HomeMy WebLinkAbout1188RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, adopting the
Comprehensive Kent Parks and Recreation Plan
Update-1988, for the Kent Park planning area,
and policy relating thereto; updating the 1982
Kent Parks and Recreation Master Plan and
providing for amendments and the filing of a
copy with the Kent City Clerk
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 976, the Kent City Council
adopted the Comprehensive Kent Parks and Recreation Plan-1982 for
the Kent Park Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has proposed certain updates to
that plan; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Kent Parks and Recreation Plan
Update-1988 a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated
here and by this reference is hereby adopted for the Kent Parks
Planning Area.
Section 2. The Kent Parks and Recreation Plan
Update-1988 shall be filed with the Kent City Clerk.
Section 3. Future amendments to or changes to the plan
may be made by the City Council at a regular or special meeting.
Passed at a regular meeting of t~ity Council of the
City of Kent, washington this~ day of ~ 1988.
~oncurred in by the Mayor
day of ~---=-==----, 19 8 8 .
o\f th~Ci ty of Kent, this
~~L~~
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
A'I'IES'l:
APPROVED AS '1'0 FORfv":
I hereby certify that this is a true an6 correct copy of
Resolution No.~-~gr ____ , passed by the City Council of the City of
.Kent, v;.asbington, the ;;;;?.,{) day of ~--, 1988.
634C-24C
- 2 -
KENT
PARKS&
RECREATION
PLANUPDATE-
1988
City of
Kent, Washington
KENT PARKS & RECREATION PLAN UPDATE -1988
Prepared for:
MAYOR Dan Kelleher
CITY COUNCIL
Berne Biteman
Steve Dowell
Christi Houser
Jon Johnson
Paul Mann
Jim White
Judy Woods
PARKS DEPARTMENT
Barney Wilson, Director
Helen Wickstrom, Superintendent of Parks Administration
CITY COUNCIL PARKS COMMITTEE
Steve Dowell, Chairperson
Jon Johnson
Judy Woods
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
J. Brent McFall
Prepared by: JONES
&
JONES
!05 SOUTH MAIN STREET
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104
12061 624-5702
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
INTRODUCTION TO MASTER PLAN UPDATE 1
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
(Replaces I. Summary of Findings & Recommendations, 1982)
1.0 Key Assumptions Underlying the Master Plan 2
2.0 Major Findings 3
3.0 Recommendations 5
II MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS 1982-1987
1.0 Introduction 7
2.0 Park Planning & Administration 7
3.0 Park Funding 7
4.0 Cooperation With Other Agencies 8
5.0 Capital Improvement Plan Implementation 8
ill BACKGROUNDTOTHEPLAN
Addenda to II. Background to the Plan , 1982 9
IV KENT SETTING
Addenda to III. Kent Setting, 1982 10
V. INVENTORY OF EXISTING PROGRAMS & FACILITIES
Addenda to IV. Inventory of Existing Programs & Facilities, 1982 12
VI. NEEDS ANALYSIS
Addenda to V. Needs Analysis, 1982 23
VII. PARK & RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
Addenda to VI. Park & Recreation System Master Plan, 1982 30
Vill. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
(Replaces VII. Implementation Plan, 1982)
1.0 Introduction 33
2.0 Establishing Priorities within the Master Plan:
A Systematic Approach 33
3.0 Cost Estimates for Priority Projects 33
4.0 Funding Priority Projects 34
5.0 Cooperation & Coordination with Other Public Agencies 35
6.0 Action Plan 36
APPENDICES 44
A. Policy Statement 45
B. 1987 Recreational Programs and Participation Rates 46
C. 1987 Kent Park & Recreation Opinion Survey 47
D. Revised Population Projections 61
ADDENDUM I 62
ADDENDUM II 63
~·--·-----------
TABLES & FIGURES
TABLE
V-1
V-2
V1-1
V1-2
V1-3
V111-1
V111-2
V111-3
V111-4
V111-5
V111-6
FIGURE
V-1
Existing Park Lands Summary
Existing Park Lands Inventory
Summary of Needs Analysis
Park Needs as Assessed by Standards
Facility Needs as Assessed by Standards
1988-1993 Land Acquisition Cost Estimates
1988-1993 Land Development Cost Estimates
Capital Improvement Projects Funding Breakdown
Kent Operational Budgets & Revenues
Potential Funding Sources
Action Plan 1988 -1993
Departmental Organization Chart
PAGE
18
19
27
28
29
38
39
40
41
42
43
12a
INTRODUCTION TO PLAN UPDATE
This document brings the 1982 Master Plan current. This update and the 1982 Master
Plan are companion reports to be read and referred to in tandem. The basic premises
and methodology of the 1982 Plan have not been altered; however the Project
Prioritization Process has been simplified somewhat to bring the process more in
line with the actual situation and to allow the City more flexibility in funding and
scheduling. The Updated Plan is necessary due to:
1) Changed demographics
2) Input from a new public opinion survey
3) Revised existing facilities inventory
The organization of the 1988 Update is identical to the 1982 Plan with the exception
of one additional chapter, Achievements, inserted between the Summary and
Background chapters. The Summary and Implementation chapters have been
re-written for this update; all other chapters of the original1982 Plan have been
revised in the Update through addenda.
