Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 11/10/2014
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director ��14N T Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager WA511N010" Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 WORKSHOP AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 10, 2014 7:00 P.M. LUPB MEMBERS: Jack Ottini, Chair; Randall Smith, Vice Chair; Frank Cornelius; Navdeep Gill; Alan Gray; Katherine Jones; and Barbara Phillips CITY STAFF: Planning Services: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Director; Gloria Gould-Wessen, Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator; Erin George, Sr. Planner Parks & Recreation: Jeff Watling, Parks Director; Hope Gibson, Planning & Development Manager; Katherin Johnson, Human Services Manager; Merina Hanson, Sr. Planner This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Workshop on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. The workshop will be held in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers, 220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA. No public testimony is taken at LUPB workshops; however, the public is welcome to attend. The workshop agenda includes the following item(s): 1. Proposed Amendment to General Commercial Use-Mixed Use (GC-MU) Zoning District Discussion of proposal to amend the minimum commercial requirement of GC- MU zoning district - Erin George 2. Comprehensive Plan Update - Draft Elements Discussion of the following elements: • Parks Element - Jeff Watling/Hope Gibson • Housing Element - Katherin Johnson • Human Services Element - Merina Hanson For documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board, access the Co's website at: h tto:Ilkentwa.iom2.com/citizensIDefau/L asox?Deoartm entl D=1004. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at (253) 856-5725. For TTY/TDD service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at (800) 833-6388. For general information, contact Economic & Community Development Department, Planning Division at(253) 856-5454. 1 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT Phone: 253-856-5454 WASH ieerou Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 November 4, 2014 TO: Chair Jack Ottini and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Erin George, AICP, Senior Planner RE: General Commercial Mixed Use (GC-MU) Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2014-5) LUPB workshop of November 10, 2014 MOTION: None — For Information Only SUMMARY: Recent changes in the housing market suggest that multi-family development may outbid commercial use for certain properties in Kent. To ensure that commercial development plays a bigger role in our downtown, staff proposes to increase the minimum commercial requirement for mixed use developments in the General Commercial Mixed Use (GC-MU) zoning district. DISCUSSION: As part of the Downtown Subarea Plan, the City Council adopted a Zoning Code amendment in 2013 that reduced the minimum commercial requirement in a mixed use development in the GC-MU zoning district from 25 percent to 5 percent. At the time, the Platform apartments were being built downtown with a small percentage of commercial and the code amendment supported more development of that kind. In the last year, changes in the housing and retail markets suggest that multi- family development may outbid commercial use for certain larger properties in Kent. The GC-MU zoning district makes up large portions of Kent's new downtown boundaries west of State Route 167. To ensure that commercial development plays a bigger role in the GC-MU zoning district in downtown Kent, and to attain true mixed use on larger sites, staff feels that revising the minimum commercial requirement from 5 percent back to 25 percent within the downtown planning area is warranted. Staff will also be discussing this proposal at the November loth Economic & Community Development Committee and anticipates holding a public hearing with the board on November 241h EG.S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE AMENDMENTS\2014\ZCA-2014-5GC-MU\11-10-14_LUPBWorkshop_Memo.doc Enc: Attach A: Zoning Map 2 00 %a y� / %4 / Oil .., µ& N eg i ej YMrN %/I� l� M� i 4 5 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION 40 Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT Phone: 253-856-5454 wAs1, �..o Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 November 4, 2014 TO: Chair Jack Ottini and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Comprehensive Plan Update — Draft Elements November 10, 2014 Workshop Summary: As discussed at the August Board meetings, the City is scheduled to complete an update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) by June 30, 2015. The update will include all elements in the Plan, refresh the current conditions and trends, integrate recent planning initiatives, and comply with state, regional and local mandates. Staff will bring each element to the Board for preliminary review. At the November loth workshop, the Board will review the draft Parks, Housing, and Human Services Elements. Background: At the August 111h Land Use and Planning Board workshop, staff introduced the Comprehensive Plan update project, the schedule, and the public outreach activities that are in progress. The Board will review preliminary drafts of each section before holding one or several public hearings. Listed below are the sections for review at the November loth meeting. Parks Element: Replaces the current text in its entirety, but retains the goals and policies. Anticipates an update to the Park & Open Space Plan. Housing Element: Replaces the current element in its entirety. Human Services Element: Replaces the current element in its entirety. CA\a h:S:\Perm it\Pla n\COMP_PLAN_AM ENDM ENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011-1_Com pPlan Update\LUPB\SS-10- 14_LUPB_Memo.doc Encl:Existing and Draft Parks Element Existing and Draft Housing Element w/link: Consolidated Plan Existing and Draft Human Services Element w/links: Health Profile and Human Services Master Plan cc: Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Matt Gilbert,AICP, Principal Planner David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney Gloria Gould-Wessen, Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator Project File 6 7 Parks Element What you will find in this chapter: • A description of how and why parks and recreation facilities are planned; • A discussion of existing conditions and trends impacting parks and recreation services; • A discussion of current and proposed approaches to measuring Levels of Service, and • Goals and Policies related to the provision of parks and recreation facilities Purpose Statement: Practice responsible stewardship of parks, significant open spaces, recreational facilities and corridors to provide active and passive recreational opportunities for all persons in the community. Purpose Although the Parks Element is requfhed dr the Growth Management Act, Kent has Ion maint y g �N- a park and open space element, because park and recreational oppor//,lrties and viewed as'an integral part of the city and essential to the gUAlity of life-for its resid6nts. The Parks Element of the,CIt�`s��Connote, ensive Plan is intended as an ov e ry i e w�fA,h .city s plari/hing efforts related to the provision of parks and recr/7,06 facilities.'3t, combined with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, describds the city's goals and priorities in a general way. The Comprehensive n is a useful and mandated city planning document; it is sulemerit€£pp by".. number of other city planning efforts, including the b . Park and Open ice Plan (P&OS Plan). The P&OS Plan fleshes out the basic policies covered in this Parks Element, as it can go into far greater detail. It is also updated on a different schedule than the Comprehensive Plan. The last P&OS Plan update was adopted in 2010 and preparations are underway to begin the next P&OS Plan update which is scheduled to be completed in 2016. As that update will be adopted after this Comprehensive Plan update, this Element will look back to the prior update to inform it. At the same time, this Element will look forward at some of the policy shifts that began in the Kent Comprehensive Plan - 1 - 8 prior P&OS Plan and are expected to see further development in the next Plan update. (Pictures of significant parks, Issues recreation and open space) Decreasing Resources (Pictures of trail connections For reasons discussed in detail elsewhere in — coordinate with this Plan, the city continues to face revenue transportation element) shortfalls. These shortfalls have hit parks capital funds hard, exacer tang a capital maintenance backlog t �V�iad begun Ion (Pictures of parks and g �i�� g g recreation events) before the 2008 rec� 5�. Aging Infrastruc- fe �ji Each catego� copark asset hays typical i�iiir expected lip rne, along with its/(stun typical amount o rffutine tenance and typical amount of capital 'intenance. Changing Detto/graphics ,has an increa, g population of foreign- born rdsid nts, includ�irig a sizeable populations does not speak English. In addiEion It numbdrs show that our popuic5fkdri is getting older. Change':In Focus With the citty's lower revenues, the fact that a ~P/ rc"ge of that revenue is going toward debt retirement, and the aging park infrastructure, the primary focus for the Parks capital program has been on redevelopment, or, what we're calling "making better use of what we have." Parks PlaM ing In Kent The Parks Element works in concert with the Park and Open Space (P&OS) Plan, which provides direction for the planning, acquisition, development, and renovation of parks, open space and recreational facilities. The P&OS Plan was last updated in 2010, and is due to be updated again in 2016. Since the last update of the P&OS Plan, fiscal realities for local governments have changed significantly. Kent has been no exception. While we still aspire to a system that provides a high level of service to the community, our Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r' " ^ ^" "^ . '8 'n" 9 current budget realities require an entirely new approach to planning and maintaining our park system. Over the past several years, Kent has managed to make a number of improvements to its park system. These projects include an expanded playground at Lake Meridian Park (2011); new playground and park improvements at Tudor Square Park (2012), Turnkey Park (2013) and Green Tree Park (2014); planting improvements at Service Club Ballfields (2013); and the replacement of synthetic turf at Wilson Sports Fields (2014). The city has also managed to make some significant strategic acq Ftions: the Huse, Montjussi and Van Dyke properties in the Panther Lake �0`a (2012); and continued assemblage at Clark Lake Park (2013) an orrill Meadows Park (2014). / All the property acquisitions and several of th irk improvements were i1� funded either entirely or primarily throug��� r5ts. The playgroLffid improvements also benefitted from the us4.of in-h �'" labor and contributions made by volunteers. OFF The use of in-house labor, grant d volunteetd"can certainly help leverage limited financial resources; but not feasifbhe to rely heavily on these sources for the basic renova#hons And improvetitents needed to keep a park system vibrant and relevant to—its co urfity. �,Relationship to er Plans Recreation and Cc rvatiow,Punding Board's Manual 2 The Recreation and C nse tlah Funding'Board, or RCO, is a state agency tasked with„distributin e�" f�umber of Mate and federal grant funds. These grant f/yrid Ere'-, eOicated-6 the acquisition, development and rede�/*)6pment of mt eationf1 facilities across Washington State. Eligib?IItyfor these funds is based, in part, on having a state-approved Parks Comprehensive Plan, w ich must be updated every six years. Kent's Parks and Open Space Pla "I'ast updated in 2010, met the state's requirement and, as a result, qualifiVKent to receive the $1,809,959 it has received in RCO funding since 2016. As has been mentioned, the city is preparing to embark on the next update, scheduled to be adopted in 2016. Because the P&OS Plan is related to the Parks Element of the city's Comprehensive Plan, the RCO's grant requirements impact not only the contents of the P&OS Plan but also those of the Parks Element. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 10 Washington's 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Washington's State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, commonly referred to as SCORP, provides a statewide look at recreation, with a focus on recreation on public lands. It examines trends in recreation, identifies current issues, and sets recommendations for ways to improve outdoor recreation in the state. It also sets the priorities for RCO funding. To receive RCO funding, a project must be consistent with the goals laid out in SCORP. Public Outreach When the Park and Open Space Plan was last updated,, policies were �,/a shaped, in part, from the responses the city received its 2009 Park Plan survey. The survey was widely advertised, was available onfthe, and hard copies were available at the city's facilities and /;Ighborhood councils. The outreach effort resulted in 631 responses. S of the questions and answers were included in the Plan. The entire survey,,Yesults c e found orb{iite at the city's website. Likewise, during the next update, �he city plans to have several conversations with Kent residents to discuss pri&f i6s and resource. The analysis and discussion provided briefly in this 81emer k'`;Krill be expanded upon in the P&OS Plan. The capital goals laid out here"#dill be �'dafeo/annually as part of the %%/ budget process. i6iiiii////,,;/, Administration 'h' rks Ele"wnent and its Policies Policy that guides-the funding and operat}an of Kent's park system is administered by the b:ffrec�p c tfie K itt Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. crCfsy direction is set by the three-member Parks Commi eof the IeOt City-Council. The city's 12-member Arts Commission, ap ed by the Ma�r and66nfirmed by Council, advises staff and approves public' rt and cultural programming. EXISTING WNDITIONS AND TRENDS Every large plantfiK6 effort needs to consider its context. Part of doing so involves analyzing and accounting for current and anticipated trends. This effort is no exception. Significant trends in Kent, and their impact on parks and recreational facility planning, include decreasing resources, aging infrastructure, and changing demographics. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r' " ^ ^" "^ . '8 'n" 11 Decreasing Resources What's the difference between routine maintenance and capital maintenance? For reasons discussed in detail el this Plan, the city continues to fac Most people are aware that many cities, including shortfalls. These shortfalls have h Kent, have park maintenance employees on their staff. capital funds hard, exacerbating a These employees are generally responsible for: maintenance backlog that had be . Routine maintenance tasks, including such things before the 2008 recession. During as mowing grass, cleaning restrooms and emptying parks facilities assessment work t trash. last updated in 2012, the city's pe . Minor construction projects, such as making repairs capital maintenance backlog was to plumbing and roofs and filling in potholes in determined to be over $60 million parking lots, as well as repairing sidewalks and current funding trends continue, t trails in the parks. backlog will continue to grow. On This work is considered routine maintenance and is larger questions to be addressed i funded through the city's operations budget. upcoming Park and Open Space P update will have to do with how t Larger projects, such as building a new restroom to this trend. Options include iden building, repaving a park's parking lot, or replacing new sources of revenue, adjustir/• worn-out athletic fields' synthetic turf, are typically of the park system, or a combina't considered capital maintenance projects, are both. contracted out to private construction firms and are paid for through the Parks capital budget. Aging Infrastrucl� a %/ Kent's park systet`i has a Iong'and proud-history. Kent's first park, Rosebed Park, was opened in I906 Pudr tins �,g0dred years later, our system continues tp,/r,#r,,e,ive g66d reviews, locally and nationally. One indication of our reptOdn i5l�;�j�-t ,wedbffsistently attract regional and national athletic ////„ tou�,�t`nents becausk players enjoy playing on our well-maintained grass fields.,,,,, That reputation is sorttkthing of which we are proud. Unfortunately, not all of our assets Fraue agcj.as well as some of our grass fields. Even at our most popular sports ff"£kd sites, there are assets that are in desperate need of re- investment. For example, at Kent Memorial Park, the restroom building is in near-constant need of repair, be it a leaky roof or the crumbling plumbing system. At Russell Road, the parking lots have been patched so many times that it is getting increasingly difficult to patch the patches. Each category of park asset has a typical expected lifetime, along with its own typical amount of routine maintenance and typical amount of capital maintenance. The expected lifetime of a restroom building, and the amount of maintenance required to keep it functioning, are entirely different from Kent Comprehensive Plan November 12 that of, say, a playground, whose expected lifetime and maintenance are different from that of a grass athletic field. What they all have in common is the fact that they all have finite life expectancies, and they all require continuing investments throughout the course of their lifetimes. Not surprisingly, maintenance costs increase as assets age, with older assets requiring more frequent maintenance than their newer counterparts. In 2012, Parks undertook an asset analysis update to inventory and assess the condition of every park asset valued over $25,000. The analysis looked at 240 assets. The scores ranged from 1 (nearing the en 'its useful life) to 5 (functionally new). Seventy nine assets (32% of the I) were ranked 1 or 2. Sixty-three percent of Kent's parks contained ' e'fst one asset ranked 1 or 2. The analysis identified a capital maintenan�j//�rcklog of over $60//,million. From 2010 through 2013, the city spent ��pptoxima��y $3.5 millFi7ft on parks i capital projects. At the current average rcff of in Iment, it would take 69 years to complete the projects on our list of '6�p Zs�waiting to be repaired or replaced. ��� Changing Demographics Kent's population has changed sign#ffcan� �sver,the past two decades, and continues to change At tb,e time of theca,Aef Parks and Open Space Plan (P&OS Plan) updat tl'e cft ';s population stood at 88,380. Shortly after the plan was adopted, e city annexed the area known as Panther Lake. The latest three-year Ah rica�pSirhvey shows Kent's population at 110,390. _ "" It s no St the , j/�� ' Gr`f�ber o rasidents that has changed. The city has become increasingly racially and culturifly diverse. In 2000, 71 percent of Kent's residents were white. The most recent American Community Service count put the percentage of White residents in Kent at 59.5 percent. In 2000, eight percent of"nt's po, [i1ation was Hispanic. In 2010, that percentage jumped to 16.7 percehe,// Kent has an increasing population of foreign-born residents, including a sizeable population who does not speak English. The Kent School District's website reports that their student population comes from families speaking 137 languages. In addition, the numbers show that our population is getting older. In 2000, 7.4 percent of Kent's population was over 65. The most recent data shows that population at 9.1 percent. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 'n" 13 These changes are expected to impact not only what our parks offer, but the quality and type of access to our parks and the various amenities they offer. The changing needs and priorities of Kent residents will require greater flexibility than ever in planning new and renovated facilities that better suit our changing citizenry. Kent's changing demographics are also changing how we engage the community in conversations regarding their recreational needs and priorities. The old-style "town hall" type of public meeting isn't as effective as it used to be. The city continues to look at new and innovative wa ��/S engage residents, in order to get as broad a representation of tights and ideas as possible. The next Park and Open Space Plan update wil /i/ clude an eXtensive public % outreach component, to d m eterine where a/f// ow our parks ere meeting the needs and priorities of Kent residents, ano,hesw they n improve` -continue to provide relevant and vibrant recreation'e1:oppor��� hies to the community. T Change in Focus The city's last period of park facift) expansion inctcided the construction of Service Club Ball Fields, Wilson Playfields'',—Arbor Heig(4,9 360 Park, and Town Square Plaza. Funds for these projects wad proyrded by councilmatic bonds. if ' The city is still paying,/pn �lese bond ;�Wi'thf the last of the bonds expected to be paid off by 202 ����NO,/,/// With the city's lowerr"revenuesr the fact that a percentage of that revenue is going toward debt retlrean nlf,14,4 fftp,aging park infrastructure, the primary focus for thyP�rks capif program has been on redevelopment, or, what we're '/Jfng "rri 'kl ,better use of what we have." The Three Legs of the Parks Capital Program "Stool" Historically, parks departments all over the country have compared their0,6rks ci,, ital program to a three-legged stool, with the "legs" consistiii_�df acquisition, development and redevelopment. "Acquisition" is about obtaining new park land, and is most commonly achieved through purchase of private property. "Development" refers to the design and construction of new parks. "Redevelopment" can include either the refurbishment or replacement of worn-out facilities through capital maintenance or the reimagining of park amenities-- or even entire parks-- based on changes in recreation trends and local demographics. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 'n" 14 The city of Kent has been acquiring and developing park properties for several decades. As previously mentioned, the city has seen many changes over those decades. Even without the city's current financial pressures, the time is right for a prudent and community-based look at the system to assess which properties are working well, which properties could use having some of their current amenities replaced in-kind, and which properties need more creative re-imagining. When initiating this discussion, the city will make it clear that the discussion isn't about raising funds. The discussio II be focused very clearly on the park system, the community, an <' 'at the community's desires and priorities for the future of the s re. Park Inventory and Classif ion The 2010 P&OS Plan update counted 1,4 ,,;Scres of)tark and op6d space land and 59 parks. The current inventory hiclude 1`17.44 acres (including 125.17 acres of undeveloped properties) of I ri i under our direct stewardship, and a system of 53 � eloped park% (Please see Figure XXX) The numbers indicate that the system .k 'shrunk, wfi/ n the city has actually added acres to the park property invent �/ d to explain this seeming contradiction? There are four factor4'th „�xplainlhe differing numbers between 2010's cou - i/' ,,taday's. a. The city"hAs acquired,42.82 acres of new park land since 2010. These were all strat f'rc a%OJ Tfl t s that,contributed to long-term assemblages and system.. is. " We have Uilt no new parks since 2010. That park plan update sig a d a change in direction from system expansion to a focus on "taking care o, hat we have." i c. DGring the f ities assessment process the parks department ilia undertook in 11� he department broadened its list of park categories. In addition to neigh,b,, hood and community parks and open space properties, they acknowledged that there are a number of special-use parks that don't really provide the traditional functions fulfilled by neighborhood and community parks. Some parks that provide specialized uses, such as skate parks, were reclassified as special use parks. Properties utilized primarily by sports groups, like Wilson Playfields, were classified as Recreational Facility - Outdoor. In addition, the Department de-listed a handful of properties that, according to any objective measure, didn't function as parks and had little potential for ever serving that role well. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 'n" Z.< Z O .., .... xp5� .x Q49C '1 W m U t ... ..�r P P 4 Y 4' � = J a��i w 3S�tl ZSlO• I� �r w m V o IIIII�14 m C a O t— U a 3s v ... `,„ IIIIIIIIIIII �.Hq` p'p G1 / IIIIIIIIIII 6 s 0 ( a r� - N f lo LA 2. 3S AV ZEI w og mo ou pJim" is AV n W o wa ,.. m, ,✓ �,�.r' } �.`u IIUl1i o. 1. 35 n JI r `o y V 9 a in 80l Ao .. a �/ n�i��� � �. % ��.. �.... dos40 3S ntl 40l ,.,= d :✓U N �, �� =3S AV o cu r7` TM `' LL r�.r . r�maamo. ®r /�d � 6I '/rw` m®.o.e. r �. ..uuuWll Uo. e ..� r rr �� if 1r� e N � 3PiJ lo9ley „„ _ Z � �� / m �%� � cu s q� i�a o �ra8w Nvll�� a ` � �� � � � SAV tl l" 83 e4UV� I ip1S"^�.0 n �� o p KJ q�lir 88 w ,:o pI L erri /fl �� �.wu d. ... b�.. u< a� ¢' cu o IN AV UOIUUIUSeAA Np_. o A�H.XelleA lsaM / t 6 Vb9 ii u diauaoyoS �„ ,..J 0.il 1 .a= rn iiie/ ,��Ia .w✓"' l 2 mb S ntl SS rn m N Y N '"n w w m ... o (h o 0 w n p ' 5IN lip" p 4treN �• fl V9E IN AV B ap U ¶�Xnte lP�N SPa rGejrj 3.... � ., 5 Illuux.a NnVbtl S V b.�III�II I S V Z *�v N In�'� �� ��� Sapmaueyy "U .. 16 17 d. An administrative decision was made to discontinue counting the 310 acre Green River Natural Resources Area as a park. Because its primary function is to capture and detain stormwater, which makes large portions of the property inaccessible to the public, and because it is stewarded by the city's Public Works Department, it was felt that it distorted any discussion on parks acreage in Kent by including a property whose recreational functions are secondary to its public works functions. Reclassifying the GRNRA doesn't take away the enjoyment people have when they use the property for recreation, but it does better reflect the collection of prope ies stewarded by the city for the primary purpose of recreation. The ultimate result is that while the park system h� An minor growth in acreage since 2010, the numbers don't reflect t growth','; j jj Table'_ Par,sand Facj�ities by the,,Numbers: 1993- 2014 �993 2003 2014 Population 41,06' 84,275 110,390 Develo tArks 849.5 1346.63 1117.44 (total acre Golf Cours4,/,/, 0.56 0.27 0.21 (holes per i'000) Recreation FacililY ,,, 2.33 1.13 (sq. ft./person) Park Categories Following is a list of the various categories of parks that make up the Kent park system, and an explanation of the role they serve in that system. Neighborhood Parks Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 -nM 18 Kent has 25 neighborhood parks. These tend to be small, intimate parks, tucked into residential neighborhoods. They're typically accessed on foot or by bike. They include amenities that tend to cause them to be natural gathering places for the neighborhoods they serve, but they're not intended to be destinations that attract use from outside of their neighborhood. Community Parks Kent has six community parks. These parks are typically larger than neighborhood parks, and contain amenities that attract a I ger use area. For l" that reason, parking lots are typically found in these pa/ �;As larger gathering spaces, they are often used for commu �� // tespecial events like concerts or movies. ��'` Special Use Parks Not all parks fit into neat categories. Some �5rks are the size oi` lll �ii/ neighborhood parks, but they cater to a specializeience. Ar��ii Heights 360 is such a park. With its primary featui`e�beir� S"skate park and a climbing wall, it draws a very active, usually yo'/Uhg adult, audience seeking a very specialized recreational exp,��7�nce. Other examples of special use parks ink de several downtown "pocket parks." These parks are not in a rdt/fdentia ighQrhood; therefore, they Jig don't have a residential constituency,�Tf) are typically activated during weekdays by busin��p, pe seeking a short break from work. Kent has nine sr use parks. Natural Resources While Ke/,7////4„khp/wn for Ifi,andustrial and warehouse resources, the city also iiiii% bene/�/ from a I nge„amouhf'of protected open space, both in the form of publ[dy owned Iand"nd crit[da,I areas protected by regulation. Two waters of th6//ate are found th Kent: the Green River, which runs south to north through the valley, an, Lake Meridian, located on Kent's East Hill. Other shoreline gyres in�c�h %o'Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural Resources Area, Springbtc( ktreek, portions of Soos Creek, and the Mill Creek Auburn Floodway. Recreational Facilities Kent has a number of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. These are spaces that are heavily programmed. As a result, they tend to have a low incidence of use outside of their programmed use. Kent's outdoor recreational facilities include Wilson Playfields, Hogan Park at Russell Road, Service Club Ballfields, and Kent Memorial Park. Indoor Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 -nM 19 facilities include the Kent Valley Ice Centre, the Nealy-Soames Historic Home, the Kent Historical Society Museum, the Kent Commons, the Kent- Meridian Pool, and the Senior Activity Center. Since the 2010 Park Plan update, our Resource Center was closed and the property was removed from the city's inventory. Undeveloped Park Land As noted above, over the years Kent has obtained a number of properties it has not yet developed as parks. Since this acreage is inte d for eventual ,xgx use, it is included as park property; still, the properties ve few to no /////i facilities, and so recreational use at these sites is no pported by our limited maintenance resources. ji Other Facilities In addition to parks and open space, the d 's parks system includes a golf i;b others aYid some complex, a community pea patch (on property o/� Y ) undeveloped park properties. The 167-acre golf complex incluon 18 hole dCiurse, apar 3 course, a driving range and a mini-putt course There are also over 28 miles of off Might-o� trails F(i/the city. The next update to the P40S Plan WO int ude a broader discussion of the cit s indoor recrea fd'dflfties than irf-the last update. It will be based on a Y � � P planned dialogue wf the cothmunity t' etermine the community's satisfaction with the current I I of servl¢e as well as their desires and priorities for changesI6 the evel,Xsf;s f ce. The up�pf/If ,g 0&0$ Plan"UpIclate will include a detailed list of Kent's parks, ope ,Ace and re Creational properties. Other.,Local RecreatioWFacilities The city f,hot the only;jiublic provider of recreational facilities in and around Kent. The Kent Sc ,), District owns a number playgrounds and play fields on its various schir5I properties. Some of these are available for general public use when school is not in session. Other facilities, like their synthetic turf sports fields, are not open to the general public, but do host programmed activities, such as Kent recreation league games. In addition, King County owns several recreational properties in the local area. They have the primary maintenance responsibility for the Interurban Trail (owned by Puget Sound Energy, but leased to the County), as well as the Soos Creek Trail. They also own the northern portion of North Meridian Park, which they maintain as open space. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r' " ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 20 In addition, the city's Public Works department owns a number of properties that provide some recreational value (typically via the trails they maintain for access but allow the public to utilize for recreation), although that is not their primary use. These properties provide some recreational opportunities to Kent residents, but they are not included in Kent's Level of Service equations because the Parks Department has no control over how they are programmed, managed and maintained. LEVELS OF SERVICE Determining a level of service for parks, recreation ies and open space for a community is challenged by the fact that these reallyJsn't a one-size- fits-all approach to providing these communit�filities. Population Kent's most recent update to our Parks and Open ice Plan was adopted in 2010. At the time of the update, Kent's popul"tiesrf��stood at 88,380 residents. Since that plan, the Panther Lak�i pnexation added five square miles and approximately 24,000 residents t6 1 le city. Kent's`Current population stands at about 121,400. The population it fair] ' enly sp(i�`( tween genders, with 50.4 percent male and 49.6 percerft,fema '��'�N" 'ly„30 percent of Kent's residents are under the of 20, and 5:� 4 percent are between the ages of 20 and 54. The city 'edfa `_age is approximately 34 years old. More detailed informatl on Kent`'g; populatiot5".,may be found in the Profile and Vision chapter of thi/;Plan Needs Analysis The Pgg� lan's�N,{ads Ar4ysis detailed the challenges of establishing Levels of 5 for parks 'and recr6,6tion facilities. Other public services enjoy straightforward metrim';; such as response time for emergency services, quantity of materials d f isposed of or processed for waste management services, and,inters ion wait times for transportation. k We know that p4St"s and recreation facilities provide immense value to a community. We know that communities with good parks tend to be healthier than communities with few or no parks. We know that neighborhoods with well-used and well-maintained parks tend to have higher values and lower crime rates than comparable neighborhoods without parks. Because these benefits accrue over time, it's really difficult to track them back to specific budget years. As a result, it's very difficult to provide metrics for the value that parks and recreation facilities bring to their communities. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 21 Communities all over the country have struggled and continue to struggle to provide a quantifiable Level of Service for parks and recreation facilities. The 2010 P&OS Plan looked at the traditional means of measuring Levels of Service (based on acres per thousand for different facilities) and traced the decades-long trend of declining Levels of Service in Kent, based on that approach. It also looked at Levels of Service on a neighborhood-by- neighborhood basis. This approach identified 32 neighborhoods currently served by parks, four neighborhoods with partially met needs and four with no park space. Three additional neighborhoods in the 7/e/r/711 time un- annexed Panther Lake area were also park-deficient. Below is a table illustrating how Kent's parks and op space Levels of Service have shrunk over time. 7� j j jj Table' LeViflCof Service 1993- 2035 1 199 2003 2014 2035 Populgr�f'� '�r 4X,000 84,275 110,390 Neighborhood Parks 2—.5'f 1.13 0.84 acreslj4100 Community,Parks 18.19 14.85 2.76 (acres/lOb(1 ,,,,:. Golf Course 0.56 0.32 0.21 holes/1000 Recreation Facilities 2.33 1.13 (sq. ft./person) Developed Parks 849.5 1346.63 1117.44 (total acres) Natural Resource Overall LOS 20.72 15.98 10.12 acres/1000 Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 22 Overall LOS (excluding Natural Resource Overall LOS (Sq. ft./1000) Using the above approach to Levels of Service, Kent would need to develop its 133.94 acres of currently-undeveloped land and acquire and develop an additional xxxx acres by 2035 in order to stem any further,,prosion to its Levels of Service for its projected population of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX: 0% While the 2010 P&OS Plan update did not propose a approach to Level of /j ,, Service, it recognized the need for one. jj/ How Much Is Enough? //////?u "Level of Service" is an attempt to provid gefor a particu it public /AM/�I //a,<,,. good or service being provided to a community. II t"W 'Iso used to establish goals for that good or service, according to thk,,o°� all priorities and resources of the community. For ample, when"a community sets a goal of havingemergency services res ��g y R f�€tfo a call for heap within a certain number of minutes, that number is then used 66I4form city fiad,ers how many resources need to be allocated to emerge e'er"ices in order to achieve the response time goal /iiii/yiii„ %%%%/ Parks, recreation f�)ltfes and open sl5,ke Levels of Service measures are used in the same//Way. How mtany parks-are enough for a community? How many parks is the cbmmun,i� „tA support? Those are difficult questions, but given fhd o6going rev€fte shortfall they are very relevant questio }jati III require,Oxtensive community discussion during the next par fti update. ' The chart below, from 2013, shows the developed park acreage for Kent and some of/ifs,regional peer cities. Looking at what Kent is providing in relation to its peer cities prov}# cs some points of reference when discussing what's ai right for Kenirr/�gJ� at in isolation, Kent s numbers, and the Levels of Service they reoiiesent, have little meaning. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r w ^" " t F-2872-� 23 Acres of Developed Park Land per 1000 Residents 6 5 4 3 2 — — — 1 VY KENT Kirkland Renton Aub'brn Federal E40Tt Bellevue ;. Y ....................... Meaningful Measures According to the chart above, K66t ii�"4ahind its pAif`cities in providing developed park land to its residents",, However, acres (i'r thousand while a useful measure, isn't the only metric use " dfcusang Levels of Service. /� Manual 2, Planning PAjrX�� �„and Guide,1�rf�s�, published by Washington's Recreation and Co rvatidhf'Office, is #'statewide reference for cities developing and u0a' Ling thelf'Parks and//bpen Space Plans. Its Level of Service Summary forLoc�J`pdatYCtes discusses a variety of approaches to assessing par45/;,and re&f4tion facilities Levels of Service. Options include meas�j g quanfif �;,quality "and distribution and access of local parks and recrean facilities. Kent's next P&OS update will combine some aspects of these approaches as part of a O formancd/-based Level of Service assessment. They will determine whfdh pa / s and recreation facilities in the Kent system are performing at a high level, and which parks are underperforming. By focusing on preserving recreational value of high-performing parks and increasing recreational value of low-performing parks, they will examine the potential of increasing Kent's parks and recreational facility Level of Service without relying exclusively on adding acreage. The reasoning is that a performance- based assessment is more meaningful than an acreage-based one, because the former focuses more on usage rather than on quantity. (High-level summary of existing facilities, services and programs) Kent Comprehensive Plan November 24 Goals and Policies The following goals and policies are from the last Parks and Open Space Plan update. That plan noted a shift in expressing how the City's park and open space system would best develop over the coming years and details measurable steps toward achieving these goals. Overall Goal: Encourage and provide opportunities for local residents to participate in life- enrichment activities via the developmen/ park land and recreational facilities, preservation and enhancement o""_,ronmentally sensitive areas, professional programming, and the o xi 'um utilization of community resources. I. Park & Recreation Facilities Goals & P es Develop a high-quality, diversified recreational syste�ffir all abilities, ages and interest groups. Goal P&OS-1: Work with other agencies to preserve 66d',increase waterfront access and facilities. Policy P&O A1:' C,6operate with King County, Kent, Federal Way and Highline Sci,6/61 Districti, and other ,public and private agencies to acquire and pf'eserve i 1 shoreline access for waterfront fishing, wading, swimmmg and other'Felated recreational activities and pursuits, e�spedolly'#SYJ the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, 14fid Panther Gke. 044icy P&OS-1r2: Develop a mixture of opportunities for watercraft accesv, includj{, canoe, kayak, sailboard, and other non-power-boating activitie�`�e�, cially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, afrfd Panther Lake, where practicable. Goal P&OS-2: Work with other public agencies and private organizations, including but not limited to the Kent and Federal Way School Districts, to develop a high-quality system of athletic facilities for competitive play. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 25 Policy P&OS-2.1: Develop athletic facilities that meet the highest quality standards and requirements for competitive playing for all abilities, age groups, skill levels, and recreational interests. Policy P&OS-2.2: Develop field and court activities like soccer, football, baseball, basketball, softball, tennis, roller hockey, and volleyball that provide for the largest number of participants, and allow for multiple use, where appropriate. Policy P&OS-2.3: Develop, where appropriate �4elect number of facilities that provide the highest standard f���rnp"titive playing, possibly in conjunction with King County, �mt'and Federal Way School Districts, and other public agencies ano/I rivate organizafl s. Goal P&OS-3: P Develop, maintain, and operate a high-quality Sys{ of indoor facilities that provide activities and programs f „#/p interests of all physical and mental capabilities, age, and interest groups frYtihe c0mmu'rrlty+,, /%%//////ice Policy P&OS 3.1: Maintain and e and'muftlple-use indoor community centers, such a "Jew , nior ActiUiCenter and Kent Memorial Park ,A///// Building, th ;'provide/arts and crafts, music, video, classroom instruction, r`rreeting facilities, eatifig„nand health care, day care, and other spaces for all,awcitap ,Eluding preschool, youth, teens, and senrrrs� na year-round basis. /y/i////%��� olicy P&OS I, 2: Maihiain and expand multiple-use indoor recreational centers, such as Kent Commons and the Kent-Meridian Pool, that"provide ag4,a"tic, physical conditioning, gymnasiums, recreational courts,end��h/',er athletic spaces for all abilities, age groups, skill levels, and comf Urfity interests on a year-round basis. Policy P&OS-3.3: Support the continued development and diversification by the Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School Districts of special meeting, assembly, eating, health, and other community facilities that provide opportunities to school-age populations and the community at large at elementary, middle, and high schools within Kent and the Potential Annexation Area. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 26 Policy P&OS-3.4: Develop and operate special indoor and outdoor cultural and performing arts facilities that enhance and expand music, dance, drama, and other audience and participatory opportunities for the community at large. Goal P&OS-4: Where appropriate, develop and operate specialized park and recreational enterprises that meet the interest of populations who are -and willing to finance them. Policy P&OS-4.1: Where appropriate and O'1 onomic6fly feasible (i.e., %/i self-supporting), develop and operate/ ialized and sp 'dial interest recreational facilities like golf, ice sk��)dg, frisbe golf, mouft;t in biking and archery ranges. Policy P&OS-4.2: Where ppropriate, iniffate with other public agencies and private organf jpint plane(i5' „and operating programs to determine and�provide"fa �aecial attfvities like golf, archery, gun ranges, off-leash area gmodel Mplane flying areas, frisbee 7/Y golf, mountain,b Jhg and campiri do a regional basis. Goal P&OS-5: Develop and operate d'EsalaCted systbp of neighborhood and community parks, with/o/A7ve,ond passive recreational opportunities throughout the City. �g/�/%% /PoPolicy P&OS-&1: AcgGire and develop parks to meet the level-of- service needs ai-kent's population grows and areas are annexed. Policy','P&05„/$ 2: Identify neighborhoods bordered by arterial streets and geodi ph c features that act as natural barriers. Set aside neighborhood park land within each neighborhood to meet the levels-of- service. Policy P&OS-5.3: Develop amenities in parks for individual and group use, active and passive uses, while representing the best interests of the neighborhood or community as a whole. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 -nM 27 Policy P&OS-5.4: Encourage new single-family and multifamily residential, and commercial developments to provide recreation elements. II. Open Space and Greenway Goals & Policies Develop a high-quality, diversified and interconnected park system that preserves and sensitively enhances significant open spaces, greenways and urban forests. The establishment of greenways as urban se rators is a iii strategy that promotes connectivity of Kent's open space stem. Goal P&OS-6: Establish an open space pattern that will provid /efinition of aid separation III,, between developed areas, and provide open ace and greenwag`fnkages among park and recreational resources. ��� Policy P&OS-6.1: Define and conserve "stem of open space and /Ni/ greenway corridors as urban dparators to prrovide definition between natural areas and urban land{ use vlthin the K446 area. Policy P&OS 6?,;��„jncrease linkages of trails, in-street bikes lanes, or other existin of j5(e 1'66cl connections with greenways and open space, particular! ..along the Green River; Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek corridors`; aroy/"(, ake Fenwi(fk, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, and Lake Youngs;"end around significant wetland and ffi/ocir�fways ,0ch as f61 _Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA). Policy P&OS-6:!: Preserve and enhance, through acquisition as n,£nessary, envir rimenta!!y sensitive areas as greenway linkages and urbai-separat'9 particularly along the steep hillsides that define both sides ofifYe een River Valley and the SE 277rh/272nd Street corridor. Goal P&OS-7: Identify and protect significant recreational lands before they are lost to development. Policy P&OS-7.1: Cooperate with other public and private agencies and with private landowners to protect land and resources near residential neighborhoods for high-quality, !ow-impact park and Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 28 recreational facilities before the most suitable sites are lost to development. Suitable sites include wooded, undeveloped, and sensitive lands along the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek Canyon corridors, and lands adjacent to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power line rights-of-way. Policy P&OS-7.2: In future land developments, preserve unique environmental features or areas, and increase public use of and access to these areas. Cooperate with other public and pr agencies and with private landowners to protect unique fe �i F atur areas as low- impact publicly accessible resources particul Wig the Green River, ��/ Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, Mill Canyon, �SE 277ti�,272nd Street corridors. 7/ III. Trail and Corridor System Goals &/,A cies j///l Develop a high quality system of multipurpoe pa d//rails and corridors that provide access to significant environmental features, public facilities, and developed neighborhoods and buiiss districts. Goal P&OS-8: % �/%%% systems that link a " recreational sources Create a comprehensive system of multip rpose off✓road and on-road trail y p��j��� with residential areas, public facilities, commerci/aH, and erri0,loyment Winters both within Kent and within the region. �Jrf/ PS 8.1: WWhere appropriate, create a comprehensive system �1�multi-purpo§e off-road-trails using alignments of the Puget Power rights-of-way, 8'/ s Creek Trail, Mill Creek Trail, Lake Fenwick Trail, 6'reen River Trait,"Interurban Trail, Parkside Wetlands Trail, and Green River;Natural fs`ource Area (GRNRA). Policy P&1 S-8.2: Create a comprehensive system of on-road trails to improve connectivity for the bicycle commuter, recreational, and touring enthusiasts using scenic, collector, and local road rights-of-way and alignments. Policy P&OS-8.3: Provide connections from residential neighborhoods to community facilities like Kent Commons, the Senior Activity Center, the Kent-Meridian Pool, schools, parks, and commercial districts. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 29 Policy P&OS-8.4: Work with Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, Des Moines, Covington, King County, and other appropriate jurisdictions to link and extend Kent trails to other community and regional trail facilities like the Green River, Interurban, and Soos Creek Trails. Policy P&OS-8.5: With proposed vacation of right-of-way and street improvement plans, consider potential connectivity with existing or proposed trail corridors, parks, and neighborhoods. Policy P&OS-8.6: Link trails with elementar --and middle schools, the downtown core, and other commercial an Al, ail acti ff -„centers on East and West Hills. Policy P&OS-8.7: Extend trails thrd, h nat. ^f area corridors like the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek;"and iSoos Creek, and around natural features like Lake F,e/p/wick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian and Panther Lake in order to providO a' high-qualify,Oiverse sampling of Kent's environmental resources. Policy P&OS ; wise development regulations so that key trail links that a identified"within the corridor map are provided to the city during the deelopmenk`-approval process. Goal P&P r Furni wail corri"O/isr, traill-i4ads, and other supporting sites with convenient am al itties and improvements. P0144, P&OS 9.-Y: Furnish trail systems with appropriate trailhead supporting 1 OJ,/bvements that include interpretive and directory signage, rest stolf's /,,O,rinking fountains, restrooms, parking and loading areas, water, and other services. Policy P&OS-9.2: Where appropriate, locate trailheads at or in conjunction with park sites, schools, and other community facilities to increase local area access to the trail system and to reduce duplication of supporting improvements and amenities. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 -nM 30 Policy P&OS-9.3: Design and develop trail improvements which emphasize safety for users and are easy to maintain and easy to access by maintenance, security, and other appropriate personnel, equipment, and vehicles. IV. Historic and Cultural Resources Goals & Policies Develop a high-quality, diversified park system that includes preservation of significant historic and cultural resources, as well as progra to recognize the city's multicultural heritage. Goal P&OS-10: Preserve, enhance, and incorporate historic and� tural resources and multi- cultural interests into the park and recreatior�� stem. Policy P&OS-10.1: Identify, preserv#','_an 'ance Kent's multi- cultural heritage, traditions, and cultural rfltources, including historic sites, buildings, artwork, vYA„ dwmV monument�'and archaeological resources. Policy P&OS 10 2, Identify arrcl,j , orporate significant historic and cultural resO7 Nai'/d sites, artifacts, and facilities into the park system to preserve fhbse interests and W Orovide a balanced social experience. These areas 'ifYclude j,T/��,jginal alidhment for the interurban electric rail service between e*ff(e'and'Tzfd6 na, the James Street historical 7 �Yfrcir�ksi��, and the Downtown train depot, among others. Policy P&OS-16.3: Work with the Kent Historical Society and other cultural resource.groups to incorporate community activities at historic hom'dt-and sitq$'into the park and recreational program. Goal P&OS-11: Incorporate man-made environments and features into the park and recreational system. Policy P&OS-11.1: Incorporate interesting, man-made environments, structures, activities, and areas into the park system to preserve these features and to provide a balanced park and recreational experience. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r' " ^ ^" "^ . '8 'n" 31 Examples include the Earthworks in Mill Creek Canyon Park and art in public places. Policy P&OS-11.2: Work with property and facility owners to increase public access to and utilization of these special features. V. Cultural Arts Programs and Resources Goals & Policies Develop high quality, diversified cultural arts facilities and p rams that increase community awareness, attendance, and o7/77/0"o unities for participation. Goal P&OS-12: Work with the arts community to utilize to jr ourc�eess and talertts�"to increase public access to artwork and programs. !/� Policy P&OS-12.1: Support successful 'tdllaborations among the Arts Commission, business cornMUhty, service groups, cultural organizations, schools, arts patrons, and artists t utilize artistf6resources and talents to the optimum degree possible. O�"' ON�// Policy P&O � li ' velop strategies that will support and assist local artists and:aYt,organ¢atiOns Wher; appropriate, develop and support and retain artists artwork/Wfthine or provide incentives to attract policies and f'd ram,4 iA ouraq the Kent community. /iiZ6 Gom/�MOS-13: Acqulr4 and display public artwork to furnish public facilities and other areas and thereby increase public access and appreciation. Policy 0AS-13.1: Acquire public artwork including paintings, sculptures, exhibits, and other media for indoor and outdoor display in order to expand access by residents and to furnish public places in an appropriate manner. Policy P&OS-13.2: Develop strategies that will support capital and operations funding for public artwork within parks and facilities. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r' " ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 32 VI. Wildlife and Natural Preservation Goals & Policies Incorporate and preserve unique ecological features and resources into the park system in order to protect threatened plant and animal species, preserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and retain migration corridors for local fish and wildlife. Such incorporation is intended to limit habitat degradation associated with human activities. Goal P&OS-14: Designate critical fish and wildlife habitat resource � as. Policy P&OS-14.1: Identify and conser critical fish and wildlife %/ habitat including nesting sites, foragin areas, and wildlifetttigration //� corridors, within or adjacent to natu al areas, en spaces, and, developed urban areas. wfr ice„ Policy P&OS-14.2: Acque,,enhance and preserve habitat sites that support threatened species and drkrjn wildlife habitat, in priority corridors and natural areas with habi,/p 1 'Vblup such as the Green River Corridor, the Green,River Natural /" ources Area (GRNRA), North Meridian Parr/' ts6s'Creek, Mill Creek, and Clark Lake Park. Policy P&O 14.3�/� ��,rp fish and wildlife habitat within parks, open space, and envPrtsfi ' ntallyientive areas by maintaining a healthy yf n'fVr6t: with n'61tive vegetation that provides food, cover, and A�helter, by 061k//ing be!`f`management practices. Goal PISS-15: Preserve a, provid/e,atcess to significant environmental features, where such access does nfrf;cd ��LJ�2 harm to the environmental functions associated with the features. Policy P&OS-15.1: Preserve and protect significant environmental features, including environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, open spaces, woodlands, shorelines, waterfronts, and other features that support wildlife and reflect Kent's natural heritage. