HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Parks and Human Services - 01/19/2012 iffi%
�w��0lf�1rIT Kent Parks and Human Services Committee
a r Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2012
Call to Order: Chair Debbie Ranniger called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
Council Present: Chair Debbie Ranniger, Elizabeth Albertson, Dana Ralph
Added item: Human Services Commission Amending KCC 2.53 Ordinance - Adopt
Added item: Project Kent Hope, as proposed at city council meeting on January
17.
Item 1. Meeting Minutes - Approve
Elizabeth Albertson moved to approve the minutes of November 17, 2011.
Dana Ralph seconded. The motion passed 3-0.
Item 2. Communities Puttina Prevention to Work Grant Update - INFO
ONLY
Jeff Watling updated the committee on the bicycle and pedestrian work that has
been accomplished under the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW)
grant. He referred to the council's strategic goals of connecting people and places.
The report takes a much more integrated approach with bike and pedestrian
pathways throughout Kent.
Hope Gibson, Superintendent of Parks Planning and Development reported that the
focus of this project was to look at the bicycle/pedestrian system in a more holistic
fashion. Traditionally, different city departments are responsible for different parts
of the system. On-street bicycle/pedestrian planning is handled through Public
Works and off-street bicycle/pedestrian planning is done by the Parks Department.
Our belief is that by looking at the system as a whole, we can more easily make
critical connections between these two portions of the system, and can improve
connectivity throughout the city. As a result, the overall system will function better,
and will be better used.
The primary task associated with a King County Public Health grant the city
received was to perform bicycle/pedestrian planning. Two other secondary tasks
were to create a healthy food procurement policy for city meetings and to
recommend policy changes to improve healthy food access to the community. Both
of which are essentially complete.
Page 1
Review Existing Plans
Existing bicycle/pedestrian planning that has been performed by transportation and
parks was reviewed. This included relevant sections of the Transportation Master
Plan (TMP), the Non-Motorized Transportation Study, the Midway Plan, and the
Parks and Open Space Plan.
Assess Existing System
A review of existing biking/pedestrian network was performed. The goal was to
confirm existing records and explore a few areas to identify options for key
connections.
Citizen's Advisory Committee
A group of citizens was assembled to discuss appropriate priorities for future
planning. They met for six weeks, two times per week for 2-1/2 hours. They
recommended four primary policies:
1. The system should be safer, with a focus on education, engineering and
enforcement.
2. The system should be more inclusive, considering the needs of all
users.
3. The system should be better-connected—across the city, to
destinations and to regional facilities.
4. The system should be more user-friendly—easier to navigate, more
attractive, and more accommodating of users' needs.
Their policy recommendations will be included in the final report.
In addition, the committee recommended this preliminary document be followed up
by a comprehensive Trails, Bikeways and Paths plan, so that the general policies
and recommendations of this document could be developed, along with a plan for
implementation.
Public Outreach
One of the grant's priorities was looking at ways to improve the health of minorities
and the economically disadvantaged. From the very beginning of this project, we
felt that the goals of our pedestrian/biking planning proposal were very consistent
with this priority. Our rationale was that if we were successful in planning a truly
comprehensive, inclusive system, it would meet the needs of all the citizenry,
including these groups.
Achieving the goal of a more inclusive planning approach required a different
outreach model than what we've traditionally used. Traditional outreach efforts
have not been particularly successful in obtaining input from minority and/or
economically disadvantaged groups.
Outreach efforts consisted of an online survey and community conversations with
neighborhood and service organizations and targeted focus groups. The overall
result of the effort was that we received more public input than we would have
Page 2
expected from traditional efforts and the dialogue was with a broader
representation of the community. The survey resulted in almost 400 responses and
our community conversations were attended by over 100 participants.
Hope responded to Dana Ralph's question that the grant came from CDC and
distributed by Department of Health at a total of $120,000. Hope confirmed Dana's
reference to the grant funds also funding a healthy food procurement policy for city
meetings and policy changes to improve healthy food access to the community.
Debbie stated that she is looking forward to seeing the next steps.
Jeff stated that the goal in leading up to the March 6 Council Workshop, staff will
come back to the committee with a draft prior to the Council Workshop on March 6.
Item 3. Parks Infrastructure - Formation of a Citizen Advisory Group -
INFO ONLY
Jeff Watling reported that last year, Parks staff undertook the task of evaluating all
of our large assets and compiling a comprehensive list of the accumulation of
needed projects.