1
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections summarize the major findings & recommendations of this
plan update. Also described are the key assumptions upon which many of the
findings & recommendations rest. For further elaboration of certain findings and
recommendations, please see the pages referenced.
1.0 KEY ASSillviPTIONS UNDERLYING THE MASTER PLAN
1.1 The "service area" for the Kent Parks & Recreation facility planning extends to
the city limits on the west, 277th Street on the south, 148th Avenue on
the east, and 208th Street and the Renton and Tukwila City Limits on the
north.
1.2 The overall study contains three geographic subareas: West Hill, Valley Floor,
and East Hill .
1.3 There will be continued population growth in the study area at or above the
levels projected by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) (see
Appendix E ).
1.4 The distribution of population will continue to shift eastward within the
study area over the next 20 years, with more growth occuring in the Valley
Floor & the East Hill area.
1.5 Industrial growth will continue in the Valley Floor at projected levels. This
growth threatens a major portion of all open lands east and north of the
Green River.
1.6 There will be a higher proportion of older people in the population.
1.7 The demand for recreational facilities will continue to increase at an equal
or greater rate than the population growth rate. There are several reasons
for this, including: shorter work weeks, an increase in the perceived
importance of recreation and physical fitness in society, and the increased
demand of non-resident workers for recreation opportunities.
1.8 The automobile will continue its dominance as the primary means of
transportation in Kent & vicinity.
1.9 Green & open spaces within urban areas are important to the physical &
mental well-being of the population. The demand for protected open space
within Kent will continue to increase as residents become increasingly
aware of the more rapid rate at which farmland & other traditional open
areas within the study area are being developed.
2
-----·~'"'*----"--~-,..~,~ .... ~-":'..,...."'.,.,.,~-,~--
1.10 Federal & state funding for local communities will continue at greatly
reduced levels over the near term.
1.11 Recreation costs will contribute to a renewed interest in recreational
opportunities closer to horne .
2.0 MAJOR FINDINGS
2.1 Existing Facilities and Programs
2.1.1 Most community park facilities are located in the Valley Floor, which is
centrally located between the West Hill and the East Hill population con-
centrations.
2.1.2 54% of park lands & facilities within the study area are owned by King
County and 46% by the City of Kent. Population distribution is 50 % in the
county and 50% in the city. The county has taken major responsibility
for acquiring and developing Greenbelt Parks and the City has taken
major responsibility for community parks and facilities. Neither the City
nor the County has developed adequate neighborhood facilities.
2.1.3 The City of Kent's facilities continue to be very well maintained.
2.1.4. School facilities at the elementary level are still typically substandard for
league play. Jr. & Sr. High School facilities are generally acceptable, al-
though not always up to preferred standards.
2.1.5 Recreation programming for the planning area continues to be the
responsibility of the City of Kent Parks Department. Programming
continues to respond well to the changing recreation needs of its users.