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 -nM 33 Policy P&OS-15.2: Acquire, and where appropriate, provide limited public access to environmentally sensitive areas and sites that are especially unique to the Kent area, such as the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek and Mill Creek corridors, the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA), and the shorelines of Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, Lake Fenwick, and Clark Lake. Goal P&OS-16: Develop and maintain an Urban Forestry Management Program. j Policy P&OS-16.1 Connect people to natured improve the quality of life in Kent by restoring urban forests and r urbar�`6pen spaces. �j Policy P&OS-16.2 Galvanize the community a ound urban forest restoration and stewardship through,// volunt��restoration program. Policy P&OS-16.3 Improyo/jjrban forest ehame�Ith, and enhance urban forest long-term sustainab(ff�;'lay,removing hUhsive plants and maintaining functional nativa forest c6 nitie5: VII. Design and A,""' S"dais & Policies Design and develt{p ( ties that are accessible, safe, and easy to maintain, with life-cycle featLtt`6s that �/�f fir IoHifj term costs and benefits. Goal P&Q�1/ Desigqpd k and cfeationdhIndoor and outdoor facilities to be accessible to all physt61 capabilities, sl/i,ll levels, age groups, income levels, and activity intere!ki_ PolicyC:, &O/l/t 7.1: Design outdoor picnic areas, fields, courts, playgroutf&jj-1trails, parking lots, restrooms, and other active and supporting facilities to be accessible to individuals and organized groups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests. Policy P&OS-17.2: Design indoor facility spaces, activity rooms, restrooms, hallways, parking lots, and other active and supporting spaces and improvements to be accessible to individuals and organized Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r' " ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 34 groups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests. Goal P&OS-18: Design and develop park and recreational facilities to be of low-maintenance materials. Policy P&OS-18.1: Design and develop facilities that are of low- maintenance maintenance and high capacity design to reduce ov it facility maintenance and operation requirements and cod Policy P&OS-18.2: Where appropriate low-maintenance �;/ materials, settings, or other value-engi //�ing consideraft6ns that reduce care and security requireme I 9 /,While re aining the ff tural i conditions and environment. Policy P&OS-18.3: Wher ,possible in lafidscaping parks, encourage the use of low maintenance;plafit . //i�� Goal P&OS-19: Identify and implement" he security and. 'ety provisions of the American Disabilities Act ( �11 Cnme"fteventiorY' hrough Environmental Design (CPTED), and othetf/`standardt;/' Pol1e/P�&OS 19:iiY Implement the provisions and requirements of the �ijr, �4t, erican bfs abilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through vironmental Design (&TED), and other design and development standards that will improve park safety and security features for users, de'Ortment personnel, and the public at large. Policy PAS-19.2: Develop and implement safety standards, procedures, and programs that will provide proper training and awareness for department personnel. Policy P&OS-19.3: Define and enforce rules and regulations concerning park activities and operations that will protect user groups, department personnel, and the public at large. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 35 Policy P&OS-19.4: Where appropriate, use adopt-a-park programs, neighborhood park watches, and other innovative programs that will increase safety and security awareness and visibility. VIII. Fiscal Coordination Goals & Policies Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating, and maintaining facilities and programs that distribute costs and benefits to public and private interests. Goal P&OS-20: Investigate innovative methods of financing parka ec tonal requirements, including joint ventures with other ''d,blic agerCfes and private organizations, and private donations. ice Policy P&OS-20.1: Investigate inrfavative /,/"ilable methods, such as growth impact fees, land set-a-side or rod ,6-Jieu-of-donation ordinances, and inter-local,/Agreements, to finance facility development, maintenance, and operating nee/€fiJn order to reduce costs, retain financial flexibility, match user` benerff� interests, and increase facility services Policy P&A* - 0 2 Where feas6le and desirable, consider joint ventures with'Xing ing County Kent, Hi4hline, and Federal Way School Districts, region'dl,,/,s4i�e/,/fed ral,; nd other public agencies and private organi` ti trrs, including for-profit concessionaires to acquire and develop � onal fadlttfes (i.e., swimming pool, off-leash park, etc.). Policy P&OS-20 3: Maintain and support a Park Foundation to investigate grants and private funds, develop a planned giving program and solfcit p�f�,y to donations to finance facility development, acquisition, maintena &J& ,' programs, services, and operating needs. Goal P&OS-21: Coordinate public and private resources to create among agencies a balanced local park and recreational system. Policy P&OS-21.1: Create a comprehensive, balanced park and recreational system that integrates Kent facilities and services with Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r' " ^ ^" "^ . '8 _nM 36 resources available from King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other state, federal, and private park and recreational lands and facilities, in a manner that will best serve and provide for the interests of area residents. Policy P&OS-21.2: Cooperate, via joint planning and development efforts, with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other public and private agencies to avoid duplication, improve facility quality and availability, reduce costs, and represent rests of area residents. Goal P&OS-22: �j Create and institute a method of cost/benefit performance Measure /oFFM assessment to determine equitable park a�r�/#/�ecreatio costs, levef ;of service, and provision of facilities. Policy P&OS-22.1: In ord,&'to effectively plen and program park and recreational needs within ti ".QxfS`ti' city limits,`6nd the potential annexation area, define existffig and r6pbrse,d land and facility levels-of- service (LOS) that differentiate, req ;irement5'clue to the impacts of population gr , br/1"pposed to-Imp rove ments to existing facilities, neighborhoo/Otas opposed to community nexus of benefit, requirements in the city as oppose ui emets in the Potential Annexation Area. /// P �fS/`PS 22. E"Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, A/eveIoping, map rating, and maintaining park and recreational facilities in manners that accurately distribute costs and benefits to public and 1 elVate user interests. This includes the application of growth impact fees-Where neW"developments impact level-of-service (LOS) standards. Policy PAS-22.3: Develop and operate lifetime recreational programs that serve the broadest needs of the population and that recover program and operating costs using a combination of registration fees, user fees, grants, sponsorships, donations, scholarships, volunteer efforts, and the use of general funds. Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r' " ^ ^" "^ . '8 -nM 37 Related Information http://kentwa.gov/content.aspx?id=1282 City of Kent 2010 Park & Open Space Plan j j jj Kent Comprehensive Plan November 3 2014r' " ^ ^" "^ . '8 -nM 38 39 Comment[cl]:The text in this element is being replaced in its entirety. However,the Goals and Policies are being retained. CHAPTER TEN PARK & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The Park & Open Space Element works in concert with the 2010 Parks & Open Space Plan to provide direction for the planning, acquisition, development and redevelopment of parks, open spaces and recreational facilities for the years 2010- 2030. Park Plans were prepared and updated in 1972, 1982, 1988, 1994, and 2000. The 2010 Park & Open Space Plan was developed with participation from city and service area residents. It evaluates existing demographics, facilities and service needs, presents goals and policies, estimates park and recreation demand, outlines intergovernmental coordination opportunities, examines potential funding sources and provides long- and short-term capital recommendations for the next 20 years. The 2010 Park Plan has been updated to accommodate the impacts of current and projected growth and to be consistent with the City's overall planning efforts under the Growth Management Act. A variety of participatory outreach methods were used in the 2010 update of the Park & Open Space Plan to involve citizens in the comprehensive planning process, these efforts include: online and written surveys, displays with comment sheets at parks facilities, public workshops, email updates to interested parties, utility mailers, newspaper articles, and public hearings through the formal plan adoption process. It is the mission of the Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department is to enrich the quality of life in Kent by providing parks and facilities that are safe, attractive, and that offer enjoyable and meaningful recreation and cultural programs, and supports human services. This is accomplished via development and maintenance of parks and facilities, professional programming, and the optimum utilization of community resources. Continued urban development may outpace Kent's ability to maintain the current level of service and to improve on existing park and recreation opportunities unless public resources, policies, and funds are coordinated among the City, King County, Kent's school districts, and private partnerships. Park&Open Space 10 1 40 Kent's service area goes beyond the city limits and Planning Area, serving the entire Kent School District. The Parks and Community Services Department also serves portions of the Highline School District and Federal Way School District that are within the city limits. The expanding and aging population within Kent's service area has increased the demand on existing park and recreational facilities and programs. City residents are concerned about maintaining existing facilities as well as the provision of parks, open spaces and programs that make Kent a desirable place to live and work. Kent's park system is administered by the Director of the Kent Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department, with the policy direction set by a three-member City Council Parks Committee. An Arts Commission advises staff and approves public art and cultural programming. The twelve members of the Arts Commission are appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council and serve one-to-five year terms without compensation or salary. The seven-member Golf Advisory Board, appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council, advises staff concerning the activities and improvements at the Riverbend Golf Complex. The Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department provides a variety of park and recreational programs and community services that serve diverse interests in the population. For example, the department: 1) manages recreational programs and athletic leagues for youth, teen, adult, and seniors; 2) conducts educational classes and workshops; 3) organizes special events like the Fourth of July Splash, Canterbury Faire, and special arts programs; 4) supports resource programs for special populations; 5) operates youth day camps and before- and after-school care; 6) maintains the golf course; 7) maintains City parks, street trees, and open space areas; 8) maintains all City buildings and grounds such as fire stations, City Hall, and Kent Commons; 9) manages the Human Services Program which offers home repair and links Kent residents with service providers, counseling, therapy, food, clothing, education, emergency assistance, crisis intervention assistance for youth, teens, families, and homeless people. INVENTORY& CLASSIFICATION OF PARK AND OPEN SPACE LANDS Park&Open Space 102 41 Kent owns or leases 1,434 acres of park land. The majority of this park land is natural resource land, while the remaining is distributed between Community and Neighborhood Parks, Recreation Facilities and undeveloped land. Since 2000, over 87 acres of additional park land have been acquired. Park land from the Panther Lake Annexation, effective July 2010, is included in the inventory below. The City's park land is generally broken down into the following categories: Figure 4: Total Parks by Classification �� ���q In Community Parks uuiNeighborhood Parks :a i Indoor Recreation Facility 1 ii3Outdoor Recreation Facility s Natural Resource 'HuUndeveloped 4 uu Golf Course Community Parks - A park that serves the entire City of Kent and includes facilities or amenities that are not offered elsewhere in the city. Amenities will vary at each park and may include boating, swimming, fishing, group picnic shelters, Park&Open Space 10 3 42 play equipment, trails, sport courts and ball fields. Access to the park is by car, public transit, foot or bicycle. Off-street parking is provided. There are eight Community Parks with a total of 111.9 acres. Facility Location Acres 1. Arbor Heights 360 east 2.82 2. Green River Parks Anderson Park valley 0.30 Briscoe Park valley 7.00 Cottonwood Grove valley 0.77 Russell Woods Park valley 7.00 Three Friends Park valley 1.00 Van Doren's Landing Park valley 10.00 3. Lake Meridian Park east 16.02 4. Morrill Meadows east 16.31 5. Old Fishing Hole valley 5.70 6. Town Square Plaza valley 0.77 7. Urban Core Parks Burlington Green* valley 0.22 Castlereagh Park* valley 0.21 First Avenue Plaza valley 0.60 Kaibara Park* valley 0.56 Kherson valley 0.58 Rosebed Park* valley 0.23 Sunnfjord Park valley 0.21 Titus Railroad Park valley 0.30 Uplands Extension* (Rotary Basketball & Lions Skate) valley 4.10 Yangzhou Park* valley 0.21 8. West Fenwick Park (includes West Hill Skate Park) west 37.00 Total 111.91 * Leased Land Neighborhood Park - A park designed to meet the active and passive recreation needs of an immediate neighborhood. A neighborhood is defined by surrounding arterial streets and access is usually by foot or bicycle. Parking spaces are typically not provided, unless on-street parking is not available, accessible or safe. Neighborhood parks have amenities for casual activities that are not programmed or organized. Amenities may include play equipment, picnic tables, hard courts (basketball, tennis), walking trails, and open grass areas. There are 27 neighborhood parks with a total of 90.33 acres. Facility Location Acres 1. Canterbury Neighborhood Park east 2.08 2. Chestnut Ridge Park east 3.33 3. Commons Park valley 2.66 4. East Hill Park east 4.62 Park&Open Space 10 4 43 5. Eastridge Park east 0.80 6. Garrison Creek Park east 5.00 7. Glenn Nelson Park west 10.00 8. Gowe Street Mini Park valley 0.10 9. Green Tree Park east 1.47 10. Green View Park east 1.10 11. Kiwanis Tot Lot #1 valley 0.60 12. Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 valley 0.41 13. Kiwanis Tot Lot #3 east 0.75 14. Kiwanis Tot Lot #4 valley 0.35 15. Linda Heights Park west 4.20 16. Meridian Glen Park east 5.47 17. Naden Avenue RV Park valley 0.70 18. Park Orchard Park east 7.22 19. Pine Tree Park east 9.80 20. Salt Air Vista Park west 2.00 21. Scenic Hill Park east 4.10 22. Seven Oaks Park east 0.50 23. Springwood Park east 10.00 24. Sun Meadows east 1.54 25. Tudor Square Park east 4.70 26. Turnkey Park east 6.53 27. Walnut Grove east 0.30 Total 90.33 Recreation Facility - Buildings and parks used by the community for social, cultural and programmed recreation. Outdoor recreational facilities are distinguished from other parks by the scheduled nature of the facilities. Recreational facilities include community centers, historic buildings, sports fields and golf facilities. These facilities serve the entire City of Kent, and in some cases, the region. Access to these facilities is by car, public transit, foot, or bicycle. Off- street parking is provided. Riverbend is unique from the other recreational facilities because it is an enterprise facility, which is a self-sustaining, revenue generating facility that financially supports itself. Some of the facilities identified below include open space which may be developed in the future. Square Facility Location Acres Feet Indoor 1. Kent Commons valley 3.00 50,000 2. Kent Historical Museum valley 1.70 3,720 3. Kent Memorial Park Building valley 0.25 3,000 4. Kent Valley Ice Centre*** valley 3.60 65,154 5. Neely/Soames Historical House valley 1.00 2,256 6. Resource Center valley 0.44 6,000 7. Senior Activity Center valley 4.36 21,000 Subtotal 14.35 151,130 Outdoor Park&Open Space 10 5 44 8. Kent Memorial Park valley 10.95 9. North Meridian Park Fields east 8.40 10. Service Club Park east 28.80 11. Russell Road Park valley 30.40 12. Uplands Playfield valley 2.30 13. Wilson Playfields east 11.49 Subtotal 92.34 Golf Course 13. Riverbend Golf Complex-18 holes valley 131.00 11,296 14. Golf Par 3, Driving Range, Mini-Putt valley 36.00 1,800 Total 273.69 164,226 *** City Leased Land Natural Resource - Parks that are passive in nature and include areas of openness, environmentally sensitive areas, or wildlife habitat. Amenities include passive recreation elements such as benches, bird watching platforms, fishing, trails, and open green areas. Facility Location Acres 1. Anderson Greenbelt valley 4.00 2. Campus Park east 16.50 3. Clark Lake Park (includes Lake rental 2.06) east 129.11 4. Eagle Scout Park valley 0.50 5. Foster Park valley 4.00 6. Green River Natural Resources Area** valley 310.00 7. Green River Corridor/Trail valley 39.35 8. Ikuta Property Donation valley 0.90 9. Interurban Trail valley 10.35 10. Kennebeck Avenue valley 0.10 11. Lake Fenwick Park west 141.34 12. Mill Creek Canyon Park east 107.25 13. North Meridian Park east 67.06 14. Old Fire Station west 0.21 15. Puget Power Trail valley 20.00 16. Springbrook Greenbelt valley 5.00 17. West Canyon Open Space west 5.00 18. Willis Street Greenbelt* valley 4.00 Total 864.67 * Leased Land, **Public Works Managed Undeveloped - Land area acquired by the city that has not yet been developed or programmed for recreational use. Park&Open Space 106 45 Facility Location Acres 1. 132nd Avenue Park (Dow Property) east 4.56 2. 277th Corridor Park east 4.58 3. Eagle Creek Park east 1.00 4. Hopkins Open Space east 1.34 5. Kronisch Property west 0.70 6. Midway Reservoir (W. Hill Neighborhood Park) west 9.67 7. Naden Ave. Property valley 6.45 8. Rainier View Estates east 1.17 9. Riverview Park valley 14.40 10. Valley Floor Community Park& Ball fields valley 50.05 Total 93.92 Urban Center&Green River Subareas Kent contains two distinct areas comprising several parks. These areas are included in the inventory above under Community Parks. Kent's downtown includes 10 parks, which together, forms the Urban Center Community Parks. Parks within the Urban Center collectively provide a variety of amenities such as play areas, picnic tables, skate and basketball facilities, and passive open green areas. During festivals and other events downtown, these parks serve as gathering places and key focal points. The Green River features 13 parks stretching from Briscoe Park at the northern city limits to the 277th trail connection at the southern limits. Several of the parks provide passive green space, two are undeveloped, and the remaining provide a variety of amenities for fishing, play, barbecues, picnics and bicycling. Each of these subareas provides a distinct experience for park users based on the area. Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) King County manages approximately 734 acres of parks in the PAA. This number includes only 169.1 acres of North Green River Park, which is located within both the City of Auburn and the City of Kent PAA. Soos Creek Regional Trail/Cary Grant Park at 522.45 acres, is located on the eastern edge of Kent's PAA, but serves a much greater area. Figure 10.1 illustrates existing parks and recreation facilities. Park&Open Space 10 7 46 FIGURE 10.1 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITES Park&Open Space 108 47 Park&Open Space 109 48 FIGURE10.2 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SERVICE AREAS Park&Open Space 10-10 49 Park&Open Space 10-11 50 FIGURE10.3 EXISTING TRAILS Park&Open Space 10-12 51 Park&Open Space 10-13 52 ANALYSIS OF PARK LAND AND FACILITY NEEDS Park&Open Space 10-14 53 FIGURE10.4 RECREATION FACILITIES AND SCHOOLS Park&Open Space 10-15 54 Park&Open Space 10-16 55 Level of Service (LOS) Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), communities are responsible for providing public facilities without decreasing levels of service below locally established minimums (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). Measuring the adequacy of our Parks and Open Spaces requires an established set of standards. Level of service (LOS) standards are measures of the amount of a public facility which must be provided to meet the community's basic needs and expectations. The GMA allows communities flexibility in establishing level of service standards that meet local needs and expectations. Over the past 30 years, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) has developed guidelines and standards for parks, recreation and open space. NRPA first published guidelines in 1971 and revised them in 1983 through the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, to serve as a basis for developing standards at the community level. The NRPA no longer recommends a standard for facility and park land based on population ratios; however the NRPA recommends that because every community is different, standards should be developed by the community and used as a guide in planning. The former NRPA guidelines are used throughout the United States, and Kent's 1994 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan level of service standards were developed with these standards, which represent the minimum for which a community should strive. The level of service standards established in the 1994 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and adopted by City Council remain an appropriate guideline today; however with the changing demographics of Kent, the City may want to consider establishing new standards or supplemental measures in future years. Future demand for park and recreation facilities is based on comparing projected populations with Kent's park and recreation standards. Park and recreation needs are related directly to the characteristics of a city's population. The City's population is projected to increase to 133,347 (or 133,857including all potential annexation areas) by year 2031. Table 1 shows Kent's level of service from 1993- 2003. Table 2 shows Kent's level of service for the year 2009 and projections for the year 2031. Table 2 is based on a reorganized park and open space inventory that more accurately classifies park land based on current use and investment (developed/undeveloped/athletic facilities/natural resource). While the park and open spaces are broken down differently in the two tables, the overall LOS numbers are comparable and show a steady decline in the number of acres per 1000 people and square feet per person as the population increases. Table 1: LOS 1993-2003 1993 1996 1998 2000 1 2003 Population 41,000 45,000 70,140 79,524 84,275 Park&Open Space 10-17 56 Neighborhood Parks 2.53 ac. 1.58 ac. 1 1.56 ac. 1.45 ac. 1.13 ac. 13.72 Community Parks 18.19 ac. 18.4 ac. 14 ac. ac. 14.85 ac. Golf Course holes/1000 0.56 0.6 0.38 0.38 0.32 Recreation Facilities (sq. feet/person)) 2.33 2.12 1.36 1.2 1.13 Overall LOS acres 1000 20.72 19.98 15.56 15.17 15.98 Overall LOS (sq. ft./person) 2.33 2.12 1.36 1.2 1.13 Table 2: LOS 2009 & 2031 2009 2031 Population 88 380 133 347 Natural Resource 9.2 ac. 6.5 ac. 0.92 Neighborhood Parks ac. .68 ac. 1.27 Community Parks ac. .83 ac. Recreation Facilities Indoor (sq. ft erson) 1.86 1 1.13 Outdoor acres/1000 2.8 1.9 1.05 Undeveloped ac. 0.70 ac. Overall LOS acres/1000 15.24 10.81 Overall LOS s .ft./ erson 1.86 1.13 In order to maintain the current level of service of 15.24 acres per 1000 people, the following amounts of additional park land would need to be acquired: 685 acres - 2031 pop of 133,347 693 acres - 2031 pop of 133,857 (includes potential annexation areas) It is important to note that level of service standards are typically quantitative, measuring the size, amount or capacity of a facility. These standards represent only one measure of a successful park system and do not address the quality or investment in each facility. Future LOS standards that include both qualitative and quantitative measures may more fully capture how Kent's parks and open spaces are meeting the community's needs. Neighborhood Service Areas Another tool used to determine what and where improvements need to be made is with the use of our Neighborhood Service Area Map. The City is divided into 48 neighborhood service areas that are bounded by major arterial streets, geographic features (steep topography, rivers etc.), and other barriers that would make it Park&Open Space 10-I8 57 difficult for users to reach the designated park for each area. This method breaks the city into smaller service areas where parks facilities may easily serve a specific neighborhood. Providing parks in each area allows residents to easily access a park in their neighborhood. While 24 of the areas are served by a neighborhood park, eight neighborhoods are served by community parks (Three Friends, Van Doren's Landing Park, Russell Woods, Kent Memorial Park, Russell Road, Clark Lake Park, Urban Center Parks and Wilson Playfields) that have elements typically found in a neighborhood park. Four neighborhoods have undeveloped or minimally developed community parks (132"d Street Park, West Hill, Eagle Creek, and Valley Floor Community Park), which will service neighborhood needs when fully developed. Five neighborhood service areas are primarily industrial and no neighborhood parks are proposed in these areas. Two service areas are low density residential with agricultural or industrial land uses and no designated neighborhood park. These areas have a combined population of 156 people (2000 Census) and will be monitored for future park needs. Four service areas have no park space (NSA #11, 21, 30, 41). Within the Panther Lake area, three service areas have either no park land or the parks serving the areas are deficient (NSA #4, 9, 16). The remaining service area, located entirely within the Panther Lake annexation area, is served by a community park. Neighborhood parks are needed in seven Neighborhood Service Areas which currently have no park space or are in need of additional amenities or improvements, three of which are located in the Panther Lake Area (NSA #4, 9, 11, 16, 21, 30, 41). Demographics Considerable growth and large annexations over the past 20 years has significantly increased Kent's population and the number of people our parks serve. Families make up the majority of households in Kent with more seniors and children than ever before. Kent is also rapidly becoming more diverse, with many different cultures represented in the City. As our community becomes more diverse, as it ages and families grow, the needs of the community in terms of parks and open space, change. Not only has the need for parks and open spaces increased with the population, future park investments need to also consider the increasingly diverse population and the growing numbers of seniors and children. Park Land Requirements Population forecasts indicate a need to acquire all types of park lands to maintain the City's current LOS. Urban development may encroach upon or preclude the preservation of, and public access to, the more environmentally sensitive and appealing sites. Urban development may also encroach upon or otherwise preclude the purchase and development of close-in, suitable lands for athletic fields, recreational centers, and other more land-intensive recreational facilities. Where appropriate, funding must be identified for acquisition and development of land for open space and recreational facilities. The 2010 Parks & Open Space Plan's short- Park&Open Space 10-19 58 and long-term capital recommendations identify key acquisitions and capital projects as well as potential funding sources that will help maintain the current LOS. The Capital Improvement Plan adopted annually by the City Council identifies an action plan and a balanced funding strategy. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The building of a city's parks and open spaces is largely directed by community values, priorities, and resources. Kent has worked with the community in an ongoing dialogue in order to gauge residents' parks and open space values. Over the years we have relied upon surveys, workshops, questionnaires and consultation with the Parks and Human Services Committee. Feedback has been valuable in setting priorities and allocating resources. Opportunities to take part in each stage of the planning process were advertised on the City's phone system and website, in the Kent Reporter, within utility mailings, through targeted emails, and through various postings at park facilities. Park Plan Survey A survey was taken during the spring of 2009 in order to obtain the community's ideas and opinions about the existing parks system, deficiencies, and priorities for the future. The survey was made available online at the City's website, and written surveys were available at parks facilities and distributed to neighborhood groups. A total of 631 responses were received, 45 percent of which noted that they were citizens of Kent. Due to the nature of the distribution of the survey, it is not a statistically valid survey. However, it does provide a sense of the community's desires and needs. Respondents rated trails, open space and natural areas as extremely important followed by major parks and small neighborhood parks. The top three needs expressed in the survey were a swimming facility, an off-leash dog park and park security and maintenance. Public Workshop In addition to the survey, a public workshop was held in September 2009 to further refine the areas of focus in the Park Plan and supplement the comments received through the survey. Participants were given a comment sheet with specific questions about the different elements of the plan that were presented at the meeting. Participants commented on the need to maintain our existing facilities and to make use of underutilized areas. They also expressed a desire for better connectivity between parks and throughout the City. Website Park&Open Space 10-20 59 The City's website was utilized as a tool for ongoing communication regarding the status of the update process. Survey results were posted as well as the draft Parks & Open Space Plan. Email notices were sent to interested survey participants at each milestone in the update process, inviting the public to participate and provide additional input. In order to address the community's parks and open space needs, short- and long- term recommendations and funding options are discussed in the Park and Open Space Plan. Opportunities for Regional Coordination Coordination with school districts, neighboring jurisdictions, other public agencies and private organizations is an important piece of Kent's strategy in providing a high level of service to our residents and users. Regional coordination is identified in the goals and policy section of the plan (P&OS Goals 20, 21). There are some needs that warrant a regional approach to meeting demand for specific types of parks. The trail systems (Green River & Interurban) in Kent require extensive coordination with King County and neighboring jurisdictions due to our combined interest in providing an interconnected trail system that functions as one parks facility for people throughout the region. The need for a dog park serving the east hill of Kent, Covington and unincorporated King County is another area where a regional solution would best serve park users. A regional dog park would allow resources to be pooled and prevent duplication in services where one larger facility may more effectively meet the need of several jurisdictions. Urban forest restoration is another area that would benefit from intergovernmental coordination. As Kent embarks on creating an urban forest management plan, coordination with other jurisdictions who are also implementing urban forestry programs will provide us a greater understanding of how plans have functioned in other areas. Kent will continue to explore other areas where regional coordination may better serve the residents of our City and users throughout the region. PARK AND RECREATION GOALS AND POLICIES The following goals and policies express how the City's park and open space system would best develop over the coming years and details measurable steps toward achieving these goals. Park&Open Space 10-21 60 Overall Goal: Encourage and provide opportunities for local residents to participate in life- enrichment activities via the development of park land and recreational facilities, preservation and enhancement of environmentally sensitive areas, professional programming, and the optimum utilization of community resources. I. Park&Recreation Facilities Goals&Policies Develop a high-quality, diversified recreational system for all abilities, ages and interest groups. Goal P&OS-1: Work with other agencies to preserve and increase waterfront access and facilities. Policy P&OS-1.1: Cooperate with King County, Kent, Federal Way and Highline School Districts, and other public and private agencies to acquire and preserve additional shoreline access for waterfront fishing, wading, swimming, and other related recreational activities and pursuits, especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake. Policy P&OS-1.2: Develop a mixture of opportunities for watercraft access, including canoe, kayak, sailboard, and other nonpower-boating activities, especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake, where practicable. Goal P&OS-2: Work with other public agencies and private organizations, including but not limited to the Kent and Federal Way School Districts, to develop a high-quality system of athletic facilities for competitive play. Policy P&OS-2.1: Develop athletic facilities that meet the highest quality standards and requirements for competitive playing for all abilities, age groups, skill levels, and recreational interests. Policy P&OS-2.2: Develop field and court activities like soccer, football, baseball, basketball, softball, tennis, roller hockey, and volleyball that provide for the largest number of participants, and allow for multiple use, where appropriate. Park&Open Space 10-22 61 Policy P&OS-2.3: Develop, where appropriate, a select number of facilities that provide the highest standard for competitive playing, possibly in conjunction with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other public agencies and private organizations. Goal P&OS-3: Develop, maintain, and operate a high-quality system of indoor facilities that provide activities and programs for the interests of all physical and mental capabilities, age, and interest groups in the community. Policy P&OS-3.1: Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor community centers, such as the Senior Activity Center and Kent Memorial Park Building, that provide arts and crafts, music, video, classroom instruction, meeting facilities, eating and health care, day care, and other spaces for all age groups, including preschool, youth,teens, and seniors on a year-round basis. Policy P&OS-3.2: Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor recreational centers, such as Kent Commons and the Kent-Meridian Pool, that provide aquatic, physical conditioning, gymnasiums, recreational courts, and other athletic spaces for all abilities, age groups, skill levels, and community interests on a year-round basis. Policy P&OS-3.3: Support the continued development and diversification by the Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School Districts of special meeting, assembly, eating, health, and other community facilities that provide opportunities to school-age populations and the community at large at elementary, middle, and high schools within Kent and the Potential Annexation Area. Policy P&OS-3.4: Develop and operate special indoor and outdoor cultural and performing arts facilities that enhance and expand music, dance, drama, and other audience and participatory opportunities for the community at large. Goal P&OS-4: Where appropriate, develop and operate specialized park and recreational enterprises that meet the interest of populations who are able and willing to finance them. Park&Open Space 10-23 62 Policy P&OS-4.1: Where appropriate and economically feasible (i.e., self- supporting), develop and operate specialized and special interest recreational facilities like golf, ice skating, frisbee golf, mountain biking and archery ranges. Policy P&OS-4.2: Where appropriate, initiate with other public agencies and private organizations joint planning and operating programs to determine and provide for special activities like golf, archery, gun ranges, off-leash areas, model airplane flying areas, frisbee golf, mountain biking and camping on a regional basis. Goal P&OS-5: Develop and operate a balanced system of neighborhood and community parks, with active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the City. Policy P&OS-5.1: Acquire and develop parks to meet the level-of-service needs as Kent's population grows and areas are annexed. Policy P&OS-5.2: Identify neighborhoods bordered by arterial streets and geographic features that act as natural barriers. Set aside neighborhood park land within each neighborhood to meet the levels-of-service. Policy P&OS-5.3: Develop amenities in parks for individual and group use, active and passive uses, while representing the best interests of the neighborhood or community as a whole. Policy P&OS-5.4: Encourage new single-family and multifamily residential, and commercial developments to provide recreation elements. II. Open Space and Greenway Goals&Policies Develop a high-quality, diversified and interconnected park system that preserves and sensitively enhances significant open spaces, greenways and urban forests. The establishment of greenways as urban separators is a strategy that promotes connectivity of Kent's open space system. Goal P&OS-6: Establish an open space pattern that will provide definition of and separation between developed areas, and provide open space and greenway linkages among park and recreational resources. Park&Open Space 10-24 63 Policy P&OS-6.1: Define and conserve a system of open space and greenway corridors as urban separators to provide definition between natural areas and urban land uses within the Kent area. Policy P&OS-6.2: Increase linkages of trails, in-street bikes lanes, or other existing or planned connections with greenways and open space, particularly along the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek corridors; around Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, and Lake Youngs; and around significant wetland and floodways such as the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA). Policy P&OS-6.3: Preserve and enhance, through acquisition as necessary, environmentally sensitive areas as greenway linkages and urban separators, particularly along the steep hillsides that define both sides of the Green River Valley and the SE 277th/272"d Street corridor. Goal P&OS-7: Identify and protect significant recreational lands before they are lost to development. Policy P&OS-7.1: Cooperate with other public and private agencies and with private landowners to protect land and resources near residential neighborhoods for high-quality, low impact park and recreational facilities before the most suitable sites are lost to development. Suitable sites include wooded, undeveloped, and sensitive lands along the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek Canyon corridors, and lands adjacent to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power line rights-of-way. Policy P&OS-7.2: In future land developments, preserve unique environmental features or areas, and increase public use of and access to these areas. Cooperate with other public and private agencies and with private landowners to protect unique features or areas as low impact publicly accessible resources, particularly along the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, Mill Canyon, and SE 277th/272"d Street corridors. Park&Open Space 10-25 64 III. Trail and Corridor System Goals&Policies Develop a high-quality system of multipurpose park trails and corridors that provide access to significant environmental features, public facilities, and developed neighborhoods and business districts. Goal P&OS-8: Create a comprehensive system of multipurpose off-road and on-road trail systems that link park and recreational resources with residential areas, public facilities, commercial, and employment centers both within Kent and within the region. Policy P&OS-8.1: Where appropriate, create a comprehensive system of multipurpose off-road trails using alignments of the Puget Power rights-of-way, Soos Creek Trail, Mill Creek Trail, Lake Fenwick Trail, Green River Trail, Interurban Trail, Parkside Wetlands Trail, and Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA). Policy P&OS-8.2: Create a comprehensive system of on-road trails to improve connectivity for the bicycle commuter, recreational, and touring enthusiasts using scenic, collector, and local road rights-of-way and alignments. Policy P&OS-8.3: Provide connections from residential neighborhoods to community facilities like Kent Commons, the Senior Activity Center, the Kent- Meridian Pool, schools, parks, and commercial districts. Policy P&OS-8.4: Work with Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, Des Moines, Covington, King County, and other appropriate jurisdictions to link and extend Kent trails to other community and regional trail facilities like the Green River, Interurban, and Soos Creek Trails. Policy P&OS-8.5: With proposed vacation of right-of-way and street improvement plans, consider potential connectivity with existing or proposed trail corridors, parks, and neighborhoods. Policy P&OS-8.6: Link trails with elementary and middle schools, the downtown core, and other commercial and retail activity centers on East and West Hills. Park&Open Space 10-26 65 Policy P&OS-8.7: Extend trails through natural area corridors like the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek, and around natural features like Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian and Panther Lake in order to provide a high-quality, diverse sampling of Kent's environmental resources. Policy P&OS 8.8: Revise development regulations so that key trail links, that are identified within the corridor map, are provided to the City during the development approval process. Goal P&OS-9: Furnish trail corridors, trailheads, and other supporting sites with convenient amenities and improvements. Policy P&OS-9.1: Furnish trail systems with appropriate trailhead supporting improvements that include interpretive and directory signage, rest stops, drinking fountains, restrooms, parking and loading areas, water, and other services. Policy P&OS-9.2: Where appropriate, locate trailheads at or in conjunction with park sites, schools, and other community facilities to increase local area access to the trail system and to reduce duplication of supporting improvements and amenities. Policy P&OS-9.3: Design and develop trail improvements which emphasize safety for users and are easy to maintain and easy to access by maintenance, security, and other appropriate personnel, equipment, and vehicles. IV. Historic and Cultural Resources Goals&Policies Develop a high-quality, diversified park system that includes preservation of significant historic and cultural resources, as well as programs to recognize the City's multicultural heritage. Goal P&OS-10: Preserve, enhance, and incorporate historic and cultural resources and multicultural interests into the park and recreational system. Park&Open Space 10-27 66 Policy P&OS-10.1: Identify, preserve, and enhance Kent's multicultural heritage, traditions, and cultural resources including historic sites, buildings, artwork, views, monuments and archaeological resources. Policy P&OS-10.2: Identify and incorporate significant historic and cultural resource lands, sites, artifacts, and facilities into the park system to preserve these interests and to provide a balanced social experience. These areas include the original alignment for the interurban electric rail service between Seattle and Tacoma, the James Street historical waterfront site, and the Downtown train depot, among others. Policy P&OS-10.3: Work with the Kent Historical Society and other cultural resource groups to incorporate community activities at historic homes and sites into the park and recreational program. Goal P&OS-11: Incorporate man-made environments and features into the park and recreational system. Policy P&OS-11.1: Incorporate interesting, man-made environments, structures, activities, and areas into the park system to preserve these features and to provide a balanced park and recreational experience. Examples include the earthworks in Mill Creek Canyon Park and art in public places. Policy P&OS-11.2: Work with property and facility owners to increase public access to and utilization of these special features. V. Cultural Arts Programs and Resources Goals&Policies Develop high-quality, diversified cultural arts facilities and programs that increase community awareness, attendance, and other opportunities for participation. Goal P&OS-12: Work with the arts community to utilize local resources and talents to increase public access to artwork and programs. Policy P&OS-12.1: Support successful collaborations among the Arts Commission, business community, service groups, cultural organizations, Park&Open Space 10-28 67 schools, arts patrons, and artists to utilize artistic resources and talents to the optimum degree possible. Policy P&OS-12.2: Develop strategies that will support and assist local artists and art organizations. Where appropriate, develop and support policies and programs that encourage or provide incentives to attract and retain artists and artwork within the Kent community. Goal P&OS-13: Acquire and display public artwork to furnish public facilities and other areas and thereby increase public access and appreciation. Policy P&OS-13.1: Acquire public artwork including paintings, sculptures, exhibits, and other media for indoor and outdoor display in order to expand access by residents and to furnish public places in an appropriate manner. Policy P&OS-13.2: Develop strategies that will support capital and operations funding for public artwork within parks and facilities. VI. Wildlife and Natural Preservation Goals&Policies Incorporate and preserve unique ecological features and resources into the park system in order to protect threatened plant and animal species, preserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and retain migration corridors for local fish and wildlife. Such incorporation is intended to limit habitat degradation associated with human activities. Goal P&OS-14: Designate critical fish and wildlife habitat resources and areas. Policy P&OS-14.1: Identify and conserve critical fish and wildlife habitat including nesting sites, foraging areas, and wildlife mitigation corridors within or adjacent to natural areas, open spaces, and developed urban areas. Policy P&OS-14.2: Acquire, enhance and preserve habitat sites that support threatened species and urban wildlife habitat, in priority corridors and natural areas with habitat value such as the Green River Corridor, the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), North Meridian Park, Soos Creek, Mill Creek, and Clark Lake Park. Park&Open Space 10-29 68 Policy P&OS-14.3: Enhance fish and wildlife habitat within parks, open space, and environmentally sensitive areas by maintaining a healthy urban forest with native vegetation that provides food, cover, and shelter, by utilizing best management practices. Goal P&OS-15: Preserve and provide access to significant environmental features, where such access does not cause harm to the environmental functions associated with the features. Policy P&OS-15.1: Preserve and protect significant environmental features including environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, open spaces, woodlands, shorelines, waterfronts, and other features that support wildlife and reflect Kent's natural heritage. Policy P&OS-15.2: Acquire, and where appropriate, provide limited public access to environmentally sensitive areas and sites that are especially unique to the Kent area, such as the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek and Mill Creek corridors, the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA), and the shorelines of Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, Lake Fenwick, and Clark Lake. Goal P&OS-16: Develop and maintain an Urban Forestry Management Program. Policy P&OS-16.1 Connect people to nature and improve the quality of life in Kent by restoring urban forests and other urban open spaces. Policy P&OS-16.2 Galvanize the community around urban forest restoration and stewardship through a volunteer restoration program. Policy P&OS-16.3 Improve urban forest health, and enhance urban forest long-term sustainability, by removing invasive plants and maintaining functional native forest communities. VII. Design and Access Goals&Policies Design and develop facilities that are accessible, safe, and easy to maintain, with life- cycle features that account for long-term costs and benefits. Goal P&OS-17: Park&Open Space 10-30 69 Design park and recreational indoor and outdoor facilities to be accessible to all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests. Policy P&OS-17.1: Design outdoor picnic areas, fields, courts, playgrounds, trails, parking lots, restrooms, and other active and supporting facilities to be accessible to individuals and organized groups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests. Policy P&OS-17.2: Design indoor facility spaces, activity rooms, restrooms, hallways, parking lots, and other active and supporting spaces and improvements to be accessible to individuals and organized groups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests. Goal P&OS-18: Design and develop park and recreational facilities to be of low-maintenance materials. Policy P&OS-18.1: Design and develop facilities that are of low-maintenance and high-capacity design to reduce overall facility maintenance and operation requirements and costs. Policy P&OS-18.2: Where appropriate, use low-maintenance materials, settings, or other value-engineering considerations that reduce care and security requirements, while retaining the natural conditions and environment. Policy P&OS-18.3: Where possible in landscaping parks, encourage the use of low maintenance native plants. Goal P&OS-19: Identify and implement the security and safety provisions of the American Disabilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), and other standards. Policy P&OS-19.1: Implement the provisions and requirements of the American Disabilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), and other design and development standards that will Park&Open Space 10-31 70 improve park safety and security features for users, department personnel, and the public at large. Policy P&OS-19.2: Develop and implement safety standards, procedures, and programs that will provide proper training and awareness for department personnel. Policy P&OS-19.3: Define and enforce rules and regulations concerning park activities and operations that will protect user groups, department personnel, and the public at large. Policy P&OS-19.4: Where appropriate, use adopt-a-park programs, neighborhood park watches, and other innovative programs that will increase safety and security awareness and visibility. VIII. Fiscal Coordination Goals&Policies Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating, and maintaining facilities and programs that distribute costs and benefits to public and private interests. Goal P&OS-20: Investigate innovative methods of financing park and recreational requirements, including joint ventures with other public agencies and private organizations, and private donations. Policy P&OS-20.1: Investigate innovative, available methods, such as growth impact fees, land set-a-side or fee-in-lieu-of-donation ordinances, and interlocal agreements, to finance facility development, maintenance, and operating needs in order to reduce costs, retain financial flexibility, match user benefits and interests, and increase facility services. Policy P&OS-20.2: Where feasible and desirable, consider joint ventures with King County, Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School Districts, regional, state, federal, and other public agencies and private organizations, including for-profit concessionaires to acquire and develop regional facilities (i.e., swimming pool, off-leash park, etc.). Park&Open Space 10-32 71 Policy P&OS-20.3: Maintain and support a Park Foundation to investigate grants and private funds, develop a planned giving program and solicit private donations to finance facility development, acquisition, maintenance, programs, services, and operating needs. Goal P&OS-21: Coordinate public and private resources to create among agencies a balanced local park and recreational system. Policy P&OS-21.1: Create a comprehensive, balanced park and recreational system that integrates Kent facilities and services with resources available from King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other state, federal, and private park and recreational lands and facilities, in a manner that will best serve and provide for the interests of area residents. Policy P&OS-21.2: Cooperate, via joint planning and development efforts, with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other public and private agencies to avoid duplication, improve facility quality and availability, reduce costs, and represent interests of area residents. Goal P&OS-22: Create and institute a method of cost/benefit and performance measure assessment to determine equitable park and recreation costs, levels of service, and provision of facilities. Policy P&OS-22.1: In order to effectively plan and program park and recreational needs within the existing city limits and the potential annexation area, define existing and proposed land and facility levels-of-service (LOS) that differentiate requirements due to the impacts of population growth as opposed to improvements to existing facilities, neighborhood as opposed to community nexus of benefit, requirements in the City as opposed to requirements in the Potential Annexation Area. Policy P&OS-22.2: Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating, and maintaining park and recreational facilities in manners that accurately distribute costs and benefits to public and private user interests. This includes the application of growth impact fees where new developments impact level-of-service (LOS) standards. Park&Open Space 10-33 72 Policy P&OS-22.3: Develop and operate lifetime recreational programs that serve the broadest needs of the population and that recover program and operating costs using a combination of registration fees, user fees, grants, sponsorships, donations, scholarships, volunteer efforts, and the use of general funds. S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011- 1_Co mpPlanUpdate\Chapters\Chapter)=-Parks_replaced.doc park&Open Space 10-34 73 Housing Element What you will find in this chapter: • An inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs; • A statement of goals, policies and objectives for the preservation, improvement and development of housing; • Identification of sufficient land for housing, including but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes and foster care facilities. • Adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community Purpose Statement: Encourage diverse housing opportunities that are affordable to all income levels and household needs. Purpose ON Healthy and strong E/hOrboods with// adequate supply of quality and affordable housin �./ , rb fun ental to the well-being of Kent and its residents. Beyond Limply fulffffing a bast need for shelter, adequate and affordable housing roviderly more benefits. Studies show that children in stable housing do b/tt rI schb6f4fild are less likely to experience disruptiq/n� /'/thzexr, ducaiflo,n due to moves. Living in decent, affordable house Iso provfd6s indivf/Uals and families with a sense of economic sect/ihf� and the abflity to focujs�,ron their needs. There needs to be a wide range of housing types`to make housing affordable for every household in Kent reg'ordless of inctsrne. An adequate' uppr`fa variety of housing types and prices is also important to Kent's empfoment base and its economic vitality. A mix of homes affordable to a rdhge of income levels can attract and help retain a diverse employment base in the community, support the local workforce so they can live close to their jobs, and support economic development objectives. Shorter commutes allow workers to spend more time with their families while benefitting from reductions in traffic congestion, air pollution, and expenditures on roads. The Housing Element considers the inventory and condition of existing housing stock and future housing needs. (The Kent Subsidized Housing Inventory is included in the appendix.) It addresses the provision of housing Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element(10/8/2014) Page 1 74 types to accommodate the lifestyles and economic needs of the community. The term affordable housing as used in this document refers to housing that place a cost burden on the resident regardless of household income. The City's housing policies and development regulations (zoning, building codes, etc.) establish how the development and construction of housing will take place in the community. However, unlike the other services discussed in this comprehensive plan, the City does not directly provide housing. The Housing Element sets the conditions under which the private housing industry will operate, and establishes goals and policies to meet the community's housing needs and to achieve the community's goals. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Zonin Csde provide for a variety of residential land uses to accommodate the/ any"s targets as adopted in the King County Countywide Planning Policies./T/he,"Zof'ff6g Code includes provisions for flexible lot sizes, Planned Unit D �Jbpment'inCgptives, g��'; accessory dwelling units city wide, as well as//�r/insit-oriented evelopment standards for the Midway and Downtown areas. (Graphics?) Issues DfYo raphics, tcOnomics and Special Needs' A nik of h�/ �s'a/ffordable to a range of income /0,0s, ag'os�; lifestyles and special needs- n attract and help retain a diverse employment base in the community, support the local-Workforce so they can live close to their jobs, and support economic d€�v�kbptnent objectives. Housing Stock Aging housing stock can be an important source of affordable housing for low-income families. COMMUNITY"'/CONTEXT Age distribution is an important indicator for determining the future demand for housing types in the City. Traditional assumptions are that the young adult population (20 to 34 years old) has a propensity for choosing apartments, low to moderate priced condominiums, and smaller single-family units. The adult population (35 to 65 years old) is the primary market for moderate to high-end apartments, condominiums, and larger single-family homes. This age group traditionally has higher incomes and larger household sizes. The senior population (65 years and older) generates demand for low Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 2 75 to moderate cost apartments and condominiums, group quarters, and mobile homes. Table XX Sex and Age Kent, WA Estimate SEX AND AGE Total population 124,410 Male 62,995 Female 61,415 Under 5 years 7,530 5 to 9 years 9,374 10 to 14 years 7,412 15 to 19 years 8,642 557 20 to 24 years 15,30 j 25 to 34 years 22 35 to 44 years 15,601 45 to 54 years 18,512 55 to 59 years 7,543 60 to 64 years 6,820 65 to 74 years 7,526 75 to 84 years 2,721 " 85 years and over 1,872 Median age (years) 34.3 2010-2012 American Community ey 3-Year Esftates /////�J� a DEMOGRA;PHT zx` The cj,'py s,populat"fdrf growfh"bsver the past 25 years has been primarily a result"tf annexations, but the ritimber of new housing units has also contel,6uted to population growth. The forecast for 2035 is for a twenty-nine percent Increase in the,number of households in Kent resulting in an additionaf'�(8,000 rest ddents. Significant changes include an increase in the number of f6HIy�, seholds in the city and the racial composition of the city shifting from a-tio i, lispanic white majority to a majority minority community. Over27% of the population is foreign born. A large proportion of residents living in Kent are young, middle class families that seek a variety of housing options that are affordable and located strategically to access the region. Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 3 76 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS In 2012, there were a total of 41,481 dwelling units in the city, an increase of a little over 5,000 units due primarily to the Panther Lake annexation. Kent's housing stock is comprised of approximately 50% single family and 50% multi-family housing. It should be noted that over 40% of the housing stock is more than 30 years old and may be in need of repair or rehabilitation. Poll The Midway Subarea Plan and the Downtown Subarea P� pp'n Plan both encourage transit-oriented development. The Downt�� Planned Action Ordinance proposes new SEPA threshold levels bel ' v hrch no SEPA review is required j'ist Kent will focus on preserving and enhancinging housing tCi"maintain the affordability while encouraging development of hous�ng for residet5ts at 120%+ of median income. Currently appro imate�/",,;-50% of households are paying less than 30% of their income for hoGsincq„fesulting in the more affordable housing being occupied by house hofc{i`that could afford to pay a greater percentage of their incorriv,torward housi6d'costs. This forces households with lower incomes into 6 crowding, overpayment or substandard housing. These housltfg proble re deed and shown below. fff using si gXCost Income Monthly"ousing Qj st_ Unit Needed Units Available >30% = or > $756.60. ' 0,1/�3 4668 AMI >60% / 6ff > $"f3/�0.00 4666 14270 AMI >80'1/ , , = or > $1816,0,0 � 6230 7620 AMI 100% �or > $2500A 3339 8709 AMI <120% or 5`$ 066.00 19900 6660 AMI Data Source: 2005-2009 CHAS Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 4 77 Table XX Housing Needs Summary Tables 1 . Housing Problems Households with one of the listed needs Renter I Owner 0-30% -30- -50- -80- Total 0- .30- '50- -80- Total AMI 50% 80% 100% 30% 50% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Substandard Housing-Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 60 35 55 d49 195 „0;,,. 0 30 0 30 Severely Overcrowded-With>1.51 people per room(and complete kitchen and plumbing) 145 34 15 198 15 4 0 19 Overcrowded-With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) 365 340 275 1 JL " 155 Housing costburden greaterthan 50%of income 187 (and none of the above problems) 2,555 260 402,655 57��� 595 535 170 9Housing cost burden greater than 30%of income 1,88(and none of the above problems) 560 1,899 944 3,443 110 2o, ' ,; 815 699 9 Zero/negative Income(and none of the above problems) 140 0 �z 0 149,,. 20 0 ,Q. 0 20 Data Source: 2005-2009 CHAS 2.Housing Problems(Households with one or more Housing p I :Lacks kitchen or batter uro,Overcrowding,cost burden) Rwflbi , i Owner 0-30% .30 -50I �$0�"I Total 0 30 .30- -50- -80- Total AMI 50% 80", -Z 100^k AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI AMI „ AMI AMI AMI AMI Having 1 ormore offour housing problems 3130 ,670 390 )(74,, 4294 579 655 645 205 2,084 Having none of four housing problems '1,0'7,Oz,b'�, 3,330 1,$49 8,454 195 635 1,865 1,679 4, 774 Household has negative income,but none of the other housing problems ,,,140' ,�` ;,,,,,., 0 U!�' 140 20 0 0 0 20 Data Source: 2005qPp fyJ1AS zM 3 Cost Bur ' ' 316% Renter Owner 0-30%AMI a30-50% 50-80% Total 0-30% -30-50% -50-80% Total "I AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Small RelaPe... 1,150 1,254 553 2,957 160 345 560 1,065 Large Related' 510 155 80 745 75 200 265 540 Elderly 62Q,,,, 325 40 985 253 250 270 773 Other 1,280, 695 335 2,310 190 125 330 645 Total need by income T; 60' 2,429 1,008 6,997 678 920 1,425 3,023 Data Source: 2005-2009 CHAS Overcrowding refers to a household where there are more members than habitable rooms in a home. Overcrowding falls into two groups: moderate (1.0 to 1.5 person per room) and severe (more then 1.5 persons per room). Overpayment refers to a household that pays more than 30% of household income towards housing. According to federal definitions, overpayment falls Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 5 78 into two categories: moderate (pays 30-50%) and severe (pays more than 50% of income) toward housing. Substandard Housing refers to a home with significant need to replace or repair utilities (Plumbing, electrical, heating, etc.) or make major structural repairs to roofing, walls, foundations, and other major components. Table XX j Total Households Table 0-30%HAMFI >30-50% > 0-80% ' >80-100% >100% HAMFI �/_ `HAMFI „HAW HAMFI Total Households* 5,134 4,6,T, 6,230 ,,,-, 339 Small Family Households* 1,510 ,�2fl 4 2,485 0/1 Large FamilyHouseholds* 760 ,,;,,, 470 760 ' Household contains at least one person 62-74 yearsofage 739 8;9sA;;. ;,' 715 435 1,650 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older %5,1,9 535 410 184 590 Households with one or more children 6 years old or oun er* 1,`,9,9 ,,,I„1,229 1 _1575 1 2,459 *the highest income category for these famil tXpes is>80%HAMFI Data 2005-2009 CHAS Source: HOMELESSNESS The City has recogniAid fpf rn/!,nyy+#, the impact of homelessness on the community�///4,its residd/its. Homelessness impacts individuals, families, childre�I ttii- o,utM%�Jhe rd,!sons for and causes of homeless are numerous. Natl� a� there ha5�,`been an emphasis on addressing chronic homelessness partfedlarly for single adults. �,612 saw a call from national leaders to focus on the plight of homeless veterans, particularly those returning from Iraq and Afghanist n. The recq,)nf recession has created an increasing number of homeless irti'k ent a,/// ell as in the balance of the county. Unemployment coupled with tfie,,hfo:h cost of rent, utilities and food in the region made it difficult for somia families to maintain their housing. The difficulty in determining accurate numbers rests in the fact that many families share housing, double up with grandparents, or couch surf with family and friends. An increased focus on homeless prevention, including activities such as partnerships with landlords, eviction prevention education, and funding for emergency rental assistance can help prevent homelessness. While short- term emergency and transitional housing will continue to be a necessary service for people in need in our community, prevention of homelessness is less traumatic for people in crisis and less costly for funders. Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 6 79 The recession also caused a decrease in funding levels. The decreased funding coupled with the increased need resulted in a more visual presence of the homeless particularly in urban centers. Kent, like its neighbors, saw more street homeless in the downtown area. Addressing the needs of the chronically homeless who struggle with mental health or addiction issues is difficult. Best practices, such as Housing First, are expensive programs. These types of programs offer the best results with positive long term outcomes. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Assessing income groups is a major component of valuating housing affordability. ��' According to the American Communities S fey 201� 2012, the Median household income in Kent was $55,244 p f y„ear. //TfMetropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is established by the U.S. Depaf£irte,n of Housing and Urban Development: • Very Low-Income: 50 p&cdhf,br Jess of the area MFI; • Low-Income. between 51 and 8,0-percent of fK6 area MFI; • Moderate Income: between 81 ar��- 2i�,,percent of the area MFI; • Upper-Income greater than-12 pdreent 'dt°the area MFI. The income distr ibn of fhi City of K`*nt based on 2010-2012 ACS Survey 3-Year Estimated fs presentefin Table In 2010, it is estimated that: • 13 % of the hret se olds`dar(ti€±d less than 30 /o of AMI annually; •�/� Xned 16t5 than 50% of AMI annually; 19 % ear6ad less`fhan 80% of AMI annually; ��/ 8 % earned less th6/h'100% of AMI 4... 12 % earned less than 120% of AMI • 35% percen, f households eared over 120% of AMI Table XX Household Income INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2012 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS Total households 41,854 41,854 Less than $10,000 2,470 5.9% $10,000 to $14,999 1,757 4.2% $15,000 to $24,999 4,706 11.2% $25,000 to $34,999 4,112 9.8% $35,000 to $49,999 5,815 13.9% $ 000 to 99 8,6134 19.4%0,0 581 13$5 00 o $74,9 6%$100,000 to $149,999 6,138 14.7% Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 7 80 $150,000 to $199,999 2,095 5.0% $200,000 or more 946 2.3% Median household income (dollars) 55,244 N Mean household income (dollars) 67,853 N With earnings 34,809 83.2% Mean earnings (dollars) 68,397 N With Social Security 8,814 21.1% Mean Social Security income 17,378 N dollars With retirement income 5,891 14.1% Mean retirement income (dollars) 19,937 N With Supplemental Security 2,409 5.8% Income Mean Supplemental Security 9,250 N Income dollars With cash public assistance income 2,442 5.8% Mean cash public assistance 4,262 N income dollars With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in 8,571 20.5% the past 12 months Families 27,902 27,902 Less than $10,000 1,678 6.0% $10,000 to $14,999 882 3.2% $15,000 to $24,999 2,712 9.7% $25,000 to $34,999 2,047 7.3% $35,000 to $49,999 3,640 13.0% $50,000 to $74,999 5,295 19.0% $75,000 to $99,999 4,323 15.5% $100,000 to $149,999 4,903 17.6% $150,000 to $199,999 1,684 6.0% $200,000 or more 738 2.6% Median family income (dollars) 63,523 N Mean family income (dollars) 73,640 N Per capita income (dollars) 24,206 N Nonfamily households 13,952 13,952 Median nonfamily income (dollars) 39,174 N Mean nonfamily income (dollars) 51,256 N Median earnings for workers 30,858 N dollars Median earnings for male full-time, 50,006 N ear-round workers dollars Median earnings for female full- 39,117 N time ear-round workers dollars ACS 2010-2012 Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 8 81 Goals and Policies Goal 1: Preserve and Improve Existing Housing Policy 1,1: Monitor and enforce building and property maintenance code standards in residential neighborhoods. Policy 1,2: Promote the repair, revitalization, and//� yabilitation of residential structures which have fallen into disr�r air. Policy 1,3: Promote increased awareness "phg p,rgperty owners and residents of the importance of property rr�pintenance.to long-term housing values and neighborhood quali ��� ePolicy 1,4: Provide a high quality, ,f Services/xq,,maintain tfie appearance of neighborhoods and gaality off' d of residents." Policy 1,5: Pursue compr J,aensive neigfib/,6rhood preservation strategies for portions of t - ommunity that'need reinvestment. Program 1 - Code Enforcement i�� The enforcement of e�ian;9 property`haintenance codes is a primary means to preserve housintYd"thy""quality of hYeighborhoods. The Code Enforcement Program is respo/n il le for enforcing City,prdinances affecting property maintenance, building condid'"s, and otKor housing and neighborhood issues. The Code En6 cemintP`64'at, handles approximately 65 complaints a month for these typeS' f'violations. Progr4;n, 4byd6tJve: Co6ti/flue to conduct inspections on a complaint basis thro/ygFi the City's'tode Enkicement Program Progw 2 — The Home Repair Program The Homt/Repair Program will offer homeowners the opportunity to apply for small granttto co7pleie improvement projects on their properties. The Program proV(desA/ istance for very low income households, offering grants up to $10,000 1, ow residents to address code enforcement violations, health and safety concerns and energy efficiency. The Grant Program also provides funding to residents to complete exterior and interior home repairs as well as perform architectural modifications to achieve ADA compliance or reasonable accommodation for residents with disabilities. Program Objective: Address property, structural, and energy/water conservation improvements for low income homeowners in the City. The City anticipates that 80 projects will be assisted annually based on funding availability. Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 9 82 Program 3 — Monitor and Preserve Affordable Housing The City will continue to keep an inventory of affordable housing units and promote, through the Housing and Human Services Division, the use of additional affordable housing assistance programs, as appropriate, to preserve existing affordable units that are at risk of converting to market- rate. The City will facilitate discussions between developers and local banks to meet their obligations pursuant to the Community Reinvestment Act (CCRA) providing favorable financing to developers involved in projects designed to provide lower and moderate-income housing oportunities. Additionally the City will advocate for developers interes�t� ,ih rehabilitating affordable housing units with the Housing Finance Co 'ssion and King County Housing Finance program /�, Program Objective: Housing and Human Service )staff`WJll maintain a list of affordable units throughout the City. The Ho ` g and Human Services �%0 Division will continue to pursue partnership gortunities with non-profits to preserve and expand affordable housing i e City. Program 4 — Energy Efficient Design The City will review ordinances a/nd recommend(Changes where necessary to encourage energy efficient housing do'n and pradices that are consistent with State regulations. The City pf6vidd's-Information-6n, their website and will continue to periodically update their Or li £ufe„regarding energy conservation, including solar power, en ff// y efficient insulation, and subsidies available from utility �s�h�0nies, and encourage homeowners and landlords to incorporate the eatures.,into construction and remodeling projects. When possible the/,City will erf/courage etfbrgy conservation devices including, but not limited to IiglYting, /� er,he4gr £reatments, and solar energy systems for all new an e),/Ustifi4lesiYddntial projects. The City will encourage maximum/9 of federal, State, and local government programs, includ' ���£he Kin f'Jounty Home Weatherization Program and the City of Kent Ene� y Efficiency Program thAt'are intended to help homeowners implement energy-conservation measures. As part of the Home Repair Program, outlined above, residents can apply for loans to increase the energy efficiency of their home. Program Objmpcti Maintain and distribute literature on energy conservation, 4idlu ,4hg solar power, additional insulation, and subsidies available from udiity companies, and encourage homeowners and landlords to incorporate these features into construction and remodeling projects. Encourage energy conservation devices, including but not limited to lighting, water heater treatments, and solar energy systems for all residential projects. Encourage maximum utilization of Federal, State, and local government programs, such as the King County Weatherization Program, that assist homeowners in providing energy conservation measures. Continue to provide information on grant programs available through the City and encourage residents to use the programs to implement energy efficient design. Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 10 83 Goal 2: Encourage a variety of housing types Policy2,1: Provide adequate sites and zoning to encourage and facilitate a range of housing to address the regional fair share allocation. Policy2,2: Encourage infill development and recycling of land to provide adequate residential sites. Policy 2,3: Facilitate and encourage the develop 'ent of affordable housing for seniors, large families, and other� ( £ified special housing needs. ////b� Policy 2,4r Assist private and nonpro fp,„// 6velopers in p oviding affordable housing to low-income r 'd'nts and special n66ds groups. Program 5 — Housing Opportunity Sites" jj The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element of d_,t ning Code provide for a variety of residential land uses t9/// cgommodate the City's targets as adopted in the King County Countywide P(annlng Policies. Th'o Zoning Code includes provisions for flexible lot sizes, Planned" ",hIt""Developh` nt incentives, accessory dwelling units city wide, "s we l £Yar_sit,oriented development standards for the Midway 6s�, and Downt6w "/ dbard To encourage and facilitate the developrjpsf"a variety-"C/f housing types, the City will provide information on ho�,�/'ri20 opp&tunity sites identified in the Housing Element and any additione1 ;Areas of the City to Interested developers. Program Objectn/e Staff T q,Htinue to facilitate the redevelopment of ///ll underutilized sites thf<fUrgh i, �6t1s outfiach methods to the development community p>=nvide inf6mnation to interested developers and on the City's web (iut 0'64jtial residential opportunity sites. Goal ���" Provide Housing As'sXstance Where Needed Policy se public financial resources, as feasible, to support the provision df housing for lower income households and special needs groups. Policy3,2: Provide rental assistance to address existing housing problems and provide homeownership assistance to expand housing opportunities. Policy 3,3: Support the conservation of multi-family units, government subsidized housing, and other sources of affordable housing. Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 11 84 Policy3,4: Further public-private partnerships to develop, rehabilitate and maintain affordable housing. Program 6 - Section 8 Rental Assistance The Section 8 program provides rent subsidies to very low income households who overpay for housing. Prospective renters secure housing from HUD registered apartments that accept the certificates. HUD then pays the landlords the difference between what the tenant can afford (30 percent of their income) and the payment standard negotiated fort.he community. The City's Housing and Human Services Division keeps r ;9rds on the number of households in Kent that participate in the on 8 program either through project based housing or the housin� chers. On average, there are approximately 1300 vouchers used in K�r}x"end 157 project based units. The Housing and Human Services Divisio/n Xegularly'rel=ors and provides general qualification and program ��i�� mation to interested � individuals. While the City is not directly responsible for the adm7histration of this program, staff can direct residents t "the King���nty Housing"Authority website and provide information on the program,,rt),Vhe City website. Program Objective: Continue to provide ass e to households through continued participation in the SectJ9/0 8 program and encourage rental property owners to register their unr'swith the Hotasing Authority. The Housing and Human Services Divfsr'on wifContinue C monitor the number of residents accessing the program and units �S"NS,hle for rent. Goal 4: Remove Governmental C Po!i ng Review 'development fees annually to ensure that fees and 4ctionsel } 7,Qt unduly constrain the production and maintenance of /♦lousing. Policy 4,2: Provide for streamlined, timely, and coordinated pr6d6ssing of rds)dential projects to minimize holding costs and encourage hA�ng production. Policy 4,1:'Utilize density bonuses, fee reductions, or other regulatory incentives to minimize the effect of governmental constraints. Policy4,4: Utilize the Housing Authority as a tool to provide sites and assist in the development of affordable housing. Program 7 — Remove Development Constraints City Staff will periodically review the development standards for residential zones to identify standards that may constrain the development of housing opportunities for all income levels and housing for special groups, such as Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 12 85 disabled individuals. The City of Kent is committed to working with developers to build diverse housing, which may require modifications to constraining standards. Staff will continue to, on a case by case basis, identify ways that standards can be relaxed if it is determined that such requirements are in any way impeding the development of affordable housing or housing for disabled residents. The City will also continue to provide development standard modifications, streamlined processing for applications related to the creation of housing opportunities for all income levels, and will offer fee modifications for projects proposing affordable units that are required to apply for variations to the existing developmen�standards Program Objective: On an annual basis, the City will r /�w development standards, to ensure that the development of lower in a housing can occur. %, Program 8 - Planned Unit Developments 1j/I The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process//provides developers with the opportunity to plan creative projects that a,�/g,hot constrained by fhe literal application of zoning codes. The PUD aplfGYdation pr� ss allows fof"fYexibility in site development standards and encourages inpyative and imaginative land use concepts. The standards of the base tioti'€"apply in Planned Unit Developments; however, density� tbacks, and #.pen space requirements are calculated on a project wide JadSid ;, Program Objective: Continue to encourP(ar7ned Unit Developments as a means to provide affordable housil, J ;,tofu h dr,,, p � g J,7 g 'otive land use techniques. Inform developers/p;€�0nsity inc�htiVbs under the program Program 9 - Streamline Pfrocessing The City continues t6 mon ,permit processing times to ensure the fastest possible turnaround for`"ap,plica'tf6hs,,, he City modified the application packet to simplify a,�7Itrgamlitf „the application process. The City has also been comp�� ,j�lfing p o/pbrty d8E "to provide more reliable information to the pub)jp„l6 a more cost, ffectiv0"Manner using KIVA permit software. This includes zoning, general plan, Land use, property owner information, prior plannih) cases, county assessor maps, and digital aerial photographs for each par'ceL.The City's comprehensive plan land use map and zoning districts map have af -beep rgitized using enhanced geographic information system technology. ///�i Program Objeclffire: Continue to monitor permit processing times and investigate ways to streamline the process. Continue to digitize information including building permits and the Zoning Code. Program 10 — Prioritize Housing Program Activities The City prioritizes housing program activities to address identified housing needs. Specifically, priority has been given to use of rehabilitation grant monies to maintain Kent's stable yet aging housing stock. The City uses CDBG to assist in improvements to the City's existing housing stock. The City recognizes that housing priorities shift over time as housing needs change. Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 13 86 The characteristics of the City's current housing need have been identified through the housing needs assessment, specifically the analysis of the special needs groups. Based on the needs analysis in the Housing Element, there is a need to provide affordable rental units for large families and housing for those at or above 120% of the median income. The City will also prioritize its program activities to meet the needs of other special needs groups, including extremely-low income households, and people with disabilities including developmental disabilities. Program Objective: Identify housing needs and prioritize housing program activities to meet those needs through annual updates to t e City's Consolidated Plan. j Program 11 - Planning and Development Fees //ii�. The City conducts annual internal reviews of planr�,lnf�arYc(�,development fees to ensure that the fees are not excessive and �;rkappropriete,to cover the cost of services provided. Kent also streamlipr,the permitting'-process for residential projects, to minimize the hold i and labor costs assUrSted by the project applicant. Iiio Program Objective: Continue to conduct 6iinu��/Jpviews of planning and development fees. Goal 5: Promote Equal Housing OpportdnitiSiY`" Policy 5.1: Encourage the us(e.of//ier-fr'ee architecture in new housing devel� rr���ts. Program 12 - R ��able Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities Pursuant to the Wa!�hingtori�i y yy 1�gainst f7escrimination, RCW 49.60.030, the City of Kent is obligato'd to eern tial and actual governmental constraints,ut5Jin the mdlifftenance, improvement, or development of housing for all)�, (�fiie IeveJ and fci' persons with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act, as � £Yfded in 198%,-Irequiretthat cities and counties provide reasonable accordPnodation to rulot, policies, practices, and procedures where such accommodation may l5ii necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal housing opportunities.,�Reasonable accommodation provides a basis for residents with'disa�if��ies to request flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regtflat, ns or, in some instances, even a waiver from the local government of certain restrictions or requirements to ensure equal access to housing opportunities. Cities and counties are required to consider requests for accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be "reasonable" based on fair housing laws and case law interpreting the statutes. The City of Kent encourages and promotes accessible housing for persons with disabilities. This includes the retrofitting of existing dwelling units and enforcement of the State accessibility standards for new residential construction. The City is committed to assisting residents in need of reasonable accommodation and offers financial assistance though the Home Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 14 87 Repair Program, and will continue to direct eligible residents to apply for ADA services. Applicants can apply for grants to complete improvement projects that remove constraints to their living facilities. In general, City Staff takes into account the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the review and approval of housing projects and grants modifications and deviations from the Municipal Code to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. Program Objective: Administer the Home Repair Progra /_to assist disabled „ households with architectural modifications to their homnd continue to implement the provisions of the Americans with Disabi s Act (ADA). A ;� Related Information 201�5 2Q1 �'�onsolidatedfp for Com Sty Development 7� /, HumaTVServicj Master Plan Subsidized� �/Yfid Assisted Living Housing j, Inventory S:APermitVPlanACOMP_PWN AM`F#fYM(=NY \2{FllVCPA 2011+6' PZ-2011- 1—CompPlanUpdateAChapters/ I ter ID H601 in�102714 ia& Kent Comprehensive Plan- Housing Element- (10/8/2014) Page 15 88 89 Comment[cl]:This Element is being CHAPTER SIX replaced in its entirety. HOUSING ELEMENT The Housing Element is perhaps the most personal component of the Comprehensive Plan; it concerns the immediate environment, in which residents live and raise their families. The primary goal of the Housing Element is to meet the current and future need for housing in the Kent area. The ability to obtain affordable housing is essential to a stable,healthy, and thriving community. Most housing is not built by cities, but by the private sector. However, cities and other entities, such as lending institutions, do impact the supply and affordability of housing. This element focuses on the housing supply and affordability factors that the City can either control or influence. Requirements of the Growth Management Act In addition to helping to create a thriving community, the housing element was developed to reflect current conditions, Washington State's Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA), and GMA-mandated Countywide Planning Policies. Before the GMA, the issues that a city addressed in its optional Housing Element were determined by the city. Since the GMA, the Housing Element is a required element of the Comprehensive Plan. The GMA requires that it include an inventory and analysis of the City's existing and projected housing needs; an identification of sufficient land for a diverse range of needed housing; and goals,policies, and objectives for the preservation,improvement,and development of housing. The Countywide Planning Policies refine the requirements of the GMA. They also require cities to set specific targets for the number of housing units needed by each income group now and in the future. Furthermore, the City must demonstrate how it will meet the housing needs of its residents, especially of its low and moderate-income residents. For more information on the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, see the Framework Policies chapter and the supporting documents of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Element 6-1 90 HOUSEHOLDS AND POPULATION TRENDS Within Kent there are diverse incomes, ages, and household types. The amount and type of housing desired by our residents continues to change, reflecting the changing demographic make up of the City. Kent's housing stock must accommodate the various types and costs of housing needed by all its community members. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) has projected an increase of up to 12,847 households in Kent's Planning Area from 2000 to the year 2020,for a total of 52,430 households or 124,903 people. While this may seem like a large increase in population, it is less than half the rate of the City's growth during the last decade. Much of that growth was due to annexations, although considerable construction accounts for the remaining growth during the 1990's. As coordinated with a Buildable Lands and Target subcommittee, Kent's target for households for the next 20 years is 4,284 for the City limits and 619 for Kent's designated annexation area. As of 2002,Kent has the capacity to accommodate 7,416 households as long as we continue to utilize efficiently available land area. The size and structure of the family unit is also a determinant in the type of housing needed and desired. There was a substantial increase in the number of large family households between 1990 and 2000. Family households with five (5) or more members grew by almost 200% to 3,144 households. In 1990 large households represented just 7% of total households, and by 2000 this had increased to 10%. While this is not a tremendous difference, it does help account for the increase in average household size from 2.33 in 1990 to 2.53 in the year 2000. Table 6.1 demonstrates the changes in Kent families over the past decade. Housing Element 6-2 91 Table 6.1 HOUSEHOLDS 1990 AND 2000 Type of Household 1990 2000 Change Single 5,002 8,871 77.3% Elderly(65+) 847 1,804 113.0% Family 9,499 19,591 106.2% Small(2-4 people) 8,450 16,447 94.5% Large(5+people) 1,049 3,144 199.7% Non-family 1,745 2,651 51.9% Small(2-4 people) 1,732 2,602 50.2% Large(5+people) 13 49 276.9% Total Number 16,246 31,113 91.5% Average household size 2.33 2.53 Source: US Census To provide sufficient housing for all income groups requires a diversity of housing types and locations. A diverse housing stock would not only increase housing options, but it also would accommodate Kent's changing types of households; single parents head 27% percent of family households in Kent. Single parent families need affordable housing located near essential services and accessible transportation. Almost two-thirds of households in Kent(63%)were family households in 2000. Most of the non-family households (households without children)were people living alone. Of those, 16% were seniors. Age is an important indicator of housing need. Kent's population includes 55% who are under thirty-five (35)years of age; over half of this group is under twenty(20)years old.Individuals between twenty-five(25)and thirty-four(34)years of age are our new workers and potential fast-time homeowners. To keep and attract young families and individuals to the Kent community,it is important to provide entry level homes. Housing Element 6-3 92 HOUSING COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY Kent is attractive to people looking for affordable housing in King County. Based on the 2000 Census,the median value of an owner-occupied unit in Kent was$178,000,25%lower than the average value in King County(see Table 6.2). The median value is based on all owner occupied units, including single-family attached homes and condominiums. However, while sales prices are substantially lower than in King County,rental costs are only slightly lower. Table 6.2 2000 HOUSING COSTS King Type of Cost Washington County Kent Median value $168,300 $236,900 $178,000 owner-occupied Median owner costs With mortgage $1,268 $1,508 $1,344 Not mortgaged $338 $418 $383 Median gross rent $663 $758 $724 Source: 2000 US Census Based on"The 2001 King County Annual Growth Report",the average sales price for a single- family home,excluding condominiums,in South King County in 2000 was$208,000. This was the lowest of all regions in the County and one-third lower than the King County average sales price of$315,000. The disparity in gross rent paid between King County and Kent is not as pronounced as sales prices of single family homes and median value of owner-occupied units. The median gross rent in Kent was $724 in 2000,just slightly lower than the median gross rent in all of King County. The median rent paid in Kent rose by 58%from$458 in 1990 to$724 per month as of the 2000 census. There are many land uses that can facilitate affordable and desired home ownership opportunities: smaller lot sizes, attached single-family housing, townhouses, cluster housing, Planned Unit Developments (PUD), manufactured housing, cottage housing and accessory dwelling units associated with existing single-family housing. Most of the land use techniques Housing Element 6-4 93 mentioned above primarily assist moderate and higher-income households. Families and individuals working entry level jobs require additional assistance to purchase a home, including but not limited to; down payment assistance; home ownership education classes; and creative financing. Other segments of our community often cannot or do not want to buy a house. This may include the 25% of households (7,764) who are earning less than 50% of the King County median income(less than$26,578 per year)which includes seniors, and single-female heads of household (12.8% of all households). While the provision of sufficient and affordable home ownership opportunities is critical, it is also important to provide a diverse range of rental opportunities. One such rental opportunity is accessory housing. Accessory housing integrates affordable rental housing into our existing communities. At the same time, it increases the affordability of homes that have an accessory unit, especially for young families and seniors. However, accessory housing is typically only a small part of a City's total rental stock. Some other desirable rental options are duplexes, triplexes, small-scale apartments, single-room- occupancy housing,and boarding houses. Household Income Understanding the distribution of household income in Kent is a vital step in planning for its housing needs. A households income dictates its housing decisions and opportunities. Income groups typically are defined as follows: Income Range Percentage of County Median Income Very Low 0 to 30% Low 30 to 50% Moderate 50 to 80% Middle 80 to 120% Upper 120% King County's 1999 median income for all households,regardless of the number of people per household, was $53,157. Kent's median income based on 1999 income was $46,046. KenPs 2000 income breakdown is pictured in the chart below. As the chart indicates, KenPs income groups are distributed in a 50:50 split between middle-income and above, and moderate-income and below. It should be noted that the data in Table 6.3 are 1999 income data collected in the 2000 Census. In 1999, Puget Sound was in a strong economic period and the recent 2002 downturn in the economy has undoubtedly lowered the incomes of many families in Kent. Housing Element 6-5 94 Table 6.3 HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME LEVEL Total Households: 31,113 Less than$10,000 2,300 $10,000 to$14,999 1,404 $15,000 to$19,999 1,730 $20,000 to$24,999 1,830 $25,000 to$29,999 1,966 $30,000 to$34,999 2,132 $35,000 to$39,999 1,983 $40,000 to$44,999 1,723 $45,000 to$49,999 1,889 $50,000 to$59,999 3,426 $60,000 to$74,999 4,004 $75,000 to$99,999 3,415 $100,000 to$124,999 1,616 $125,000 to$149,999 795 $150,000 to$199,999 560 $200,000 or more 280 U.S.Census Bureau Census 2000 The income level of a household is determined by the number of people in the household as well as by its annual income. Ahousehold,whose gross yearly income is $26,026 or$12.50 an hour, is a low-income household. The household projections made in this element assume a distribution of income groups proportionate to what existed in 2000. (For more information on income and employment wages and trends,please refer to the Kent Community Profile chapter of the Comprehensive Plan). The sections in this element on housing costs and housing needs discuss how income impacts a household's housing choices and needs. HOUSEHOLD TYPES AND AFFORDABILITY Kent has seen a significant increase in number of households, reflecting the increase in population in the last decade. In 1990 there were 16,246 households. By 2000 this number had grown by 92% to 31,113 households. The total population grew by almost 110% during the Housing Element 6-6 95 same period, which resulted in a larger average household size in 2000 (approximately 2.7 persons per households)than in 1990(approximately 2.5 persons per household). To provide sufficient housing for all income groups requires a diversity of housing types and locations. A diverse housing stock would not only increase housing options, but it also would accommodate Kent's changing types of households. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of family households m Kent are headed by single-parents, male or female. Single parent families need affordable housing located near essential services and accessible transportation. Housing Affordability Affordable housing applies to a wide range of housing types and costs that will meet the need of the diverse community in Kent. The marketplace is currently meeting the housing needs of upper and middle-income households. However the availability of housing for low and moderate income and special needs households should be increased. The definition of affordable housing is the following: Adequate, appropriate shelter, costing no more, including utilities, than 30196 of the household' gross monthly income. This applies to the whole community regardless of income. Affordable housing should in all cases be safe and adequate. This also assumes individuals and families have options when selecting housing. As Figure 6.1 shows, 30% of Kent residents living in owner occupied housing and almost 40% of renters are paying in excess of 30% of their income for housing costs. Affordability is a relative term. The median household income (based on a household of 4 people) for FY2002 in King County, established by HUD, is $77,900. Households with incomes at 120% of median, or approximately $93,000 a year, would be able to afford considerably more and have far more options than households whose incomes are below the median. Housing Element 6-7 96 Figure 6.1 2000 HOUSING COST BURDEN Costs of 30% or More of Income 39.10% 38.50% 39.30% 40.00% ' '''.25.70°/a 27.10% 30.00% \� 20.00% \\ \\ 10.00% \\\ \\\ \\ 0.00% Washington King County Kent Owner a Renter Factors in the Cost of Housing The cost of housing is influenced by land costs, construction costs, financing costs,regulations, permits,and fees. The banking industry's requirement that land cost shall be only 25 to 30%of the value of a home is dramatically impacting the size of homes, and thus the cost of housing. Rising land costs are driving the market toward large, upper-end housing. In order to survive, developers must pass on the higher costs of these large houses by charging higher prices to buyers. This free-market rule also applies to developers of nonprofit housing. The trend can be counteracted somewhat by allowing smaller lots and higher densities, so that an acceptable ratio of land to housing value can be met with smaller houses. For non-single- family housing,the same financing requirements affect the eventual rents. Reducing the amount of land required for the same-sized development will provide more affordable housing. Design guidelines are the key to easily and pleasantly integrating this housing into the community. In addition, cities can ensure that their permit process, development regulations, and other housing-related regulations and fees do not unjustifiably impact housing costs and supply. Kent has been working actively on reducing these impacts and will continue to do so in the future. Housing Element 6-8 97 MEETING THE NEED The City of Kent should have adequate housing available to meet the need of its diverse community. The City is working toward achieving the housing targets established in coordination with the King County Growth Management Planning Council and adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. Kent's housing target for 2001 - 2022 is 4,284, with an additional 619 targeted for Kent's designated annexation area. The targets for new housing in Kent are 20%for low-income household and 17%for moderate-income households. The supply of vacant, developable land in the City is diminishing, resulting in the need to explore innovative methods to maintain housing affordability. While the production of new units is important, we also need to concentrate on preserving the existing housing stock. By maintaining housing in good repair and allowing flexibility in rehabilitation and adaptations, Kent can obtain an integrated housing supply in a cost-effective manner. Home Ownership There are various ways the City can promote home ownership opportunities. For example,the City can do so by enacting effective land use regulations to allow townhouses, attached single- family housing, cottage housing, smaller lot sizes,manufactured housing on single-family lots, and accessory housing. Providing incentives such as density bonuses or direct financial assistance, may encourage developers to fully utilize these land use regulations to provide lower-cost housing. Another way to encourage home ownership is to educate potential home owners and lending institutions on the financial assistance that is available. Rental Opportunities A diversity of rental housing is needed to meet the varied needs of KenPs population. Some examples are apartments and duplexes for families, accessory housing, single-room-occupancy hotels,boarding homes, and caretaker apartments. The City of Kent has developed regulations allowing for accessory housing units,meeting the State Housing Policy Act, SB 5584. Housing Element 6-9 98 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES Forging New Partnerships and Regional Initiatives Providing housing requires a team approach,both regionally and locally. Partnerships must be forged among developers,bankers,nonprofit agencies,governmental bodies,employers,and the business community. Our existing system does not provide adequate housing. We need to develop affordable housing,new and expanded funding sources, and innovative solutions if we are to provide housing which meets the need of all of our households. The following goals and policies will guide Kent in accomplishing that goal. REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS GOALS&POLICIES Goal H-1: Actively participate in regional responses to affordable housing development needs and issues. Policy H-Ll: Participate in and promote the development of countywide resources, funding, and programs to assist low and moderate-income households in obtaining affordable and appropriate housing. Policy H-1.2: Work in cooperation with other jurisdictions to ensure an equitable and rational distribution of affordable housing to all income groups throughout the county. Policy H-1.3: Improve coordination among the county, other jurisdictions, housing providers, service providers, and the financial community to identify, promote, and implement local and regional strategies to increase housing opportunities for people with special needs. Integrated Community To ensure a strong sense of community,housing must be integrated into the fabric of the City's community. Appropriate types of housing in sufficient amounts must be available to meet the needs of the Community's broad range of household types, incomes, and ages. The City's primary role is to protect neighborhoods from activities or uses that are incompatible with a residential area. The use of development regulations and other City codes minimizes the impact of non-residential uses and other activities that could negatively impact a neighborhood. Housing Element 6-10 99 INTERGRATED AND HEALTH COMMUNITY GOALS&POLICIES Goal H-2: Promote the organization and enhancement of neighborhoods, and provide the opportunity for comfortable and well-maintained housingfor all citizens. Policy H-2.1: Preserve and enhance the integrity and quality of existing residential neighborhoods. Policy H-2.2: Support housing with appropriate amenities for individuals,families and children. Policy H-2.3: Provide an appropriate mix of housing styles and choices, allowing for different types of housingfrom neighborhood to neighborhood. Policy H-2.4: Support the development of housing near transportation hubs and employment centers. Policy H-2.5: Require developments to provide their fair share of on-site and off-site improvements needed as a result of the development Policy H-2.6: Continue to permit home businesses that do not change the primary residential character of the neighborhood, do not involve hazardous materials, and do not cause traffic problems. Policy H-2.7: Continue to utilize regulatory measures to control impacts of residential development on the environment and on water quality. Review these regulations periodically to assess their overall effectiveness and their impact on housing cost and supply. Policy H-2.8: Preserve and maintain buildings of historical significance to enhance neighborhood character. QUALITY DESIGN GOALS& POLICIES Goal H-3: Promote quality design that harmonizes with existing neighborhoods for new development and rehabilitation efforts. Policy H-3.1: Promote diversity in style and cost by allowing innovative mixtures of housing types and creative approaches to housing design and development Policy H-3.2: Assist in and promote the development of innovative and affordable demonstration housing projects by exploring alternative design, land development, and construction techniques. Housing Element 6-11 100 EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY AWARENESS GOALS&POLICIES Goal H-4: Actively promote community awareness and education regarding available housing resources and needs, as well as populations that require housing assistance. Policy 114.1: Promote education and guidance of low and moderate-income households on financing assistance, home purchasing techniques, and assistance in locating affordable rentals. Policy H-4.2: Help create and participate in a local and/or regional resource, education, and lobbying center on housing data, housing programs, design alternatives, and funding sources. Policy H-4.3: Sponsor and/or promote educational campaigns on low-income and special needs housing in order to engender acceptance throughout the community. Housing Stock Composition The housing that is available to the households and workers in Kent's Planning Area is approximately 58:42 single-family to multi-family As of the 2000 Census,the Kent's Planning Area has approximately 39,583 housing units. Included in the single-family housing count are mobile homes and owner occupied condominiums. There are 2,171 condominiums in Kent Planning Area. Mobile homes provide one of the most affordable home ownership opportunities available to low and moderate-income families. Kent has 1,369 mobile homes within the city limits, which equals almost 4% of our housing stock. There are approximately 600 additional mobile homes in Kent's designated annexation area. HOUSING NEEDS GOALS&POLICIES Goal H-5: Increase housing opportunities through a diversity of housing types and the innovative use of residential and commercial land. Policy H-5.1: Expand the range of affordable housing choices available to meet the needs of both currentKent residents and residents projected in growth estimates. Policy H-5.2: Provide a sufficient amount of land zoned for current and projected residential needs including, but not limited to, assisted housing, housing for low-income households, single family housing, small lot sizes, townhouses, multi family housing, manufactured housing,group homes, and foster care facilities. Policy H-5.3: Promote diversity of housing types affordable to a range of income levels and cultural/ethnic diversity. Housing Element 6-12 101 Policy H-5.4: Encourage housing opportunities including affordable housing in mixed residential/commercial settings throughout the City. Policy H-5.5: Encourage housing development in the downtown area including innovative, affordable housing. Preservation While the production of new units is important, we also need to concentrate on preserving the existing housing stock. By maintaining housing in good repair and allowing flexibility in rehabilitation and adaptations,Kent can obtain an integrated housing supply in a cost-effective manner. By these efforts,many people who would otherwise be forced to leave their dilapidated or oversized housing could remain in their housing and in the community. AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS&POLICIES Goal H-6: Explore a variety of opportunities to encourage housing affordable to low and moderate-income households through home ownership. Policy H-6.1: Involve the public and private sectors in the development and provision of affordable housing. Policy H-6.2: Provide incentives and develop partnerships with nonprofit and for profit developers to build permanent low and moderate income housing. Policy H-6.3: Explore all available options for financing affordable housing including federal,state and local programs and private options. Policy H-6.4: Encourage the development of long term management strategies for affordable housing in cooperation with community based nonprofit housing organizations. Policy H-6.5: Provide incentives and work in partnership with nonprofit and private developers to build affordable housing, to subsidize low income housing, and to implement housing policies. Policy H-6.6: Work with local lenders to increase their assistance to first-time home buyers, including financial assistance with down payments and closing costs. Housing Element 6-13 102 Policy H-6.7: Encourage limited-equity cooperatives, lease-purchase ownership programs, self-help housing, and other ownership models to expand home ownership Options. Policy H-6.8: Provide density bonuses, transfer of development rights and other incentives for the development of rental and purchase housing affordable to low and moderate-income households. This housing can either be included in a market rate project or the entire development can be dedicated to low and/or moderate-income households. Include a longevity clause in the incentives. Policy H-6.9: Explore creating local and regional funding sources to expand housing opportunities for lower-income households in the community. Examples include a trust fund,mortgage revenue bonds,and/or levies. Policy H-6.10: Explore exempting payment of impact fees and/or expediting plan review for housing units that will serve low and moderate-income