Park assets are valued at over $10,000 (note: facilities and the golf course were
not included in this assessment). Assets were ranked from 1-5, based on physical
condition, age, and anticipated useful life remaining. What we found was that a
significant percentage of Kent's park assets are nearing, or have reached, the end
of their useful life.
Kent has 59 parks and they range from the tiny and virtually unknown Eagle Park
to the large and hugely popular Lake Meridian Park. The assessment looked at 240
assets in these parks. Of these assets, 32 percent were ranked either "2" ("useful
life noticeably in decline") or "1" ("little to no useful life remaining"). A planning
level replacement cost for these failing assets was estimated at $16.4 million.
Failing assets were not isolated to a few parks. They were found throughout the
system. Thirty seven parks (or 63% of the system) contained at least one failing
asset. As time continues to pass, the list of failing assets will continue to lengthen.
More assets will fail and more areas of more parks may need to be cordoned off
due to safety concerns. Areas in parks with abandoned, failed assets will attract
unsanctioned activities. The need for a response to the situation will become more
obvious.
In reviewing the list of parks that contain failing assets, it was staff's determination
that the most obvious response to the list which is calling for the replacement of all
failed or failing assets may not be the most prudent or desirable response, even if
the funding were available. Some of the assets are obsolete and it would not be
desirable to try to replace them; and some of the parks containing failing assets
would benefit more from a broader renovation.
Page 3
In addition, through the process, staff noted that there are not only failing assets
within the system, but entire parks that are not meeting their potential. Any
discussion addressing the prioritization of the replacements of failing assets should
also consider how to address failing parks.
The park system is at a crossroads. Because of the enormity of the need, staff is
recommending the formation of a citizen advisory group to work with staff and
explore various options. The question of how to respond to our aging park
infrastructure is a looming one. Any course of action, even a "do nothing" option,
has the potential to impact the system for many years.
The resulting advisory group will consist of a broad cross-section of the community,
with a good blend of proven leaders to provide some experienced guidance and a
new crop of potential community leaders. As important, the majority of the
committee would consist of people recommended directly by the community.
Because of the complexity of the issue, staff recommends selecting a large group--
of approximately 24 Kent residents. It would be our advice to select approximately
one third of them directly, inviting residents with a history of community
involvement and leadership, especially in the area of recreation. The remainder of
the group will represent specific stakeholder groups, and will be selected to
participate by their individual group.
Following is an example of the potential make-up of the advisory group:
# Type of Organization
(3) Organized sports organizations (1 each from football, soccer, and
baseball
3 Service clubs
5 Neighborhood organizations
2 School districts
1 Kent Bicycle Advisor Board
1 Trail advocate
1 Friends of Clark Lake
2 Green Kent stewards
2 Kent business community
(2) Community organizations
(2) Youth organizations (i.e., student councils of KM/Kentridge high
schools• scouts
24 TOTAL
The citizen advisory group would be tasked with the following responsibilities:
• Learn about the Kent park system
• Review the park asset report
• Establish priorities for addressing the problem
• Report findings to the council
Page 4
In order to achieve these tasks, staff recommends a schedule for the group of 8 -
12 meetings with the first meetings to take place in February and to report back to
city council in mid-May. An additional component to this report is looking at
finances and how these projects can be funded.
This challenge presents an opportunity for the community to begin a dialogue on
how to address the backlog and prepare the park system for future generations to
enjoy.
Dana Ralph stated that she is a big supporter of taking care of what we have. She
feels the citizen advisory committee is a good idea in order to have a voice from the
community and move forward.
Elizabeth Albertson was surprised at the decay of some parks.
Debbie Ranniger voiced her concern with the recent storm damage and that the list
will need to be updated.
Dana agreed there is a need to bring up safety issues on the list from the storm
damage.
Elizabeth Albertson asked that she and Dana go on the asset tour after the weather
clears in order to review these findings.
Item 4. Walk On: Human Services Commission Amendina KCC 2.53
Ordinance - Adopt
Jeff stated that this item comes from the conversation at City council on January 3,
in regards to compilation and the makeup of youth on commissions. The need for
inclusion for youth on The Human Services Commission was created by council in
1986. It has been determined that youth representatives on the commission should
have more flexible term requirements so that each youth representative can remain
on the commission throughout the representative's high school career.
Dana Ralph moved to recommend council adopt the Ordinance amending
KCC 2.53 increasing the terms of appointment for Human Services
Commission youth representatives. Elizabeth Albertson seconded. The
motion passed 3-0.
Item 5. Fourth Ouarter Reports - INFO ONLY
• The purchase and transfer of the Municipal Court building from King County
was completed.