2.1.6 Approximately 50% of the existing service area is over a mile from any
neighborhood or community park facility. Most of these "unserved" areas
are in the industrial portion of the Valley Floor & the lower density sec-
tions of the East Hill.
2.1.7 There is still very poor provision for pedestrian and bicycle access between
parks and schools and the residential and industrial areas which these
facilities serve. Most park users still must drive to facilities.
2.1.8 Installation of a computer system has greatly simplified the program re-
gistration process. Expanding the system will allow for more efficient sched-
uling of the facilities
2.2 Demand and Need
2.2.1 There are not enough Neighborhood or District Parks even for present needs.
3
2.2.2 There are not enough Community Parks in the East Hill Area even for
present needs.
2.2.3 Overall, residents of the study area consider parks, facilities and recreation
programs to be important city services; are satisfied with the job the Parks &
Recreation Department has done in the past; and are willing to pay to ensure
the continued quality of the parks system.
2.2.4 In addition to the resident population base, an unusually large employment
population uses Kent's Parks and Recreation Programs and facilities.
2.2.5 There is a very strong demand for expansion of water-related facilities and
greenbelt/ natural areas.
2.3 Potential for Meeting Existing & Future Needs: Acquisition
and Development Problems and Opportunities
2.3.1 The Green River Corridor that runs through Kent is a critical link in are-
gional park, trail & open space system stretching from the Green River
Gorge downriver to the Duwamish Waterway. King County has taken
major responsibility for the planning or the system. Major opportunities
for continued implementation of the system still exist within Kent, despite
continued urbanization.
2.3.2 Kent School District lands & facilities still offer a major opportunity for
neighborhood and community park development especially in the ex-
panding East Hill area.
2.3.3 Four major environmental zones still provide the backbone for Kent's
greenbelt & open space system. They are:
1) the West Valley Wall
2) the Green River Corridor & its assocated wetlands
3) East Valley Wall ( including Mill Creek Canyon and Garrison Creek
Canyon)
4) Soos Creek and its associated wetlJ.nC..s and steep wooded slopes
2.3.4 Potential exists for linking the existing park facilities at Lake Fenwick Park
to the Green River Corridor .
2.4 Funding
2.4.1 To maintain the existing level of parks a...Tl.d recreation service, the City of
Kent must participate in the greater share of available funding and/ or devise
more innovative methods of acquiring , operating, and maintaining park
lands and facilities.
4
3.0 RECOM11ENDATIONS
3.1 General
3.1.1 Adopt this plan update which, in tandem with the 1982 Master Plan, will serve
as the guide to park and recreation acquisition and development, and as the
parks and open space element of the City of Kent's comprehensive plan.
3.2 Facility Planning and Design
3.2.1 Use the following standards as a guide for minimum provision of parks:
Neighborhood and District Parks-
Residential Areas: 2.5 acres /1000 people
Commercial & Industrial: 5% of gross area or 3% of lot size
Community Parks: 2.5 acres /1000 people
Major Urban Parks: 5.0 acres /1000 people
Greenbelt and Special Resource Park: n.a.
Pocket Parks: n.a.
3.2.2 Enhance opportunities for park system use by all people within the service
area by linking parks with trails, greenbelts, and boulevards wherever
possible. The Green River, Mill Creek Canyon, and Soos Creek Corridor
should all serve as the basic framework for such a system. Creating public
access to these features should be a city priority.
3.2.3 Continue to work with the Planning Department and the Engineering De-
partment to have a City policy adopted requiring all City roads of collector
size or larger to have sidewalks. Work cooperatively with the County to
ensure sidewalks are required on the County roads in the Soos Creek
Community.
3.2.4 Make school sites the focal point of neighborhood park locations wherever
possible.
3.3 Protection of Sensitive Lands
3.3.1 Continue to use and refine the Sensitive Lands Ordinance to reduce the
impacts of development on steep slopes.
3.3.2 Continue to use and refine the Shoreline Management Ordinance in
reducing the impact of development along the area's wetlands and
streams.