households. Policy H-6.11: Where feasible,provide relocation assistance to low-income households, as outlined in the GMA. Goal H-7: Encourage flexibility and innovative site and building design for a variety of housing developments to expand home ownership. Policy H-7.1: Encourage affordable housing is dispersed throughout the City and not concentrated in specific areas. Policy H-7.2: Review and revise building code requirements as needed to remove constraints on rehabilitation, on legalization of existing accessory units, and on historic preservation so that usable structures can be rehabilitated to an appropriate level of safety and habitability. Policy H-7.3: Use zoning and building codes to encourage home ownership opportunities. Policy H-7.4: Maintain a strong code enforcement program. Policy H-7.5: Revise zoning and development standards to provide options that increase the supply of affordable home ownership opportunities, such as small lot sizes, zero lot lines, manufactured housing, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, cottage and attached single family housing. Policy H-7.6: Refine the accessory housing ordinance as a means to increase the supply of housing units and to help people remain in their housing. Housing Element 6-14 103 Policy H-7.7: In order to provide lower-income rentals, encourage development of housing units that have shared facilities, such as single-room-occupancy hotels, residential units in mixed-use buildings,and boarding homes. Goal H-8: Encourage the preservation, maintenance, and improvement of existing affordable housing. Policy H-8.1: Continue to sponsor a housing repair program and to promote educational and outreach efforts regarding home maintenance and rehabilitation. Policy H-8.2: Encourage preservation and maintenance ofmixed-use buildings that are historically significant Goal H-9: Encourage high-quality site and building design for all residential development Policy H-9.1: Ensure that affordable housing development is consistent with housing quality standards. Policy H-9.2: Permit accessory units in all residential zones providing design criteria and development code requirements are met Special Needs Populations Some Kent residents have special housing needs. Special needs populations include: • Assisted living facilities for seniors and the disabled; • Group Homes; • Emergency Shelters; • Transitional Housing; • Domestic Violence Shelters; • Domestic Violence Transition Housing; • Clean and Sober Housing;and • Residential Treatment Facilities for individuals with substance abuse and mental health issues. The City encourages efforts to provide for those needs. The combination of housing and support services is essential to helping people live independently and productively in our community. A key factor in ensuring an adequate supply of special needs housing is to work to eliminate any codes or regulations that may act as barriers to its provision. To ensure that housing is accessible to everyone in our community, the City should encourage that a variety of housing choices is available,distributed,and integrated into the community. Housing Element 6-15 104 SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING GOALS&POLICIES Goal H-10: Assure that the full range of special needs populations are provided with sufficient, appropriate, accessible,and affordable housing and services throughout our community. Policy H-10.1: Remove unreasonable barriers to siting and operating housing for those with special needs, including, but not limited to emergency and transitional housing. In addition, periodically update the Kent Zoning Code and other development regulations to reflect new types ofspecial needs housing. Policy H-10.2: Improve coordination among the County, other jurisdictions, housing providers, service providers, and the financial community to identify, promote, and implement local and regional strategies to increase housing opportunities for people with special needs. Low-Income Housing Housing affordability is an issue for low-income households. Low-income individuals and families may earn too much to qualify for subsidized housing but not enough to afford decent adequate housing. Almost 25%of Kents households earn 50%or less of King County's median income. In 2000, a household who earned 50% of the median income made $26,578 a year ($12.79 an hour). Given their inability to purchase a house, lower-income residents tend to depend upon rentals as their primary source of housing. The transience nature of this population group could be reduced dramatically if affordable housing were available and located close to services and appropriate employment. For these households, a variety of land use techniques are needed to provide rental and home ownership opportunities. Low-income households require methods to reduce the cost of housing production, to acquire down payments, and to increase direct subsidies of housing development. More financial resources are necessary for Kent to ensure that an adequate number and adequate types of affordable housing units are provided to each income group. Currently the only resources Kent has to develop housing are various Federal and State funding sources such as Community Development Block Grant(CDBG), the Federal HOME program, and the State's Housing Opportunity Fund(HOF). The City of Kent has become an entitlement city,receiving its CDBG allocation directly from HUD. Goals and strategies to address affordable housing for low and moderate-income residents are outlined in the City of Kent Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. In 1990,Kent citizens approved a local bond measure to construct Harrison House, a 94-unit housing development for low and moderate-income seniors. Kent also actively participates in a regional process to distribute the other housing Housing Element 6-16 105 funds throughout the county. There are other funding sources available to housing developers, but none of which the City has any direct influence. Kent has benefited from a full range of funding sources that have resulted in approximately 1,750 units of assisted housing(not including Section 8 vouchers and certificates)in Kent This housing is located throughout the community. Some of the units are scattered in single-family housing, others are in developments in which all the units are assisted, and others are in developments where only 5 or 10%of the units are assisted. The sources of these assisted units range from Federal, State, County, and local governments to various private sources. Active lobbying is needed to replace disappearing funding sources,to enhance existing funding,and to obtain new funding sources. HOUSING RESOURCES&ASSISTED HOUSING GOALS&POLICIES Goal H-11: Provide opportunities for extremely law through moderate- income households to obtain affordable housing. Policy H-1L1: Explore creating local and regional funding sources to expand housing opportunities for lower-income households in the community. Policy H-11.2 Encourage the development of housing that provides rent restricted, below market rate rentals or ownership housing opportunities. Policy H-11.3 Encourage the improvement of existing manufactured and mobile home parks. Policy H-11.4: Participate in relocation assistance to low-income households whose housing may be displaced by condemnation or City initiated code enforcement Fair Housing The intent of fairness in housing is to encourage freedom of choice in the sale or rental of dwellings. Fair-housing rights are established through both State and Federal laws. The private and public sector housing agencies are very familiar with these principles as they apply to buyer/seller of landlord/tenant relationships. Discrimination based on race, color, age, sex, religion,national origin,familial status and disability are prohibited. Additionally,special needs populations are guaranteed fairness in housing. Housing Element 6-17 106 FAIRNESS IN HOUSING GOALS&POLICIES Goal H-12: Ensure fair and equal access to housing in Kentfor all persons. Policy H-12.1: Ensure fair housing provisions that are consistent with the Federal Fair HousingAct Policy H-12.2: Review existing and proposed City policies and regulations to ensure compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the American Disabilities Act(ADA), and related legislation, and to remove regulatory barriers, redundancies, and inconsistencies. s wermgvien\cdnrP Pu rEv N� \2011\c A2011-3 c Z20111_c n. PienUpv^ \a pwn\arp6 r srirgcfe. nc pleceddm Housing Element 6-18 107 Executive Summary ES-05 Executive Summary - 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1. Introduction The Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development is a report which informs the community, stakeholders and the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) how the City of Kent(hereinafter referred to as "the City') will invest its Community Development Block Grant from 2015-201p. The report also identifies the objectives and strategies that will guide the City's investment. Objectives and strategies are fueled by the City's overarching goal to build a healthy community. 2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan The outcomes and objectives are as follows: • Accessibility to decent housing • Accessibility to a suitable living environment • Accessibility to economic opportunities To accomplish these outcomes and objectives,the City invests in programs that meet community basics, increase self-reliance, strengthen children and families, and build a safer community.[1] 3. Evaluation of past performance In 2013,the City realized significant gains on its investments and improved the lives of many Kent residents.[1] Outcomes were as follows: Accessibility to decent housing • 111 households received home repair assistance • 53 persons received transitional housing and case management • 5 individuals received shelter Accessibility to suitable living environment • 147 persons received financial assistance and case management for housing • 14 persons received medical services Consolidated Plan KENT 1 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 108 • 628 persons received culturally responsive food Accessibility to economic opportunities • 15 persons enrolled in micro-enterprise business training classes • 13 new micro-enterprise businesses were created or developed [1]Data from 2013 was the most current data available when this document was drafted. 4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process The City of Kent, Division of Housing and Human Services, consulted with intercity departments, government agencies, public and private agencies, mental health organizations, the local housing authority,organizations serving persons with HIV/AIDS, agencies serving people with disabilities, refugee and immigrant organizations,organizations working with seniors, faith-based institutions,the business community, Department of Social and Health Services, and foundations. The City published a draft Consolidated Plan and Notice of Public Hearing on the City of Kent website. A public hearing was held on October 16, 2014. 5. Summary of public comments 6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them 7. Summary In summary, Kent residents, stakeholders,service providers and others consulted during the citizen participation process support the outcomes and objectives of the Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. The remainder of this report will provide details on how the City proposes to prioritize its investment. Consolidated Plan KENT 2 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 109 The Process PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies - 91.200(b) 1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Agency Role Name Department/Agency Lead Agency KENT CDBG Administrator HOPWA Administrator HOME Administrator HOPWA-C Administrator Table 1—Responsible Agencies Narrative The City of Kent, Housing and Human Services Division, is the lead agency for the CDBG Program. Katherin Johnson, Housing and Human Services Manager, is the program administrator. Dinah Wilson, CDBG Coordinator, is the primary staff responsible for the day to day implementation of the program. The City also worked closely with the King County Housing Authority(KCHA), which manages over 3,000 units of housing, including 546 public housing units in Kent. KCHA also provides Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers to another 1,321 low/moderate income households in the City[1]. KCHA gives preference for housing to families with children, seniors or disabled persons. Detailed information about KCHA is provided in the Public Housing sections of this document. In addition,several non-profit agencies are responsible for administering programs funded by CDBG and were consulted during the development of the Consolidated Plan. These agencies are listed in the Annual Action Plan section of this document. [1]KCHA data base for addresses of Section 8 Vouchers located in one of the three primary zip codes in the City (98030, 98031, and 98032). Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information Katherin Johnson Housing and Human Services Manager Consolidated Plan KENT 3 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 110 City of Kent 220 4th Ave S Kent, WA 98032 253.856.5070 kjohnson@kentwa.gov Consolidated Plan KENT 4 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 111 PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(I) 1. Introduction The City of Kent consulted with multiple entities, including South King County cities (the cities of Auburn and Federal Way are the two other entitlement cities in South County), the King County Housing Authority, King County Department of Community and Human Services, nonprofit agencies delivering services in Kent and the sub-region and Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. The City of Kent carries out homeless planning and coordination as a regional issue. Kent works with the Committee to End Homelessness, King County, cities, mainstream systems,Safe Harbors, housing funders, community agencies, United Way, the private sector(including businesses), and homeless people. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(1)). Kent Housing and Human Services Division meets regularly with other King County jurisdictions, public housing authorities and State Departments to develop strategies and implement plans to improve the quality of service and access for low-income residents in the city and throughout the region. Additionally,the City participates in quarterly meetings with King County staff, including the Public Health Seattle/King County, to review implementation and delivery of services funded through regional efforts.The City will continue to participate in the Committee to End Homelessness,funding review panels for Continuum of Care (CoC), Emergency Shelter Grant and McKinney funding. In 2012,the Coordinated Entry program was launched providing a single point of entry for homeless families. Housing providers, funders and government agencies provide support to this program. Kent staff participates on the advisory board for the project. Unless there is a legitimate reason not to participate, housing providers contracting with the city must participate in Coordinated Entry and Safe Harbors, the Seattle/King County Homeless Information Management System (HMIS) program. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth)and persons at risk of homelessness McKinney Continuum of Care-Supportive Housing Program (SHP) SHP funds support transitional housing and related supportive services for people moving from homelessness to independent living, as well as permanent supportive housing for persons with disabilities. McKinney SHP funds are competitive federal dollars through the U.S. Department of Housing Consolidated Plan KENT 5 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 112 and Urban Development(HUD). A Consolidated Application for SHP funds is submitted to HUD each year by the Seattle - King County CoC,which includes Seattle,all suburban communities,and King County. McKinney funding is critical to our region's implementation of the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County.These funds help homeless persons meet three goals: • Achieve residential stability • Increase their skill levels and/or incomes • Strengthen their ability to influence decisions that affect their lives Since 1995, the City of Seattle and King County have applied for these funds on behalf of a regional consortium of service providers, and administered distribution of the money to approximately 70 programs operating throughout the county. Each program has a focus on a specific audience --families, single adults, single women and single men,victims of domestic violence,veterans or persons with severe mental illness. The Supportive Housing Program component of McKinney specifically helps people make the transition from homelessness to independent living. Other McKinney programs are the Emergency Shelter Grants Program for emergency shelter; Shelter Plus Care for permanent supportive housing, and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for Single Room Occupancy Dwellings for Homeless Individuals, another permanent housing option. The Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County offers a blueprint for how the region will work collaboratively to confront the issues that cause homelessness and create the housing and supportive services needed to end homelessness for the thousands of men,women and children who are not permanently housed.The plan, introduced in March 2005, has been approved by the Metropolitan King County Council and endorsed by cities representing 85 percent of the county's population, including Kent,as well as by dozens of social organizations and faith communities countywide. The Committee to End Homelessness in King County, made up of representatives from business, faith, social services, government, homeless and formerly homeless people and advocacy groups, is working to implement the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County.The Plan calls for prevention of homelessness where possible,creation of new permanent housing, and providing supportive services to those who need them to maintain housing. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS To receive McKinney funding, HUD requires applicants to work through a local Continuum of Care. For Seattle and King County,the Continuum of Care encompasses programs and activities within the borders of King County, including Seattle.ln June 2014,The Committee to End Homelessness (CEH) in King County was approved by the local CoC to represent its interests pursuant to CoC interim rule Consolidated Plan KENT 6 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 113 578.5(b). CEH Governance sets funding priorities and needs for our region, and includes representatives from healthcare,criminal justice, business, local government,faith-based organizations,elected officials, philanthropy,education,organizations and projects serving homeless subpopulations (including homeless individuals),etc. Kent staff participates in regional planning activities,and staff formerly served on the CoC Governance Board. 2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities Consolidated Plan KENT 7 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 114 Table 2—Agencies,groups,organizations who participated 1 Agency/Group/Organization Jewish Family Services of Seattle Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by Homeless Needs- Families with children Consultation? Economic Development How was the Agency/Group/Organization Agency was provided with a draft of the consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes Consolidated Plan,surveyed and conducted of the consultation or areas for improved key informant interview. Outcomes include coordination? improved access to homeless housing and services. 2 Agency/Group/Organization Kent Youth and Family Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing Services-Children What section of the Plan was addressed by Homeless Needs- Families with children Consultation? How was the Agency/Group/Organization Agency was provided with a draft of the consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes Consolidated Plan, surveyed and conducted of the consultation or areas for improved key informant interview. Outcomes include coordination? improved access to youth housing and services. 3 Agency/Group/Organization CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF WESTERN WASHINGTON Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing Services- Housing Services-Elderly Persons Services-Persons with Disabilities Services-homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by Homeless Needs-Chronically homeless Consultation? Homelessness Needs-Veterans Homelessness Needs- Unaccompanied youth Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization Agency was provided with a draft of the consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes Consolidated Plan, surveyed and conducted of the consultation or areas for improved key informant interview. Outcomes include coordination? improved access to homeless housing and services. Consolidated Plan KENT 8 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 115 Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care King County The goals of Kent's Strategic Plan align with the goals of the Continuum of Care to meet the needs of homeless in the community and reduce the risk of homelessness. Table 3—Other local/regional/federal planning efforts Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(1)) The City of Kent works with the State of Washington and King County in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan through participation on committees, review panels, boards and planning groups.The City coordinates funding opportunities where possible with other jurisdictions.The city works with state and county funders to assist non-profit organizations develop funding packages with multiple funding streams to provide housing for homeless and those at-risk of becoming homeless. Narrative Consolidated Plan KENT 9 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 116 0 0 v o oo o D 0 � 0 r f+ n G. ' 0 = fD J O J N n 0 n .i Cl N N Z 0 '< 6 6 . chi rr. ti c 0 N y n 0 0- ?. .fir in N O N O y '� :* N rt N O '-'. 00 ci N. J O_ N O S J (D N N N o .r or O O T c O Dq O -p' n m S •* y Zv (D -p ti. D o (D N O d J VOi j or 0 =.. N O J O (D G CID N N J 0 o O" 0 Q m � J J p 01 O N ". v`�i .Jr 7 n (D Dq (D n y n rt c o In r* Q J A J A w N O_ n fD O m C ._*. n. (D N I 6 d �^ (D (D in O� 0 O o (D rr (D < S 2 O N rr Q rr c N rr rt O_ S Dq in y .T S . O = O 9) p O c O 6 (D "0 6 O (D d n 6 (D n C N DO 0 N O, N N N O C C n 1 � < � 2 "0 O_ � (D (D , n n p c w w (D 0 (D (D z n p n 6 (Di N p A J Q J J c w :E J (p (D (D 0 N J 0 (D O_ 91 O N 00 (D O_ S 0, O v S v O O !�.' J . 71 (D N 2 J rr '< (D J -0 D 6 0 S O 0 O .*' O c c O 0 I-� 9' 0 CD D 0 r•: 0 fD 0 0 o °- o' m ,(fin p or n p- 0 ID ID Nv0i n J 00 Jp < O rt O lO lD (D in O 6 O O J J O n ,�^. N D O(DJ n. 0c c _. (D W N * S A p- O S G (D �. ZU W 0c y� .* N Q Q 0d j S O O '; 0 'T �^ S O in ga N .A.. z J N y: 0, M 6 S � G O< O_ 0 o p N p- (D C 6 J W. 0 S .Jr (D O_ ID J — tr O_ .cr O 0 O CD 0 N J N �^ N '< W J 0 O " (D j w J N 10 v Cl O � (mD N T j c0i < N On Q Da J ID rr v0i .T 0 ID S J in n N vwlowo 0i A 0 "0* w S C N N(D c c T 00 0c w O- y� Q "J6 O y N. .r (D (D •r J El 0 0 Q - 0 — 6- ,c.' v 0' S 0 c ti. rr (D in 6 J J 6 S 0 0 O S D i rr 6 O_ in rr (D O G (D W ti. 0 J (D O_ in d O (D '�. in G J in S S 0 0- O W = W' y Q '0 D- 0Jo S '—'. 0c (D NJ. N, n p O 0 rrD •* rr J fl- S p N (D 7. S (D o S (D O O = I W c S (D ID M (l , 0 J 0 N N c 0 0 I O d D n Q T O D O 0 -- 0 Q (D O O ci M rr _ < c ID rr J 0 J w ' S Q w CO S D N N O 0 M, (D .fir N O_ N C) 0 O Z M N 'O_ rr C J (D !*. 0 o p (D T in Q Q J (D O N ID O_ N 0 or O ci (D j in O Q 6 O O w D T o J O_ � M = N T = Q D N n � 6 O c,i 0 O (n in O Q �' Cl N p ' D Q � c v N N n 0 2 (D < (D .G ._*. N (D (D rr O , d (OD O Cl .Nr O N 0 vci c O vJi w N 0, p- (D < rr (D J .G rr O .ter O_ T S (D .Sr 0c C J (D (lD S y N 0 0 _ J 117 \ ( ( i z \ 2 } 0 ` G / \ lu � } ] 3 � � ( � k CL CL LA , w / \ 0 £ ] \ \ 118 O w (D S 0 E z Z < (D a o N' D �' m D o c ,. c < a v o < a C (DGvi J S (DC C N Z C (DC C o " 3 mC vOi N N C a S p J O P Q n p J O (D (D p m p p- v p_ p_ N 6 O Q fD p N d C j fD' 00 in N N y N vCi C S p_ (D 6 in n y p (D (D y ni O or Oo 0 2 (D N S D p p D. J (D p m p in in O S (Dd C "6 n in Q fD FD N p (D N �' (D ri C < p_ N Q fD in S 2 (D in N _ �y Q or O p OJo cn C 0 "6 J (p (D J .* p_ p �^ S g (D N J .nr m 00 (� (D w p n. N. 00 (D m n J p_ p_ Q (D r( m l (D M w ? S O 0 J D z G1 Q N (D N C " d S J (D6 ( N N 6 O - v�iS .rG X (A (D G p' (D (Dp pCq C (SD c ,J+ M o (D _ J M ID ID N G N N 0 J N or rt 00 S J p_ (D �* n in O D C (<p C J (` S y 00 S N .:_. � N J• � O C � or (D C G Vt n (D (D .fir (D p ti. in D p "6 p O C + S C N C � (D �^ .�. S ID S G y O p J n O T N n' _ O (D2 p 20 J () (") p 0 F p J (D F` C (D (D (D J ,G N (D (D (D (D 00 _ D O D 0 C n O J C n p a 0 3 119 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs - 91.415, 91.215 (f) Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Facilities: The City of Kent has several key public facilities,owned by nonprofit organizations that are located within the city. These include, but are not necessarily limited to,the following: • Alliance Center • Catholic Community Services • Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) • Dynamic Partners • Health Point • Kent Youth and Family Services-Administrative Facility and Watson Manor Transitional Housing • King County Housing Authority Buildings • Mercy Housing • Pediatric Interim Care Center • YWCA-Anita Vista Transitional Housing The City may use CDBG capital funds for public facility improvements and infrastructure updates. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The City needs additional space in neighborhoods to provide recreational and afterschool activities to improve accessibility to low income families and individuals.The City is currently working to improve connectivity in neighborhoods so residents can bike or walk to schools and parks. The City of Kent and South King County need a facility to co-house human services organizations that serve ethnic/racial populations or new residents. New residents are broadly defined as anyone born outside of the United States who moved to the United States as a refugee or immigrant and speaks English as a Second Language, is learning to speak ESL, or is non-English Proficient. How were these needs determined? The City of Kent's Parks and Open Space Plan adopted in 2010 used public input,demographic data and usage data to set the goals and policies. The need for an ethnic based facility was determined through the Preserving and Strengthening Ethnic- Based Community Organizations Capacity Assessment interviews,discussions between human services staff and community leaders, meetings between the Mayor's Office and community leaders,and feedback from Kent Cultural Diversity Initiative Group participants. The City is interested in participating in determining a response to this need. Consolidated Plan KENT 13 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 120 Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Improvements: The City does not anticipate using CDBG funds for public improvements; public improvement needs are supported by other City funds. How were these needs determined? Public improvement needs within the City are determined by city staff, community and life cycle. Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Services: The City of Kent has been impacted by the poor economy of the last several years. Agencies providing public services in the city have had funding cuts at all levels including federal, state and county. Additionally the sharp increase in the number of residents living in poverty or with low and moderate incomes has increased the demand for services particularly those addressing basic needs.The City anticipates using the full 15%of its CDBG allocation to support public services programs over the five- year Consolidated Plan period. How were these needs determined? The public services needs were determined using demographic information, needs assessments, unemployment rates, welfare caseloads and public input. The determination to use up to the full federally allowed amount of CDBG funds for public services projects was determined in consultation with nonprofit organization, stakeholders and community leaders. The City also arrived at this decision by considering comments received through a Citizen Participation Survey,at the public hearing,and other written comments. Based on the needs analysis above, describe the State's needs in Colonias Consolidated Plan KENT 14 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 121 O �u O ni ni D 2 L' ni S (DO C (D W n = n (D p < S O J (D (D .Jr N p N M' 0 C o . 2 m a_ N S d N G 00 �. N 3 N J O N o a O (D N y: D ni ni J O ni in O (D Q N O W m 00 o n J 00 a_ 00 n 0 (D rr J D N .Jr N J J = , (D0 C ram+ C nSi D Z N N °m °1 G v j .fir S O N ,J.' �+ � j' J O 91 J (D (D F+ N .* (D (D A n Q W N GS N (DF-� O N (D (D J O .r .Jr �_ ID n O (D 0 N p_ n S (D (D 0o n N J a_ N N O T` ry n * to(D y O (D O 0 OJq G (D (D (D ' 0 O J .pr J 6 C ri (D N G i+ S .* in p- — N fD J C N (D �. N 0 F� (D O O- j J (D O (D C O S ID Q UOi .. '-". j' 9 J O O S J J "a (D 6 O OJO °' •< O N ID S O < 00 0 p p 00 W O ' O 0 (D O fD (D (D J 6 S 6 0 w o (D w O (D M N (D _ y J (D O 00 N �' 00 N S p_ G (D N N. v o GO D _ .01 m O(D N N ON S O c a ni Z = 00 J cr, N p — N (D J (D 0 ni -p' O a' 9 = n N a- O (D J (D (D — C (D (D (D (DT� n (<D 0 O O < JO or O_ N p CD 0 (D A rt a_ 0 S c ID "6 in a_ C Q v D OJO rr' flpi N O N am ° �' o < < S 0 S J J (D in C M p N (D v M N C ((DD OJ < "6 S N O_ D J N j J D w (D (A "6 (D O (D �', n N (D j .G O_ J 0 O_ in O (D O- o ID01 E d 0 F� " O- - N (D (D a' in (D O' (D W O (D cJi n. a Gl U'1 N y ((D Gl M °- W < (D y O N O ti. O N n n to p_ (D0 N N M O 00 0 0 N (D S J (D W C (DD W vpi N .Or (D< W O O_ O o O S S O- 01 (D '*. O_ S a' O O O N o f ID N O j O y in j om "6 0 NID S N J vJi (D O pj (D n (l 1 (D O O C S O (D ni O y G. S S (D (D G J O 0 O (D C � 00 N 00 N 0 N rl N (D .. S in vci J ° O (D M � � 122 0 o v v -0 � g S D g c J n 0 ID L17 D J 0_ O D 'o OID O N �. < N Uq l0 .* N o s p " - D v 0 0 ° p* ao W o o N C ° in rr = J 6 rr O N N 6 3 C y. O_ N m N vOi A J N p '< 1 O A o n ni .r 0_ fDn .r O ,. ni S N ,. or N or p < 0 uo S J n () c2. M 10 N c p 0 O .Jr •* S ° tiq' ID j (D N S 6 O J n J Oq N n J q O O N (D O N ,�. �. OOq w y .Jr m N .°ir n (D (D N 0_ 6 O y rr 1 O " � (D n J Q .Jr � (D °- O N in N Q Oq Q S 6 N 0_ y 0_ N J 1' "* n o 6 ° Q 0 = D aq in ,N. 00 < 0_ (D Oq 0 _p .T .G J n N rr: ti. (D (D •* ° 3 0_ p v ID (D 3 � ro -0 o J J n N O (D p ..r �. J (D (D -O p O in c Oq J S N n 0_ X J I n 1 ". p- "" y. N in C rr O S (D ..r O< N .r N O n N N N n O y 6 J (�D O (D (D N 0- rr n 0_ J J rr 0 1 � Q �G .�. O .J. Q " " w S C (D �<. C in in O rr (D J O 6 M < S (D (D rr n ID (DJ 0_ .ter vJi S y 0 (D O (D (D 0_ S Nuq S .r ..r 0 Oq N (D (p (D ti. N J JO rr Oq "6 (D (D O (D y = J N 0- (D(D 0 S O (Sp N O <- O ni N O J G 0 S J (D S Oq -0 c °- n. "6 0_ n (D 0_ n N J N N d (D O Oq '< (D N 0_ ID 3 3 N o °J o S' 9 O, o D °s w 6 .Jr N (D Uq y (D O vci ° O J vOi n �' rr < 0_ (D ci ,< (D N in p N 6 .G O (D O (D J "O Oq N Q N M, j' N j !: 0 O J .r 0_ (D c '< .* S n (DO < vci (D (DO y J N in ° 0_ n ci -O (D z ID o n >' (D 01 c J O , rr O O c N 0_ (D ° D � 0 = 0 = a J a S d- N ' ° = J � � .O�r v�i � O J c J p Q N J y c (D o (D 2 n O. (D p1 n N n' N S Oq z rr N J y A (D C N vOi O (D (DO j (D < (D (D 0 D S 6 0 A O .fir .G cr, .fir A J in 0 (D 6 or " O ° S (D (D (D C in A C .r 3 (D .. (D J (D O J S M (D N O (D vOi fl- J D O 0 O O N in (D S S (D J O ((DD C ci S O Oq •* 0_ (D p (inD X O (DO ° °W N I O O o (D c (D c O (D O l0 (D (D O C N `< (D (D fi A _ _ _ rr (D ° 6 S 0 3 £ J 0' 0 (D c O J Q 01 .r (D (DO °- .* O O (D °' I n 0 n0i (D � .� (D (D j WO (D ri Q (D (D O S (D J N O y 0 123 O 07 m O_ n m 0 G cn (Dp < �' 0 n y. Q O D Do v i O < n W y O O O " N OO O0 ID N () N J CD -0O `p J 0B p60 0 N 0 O N ' � D (D -0 O 0 C.l O 0Q O n N vJi or O rt .Jr °' N S or N (DQ (D O n N c J J CD n p_ ro :_., c .. n (D (D F O 0 apo < (DS °1 N x O 6 6 (D (D (D ci J 00 '6 in N in ID J D CD ro Q ? c s ro' (D J- 6 (D w Q ID (D O N S S .. .Jr O_ (D 01 S n .* O in in N O_ 0 O m ; 6 �? O w N fD (D (D . Orrrr (D (D (crD O(D p CO JnQi D S G N J rr N y N S O n (D O (D 6 J = — N .fir N < O _ 'p rr G in O_ C F� �. N x 0 °F .ter �' (D N J N n O 0° O O c N 0° (D n C n N O S (� (D �D Q J in ((D n n .Jr (D y n n p _ 0 _ J > O < J ID C J o (D N J W n (D O (D — n x (D N (D (D (Drr d O , =cr (DS < (D p N J " o (D O n (D " (D O N T� < j D J N Q .�. cr d in (DO J (D _ m q W J O N J O 0 o N O l0 F-� l0 N ° -p O_ 6 0 j .n* n0 'o (D l0 N l0 O l0 (D O N J O yi i .Jr U'i .Jr (D O (D S in rr J Oq C N N O J O (D (D (D J m n `p' c 3 n 0 om n — n °-' s = O 6 (D N m S O "6 (D 0° .nr J O c J M. I� A W W �` ."r, d O < O or O J C J ID uQ y J p (D (D (D (D O (D z n C J .Ji 0°. (D C J J m S rr I0 : 0° rr W M, y 1 O c (D6 O d' � p �' N n 0 C j (D y x (D m (D ID .r, O ID ni 01 '+. M (D J N D N o J (D (D O_ .G 00 .Jr O z O (D rr (D c p_ a° (SD "6 O 0' O �I o` (D (D m X p_ 0 6 0° "6 D (D J . 6 O N A 0° �I v O Nr. cr U. (D " °+ j (D 0 (D ? p (D (D n W 0° N�^ m`� •* y 0 Qy (D (D O O (D (D S (D O x N _ (D (D (D 124 0 � r v O g c c c o o `c c N O' O fD' S j o (p 06 Q O m n S J N J o rr fD fD fD '*. O O fDFD J LA VI fD O N N N J N rr j' J O_ ID or in O_ wUQ UQO O J UQx O p� 01 r N J N a o N n n m N 0 mm J o+ to A or o G V T = ". or O ao cn J O N `o < < — D 3 a 0 m x m 0 a 1 F-� d to m N a = m to n ry 3 m ` Z m s m G M M w to O O m W W w O O A n m c c � 3 m Z lD to lO -,I v A A lO lO M O lO l!i A N O M m e 'm N o O :E ry o x 00 01 A O 00 I v z m 'm 00 Oo o` c to o` m X N lO A o n A W M 'W m N W 125 0 m m 1 W n 1 p m d O 0 c c ICUm O O d n 0 N s S N n n N m O to O G ID fl- v vOi 0 n ' o (D fD N rr d o to N O 0 s v O O uQ °° m D IDD N m m .. o Q in C •rt+ j CL X fD G n n o N M D C S d N M N VI /T LA eD J (•'� O 0 VI d O _rt O fD p d O O J in J O n 00 3 y 0' O � .O+ .. .• ". � ID n O N d vDOi 0 N' N ID d N N d d (DQ (DD v0i N 0 0 -0 9 (0D C 0 O d d N dM N 0 0 d d O � m � O m '^ e � O m '6 a c O n n a m 3 3 y V W A W d N a i D 9 rn m p N � p 00 T Z N W N Z 3 O O 1 O 6 N 0 m ^. G — G to eD O A a m in o0 0o r fD N m 0 v w O C a O R n OC O 0 3 eD C W -I N O W A 00 c eD N eD O O M eD eD Q O A 00 00 v 00 m 00 U A 00 A 00 e N 9 Z m O 3+ to rt d 3 N W 0 0 n eD h O N W m W v 00 W o 0 0 0 126 O W v o Ll dm 0 2 o o m m D D 2 � o o E ni n w in n n (D 6" ni n in a° S (D (D S0 (D S ° 0 O rt p O S d O 1 0 .dr O S �' d O o N rt m fD — p O O m fD fD — p .Nr O O 0 O_ (D O S N O O_ in �M O S to N m N _p fp fD O° N o W °° O ,. .G c O� N O- n N o N O l LAM D N C fD O_O VI VI d p p fD 3 J in 0 p J m rD o a° Mo n c m d p D a° N a° Q .d. '*. 0 v D ID fD m in fD O OA fD u° fD O 0- fD fD tr O Dl 7 j fD C Oil 00 rt S a S f+ N d N a � a d Io m 0o F-� m 3 vSi O O to In W w m •O '" D S d � A 3 N � m d W A N fD N C O° lO W Uri OJ N A �I v O A M lO m O O d V . O. c S G 7 W .+ m to S d D c N O -.I A O lO In N 3 W u�i u i IA-� O A O c rt � S V1 N Q � n d rt rt O Ln 7 N {n F-� A N M CD3+ N S to m W F-� OW O O N cn Ln L F-` A M '-,I O '-,I A 01 W A O A M O 01 A lO v v W �I W �I v v F-� A 00 00 00 to to 127 O E -0 v S. 0 o � m C m — S n 6 0 N H o O b O • • • • • • • N "6 p o \ CD J O N O' z "6 (D CD n z .N. C C N ao O_ N CD D m z C � � 3 vrti 3 N _. c N in •* fD �' J �^ 6 N S � � J ci p J OO. 'G N n n ci OID N .fir 0 O CD 0o p O Q vJi .01r 3 3 j N Q O N v v n �. N in VI O 'rt S c N .r O rr N N N rat 7C S CD O_ N J Q Q Q .�*, Ort ^ n in N C T� Q C M O N vci J CD W rt 0 "ID 0' N .Jr S in O_ S M N N ti4 Q N n O J — O S 0 m O = i Q W O J N 0 .S M •C O N J J N S O C O y fD n N o N �• S S .�nr y rr fD y S O CD ,�*., J y v .. ro .. O J o0 O- N N Om CD v .cr =. .G N N O. �J 3 �I CD O J j fD Q rt O J j J CD 0z NCD m o O n O J x fD O O N H O n n •r �—^ N O N = rt W N O O — J O S N M � N J O O N � J rrCD O N O S n p m J tr 0 LAM 3 D D N m O :+ c fD n O tr .Jr m O M 7 H ID � < in 91 (D 'O n O' fD- i by j 3 000 I 7 C 'G J fD mrr .� O (D .cr ,�. ,J. O o p 3 N N S p J O y * N S n N — G S O W O v -p N. O M CD 'p C O S N m D _ N O N J N S C CD C .Jr� O D 04 uQ ' j O O O 3 J 3 vOi UQ Wtr p M N vci n uQ W N CD � G vOi .Jr N S O in N W y n Q O rt -p 0 o 0 — 10 3 CDv O 3 (D j Q L. S 0 0 O rt CD 00 '* �^ �^ N 3 O v in J v S � (� N M 128 O _ n p -° c m n O v 2 w O ry J a O O n CD ga N y C N A Q h n to O _ z '-'. D in .+ -6 v vOi Cl Gl n T. W ni .r O �_^. J' S p ni n O O rD O ti J 3 rD rD J ao o m n J rp J d J o, a rD -O J a s rD c x o < Q J o- N i J ci N N j H a D °- Q N (l N v�i J O C " _S W rD ". m Ll a T� �^ N N ID ° OJO v J 0 .3+ N I 6 C 00 O- �* J D G J J D N n \o ° O 00 ° O J 6 .fir a O J S O N C .r S (D N J y vJi a 3 "' O .. N °- N "6 y 6 S rD a (") 00 O_ mr�D o' ro ID 3 o, rD rt Q = J n ID am N S o T r — a o J N ID rp N O 3 �J X Q < ?. 6 N °' rD �+ ID '* Q O '6 N r6D N S N fp J N N '6 p W "0 „ C rp ti. ID 3 _ O a N a J N CD 0 O C N C rt "6 O am C N in N 0 am n aN o ° v ° < ° o ° 04 _' J o n S O .G 00 J rp in rr � .i M O 00 rD v`�i J C O m7 S O 1 O w c v D N rt o O J N D N ID Q - D c rt S N S "6 O fD 6 J a O v�i O rp fD fD = rD j S 0�0 S oo ID � ro s � J .G � ao v N J H O J n � O in (l N y ni n a n J .. a rt rt O c O S G1 fD "6 S ti. N O T` G S N UQ W (D .Jr N m - c Vr O c n N 00 fD ao �' O1 J =. °° °1 rDam o v . " .ter O O fp rt rt S Uri Q Q .i J N -p m_ '6 s 3 J w s v s v w ° tr O fD a vdi O J — rr — a �. N• �CC N N S co O- G a N D .°+ 00 d a a O N O m J O rD vOi v M a °_ 3 J S N C < J N a yr G G pq N J O' Uo a Oam O HID m 91 O S N C N N ° N N ° O G O Q rt O O o y S N J 6 J � •* S J N � � � .Jr N n N m J n O'o •G 00 � .i � J N N — � J N •* a N � J a 129 0 n ,< D 6 a- 0 0 .G or or vci n fD 0 N vDi '^ �^ OCD N no 0 z n D 0' 0 S .T D S a 0 r0+ rt � � � 0 � O fD rr fD O n S D y D N N S N " .* D D n i (DO "N6 j N 0 . J m N < (� �^ O "6 p O H in or w ID w z o _ (Dw0 < J Q rSo < < 0 K c J O D fD O O O or v J O S N n O v0i N 0 N D O 0 Vt CD D Da " 00 J D D .r JO J n M, J N D 0 G 91 N "6 00 0 d D c ni " 0 O W J c •Jr D _ — o (D ID C J J 0_ J, n J O Cl O D D D 'T n' 0 0_ •r W -0 n M 00 NO rr ni .r M D j D w rD p n '6 9 rt i^ c n O 0 < , 0 D w D (� 0_ J J _S W fD — J J D D 0 S (D in O D J. OJo < N O N rt 7 N n n J D O M D rr Vt 0 7 y 0 z S N 0 0 m fD ci D .. in' n y N. .fir c O_ = .fir 7 y 0 � (") D D Q 0_ O rt CD Q N O_ n � — D 0 0 D fD 0' J G D y O . S n G fD n D (D (� rt D D O' 0 (D y =' D N' N in om wO f0 O -0 w j W O O Q D j' in 'a y C 0 J rr rt c G n < D D _. rrG D N — 00 D N D S r m .:' D S ci �, J rr n J 6 n rr rr O -0 7 n D w 0 "�' w J in c 0 w W D j D 00 D J O_ O' cr m 00 ff J in D N N n 7C J C n 0 •*. zy in =' (D y .r, N O 7 n' O .dr n N S O .rt. N < Oo 3 04 0 O D 0- n S ❑- ti. 0 0 N. D J n' 0 rt D n J N .nr -0 N O N c D fl- O N N n ram+ -gyp D J v0i c j .i 0 O O 91 D J _ < CD ID 0 0 rr tr a' J J D �' 0 s D rt n 0 "6 (D M O N v O O D 11 n .{�+ nSi 0 (Dc N p O W O J J `1 D D n .* 0 ci - O .fir Q D fD in O fD .r, On J D O rr J D 04 L �. ni :r D n 0_ S' 7 .L Q O D 00 O v .* ^Q n D O O C N n X S Q C Q 0 p D c S D "a n D c o J S D D O D " D o 0' f0 J � J rt in in D F) (D D D N N "6 O D N 000 O (D .Nr n N J J 0 r) fD in' ,+ =i 3 D D ,J. 0 S M 0 D D 0- N y .< 0_ O "6 in D D •* O- 0" d J' S J f0 J N IDD c -a S S D rt v0i rr rr j n' C CD om v N "�* 0 6 D N in j' rr N " a1 C 0 n N S N 0 D p (D (D p ID (D 0 D n =. < O ID (Sp - (D c 0 '* .Jr D D D ^ " 0 D v 130 p W � na o J m 00 p N •' rr in fD ti. o O S O N N o •* D p' r�D Gl N J in O J J J n N in' C O N .ter J O � n � n S O N O' < O J N N N' W 0 O G1 (D C UQ D D C O N (D p m W N N c c p °°D < 3 m 00 0- c 3 O 9 < N 6 A 0 n c p O C J Cr; N 6 N J ,. ON O O S S fD (p 131 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (include a definition of"concentration") Housing conditions vary throughout Kent, both in quality and age as noted by the following discussion of housing in Kent neighborhoods: Valley Neighborhoods Housing in the valley neighborhoods is considerably older than in the plateau neighborhoods-with the exception of homes recently built in the northern sector of the North of James neighborhood and a few infill units in the South of Willis neighborhood. The generally good quality of construction and size of these new homes reflects a strong confidence on the part of investors and owners and bodes well for the continued viability of the surrounding area. In addition, both neighborhoods show signs of owner investment in the older housing stock,demonstrated by improved condition and recent rehabilitation of some homes. While there are some exceptions, most blocks contained a mix of both well-maintained and poorly- maintained units. As a general rule, houses located near the railroad tracks are in worse condition than houses further from the tracks. Neighborhoods would benefit from continued support of the housing rehabilitation program to improve some of the more dilapidated homes. West Plateau Neighborhoods Homes in the West Plateau area have experienced deterioration due to a number of factors.There has been an increase in the number of rental units owned by out-of-state landlords, an increase in the number of low-income families living in the area, and deferred maintenance on many units. Poor economic conditions may signal continued deterioration, particularly in Del Mar West where over one- half of the housing shows a need for improvement. Programs to arrest and reverse this decline might be considered in the future. East Hill Neighborhoods East Hill Neighborhoods contain a greater number of well-maintained housing,with the exception of some neighborhoods with deteriorating units.The overall condition of housing in the East Hill neighborhoods is much better than in the valley.The Panther Lake area has a greater mix of single family owned neighborhoods vs. rental homes. There is a good mix of older,fairly well- maintained to well-maintained housing in newer neighborhoods. While there are exceptions,overall, housing in the Panther Lake area is in fair to good condition. It must be noted that this recent annexation area is not yet recognized in HUD's system and is therefore not represented in any of the tables in this document. Consolidated Plan KENT 25 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 132 The Panther Lake area also has approximately eight Manufactured/Mobile home parks. The Kenton Firs area has more poorly maintained neighborhoods of manufactured housing with considerable homeownership. Residents of the Pantera Lago neighborhood pay lot space rent. Because of age and condition, both developments benefit from the home repair program. Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated? (include a definition of"concentration") As stated previously, housing conditions vary throughout the neighborhoods highlighted-above. Low- income households are located throughout the city. There is a high concentration on the valley floor and East Hill. Racial and ethnic minorities are most highly concentrated on the East Hill. What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? The valley floor has the most affordable housing in the City both for home ownership and to rent. East Hill rents vary as do home ownership opportunities. The majority of the subsidized housing is on East Hill.The highest concentration of senior housing is in the Valley. The greatest majority of the senior housing is subsidized. Neither area has a large selection of housing appropriate for large or extended families which are needed by the racial and ethnic communities. Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? Community assets include the people, micro-enterprise and small businesses, produce markets,faith- based institutions,schools, community spaces, King County Housing Authority and its residents, ethnic restaurants, grocery stores, an event center, etc. Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas? The City is working on the Kent East Hill Revitalization Project and will weigh investing in other communities. Lessons learned from KEHR will serve as a marker. Consolidated Plan KENT 26 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 133 Strategic Plan SP-05 Overview Strategic Plan Overview The Strategic Plan includes several key points: • Geographic Priorities: Based on its analysis of needs, the City decided not to set priorities on a geographic basis; rather, residents in all areas of the City have priority needs. Priority Needs: This section will explain the rationale for establishing priorities based on data, citizen participation, resident/stakeholder survey results, interviews, etc. Influence of Market Conditions:The Strategic Plan will include a housing strategy,which will indicate how the characteristics of the housing market influenced the City's decisions on how to allocate funds; e.g., rental assistance, rehabilitation of old units and/or the acquisition of existing units. Anticipated Resources: Anticipated resources serve a primary role in determining strategies and goals. Institutional Delivery Structure:This section identifies potential sub-recipients and partners that will undertake the objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan. Goals:The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) selected twenty-two(22) Goal Outcome Indicators that jurisdictions must use to specify proposed numeric accomplishments that the City aspires to achieve during the five-year Strategic Plan; goals must connect with priority needs. Public Housing: Explains how the City's Strategic Plan meets the needs of public housing residents and King County Public Housing developments. Barriers to Affordable Housing: This section identifies the City's strategies for removing or mitigating public policies that are barriers to affordable housing. Homelessness Strategy:This section describes the City's strategy for reducing and ending homelessness through outreach,shelter activities, rapid re-housing, and homeless prevention. It includes both housing and supportive services. Lead-based Paint Hazards:This section covers the proposed actions the City will take to evaluate and reduce lead- based paint hazards.Anti-Poverty Strategy:This section will summarize the City's goals, programs,and policies for reducing family poverty. Monitoring: In this area, the City will describe the standards and procedures used to monitor sub-recipients. Consolidated Plan KENT 27 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 134 SP-10 Geographic Priorities - 91.415, 91.215(a)(1) Geographic Area Table 12-Geographic Priority Areas General Allocation Priorities Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the state Consolidated Plan KENT 28 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 135 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.415, 91.215(a)(2) Priority Needs Table 13—Priority Needs Summary 1 Priority Need Name Basic Needs Services Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Large Families Families with Children Elderly Public Housing Residents Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally III Chronic Substance Abuse veterans Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Basic Needs Description Basic human needs such as food,shelter, health care,etc. Basis for Relative Priority 2 Priority Need Name Affordable Housing Priority Level High Consolidated Plan KENT 29 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 136 Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Middle Large Families Families with Children Elderly Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Affordable Housing to homeless and those at risk Description Standard housing costing less than 30%of household income Basis for Relative Priority 3 Priority Need Name Economic Opportunities Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Middle Large Families Families with Children Public Housing Residents Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children veterans Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Increase Self Sufficiency Description Job training, micro enterprise development,small business development, Basis for Relative Priority 4 Priority Need Name Services for at risk seniors Priority Level High Consolidated Plan KENT 30 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 137 Population Extremely Low Low Elderly Frail Elderly Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Decrease isolation of at-risk seniors Description Medical, in home care and transportation services Basis for Relative Priority 5 Priority Need Name Planning and Administration Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Public Housing Residents Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally III Chronic Substance Abuse veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Personswith Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Non-housing Community Development Consolidated Plan KENT 31 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 138 Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Planning and Administration Description Plan and implement strategies to improve quality of life in the community for low and moderate income residents. Basis for Relative Priority Narrative (Optional) Consolidated Plan KENT 32 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 1m . . _ 0 § \ D0 CD - } 0. 3 m , CD \ : i z7z0 (D � \ ( } ( - ( } } \ ` � ` ` � � } \ V) , o � & ( § ¢_ - G A § k � \ ( k \ 2 } \ 00 o \ j � } , / } & / � \ � � ® nm\ ° / o } \ \ \ \ } j ( ( ID » ) \ } \ \ \ / (D } \ \ } \ 140 o z - - o n 2 m . y � { / � } � \ / \ \ \ \ \ \ � £ . $ � J £ , f � e } \ \ / \ ( / \ \ . | 141 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure - 91.415, 91.215(k) Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan including private industry, non-profit organizations,and public institutions. Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Role Geographic Area Served Type City of Kent Government Economic Jurisdiction Development Homelessness Non-homeless special needs Planning public facilities public services Table 15-Institutional Delivery Structure Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System Generally,the institutional delivery system is strong; however, a few gaps exist. Gaps include: Consistent loss and decrease of funds to human services agencies Loss or temporary closing of human services agencies due to decrease in or lack of funding-EBCOs and small organizations are especially at-risk Strengths in the system include: Tremendous collaboration between nonprofits, businesses, faith-based institutions, government, foundations, residents, the Public Housing Authority,etc. Support of human services from City leadership Strong homeless service provider system Strong domestic/sexual assault prevention services system Educational institution located in Kent and surrounding communities Visionary leaders who are recognizing and support the needs of the residents of Kent and King County Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Consolidated Plan KENT 35 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 142 Homelessness Prevention Available in the Targeted to Targeted to People Services Community Homeless with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X X Legal Assistance X Mortgage Assistance X Rental Assistance X X Utilities Assistance X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X Mobile Clinics X X Other Street Outreach Services X X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X Child Care X Education X Employment and Employment Training X X Healthcare X X HIV/AIDS X Life Skills X X Mental Health Counseling X X Transportation X Other Table 16-Homeless Prevention Services Summary Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) The King County Committee to End Homelessness has developed a plan to coordinate the delivery of services throughout King County. While the system provides many services the length of the recession has impacted the ability of the system to meet the ever growing need particularly of families and youth. The budget crisis being faced by the State, County and City has resulted in cuts to mental health, primary medical, substance abuse and housing services at a time when the homeless population is growing. There is a critical need for employment, housing support services, mental health treatment and housing assistance in order to move people from homelessness to being housed. For those able to access the system there are opportunities to move out of homelessness. Consolidated Plan KENT 36 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 143 Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above Strengths The county-wide systems for both homelessness and special needs allow funders and providers to coordinate services more effectively.This has resulted in having a single point of entry for homeless families and a county supported veteran services program. Services are coordinated at a regional level. Gaps There are still gaps in the system that in part are a result of the current economic crisis. There are more homeless now than five years ago and include: Youth and Young Adults Immigrants and Refugees Families Veterans Services across the board are limited for veterans. Immigrants and refugees are without the resources to maintain their housing after government support is exhausted. The lack of employment opportunities for everyone has had a significant impact on the number of homeless and a reduction in opportunities for persons with special needs. Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs Service gaps will require additional funding resources that are currently not available. The City of Kent will continue to work with providers to develop strategies that will expand the use of resources by removing silos that have kept providers from being able to meet emergent needs.The institutional structure in King County has undergone significant change in the past five years and is currently working well. Consolidated Plan KENT 37 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 144 SP-45 Goals - 91.415, 91.215(a)(4) Goals Summary Information Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Needs Funding Goal Outcome Order Year Year Area Addressed Indicator 1 Basic Needs 2015 2019 Homeless Basic Needs CDBG: Public service Non-Housing Services $445,875 activities other Community General than Development Fund: Low/Moderate $1,000,000 Income Housing Benefit: 370 Persons Assisted 2 Affordable 2015 2019 Affordable Affordable CDBG: Public service Housing to Housing Housing $3,038,280 activities for homeless and Homeless General Low/Moderate those at risk Fund: Income $1,105,000 Housing Benefit: 80 Persons Assisted Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated: 450 Household Housing Unit Homeless Person Overnight Shelter: 5 Persons Assisted Consolidated Plan KENT 38 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 145 Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Needs Funding Goal Outcome Order Year Year Area Addressed Indicator 3 Increase Self 2015 2019 Non-Housing Economic CDBG: Businesses Sufficiency Community Opportunities $132,000 assisted: Development 150 Persons Employment, General Assisted Training, Fund Education 851,600 4 Decrease 2015 2019 Non-Homeless Services for at CDBG: Public service isolation of at- Special Needs risk seniors $50,000 activities other risk seniors than General Low/Moderate Fund Income Housing 160,000 Benefit: 1,020 Persons Assisted 5 Planningand 2015 2019 Planningand Planningand CDBG: Other: Administration Administration Administration $914,500 0 Other Table 17—Goals Summary Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Basic Needs Goal Basic needs such as food, financial assistance,clothing,community meals, health Description care 2 Goal Name Affordable Housing to homeless and those at risk Goal Transitional and permanent housing, rehabilitation assistance for those at risk of Description homelessness 3 Goal Name Increase Self Sufficiency Goal Economic opportunities such as micro-enterprise development,services for youth Description with intellectual disabilities 4 Goal Name Decrease isolation of at-risk seniors Goal Congregate meal with socialization and life skill training in a culturally appropriate Description manner Consolidated Plan KENT 39 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 146 5 Goal Name Planning and Administration Goal Development and administration of the CDBG Program. Community and homeless Description planning. Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) Kent does not receive HOME funds as a direct entitlement; and therefore, does not directly provide housing. The City supports Housing Stability by providing financial assistance to help families to move into housing or stay in housing. The City also supports transitional housing that provides housing to homeless women and women with children. Over a five-year period, 70 households will be assisted. SP-65 Lead-based Paint Hazards-91.415, 91.215(i) Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 seeks to identify and mitigate sources of lead in the home. A high level of lead in the blood is particularly toxic to children aged 6 and younger. Lead can damage the central nervous system,cause mental retardation, convulsions,and sometimes death. Even low levels of lead can result in lowered intelligence, reading and learning disabilities, decreased attention span, hyperactivity and aggressive behavior. A leading source of lead in the home is lead-based paint. Deteriorating paint,friction in sliding windows, lead on impact surfaces,as well as unsafe renovation practices can result in the accumulation of dust in the house and lead in the soil. The presence of deteriorating paint, lead-contaminated dust, based paint hazards. According to a 1999 national survey of homes, 27%of all homes in the United States had significant lead-based paint(LBP) hazards.The national survey found that location in the country was a factor in the probability of hazards. Significant LBP hazards are more prevalent in the northeast(43%) than in the west(19%). Age of housing is also important and commonly used to estimate the risk of significant hazards in the home. Lead was banned from residential paint in 1978. The 1999 national survey found that 67%of housing built before 1940 had significant LBP hazards.This declined to 51%of houses built between 1940 and 1959, 10%of houses built between 1960 and 1977 and just 1%after that. While housing in Kent is relatively new, 3%was constructed prior to 1940, 6%between 1940 and 1959, and 37% between 1960 and 1979. Given the changes in housing in Kent between 1990 and 2000,date of construction is the best indication of level of risk. City of Kent home repair staff is trained in Safe Work Practices and presumes the presence of lead on repairs to housing built prior to 1978, meaning that safety measures are in place. Kent home repair staff has access to certified risk assessment inspectors when needed. Consolidated Plan KENT 40 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 147 Home repair staff does not renovate six square feet or more of painted surfaces in interior projects or more than twenty square feet of painted surfaces for exterior projects in housing, childcare facilities or schools; therefore,federal law does not require that staff provide lead-based paint informational materials to homeowners. Auditors may verify this by reviewing home repair work orders. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? City of Kent home repair staff is trained in Safe Work Practices and presumes the presence of lead on repairs to housing built prior to 1978, meaning that safety measures are in place. Kent home repair staff has access to certified risk assessment inspectors when needed. In addition,the City identifies and mitigates the source of lead in Kent homes by: Assuring that homeowners served by the Home Repair Program receive and comprehend the Lead Based Paint informational materials Assuring that Home Repair staff uses the Lead-Safe Housing Rule Checklist for General Compliance Documentation as a guide to verify compliance with lead-based paint rules and that a Lead-Safe Housing Rule Applicability Form is completed on every Home Repair client • Assuring adherence to and enforcement of lead-based paint abatement regulations Consolidated Plan KENT 41 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 148 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy - 91.415, 91.215(j) Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families Poverty is an issue facing almost 25%of Kent's residents. Although the City of Kent is a strong hub for business development and transportation to other areas providing job opportunities, rising unemployment rates caused by the current recession has forced many employers to downsize. The number of young and fragile families,often with one or more children, is growing. Among the more expensive items for families to maintain are housing and utility costs, child care and transportation.The current,tenuous state of the human service infrastructure is creating further strain on low/moderate-income people seeking or trying to maintain employment. The City's anti-poverty strategy focuses on reducing the high cost of basic human needs while seeking innovative solutions to increasing basic income and the provision of supportive services. A key part of the strategy is to provide a range of housing at affordable levels. Affordable rental assistance is provided to over 3,000low/moderate-income Kent households through the King County Housing Authority and other sponsors of the Section 8 rental assistance program.The City supports the provision of additional vouchers for low- and moderate-income persons paying more than affordable rents. For persons without housing or at-risk of eviction or displacement, Kent area homeless providers offer a continuum of housing and services in a cooperative effort through the Seattle/King County Continuum of Care, the South King Council of Human Services and the South King County Homeless Alliance.The City, in cooperation with other jurisdictions and providers will continue to pursue effective solutions to ongoing issues affecting individuals and families at or below 80%of the median income. To the greatest extent possible, the City will maintain the Human Services General Fund budget, providing over $800,000 annually in funding for vital, basic needs human services programs. The City will continue to work regionally and sub-regionally, in collaboration with other funders, including the King County HOME Consortium, the King County Housing Authority Weatherization Program,the South King County Planners' group,as well as various human service provider groups to coordinate common housing and human service goals. City of Kent staff will work closely with providers and case managers offering homeless housing and services in Kent,assisting clients with information, advocacy and job application assistance to maximize their benefits from programs for which they are eligible. In addition, programs serving the homeless and other low-and moderate-income persons are becoming increasingly skilled at providing clients with a range of services designed to meet their particular needs, including job skills training,job retention skills,job referral and counseling. Future funding within the timeframe of the plan could include services provided on an advocacy-based model, aimed at ongoing assistance with specific basic needs to increase Consolidated Plan KENT 42 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 149 job retention, employee work experience/ethic and assisting consumers to progress to earning living wage. The City's economic development/jobs strategies will be pursued to support improved income,job expansion and job accessibility. Efforts will be made to develop partnerships with businesses and educational institutions to create works-site and distance learning strategies for job progression skills. Also, the City will strive to increase business opportunities and jobs in the downtown core as development of the Kent Planned Action Site Project progresses. How are the Jurisdiction's poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan The City's poverty reducing goals, programs,and policies are coordinated with this Strategic Plan in several ways: • Investment in micro-enterprise businesses • Investment in emergency rental assistance grants and case management torefugees and immigrants • Investment in eviction prevention grants • Investment in shelters and transitional housing for the homeless • Investment in healthcare services for the homeless • Staff will convene and/or work with organizations and institutions that specialize in employment services to increase employment opportunities for Kent residents Consolidated Plan KENT 43 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 150 SP-80 Monitoring - 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements Standards and Procedures for Monitoring The City monitors its CDBG program throughout the year. Programs funded by the City are expected to maintain high standards. Organizations are informed that the failure to comply with contractual requirements and regulations could result in remedial actions and/or the termination of funding. Quarterly performance reports are reviewed by the Human Services Commission. Standards and procedures are further outlined below: • Staff meets with newly funded projects before and/or during the contract year. Projects are monitored closely to ensure that staff has a good understanding of program administration, program performance standards,fiscal administration,contractual requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting. Issues that need clarification are addressed. • At a minimum,all projects receive quarterly monitoring. Programs that need guidance in achieving performance measures or adhering to contractual requirements receive technical assistance,are required to attend a meeting with City staff, and/or receive an on-site monitoring visit. • Monitoring concerns/finding are reviewed with agency staff and documented in writing. • When applicable,corrective action is required on a timely basis. Additional time for corrective action may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. • Agencies are required to provide supporting documentation verifying that deficiencies have been corrected. • Failure to take corrective action could lead to the withholding or the loss of funding to a sub- recipient. Housing and Human Services Division is responsible for developing the comprehensive plan chapters on housing and human services. Staff is participating in the current planning process for the County Comprehensive Plan (CCP) and is providing input into the needs for affordable housing.The CCP will set the targets for housing each jurisdiction must be. Staff is working toward including preservations and rehabilitation of affordable housing as a target. Consolidated Plan KENT 44 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 151 0 w a W N F+ C D n ow d °= O N o ° O 3 .dr co .dr O D 7 m (D �' 0 d C o (D n n O Q d Z FD n Gf n N (N fD J fD fD 6 O J G1 < N m O O J ID o O ° N = z d o � v QO o o (D J 00 J Q N O Gl w d G N N N N j m fD O O O O d 3 N N N N N d p l0 N F+ (D o o o 0 0 p D n J 3 3 J 3 O N 7 v' = D o D = 0- n O d Z g N -6 J c N 6 ID l0 J' °° o N Gl N C O m (A Z W � m Q. D � 0 0 0 0 d m 0 S a m n (D (DW "6 OS � (DW z rF m < < 0 j m O G a �• J N N Z .. O d O Z 00 y in in (D C O' fD D fD J n fD a d N (D N N d a p � � n 3 n to a F� 00 Zo U'i IV O Q v � O uJi to O O A 0o S S �^ O C �^ O C •* S O O fD O O O O C o w J 6 w w J 6 fD ;: 'D o N fD J O N N J O N 1 J 6 0 (DJ N O Q oo £ (D o- ao £ (D w .. N M r: £ O m o m d (D (D W \ < O v 1 m °- W r°D < O J ff J ff 1 N (D J ff� c fp O M m O M S " fl- D m ,d. m n �* n �* (D n O O O t0 O = M (D O Q * 3 fD fD _ fD C 00 a n n �' (D (D d in O O in O O J S J S O_ S O O fD fD in fD fD �* Q N 1& 6 , § } §o § , m [ \ \ W (D 0 § * \ \ } § � m § ) � ( 0_ m 00 2 m \ ( ( } } 2 k LA ( � ( § q § / § ® ( � \ \ � ) / e) e = | � « ID / _ § | t • � _ G M \ \ ; | 12 ID § E G } / J - ƒ m / _ cr CD �o C CD - cr « : ( \ CD CD (D 0CD - ® _ } J2 \ e � } \ � \ \ \ D / \ \ \ / \ 0 } ( \ [ , gam = T = � = } \ D 2 \ ) (DCD UQ _ 0. (Do \ CD } \ \ � 0 @ & » _ ! � \ \ \ \ \ }00 \ \ ° � £ CD gf & $ § - _ 0 ) � e Q ■ 2 - ( } � 0 - - \ CD 0 § \ ( _ - \ _ g 27 - 2 b | t • � � � \ 0 � \ � ga } (D CD \_ $ - m s } (D ) ` % } - _ � , § / - | � � 154 O a =. W y m w z O ° 3 p O m O rt ry o J S N Q C N o w n o J t N N C o p .�r CD Q N � O W O O rt � J (D fD CD G 9 fD J ( O fD � J -O N 0 O S D O CD C 0° S C o p m d Z J CD N c M G p + J S rr 3 S rt o S rr CD S Gl � fD Vi ri flnn: � rt C C J 3 O_ �� rt � S 91 � rt O� 91 D C � N C H (D Q rt O W A O- Q CD N H H rt S N J (D N Q H 155 p a W N F+ 0 1 O dLn ow v c) c) v c) c) v c) c) v c) C) o ' N O O N O O N O O N O O f+ a N d d N d d N d d N d d d A � Z Z Z Z '^ I 4 'rt d 'rt d 'rt d 'rt d 0 c c c c 9 '0 y D v m 3 (D 3 (D 3 (D 3 (D '! D j 3 c ? n _ v 3 in' O O (D ri (D Q , n S 0 �. p "0 p 0 Q m — _. d O N c d a O �, z �. .. G �. °- 3 �» p- (D O "0 O c (D inG (D (D c d d �, j N O "6 Q Q .S. y. ((DD N Q 6 D O_ S ,� Uo O (D 10 in in O c - O 0 2 d N (D ci ,0. (D N Q 0 0 � O m — O' rr d N j IA ((D n a0o 0 m y^ -00 O -0 — O — (p' O x -0 ti. — G O y, > G rr In .Z O .d. 0 (D (D n. 0 S 3 (D d N OG (° 0 v �' 3 0 m 3 v a S (DO (D (D Q (D N (D l0 D (D S D N ,+ 00 0 (D O (�D d (D d (D 0' D c >UQ > 90 p v oN o' w' o S o ' n rD ao M 0 (D A' O 0 M oo w d (D (D d 1/i' M p c (D d d �. oQ d o N (D UQ UQ D c n N UQ N d m c N. d > = c '..'. ((DD z p 3 D , O 1 O d (D 0" S N 6 fl- co -p p_ in < c 0 'G D 000 G 0 O c M c G vdi �q d 9 00 (D d S j p (D S rr I d (D O' n C O v(Di (D 0 S G � d c O 0 O �_^ •* 3 0 d T _ d ao 3 (D 3 r'o �. _' a (D d N (D in O �^ m D d d a (D .fir N 0 O p O_ 0" n N _. G ( 1' 0 yNj d 0 (D c N d (D 0 co d (D J (D d (D O_ N 000 M LD. 00' (D l0 (D 3 N j (D O N O A 0pq' n d 0 d �: N 0 O .fir in in (D S C M (DD n > > 0 ' FD O o (D i ' _ (D O (D .fir 0 O n n O O D S D( C S p 0 S 3 O O D (D 3 a A d of 0 156 0 o v' rt a_ o vOi O a O O 0 0 "* y rt O On sv sv z c �_ ry I 0 N fD fD O S O rt W O OCL O s N m O O N y VI c N DO a N T T 0 -0 (DO O O ri Q O 3 ti. O O_ Q G 'G CD 00 :r N M (D 00 N rr O_ xID o fD fD = N i Qo 00 O °- -a a CD D CO c a- o tr cm G CD 6 0 G (D = o 3 (D rD FD. a m 3 c .�. (D 0- O 0 N a 3 o n o 0 o w ° < (D 0 6 g N w0 0 0 0 o N ? 0 3 0 n c c D -a <_' T� o (D. D) 0 z c > Q O (D N S N = O N 0 * n 0 O n p Q c CDc D a 00 O CD a O (D 0 CD < Cl O' N fD m O W N 0 O O y N � H � O O 0 _ Q � O Q m c CD ? ° `c' ° (DD 0- (D S O D G � C (D Q — ry 157 AP-35 Projects —91.220(d) Introduction The projects funded by the City in 2015 address the priority needs of providing assistance to prevent and respond to homelessness, maintain affordable housing, housing for the homeless, increasing self- sufficiency,and decreasing isolation. Services include minor home repair services, improving homes by making them more energy efficient, rent assistance to prevent eviction, healthcare services for the homeless,shelter and transitional housing, case management and emergency assistance for refugees, senior meal program for refugees and micro-enterprise business classes to increase self-sufficiency for low and-moderate income individuals. # Project Name 1 Kent Home Repair Program 2 Catholic Community Services-Katherine's House 3 Multi-Service Center-Housing Stability 4 Refugee Women's Alliance-Case Management& EMS Assistance 5 Refugee Women's Alliance-Senior Meals 6 Washington CASH-Kent Micro-enterprise Initiative 7 1 YWCA-Anita Vista Transitional Housing 8 Planning and Administration 9 Open Doors for Multicultural Families 10 City of Kent-Energy Efficient Housing Program 11 St. Stephen Housing Association Table 21—Project Information Consolidated Plan KENT 51 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 158 Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs The City's distribution of funds aligns with the City's objectives of accessibility to decent housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunities. CONTINGENCY PLANS Public Services In the event of a funding increase,funds will be allocated proportionally among projects. In the event of a funding decrease,funds will be deducted proportionally among projects. All projects will receive at least$10,000. Capital In the event of a funding increase,funds will be allocated to the City's Energy-Efficient Housing Program. In the event of a funding decrease,the Energy-Efficient Housing Program budget will be reduced. Consolidated Plan KENT 52 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 1m > on z e _ _ E , _ e z e , \ § } } \ k ( ( k / } } \ ( k m » ECL m 2 m m � ± w CL � � CL ( § ] } } & 0 / 2 k \ & 0 / ^ / 2 x G &\ o /\ } \ � - } } / ; ] } y g o _� / { » ® { / ; - » ) c j ; § $ ( o ) $ G \ } \ / } G\ ( ; \ ( \ \ } / / 0 1m 2 e z e 0 , 2 e D / § § _ I - ° w / § § \ w / \ M \ } LA } 0 w B \ \ \ } - \ kk - \ k k k } k } A: k \ - � 2 [ / : Q ~ } 7 ( § 7 \ \ \ - ( \ \ \ (D ( \ ) e \ \ } � / - \ ) - � 7 | 0 IT - - \ ( \ \ : - _ 0 ; ® j ; / \ \ \ } \ \ LT \ \ \ ; : � j - & \ G [ \ \ * ( rt j ( ] ; ) ; « ) \ / ( & \ $ ( - | � ( § 161 Ln 0 2 E £ E ` - 0 0 e z e k kt G / LA \_§ \ \ § trm I eD; / } _ |( { B ! E( B eD I; }C - eD k } k } k \ k \ 2 / / ° - / m m ; -om _ & e - : � - CD ( ({ / \ � ( - - > cr _ \ 0 \ \ \ \ \ g / | ( 162 0 w n v Z 0 v v c v Z 0 v v v�i 3 m O 3 m _ rt N 7 fD w OA 3 G N N 7 .+ S N i G G N N N 7 v D c D Z a 3 m M v ' D c D Z a .w+ O a '6 m m D v rt ,91.t O a v m w D o N 3 0 w = fD rt S N 3 0 w O N G =� '6 c N CL -+ N a rt a O S S � N 3 (D CL Q N G A '0 d Q A J w O . y r+ � fD N (p N rt S W rt N v C) D D C) < n W O --1 N c fD Cc , S N. � "w6 � 0 0 n " N y. W O O ni 0- 0 D N vOi �' nrti �'.� O nOi 0 J- m O O N O' O' fD J < O v w n' N N N n Uri fZ—i' 0 S = .J. y X N G .w. U� O O O � .J. > > m N 00 c 0 < v Q .O�r 00 -0 N C) O N c N J N = rr O C D VI .. cn OJO �_ f6D .wr p C n = fD p S N J O O < Q N N Q Q N 00 N 2 G1 90 C N O' rr N rr vine N (D y. ? > N S N IDj G1 (D N' N O 00 .* fD .r •* N Gl r J S J O O N 0- N fD *. C O rt O O J G ]' Gl r* rr fD y G O L O O 10 0 (D J N J N O J fD O N O O O 2 N O N G' J d N O N O S J S fD N N N ,G N 163 0 W W oD n oc N O C y �• .N+ N O C y �• .N+ z G G (n N (D 3 .�+rt N i G G N N (D 3 .�+• 3 �^ � rt ,� fD 0 (D w rt 3 �^ rt N ram+ o Da c D Z a 3 M m v A D c D Z a 3 m m G 'O N w D p rt ,91.t O a 'O N y D p rt b c m = m rt S m 3 1 c m 9 = m rt S (D N N (D (D N N (D N G n O N G n O a J G G N rt G G N rt 0 O S S O S S O N 0 3 7 (D -0 a a} N N N G A '0 A '0 d Q A Q A J w O w O M n M fD = fD N N N N N N rt rt S S W W rt rt (D (D A (D O J D y O_ O_ J vJi (D (D (D 7� 0 J (D � N .Jr (D -UT 00 00 m 0 (D N 0 O O_ (D M yi C (DM 0 y C J J M J N N CD ti. D ,JY J J O_ O_ O_ S fD m o (DC 0 .nr, O O_ �' O D D D O O' Z 2 0 �, 0 0_ 0_ 0_ c s �. J S 0 0 c Q o J C p N M W N G1 G1 Q J O O_ N O O 0 G J J J N O } N C N m N S N IN cM. rD n ICn 3 (D G G 0 0 0 (6D (D (DN O O_ N C M * n 0 0 (SD 0 O N S O. 0- Q N. J O N O NO .Cr N .nr 'o S p m O O S S < N o N n O In in O ri N Q O O N* Q y 0 (D m J O D' N N 0 c � O' 164 ` — E 2 m z 0 _ — 0 2 E I \ w 9 \ \ \ } LA} 0 eD B \ \ \eD } 0 j k eD k � j k k � / k } k } kk k \ - 2 _ G & & 4 / > 2 } ) § x % 7 \ 2 ) / ; } ƒ \ \ / 2 / / ; / 2 - FD FD } / e ( D / [ - - - - } 77 ` m 9 : § - ƒ § { o ( : \ o \ ( D ( ) « § - « ; / } — _ ( } \ - § / - § ; } ) - ( \ 165 0 W n o `� m c N O N W 0 7 0 N w S N a N fD 0 rt 3 G O N -rt c m o rt m N 3 G '6 O O � G n O N eD O N G G a N N O S S � � 3 A d Q A w O . y r+ � fD N (p N rt S W rt N N N W N m O O 0 •* " N 0 fD fD O S = O O O m rt 10 O N C O G D N N O O S * O >' fD O C9 O N S � O (D� S v o o 90 S = C S O fD O O vCi .Or j p=q N pOq y O �* S O rt O n' O �p 9 fD fD S N N y y Q c o, 166 AP-50 Geographic Distribution —91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed CDBG funds are distributed throughout the city. Low/moderate-income households exist in all of the census tracts in the city.The heavier concentrations can be found on both the East and West Hill of Kent. Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds City of Kent 100 Table 23-Geographic Distribution Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically N/A. Discussion Poverty is high in pockets throughout the City (over 20%),and 53%of children in the Kent School District qualify for free and reduced lunches. Unemployment and dependence on public assistance has forced many households to use public services for basic needs; including food, utility assistance, rental assistance, medical services,etc. The increased need and high volume of usage dictates the availability of services to all low/moderate-income households in the City of Kent. Consolidated Plan KENT 60 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 167 AP-85 Other Actions —91.420, 91.220(k) Introduction The City of Kent will enhance coordination by continuing to work with racial and ethnic minority providers to develop strategies that increase collaboration and leveraging of resources. The City of Kent will continue work to reduce the number of families in poverty through micro- enterprise training, maintaining relationships with local training schools,encouraging business to hire low-income residents, encouraging and supporting collaboration between employment specialists and outreach to increase opportunities for low-income residents to obtain livable wage jobs. In 2013, Kent Cultural Diversity Initiative Group (this project is staffed by the City), provided funding and supported a Refugee Employment Summit(RES) to increase jobs and connections between refugee leaders,employers and employment specialists. Using funds leftover from the RES, Kent Cultural Diversity Initiative Group (KC-DIG) and the City responded to requests from racial/ethnic communities and hosted a Refugee Small Business Development Workshop in May 2014. In 2015,the City will provide additional CDBG funding to Washington CASH to provide technical assistance (TA) to micro-enterprise business owners and developers, targeting new residents from Bhutan, Burma,Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq; etc. WA CASH will partner with a consultant or organization that provides culturally/linguistically-responsive services. The City of Kent is committed to maintaining the affordable housing stock in our community. Using CDBG funds for the Home Repair Program allows home owners to maintain their homes and preserve housing stock. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The City is actively engaged with refugee and immigrant communities through KC-DIG. The City will continue to partner with regional funders like The Seattle Foundation, King County,and United Way of King County to increase resources and funding to meet the needs of under-served populations. The City will work with these funders to implement the recommendations/strategies outlined in Tuvute Pamoja: Capacity Assessment Interviews of Ethnic Community Based Organizations. City staff will continue to work with The Seattle Foundation and King County on the Communities of Opportunity Grant which provides funds to organizations whose activities reduce inequities in the areas of health, housing and economic opportunities. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing Consolidated Plan KENT 61 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 168 The City will continue its long-term collaboration and participation on Boards, committees, funding review teams; etc.,to foster and maintain affordable housing for the South County Region.Through sub- regional efforts,City staff and stakeholders will engage in discussions with elected officials and Land Use and Planning Board members about the impact that affordable housing has on the long term viability of the community. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards No actions are planned. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families Actions to reduce the number of poverty level families includes funding micro-enterprise training and TA, maintaining relationships with local training schools, encouraging business to hire low-income residents and outreach to increase opportunities for low-income residents to obtain livable wage jobs. Actions planned to develop institutional structure No actions are planned. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies The City has been instrumental in developing relationships between these entities and will continue to foster and participate in these collaborations, including the Homeless Forum (a monthly meeting of housing and support service providers), South King Council of Human Services, South King County Housing Development Group, and the King County Housing Development Consortium. Discussion Consolidated Plan KENT 62 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 169 Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements —91.420, 91.220(1)(1,2,4) Introduction The City of Kent will use CDBG funds to benefit low/moderate-income residents. The full amount allowable by regulation will be used for Public Services and Planning and Administration. The balance of funds will be used for housing rehabilitation services and economic development. The City will not receive program income from prior years. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(I)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table.The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1.The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0 2.The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0 3.The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0 4.The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0 5.The amount of income from float-funded activities 0 Total Program Income: 0 Other CDBG Requirements 1.The amount of urgent need activities 0 2.The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit-A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 100.00% Consolidated Plan KENT 63 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 170 Discussion The City will use all of its funds to benefit low/moderate-income individuals. Consolidated Plan KENT 64 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 171 Appendix -Alternate/Local Data Sources 1 Data Source Name Census Data List the name of the organization or individual who originated the data set. US Census Bureau Provide a brief summary of the data set. Data provides information on economic, racial,ethnic, housing, population,age, sex etc. What was the purpose for developing this data set? Data analysis was done by Kent staff for the purpose of determining the degree of need for human services. How comprehensive is the coverage of this administrative data?Is data collection concentrated in one geographic area or among a certain population? Data is generalized across the city. What time period(provide the year,and optionally month,or month and day) is covered by this data set? 10 years What is the status of the data set(complete,in progress,or planned)? Being updated with latest information that includes annexed area of the City Consolidated Plan KENT 65 OMB Control No:2506-0117(exp.07/31/2015) 172 173 HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT What you will find in this chapter: 1. Demographic, economic and social trends 2. Statement of goals and policies to provide a framework defining the city's role in contributing to the social development of the community. 3. Goals that support the provision of services to assist those in need and opportunities to encourage a healthy community. Purpose Statement: Invest in the delivery of human services programs which are essential to the community's growth, vitality and health. Purpose Kent will be a place where children, individuals and families can thrive, where neighbors care for each other, and where our residents share the responsibility of ensuring a safe and healthy community for all. A healthy city depends on the health and well-being of its residents. Human services programs are essential to the health, growth and vitality of the Kent community. Programs assist individuals and families meet their basic needs and create a pathway to self-sufficiency. By investing in the delivery of these services to Kent residents, the City of Kent is working to promote building a healthy community. Housing and Human Services invests in the community to create measurable, sustainable change and to improve the lives of its residents. Investments are focused in order to generate the greatest possible impact. They address the issues that matter most to our community and are targeted in order to deliver meaningful results. To achieve community impact, investments are made in a variety of ways: • Meeting Community Basics Ensuring that people facing hardship have access to resources to help meet immediate or basic needs. • Increasing Self-Reliance Helping individuals break out of the cycle of poverty by improving access to services and removing barriers to employment. 174 • Strengthening Children and Families Providing children, youth and families with community resources needed to support their positive development, including early intervention & prevention services. • Building a Safer Community Providing resources and services that reduce violence, crime, and neglect in our community. • Improving Health and Well-Being Providing access to services that allow individuals to improve their mental and physical health, overall well-being, and ability to live independently. • Improving and Integrating Systems Leading efforts to ensure that human services systems meet etrFFen demands and expectations by increasing capacity, utilizing technology, coordinating efforts, and sharing resources. The City of Kent is one of the most diverse communities in the state of Washington. As the City continues to strive to meet the needs and expectations of an increasingly culturally and ethnically varied population, a better understanding of cultural differences and their relationship to quality service — respect, inclusiveness, and sensitivity — becomes essential. Serving diverse populations is not a "one size fits all" process. Diversity includes all differences, not just those that indicate racial or ethnic distinctions. Diversity transcends racial and ethnic distinctions to include groups, their members, and affiliations. The concept of diversity also refers to differences in lifestyles, beliefs, economic status, etc. Community Context The demographic changes that have taken place in Kent and the surrounding cities have had a broad impact on the provision of human services. It is evident that segments of Kent's population are growing more rapidly than others. Census 2010 data and the subsequent American Community Survey data indicate that while the percentage of minorities in Seattle remained relatively flat, it skyrocketed in the suburbs south of the city limits, including Kent. The shift happened as people of color moved out of Seattle's historically lower-income and diverse neighborhoods, joining waves of immigrants who continue to relocate and settle in South King County. While Seattle is scarcely more diverse than it was ten years ago, Kent and several other South King County cities are now communities where minorities either comprise a majority of the population or very close to it. This trend is sometimes referred to as the suburbanization of poverty and its prevalence in South King County drew the attention of the Brookings Institution, a think tank based in Washington D.C. that conducts research and education in the social sciences. Kent and the surrounding cities are now home to a wide variety of 175 people living in poverty. According to research conducted by Brookings, 68% of the poor in the three counties surrounding Seattle now live in the suburbs, particularly in South King County. The suburbanization of poverty is now a defining characteristic of the Kent community and it appears to be increasing across the nation. Issues Demographics, Economics and Special Needs r The needs of Kent residents are varied and range from the need for one-time assistance to the need for more complex, ongoing case management. It is critical to provide a continuum of human services programs that meet residents where they are, prevent them from YH M r ;P �ffr ;alh� requiring more intensive services later, and guide them l'�" toward a path of self-sufficiency. As the suburbanization of poverty trend continues, Kent's population will become increasingly diverse, challenging our already overburdened service delivery systems to deliver culturally and linguistically competent services. Individuals and families will continue to need accessible transportation, health care, child, and dependent care. Housing cost in part fuels this growth and, although housing in Kent is less expensive than other parts of King County, it is still not affordable for many (defined as a threshold of 30% of income). Kent has a large inventory of old housing, both apartments and single-family homes. This housing stock is in need of upkeep and improvements in order to maintain an appropriate level of livability. Low-income households are too often crowded in older apartments not intended for their family size, and home ownership opportunities are limited for working families. Additional challenges related to the suburbanization of poverty include the development of health disparities. People living in poverty are more likely to have underlying contributors to conditions that adversely affect health — factors such as poor diet, tobacco use, physical inactivity, drug and alcohol use, and adverse childhood experiences. The leading causes of death and disability are shaped in large part by the places where people live, learn, work and play. Therefore, to improve the health of Kent's residents, more attention must be focused on community features that affect health - such as decent housing, access to healthy food, transportation, parks, living wage jobs, and social cohesion. The economy and quality of life depends on the ability of everyone to contribute. By investing in human services that are accessible to all, the City is working to remove barriers that limit the ability of some to fulfill their potential. 176 Regional efforts in South King County are critical for high priority issues such as housing, transportation and human services. While the migration of low-income individuals and families to South King County is well documented, the proportion of public funds has not followed. Additionally, simply moving the resources will not solve the fundamental problems associated with poverty in the region. Kent and other South King County cities do not have the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs because public policy has not kept pace with the rise of poverty in the suburbs. While there is no simple solution to this issue, it is critical that any approach to system change must be addressed at a regional level, including local partners in every part of the process. Kent's History in Human Services Kent is recognized as a leader in South King County in the human services arena. The City has been funding nonprofit human service agencies to provide services to its residents since 1974. In 1989, The City took a major step in its funding efforts by allocating 1% of its general fund revenue to fund human services. This nearly doubled the amount of funding in the first year. In addition, the City has consistently allocated the maximum allowable of its Federal Community Development Block Grant dollars to human services. The City of Kent Human Services Commission was established by the City Council in 1986. The Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Mayor, City Council, and Chief Administrative Officer on setting priorities, evaluating and making recommendations on funding requests, evaluating and reviewing human service agencies, and responding to City actions affecting the availability and quality of human services in Kent. Commissioners take an active part in promoting community awareness and education on human services issues. In 1989 the City created the Office of Housing and Human Services (now Housing and Human Services). In 2011 (for the 2012 budget) Human Services requested a budget adjustment of $95,000 due to a significant decrease in the human services 1% funding allocation. The decrease occurred when a number of factors converged that had the potential to drastically reduce the City's investment in human services. As a result the Human Services Commission was charged with developing a new, more stable funding strategy. Beginning in 2013, the City shifted to a per capita rate with a Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalator. The CPI will not exceed 3% or drop below 0%. In 2013 the rate was established at $6.96. City's Role in Human Services Housing and Human Services, a division of Kent's Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department, is responsible for human services planning at both the local 177 and regional levels, facilitating human services activities and funding through the Human Services Commission. Housing and Human Services also operates the City's Home Repair program, funded entirely by Federal Community Development Block Grant money. City of Kent staff provides leadership in human services as a planner, facilitator, educator, and funder. The City plans for human service needs by assessing the current state of the community, as well as anticipating future needs. The City facilitates and convenes community partnerships to address emerging issues. The City educates others on the resources available and the value of these services. Kent funds programs through both General Fund dollars and Federal Community Development Block Grant dollars to support and enhance existing services, as well as to address emergent needs. Housing and Human Services invests in the community to create measurable, sustainable change and to improve the lives of its residents. Investments are focused in order to generate the greatest impacts. To achieve community impact, investments are made in a variety of ways: • direct emergency services to assist people in crisis; • preventative services such as mentoring, after school programs and counseling for youth and teenagers; and • services that promote achieving self-sufficiency (including job training, child care scholarships, micro-enterprise, etc.) Volunteers from the community who comprise the City's Human Services Commission determine the City's community investments using the following criteria: • address the City's funding priorities; • are of high quality and fiscally sound with a track-record of achieving measurable results; • reflect the continuum of human service needs; • are collaborative in nature; • provide an opportunity to leverage other resources for the greatest impact; and • are accessible to all residents who need to access services 178 The City's investments in the community are not only monetary in nature, but are also evidenced through the dedication of staff time and resources to community initiatives that will benefit the greater Kent community. Several divisions of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department are involved in providing human service programs and assistance. The department provides a variety of education, recreation, prevention and intervention services for children, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities. Other divisions within the City of Kent also play important roles in the provision of human services. The City's Neighborhood Program was created to promote and sustain an environment that is responsive to resident involvement while building partnerships between the city and its residents. The Police Department coordinates a very successful Youth Board, that exists to educate and raise awareness of youth issues through youth-driven activities, including having a positive influence on peers toward making healthy choices, and community based projects focused on drug and alcohol prevention. Data In 2010-2012 there were approximately 42,000 households in Kent. The average household size was 2.9 people. 73% of the people living in Kent were native residents of the United States. 27% of Kent's residents were foreign born. Of the foreign born Kent residents, 47% were naturalized U.S. citizens and 93% entered the country prior to the year 2010. Foreign born residents of Kent come from many different parts of the world. Oceania Regions of the World 2.2% Northern America 1.9% Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey Data 179 Racial Diversit More Other Asian/Pacific Native Black White than one Islander American race 1990 0* 1.2% 4.4% 1.4% 3.8% 89.2% 2000 15.4% 9.8% 10.2% 1% 8.2% 70.8% 2010 16.6% 8.5% 17.1% 1% 11.3% 55.5% *More than one race was not an option in the 1990 Census. Among people at least five years old living in Kent in 2010-2012, 41% spoke a language other than English at home. Of those speaking a language other than English at home, 32% spoke Spanish and 68% some other language. 47% reported that they did not speak English "very well." Percent of Population 5 years and who Speak a Language other than English Spanish 32.2 Other Indo-European languages 247 IIIIIIII Percent of Population 5 years Asian and Pacific Islander and who Speak a Language languages 34.9 other than English Other languages 8.3 0 10 20 30 40 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Education In 2010-2012, 27% of people 25 years and over had a high school diploma or equivalency and 24% had a bachelor's degree or higher. 17% were dropouts; they were not enrolled in school and had not graduated from high school. 180 Educational Attainment of People in Kent of is Less than high school diploma IIIIII High school diploma or equivalency 11�1$Some college, no degree 111111 Associate's degree IIIIIIII Bachelor's Degree IN Graduate or professional degree Educational Attainment Subject Kent city, Washington Total Male Female Estimate Margin of Estimate Margin of Estimate Margin of Error Error Error Population 18 to 24 years 12,712 +/-1,073 6,059 +/-766 6,653 +/-779 Less than high school graduate 17.4% +/-3.9 18.2% +/-5.4 16.8% +/-4.9 High school graduate (includes 27.9% +/-4.5 33.3% +/-7.3 23.0% +/-5.5 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 47.9% +/-5.5 42.5% +/-7.2 52.7% +/-6.6 Bachelor's degree or higher 6.8% +/-2.4 6.0% +/-3.4 7.5% +/-2.9 Population 25 years and over 75,934 +/-1,582 36,730 +/-1,184 39,204 +/-1,191 Less than 9th grade 8.4% +/-1.1 8.6% +/-1.4 8.1% +/-1.3 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 8.2% +/-0.9 8.5% +/-1.4 7.8% +/-1.2 High school graduate (includes 26.5% +/-1.5 26.1% +/-2.0 26.9% +/-2.2 equivalency) Some college, no degree 23.7% +/-1.5 23.8% +/-2.0 23.6% +/-2.0 181 Associate's degree 9.3% +/-0.9 9.2% +/-1.3 9.4% +/-1.2 Bachelor's degree 17.5% +/-1.4 17.6% +/-1.9 17.5% +/-2.0 Graduate or professional degree 6.4% +/-0.8 6.2% +/-1.0 6.7% +/-1.1 Percent high school graduate or higher 83.5% +/-1.2 82.9% +/-1.7 84.0% +/-1.6 Percent bachelor's degree or higher 24.0% +/-1.4 23.8% +/-1.8 24.1% +/-2.1 Population 25 to 34 years 18,062 +/-1,311 8,888 +/-851 9,174 +/-876 High school graduate or higher 81.0% +/-3.7 79.5% +/-5.4 82.5% +/-3.8 Bachelor's degree or higher 20.8% +/-2.8 20.1% +/-4.3 21.6% +/-3.6 Population 35 to 44 years 17,173 +/-1,235 8,230 +/-705 8,943 +/-802 High school graduate or higher 79.5% +/-2.9 78.7% +/-4.5 80.3% +/-4.1 Bachelor's degree or higher 25.2% +/-3.2 20.2% +/-3.6 29.7% +/-4.6 Population 45 to 64 years 29,170 +/-1,233 14,873 +/-782 14,297 +/-775 High school graduate or higher 87.6% +/-2.4 86.4% +/-3.0 88.8% +/-2.8 Bachelor's degree or higher 26.0% +/-2.6 26.4% +/-3.0 25.5% +/-3.4 Population 65 years and over 11,529 +/-590 4,739 +/-425 6,790 +/-515 High school graduate or higher 82.9% +/-3.0 85.6% +/-3.8 81.1% +/-4.3 Bachelor's degree or higher 22.1% +/-2.7 28.8% +/-4.8 17.4% +/-3.1 POVERTY RATE FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT LEVEL Less than high school graduate 32.2% +/-5.3 26.0% +/-6.4 38.4% +/-6.4 High school graduate (includes 13.9% +/-3.4 11.4% +/-4.0 16.1% +/-4.2 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 10.4% +/-1.9 9.8% +/-2.5 10.9% +/-2.6 Bachelor's degree or higher 4.8% +/-1.8 4.7% +/-2.7 4.9% +/-2.4 (continued) MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS(IN 2012INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Population 25 years and over with 36,231 +/-1,353 41,689 +/-1,885 30,642 +/-1,438 earnings Less than high school graduate 23,785 +/-3,519 27,171 +/-3,597 14,035 +/-2,876 High school graduate (includes 30,570 +/-2,453 37,137 +/-3,457 25,731 +/-3,073 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 35,906 +/-1,429 41,128 +/-3,396 31,451 +/-1,829 Bachelor's degree 53,131 +/-2,181 65,766 +/-3,989 39,857 +/-5,945 Graduate or professional degree 65,873 +/-7,549 92,149 +/-23,593 58,197 +/-7,696 PERCENT IMPUTED Educational attainment 1 6.0% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates 182 Kent School District The increasing diversity in Kent is even more pronounced when examining school statistics. Kent School District is the fourth largest school district in the state of Washington. Currently, the district consists of 4 large comprehensive high Schools, 6 middle schools, 28 elementary schools and 2 academies. Kent School District benefits from a wealth of diversity as at least 138 languages are spoken within its boundaries, with the top five languages other than English including: Spanish, Russian, Somali, Punjabi, and Vietnamese. Ten Years of Change Over the past ten years, the Kent School District has seen increased enrollment as well as a shift in student population demographics. 2001-2002 2012-2013 Student Enrollment: 26,670 Student Enrollment 27,539 Male: 51.6% Male: 52.3% Female: 48.3% Female: 47.7% Caucasian: 68.7% Caucasian: 39.5% Asian/Pacific Islander: 13.6% Asian/Pacific Islander: 17.1% African American: 9.5% African American: 11.9% Hispanic 6.8% Hispanic: 19.8% American Indian: 1.2% American Indian: 0.7% 1-11110 o - iu - oo . @ a JU JJjJ IYII� � ,al; IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII October 2013 Student Count 27,688 wMay 2014 Student Count 27,484 Male 14,513 52.4% Female 13,175 47.6% American Indian/Alaskan Native 156 0.6% Asian 4,799 17.3% Native Hawaiian /Other Pacific Islander 647 2.3% Asian/Pacific Islander 5,446 19.7% Black/African American 3,377 12.2% Hispanic / Latino of any race(s) 5,779 20.9% White 10,459 37.8% pTwo or More Races p� 2,471 8.9% Ilnl" -i n i 16( n VtVt 'lt'' ��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Free or Reduced-Price Meals (May 2014) 14,399 52.4% Special Education (May 2014) 2,996 10.9% Transitional Bilingual (May 2014) 4,918 17.9% Migrant (May 2014) 39 0.1% Section 504 (May 2014) 1,095 4.0% Foster Care (May 2014) 146 0.5% 183 Unexcused Absence Rate (2013-14) 348 0.4% Adjusted 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate (Class of 2013) 78.7% Adjusted 5-year Cohort Graduation Rate (Class of 2012) 82.8% cot a9tes Office of Superintendent of Public Education The race/ethnicity makeup of students as of October 2013 was: 45% 40% .....37.8% . . 35% 30% 25% 19 7% 15% 2,2%...'.. 10% 5% .6%.i.:.. 3%.... 0% ip 66 0 c�pa Qa� c\Qa¢ 3¢0 `caa PS.a < ac i� Pam¢ Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 2013-2014 Report Card 184 Center for Education and Data Research (CEDR) Percentage of English Language Learners 16% Kent _.., acol Pin ,r 4% 2% 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ii.. i... e, IL4.OdA/„ .e,, impJYiJY ....................................... Source: Kent School District's State of the District 2011-2012 HEALTH INDICATORS The following selected indicators from Public Health's Communities Count data released in 2012 and early 2013 illustrate important factors for healthy communities. The data refer to South King County as a region, and will be generally applicable to challenges faced by the City of Kent: 13% of adults experience "food insecurity", reporting that household food money did not last the whole month. Of those reporting food insecurity, 38% were Latino, 21% African American, 13% were Multiple Race, 6% Asian and 7% white. 15% of adults in South King County reported that their household could not afford to eat balanced meals or went hungry during the past 12 months. This compares to 9% of King County residents on average. Households with children in South King County are far more likely to experience food hardship than those without children. (18% compared to 8%.) At 27.7 per 1,000, West Kent had one of the highest teen birth rates in King County. All neighborhoods and cities with teen birth rates greater than the King County average were found in South King County and South Seattle. These areas had teen birth rates 1.5 to almost 3 times higher than the county average. 185 HOMELESSNESS Spotlight on Homeless Families: The City of Kent is experiencing increasing numbers of homeless individuals. The One-Night Count, conducted annually by the Seattle-King County Homeless Coalition and Operation Nightwatch, conducted their annual count of people sleeping outside in January 2014. Sixty-three people were found on the streets, a smaller number than anticipated. Fifty four persons were counted in 2013 and 104 were counted in 2012. In addition to the homeless individuals sleeping outside, many homeless people are not visible - many families are in "doubled up" housing conditions, in shelter, or in hotels. Since the beginning of the recession in 2007 the number of homeless children in the Kent School District has been between 400 and 500. The Kent School District had 420 homeless students in the 2012-13 school year. In April 2012 King County launched the Coordinated Entry "Family Housing Connections" system for all families county wide experiencing homelessness. Families searching for housing use a single entry point facilitated by 2-1-1. All families are served through Catholic Community Services who uses the full range of housing providers to place the family. During the first year of the project a number of issues have emerged and planners are working on the best strategies to resolve the issues. Goals and Policies Goal 1. Build safe and healthy communities through mutually supportive connections, building on the strengths and assets of all residents. Policy 1.1: Ensure that people facing hardship have access to resources to help meet immediate or basic needs. Policy 1.2: Provide children, youth and families with community resources needed to support their positive development, including early intervention and prevention services. Policy 1.3: Provide resources and services that reduce violence, crime, and neglect in our community. Policy 1.4: Support efforts to strengthen neighborhoods and ensure individuals and families feel connected to their community and build support systems within neighborhoods. Goal 2. Support residents in attaining their maximum level of self-reliance. Policy 2.1: Improve access to services that allow individuals to improve their mental and physical health, overall well-being, and ability to live independently. 186 Policy 2.2: Promote access to jobs and services, especially for lower-income individuals, when planning local and regional transportation systems and economic development activities. Goal 3. Build community collaborations and seek strategic approaches to meet the needs of Kent residents. Policy 3.1: Lead efforts to improve the ability of human services systems to meet demands and expectations by increasing capacity, utilizing technology, coordinating efforts and sharing resources. Policy 3.2: Collaborate with churches, employers, businesses, schools, and nonprofit agencies in the community. Policy 3.3: Encourage collaborative partnerships between the City and the school districts to identify and meet the needs of children and families. Goal 4. Support equal access to services, through a service network that meets needs across age, ability, culture, and language. Policy 4.1: Promote services that respect the diversity and dignity of individuals and families and are accessible to all members of the community. Policy 4.2: Encourage service enhancements that build capacity to better meet the needs of the community, reduce barriers through service design, and are responsive to changing needs. Goal 5. Treat all members of the community with respect and dignity. Policy 5.1: Ensure that services are equally accessible and responsive to a wide range of individual, cultures and family structures, and are free of discrimination and prejudice. Policy 5.2: Increase community participation from traditionally under- represented populations, including youth, persons of color, immigrants and non-native English speakers. Goal 6. Oversee city resources with consistent ethical stewardship, fairness in allocating funds, and strong accountability for ensuring services are effective. Policy 6.1: Provide funds to nonprofit human services providers to improve the quality of life for low- and moderate- income residents. Policy 6.2: Continue the City's active participation in subregional and regional planning efforts related to human services. 187 Policy 6.3: Support new and existing human services programs, and coordinate policies, legislation, and funding at the local, regional, State, and Federal levels. 