HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2011-11-14 Item 5I - Discussion - Permit Tracking System ReplacementCOUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Meeting Date
11/14/11
11/21/11
Initials
Prepared by I 411ayor's review
NG ,//;l F
NG
ITEM NO.
Council review
ITEM INFORMATION
STAFF SPONSOR: NORA GIERLOFF OItIGINAI,AGI NDA DA "1'E: 11/14/11
AGl_,NDA I'rEm Trrl::e: Permit Tracking System Replacement
C,\ I'I ,GORY Discussion
lltg Date 11/14/11
Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Axard ❑Public Hearing Other
A -1tg Date 11/21/11 Mt g Date Mtg Date Mt Date tVltg Date A/Itg Date
SPONSOR Council Mq)1or HR DCD .Finance Fire IT P &R Police PIu
SPONSOR'S The software program used to track City permits is being phased out by the vendor. An
SU,NJIMARY interdepartmental committee has been formed to research issues and options for its
replacement. This is an opportunity to significantly improve service to the public. The
Council is being asked to consider a budget amendment for 2012 that would allow us to
move forward with the permit software selection and migration process. Implementation
and additional costs expected in 2013. A technology fee could cover this expense.
RI ,vI ISWI =,D RY cow Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 10/24/11 COMMITTEE CHAIR: SEAL
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSORR/ADMIN• Department of Community Development
Co k'M "I °rr:I: Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPI- 1NDrI'U1ZL RL?()UIR13D AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$175,000 2012 $150,000 2013 $0 $175,000 in 2012
Fund Source: OFFSET OF $50,000 IF WE STOP PAYING MAINTENANCE ON PERMITS PLUS.
Conznents: Costs are approximate, a technology fee could pay back the investment in 4 -6 years
MTG. DATE
11/14/11
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
I MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS
11/14/11 Informational Memorandum dated 10/14/11 with attachments
Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 10/24/11
163
164
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director
DATE: October 14, 2011
SUBJECT: Permit Tracking System Replacement
ISSUE
The software program used to track City permits is being phased out by the vendor. An
interdepartmental committee has been formed to research issues and options for its
replacement. The change will require a significant investment of financial and personnel
resources.
BACKGROUND
The City's current permit tracking system is Permits Plus by Accela. We have used this system
since 1992 (when it started as a DOS -based system). It is used by the Building Division
(building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical permits), Planning (land use applications, sign
permits), Public Works (land altering, utility, paving, street use permits), Code Enforcement and
Rental Housing. Over time we have made improvements to the system to improve service to the
public. Applicants can call the City's automated inspection request line which then populates the
daily inspection schedule in Permits Plus. Applicants can also send an e-mail and receive an
automated response with the status of their permit, inspection results, and fees.
Accela has developed a web based permit tracking system called Accela Automation and is
focusing its efforts on enhancements to that program rather than on Permits Plus. We expect
that support for Permits Plus will be phased out over the next few years. Another issue is that
annual maintenance fees for Permits Plus have been steadily increasing by 10% a year for a
current annual fee of $45,000. For these reasons developing a recommendation for
replacement of Permits Plus is a 2011 program goal for the Department of Community
Development (DCD).
A 2008 report on permit software selection commissioned by the eCityGov Alliance cities had
this to say:
Recent changes in the permit management software marketplace, notably Accela's
planned retirement of its earlier generation products, drove participating cities to re -think
their approaches to permit automation. Accela's replacement product, Automation, will
be expensive to implement and appears to have high operating and maintenance costs.
In addition, Accela's preferred funding model for online permits through Automation
would collect a percentage of permit fees. A number of Accela clients, including at least
seven cities using myBuilding Permit. com, will have difficulty passing these costs on to
their customers. As a result, many local governments are considering alternatives to
WA2011 Info Memos- CouncilTermitSystem.docx
10/19/2011
165
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Automation, and some of them (e.g., the City and Borough of Juneau, AK) have decided
to move off the product.