3.4 The Green River Corridor
3.4.1 Continue to use and refine the Green River Corridor Plan to regulate open
space, building setbacks, landscape amenities, pedestrian areas, and visual
and auditory intrusion of development ~n riverfront lots.
·5
3.4.2 Continue to work with King County, the City of Tukwila, the City of Auburn,
Metro, and other governments and agencies interested in establishing a
regional system of parks and trails along the Green River.
3.5 Administration and Programming
3.5.1 Retain formal agreements ~th the Athletic and Facility Planning Depart-
ments of the Kent and Federal Way School Districts. Work to strengthen
ties with King County Parks and Community Planning Departments.
Continue to work on creating opportunities for cooperative planning and
possible joint-funding for design and operation of some public spaces and
facilities.
3.5.2 Increase planning staff manpower and budget allocations to provide adequate
on site enforcement of development regulations relating to open space, parks
and landscape amenities.
3.6 Funding and Implementation
3.6.1. Continue to use and refine a systematic approach to evaluating park proposal
and evaluating them in a Capital Improvement Plan. This evaluation system
should include physical features, needs, costs, and special timing considera-
tions.
3.6.2 Make every effort to purchase park properties before an area becomes heavily
developed, particularly in areas not currently within the City's jurisdiction.
This is desirable economically as well as for planning purposes.
3.7 Coordination with Other Agencies and Departments
3.7.1 Cooperate with other City departments to create the maximum amount of
urban open space and enforce the various city regulations related to surface
water management, landscape amenity requirements, protection of signi-
ficant stands of trees, farmland preservation, retention of certain unique
and fragile natural areas, and allowed open space dedications.
3.7.2 Coordinate with other agencies to meet multiple objectives affecting the same
resources. For example, work with the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Citywide Drainage Utility, both of which may include recreational amenities
as part of their programs.
3.7.3 Continue required review and comment on short plat approval by the Parks
and Recreation Department in the official city permit process.
3.7.4 Continue working closely with the Parks Committee of the City Council.
A major priority of this committee shall be to increase coordination between
all involved City of Kent Departments, the School Districts, King County's
Transportation, Community, Parks and Resource Planning Divisions.
6
II. ACHIEVEMENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Over the past 5 years ( 1982-1987), the City of Kent has continued to
aggressively develop its park and open space resourses despite reduced capital
sources and increased urban development. The 1982 Kent Parks &
Recreation Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1982 . Since that time a
net total of 153.2 acres of new park land have been acquired by the city and
130.5 acres have been developed. Kent was a finalist in the national Gold
Medal Award for Parks & Recreation Departme!1ts in 1987 and in 1988.
The system has strengthened its reputation as a progressive and responsive
department. Overall satisfaction of the residents with the Park System and its
administration has increased from 1982 to 1987.
2.0 PARK PLANNING & ADMINISTRA TlON
Staffing of the Kent Parks and Recreation Department increased from 42 full
time staff in 1982 to 57 full time staff in 1988. The Department was also
re-organized into five distinct divisions each with its own superintendent
during this period (see V, 1.2 for details) .
2.1 Park Programming and Usage
According to city figures, overall usage of its recreational facilities (including
school district joint use facilities) has increased from 1,327,300 visits in 1983 to
2,402,800 in 1987.
Participation figures are also available for formal programs administered by
the department (see Appendix B ) . The number of participants in the
programs increased from 308,452 people in 1982 to 469,698 people in 1987. The
number of programs/ classes increased from 299 to 1,317 during the same
period.
2.2 Park Maintenance
Park maintenance programs have continued at the same high level through
1987 as in the recent past. The 1987 maintenance budget was $879,590.
3.0 PARK FUNDING
The total Park Department's General Fund expenditure budget has increased
from $2,674,276. in 1982 to $3,069,854. in 1987. Although the majority of
funding comes from the City of Kent General Fund , program revenues (fees
and charges) have increased from 5757,707 to $969,917. during the same time
period. Substantial support has also come from a number of other sources
over the last five years. Notably, Centron Industries donated the 15.8 acre
Russell Woods property (valued at $887,000. ); Union Pacific Land Resources
donated land valued at $1,000,000. in conjunction with its development of
industrial parks; Puget Sound Power and Light donated 20 acres (valued at
$870,000.) which provides linkage to the riverfront trail system; and the state
lAC awarded the City a $619,000. grant for development of riverfront property
(an additional lAC grant of $120,000 will be funded in 1989 to build trails,
footbridges, and docks at Lake Fenwick Park).
