Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 08/29/1977 RR Kent, Washington August 29, 1977 Special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 5:00 o'clock P.M. Present: Mayor Hogan, Councilpersons Carey, Johnson, Just, Kitto, Masters and Storment, City Administrator Street, City Attorney Mirk, and Finance Director Winkle. Councilperson McCaughan was absent from the meeting. Approximately 10 people were in attendance. KENT COMMONS It was determined that the purpose of the meeting was to consider authorizing the Mayor to submit application to the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for the balance of funds for Phase II of the Kent Commons, notice of which meet- ing has been given as required by State statutes. A letter was read from Governor Dixy Lee Ray, with attached list of the capital projects in priority order selected by the Governor to fulfill the State's allo- cated planning target under Round 2 of the Federal Public Works Employment Act. The letter noted that the projects totalled $8,556, 380 and covered a wide range of State and local projects in 20 counties throughout Washington, and that appli- cations for all projects had been submitted to EDA. Response from EDA was expected within 30 to 60 days, and the Governor noted that if a project was disqualified a substitute would be submitted. Also read was a letter from C. Mark Smith, EDA Regional Director, Seattle, noting that EDA has now completed the process of distributing all funds available under Round II of the Local Public Works Program within the State of Washington and ad- vising that the City of Kent is now authorized to submit additional LPW applica- tions for an amount up to $1,076,000, such applications to be submitted to the Regional Office by August 31, 1977. KITTO MOVED that receipt of the letters be noted and that they be made a part of the record, Just seconded. Motion carried. Mayor Hogan noted that Mark Smith's letter referred to a dollar figure of $1,076,000 and explained that this figure represented the $812,000 for Kent Commons plus $264,000 which had previously been allocated to Totem Junior High. KITTO MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to apply to EDA for Local Public Works Funds in the amount of $812,000 for Kent Commons, Phase 2B, Just seconded. In response to Kitto's question, Mayor Hogan noted that the amount of the grant application submitted through Governor Ray's office was $1,250,000 for Phase 2A. Responding to Kitto's further question, the Mayor noted that the cost of the project was originally estimated at 2.3 million dollars, as reflected in the bond issue proposal submitted previously. Kitto questioned where the project would be cut back, since the total of the two grant applications was $2,062,000, and Mayor Hogan noted that the architect had advised that he believed the amount of $2,062,000 would provide ample funds for completion of Phase 2A and 2B as orig- inally designed, and that he would furnish firm figures on these costs. She noted further that Phase 2A would be all the portion of Phase 2 except the large gymna- sium and that the large gymnasium would be completed with the $812,000 grant. The Mayor pointed out that it was anticipated that it would be necessary to have two separate bids on the projects, since one portion (Phase 2A) would be completed from Federal EDA funds, allocated by the State, and Phase 2B from a direct EDA allocation to the City. Kitto questioned whether funds already allocated were included in the $2,062,000 figure, such as the cost of land acquisition. Street noted that the property was acquired prior to EDA approval for grant application for Phase 2 and was, therefore, not an allowable expense. He determined that the property acquisition involved the expenditure of approximately $21,000 which was approved by the Council under Phase lA and 1B. He also noted that the Council had previously approved allocation of approximately $93,000 of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, (which covered the cost of land acquisition for Phase II, a portion of the fees to be paid to the architect, and funds for hiring a person to seek prospective tenants for the facility) . He noted that the entire project, Phase IA and 1B, and Phase 2A and 2B, if completed as now submitted, would reflect a total cost figure of $3,003,627. ($848,000 for Phase lA and 1B, which includes $448,000 from a State grant, $250,000 from a previous Federal grant, and $149,500 from City matching funds, plus approximately $93,000 of Federal Revenue Sharing funds, and the $2,062,000 reflected by the LPW grant applications.) ll v Kitto moted that when the bond issue for Phase 2 was submitted it was for the amount of 2.3 million dollars and questioned the difference of approximately $150,000. He further questioned whether it was anticipated that additional funds would have to be spent other than those applied for through the grant applications. Street noted that the architect has assured the City that it will be possible to keep the costs within that amount and determined for Just that this fact was based on information received from the architect within the last ten days. In response to Just's request, Street noted that this informa- tion would be obtained from the architect in writing and made a part of the record. Mayor Hogan clarified that the grant application would be based on the dollar figure supplied by the architect. Just questioned whether the figure of $2,062,000 was accurate at this time in light of the present rate of inflation and because the bond issue had been presented over a year ago. Mayor Hogan determined that the architect was aware of the amount of the grant monies avail- able, $2,062,000, and further determined that the amount included a contingency fund. She noted for Kitto that the Council would have the opportunity to review the grant if it is offered and determine whether or not it is to be accepted. Masters commented that she intended to vote against the motion because of ques- tions she had concerning the facility which remained unanswered. She referred specifically to future development and maintenance costs which were still unknown factors. She noted that she was referring to Phase 2 and clarified that her decision to vote against the motion, as well as her "no" votes in the past, was based on her belief that the facility should have been a regional one, planned and paid for, and with a commitment for future operating costs, from State, County and City funds. Kitto commented that while he shared the concerns expressed by Masters, he felt that the project, if put together properly, was still a good one which would benefit the City, and that the benefits derived would outweigh any possible detriment. There were no further comments, and on a roll call vote, the motion CARRIRED, with Carey, Johnson, Just and Kitto voting in favor, and Storment and Masters voting against. MEETING ADJOURNED: 5:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, s, f/ Betty Gray Deputy City Clerk