Tukwila formed an interdepartmental committee in March of this year to identify City -wide
permitting needs, hear vendor presentations, find out more about why other jurisdictions have
chosen their vendors and reach consensus on a recommendation to Council. DCD invited
participation by representatives from all City departments and a core group of representatives
from DCD, IT, Public Works, Fire, Finance, and the City Clerk have regularly attended.
ANALYSIS
One of the Committee's first objectives was to learn what we could from the experiences of
other cities as they made their permit system choices. Lynnwood issued a Request for Proposal
(RFP) for permitting software in April 2008 and selected the EnerGov program. A group of six
cities (Bothell, Issaquah, Kirkland, Redmond, Renton and Sammamish) joined together under
the eCityGov Alliance framework to issue a joint RFP for permit software systems in November
2009. They did a very thorough selection process and required all of the information we would
need to make our decision. They received fourteen responses which they narrowed down to a
short list of seven. They then conducted in -depth demonstrations and due diligence research
with each vendor. Ultimately five of the participating cities chose the EnerGov system while
Issaquah chose to go with CRW.
Short List Recommendation
i ecityGov i
Hosting
Red'. Avg lV,y cost >455oK.
Black AJj yr cost <$300K ,f `o fit
esources
Infbr CSDC
Accela
Best Match
FnerGov
i Ckw
<$4a0K Cost
Gov' Partnek
i t
EDEN
They designed the RFP to allow other cities to join it later through an interlocal agreement per
RCW 39.34and receive the same terms as they had negotiated with the vendors. Pricing,
including the negotiated group discount, is guaranteed for three years from the first executed
WA2011 Info Memos- CounciWermitSystem.docx 2 10/19/2011
166
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
contract in 2010. Using the interlocal process to join the existing RFP would be faster and
simpler than issuing our own RFP.
Ranae of Costs
Of the cities who participated in the eCityGov process Tukwila is most similar to Sammamish
with 20 simultaneous system users and Bothell with 30. While Tukwila may choose different
options than the ones specified in the vendor price estimates the bids are useful for getting a
ballpark estimate of the purchase cost and in determining relative costs between vendors.
Vendor
Infor Hansen
Accela
EnerGov
GovPartner
CRW Systems
Tyler Eden
1 s Year Costs 1 5 Year Costs
Sammamish
1,022,370
785,129
419,577
241,000
210,400
173,613
1,217,475
971,841
514,941
325,000
283,945
248,059
Bothell
1 s Year Costs
1,135,120
724,075
490,258
238,200
230,450
217,103
5 Year Costs
1,409,635
934,662
619,806
315,000
320,803
325,242
Hansen is so much more expensive than the other vendors staff recommends removing them
from consideration. Accela, our current vendor, has the second highest price quote and is three
times the cost of the three lowest priced vendors. They also have high ongoing maintenance
costs. EnerGov is the mid priced quote and five of the cities chose this vendor as the best
match for their needs. GovPartner is the next lowest price though the consensus of the
eCityGov group was that it did not have the full functionality they were looking for. CRW was
chosen by Issaquah, the sixth member of the eCityGov group, whose Building Official said that
it meets their needs well for half the cost of EnerGov. Staff made a site visit to Puyallup to see
Tyler and spoke with staff from Bonney Lake who also use that system. While they were
satisfied with the program it seemed to require a lot of work arounds to meet their needs. At first
it appeared that choosing Tyler would make for an easier integration with our Eden financial
system but after talking with other cities any of the permit systems can interface with Eden.
Issaquah is a recent example of integration between CRW permitting and Eden financial
programs.
Benefit
Many of the jurisdictions in our region already have a web based permit system or are
implementing a system within the next 2 -5 years. These systems typically allow for electronic
plan submittal, online status checks, greater automation of processes and public access to
permit information. Another benefit is a more efficient link to the KC Assessor's Office resulting
in faster property tax updates for new construction.
The MyBuilding Permit. com application is used in conjunction with a permit tracking system by
thirteen local jurisdictions allowing contractors to do "one stop shopping" for over the counter
permits. Other jurisdictions use electronic permitting modules that are part of their permit
tracking system. Some cities such as Seattle have developed proprietary systems.