• In recreation, we continue to see increased participation in many programs.
• The Christmas Fun Run had a record 2,270 finishers this year.
• Within the Youth and the Youth/Teen Division, we initiated a new program
with the Federal Way School District, specifically at Totem Middle School and
Star Lake Elementary Schools.
Page 5
• Phoenix Academy continues to grow and we continue to work on successful
partnerships, for example as with the Boxing Club. There were 5,000 more
visits to the center in 2011 than in 2010.
• The holiday tree lights were consolidated from both Kaibara Park and Town
Square Plaza to just Town Square Plaza this year.
• Contributions of cash and in-kind support, less than $5,000 equaled $22,038
for the fourth quarter, with a grand total of just over $75,000 for 2011.
• Debbie noted that the Senior Center Lunch Program has received more
donations in 2011 than previous years. Debbie Ranniger plans on sharing
information on contributions at city council meetings.
Item 6. Director's Report - INFO ONLY
In 2011, a first and second grade division was added to the youth basket ball
league, partnering with local elementary schools that have lower hoops. Twenty
plus teams were added to the league.
This is the second year for the You Me We event on January 24, 6:00 - 9:30 at
ShoWare. This is a fun, free interactive/informative event for youth and families.
There will be 40+ agencies participating.
Ka BOOM asked us to apply for another grant. We are looking at Green Tree Park as
a potential site for this project. In 2011, we received a grant that supported
improvements at Tudor Square Park.
Jeff distributed a list of work and policy items that he said will require some
conversations at future committee meetings.
• Planning and Development: Completion of CPPW project. Citizen's Advisory
Group - Parks Infrastructure priorities.
• Facilities: Interview and hire Facilities Superintendent. RFA negotiations /
renewal, Resource Center.
• Riverbend Golf Complex: Budget review and discussion with city council.
• Park Operations: Park Resource Management Plan.
• Human Services: Application cycle for 2013-2014 grant funding. Long-term
funding options - Human Services Commission recommendation.
• Budget and special projects.
• Animal Services contract and shelter options. State Budget. City council
retreat.
Page 6
Storm Response
Jeff reported that the netting at the Riverbend Golf Complex Driving Range was
severely damaged. There is more net damage at Kent Memorial Park and Russell
Road Park. Park Operations staff served as a support to Public Works during the
clean up, assisting them with clean up of right-of-ways. Upwards of 12 crews have
been on the roads dealing with debris clean up and street tree damage. That work
will carry on for some time. By the end of this week we will transition some of our
work force to deal with park clean up. We ask citizens to support our efforts in
cleaning up the parks and if there is an area that is taped off, please respect that
and do not enter. Dana Ralph thanked staff for helping with the storm clean up.
Debbie Ranniger asked if the city is tallying up the damages and asked what the
state is doing. Jeff responded that the Governor is submitting the numbers from the
county and the state to the Federal Government for an emergency declaration and
getting financial support. The report will show structural damage, costs to clean up.
The state declaration is the first step. Debbie asked if there are any monies for
temporary jobs to help with the clean up process, inviting the Mayor to join them at
the table. Mayor Cooke said she and John Hodgson are talking to Union
representatives because we don't hire temp jobs without discussing with them first.
With huge amount of damage, in addition to budget cuts and staff cuts, the
discussion will continue with union representatives to possibly contract for some
assistance. Elizabeth said jobs are up in our state and she is looking to seeing the
city's next revenue projections. Debbie referenced utilizing the homeless to assist in
the storm clean up.
Homeless Assistance Discussion
Jeff stated that at the council meeting on January 17, we received a lot of public
comment and feedback regarding the proposal from "Kent Hope" and the "Union
Gospel Mission. There was a desire by council committee to have a follow up and
share next steps. Jeff had numerous discussions regarding this issue with
Councilmembers, the Mayor, John Hodgson, and the human services team. Jeff
then turned it over to the Mayor for comments.
Mayor Cooke said there is always an urgency when people are homeless. We've
definitely seen an increase in the homeless largely due to the economy, and partly
because we've become a larger city. The Mayor feels there are two major policy
issues and one is Homelessness. She asks what the city's role is in setting policy
supporting those who are homeless and working with nonprofits and other
organizations in support of the homeless. She asked if Council is going to look at
this policy development through the eyes of the Human Services Commission,
which is the body appointed by the city to develop polices for the homeless and is
already networked throughout the region.
