilman trail.

 

b)     What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation?  

 

By accepting the perpetual trail easements, the City is accepting property rights granted by the property owners and necessary for using the designated property for trail purposes.  Establishing these property rights for trail sections through Wallingford and Fremont protects the City’s interests in the Burke-Gilman trail. 

 

c)      Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? 

 

Yes.  An interdepartmental maintenance agreement between the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Seattle Department of Transportation will need to be renegotiated or amended to include the Quadrant property segment of the Burke-Gilman Trail. The Department of Parks and Recreation may be impacted if they agree to maintain this property. 

 

d)     What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives?  

 

None.

 

e)      Is a public hearing required for this legislation? 

 

No.     

           

f)       Is publication of notice with The Daily Journal of Commerce and/or The Seattle Times required for this legislation?

 

No.

 

g)      Does this legislation affect a piece of property?

 

Yes.  It accepts easements for the Burke-Gilman trail.

 

h)     Other Issues:

 

                None.

 

List attachments to the fiscal note below:

 

Attachment A:  Map of Burke-Gilman Trail Easement Area