While there are capital costs associated with implementing an electronic permitting system it
could have significant benefits for our customers and our staff. Mercer Island did a study when
they implemented their ePlan review system and found that the benefits included:
WA2011 Info Memos- CouncilTermitSystem.docx 3 10/19/2011
167
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
increased efficiency of staff review,
faster permit review since there is no wait for plans to be stamped and routed,
greater convenience for applicants as permits can be submitted at any time,
significant cost savings for applicants due to elimination of paper, printing and transport
costs, and
streamlined emergency response and disaster recovery efforts.
According to Marty Grisham this last item could be an important element of our disaster
recovery strategy because it would allow us to help get our businesses open and operating
more quickly after a disaster. Staff is working on developing a low cost pilot project to allow for
electronic submittal of sign permits as we work through the larger permit software issue.
Implementation Issues
Listening to the experiences of other cities it seems that implementing a new permit system is
time consuming and requires a significant investment of staff resources. Staff has been
attending a working group of cities implementing the EnerGov program and several of them
recommended the use of a consultant to negotiate the contract with the software vendor.
Making sure that the City's needs for customization in permit processes, reports and permit
documents are documented in the contract and included in the price can prevent costly
overruns during implementation.
Of the six cities in our region who have decided to switch to EnerGov in the past several years,
only Lynnwood and Bothell have actually gone live with the system. Lynnwood spent three
years in the migration and implementation phase. Issaquah went live with CRW almost a year
ago and reported that implementation took about six months, much faster than the EnerGov
cities.
Financing Options
Given the significant investment required to upgrade to a new permit system many cities are
imposing technology user fees. Fees are assessed as either a flat fee, fee per sheet or
percentage that ranges from 1.3% to 5 see Attachment B. The Master Builders have written a
letter in support of city technology fees if they are used to provide better service and in our
informal discussions with applicants many think the efficiencies of electronic permit review
would be worth a modest fee increase. The cost to use the online MyBuilding Permit. com
electronic permitting site is 1.3% of the permit fee.
The intent of a proposed technology fee would be service cost recovery. It would be applied to
all permits that are processed through our tracking systems (except fire department licenses,
rental housing). However, it would apply to the "Permit" fee only, excluding the plan review fee,
mailing fees, state building code fee, impact fees, Cascade Water Alliance Fee and any other
water or sewer assessments. For hourly land use permits it would be assessed once on the
retainer and not added to any additional hours that may accrue during permit review.
A chart of the amount Tukwila would have collected from different fee structures is included as
Attachment C. It appears that we could cover the annual expenses associated with a permit
tracking system that allowed for electronic plan review with a fee in line with that charged by
other jurisdictions in our area. Over a longer term we could recover most or all of
implementation costs, depending on future permit volumes. If we opted to proceed with this
approach one question would be whether to start charging during the implementation phase
when we were incurring costs or wait until the system was live. It would be most equitable to
only charge the fee once the applicants were able to benefit from the upgrade.
VVA2011 Info Memos- CouncilTermitSystem.dou 4 10/19/2011
168
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
Timinq
Staff suggests that a reasonable time frame for Tukwila to move forward with replacing our
permit system would be:
2011 Review our permit processes to increase efficiency and prepare for electronic permitting
Adopt an interlocal agreement to join the eCityGov Alliance RFP
Select a permit software vendor
Decide on an electronic permitting approach (MyBuilding Perm it.com or vendor system)
2012 Select and contract with a consultant to assist with negotiating the software contract
Negotiate a contract for the permit software
Start migration and customization which will extend into 2013.
2013 Go live with permit system and electronic permitting
Adopt a financing mechanism
This timeline will require a budget amendment for 2012 to cover expenditures for a contract
consultant and initial permit software payments. The cost for these items would be
approximately $175,000 with a possible offset of $50,000 if we opted to stop paying
maintenance on Permits Plus. Additional costs for data migration, training, hardware and
maintenance of approximately $150,000 would need to be included in the 2013 budget.
Depending on the software configuration and technology fee level that we choose we anticipate
a payback time of 4 -6 years.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council consider a budget amendment for 2012 that would allow us
to move forward with the permit software selection and implementation process.