The other policy is the Resource Center building itself. She feels they are separate,
but they can come together. This a big decision to make and she understands there
is a need to move on this decision quickly. The city closed the building due to
budget constraints. Now we have budgets from the Union Gospel Mission showing
how they could operate the building without using city funds. As discussed in
Page 7
meetings she's had with Project Hope and Union Gospel Mission, another concern is
the dependency of the city on results from the legislative sessions. The city could
lose $10M, if there are decreases in streamline sales tax mitigation fees,
annexation sales tax credit fees and the liquor sales tax portion. With the city facing
that, she is asking again for the committee to take the time to look at some policies
to see how the city should deal with it.
Elizabeth asked about housing staff in the Resource building last year and Jeff
replied that some staff were housed there during an office renovation.
Debbie asked for Jason Johnson and Katherin Johnson from Human Services to
participate in the conversation, but they were not at the meeting. She said that the
Mayor's points are good. She feels there is tremendous momentum from a number
of community groups and she doesn't want to slow it down, but at the same time,
there are a number of other groups that have continued to look for ways to utilize
the building and we need to consider this an open process. One is to re-open the
RFP process. The other thought is to do something on a temporary monthly rental
basis, especially with the potential impacts of budget cuts from the state. We need
to consider the city's budget condition and should keep our options open. Possibly,
the building could be leased for six months to a year in order to make it a useful
building. She wants to understand what the larger regional issue is as well. There is
no need to duplicate other programs in the area. We need to research other
collaborations.
Debbie continued saying, the other piece goes to the first policy issue the Mayor
brought up. Where does this fit in the larger picture? There are plans to have it be
an overnight shelter in the future, so what happens to these folks after 7:00 p.m.
until then? She wants to understand what the regional issue is and what other
partners are doing. She doesn't want to rush into a solution if we are duplicating
other agencies' efforts. She feels it would be important to speak to Human Services
staff and educate ourselves on the potential collaboration with other groups
involved with assisting the homeless.
Elizabeth shared that she has spent nine years working with homeless programs
and she is a member of the Seattle - King County Homeless Commission. She feels
that gives her a depth of knowledge that might make her look at this with a
different lens. For her, where they go at 7:00 p.m. is important, but that doesn't
stop her from wanting to provide something from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. She
wants to offer the homeless an opportunity to become "ready to benefit," by
offering showers, case management, laundry, and storage. Many homeless are
veterans. She is very supportive of this project. She feels this has been an un-
served population for years and they can only find services in Seattle. That's why
some churches have put together programs such as traveling beds, food and
shelter. And the city offers some transitional housing and hotel vouchers. Maybe as
part of the process, this group could apply for grant funds to get the building ready.
She has a lot of faith in the Union Gospel Mission. She is impressed that they
believe we have a community group that organized itself well enough that they
want to partner with. And she is impressed that the group didn't give up. She was
Page 8
not a part of the RFP process and did not see the proposals and was not a part of
the process that said none of them were ready. Without having to send us back to
an RFP, if this group wasn't a part of this process, she doesn't feel it is necessary to
turn them away at this point. She asked for information on the RFP process.
Dana agreed and would like to see specifics of the RFP process. She agrees that
human services is all about partnerships. She feels this is a great partnership and
she wants to move forward, but the city should do it in a sustainable way. She
doesn't want the city to make a commitment and then not be able to fulfill that
commitment. It needs to be in a smart and sustainable way. She likes the idea of
people having a respite and access to continued education. She appreciates all of
the information that has been presented. She wants to know what condition the
building is in. She wants to see estimates on costs and see how that fits into the
budget. She understands the urgency, but wants to do it right.
Elizabeth said that the number one concern is that it's an old building. We wouldn't
want to open up the day center and not have heat. We need to know what kind of
shape the building is in and, if needed, what would it take to get it ready. She is a
fan of using buildings that the taxpayers are already paying for. She supports the
city utilizing buildings that are already open - for example partnering with the Kent
School District for the Phoenix Academy and the Boxing Club. She receives emails
from citizens regarding the homeless sleeping in downtown alleys, while there is an
empty building nearby. She asks for help with the numbers to make this work.
Debbie asked Jeff for the numbers and next steps. Jeff reiterated what the Mayor
said - that there are two sets of policies paths. And, as requested, he can provide
the numbers on the RFP. There were eight proposals received and four finalists
answered a list of supplemental questions. Representatives from human services
agencies, the Chamber of Commerce, and city staff were involved in RFP reviews.
No proposal showed a committed budget and that's a risk the city can't afford to
take. Jeff reminded the committee that the city has no building allocation within the
budget for the Resource Center building.