188 189 Comment[cl]:This chapter will be replaced in its entirety. J CHAPTER SEVEN HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT Human services are the support system used by a community to assist individuals and families in meeting their basic needs. The continuum of services ranges from basic needs to self-sufficiency, including but not limited to children and youth services, health care, employment, job training, access to transportation,housing, and neighborhood services. The need for human services crosses all socioeconomic and cultural boundaries. Human services are typically divided into the following: Basic Survival Services—those services that help to meet basic emergency needs for food and shelter; Rehabilitation—programs that provide treatment for individual and family problems; Self Sufficiency—programs that allow individuals and families to maintain or enhance their present level of independence;and Prevention Services—programs that provide education and intervention to reduce future needs and promote self-reliance. The Countywide Planning Policies recognize the need to integrate all aspects of a community into the Comprehensive Plan by stating: `All jurisdictions shall identify essential conwnunity and human services and include them in land use, capital improvement, and transportation plans." Therefore, Kent's Human Services Element provides a guide to essential services that integrates with the City's policies,zoning,and funding priorities. COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES NEEDS Kent's population is considerably more diverse than the population of King County and Washington State. As of the 2000 Census, one-thud of the population in Kent described themselves as being persons of color or of Hispanic origin. Kent has a high percent of immigrants, more than King County and the State as a whole. It is anticipated that the number of immigrants coming to Kent will continue to increase in the coming years. Many recent immigrants, especially those who arrive as refugees, have complex needs. They face the difficult tasks of learning to speak English, adapting to a new culture,finding employment,and helping their children adjust to a new education system. Human Servicer 7-1 190 Human Services 7-2 191 As of the 2000 Census, almost 22% of Kent residents over five (5) years of age spoke a language other than English in the home. Half of them reported speaking English "less than well." More than 10%of the residents of Kent over the age of five(5)report that they are isolated to some extent by language barriers. The need for translation in providing human services, government services and education is a challenge to the providers and those who need the services alike. Specialized providers with the ability to provide culturally specific services to people in their own language will become increasingly important to our community. As of mid-2002, the families being seen by human service providers were still primarily families with long-term poverty. Service providers anticipate an increase in demand for basic needs (i.e. food,rent,gas and utility assistance) as the impacts of the current economic downturn are felt over the next several years. Currently several local churches and social service agencies administer a limited amount of funds to help individuals meet their basic needs,including emergency food,hotel vouchers, gas vouchers, and rent assistance. These services are very fragmented and require families to travel to several different locations to receive small amounts of money. As the need for this type of service grows,the providers will need to develop a coordinated service delivery system. Support for transportation for very low-income families continues to be a priority. The bus system can be very difficult to negotiate with long transit times and inadequate cross-valley routes. Inability to travel to different sites can reduce the capacity of families to seek the services they need. Transportation will continue to be an issue as more and more low-income families who rely on public transportation move to the Kent area. There continues to be a lack of affordable, accessible childcare in Kent. The cost of childcare can easily consume between 50% and 75% of gross pay for a parent working in an entry-level job. Subsidy for childcare costs is a significant need for working families. Childcare for shift workers and sick child care for working parents are virtually unavailable. In addition,the need for childcare that is culturally relevant will continue to increase with our changing demographics. Services to address domestic violence continue to be an extremely high need in Kent. For families leaving domestic violence situations, access to shelter services is especially limited when children have behavioral problems, physical or mental disabilities, or when families include male children over age fifteen(15). More transitional housing is needed to provide stability for victims leaving violent relationships. Our community also needs to increase the number of emergency beds and hotel vouchers available for women in emergency situations. Increased community advocacy and legal advocacy services are needed for victims, as well as specialized domestic violence advocacy for Kent's increasingly diverse population. Human Servicer 7-3 192 Youth services in Kent need to be enhanced. Additional after school activities for the 8-12 year old age group are needed, as well as support for youth 18-21 years of age who are considered"adults" to most programs targeted to youth, but still have significant needs for support to help them transition to adulthood. The senior population is growing in the City of Kent. As the population ages and requires more comprehensive services, many of those who require long-term care will have to leave the City because the demand for this service outweighs the available supply. Although Kent has a large number of SHAG (Senior Housing Assistance Group) developments, assistance is primarily available to seniors with incomes between 50% and 80%of area median. Very low-income seniors continue to have difficulty finding affordable housing. The percentage of lower-income people in Kent will likely continue to increase faster than the population as a whole. Our increasing diversity,the aging of our residents,and the national trend of a rise in lower-paid service jobs coinciding with a decline in higher-paid manufacturing jobs are other factors forcing our human services delivery system to continually change. An effective human service delivery system is vital for a healthy community. We need to continue to monitor our changing demographics and provide the leadership and incentives to address the human services needs of our community. Kent's History In Human Services The recent changes in our population have created an increased complexity of human services needs. In response, Kent has continued to demonstrate a strong commitment to addressing the human service needs of Kent residents. Kent is recognized as a leader in South King County in the human services arena. The City has been funding nonprofit human service agencies to provide services to its residents since 1974. In 1989, the City took a major step in its funding efforts by allocating 1%of its general fund revenue to fund human services. This nearly doubled the amount of funding in the first year. In addition,the City has consistently allocated the maximum allowable of its Federal Community Development Block Grant dollars to human services. The City of Kent Human Services Commission was established by the City Council in 1986. The Commission provides the focal point for addressing human service needs in Kent. The Commission not only serves as the formal mechanism for review of human service issues and funding applications, but also takes an active part in promoting community awareness and education on human service issues. In 1989, the City created the Office of Housing and Human Services (now Housing&Human Services). Human Servicer 7-4 193 CITY'S ROLE IN HUMAN SERVICES The City of Kent provides leadership in human services as planner, facilitator, educator and£under. The City plans for human service needs by assessing the current needs of the community,as well as anticipating future needs. The City facilitates and convenes community partnerships to address needs. The City educates others on the resources available and the value of these services. Kent funds programs through both General Fund dollars and Federal Community Development Block Grant dollars to support and enhance existing services,as well as to address emergent needs. Housing & Human Services, a division of Kent's Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department, is responsible for human services planning at both the regional and local levels, facilitating human services activities and funding through the Human Services Commission. Housing & Human Services also operates the City's Home Repair program funded entirely by Federal Community Development Block Grant money. Several Kent departments are involved in providing human service programs and assistance. The Parks, Recreation& Community Services Department provides a variety of education, recreation, prevention and intervention services for children,youth, seniors, and people with disabilities. The Police Department and Fire & Life Safety regularly assist the community with a broad range of human services, from locating social services to providing useful training to citizens. The Police Department administers a successful volunteer Seniors Homebound Connection program. Fire & Life Safety provide wellness checks, fall prevention programs and a wide range of education programs for the community. The City of Kent has a model Family Violence Unit that consists of Police Detectives, an Assistant City Attorney, Domestic Violence Advocates, and Municipal Court Probation Officers. Bringing together these different agencies, allows the City to pool resources in order to respond to the needs of victims and families in a more coordinated and meaningful way. HUMAN SERVICES GOALS AND POLICIES Goal HS-1: Enable individuals to meet their basic physical, economic and social needs by providing an effective human services delivery system and enhance their quality of life. Policy HS-1.1: Foster a community that is free of discrimination and prejudice. Human Services 7-s 194 Policy HS-1.2: Build supportfor and awareness of human services to create a community that values diversity, responds to the special needs of individuals and families, and shares the responsibilities and benefits of living in this City and region. Policy HS-1.3: Increase inclusion of immigrants, refugees, and people of color in the life of the Kent community. Policy HS-1.4: Encourage services to become accessible to all members of the community. Policy HS-1.5: Promote services that respect the diversity and dignity of individuals and families and encourage self-sufficiency. Policy HS-1.6: Consider the human services impact before adopting any policies or legislation. Policy HS-1.7: Promote access to jobs and services, especially for lower-income people, when planning local and regional transportation systems and economic development activities. Policy HS-1.8: Continue the City's active participation in South King County Human Services Forum,the South King Council ofHuman Services,and other regional groups. Policy HS-1.9: Collaborate with churches, employers, businesses, schools, and nonprofit agencies in the community. Policy HS-1.10: Encourage collaborative partnerships between the City and the school districts to identify and meet the needs of children and families. Policy HS-1.11: Support new and existing human services programs, and coordinate policies, legislation, and funding on the Federal,State, regional,and local levels. Policy HS-1.12: Play an active role in promoting comprehensive and effective delivery systems for human services,both locally and regionally. Policy HS-1.13: Facilitate and promote community participation in planning, providing and promoting human services. Human Servicer 7-6 195 Policy HS-1.14: Encourage,facilitate, and assist nonprofit agencies in building capacity to better meet the needs of the community. Policy HS-1.15: Allocate funds and other resources to address the continuum of community needs. Policy HS-1.16: Support multi-dimensional approaches linking services to jobs to improve the ability of people to obtain,progress and retain livable wage jobs. Policy HS1.17:: Encourage the collocation of service providers in existing facilities to increase efficiency and coordination. Human Services 7-7 196 197 Public Health Seattle & King County King County City Health Profile Kent 1 r n t u) Bllt"1411 R6nOn="86st„_ "r Newcastle/FA, r Creeks fhn is ri p %/ .i v pAt swt1 �5PotlH &E % r : y K m m 'G,taamv4 llrll�l n ��$°� r �m rmuw f I Ww a�mmvn tlurkrr�l ax,.v f� l" , � � 2fe toy{�ou Aa pq 1 Tac Yak Favwooy m d" "irk. +AC: ✓ ( e r Norman( SI itlmhAl rk > N$ I N6 fi Ij �n M�rry ae i. a lop rao¢f r 9 Phil(^� 5 �i tnd Rt j dtlM1 sa' lnhri� l,jH.,b+aril rl,� My ' ak Imh st 5ct«Nh�r S AI64h 4 1v° ry 1 '. m ^4, ,✓p � ° Kent-East 'a`k , r r " „) Z `' '1-0 Cent b✓e, t r` r m �s2a Mh o„ r De MoinesMorman Uasho Island ���'" = Covington/Mapl�"WWI�f gent k' Utn .�+. i Kent-$E 1, t ,. w W ,d 111 Maple ,i C h rr ( 7V�gk, tRA11 rdr llr rrh m �° 5 �' n sr.,l ^Ir=� iJ�;or G,vke �Ek�IC✓�' d eralWa Cyr ,aa- `"•sin "�rvw��-me d4 JfLl�.i1 f'h' " nB� 1 IIFf'P Aubum North %I a- a✓ar Aubnt,n ,i Black Digponc0Fnumv1aw/SE County upfit crt �, r iS 1n= October, 2012 198 City Health Profile— Kent Introduction A city health profile is a public health report that provides information on health indicators and their determinants. The purpose of the report is to inform policy-makers, government agencies, and the public about population health at the local level. In this series of city health profiles, King County is divided into 25 areas. Some of these areas are a single city, some are a group of smaller cities, and some are unincorporated areas. For each of the 25 areas, the report includes seven sections: • Demographics • General health status • Leading causes of death • Health risk factors and chronic diseases • Injury and violence-related mortality • Maternal and infant health • Access to care and preventive services For each section, data are presented in a chart and a table. Below is a description on how to read the chart. coil City King County (TWA State Each chart compares the city rate to that 10 of King County and Washington State. — . The orange, hollow circle represents the 8 Z), indicator value for WA State. 6 The blue, solid bar represents the indicator value for the city. a 4 The purple, solid circle represents the 2 indicator value for King County. 0 Health Health _ Abbreviated Indicator Label Indicator1 Indicator2 Health Indicatorl - full label 7 21 N 4 8 Health Indicator2- full label 6 4 H 3 9 The table under each chart has more complete labels for the indicators in the chart. It also contains the actual indicator value for the city and a "rank" that ranks the city from worst (1) to best (25) in relation to other King County areas for which health profiles have been created. The "SIG" column in the table specifies whether or not the health indicator rate for the city is significantly higher than (H), significantly lower than (L), or not different from (N) the King County average. This report is produced by the Assessment, Policy Development& Evaluation Unit at Public Health—Seattle& King County. For more information and updates,please contact data.request@kingcounty.gov 2 199 OtyHea|thProfi|e— Kent Age Education (among adults age 25+) Poverty Language (among population age S+) Non- English speaking at home A # 35 24.3 17.5 Housing cost burden (among renters) Pay�!30% of Household income on rent # so 44.7 48.9 *Persons of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity can beof any race. ^Speaking a language other than English athome. #Counts from the American Community Survey are not shown because of their potential large sampling error. Data sources: U.S. Census, 2010 (age and race/ethnicity) and American Community Survey, 2006-2010 average. The largest Asi thi in Kent, 20l0 [ Chinese (except Taiwanese) 1,342 9.2 Asian Indian 2,963 20.4 200 City Health Profile— Kent General Fieafth' Status ➢'he World Health Organization defines health as the state of complete physical, mental and social well- being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. In this section, we present data on life expectancy and self-reported health status to describe the general health status of the city residents. iiiiiiii Kent King County OWA State 100 25 80 20 60 15 40 10 D 20 5 0 1 0 Life expectancy Fair/poor Activity Frequent Poor mental Poor health limitation mental health days physical distress health days Life expectancy at birth (year) 80.3 11 L 81.5 79.8 Self-reported general health is fair or poor (%) 13 8 N 10 14 Limited in any way in any activities (%) 22 10 N 21 24 Had 14+ bad mental health days in past 30 days (%) 11 6 N 8 10 Days mental health not good in past 30 days (mean) 4 1 N 3 3 Days physical health not good in past 30 days (mean) 4 7 N 3 4 Except for life expectancy,the general health status indicators are for adults age 18+. Data year: Life expectancy: 2006-2010. General health status: (1)area and KC=2007-2011; (2)WA=2006-2010. Rank: ranking among the 25 King County areas from worst (1)to best (25). SIG: whether or not the indicator is significantly higher than (H), lower than (L),or not different from (N)the KC rate. Data source: Death certificate and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Washington State Department of Health,Center for Health Statistics. 4 201 City Health Profile- Kent Leach ; Ca°ue� of Death his section presents the top 10 leading causes of death. 200 IIIIIIIKent King County O WA State 0 o 6 150 v a 100 v v 50 a BA la r �o Total Mortality 685.8 3027 11 H 638.1 716.4 Cancer 167.4 758 12 N.. 159.2 174.7,,,,,, Heart disease 165.3 701 7 H 138.2 160.3 Alzheimersdisease 40.3 155 14 N 42.3 43.1 Accidents and external causes 27.5 150 16 N 31.7 39.4 Chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD) 35.4 143 10 N 32.2 43.2 Stroke 35.1 141 16 N 36.6 40.4 Diabetes mellitus 30.8 134 2 H 19.0 23.3 Suicide 11.2 63 9 N 10.8 13.0 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 8.2 43 11 N 8.3 9.8 Influenza and pneumonia 9.5 41 11 N 10.1 11.0 Rate:age-adjusted rate per 100,000. Count: five-year total deaths. Rank: ranking among the 25 King County areas from worst (1)to best (25). SIG: whether or not the indicator is significantly higher than (H), lower than (L),or not different from (N)the KC rate. Data source: Death certificate data,Washington State Department of Health,Center for Health Statistics. 5 202 City Health Profile— Kent Heatth risk factors and chronic diseases f (ealth risk factors are behaviors and characteristics that make people more likely to develop disease Awareness of these risk factors may enable people to make healthy choices about their activities, habits, and diets. Some risk factors, like hypertension and high cholesterol, are also chronic conditions that should be monitored by a healthcare provider, and if treated, may be able to be prevented or reversed. The prevalence of coronary heart disease, diabetes, and asthma among adults are also presented in this section. cool Kent King County OWA State 40 30 c u 20 IN 10 0 IL J e 41 e °ye F�e O o -'Z �.5, a1�11 aoe`e5 �le � z ,�Ne Q� P `eSs,�e r /0 ° Excessive alcohol consumption 19 10 N 19 17 Did not participate in any physical activity 21 7 H 15 18 Obese (BMI>=30) 31 4 H 21 26 Current smoker 15 7 N 11 16 Have high blood cholesterol 37 14 N 36 38 Ever been told to have high blood pressure 25 14 N 24 27 Had coronary heart disease or heart attack 4 9 N 4 5 Have been told to have diabetes 9 4 H 6 7 Have current asthma 8 14 N 8 9 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Note: unless specified,data are for adults age 18+. WA State data are for 2006-2010. Rank: ranking among the 25 King County areas from worst (1)to best (25). SIG: whether or not the indicator is significantly higher than (H), lower than (L),or not different from (N)the KC rate. Data source:the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Washington State Department of Health,Center for Health Statistics. 6 203 City Health Profile— Kent Cnjury and uiokence-related mortality Injury is a leading cause of death, disability, and hospitalization. Many unintentional and intentional injuries are potentially preventable. For example, death from motor vehicle accidents can be reduced through education, mandating the use of seatbelts, tougher laws against drunk driving and distracted driving, and engineering. iiiiiiii Kent King County tWA State 0 16 0 0 0 12 , a � m 8 1 w Y N 7 v 4 on a 0 MVA Falls Suicide Homicide Firearm Motor vehicle accidents (MVA) 5.9 33 13 N 6.2 8.5 Falls 6.5 28 22 N 9.3 10.2 Suicide 11.2 63 12 N 10.8 12.0 Homicide 3.3 19 NA N 3.2 2.8 Firearm 7.0 39 12 N 6.7 8.0 Rate:age-adjusted rate per 100,000. Count: five-year total deaths. Rank: ranking among the 25 King County areas from worst (1)to best (25). For homicide, ranking is not provided because there are insufficient numbers for reliable comparisons. SIG: whether or not the indicator is significantly higher than (H), lower than (L),or not different from (N)the KC rate. Data source: Death certificate data,Washington State Department of Health,Center for Health Statistics. 7 204 City Health Profile— Kent Wterna:l and child health Manning for a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby begins before conception, through healthy lifestyle and nutrition choices. Once pregnant, getting early and regular prenatal care is an important step to have a healthy pregnancy and to decrease the incidence of maternal and prenatal morbidity and mortality. iiiiiii Kent King County OWA State 20 r 15 10 5 0 Late/no Smoking Low birth wt Very low Teen birth Infant prenatal care during preg. birth wt mortality Late or no prenatal care/100 births 7.8 678 4 H 5.2 5.9 Smoking during pregnancy/100 births 5.4 495 9 H 4.2 9.9 Low birth weight (< 2500)/100 births 7.1 665 4 N 6.7 6.4 Very low birth weight (< 1500)/100 births 1.3 122 1 H 1.0 1.0 Adolescent birth rate per 1000 females 15-17 16.2 201 6 H 9.6 14.8 Infant mortality per 1000 live births 5.5 51 4 N 4.1 4.9 Rank: ranking among the 25 King County areas from worst (1)to best (25). Count: five-year total numbers. SIG: whether or not the indicator is significantly higher than (H), lower than (L),or not different from (N)the KC rate. Data source: Birth Certificate and linked infant birth-death certificate data,Washington State Department of Health. 8 205 City Health Profile— Kent Access to°care,and preventive services ) laving access to adequate and timely health care and receiving recommended preventive services prevent or lessen illness and improve quality of life. 80 ill Kent 0 King County OWA State 60 � c c�� 40 L a 20 P 'J 0 .... �5 Se �a°c ��JS Boa Uninsured (age 18-64)` 24 NA NA 16 19 Could not see a doc. 1+ times in past year due to cost 16 1 H 10 13 Does not have a personal doctor 24 4 N 20 22 Did not have a flu shot during the past year 61 9 N 58 62 Never had pneumonia vaccination (age 65+) 32 6 N 28 29 No mammogram within 2 years (age 50-74) 20 12 N 18 20 No Pap test within 3 years, age 21-65 27 3 H 15 20 No dental visit during the past year 26 7 N 23 27 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Note: unless specified,data are for adults age 18+. WA State data are for 2006-2010. Rank: ranking among the 25 King County areas from worst (1)to best (25). SIG: whether or not the indicator is significantly higher than (H), lower than (L),or not different from (N)the KC rate. Data source:the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS),WA State Department of Health,Center for Health Statistics. *The uninsured rate, if available, is based on the American Community Survey,3-year average, 2009-2011. 9 206 City Health Profile- Kent Nehborh©ocl Cornpartis©n - Kent Kent East Southeast West Compare Total Population, 2010 35,924 55,187 27,921 _ Age Groups (%) 0-17 26.6% 26.9% 24.1% M M _ 18-24 9.2% 10.2% 10.2% _ 25-44 27.4% 29.7% 33.1% _ 45-64 27.4% 24.2% 24.2% M 65+ 9.4% 9.1% 8.4% M _ Race/Ethnicity White 53.6% 57.5% 52.9% M _ Black/African American 9.1% 11.7% 11.2% _ American Indian/Alaska Native 0.6% 0.9% 1.3% _ Asian 24.1% 15.0% 12.7% _ Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1.5% 1.5% 3.1% Other 5.4% 6.7% 12.4% _ Multiple race 5.7% 6.7% 6.5% _ om Hispanic/Latino 10.8% 14.1% 22.5% _ Education (among adults 25+) No high school diploma NA NA NA No college degree NA NA NA Poverty Below 100% Federal Poverty Level NA NA NA Below 200% Federal Poverty Level NA NA NA Foreign Born NA NA NA Non-English speaking at home NA NA NA Life Expectancy at birth (years) 80.0 80.8 79.6 NO _ Deaths Per Year(2006-2010 Average) 178 289 139 M _ Leading Causes of Death (Age-adjusted Rate Per 100,000 Population) Cancer 177.9 162.1 172.5 M _ Heart disease 156.4 162.1 185.4 _ . Alzheimer'sdisease 43.2 42.1 31.7 M M _ Stroke 32.6 34.6 38.9 _ Accidents 27.2 28.7 25.9 M _ Chronic lower respiratory diseases 32.7 32.4 44.3 _ _ Diabetes 31.9 24.1 43.1 _ Suicide 8.8 8.0 21.3 _ _ Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids 9.6 8.5 10.7 _ Parkinson's disease 12.1 7.1 4.3 M _ Health Risk Factors, age 18+ (%) Obese (BMI>=30) 32% 31% 37% _ Current smoker 18% 14% 11% _ No physical activity in last 30 days 19% 19% 25% _ _ General health is fair or poor (%) 14% 13% 16% I. - NJ 10 207 Building a Healthy Community City of Kent Human Services Master Plan 2013 i 208 CITY OF KENT Suzette Cooke, Mayor John Hodgson, Chief Administrative Officer Jeff Watling, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Director Katherin Johnson, Housing & Human Services Manager HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION Wade Schwartz, Chair Elect Gina Bellisario, Chair Elect Deborah Ranniger, City Council Member Oriana Pon, Commissioner Mike Heinisch, Commissioner Ted Schwarz, Commissioner Bill Hallerman, Commissioner David Ott, Commissioner Alina Amkhavong, Commissioner Stewart Kunzelman, Commissioner CITY COUNCIL Dennis Higgins, Council President Deborah Ranniger Elizabeth Albertson Jamie Perry Les Thomas Bill Boyce Dana Ralph HOUSING & HUMAN SERVICES Katherin Johnson, Housing and Human Services Manager Merina Hanson Dinah Wilson 3ason3ohnson Darrel Hammack Christine Cain Jeff Veach Nate Harper LEAD STAFF Merina Hanson, Senior Human Services Coordinator Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 2 209 Executive Summary Vision for building a healthy community... Kent will be a place where children, individuals and families can thrive, where neighbors care for each other, and where our residents share the responsibility of ensuring a safe and healthy community for all. We will strive to improve lives across our diverse communities by: • Forming innovative and effective partnerships with other organizations and jurisdictions. • Strategically investing resources to make lasting change. The City of Kent's first Human Services Master Plan was crafted to bring a broad scope and long-range view to the vital work of serving Kent residents. It was designed to serve as a policy guide for the Housing and Human Services Division (HHS) to do their part in fulfilling the City's overall goal of building a healthy community. HHS and the City of Kent's Human Services Commission use the policy focus areas and priorities to prepare funding recommendations as part of the City's two-year budget cycles. The 2013 update of the Human Services Master Plan was developed in consultation with the city's Human Services Commission, human services providers, community leaders, interested citizens, and City staff. Input from the community was considered and incorporated into the recommendations in the Plan. The Master plan also draws on data from the 2010 Census and American Community Survey data, as well as a variety of existing plans and published documents that relate to human services. Noteworthy Changes Since the original Human Services Master Plan was developed in 2007, the City of Kent has experienced significant change. Some primary examples include: • Increasing Diversity — In 2007 an estimated 31% of Kent residents spoke a language other than English at home. By 2011, that percentage had risen to 43%. • Increased Number of Families in Poverty — In 2007 approximately 37% of Kent School District students qualified for free and reduced lunch. That percentage has risen to risen to nearly 52%. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 3 210 • Economic Recession — A nationwide recession began in late 2007, touching off years of economic uncertainty and in some cases, budget crises. Layoffs occurred, budgets were slashed, waiting lists for services grew, and nonprofits were expected to meet increased need with less than ever before. • Panther Lake Annexation — On 3uly 1, 2010 the City of Kent annexed the Panther Lake area northeast of Kent. This added approximately five square miles and 24,000 residents to the City of Kent, making it the sixth largest city in the state of Washington. • The City Council developed a long-term vision statement for the city looking out to 2025: "Kentis a safe, connected and beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly diverse urban centers,"The Council's Strategic Goals for the City include: 1. Develop and Implement a Sustainable Funding Model 2. Create Neighborhood Urban Centers 3. Create Connections for People and Places 4. Foster Inclusiveness 5. Beautify Kent Community Input A data scan was conducted to update resident needs and is incorporated in this plan. Community stakeholder input for the original Master Plan and the update was gathered through a combination of focus groups, interviews, and online surveys. This data informs the policy makers in adopting HHS funding and policy priorities. A number of issues related to human services were identified by those who participated in the planning process. Themes that emerged include: • The demand for services has increased, and at the same time funding is declining. • Delivering services to a diverse population is challenging. • Kent's large inventory of low-cost housing ensures that our city will continue to have a large percentage of families who are struggling to meet ends. • Accessible transportation is critical for residents and is difficult for non English speaking residents to navigate. • More after school opportunities for youth are needed. • The economic recession significantly impacted the ability for teens to gain entry level job experience. • Kent's increasing diversity creates very real challenges for the community, but also opportunities for embracing a dynamic multicultural community. HHS will continue to focus on a number of strategies to strengthen community response to human services needs over the next several years. These include working collaboratively with community stakeholders to: Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 4 211 • Continue breaking down the traditional funding silos, addressing problems in a more systemic manner • Participate in regional committees working towards changes that address persistent issues — including school readiness, homelessness, etc. • Participate in regional human services planning processes that strengthen the human services system • Continue ensuring that Kent and South King County receive regional attention in terms of human services needs and funding. To that end, all City human service investments will be measured against the City's clear criteria for funding, which are included in this plan and are designed to ensure that programs: • Address the City's funding priorities • Are of high quality and fiscally sound • Reflect the continuum of human services needs • Are collaborative in nature • Are accessible to all residents who need to access services Human Services and the Recession An economic recession gripped the nation beginning in December 2007. Layoffs occurred, budgets were slashed, waiting lists for services grew, and nonprofits were expected to meet increased need with less than ever before. Temporary reductions in funding at the State level gradually led to deeper cuts and the weakening of the basic infrastructure for health and human services. The capacity of our local nonprofits has been and continues to be significantly impacted by the cutbacks in government funding. The corresponding rise in demand that accompanied rising unemployment and poverty during the economic downturn has compromised individual well-being and the stability of our community. While foundations, the faith community, and volunteers have stepped up efforts, private donations, and volunteerism cannot replace the loss of public funding The recession continues to take a toll on our residents significantly increasing the number of residents who are just one job loss, medical emergency, or eviction away from homelessness. Even those who escaped job loss and foreclosure have still been impacted by the recession in other ways. Stagnating wages and widening income inequality are trends that will not be overcome for many years to come, particularly for those who are not employed with livable wage jobs. Even with full-time jobs many are unable to stretch their wages to pay for basic necessities. Many of these families lack enough income to meet the rising costs of food, housing, transportation, health care, and other essentials. This led to many who have never had to ask for assistance being forced to navigate the social service system at a time when it is already overwhelmed and increasingly underfunded. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 5 212 The foreclosure crisis was to slow to hit Washington State, but once it hit the impact on our communities was staggering. Western Washington was hit especially hard. In 2009 Washington ranked 241h highest in the nation for total foreclosed properties. By late 2010 our state ranked loth highest in the nation. The large number of foreclosures forced many homeowners back into the rental market, leading to lower vacancy rates and increased rental costs. Many young families postponed buying homes in the spiraling housing market further exacerbating the issue. As more middle income people lost their jobs and homes to foreclosure, they reached out for help to meet their basic food and housing needs. Food bank usage rose by 44% between 2007 and 2010, reflecting an increase in people without adequate food, some of whom had previously been volunteers. As the economy haltingly continues to recover, the safety net provided by our nonprofit community will continue to be a vital component of survival for many of our residents. City of Kent Roles The City of Kent fills a number of roles in order to address the needs of its residents in terms of human services. This includes: • Invests approximately $2 million annually to support human services. • Facilitates collaboration between human services providers. • Partners with other jurisdictions and with local agencies to develop comprehensive responses to community issues. • Provides technical assistance to build the capacity of human services providers. • Increases coordination amongst homeless services providers by co-hosting a monthly form on homelessness in South King County. • Increases participation in the community and cooperation amongst immigrant and refugee organizations and residents by hosting the monthly Kent Community Diversity Initiative Group (KCDIG). The Roles ofHHSto meet resident needs and support the City's goals include: 1. Leader and partner— make strategic community investments to create opportunities and provide critical services' 2. Funder— contract with community organizations to provide programs and services' 3. Service provider— except for a few service types provided directly by HHS, its' service roles are strategic and systemic: Partnerships with other City departments, King County, the Kent School District and community agencies Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 6 213 • Regional planning and coordination — ensure accessibility of a continuum of services for Kent residents • Subregional planning and coordination — address common human service issues that result from resident mobility with other South King County jurisdictions • Shared responsibility with King County in provision of regional services • Public awareness of housing and human service needs and initiatives • Community and civic engagement — ensure all residents feel connected to the community • Targeting — target HHS programs and services to those most in need • Immigrants — focus on ensuring access to services and community life. POLICIES TO BUILD A HEALTHY COMMUNITY The Human Services Commission is charged with recommending Human Services policies to City Administration and Council. The Commission develops policy recommendations based on guiding principles, funding priorities and policy focus areas that will result in a stronger community. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations will help shape policies, strategies and funding decisions that best adhere to the City of Kent's values and goals for building a healthy community. They will inform the priorities for HHS in fulfilling its roles as collaborator and funder, and two-year updated needs assessments will support funding allocations and strategies that can best achieve positive community outcomes. The recommendations include: ➢ Mission and guiding principles that frame what services are made available and to whom; ➢ HHS funding priorities; ➢ Priority policy areas and long term outcomes to build a healthy community. Mission Statement The Human Services Commission exists as part of the conscience of the City of Kent in its recognition of the value and diversity of all citizens including the various cultures and ethnicities and the City's desire that their basic needs be met. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 7 214 GUIDING PRINCIPLES: ➢ Healthy Communities: Build healthy communities, through mutually supportive connections and building on the strengths and assets of all residents. ➢ Self-Reliance: Support all residents in attaining their maximum level of self-reliance. ➢ Collaborations: Value collaborations at all levels and seek the most strategic approaches to meeting the needs of Kent residents. ➢ Equal Access: Support equal access to services, through a service network that meets needs across age, ability, culture and language. ➢ Respect and Dignity: All people are treated with respect and dignity. ➢ Accountability: Oversee City resources with consistent ethical stewardship, fairness in allocating funds, and strong accountability for maximizing effective services. Funding Priorities: The Master Plan lays out the City's funding priorities; in which the City will invest human services funding. While five priorities were identified in the original Master Plan, an additional funding priority will be added for 2013-2018. Funding priorities are in place to ensure that Kent invests in the continuum of human services needs — from prevention and early intervention to job training and basic needs such as food and shelter. The priorities include: ➢ Meeting Community Basics Ensuring that people facing hardship have access to resources to help meet immediate or basic needs. ➢ Increasing Self-Reliance Helping individuals break out of the cycle of poverty by improving access to services and removing barriers to employment. ➢ Strengthening Children and Families Providing children, youth and families with community resources needed to support their positive development, including early intervention & prevention services. ➢ Building a Safer Community Providing resources and services that reduce violence, crime, and neglect in our community. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 8 215 ➢ Improving Health and Well-Being Providing access to services that allow individuals to improve their mental and physical health, overall well-being, and ability to live independently. ➢ Improving and Integrating Systems Leading efforts to ensure that human services systems meet demands and expectations by increasing capacity, utilizing technology, coordinating efforts, and sharing resources. Policy Focus Areas Policy focus areas are issues that we recognize will require targeted attention over time. The focus areas included were selected based on existing service gaps, unmet needs, and important system improvements identified through community input. The 2013 update of the Master Plan includes the overarching goal of ensuring that services are inclusive and available to all citizens. SELF RELIANCE SUPPORT: ➢ Link residents with livable wage jobs ➢ Eliminate barriers to employment ➢ Increase family financial literacy ➢ Increase opportunities for advancement from entry level jobs CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES: ➢ Quality Child Care services ➢ Birth to 5 services ➢ School readiness ➢ Prevention and early intervention services ➢ After school activities ➢ Opportunities for teen internships and employment FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES: ➢ Collaborations to serve the whole family ➢ Immigrant and refugee transitions for success ➢ Access for working families: hours, locations, co-located services ➢ Access to parent education classes and life skills classes SENIOR SERVICES: ➢ Active and connected seniors ➢ Support for vulnerable seniors ➢ Intergenerational programs ➢ Services to keep seniors in their homes ➢ Access to transportation ➢ Access to chore services Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 9 216 ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO SERVICES: ➢ Improved transportation network ➢ Multi-lingual and culturally competent services ➢ Flexible services ➢ Co-located services MAINTAIN SAFETY NET AND BASIC NEEDS SERVICES: ➢ Access to emergency assistance ➢ Basic food support ➢ Emergency and transitional housing ➢ Access to medical services ➢ Access to mental health services ➢ Violence prevention and intervention SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: ➢ Effective collaborations ➢ Innovative approaches to solving persistent issues ➢ Sharing agency resources to reduce overhead ➢ Increased collocation of agencies and programs HOUSING: ➢ Provide a full range of housing ➢ Move individuals and families from shelter into housing ➢ Promote home ownership ➢ Maintain existing housing stock ➢ Continue regional efforts HOMELESS PREVENTION AND HOMELESS SERVICES: ➢ Prevent homelessness ➢ Maintain homeless services ➢ Increase homeless outreach to ensure homeless individuals and families are utilizing existing services Funding Strategies To continue making progress on the vision of a healthy community, additional resources to implement these strategies are essential. Historically the City allocated 1% of the General Fund to non-profit agencies and programs providing services to Kent residents. Over the course of the first Master Plan the Human Services Commission worked with City Administration and City Council to identify strategies to increase the available funding. This work reached a new level of significance when the recession began to impact the 1% allocation as city revenues declined. A perfect storm was generated when a number of factors converged that had the potential to drastically reduce the City's investment in human services. This included the creation of the Regional Fire Authority (which Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 10 217 reduced the City's General Fund Budget), the recession, and a significant increase in the City's population due to the annexation of the Panther Lake community. In 2011 (for the 2012 budget) Human Services requested a budget adjustment of $95,000.00 due to a significant decrease in the human services 1% funding allocation. This request kept funding at an even level. Administration and the City Council very generously approved the budget adjustment and directed staff and the Human Services Commission to work on the development of a new funding strategy to be presented to Council in 2012. The Human Services Commission spent many months researching and reviewing other funding strategies and settled upon a per capita approach as the best option. The per capita creates a stable funding source that is predictable from year to year. At its highest the human services fund was $9.30 per capita. The 2012 allocation was $6.96 per capita, and based on the baseline budget projection for 2013 the per capita rate would have dropped to $6.03. The Human Services Commission proposed to maintain the $6.96 per capita funding rate in 2013, increasing it to $7.20 in 2014 with a CPI escalator increase every funding cycle commencing in 2015. The CPI would not exceed 3% or drop below 0% and would be applied against the former year's per capita rate. Using a per capita funding model eliminates the significant swings in funding levels caused by the economy. The Human Services Commission worked with staff and Administration to ensure that the new funding strategy represented a balanced approach to solving the issue, recognizing the pressure the economy has on the City while also understanding the critical need to provide services to the residents of the city particularly during this difficult economy. For this reason, the Commission did not request any increase in funding for 2013. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 11 218 Introduction and Process The Human Services Master Plan is intended to be used as a policy guide for the City of Kent Housing and Human Service Division (HHS) for the next six years. With each two-year funding cycle, HHS staff and the Human Services Commission will assess changing needs and resources to determine funding decisions. HHS Manager Katherin Johnston and HHS Senior Human Services Coordinator Merina Hanson managed the project, with input and guidance from the City of Kent Human Services Commission. A data scan was conducted to assess City of Kent needs, including Census 2010, American Community Survey data, Public Health Communities Count, housing and homeless statistics, school district data and relevant planning documents. Regional plans were also reviewed. Community input over the course of the Master Plan has been gathered through focus groups, key informant interviews, and online surveys geared towards a number of different stakeholder groups. ➢ Customized surveys were developed to garner input representing the following groups: City of Kent Council Members ➢ City of Kent Human Services Commission members ➢ Leaders of local non-profit human services agencies ➢ Local high school youth ➢ Seniors ➢ Kent Cultural Diversity Initiative Group ➢ Local business ➢ Kent residents and individuals who work in Kent Key informant interviews with more than twenty community members were conducted to inform the original Master Plan. Included were City leaders, representatives from United Way of King County, Kent School District, Public Health of Seattle-King County, and Renton Technical College. Leaders of a number of minority communities were also interviewed as part of that process. A complete list can be found in Appendix A. Appendix A summarizes major themes from the focus groups and interviews. The major themes included; the need for stronger community linkages and connections, increased community diversity, and the need for more attention to youth needs. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 12 219 History and Purpose The City of Kent has a strong commitment to human services and has been a leader in South King County in the human services arena. Kent's consistent funding of human services agencies, the establishment of a Human Services Commission, one percent funding base for human services, and the creation of the division of Housing and Human Services evidences this. The City of Kent has been providing funding for human services since 1975. The City of Kent funded its first human service agency in 1975 with a portion of its federal revenue sharing funds. The revenue sharing funds ceased in 1986, but the City continued to provide funding for human services from the General Fund budget. In its 1985 and 1986 work programs, the City Council targeted the establishment of a Human Services Policy as a top priority issue. To aid in this process, a Human Services Study Committee was formed consisting of service providers, a member of the Kent Ministerial Association, and City staff involved in the administration of human services. The charge of this study group was to formulate policy recommendations to the City Council in regard to how the City of Kent could best respond to local human services needs. The study resulted in preparation of the document, Report of the Human Services Study Committee on Human Services Policies, which included policy statements to guide the City's efforts in human services, and criteria and priorities for human services funding. This report was adopted by the City Council in 1986. In 1986, the City established a Human Services Commission as recommended by the Study Committee. The Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the Mayor, City Council and Chief Administrative Officer on setting priorities, evaluating and making recommendations on funding requests, evaluating and reviewing human service agencies, and responding to City actions affecting the availability and quality of human services in Kent. The Commission consists of nine (9) appointed members including representation from the business community, the religious community, recipient of human services, a regional human service provider, a service club representative, a youth member, and a City Council representative. In 1989, the City of Kent took a major step and committed one (1) percent of the general fund to human services -- a powerful statement of commitment on the City's part. This further demonstrated the City of Kent's leadership in human services in South King County. Not only was it the only city in South King County with a human services policy plan, but it also implemented the plan and became the first city to form a Human Services Commission. In 1992, the City established an Office of Housing and Human Services, now known as the Housing and Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 13 220 Human Services Division of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. The Division develops and implements City human services policies and administers the activities and functions concerning housing and human service issues in the City. In 2011 (for the 2012 budget) Human Services requested a budget adjustment of $95,000.00 due to a significant decrease in the human services 1% funding allocation. The decrease occurred when a number of factors converged that had the potential to drastically reduce the City's investment in human services. This included the creation of the Regional Fire Authority (which reduced the City's General Fund Budget), the recession, and a significant increase in the City's population due to the annexation of the Panther Lake community. This request kept funding at an even level. Administration and the City Council very generously approved the budget adjustment and directed staff and the Human Services Commission to work on the development of a new funding strategy to be presented to Council in 2012. The Human Services Commission spent many months researching and reviewing other funding strategies and settled upon a per capita approach as the best option. The per capita creates a stable funding source that is predictable from year to year. At its highest the human services fund was $9.30 per capita. The 2012 allocation was $6.96 per capita, and based on the baseline budget projection for 2013 the per capita rate would have dropped to $6.03. The Human Services Commission proposed to maintain the $6.96 per capita funding rate in 2013, increasing it to $7.20 in 2014 with a CPI escalator increase every funding cycle commencing in 2015. The CPI would not exceed 3% or drop below 0% and would be applied against the former year's per capita rate. Using a per capita funding model eliminates the significant swings in funding levels caused by the economy. The Human Services Commission worked with staff and Administration to ensure that the new funding strategy represented a balanced approach to solving the issue, recognizing the pressure the economy has on the City while also understanding the critical need to provide services to the residents of the city particularly during this difficult economy. For this reason, the Commission did not request any increase in funding for 2013. Roles Leader and Partner: HHS is a leader in making community investments that create opportunities and provide services. HHS works with the community to identify current and emerging needs and develop systematic, coordinated responses to address those needs. Through collaborative partnerships, the division develops innovative solutions for the Kent community. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 14 221 Funder: HHS contracts with community organizations to provide programs and services. In partnership with the Human Services Commission, HHS: ➢ funds services based on current community need; ➢ funds the most effective services possible, minimizing duplication of services; ➢ makes funding decisions based on competitive process; ➢ bases funding decisions on an organization's ability to deliver clearly defined funding outcomes; and ➢ makes funding recommendations to the City Council. Service Provider: HHS limits its role as a provider of housing and human services with the exception of the following situations: 1. Providing services at the expressed desire of City administration, 2. Providing Resource and Referral services to guide citizens to appropriate services, or 3. Providing services that are best delivered by City staff (e.g.. home repair) INCLUSION The City of Kent is one of the most diverse communities in the state of Washington. As we continue to strive to meet the needs and expectations of our increasingly culturally and ethnically varied populations, a better understanding of cultural differences and their relationship to the quality service—respect, inclusiveness, and sensitivity—becomes essential. Serving diverse populations is not a "one size fits all" process. Diversity includes all differences, not just those that indicate racial or ethnic distinctions. Diversity transcends racial and ethnic factors to include groups, their members, and affiliations. The concept of diversity also refers to differences in lifestyles, beliefs, economic status, etc. Trademarks of Inclusive Services 1. Respect, inclusion, and sensitivity are the key trademarks of quality service. 2. Delivering services based on the population's norms, values and perceptions is at the core of successful service delivery. 3. Serving diverse populations is not a "one size fits all" process. It involves an intentional approach to help address the needs and concerns of any population. 4. Diversity goes beyond race and ethnicity. It includes individuals with disabilities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) individuals; the homeless; immigrants; refugees; and many other populations. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 15 222 5. Diversity is a part of our daily life. It is all around us and provides us opportunities to grow and learn about others. It is important to recognize that we all have a role in ensuring that our community is inclusive. Barriers exist and are difficult to break down without constant attention to how services are provided. Structural and cultural barriers to services can include: • Cultural values • Language • Geography • Income • Access to Transportation • Health • Access for individuals with disabilities • Hours of operation Strategies for breaking down barriers can include: • Educating staff, board members, partnering agencies and volunteers about the community they serve; • Tailoring services to meet the community's needs; • Creating partnerships and coalitions with representatives from diverse groups; • Providing opportunities for cross-training, consulting, and collaborative services; • Evaluating current service delivery and the quality of services; and • Ensuring that programs align with the values and needs of the client and the community they serve COMMUNITY INVESTMENT Human Services programs are essential to the growth and vitality of the Kent community. By investing in the delivery of these services to Kent residents, the City of Kent is working to promote building a healthy community. The Human Services Master Plan is designed to articulate the City's strategies for this investment. HHS invests in the community to create measurable, sustainable change and to improve the lives of its residents. Investments are focused in order to generate the greatest possible impact. They address the issues that matter most to our community and are targeted in order to deliver meaningful results. To achieve community impact, investments are made in a variety of ways: Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 16 223 • direct emergency services to assist people in crisis; • preventative services such as mentoring and home visiting services for teen mothers; and • services that promote achieving self-sufficiency (including job training, child care scholarships, micro-enterprise, etc.) To invest for the greatest possible impact, HHS fosters partnerships with a variety of organizations. Beyond working with direct providers of health and human services, the division also works with: • economic development organizations that work with local businesses to create more jobs; • organizations that help residents find the resources they need in the community; • organizations and initiatives that bring people together through community forums, public awareness campaigns, or volunteer opportunities to become more engaged to our community; • strategic initiatives comprised of a variety of partners in the community with the goal of working together to have a greater impact than any one organization can have by itself; and • special initiatives that affect the whole community. HHS makes community investments in nonprofit organizations in several different ways. We invest ongoing annual support for specific services, we make one-time grants to support new programs that are developing better ways to serve the community and we make grants to organizations that need training or technical assistance to improve their capacity and accessibility. Volunteers from the community who comprise the City's Human Services Commission decide HHS' community investments using the following criteria: • Address the City's funding priorities • Are of high quality and fiscally sound with a track-record of achieving measurable results • Reflect the continuum of human services needs • Are collaborative in nature • Provide an opportunity to leverage other resources for the greatest impact • Are accessible to all residents who need to access services Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 17 224 SUSTAINABLE CHANGE HHS invests for sustainable change, recognizing that it is critical to complement support for emergency services that support people in crisis with support for programs and initiatives that increase individual's self-reliance and influence the community in a lasting way. The City's investments in the community are not only monetary in nature, but are also evidenced through the dedication of HHS staff time and resources to community work that will benefit the greater Kent community. Examples of investments made in the past include: • support of a forum that brought nonprofit groups together to develop a One Stop Human Services Center; • support for a subregional plan for the community to address human service needs; • co-hosted a forum for local agencies in 2009 with City of Renton HSS staff and the South King Council of Human Services to share in a peer- to-peer discussion of how the economic climate was impacting budgets, staffing, fundraising, and services, as well as strategies for keeping afloat in tough times; • partnered with Kent Lutheran Church and Catholic Community Services to open a severe weather shelter at Kent Lutheran Church, giving homeless people and children a place to stay warm overnight during times of extreme weather; • development of and support for a forum that brings together community stakeholders invested in ending homeless (including service providers, the faith community, Committee to End Homelessness stakeholders, funders, and consumers); • development of and support for a forum that consists of service providers and community members who have cultural and language- specific expertise working with immigrants and refugees. The group meets monthly and works toward influencing policy, enhancing collaboration, leveraging resources, developing a closer relationship with the City of Kent, and serving as a resource within the community; and • support for capacity building work through the South King Council of Human Services with efforts focused on smaller grassroots organizations. In some cases, HHS invests in the community by providing services itself. The division provides resource and referral services to residents who need assistance locating resources and programs to assist them. HHS increased the level of resource and referral services available to Kent residents by employing a full-time Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 18 225 Resource and Referral Specialist in 2010. Unfortunately this position was eliminated in November of 2012 as a direct result of declining city revenues. HHS also operates a Home Repair Program for low and moderate income owners of single-family houses, mobile homes and condo units in the City. Repairs which help maintain the health and safety of occupants, preserve the dwelling or conserve energy to reduce heating costs through weatherization are eligible. Preference is given to households occupied by senior citizen, low-income and disabled residents. The program is funded entirely through the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Partnerships: HHS will continue to pursue partnerships with other cities King County, local school districts, and community agencies to improve service coordination. Regional Planning and Coordination: HHS will continue its focus on regional planning and coordination to improve accessibility of services available to the Kent community. Jurisdictional Responsibility: Responsibility for funding services should be based in part on the regional or local nature of the service. King County has responsibility for regional services, such as mental health, Public Health, etc. while the City of Kent is responsible for providing local services such as food banks, emergency assistance, mentoring, youth services, etc. Public Awareness: HHS will promote community awareness and involvement in human service needs. The division is responsible for providing information, education and training on HHS initiatives designed to meet needs. Sense of Community: HHS in conjunction with other City departments will continue efforts to enhance the community's sense of involvement through opportunities for participation in City government, development of strong neighborhoods, and involvement in HHS planning activities. Effective and Efficient Services: HHS will work to improve access through coordination of service providers. This includes expanding on effective, ongoing collaborate efforts with other jurisdictions (such as aligning application forms, reports, joint contracting, etc.). Self Reliance: HHS will promote developing programs and strategies to increase individual's self-reliance, improving the economic health of the community. Working with economic development, employment service agencies, and job training programs to enhance employment opportunities will move residents toward self-reliance. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 19 226 Funding: HHS will continue to provide capital and operating support to community agencies that provide affordable housing and human services to Kent residents. Agencies will be required to meet community investment outcomes. • Human Services Per Capita Fund - In 1989 the City of Kent committed one (1) percent of the general fund to human services. In 2013 this funding mechanism shifted to a per capita investment. In 2013 this translated to $828,660. The entire amount is in turn allocated to non- profit agencies and programs who address the human services needs of Kent residents. Human service funding is on a two-year cycle, with second year funding contingent on contract performance and program outcomes. • Community Development Block Grant - The City of Kent receives federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In 2002 the City of Kent received an invitation from HUD to become a Metropolitan City. As a Metropolitan City, Kent is eligible for a direct formula allocation of funds from Housing and Urban Development. The amount of funds that Kent receives is based on an allocation formula that considers the City's population, the percent of low and moderate-income people and the condition of the housing stock. The dollar amount available varies from year to year depending on the U.S. Congressional Budget. CDBG Funding Levels Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds have decreased significantly over the past 10 years. Initially the City received about $1,000,000 and in 2012 the allocation was $714,398. As of 2012 the allocation formula did not include the Panther Lake annexation area. Home Repair Program Kent's Home Repair Program, funded by CDBG, provides low-income home owners with access to repair services for their homes. The specific goals of the program include improving the health and safety of families and individuals and maintaining affordable housing. The largest population group served is seniors. Fixed incomes (particularly those below 50% of median) prohibit the repair of critical systems in owner occupied homes. The cost of replacing a heating system, repairing sewer lines or putting on a new roof is more than many seniors can afford. The failure to properly maintain a house leads to further deterioration. Affordable housing is an important asset in Kent. Affordability is based on income. Housing costs should not exceed 30% Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 20 227 household income. The ability to assist home owners in maintaining the housing structure insures that the housing will be available for future generations. CDBG Public Services Additionally the city utilizes the CDBG Public Service portion of the grant to fund nonprofit agencies that provide services to residents at or below 50% of median. The services the City contracts for include health services for the homeless, eviction prevention, transitional housing, emergency assistance for immigrants and refugees and feeding programs. • Neighborhood Stabilization Program - The City used Neighborhood Stabilization Program federal funds to contract with Habitat for Humanity to purchase, rehabilitate and sell three foreclosed properties to low/middle-income homebuyers. The homebuyers received zero-interest loans and were from refugee communities with large families who had been waiting for large homes. Habitat for Humanity was able to maximize the funds by leveraging donations to increase the number of foreclosed properties they were able to purchase, rehabilitate and move families into. • Other County, State, Federal grants as applicable Evaluation: HHS staff monitors and evaluates agencies funded for program effectiveness to ensure that services are successful in achieving the desired goals and outcomes. Staff monitors each program's progress toward funding goals on a quarterly basis and reviews the program's outcomes each year. If a program is having difficulty meeting contractual requirements, HHS staff works with the agency staff to determine how to bring the program into compliance. Programs that cannot sufficiently meet funding goals or other contractual requirements risk losing funding. In 2012, North and East King County cities collaborated with South King County cities to create a joint monitoring form to ensure that cities were coordinated in their monitoring and tracking of funded programs. Whenever possible, the cities ha ve agreed to schedule joint monitoring visits for programs that are funded by several cities, This helps ensure that monitoring visits are comprehensive and more standardized, Agencies benefit as well from reducing the number of visits and the preparation and staff time that goes into a monitoring visit. Program and Organizational Effectiveness: HHS staff will evaluate the Human Services Master Plan investments every two years to coincide with the two year funding cycle. The evaluation will include an update on the process to determine funding recommendations. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 21 228 Community Need: HHS staff will monitor community need and update the Human Services Master Plan as needed to include summaries of emerging trends impacting the City of Kent. Priorities for future investments may shift or be targeted in order to address the changing needs of the Kent community. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 22 229 Human Services and the Recession The recession that began in late 2007 is now recognized as one of the worst economic downturns in decades. Communities throughout the state fell into economic crisis, and policymakers were forced to formulate strategies for stimulating the economy, generating revenue, and cutting spending while faced with competing priorities. In this challenging time, human services programs in Kent were faced with a number of challenges: • a sudden increase in demand that strained agency resources and their ability to serve those in need, • historic cuts in state funding that eroded services, and • a deteriorating economy that depleted city resources. State and local program funding continues to be down. Washington's safety net for the poorest continues to suffer the effects of a long-term disinvestment by the State and King County. Because municipal revenues have also been in decline, the cities cannot backfill this growing gap. As governmental support for agencies declines, non-profits are often forced to adjust by freezing or reducing employee salaries, drawing down on reserves, laying-off staff, or reducing the number of programs offered. Human services' spending is a vital part of the economy in more ways than one. Nonprofit agencies are large employers and their programs stimulate the economy. It is all too easy to overlook the fact that investing in these programs also substantially reduces the need for and cost of future services. The State of Human Services in King County In response to the challenges of the recession, a group of local governments, funders, and providers in King County challenged all sectors to participate in a public discourse to: • Understand the scope of the problem and the impact of the cuts • Suggest policy changes that will help reenvision how government prioritizes, delivers and supports services • Discuss how cities and sub-regions in King County can respond to their unique community needs. The results of these discussions were posted on the United Way of King County website at: http://www.uwkc.ora/ourfocus/public-policy/state-of-health-and- humanservices.html along with any updates on future budget reductions. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 23 230 Significant cuts impacting King County residents noted in the State of Human Services plan include: Reduction, then elimination of cash assistance for 6,200 people who are temporarily disabled and unable to work, resulting in increased homelessness and lack of money for housing, food and basic needs. Elimination of dental health coverage to tens of thousands of Medicaid beneficiaries. Loss of a housing stipend for about 3,500 low-income people receiving state-funded drug and alcohol treatment Loss of child care for more than 1,100 families through Working Connections Child Care (WCCC) program. As a result of reductions in the Basic Health Plan, almost 39,000 King County residents are now on the waiting list for this low cost health insurance coverage. 13,748 low income families on welfare (TANF) had their monthly income support reduced impeding their efforts to stay in school and obtain job training and employment. For a family of three, this means living on $478/month instead of $562/month. Loss of $1.2 million in direct federal funds from the Emergency Food and Shelter Program that in 2010 supported 949,813 meals and 215,692 nights of shelter. While a small portion of these services were covered with $224,000 of state set aside, there was no ability to cover the major losses. In addition to the challenges created by the recession, in early 2013 sequestration further complicated the nation's bid for economic recovery. As of March 2013, the state government was still sorting out the effects of sequestration ($85 billion in arbitrary budget cuts that began March 1, 2013 after Republicans and Democrats failed to agree on an overall budget), so the dollar figures and calculations of the effects were not yet final upon publication. While Budget staff for the state continues calculating the actual effects of the federal spending cuts (known as sequestration), it is evident that our vulnerable residents — the disabled, seniors, low-income preschoolers — will feel the brunt. The cuts began taking effect March 1 and are expected to slash almost $83 million out of state-administered programs over the remainder of 2013. As the cuts vary by program, staff will work with our local nonprofit providers to monitor the effects of sequestration on our community. Potential effects of the federal sequestration on Washington State could include: $11.6 million in lost federal education money that would put 160 teachers' and teachers aides' jobs at risk. 440 low-income students would lose their college aid. Another 180 would lose their right to work-study jobs to help pay for college. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 24 231 1,000 children would lose access to Head Start and Early Head Start programs. 800 children would lose access to daycare. 2,850 fewer children would receive immunizations for measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, flu and Hepatitis B. 3,800 fewer people would be admitted to substance abuse programs. 4,300 fewer people would receive free HIV testing. 500 domestic abuse victims would lose services. The state Employment Security Administration would lose the equivalent of 100 full-time employees by mid-2014. 1,300 low-income families would not receive energy-efficiency improvements to their homes. 10,000 people would lose some assistance from the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program. Developing a Response Most of the cuts discussed above would not be fully reversed (or reversed at all) even if the economy and state revenues were to experience a sudden recovery. Community members and stakeholders need to continue advocating for the restoration of public funding, while increasing efforts to develop new and innovative approaches for the community and our local agencies to meet the human services needs. This will include strategies outlined in the State of Human Services: • continued conversation about community priorities; • how to direct resources; and • ways for individuals to become more personally involved in helping those around us who are in need. New priorities, efficiencies, approaches and resources will all play a critical part of the community's response. Perhaps the most critical response needed is a rededication to the concept of community. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 25 232 The Suburbanization of Poverty The demographic changes that have taken place in Kent and the surrounding cities have had a broad impact on the provision of human services. It is evident that segments of Kent's population are growing more rapidly than others. Census 2010 data indicates that while the percentage of minorities in Seattle remained relatively flat, it skyrocketed in the suburbs south of the city limits, including Kent. The shift happened as people of color moved out of Seattle's historically lower-income and diverse neighborhoods, joining waves of immigrants who continue to relocate and settle in South King County. While Seattle is scarcely more diverse than it was ten years ago, Kent, Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila, are now communities where minorities either comprise a majority of the population or very close to it. This trend is sometimes referred to as the suburbanization ofpovertyand its prevalence in South King County drew the attention of the Brookings Institution, a think tank based in Washington DC that conducts research and education in the social sciences, primarily in economics, metropolitan policy, governance, foreign policy, and global economy and development. Kent and the surrounding cities are now home to a wide variety of people living in poverty. 68% of the poor in the three counties surrounding Seattle now live in the suburbs, particularly in South King County. That includes foreign born and native born, all races, people who lack a high school degree as well as college graduates. The suburbanization of poverty is now a defining characteristic of our community and it appears to be increasing across the nation. Between 2000 and 2010, according to census data compiled by Brookings Institution researchers: • The number of poor people living in the suburbs of major cities grew 53 percent, while the number in the cities themselves rose just 23 percent. • By 2010, the suburbs were home to a third of all Americans living under the official poverty level — more than the numbers living in cities, smaller towns, and rural areas. • Poverty rate rose in 27 South King County census tracts between 2000 and 2010; of the 21 tracts in all of King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties where it rose more than 10 percent, 13 are in South King County. • Four South King County cities — Burien followed by Kent, Tukwila, and SeaTac — have the largest shares of residents receiving Medicaid (35 percent in Kent's case) in the Puget Sound region. • Half the students in Kent and more than half in neighboring Auburn and Renton receive free or reduced-price school lunches. • Kent's per capita income, $26,470, is just 70 percent of the statewide average. Its official poverty rate, 14.5 percent, is half again as high as Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 26 233 King County's and, reflecting an average over the five years from 2005 through 2009, doubtless lags behind today's distressed reality. Overall in South King County, the Caucasian population declined by more than 14%, while the number of people who identified themselves as either Asian, Hispanic, African American, Native American or belonging to two or more races increased 66 percent. Much of the change was driven by Latinos, whose population doubled, and even tripled, in some cities. Implications of Demographic Changes The demographic changes in our community necessitate constant attention to how the City and our human services providers are delivering services and directing resources. Kent's growing senior population and child population will likely require additional resources to accommodate their numbers. In addition, the growing ethnic diversity of the population suggests the need to continue focusing on multi-lingual services. Finally, the increase in the number of families living in poverty suggests we need to continue shoring up our safety net and directing resources to basic human services such as health care, food and clothing assistance, and emergency shelter and transitional housing. Many of the implications for Kent's human service network suggested by these demographic changes were confirmed through surveys with community members and key stakeholders. Human Services Network The City of Kent benefits from a strong network of community-based service providers that serves their increasingly diverse population. Providers from the private, nonprofit, public and faith-based sectors have developed an array of programs and services to assist residents with basic needs and to contribute positively to their quality of life. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 27 234 Policies to Build a Healthy Community The Human Services Commission is charged with recommending Human Services policies to City Administration and Council. The Commission develops policy recommendations based on guiding principles, funding priorities, and policy focus areas that will result in a stronger community. RECOMMENDATIONS The role of the Housing and Human Services Division is to provide support for residents to meet their physical, economic and social needs, and ensure that the City of Kent has a quality service system that is accessible and effective. The HHS Master Plan recommendations provide a guide for the next six years, articulating underlying HHS principles and the long-term vision and goals for building a healthy community. The guiding recommendations will help shape policies, strategies, and funding decisions that best adhere to the City of Kent's values and goals for Building a Health Community. They will guide HHS in its roles: in collaboration with other City departments, in partnerships, as regional collaborator, and funder of human services. In the HHS two year funding cycles, the updated context of community needs, trends and regional changes will be considered to adopt strategies and priorities to best achieve positive community outcomes. The recommendations include: ➢ Guiding principles that frame what services are funded; ➢ HHS funding priorities; ➢ Priority policy areas and long-term outcomes to Build a Health Community. MISSION STATEMENT The Human Services Commission exists as part of the conscience of the City of Kent in its recognition of the value and diversity of all citizens including the various cultures and ethnicities and the City's desire that their basic needs be met. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 28 235 Guiding Principles: ➢ Healthy Communities: Build healthy communities through mutually supportive connections, building on the strengths and assets of all residents. ➢ Self-Reliance: Support all residents in attaining their maximum level of self-reliance. ➢ Collaborations: Value collaborations at all levels and seek the most strategic approaches to meeting the needs of Kent residents. ➢ Equal Access: Support equal access to services, through a service network that meets needs across age, ability, culture and language. ➢ Respect and Dignity: Treat all members of the community with respect and dignity. ➢ Accountability: Oversee City resources with consistent ethical stewardship, fairness in allocating funds, and strong accountability for maximizing effective services. FUNDING PRIORITIES: The Master Plan lays out the City's funding priorities; in which the City will invest human services funding. Funding priorities are in place to ensure that Kent invests in the continuum of human services needs — from prevention and early intervention to job training and basic needs such as food and shelter. HHS will strive to create a balance between support for basic safety net services and services that strengthen individuals and families, decreasing their need for human services over time. A successful human services system provides for emergency needs while giving individuals opportunities to achieve their goals for a healthy and productive life. It provides support at the earliest and least invasive level of need, rather than as the last resort, which is often the most expensive and least desirable. While five priorities were identified in the original Master Plan, an additional funding priority will be added for 2013-2018. The priorities include: SIX FUNDING PRIORITY AREAS: ➢ Meeting Community Basics Ensuring that people facing hardship have access to resources to help meet immediate or basic needs. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 29 236 ➢ Increasing Self-Reliance Helping individuals break out of the cycle of poverty by improving access to services and removing barriers to employment. ➢ Strengthening Children and Families Providing children, youth and families with community resources needed to support their positive development, including early intervention & prevention services. ➢ Building a Safer Community Providing resources and services that reduce violence, crime, and neglect in our community. ➢ Improving Health and Well-Being Providing access to services that allow individuals to improve their mental and physical health, overall well-being, and ability to live independently. ➢ Improving and Integrating Systems Leading efforts to ensure that human services systems meet demands and expectations by increasing capacity, utilizing technology, coordinating efforts, and sharing resources. Policy Focus Areas Policy focus areas are issues that we recognize will require targeted attention over time. The focus areas included were selected based on existing service gaps, unmet needs, and important system improvements identified through community input. The 2013 update of the Master Plan includes the overarching goal of ensuring that services are inclusive and available to all citizens. SELF RELIANCE: Employment and education are two of the most direct pathways out of poverty. The City of Kent needs opportunities that enable residents to gain jobs skills through access to education, employment support and livable wage jobs in the community. A primary driver in chronic and growing need for human services is inadequate income. Programs, policies and partnerships that support residents' earning capabilities will help ensure they have the skills needed to attain self-sufficiency for themselves and their families. "I really don't like to ask for help. I work two part-time jobs and get Social Security, but sometimes I can't afford to buy food and medicine." Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 30 237 ➢ Increased educational attainment among Kent residents: One of the key factors in access to livable wage jobs is level of educational attainment. Kent residents need access to programs that increase post- secondary education and/or vocational training. ➢ Increased access to livable wage jobs: Services that create direct links for low-income Kent residents to livable wage jobs in Kent help residents on the path to self-reliance. Services may include job training, retention, and wage progression services, adult education opportunities in Kent for special populations geared toward employment, job retention, and wage progression. ➢ Reduced barriers to employment: Effective services are needed that eliminate barriers to employment, and partnerships with employers and Kent businesses will help ensure mutually beneficial outcomes that support healthy and competitive businesses and a skilled workforce. Services may include childcare subsidies, ESL, vocational ESL, and job readiness/job placement assistance that are offered both in the community and on the job-site. ➢ Improved knowledge of financial literacy: Kent residents need to have the knowledge, tools and access to community resources to manage their personal finances and achieve their financial goals. Money management is a basic life skill that is essential to avoid financial instability and to build financial assets, particularly for low and middle- income households. Services may include financial literacy training in topics as budgeting, banking, and predatory lending, as well as public promotion of resources such as the Earned Income Tax Credit program. Opportunities for educating our youth and young adults on the importance of financial literacy should be expanded in order to give them the best possible chance to avoid financial instability as they become independent. ➢ Increased access to services: Resource information should be widely available and accessible to all Kent residents; community and social support systems enable resident self-help, mutual support and create a network of care and nurturing that is vital in a healthy community. Services need to take into account the diverse population of our City and the need for services outside of the typical 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday. Those who need to access services benefit from services that are collocated and who share resources. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: A key indicator to the health of a community is economic stability. The development of new business, diverse employment Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 31 238 opportunities, and an established work force provides adequate resources for individuals and families to be financially stable. ➢ Increased micro-enterprise development: Micro-enterprise development organizations support low-income entrepreneurs as they start or expand their businesses. This important economic development tool can increase the chance of business success by bridging the gap between individuals and providing the tools they need to start and grow successful businesses. For many low-income entrepreneurs, micro- enterprise development opportunities represent the only means to access the capital and business tools necessary for business start-up. ➢ Improved accessibility to job training programs: Job training programs that provide relevant quality training and education give Kent residents the skills and opportunity to compete in the job market. Access to job training programs is important, particularly when programs are able to provide hands-on training and link graduates to specific jobs readily available in the community. ➢ Improved career path development: A strong employment base is a key component for ensuring that families are self-sufficient. It is not enough to simply have a large number of entry-level jobs available in the community. While the availability of entry level jobs are a vital part of the health of our community, most entry-level jobs are part-time, and do not include employee benefits. Pathways from entry level jobs to better paying positions that pay a livable wage and include benefits are a critical component of lifting people out of poverty. ➢ Increased youth employment opportunities: The community must create opportunities for youth to develop the knowledge and skills for work, to help youth respond to the complex and changing nature of work, and address the cultural and social barriers that prevent youth from working. The benefits of a young person gaining job experience are numerous; including fostering lifelong learning, teaching them how to successfully hold a job and to manage money, helping them learn to make continuous successful transitions, and leading them to a life of self- reliance. CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES: A foundation of a healthy community includes supportive environments for children to grow and flourish, social networks that guide children, and ample opportunities for young people to find a place for themselves and become productive members of society. These supports need to exist along the whole age spectrum of a child's development, from birth through the teen years. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 32 239 ➢ Improved birth to 5 services: Families with children age birth to five should be connected to the community prior to entering the public school system. Aligning children's learning and development experiences in the home, in early education and care, and in school promotes the successful transition into kindergarten. Parents should have a clear understanding of what is expected of their children when they enter kindergarten and consequently the School District would be better equipped to serve the incoming students. ➢ Increased availability of quality, affordable child care: Working parents and their preschool children need access to child care that ensures children's health and safety and provides activities for developmentally appropriate learning and school readiness. A network of funding resources is necessary to ensure that all children can receive quality child care regardless of income, and specialized programs are available for children with special needs. "I was able to find a job, but couldn't afford daycare and was going to make too much to qualify for DSHS help. The City's child care scholarship allowed me to go back to work." ➢ Increased availability of children and youth activities: Children and youth should be encouraged to be active, explore and learn in ways that build self-esteem, and set the foundation for individual and group social skills. Kent children and youth need access to a diverse variety of programs and activities throughout the City that support their healthy development. Community assets should be maximized throughout the city, and may include neighborhood centers, school buildings, parks, and other public use spaces. ➢ Increased access to prevention and early intervention services: The teen years can be a difficult time of transition and a pivotal period in youth development, as youth assess their options and define their place in society. A network of services and partnerships is needed that focuses on providing positive resources for youth: such as internships, jobs and technology access to prepare youth with the skills for the workplace, before and after-school activities for all ages, and collaborations between schools, city programs, nonprofits and other community services. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 33 240 When problems for youth do arise, providing services during the early warning signs is most effective and least costly, both financially and socially. Early intervention programs that may include tutoring, mental health services, and specialized youth programs are critical. FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES: Families in today's world live with many chronic stresses: balancing work and family time, meeting family needs with the high costs of living, juggling schedules and being involved in children's schools are just a few. A network of supports that includes strong social and neighborhood ties, responsive institutions and programs that work in partnership to support the whole family is critical. Services are needed that strengthen these supportive networks and collaborate to provide effective services for families. Family support services may include parent education, cultural transition services for Kent's culturally and linguistically diverse families, as well as mental health services. In order to help people achieve economic and social success, investments in prevention programs that help vulnerable individuals build a path to long-term success and self-sufficiency, as well as address crisis prevention, are critical. ➢ Collaborations to serve the whole family: Linkages, referral relationships, joint projects and co-location of services are all ways in which programs can effectively meet the multiple needs low-income families often have, increasing parent and children success for long-term health and stability. For example, partnerships between the City, school districts and nonprofits, can bring services to schools and provide early intervention support to students and their parents. ➢ Immigrant and refugee transition services: Refugees and immigrants from every region of the world are settling in our community. With them comes a myriad of languages, cultures and skills that create a vibrant multicultural environment. Some also come with a need for additional services to help stabilize their lives and transition to self- reliance. It is important to meet the challenge of delivering accessible, efficient and cost-effective services to our community's multicultural residents. Coordinated service delivery is needed help residents connect to resources that provide for the health, safety, education and self- reliance of immigrants and refugees choosing to resettle in our community. Services that orient parents to U.S. school expectations, offer ESL with parenting education, opportunities to express their culture while learning new ways, and small business support are examples of transition services that help immigrant and refugee families become self sufficient. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 34 241 ➢ Improved access for working families: Traditional nine-to-five office hours for human services often do not match the schedules of working families. Long work hours, lack of evening and weekend child care availability, and transportation issues compound the challenges working parents have to access services and utilize the support that they need. Non-traditional hours for service delivery, community locations, such as schools and shopping areas, and co-location of services can enable working parents to get support. ➢ Decrease social isolation and strengthen neighborhoods: Ensure that families feel connected to their community and build support systems within their neighborhoods. Positive social interaction and volunteerism opportunities help ensure that families develop neighborhood pride. SENIOR SERVICES: Increased community capacity to address the needs of seniors and dependent adults is critical. The Kent community values its elders, welcomes their contributions, and needs to ensure that their needs are addressed as they age. Senior citizens need to have options for community involvement and independence at their level of ability, and ensure services are in place to attend to their needs. ➢ Improved community involvement: Older adults who remain active, pursue their interests and maintain healthy community relationships live longer and can contribute to society for many years beyond retirement. Participation in Senior Center activities encourages community involvement for seniors from diverse cultural groups. ➢ Increased knowledge of community resources: More seniors today live alone, live longer, and rely on services for episodic health concerns or ongoing support services. Accessing appropriate levels of support, such as home-based services, can help seniors stay continue to enjoy a level of independence. ➢ Explore intergenerational programs that engage seniors and acknowledge their continuing contributions to community life. ➢ Increased knowledge of health care resources: Many senior citizens face complicated health care issues as they age. Ensuring that seniors know the health conditions associated with aging, know their own personal risk factors, and are aware of the rights and responsibilities of a senior patient for health management are critical. Ensuring that seniors know where to go for appropriate care and how to access appropriate health care coverage will improve the ability of seniors to maintain their Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 35 242 health. Community members who interact with seniors need to be able to identify and refer at-risk seniors to available services. ➢ Improved/maintained independent living: Most seniors prefer to live independently as long as possible. While many are able to maintain their health and have sufficient funds to continue to live independently, others require community assistance to age in place. Ensuring that senior citizens are aware of the many programs available to help them maintain their independent living will increase their ability to age in place. Transportation, meal programs, chore services, and counseling are all critical components to ensure our senior citizens can live independently as long as possible. EQUAL ACCESS TO SERVICES: In a healthy community, services are equally accessible to people in need, and access barriers are overcome through service design and responsiveness to changing needs. ➢ Improved transportation services: Public transportation services are necessary that offer efficient connections between major areas of the city and region, connecting major hubs, housing, employment and business centers. Improved transportation routes would enable residents to more easily access regional services. ➢ Improved knowledge of transportation services: Transportation services are critical for customers with special needs due to age or disabilities. Ensure that available programs are well-publicized and that individuals in need can access the services. ➢ Increased availability of multilingual services: Whenever possible, programs should provide access to multilingual services, increasing the chances that families will understand the process and receive appropriate services. ➢ Increased access to services: Services should be accessible to residents through a variety of locations, with flexible hours to serve the working poor. Co-location of services such as the Alliance Center, a One- Stop service building, will continue to be encouraged to provide a range of services in one location. MAINTAIN SAFETY NET AND BASIC NEEDS SERVICES: Access to basic needs for food, shelter, health and safety should be available to all residents, with increased attention to linking people to long-term solutions. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 36 243 ➢ Reduced barriers to receiving food assistance: Increased attention to food insecurity is critical. Programs that increase access to nutritious foods among our vulnerable populations include food bank services, food stamps, WIC program, free and reduced lunch, community suppers, weekend food backpacks for youth, summer lunch programs, etc. ➢ Increased access to emergency assistance: An increased focus on ensuring that a network of assistance is available to residents who need assistance with basic needs. This includes access to utility assistance, bus tickets, gas vouchers, rental assistance, etc. ➢ Reduced risk of homelessness: An increased focus on homeless prevention, including activities such as partnerships with landlords, eviction prevention education, and funding for emergency rental assistance can help prevent homelessness. While short-term emergency and transitional housing will continue to be a necessary service for people in need in our community, prevention of homelessness is less traumatic for people in crisis and less costly for funders. ➢ Maintained permanent housing: Services that help individuals and families maintain their permanent housing improve individual/family stability and reduce the strain on the shelter system. Access to early intervention programs like Housing Stability, resource and referral, and rent assistance are critical. ➢ Increased access to medical services: Local community clinic services that provide medical care to all, including those without health insurance, are a critical service for residents. When individuals have access to medical services, they are more likely to seek preventative care and avoid costly emergency services. Services that include hours of operation that meet patients' needs and meet the needs of diverse populations are needed. ➢ Increased access to mental health services: Sufficient resources to adequately serve people with mental illness and chemical dependency are essential. When individuals in need of mental health services do not receive the services they need, they end up in our jails, juvenile detention facilities, and hospitals — costing our community more than providing appropriate intervention services would have cost. SAFE COMMUNITIES: Physical and mental health is impacted by the experience of violence or fear of violence. All residents should have access to quality crisis intervention for victims of violence, including physical and mental Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 37 244 health services, and support for legal protection and intervention. There should be an increased focus on services preventing violence. ➢ Increased parenting abilities among expectant parents and parents of young children: Increased access to evidence-based home visiting programs and/or parent education for high risk families can reduce the chance that families will experience violence. ➢ Increased youth violence prevention activities: Youth involvement programs are an important aspect of a healthy community. Keeping youth engaged in positive after-school activities can lead to improved self-esteem, increased sense of responsibility, improved relationships with adults and peers, and reduced involvement in juvenile crime. ➢ Improved understanding of family violence: Family violence continues to be a pervasive community problem. Ensuring that services (including community advocacy, legal advocacy, safety planning and shelter) are readily available for victims of family violence is critical. It is important for both victims of family violence and those who witness it to understand how to recognize abusive tactics, access advocacy services, create a safety plan, and access other community resources. ➢ Increased knowledge of sexual assault: A healthy community is one where sexual assault does not exist. Sexual assault (which includes rape, attempted rape, child molestation, child sexual abuse and sexual harassment) is a widespread problem. Studies continually suggest that one-third of girls and one-fifth of boys are sexually assaulted by age sixteen and one-third of adult women experience assault as an adult. For a variety of reasons, most victims do not report to law enforcement and 40% of female victims do not seek assistance. A higher number of male victims remain silent. Changing the community climate regarding sexual assault and sexual violence is essential. Education and outreach provide tools to ensure that more people understand the risks of sexual assault, profiles of offenders and offending behavior. It is important for services to be available for victims and their families, which will mitigate long- term repercussions, and enhance the victim's ability to regain control. Services such as crisis intervention, informational resources, legal advocacy, medical advocacy, parent education and support, and individual therapy are critical in helping victims become survivors. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 38 245 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: Adequate infrastructure and linkages between systems are necessary to economize effort and maximize effective outcomes for both residents in need and programs that serve them. ➢ Improved partnerships and collaborations: Connections between service types and sectors enables "all the pieces of the puzzle" to be in place to improve outcomes and ensure residents'vital needs are met. These linkages may include periodic joint meetings, program referrals and collaborative services. Whenever possible, community sectors should provide complementary services, and collaborate to achieve positive results with less effort. These efforts may include an ecumenical council for church collaborations, business and nonprofit partnerships for job skills training and worker retention, schools and city-funded programs for effective youth and family support. Increased service integration: Service providers need to continually self- examine their programs and works towards providing more effective and efficient services. Services continue to be offered in a piecemeal manner and more work is needed to ensure services are delivered in a more coordinated manner. Program innovations and a focus on best practices increase the likelihood that clients will benefit from those services. Example: A Dynamic Collaboration Dynamic Partners is a unique collaboration between nonprofit organizations and for- profit companies — all staffed with passionate individuals devoted to improving the lives of children with special needs...individuals who have developed an international reputation for unparalleled standards of excellence. All earnings from our for-profit ventures are channeled back to support our nonprofit enterprises. Members of the partnership don't need to worry about facilities or administration —those responsibilities are all handled by Dynamic Partners. Therefore, Children's Therapy Center, SKIP Early Intervention Program, Dynamic Orthotics. SPIO and Dynamic Labs are able to focus on what they do best — helping kids and families reach their full potential. As a member of the collaboration, each Partner saves over $200,000 a year in administration and overhead costs. This savings is then re-invested back into our collective mission — enabling us to: • Improve efficiency • Improve capacity • Improve sustainability • Improve effectiveness Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 39 246 HOUSING: Community residents need housing that is affordable at all levels of the economic spectrum. Housing should be safe and located in supportive neighborhoods. ➢ Increased availability of affordable housing: The City of Kent needs a variety of adequate housing opportunities that meet the needs of its residents, including low and moderate-income residents. Strategies include: partnerships with nonprofit and profit developers; housing alternatives that provide a range of options for income levels and household sizes, and inclusion of affordable housing options in new developments in Kent, particularly near transportation hubs and employment centers. ➢ Increased home ownership opportunities: Home ownership is one of the strongest factors in strengthening a sense of community belonging and commitment. Home ownership is a foundation of financial asset building and has a positive impact on the whole family. Making the transition from renter to owner is a challenge for many working families. Promoting community education for first-time homebuyers and first-time homebuyer programs is a key step in making residents aware of the opportunities that exist in the community ➢ Maintained existing housing stock: Kent has a significant proportion of old and deteriorating housing stock. Maintaining these resources is critical to the health of the City and the stability of its residents, particularly low-income senior citizens. The City of Kent's offers a Home Repair program that works to maintain the existing stock of affordable housing in the City. The program provides a variety of home repair services to low and moderate income owners of single-family houses, mobile homes and condo units. ➢ Increased regional efforts: Housing costs, housing availability and the need for affordable housing are major regional issues that require regional solutions. Development of countywide housing resources and distribution of affordable housing to all income groups throughout the County is critical. Improved coordination among the county, other jurisdictions, housing providers, service providers, and the financial community is also needed to identify, promote and implement local and regional strategies to increase housing opportunities for people with special needs. ➢ Maintained appropriate level of homeless services: Support shelter and transitional housing while the need still exists, while expecting agencies to focus on permanent housing solutions. This is an important part of working to break what can become a cycle of homelessness. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 40 247 Encourage supported housing linked to case management, for persons who are mentally ill, and/or recovering from substance abuse. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 41 248 Kent City Council Strategies and Human Services STRATEGIC GOALS: Develop and implement a sustainable funding model Create a plan to analyze current operations to identity and implement efficiencies. Research new revenue sources to sustain current operations. In light of new economic realities, prioritize public services and implement new fund reserve policies In 2012 the Human Services Commission presented Council with a proposal for a new funding mechanism that would not be subject to the revenue swings of the economy. The new strategy, a per capita model, was approved by Council in December 2012 and the rate was set at $6.96 with an annual increase based on the consumer price index. Create connections for people and places Develop and implement a plan to improve government processes. Identity a funding source and revenue generating opportunities using fiber optics throughout the community. Create connections for people and places by improving and expanding trails and roadways. Design a Gateways Plan to create more friendly and welcoming entries into Kent. Continue to identify neighborhoods. Create neighborhood urban centers Transform zoning and planning to support the creation of new urban centers. Transform the regulatory process to be efficient and eliminate redundancy. Impro ve streetscapes and signage. Identity a niche, uniqueness for Kent to develop, Human services staff has organized a group to determine the feasibility of opening a multicultural resource center in Kent or South County; the committee is convening listening sessions with organizations and individuals to gage the interest in such a facility and will research options for funding the space through a non-profit. Foster inclusiveness Promote inclusiveness and broaden the opportunities to celebrate and showcase the diversity of our community. Seek ways to educate employees, employers Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 42 249 and the community on the cultural diversity of Kent Remove barriers to increase hiring to match the city's diverse population, Human Services staff continue to work with the immigrant/refugee community to expand services and increase opportunities for the individuals and families moving to the community. Staff work with regional groups to address issues such as education, employment, transportation and health care for new immigrants that may have limited English skills and not understand the systems they must traverse. Kent Cultural Diversity Initiative Group (KC-DIG) brings together a coalition of providers, individuals, businesses and organizations on a monthly basis to learn about the needs and opportunities in our community. Informative presentations provide committee members with information about education, city services, employment, housing services, medical services and opportunities for collaborations. KC-DIG hosted a Seattle Foundation GiveBig training to increase donations for ethnic-based non-profits working in Kent. Beautify Kent Update design standards for residential, commercial and downtown areas of Kent Implement a plan for "Green Kent'; targeting greenways to include better use of open space and trees. Leverage code enforcement to rid the city of unsightly areas. Implement a plan for maintenance and resource management of our existing public and private infrastructure. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 43 250 HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES BUDGET 2013-2014 Human Services Funding Recommendations (General Fund) Agency Program Funding Catholic Community Services of W Washington Volunteer Chore Services $10,000 Catholic Community Services of W Washington Homeless Services Program $55,000 Child Care Resources Child Care Financial Assistance $26,000 Children's Home Society of Washington Early Head Start in South King and North King $20,000 Communities in Schools of Kent Mentorship and Service Coordination $35,000 Crisis Clinic Community Information Line $5,000 Domestic Abuse Women's Network(DAWN) Domestic Violence Continuum of Services $65,000 Dynamic Family Services Children with Special Needs $55,000 HealthPoint Dental Program $15,000 HealthPoint Medical Program $15,000 Jewish Family Service Refugee &Immigrant Service Centers $10,000 Kent Food Bank and Emergency Services Kent Food Bank $70,000 Kent Youth and Family Services Head Start and ECEAP Preschool Programs $15,000 Kent Youth and Family Services Outreach $10,000 Kent Youth and Family Services Clinical Services $85,000 Kent Youth and Family Services Watson Manor Transitional Living Program $10,000 Kent Youth and Family Services Infant Mental Health $5,000 King County Bar Foundation Community Legal Services (CLS) $10,000 King County Sexual Assault Resource Center Comprehensive Sexual Assault Services $22,660 Mercy Housing Homeless Case Management $10,000 Multi-Service Center Housing Continuum $126,000 Multi-Service Center Emergency Assistance $25,000 Neighborhood House Employment & Family Self Sufficiency $10,000 Pediatric Interim Care Center Inc Interim Care of Drug-Exposed Infants $10,000 Senior Services Volunteer Transportation $10,000 Sound Mental Health Path Program $12,000 South King Council of Human Services Capacity Building Project $10,000 Ukrainian Community Center of Washington Russian/Ukrainian Refugee Assistance Project $10,000 Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation Senior Counseling at Kent Senior Center $32,000 Washington Women's Employment &Education REACH Plus $35,000 Total I $828,660 Building a Healthy Community- Master Plan 2013 44 251 HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES BUDGET Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2013 Human Services Funding Recommendations CDBG Funding Public Services 2013 Catholic Community Services Katherine's House and Rita's House $10,000 HealthPoint Health Care for the Homeless $10,000 YWCA-Seattle-King-Snohomish Anita Vista Transitional Housing $18,000 Refugee Women's Alliance ReWa Senior Nutrition and Wellness $10,000 Program Multi-Service Center Housing Stability $49,050 Refugee Women's Alliance Case Management and Emergency $15,000 Assistance Total $112 050 Capital Washington Community Alliance for Kent Microenterprise Initiative Self-Help $25 000 Home Repair Home Repair Services $460 550 Total Capital $485 550 Planning and Administration $149 400 TOTAL PROJECTED CDBG 2013 $747,000 Building a Healthy Community- Master Plan 2013 45 252 2013-2014 Services by Funding Category Ensuring that people facing hardship ha ve access to resources to help meet immediate or basic needs. • Catholic Community Services — Emergency Assistance • Catholic Community Services — HOME Homeless Men's Shelter • Catholic Community Services — Katherine's House • Crisis Clinic — 211/Crisis Line • Kent Food Bank — Food Bank and Emergency Services • Kent Youth and Family Services — Watson Manor Transitional Housing • Multi-Service Center — Housing Continuum Helping individuals break out of the cycle of poverty by improving access to services and removing barriers to employment • Catholic Community Services — Volunteer Chore • Child Care Resources — Child Care Financial Assistance • Jewish Family Service — Refugee and Immigrant Service Centers • King County Bar Foundation — Pro Bono Services • Mercy Housing Northwest — Homeless Family Case Management • Neighborhood House — Employment & Family Self Sufficiency • Senior Services — Volunteer Transportation • Ukrainian Community Center of WA — Refugee Assistance Program • WWEE — Reaching Employability & Achieving Career Habits (REACH Plus) Providing children, youth and families with community resources needed to support their positive development, including early intervention and prevention services. • Children's Home Society — Strengthening Children & Families • Communities in Schools of Kent — Mentoring Program • Dynamic Family Services — Children with Special Needs • Kent Youth and Family Services — After School • Kent Youth and Family Services — Clinical Programs • Kent Youth and Family Services — Early Childhood Education • Kent Youth and Family Services — Infant Mental Health Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 46 253 Providing resources and services that reduce violence, crime, and neglect in our community. • DAWN — Community Advocacy Program • DAWN — Housing for Domestic Violence Survivors • King County Sexual Assault Resource Center — Comprehensive Sexual Assault Services Providing access to services that allow individuals to improve their mental and physical health, overall well-being, and ability to live independently, • Health Point — Primary Dental Care • Health Point — Primary Medical Care • Pediatric Interim Care Center — Interim Care of Drug-Exposed Infants • Sound Mental Health — PATH Homeless Outreach • Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation — Senior Counseling Program 1 f - Leading efforts to ensure that human services systems meet demands and expectations by increasing capacity, utilizing technology, coordinating efforts, and sharing resources, South King Council of Human Services — Capacity Building Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 47 254 Demographic Profile The City of Kent has experienced dramatic population growth over the past ten years. Furthermore, the city's population is becoming increasingly diverse—in terms of race and ethnicity, as well as income. Refugee resettlement and immigration has enriched the community with new cultures, languages, foods and art. Diversity also brought challenges the city has worked to meet. Meeting the needs of such a diverse community requires some new approaches and applying proven strategies to new scenarios. The following are some of strategies used to improve the quality of life and assist new residents. • In 2009, the City organized the Kent Cultural Diversity Initiative Group (KCDIG) after a summit with service providers and community members with cultural and language-specific expertise necessary to work with immigrants and refugees. KCDIG provides opportunities for continuing education, networking, collaboration, understanding and sharing across cultures. Participants and organizations represent a myriad of cultures- Somali, Somali Bantu, Kenyan, Burmese, Peruvian, Indian, Iraqi, Sudanese, African American, Bhutanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese, and European. • Cultural difference change how programs are offered. For example the Kent Pool provides a bimonthly Women Only Swim for women who need this option for religious/cultural reasons. • Coming together to share a meal with previously isolated Somali and Bhutanese seniors resulted in a human services grant to support the Senior Nutrition and Wellness Program for these populations. As funds are available, the program will be supported by a CDBG grant • Several ethnic-based organizations were provided technical assistance on grant applications to increase funding to serve refugees. • The Preserving and Strengthening Specialized Community Organizations Committee (PSSCO) met to develop a strategy for contributing to the long-term viability of small and emerging organizations that specialize in providing human services to Kent immigrant and refugee communities. PSSCO conducted capacity assessment interviews with nine ethnic-based community organizations; a report is being prepared which will be shared with funders and the agencies. Members of the committee include representatives from Seattle Foundation, South King Council of Human Services, United Way of King County, and a community volunteer of the Seattle Foundation Neighbor to Neighbor Small Grant Fund. • Human services staff is working with a committee organized to determine the feasibility of opening a multicultural resource center in Kent or South County. The committee is convening listening sessions with organizations and individuals to gage the interest in a facility and research options for funding the space through a non-profit. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 48 255 In the coming years, many of the challenges, as well as strengths, confronting the city lie in this expanding diversity. As a result, the demographic findings described below have significant implications for individual service providers and the region's human service network as a whole. Kent's changing demographics highlight where resources need to be enhanced to reach segments of the population with the greatest social and economic need. Major demographic trends Increasing senior citizen population, larger families, high percentage of children, increasing racial and ethnic diversity; and increasing poverty and financial insecurity, working families burdened by high costs for basic necessities, lack of health insurance, Population Kent's population has grown by 4.9% annually, over the last thirty years. Kent now ranks as the third largest city in King County. Historic Population Growth, 1970-2010 140,000 120,000 Historic Population Growth Population 144'0000 The population increase of 80,000 16,000 in 1997 was due to 60,000 the Meridian Valley 40,000 annexation 20,000 . In July 2010, the Panther 0 Lake annexation added an 191� y��y �g�o eg , o yqh 40co ell 4;1 0 addition 25,458 people. (Source: WA Office of Financial Management). Population is for April 1 each year. Household and Families In 2009-2011 there were 39,000 households in Kent and the average household size was 2.8 people. Families made up 66% of the households and includes both married-couple families (47%) or other families (19%). Of other families, 10% are female householder families with no husband present and own children under 18 years. Nonfamily households made up 34% of all households in Kent. Most of the nonfamily households were people living alone, but some were composed of people living in households in which no one was related to the householder. 39% of all households had one or more people under the age of 18; 19% of all households have one or more people 65 years and over. Among persons 15 and older, 49% of males and 48% of females are currently married. 3,000 grandparents lived with their grandchildren under 18 years old and of those grandparents, 18% of them had financial responsibility for their grandchildren. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 49 256 Racial Diversity More Other Asian/Pacific Native Black White than one Islander American race 1990 0* 1.2% 4.4% 1.4% 3.8% 89.2% 2000 5.4% 9.8% 10.2% 1% 8.2% 70.8% 2010 6.6% 8.5% 17.1% 1% 11.3% 55.5% *More than one race was not an option in the 1990 Census. Hispanic Origin of any Race 2010, fi6kld:o 2.000 $, 0% 19so qo✓6 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% In addition to the racial and ethnic classifications, Kent's diversity picture also includes immigrants and refugees, which include various racial and ethnic classifications. For example, Eastern European immigrants and African immigrants are included in the White and Black racial categories. The following chart illustrates the large percentage of foreign-born residents in Kent. Nativity and Foreign Born Residents 73% of Kent residents in 2009-2011 were native residents to the United States. 27% of our residents were foreign born. Of the foreign born population, 43% were naturalized United States citizens, and 55% entered the country before the year 2000. 45% of those who were foreign born entered the country in 2000 or later. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 50 257 Foreign-Born Residents Percentage of foreign born population 2007-2011 30% - ---- :9li9 25% 20,10% 20% 1 S% 11,140% m1 Fareiign earn 10 5� 01. Washington King County Kent Source: US Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts — Data derived from Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing Foreign born residents of Kent come from all over the world. Regions of the world Europe, 13.90% Latin "America,,27% Oceania, 2.20% Asia,, 48.8 18 Africa,,6.40% Language Among people at least five years old living in Kent in 2009-2011, 38% spoke a language other than English at home. Of those 32% spoke Spanish and 68% some other language. 49% reported that they did not speak English "very well." Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 51 258 Percent of the population 5 years and over who speak a language other than English 2009-2011 Spanish WVW�V�W WWVWVW WW WWVWVW $2.3 Other Indo-European languages 30.6 Asiain and Pacific Islander languages 32 J Other languages 0 10 20 30 40 Kent School District The increasing diversity in Kent is even more pronounced when examining school statistics. Kent School District is the fourth largest school district in the state of Washington. Currently, the district consists of 4 large comprehensive high Schools, 6 middle schools, 28 elementary schools and 2 academies. Kent School District benefits from a wealth of diversity as at least 138 languages are spoken within its boundaries, with the top five languages other than English including: Spanish, Russian, Somali, Punjabi, and Vietnamese. As of May 2012, 13,991 students in the Kent School District qualified for free or reduced-price meals, representing 51.9% of the student population. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 52 259 The race/ethnicity makeup as of October 2011 was: 45% ,4%. . .,,...,. 40% 35% 30% 25% 13,136 18,6% 20% 15% FM IP% '1 5% P% E'�e lac lac �Qs �a°� a°�G r``a vae raac�v, Qa� �ac.�ero` Sao a° P� Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 2011-2012 Report Card Center for Education and Data Research (CEDR) Percentage of English Language Learners KC^ud a bm96 r^ ' seaffle ;;: PArabwn .......... ..,,...,...f, Tacoma a%- a^,a — zooz zoos zoos toms zmos zo©� amms zaas aoio Source: Kent School District's State of the District 2011-2012 Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 53 260 Graduation Rates Improvements in reviewing and analyzing district data resulted in Kent School District (KSD) developing a clearer picture of the graduation rates and drop-out percentages. The district's annual dropout rate has continued to decline to approximately 4%. Graduation rates have seen steady progress shifting from just 67.4% in 2006 to 82.3% in 2010 and effectively increased in 2011. KSD is launching new programs to offer students who did not graduate on time new degree opportunities. SAT scores for KSD college-bound students were higher than the state average and Washington has the highest average in the nation. Innovative Approach: The Kinder To College program takes KSD's youngest students and their families to a college campus and delivers the message, "You can do this!" The students visited local college campuses where they took the "College Pledge"to work hard in school, listen to their teachers and families, and graduate from high school prepared for college. Parents reported they saw the enthusiasm in their children and saw the program as a great way to start talking with their children about the importance of what they are learning in school and what they need to do to prepare themselves for college and life. The goal is to eventually have kindergarten students from all 28 elementary schools participate and go to college for a day. Education According to American Community Survey data, in 2009-2011, 26% of people 25 years and over had at least graduated from high school and 25% had a bachelor's degree or higher. 16% were dropouts and not enrolled in school or had not graduated from high school. Educational Attainment 16.3% - Less than a high school diploma 25.6% - High School diploma or equivalency 24% - Some college, but no degree 8.7% - Associate's degree 19.1% - Bachelor's degree 6.4% - Graduate or professional degree Income The median income of households was $57,902. 10% of households had income below $15,000 per year. In 2009-2011, 16% of people were in poverty. 26% of related children under 18 were below the poverty level, compared with 11% of people 65 years and older. 14% of all families and 25% of all families with a female householder and no husband present had incomes below the poverty level. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 54 261 Poverty Rates in Kent in 2009-2011 Female householder families All families 1 Related children under 18yeairs 2S, People age 65 and over 1fl.fi 0 10 20 30 40 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3 Year Estimates. Child Care Costs: Monthly cost (4-week month) Average Rates - South KingCounty Infant Toddler Preschool School Age (0-1 year) (1-2 1/2 years) (2 1/2 - 5 years) ........ ......... .................................................. Centers $1,020 $864 $764 $468 Family Child Care $808 $784 $668 $392 ..... ........ ......... ................ Source: Child Care Resources Data, April 13, 2012 For a family with two children, one infant and one toddler, the monthly average cost for licensed child care would average $1,592 per month for family child care, which is typically less expensive than a child care center: the equivalent of $9.95 per hour for a 40-hour week. The annual cost for pre-school childcare is $8,016. The annual cost for full-time child care in a center for families with two children under the age of 5 can easily cost over $20,000 per year. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 55 262 HOUSING Kent's housing mix is nearly split down the middle in terms of 50% single family housing and 50% apartments and condos. Kent's housing stock includes a greater share of apartments and condos than King County and the region overall. Households that pay a high percentage of their income for housing have little left for other necessities. The quest for affordable housing (costing less than 30% of income) can mean moving far from family, friends, work, school, and childcare arrangements. People who live in unaffordable housing may scrimp on food and forego necessary healthcare and medications. 2010 Housing Costs As of 2006-2010, median price of a house in Kent was $303,100, which was higher than the state average of $271,800 and much higher than the national average of $179,900. The Kent median house value has grown by 70.28% since 2000. The growth rate for the price of a house in Kent is higher than the state average rate of 61.50% and is higher than the national average rate of 50.42%. The median year that a house in Kent was built is 1984, which is newer than the median year for a house built in the state which is 1979 and is newer than the median year for a house built in the USA which is 1975. Cost of housing burden 45% of all renter households in King County pay more than 30% of their income for rent. Less than 5% of apartments in King County are affordable to households earning less than 30% of median income ($26,400 for a family of four). King County has a 4% vacancy rate, and the average rent for a two- bedroom apartment in King County is $1,069. A worker must earn over $20 per hour to afford this housing (housing is considered affordable when it costs 30% of one's income). Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 56 263 Households with unaffordable housing, Ding County, 1999, 1999„ 2002-2010 50% 46% 47% 45% 39 40�1a `% �" m ,`"" �.___ 30 Yo 26% 20% 1BYa _ 5% v.-"_.._ 9% 6% 0% , 1969 1999 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Orwn with mortgage - Rent -0-Own free&clear ------Data cadlededat 10 year intervals Data scaurce: 199D,200,2910 U.5.Census&X002-2014]Arnerwran Cmnmvunity5uvuey CO MMUNMES,CCVUN 1',06/2012 Foreclosures Another consequence of the recession was the unprecedented number of foreclosures across the nation. The national mortgage crisis began in 2008 and was characterized by a rise in subprime mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures. The foreclosure crisis was slow to hit Washington State, but the impact has been staggering. In 2009 Washington ranked 24th highest in the nation for total foreclosed properties. By October 2010 the state jumped to loth highest. IIIIIIIIIIIII rat:�al.I='ar7;raa7,.lre=, rr> ri 'IOC-_ — —..... 7V) <t '14J— '341 fr71__ €0 1; 11 11pill M IF 11111F (1 Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 57 264 Livable Wages Policy makers and human service providers often talk about the need for livable wage jobs for individuals and families. For families with children, full-time, year- round employment at a minimum-wage job brings in less than half of a "living wage"— the income needed to cover necessities and save for the future. • A family of 4 with 2 adults working full-time for minimum wage would fall almost $50,000 short of a living-wage income • This same family's income would fall below 200% of the Federal Poverty Threshold. For most households, the income needed for a living wage continues to rise. Despite modest overall inflation since 2007, the costs of basic necessities have increased substantially. Fewer than half of Washington job openings in 2010 paid a living wage for families with children. Living Wage lob Openings in Washington State,2010 King County WA State 2010 WA State WA State lob WA State%o€ 2010 Hourly Hourly Living Living Wage Seekers per AIII Jobs Paying Living Wage Wage(per Openings in Living Wage Less than a (per adult( adult) 2010 opening Living Wage Hrouiseho(iU�nVithSfnl , , 5t"a,d2fNfir J5,i8fhr" fi4, 4g '7 Adult ;1 4 % Household with 2Adults (troth working),1 School- $20.62/hr >$18.76/hr 56,151' 8,:1*' 541%' aged Child,&1 Toddler Huusehrald*1th I Adult and 3schoal-a, d�Cl�ild( $22.90"C - a.97/hr 43.74t ti:Y- ` Sty" Household with 1 Adult,1 School-aged Child,&i $32.011/hr >$28..00/hr 27,159 17:11 76% Toddler Household with 2 Adults(1 NYaTung),1Srhool-a, $10.18/hr .Xfhr '25A27" - 1511 77% . Child,A 3 Todldller': Rotro of totolfobseekers to totalfob openings Woos 475,000 to 111,573', nbout4:1 Source.5eurchlpg jor Work 7hat PwYs,2010 lob Gap&udy,D c.2010 'estimated Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 58 265 Among Washington job openings in 2010, fewer than half paid a living wage for families with children. Only 23% paid a living wage for a household with 2 adults (1 working), 1 school-age child, and 1 toddler. Although job-supply data are only available at the state level, 41% of all non-farm employees live in King County. For households with pre-school-aged children, the primary routes to making ends meet in 2010 were: • Maintaining a full-time job that paid more than $30 an hour (with one wage- earner). • Maintaining full-time jobs for two wage-earners, each making more than $20.50 an hour. • Working multiple jobs (often with more than one wage-earner). NOTE,• Because expenses are higher in King County than in Washington State overall, workers had to earn more to make a living wage in King County than in Washington State, For households with 1 adult, or with 2 adults working fulltime, child care expenses can take a significant portion of annual income. Finding affordable rental housing depends on both household income and the supply of apartments or houses at a range of prices. Based on actual rents paid in King County between 2006 and 2010 (including both market-rate and subsidized units): Seattle has the greatest number of rentals affordable to very-low-income and moderate-income renters; followed by South Region, East Region, and North Region. Within each region, the greatest number of affordable rentals can be found in ... • Kent for South Region • Bellevue for East Region • Shoreline for North Region • Affordable rent for very-low-income renter households (earning less than $19,900) is no more than $496 a month. • Affordable rent for moderate-income renter households (earning $19,900 to $33,100) is no more than $827 a month. • The numbers of affordable rentals in Seattle were truncated in the chart to preserve a scale that shows the smaller contributions of other King County cities. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 59 266 Number of rentals affordable to moderatea low-income renters by cfty, region, King County (2 -2 1 Shoreline 010001 2..,38'4 81........8 Bothell z Kenmore 0 try Woodinville IM W W (Lake (Forest (Park YM x 55,870 Z SIEATTUE 17,834 Bellevue 3,0,58 1 tad I Kirkland' Redmond Dark Bars #of units affordable Issaquah to moderate-income renters a North (Bend Light Bars:4 of units affffordahue (7 Mercer Island to very-I ow-imcome renters W Sn oqu'..a miE #s neKt.to bars. Hiighest# ~ afborda hie rentals for eac h Samm�amush W income group In regiion Newcastle p0 Duvall ..p (Kent 11........,66p 6...,55.8 Renton Auburn a Federal Way ca Burlen W SeaTac x F ICDes. Moines 7 o Enulmclaw w Tukwila Maple Valley Milton 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Number of City's Units That Are Alf'tardable Data source:2006-2010 American community5urvey COMMUNITIES COUINT,712312 Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 60 267 Date "IralCblle for Nuirrilbeirs and Percentages of t41"fordalCblle IHou Bing by King County City City By Region #Rental Affordable for Very Low Renters Affordable for Moderate Income Housing Units Renter North Region Number Percent Number Percent Woodinville 1,553 78 5% 328 21% Bothell YKing County party 4,823 181 4% 1,033 2:1% Lake Forest Park 895 75 8% 266 30% Kenmore 2,117 179 8% 744 35% Shoreline 6,723 818 12% 2,384 35% Seattle 143,368 17,834 12% 5.5,870 39% East Region Sammamish 1,568 5,0 3% 117 7% Newcastle 996 7 1% 98 10% Redmond 10,558 410 4% 1,398 13% Issaquah 4,287 407 9% 671 16% Mercer Island 2,152 224 10% 345, 16% Bellevue 21,12i6 1,196 6% 3,958 19% Kirkland (Greater') 12,257 948 8% 2,310 19% Duvall 207 13 6% 42 20% Snoqualmie 5,30 83 16% 120 13% North Bend 864 161 19% 353 41% South Region Maple V3IIe, 1,131 139 12% 304 27% Milton 1,418 39 3% 409 29% Renton 15,214 1,301 9% 5,075 33% Federal Way 14,121 846 6% 5,276 37% Kent 17,011 1,660 10% 6,558 39% Tuk,,wila 3,982 249 6% 1,650 41% Enum Cla'VJ 1,660 256 15% 760 46% Des Moines 3,890 343 9% 1,006 46% Burien 6,547 748 11% 3,039 46% F,ul.urn 10,417 1,150 11% 4,839 46% SeaTac 4,662 487 10% 2,578 55% *Greater Kirkland includes CIf IF1 areas annexed siiirooz; tlhe I Ceir su& Juaairoiilaa IKiiiroctsgaale and Inglewood IF'iiiroiro IiNiillll Building a Healthy Community- Master Plan 2013 61 268 Transportation As a result of the recession, many public transportation routes were reduced while prices to utilize public transportation have increased. This resulted in a decrease in accessibility for low-income individuals. Additionally, navigating the public transportation system continues to be a barrier for numerous reasons; including language, cultural norms, convenience of routes, etc. In response to these issues the King County Mobility Coalition was formed. Members include special needs transportation service providers, clients and funders, from both the governmental, non-profit, and for-profit sectors from rural and urban areas throughout King County. Kent HHS staff participated on the King County Mobility Coalition (KCMC) Refugee and Immigrant Elders Transportation Sub-committee. After convening a transportation summit and community conversations to solicit ideas for increasing transportation access for newly arrived refugee and immigrant elders and their families, KCMC created a multi-lingual series of three (3) travel instructions videos covering the following topics: Riding the Bus, Paying to Ride the Bus and Light Rail, and Other Ways to Travel. The videos are in English and seven additional languages - Spanish, Russian, Amharic, Somali, Burmese, Nepali, and Tigrinya. (Kent Human Services staff narrated the English version.) Copies of the videos were provided to community organizations and to local government and are available on the KCMC website. HOMELESSNESS Kent staff has participated on the Committee to End Homelessness since its inception. Staff participate on the Inter Agency Committee, attend the Governing Committee meetings, participate on a variety of subcommittees, and provide input to planning efforts throughout the county. Staff co-chaired the Shelter Task Force convened to develop strategies for providing emergency shelter in King County. The City has recognized for many years the impact of homelessness on the community and its residents. Homelessness impacts individuals, families, children and youth. The reasons for and causes of homeless are numerous. Nationally there has been an emphasis on addressing chronic homelessness particularly for single adults. 2012 saw a call from national leaders to focus on the plight of homeless veterans, particularly those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The recent recession has left an increasing number homeless in Kent as well as the balance of the county. Unemployment coupled with the high cost of rent, utilities and food in the region made it difficult for some families to maintain their housing. The difficulty in determining accurate numbers rests in the fact that Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 62 269 many families share housing, double up with grandparents, or couch surf with family and friends. The recession also caused a decrease in funding levels. The decreased funding coupled with the increased need resulted in a more visual presence of the homeless particularly in urban centers. Kent, like its neighbors, saw more street homeless in the downtown area. Addressing the needs of the chronically homeless that struggle with mental health and/or addiction issues is difficult. Best practices, such as Housing First, are expensive programs. These types of programs offer the best results with positive long term outcomes. Human Services staff work with a network of providers and community members to develop a continuum of homeless services that are available to Kent residents. City funds support some of the programs while other programs such as PATH, Housing First and the Mobile Medical Van are supported by federal, state or county funds. The common element with these programs is the collaborative and supportive services offered to clients. In order to successfully move into housing participants need a range of services that provide support and treatment. The most cost effective way to provide this is through program collaborations. Coordinated Entry In April 2012 King County launched the Coordinated Entry "Family Housing Connections" system for all families county wide experiencing homelessness. Families searching for housing use a single entry point facilitated by 2-1-1. All families are served through Catholic Community Services who uses the full range of housing providers to place the family. During the first year of the project a number of issues have emerged and planners are working on the best strategies to resolve the issues. The City of Kent is experiencing increasing numbers of homeless individuals. The One-Night Count, conducted annually by the Seattle-King County Homeless Coalition and Operation Nightwatch, conducted their count of people sleeping outside in January 2013. Fifty four people were found on the streets, a much smaller number than anticipated. 104 persons were counted in 2012. In addition to the homeless individuals sleeping outside, many homeless people are not visible — many families are in "doubled up" housing conditions, in shelter, or in hotels. Since the beginning of the recession in 2007 the number of homeless children in the Kent School District has been between 400 and 500. Refugee and Immigrant Families In King County, refugee and immigrant families are also being seen in increasing numbers. They have many issues that affect their housing stability, including limited English proficiency, lack of documentation, medical issues and lack of Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 63 270 formal education. In addition, the eligibility criteria for most subsidized housing programs prevent undocumented families from accessing housing assistance. HEALTH INDICATORS The following selected indicators from Public Health's Communities Count data released in 2012 and early 2013 illustrate important factors for healthy communities. The data refers to South King County as a region, and will be generally applicable to challenges faced by the City of Kent: • 13% of adults experience "food insecurity", reporting that household food money did not last the whole month. Of those reporting food insecurity, 38% were Latino, 21% African American, 13% were Multiple Race, 6% Asian and 7% white. • 15% of adults in South King County reported that their household could not afford to eat balanced meals or went hungry during the past 12 months. This compares to 9% of King County residents on average. • Households with children in South King County are far more likely to experience food hardship than those without children. (18% compared to 8%.) • At 27.7 per 1,000, West Kent had one of the highest teen birth rates in King County. All neighborhoods and cities with teen birth rates greater than the King County average were found in South King County and South Seattle. These areas had teen birth rates 1.5 to almost 3 times higher than the county average. South King County and the City of Kent face challenges of increasing poverty, decreasing affordability of housing, and a decrease in family wage jobs. Strengthening community health and vitality for the City must be built on a foundation of living wages, affordable housing, and access to quality child care and health care. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 64 271 KEY TRENDS AND ISSUES Factors highlighted above demonstrate that Kent is experiencing a major growth in low-income households and families, including large families. Housing cost in part fuels this growth and, although housing in Kent is less expensive than other parts of King County, it is still not affordable for many (defined as a threshold of 30% of income). Kent has a large inventory of old housing, both apartments and single-family homes. This housing stock is in need of upkeep and improvements in order to maintain an appropriate level of livability. Low-income households are too often crowded in older apartments not intended for their family size, and home ownership opportunities are limited for working families. Jobs: Kent is home to more than 60,000 jobs and includes a diverse mix of industrial jobs in manufacturing, wholesale, transportation and utilities, as well as service jobs. Connecting local residents to these local workforce opportunities can provide employers with a reliable labor pool, and also reduce transportation and commute challenges for workers. Support for working poor: Most of our human service system is geared to a traditional 9-to-5 schedule. Access to services is therefore much more difficult for the working poor and transportation challenges compound this issue. Creative strategies are needed to provide services during nontraditional hours in neighborhood settings. Focus on early learning: There is broad and in-depth focus currently on early childhood development and support for pre-K school readiness. Developmentally appropriate strategies designed to provide early childhood opportunities should be encouraged in the community. Youth services and activities: Additional activities are needed that appeal to the diversity of Kent's youth. Particularly needed for teens are jobs, training programs, internship opportunities, and connections that can lead to employment. More neighborhood-based resources are needed for youth, as well as creative ways in which they can express their varied cultures and interests. Seniors: While seniors are living longer, federal support systems such as Medicare/Medicaid, retirement and pension funds, and other support systems, are reducing benefits. We anticipate the numbers of seniors will continue to grow and support services, including transportation assistance, medical services, home-based services, will be essential. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 65 272 Increasing Diversity: The City of Kent's rich diversity is expected to continue to grow in the coming years, as it has in the past decade. In addition to the King County southward migration of low-income individuals due to housing costs, the Puget Sound region is a major relocation site for immigrants and refugees. Washington State is also the second largest state in the nation for secondary migration (immigrants relocating here from their first place of U. S. settlement). Health and Mental Health: 18% of South King County residents are uninsured. This large percentage of uninsured individuals creates strains on many different systems in our society including: health care systems, employment, schools and financial stability. The federal Affordable Care Act (Health Care Reform) was passed in 2010 and HHS staff will continue to monitor the effects on our local nonprofits and residents. While insurers were prohibited right away from excluding children with pre-existing health conditions, adults will have to wait until 2014 to be assured of coverage. Additionally, mental health services continue to be a vital need, for both those with diagnosed mental health conditions, and those with episodic need for mental health support. Regional Initiatives: Regional efforts in South King County have strengthened steadily over the past several years, particularly for high priority issues such as housing, transportation and human services. Low-income people have migrated south but the proportion of public funds has not followed. The call to rectify this imbalance is intensifying, while disinvestment in human services by King County government requires regional approaches. A successful campaign to move more resources to South King County would benefit each city in the area. Building on Kent Assets: The City of Kent is a leader in its commitment to human services. Its' longstanding commitment through dedicating funding for human services and its' leadership in prudent grant making and human services oversight are just a few examples. Higher Education: Kent has several high quality community colleges in the area (Green River Community College, Highline Community College, and Renton Technical College) which provide a range of education and training opportunities accessible to low-income adults and job seekers. For example: Adult Basic Education (ABE), General Equivalency Diploma (GED) completion and English as a Second Language (ESL) classes are offered in several Kent community locations by Renton Technical College, including the Alliance Center in downtown Kent. Green River Community College's campus at Kent Station offers credit classes, professional education, job skills training, no-cost small business counseling and continuing education in business, computers, and technology. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 66 273 Public Schools: The Kent School District and Federal Way School District (which serves Kent residents on the West Hill) are proactive in establishing services to support education of their diverse student population. They provide services for English Language Learners (ELL), translation and interpreter services, before and after school programs, and a number of specialized programs.. However, the need far exceeds the capacity and school-sponsored assistance is focused on student achievement. Collaborations, communication and partnerships with nonprofits, City-funded programs, City initiatives and other community partners are essential to adequately assist students and their families. School buildings and facilities are important neighborhood assets for a wide range of community endeavors. Active Faith-based communities: Kent faith-based institutions are very active in a wide range of services, including food and emergency assistance, mentoring, tutoring, family support, and senior assistance. Since the beginning of the recession in 2007, the faith community in Kent has made great strides building partnerships and working together to help residents in need and support our community's safety net. Several churches partnered to provide the severe weather shelter and for the first time in 2012 offered a women's winter shelter. The faith community continues to provide support to the HOME homeless men's shelter as well, providing volunteers, church space and meals. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 67 274 City's Role in Human Services The City of Kent provides leadership in human services as planner, facilitator, educator and funder. The City plans for human service needs by assessing the current needs of the community, as well as anticipating future needs. The City facilitates and convenes community partnerships to address needs. The City educates others on the resources available and the value of these services. Kent funds programs through both General Fund dollars and Federal Community Development Block Grant dollars to support and enhance existing services, as well as to address emergent needs. Build a Healthy Community - Support Citywide Strategic Priorities: The City of Kent Human Services Division fulfills its roles and functions, including providing leadership and being a collaborative partner, with one overall aim: to Build a Healthy Community. As a division within the City focused on the most vulnerable populations, Human Services will support the City's strategic plan and collaborate with other city departments and initiatives to ensure the greatest benefit for low income and vulnerable residents. Housing & Human Services, a division of Kent's Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department, is responsible for human services planning at both the regional and local levels, facilitating human services activities and allocating funding through the Human Services Commission. Housing & Human Services also operates the City's Home Repair program funded entirely by Federal Community Development Block Grant money. Several Kent departments are involved in providing human service programs and assistance. The Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department provides a variety of education, recreation, prevention and intervention services for children, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities. The Police Department and Regional Fire Authority regularly assist the community with a broad range of human services, from locating social services to providing useful training to citizens. The Police Department administers a successful volunteer homebound visitation and check-in program, and coordinates the annual Game of Life Youth Conference. The Regional Fire Authority provides the FDCares program, a growing community assistance program that is based in the arena of solving issues for people before an emergency takes place. Coordination with Other Planning/Implementation Efforts The City of Kent's desire to build a healthy community requires participation from all facets of the community. Engaging other city departments/divisions, Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 68 275 governmental agencies, community businesses, and organizations in planning and implementation efforts is an ongoing focus area for HHS. The following lists organizations that are either currently involved or that will be engaged in the future. Areas of work in which coordination could create new service opportunities, greater efficiencies or improved service to the community will be evaluated on an ongoing basis. Community • Community Based Nonprofit Agencies • United Way of King County • Committee To End Homelessness • South King Council of Human Services • Chamber of Commerce • Comcast Cable • Kent Downtown Partnership • Service Clubs • Faith Community • Neighborhood Home Owners Associations Partnerships with other City Departments • Economic and Community Development Economic Development Code Enforcement Planning Services Building Services • Municipal Court • Probation • Legal • Mayor's Office Neighborhoods • Parks, Recreation & Community Services Senior Center Cultural Arts Resource Center Planning and Development Recreation • Public Works Transportation • Police • Customer Services • Economic Development Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 69 276 Other Governmental Agencies • Regional Fire Authority FDCares • King County Library — Kent branch • Public Health of Seattle-King County • Local Schools • Department of Social & Health Services — Kent Community Services Office • Washington State Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development • Puget Sound Educational Service District • King County • Community Colleges • King County Housing Authority • Regional Justice Center Conclusion The City of Kent has an opportunity to build a healthy community in the coming decades, with adequate investment now in human services and a concerted effort with City Departments and partners to create the conditions for success for the community, families and individuals in Kent. The priorities and focus areas in this Six-Year Master Plan can be used as a compass to focus attention and resources for positive outcomes. With two-year funding allocations, the City can specify community investments to meet the greatest need and build on strengths and assets. Over time, it is the hope that these strategies will build a momentum of community collaboration and partnership that enhances the results of City efforts and builds the foundation for a healthy, diverse community that supports the contributions of all its residents. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 70 277 KEY COMMUNITY INITIATIVES TO WATCH l'ininvvatiiloin Jilin Actiloin Human Services Funders Collaborative/SharelApp The vision for sharelapp began more than a decade ago. Human service agencies' staffers were applying to so many different municipalities (mailing or hand-delivering their applications to several city halls on varying due dates). Each city had different application forms and different reporting forms. Municipal funding staffers knew their city was funding the same human service agencies and programs as other cities, and that the cities had common objectives with respect to their applications and reporting. With so many different processes intended to accomplish the same thing, human service agencies and municipalities began to push for more coordination. Over the years, the various cities across East, North, and South King County worked together and developed increasingly coordinated processes, including joint application processes and joint contract management. They began to align their application questions and reporting criteria. By 2010, 17 cities across East, North, and South King County came together in a cooperative effort called the Human Services Funding Collaborative (HSFC). That year, HSFC used one common application website to receive requests for funding. The 17 participating cities received over 1,000 funding requests contained in 250 program applications submitted by 130 agencies. Two years later, with a new common application website, the 18 participating cities received over 900 funding requests contained in 370 program applications submitted by 160 agencies. If an agency was applying for one program to 10 of the cities, the agency did not have to write 10 applications. They wrote one application to be seen by the 10 cities. If an agency was applying for four programs to 10 cities, the agency did not have to write 40 applications. They wrote four applications to be seen by the 10 cities. The use of sharelapp is now expanding to performance reporting. Instead of completing a different quarterly performance report for each city, agency program staffers will now use one report form in sharelapp to be seen by all the cities. If an agency has to report on four programs to 10 cities, they do not have to fill out 40 forms each quarter. That agency will fill out one form out per program, or four forms. The cities are now also joining together in contract management and monitoring, to minimize the disruptions that can be caused by multiple municipal site audits. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 71 278 Sharelapp and these continuing coordination efforts are best regarded as steps toward continued process improvement. Sharelapp reduces redundant activities across the various municipalities, and in turn will reduce redundant activities as human service agencies work with these municipal funders. While any change comes with periods of transition and learning, these changes are opportunities to continually reduce the redundancies and progressively move efforts to activities such as direct services to clients. iGrad Partnership The Kent School District and Green River Community College partnered to create iGrad, a program aimed at helping students who dropped out earn a high school diploma, college credentials or career skills. iGrad is short for Individualized Graduation and Degree program and is located on the East Hill of Kent. The program relies on a more personalized and supportive approach to helping students succeed. Participating students can choose from four options: Kent School District high school diploma; Washington State high school diploma; GED; and associate's degree or certificate. All four choices are intended to help students come back into education and advance career prospects. The program was the first to be formally approved to implement legislation called the Youth Re-Engagement Act, House Bill 1418 passed in 2010, which created a statewide dropout retrieval system with a single regulatory framework. IItegiiloinalll Coll III a III ura till on Community Center for Education Results (CCER) Road Map Project The Road Map Project is supported by the Community Center for Education Results (CCER), a nonprofit organization. The Road Map Project is a community- wide effort aimed at improving education to drive dramatic improvement in student achievement from cradle to college and career in South King County and South Seattle. Fewer than one in four of the region's high school graduates are getting a college degree or career credential despite the fact that by 2018, 67% of the jobs in the region will require it. The Goal: The Road Map Project's goal is to double the number of students in South Seattle and South King County who are on track to graduate from college or earn a career credential by 2020. The collaboration is committed to closing the unacceptable achievement gaps for low-income students and children of color, and increasing achievement for all students from cradle to college and career. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 72 279 Why South King County and South Seattle? The Road Map Project is committed to supporting King County's areas of highest need. Too often communities of color and low income communities are marginalized and disconnected from decision-making processes that affect them. The Road Map Project includes Auburn, Federal Way, Highline, Kent, Renton, South Seattle, and Tukwila school districts, which are home to: 70% of King County's low-income students 69% of King County's English Language Learners (ELL) students 58% of King County's students of color The Road Map Project is neither a new program nor an attempt to compete with any of our region's existing organizations. In December 2011, the Baseline Report was released. The Baseline Report is an in-depth look at the state of education in South King County and South Seattle—from early childhood to college graduation. The report clearly shows the need to make dramatic improvements in student learning and identifies where work is needed in order to meet the goal. It is a tool for community action. The report is available on the CCER website at www.ccedresults.ora. Race to the Top: A grant application written jointly by the seven school districts won $40 million in federal Race to the Top funds in late 2012. The Auburn, Federal Way, Highline, Kent, Renton, Seattle and Tukwila school districts competed together as "The Road Map District Consortium." The King County districts' application was among 16 winners selected out of 372 applications. Awards ranged from $10 million to $40 million, depending on the number of students served by the plan. The Road Map District Consortium was one of only two applicants to win the maximum award of $40 million. The grant is $10 million per year for four years. The Puget Sound Educational Service District (PSESD) will serve as the lead agency responsible for overall project management and function as the fiscal agent. The districts will use the four-year Race to the Top grant to implement plans to help students "Start Strong," be "STEM Strong" and "Stay Strong". For more information visit: http://www.roadmappromect.org/collective-action/race-to-the-top/ Girassiroots 11111111fillloirts KENT EAST HILL REVITALIZATION This committee was formed to work on promoting and addressing issues on the East Hill and their overall mission is to facilitate the revitalization and unity of the diverse community within the East Hill. The group seeks to work to better Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 73 280 promote and market the East Hill businesses and area and the committee has a strong community focus. The Kent East Hill Revitalization project aims to draw on the strengths of the Kent East Hill residents and businesses to improve and build an area that celebrates our diversity, and encourages strong local, public, and private investment. The City of Kent was awarded a $20,000 grant from the United Way King County's New Solutions Fund to initiate the Kent East Hill Revitalization Project. The Pomegranate Center, a regional non-profit that helps people to build better communities throughout the United States, was selected as the consultant and facilitated the first step in a three phase community-driven revitalization process. ENVISION MIDWAY Positive momentum is also coming to the West Hill via the Envision Midway project. Kent is working to revitalize the Pacific Highway Corridor into a new urban village. The recently adopted Midway Subarea Plan, Design Guidelines and code changes ensures redevelopment will compliment the future light rail coming in 2023. Kent City staff will work closely with Sound Transit over the next four years as they plan the south corridor extension. Il ell!S III lllbeu°Illmeed 11111111111'1II'"eu°te NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM Kent's Neighborhood Program is going strong and is filled with residents who are making Kent a great place to live. With 22 officially recognized Neighborhood Councils, the community is beginning to see the results of their beautification and community-building efforts. The Neighborhood Program was created to promote and sustain an environment that is responsive to resident involvement while building partnerships between the city and its residents. Neighborhood Councils are organized groups that work to improve communication and provide opportunities for residents to participate in the civic process. C'"oirnnnuin!I!t:y III Ie Illtalhm Kent4Health The Kent4Health Committee is a group of volunteers with a common interest to encourage healthy lifestyles. Their mission is to encourage personal and community wellness through physical, mental, spiritual, and environmental activities. Activities include: indoor walks at ShoWare Center, outdoor walks, and the Kent International Festival. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 74 281 C'oirnnnuin!I!ty Celll elb ra till oins!!! Kent International Festival: The festival provides a great platform for different cultures to gather and demonstrate their talents that they have been practicing all year. All performances are provided by local and regional studios, organizations and the Kent School District students on a volunteer basis. You Me We A festival of free family fun that celebrates our families and agencies who work with and support youth and teen development in Kent. Prompted by being named one of the nation's "100 Best Communities for Young People" in 2011, the celebration itself was such a hit; the community insisted we do it again. For the third year in a row, You Me We, a festival of free family fun drew over 4,000 people to ShoWare Center. Building a Healthy Community— Master Plan 2013 75