The Council is being asked to consider this item at the November 14 Committee of the Whole
and November 21 Regular meeting to authorize acquisition of the Permit Tracking System and
include the amount of $175,000 in the year -end 2011 -2012 budget amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
-Short List Vendor Information Comparison
Technology Fee Survey
Potential Technology Fee Revenue
WA2011 Info Memos- CouncilTermitSystem.docx 5 10/19/2011
169
lM
(In
N
!n
u
C)
LA
u
N I
0
i�
r
0
F.
O
u
c
low
Q `O
0
L
U C
O
.N
J
O
to
O
0
a E Q
N U
Y t]
U
U
o
g E g
rn
x
E
x N
N Ti
n N i{
O
N
V
a
s
n
o
m
0
c
4
Z
0
N
QZ
1 O
z�c
'f
C 0
c
CD
E
M tJl
$7m0
o
E
Q p U
d
z
l7
uj
m
8
0
c
4
Z
VIfi
g
z o
4pc�
a
z o
U j9 w c
cp4
S` c
2
o�
J
ti
o q
N
c c
8
s Q
CZ, 3 10
dE w
Ell
v Q E
40
T 3 v
.`P.E gym
0 c o.pgx� c o o na
m E
S� l c rn 6 :12 a a
E o_
En
QQ
o C
gc
�B
A
C4
gig
a
4
a g
o
z
CC Nt
T
g L 9 a S
L
O
7
i n
g a��
A
3
a
N U
N°N
1L ggtt 7 qZ�
Ell,
st
Y N
3
3
3 A
T
0
CD
E
M tJl
U I
U I
Q
�y
E
o
l7
uj
m
v
G
LIJ
E
C
CL
c��
WW
ro
a
m
S[
C�7
N
r
`o s`z
VIfi
g
z o
4pc�
a
z o
U j9 w c
cp4
S` c
2
o�
J
ti
o q
N
c c
8
s Q
CZ, 3 10
dE w
Ell
v Q E
40
T 3 v
.`P.E gym
0 c o.pgx� c o o na
m E
S� l c rn 6 :12 a a
E o_
En
QQ
o C
gc
�B
A
C4
gig
a
4
a g
o
z
CC Nt
T
g L 9 a S
L
O
7
i n
g a��
A
3
a
N U
N°N
1L ggtt 7 qZ�
Ell,
st
Y N
3
3
3 A
T
'i 'rn
n�
Xi p p v c N C �i L' v c d QI q p "6 0 yy p� -��j• y
p.�od 8 ca �'g, 9iy A l l y 5 a�i3 C,a ;0
15 s
•!5 3 �5, Yl °�yyp •may 3
I %r
o £w
G
j; S,
ti pG
y N C 'g .y� N 6Cr"�" t7 G y G d' rGa
R
Ca`. cjryq}�y a p ra ��Q p N� Vi ID
'�L c v+
y V '7`15 ��.d 16w •y�'�''���'�
viv
A lt'. I
Z -2)
t/1 3�
s
u y grn�i 6
ly
ld
I
G I
0
co
E
L
0
C
All C,
js
m
Q
C
v v
s��
E.2
E
nc
N
C
I
0
M
r� 4 Q Q c
z z Z
v
K
r
E.�
�s�ra�b��i5g'�bQQ�o��q rn J
CL Q
G N
W N A
w
O
(D
L (L`) 4
Q w
ON 0 H
0 c
z
U Y N
Ln
d
O
t7
J
(n m
U
o
�L g ui
�zo
N b rn 3
t
v
z z z z z
3
O
a A
W
m S
J
C N
J y
c
N
a'98�E `o
t
0
N
C
c m
4
IS R
9 2
N d
O^ t
N
Z
z
z
C N
J y
c
N
a'98�E `o
t
0
N
C
c m
4
IS R
n C