Jeff shared that all of the proposals had great ideas of what they could program in
that space. Unfortunately, there were no indications of significant committed funds
from any of the four finalist. The review committee recommended not to continue
with any of the proposals. Two groups from the RFP group have continued to
pursue funding.
Jeff then referenced the budget maintenance portion of the Union Gospel proposal.
Mike Johnson, Special Projects Director for Union Gospel Mission clarified by saying
their facilities budget includes all building maintenance and there is $8,000
budgeted for facilities maintenance and that includes daily use. They ask that the
city be responsible for lifecycle projects, such as a new roof. Jeff said that if there is
a need for city support, it would make sense as a building owner to have some type
of budget or support in the city's budget for maintenance. Debbie said the obvious
next step would be to put those numbers together.
Page 9
Mayor Cooke asked that the committee look at the homelessness as a whole. To
look at strategic planning and their goals, as well as how is this integrated into the
city provisions with a particular provider of services. She applauds this group to
have self sufficient services. She asks that they look at the Human Services
Commission and Kent Downtown Partnership and the North Park community to be a
part of this discussion because this also impacts them. Another option that she
spoke to Mike Johnson about was a lease to purchase. She reiterated that we need
to look at the city's policy on the homeless in Kent.
Debbie asked for next steps from Jeff. Jeff paralleled what has been discussed. The
next step is how do we take this proposal and momentum and make sure that it's
in context with the sub regional conversation that is happening with human service
staff on homelessness in the community. Also, there is a policy decision that needs
to be addressed by council in an integrated way. As far as the building's next steps,
we need to get an idea on what the budget number would be and how we would
pursue it. There is not guarantee but the Human Services Commission funding cycle
starts in March and this may be an opportunity to get support through the
application process to identify a degree of city support. This again, is lead through
the Human Services Commission.
Debbie said there are specific questions that this committee and the group need to
get answered such as, what happens to their proposal? She agrees we need to have
a larger discussion about the policy issue regarding the homeless, and yes, this
proposal needs to fit into that larger picture. This group is looking for answers
around the building. It seems that the city has some due diligence to do. Can we
entertain the lease to own option, and what would that look like? What is the city's
piece if we were to open up the RFP process again - not to the eight applicants, but
to the four finalists, and what would be involved in doing that? What further
information does the city need from this group? She feels that Jeff needs to have
some conversations with key players; Pat Gray, Mike Johnson, Katherin Johnson,
and Jason Johnson, as well as making contact with the other groups and then come
back with options for this committee to see how this fits into the regional picture.
Also, find out if the new Renton's veterans center compliments or possibly
duplicates this program. We need to look forward on both paths to come to a
solution as expeditiously as possible.
Elizabeth voiced her frustration. She feels it is obvious that the Mayor is not in favor
of this program. She feels the issues raised at the meeting were not cogent to this
issue. The Human Services Commission decides how the city is going to spend the
1% of Human Services money. They do not decide what non profits can or cannot
operate within the city. She added that the homeless are already here (on the
streets) so there is no addressing where they go at 7:00 p.m. Elizabeth asked what
are the policies? Adding that policies are nothing more than a bunch of words
decided upon by a bunch of people at any given time. She said we are the policy
makers and both the council and the committee have the opportunity to make
policies. What we are hearing is that we have a group that has valid 501c(3), a
budget, and community partners that are asking if our building is available to rent.
Since we already rent property, let's rent the building. Let's just come up with a
Page 10
plan to do it. If we need money, we can go to council and tell them how much it is
and get a decision. She was upset because for years Kent and South King County
have complained that there are no services here and we never get our fair share
from the county and now finally we have something and we don't want to do it.
Debbie had to interrupt Elizabeth to close the meeting. Debbie said that we need to
move forward and find out what the operational support is and make a decision if
we want to move forward with this building.
Mayor Cooke addressed Elizabeth's comment clarifying that she has never taken
the position in opposition. She attended this meeting to ask the questions she has
with the representatives when she met with them.
Debbie added, that if there is something worth pursuing, we just have to figure out
what it needs to be.
Dana agreed that we need to see numbers and facts. She wants to make sure
building is good for what we are asking. She is excited about the energy and the
homework that has been done. She said we need to do the groundwork to make
sure it is done smart and it is sustainable.
Debbie concluded by saying that they need the numbers, and reaching out
appropriately to the community, while potentially reaching out to one of the other
RFP groups who has been working behind scenes. We will continue to work on this.
The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
re�-i PeCaole
Teri Petrole
Council Committee Secretary
Page 11