3i
g
Q
S
f
r
`c ET
C N
J y
c
N
a'98�E `o
t
g
m
I
4
IS R
c
f
Q'
N
fir, Q
a
g
Z 2
N
7
S
0 3>
z
0
z
6
z
0
z
3
s
Az
O
N
z z
M
w
z z
z
z
c
0
g
m
I
4
IS R
c
f
Q'
N
�z z Z
z
z
c
0
g
m
G
o
4
IS R
c
f
Z
O
z
3
ff
M
0
a
F
c
c
0 0
$a
Lq� �RAI
zU H M �1 OM v �p
C
d
E
I73
I L rn
o
L
N Z W
E o
I r
a
Z n
i c S
V) o of
U o
V) I
8
I g
L
(7
I
I �7
g
2 2
GL 1
3
O N
0
T ce
c O
.LO r
a O w
O H
Z! s
cu
T Yi
L s
d
7
N
QQ
N 2 U
N
O e
c c�._ O
��cE
H N 19 'S S' E o z N
aL' fL �n
Er
�U c
r @17"
H Z d o f m
U ��£58 P
o
C
E. V g' m as
m�A i. to `n c>
c
F2 �C
L Esq dew .`�$'$c b o b b ai
8 XE amE,� °moo `o F- F- asn �f 3`�� E
174 _z�
o
c
t a
4 o z �N
O
N N
y N m
i A
1
t3 �+g g m g'l9s i U L' 'j5 d N
co
o= ass
N
U 4 N 4 G
Q a
06 U ?g O' g
c n
V t O �f
�Y
O O o r
�n b
O L h O u �j •a tom"
3 g
o
u N
V N,
A
Ln
y
Ig
S
O m O
G 1
�Q
It
A$ av
�j vvvv C�
it
O
-p `v
N t
7
176
Ln
cu
vi
N
v
U
0
Ln
U
C
N
m
O
G
N
O ,w
Y)
L
CL
0
U 0
R M
E
Q w
L
O
O
N
co
U
U
Q
C
O
o a
a�
G
w
L
N
a
N
Y
H
V r
W
U
a�G��v rn
3 �ogig
Fi J
o �Him
S H o P 'o
da d Yg�
g
Q J Y N L L 7R e�
U Ji ET
m 3 5,
A gyp' E na �z
vaQ J
En
1 O H L C!
s iZ°_
m
N R
d
os 7S -9
J 'm c a Yi' ro uu ,G
O
O
Q
G
-C 4
U 1 Q
N
F-
r
g CSI
E X U 0.•t C 'e'..�+
•G Et:
a lp
0
h W a J
w� ��i u
°f a�cm�5 z
8 j 2ffl E
AR
�E ry1q a
"V
A
a .I
E
D
U 0
a
E
m
G
3
ilf N
E cf� kk 'z
0 c E
E
v r
1O E
J
a� nA 1
a
O
Z
a a
_n r
L r
a a c
S a
�q
LCp 15
�8 °10 n p J a
15 J d�
O
T A a �i
��j�o� a,wvN�A�1•y°�'1OdcE'Q�ot�1
RE��'1'SnE`n mc�`
�¢H�£��c =5 L Y o c o
c ra 4'
O Q
Q R d c� c n m
Sg" 2
N A d m O
°2E M
d
G O 2 f
to rn
U
ibt 91
R P J t G
Il
0�
O .S
W M
g obi i G c c j �i N a pp E I
W d
c
d o
O
n gi
L
Z
G �j Yc N
a
LLA Z O
Des.
TS
cb
Dm a�
a.
a
G
w N�17
a
c ra 4'
O Q
Q R d c� c n m
Sg" 2
N A d m O
°2E M
d
G O 2 f
to rn
U
ibt 91
R P J t G
Il
0�
O .S
W M
g obi i G c c j �i N a pp E I
W d
c
CL c
3
0 8c' tit
f
S o
$Q �i
D
W E
p O a V G
4 q C =�r�
GM qq
U d
`a 'ate
n E �N a4 v
c NN �i l-,�� E po Z v pWl ceTo
r gu I" 10 E g,
o�
N
�Y
r f CO� M L
`s
.c 0
a
CL M CL
d o
Des.
cb
g E
Lt
a.
a
T�
0
w N�17
CL c
3
0 8c' tit
f
S o
$Q �i
D
W E
p O a V G
4 q C =�r�
GM qq
U d
`a 'ate
n E �N a4 v
c NN �i l-,�� E po Z v pWl ceTo
r gu I" 10 E g,
o�
N
�Y
r f CO� M L
`s
.c 0
a
CL M CL
O SI
03 1
y
T
0
u
A
O
Sma
0
U
O
V '.1
;O L
ao
m
U
Q
0
C-
0 1
N
0
L
N
uJ
r o H
V L
Q�
O
V
O N C y W °1t F S M Or G
wc a y y y�
Np �O
'G N RDi�G}{, 'S7 14M
qU °z 33 iaS
O yy d L� Q.pN
CIA U-1
;y G� O N A✓ d��T3� y� C' w J1
1.
r GG O, d A r
E
A
g�
N�.
m
a�
c
R
a
7
N
D• Y A C
E c t3 rnp a
oc A c> 3 u
A i j j D 7f
s� ge
111 r ig UUM
30 m
un
R
bs8.° �7 c 3 rn is A s a 42 15 a 1° W Ww i 'Y t d a
9 w is 7 m
It I- W1
�t Imp 8
13 p A AP
Q i G p d x ^J 5 aa��, 11977 V
'Fl IRV
Witt
w A=
0 'HIM
a
1
r
m
O
O, 1
1
E
N
U1
'u
I
N
N
T
N
U
0
N
U
c
d.7
N
C
z
O
O
N
7
O
1 2
d
w
c.
0
•sa
Q 0
V 0
L
U
W
J
O
7 S q E
O i t
O
bi d
E
°a
t
o
n
g ME
E
co
N
p
S
G
N
K�
C
gg+ l
$3
m
t
G C U
z
o
a 4 t C
10
'aq�a�E SQr.��
EE E
C,
M ?22-
X� Z� 6
m o
I f3
c�
C
c
C
n �B
es
G N S
I4W
N
C
G
CC
v
o
F^ v d
`v
g
M
7
G
ih,
G
gig
r IS
�fi
gYcG� o
=o
92
t t3j
L
c
G
N
m
A
v q
N
gj
ai
J ;g
n
O �'G
K A
E
1 3
R
a,
'6
co
m
a
T
�v E
gt� <z
t
z c
4
H
T
L
P_
c
E 1
Ll
P D T
@g -W
d Q+
E
S
U A U)
mi
q
G ry G
U
U
Q
U
U
Q
n.
a
�3
`i
o i
o
0I 1
Q G ;c
1 O
Ul' L
fir. O
4i a
0
0
1 U z
F^
C 1�
p e in
T
0
-s3
ME
Technology Fee Usage
yf= Fee ifildi
I q:.
ar�tl l sc jMb 1161,fbrkg�N
#es
I
I I
also charged against mech, plumb,
City of Federal Way
6.00 yes
yes yes
elect
also charged against mech, plumb,
City of Covington
38.00 yes
yes yes
fire sprinkler /alarm
(City of Bellingham
1$ I
I I
I
(City of Des Moines
1 25.00 (yes
Ino Ino
I
City of Black Diamond
I I
City of Auburn
I$ I
I I
I
ICity of Ocean Shores
I I
I I
ICity of Kent
1 3 %1
I I
(considering adoption of technology
ICity of Burien
1$ I
I I
I
City of SeaTac
1$
City of Newcastle
1$
City of Lynnwood
I I
I
City of Sammamish
I$ I
I I
I
effective 11/2010 applies to all
City of Renton
3%
permits
The cost to submit via the EPlan
process is based on the number of
original plan sheets (at $2 per
sheet; there are not additional fees
for subsequent submittals,
see
supplemental documents,
City of Mercer Island
notes
calculations, letters, forms, etc.).
City of Maple Valley
I l
applies to all permits, land use
City of Redmond
3%
applications, public works, fire
1City of Tacoma
1 5 %1
I 1
levery permit
added to all fees listed other than
City of Bothell
5%
state, impact, mitigation or facility
also charged against mech, plumb,
City of Issaquah
1.3% yes
yes yes
fire sprinkler /alarm
also charged against mech, plumb,
City of Kirkland
1.3% yes
yes yes
fire sprinkler /alarm
Email sent out April 2010
Updated: July 27, 2011
181
N CD
IQl
Ul Lq r-i C)
i r, CY) 1 6
r-
0
Lf)
o
0
r-4
r-
rn
J).
�..'px z��*�:� °pro
i
Ln o
._I
0
0
0
0
00
rf) 00
ry) 00
CD
Ln
CD
00 rIj
Lo (Y)
CY!
(7� 06 ry�
Ln
Lo
"0
CT) CY)
Cj) L-n 0
0
77
00
0
0 0 a)
00 0 N
O
"t
va-
0
0
06 (y)
00
O m
rl CD C)
C)
m
0
r1i 0 m r4
-,D m 00
Lri
r-4
0
Ln 0)
O 6
rl) Ln r-I
4
LL
bb
N Ln Ln C:)
C:)
0
M"
00 r- N 'T
Ln Ln lD kD
C)
Ln
r-4
C� 111
Ln 00 LO (N
r1i
(N
VT V). V} V)-
Vj
00 m LO
CD
C
0
0
C
Ln Lf)
i
LI)
-C
00
Cf) Lr)
0
V).
C)
0
0
0
0
0
CD
0
0
CD
CD
0
cu ai aj
CL
CD
C
0
CD
CD
C
C)
C
C)
C�
0
u u u
Gi Q) _0
Q)
C)
0
N
CD
CD
00
0
tD
0
cY
0
r-4
-T
0 1 0 0 i
in
cli (L)
0 1 0
0
CD
LO
Lf)
ryi i Lrj J
m
182
City of Tukwila
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2011 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Verna Seal, Chair; and Joe Duffie
Absent: De'Sean Quinn
Staff: Derek Speck, Peggy McCarthy, Nora Gierloff, Jack Pace, David Cline and Kimberly Matej
CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Seal called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
I. PRESENTATIONS
No presentations.
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Parks Recreation Events Calendar
As an information only item, Committee Members reviewed the Parks Recreation calendar for November
and December. INFORMATION ONLY.
B. Resolution: Foster Golf Links Green Fees
Staff is requesting Council approval of a resolution to increase green fees at Foster Golf Links. The draft
resolution proposes a $1.00 in each category with the exception of Junior and Twilight green fees increases.
The last fee increase at Foster Golf Links was in 2010 when Council approved increases across the board
from $0.50 to $2.00.
This green fee increase is anticipated to raise revenue by approximately $45,000, and will be implemented
immediately upon Council passage. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 14
COW FOR DISCUSSION.
C. Permit Tracking Svstem Reolacement
Staff is seeking Council approval for a 2011 -12 Budget Amendment for approximately $175,000 which will
allow staff to contract a consultant and make initial payments for a new permit tracking system that will
replace the current Permits Plus program by Accela.
The vendor for Permits Plus is phasing out the software program. City staff has known this for some time and
had planned accordingly; however, this was an item removed from the budget during cuts over the past
several years. After implementation of an interdepartmental committee to assess permitting software options,
and review of information provided by the eCityGov Alliance, staff is recommending moving forward with a
new computerized permit tracking system that will improve communications, support citizen interaction and
link staff reports and other necessities such as pictures.
Staff is hopeful that potential assessment of a technology fee to each permit application will eventually pay
for the new system over a 4 -7 year timeframe making this purchase revenue neutral after a set payback period.
Regardless of the permitting software chosen, implementation and migration will require a financial
investment and a significant amount of staff time.
Although a software vendor has not yet been chosen, initial costs in 2012 are anticipated to be approximately
$175,000, with an additional $150,000 in 2013. Annual maintenance costs, if any, are not yet known.
Currently, the City pays an annual fee of $45,000 to Permits Plus for maintenance, and costs have increased
on an average of 10% per year. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 14 COW
FOR DISCUSSION.
183
x