7
4.0 COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
The Kent Parks and Recreation Department continues to work cooperatively
with a variety of other agencies, including King County, Kent School District,
Federal Way School District, the cities of Auburn and Tukwila, and Metro.
The Green River Trail Project, being administered by King County Parks, is a
positive example of this cooperation.
5.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
A major emphasis over the past five years has been in acquiring and
developing park land and trails along the Green River ( i.e. Springbrook
Greenbelt, Van Doren Park, Pond Park) ; in strenghthening
income producing park facilities (i.e. golf course expansion); and in
building I remodeling cultural arts facilities (i.e. new Senior Activity Center
and remodeled Specialized Population Resource Center).
A listing of facilities developed over the last five years follows (see V, 2.0 for
more detail on facilities) :
Briscoe Park
West Fenwick Park
Van Doren Park
Pond Park
Senior Activity Center
Specialized Population Resource Center
Riverbend Golf Course
Foster Plat
Amundsen Donation
New undeveloped parklands acquired over the last five years include:
Mill Creek Canyon Addition
Golf Course Expansion ( 18 hole )
Campus Park
Russell Woods
Puget Power Donation
Uplands Greenbelts
Seven Oaks
Despite the striking successes of the Kent Park's Department over the past
five years, the system has not succeeded in keeping up with growing need for
parks due to rapid population growth (especially in the East Hill Subarea),
and due to dwindling funding on all levels. For example, in 1982 the need
for additional neighborhood parks for the year 1987 for the entire study area
was projected at 75 acres; the actual need at the end of 1987, was for 100 acres.
8
-------------~"---~-----·~"' ·-·------···. ··-··--····-·--·-... ~ .
III. BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN
(Addenda to II. Background to the Plan, 1982)
1.0 GENERAL
No revisions needed
2.0 ELEMENTS OF THE PARKS & RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLA.J.'J
2.1 Plan Process
Revise to:
2.1 "Plan Update Process
(1) Review service area and revise if necessary;
(2) Review Goals & Objectives and revise if necessary;
(3) Review Projections for growth and change;
(4) Review inventory of existing physical features of Kent
Study Area and revise descriptions as necessary;
(5) Review inventory of existing park & recreation facilities;
make revisions/ additions as necessary;
(6) Review current and future park & recreation facility needs
based on updated demands for recreation vs. supply of
existing facilities;
(7) Simplify existing park acquisition and development priorization
process;
(8) Prepare a 5 year Action Plan."
2.2 Community Involvement
Revise to:
2.2 "Community Involvement in the 1988 Master Plan Update"
As in the original plan process, the primary mechanism for assessing public
attitudes was a statistically random telephone survey. The survey polled 250
registered Kent voters on their attitudes toward recreation facilities,
programming, funding, and their general satisfaction with the Kent Parks &
Recreation system. In addition, a number of interviews with city & county
staff were held."
3.0 STUDY PLANNING AREA
3.1 Primary Planning Area
No revisions needed
3.2 Secondarv Areas of Influence
Delete second paragraph
Revise first sentence, third paragraph to:
"Many of the City of Kent's recreational activities and facilities are attracting a
regional user group from an area well beyond the planning area boundaries."
9
.~. -------------------------
IV. THE KENT SETTING
1.0 HISTORY OF THE CITY'S GROWTH
Insert after sixth sentence at end of fifth paragraph:
"One positive development has been King County's Farmland
Preservation Program. The development rights of 889 acres of
farmland within the study area have been purchased by King
County, assuring the long term agricultural use of these lands."
2.0 OVERALL POPULATION TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
Revise first paragraph to:
"The City of Kent has grown from a population of 3,278 in 1950 to 30,090 in
1987. A great deal of that increase resulted from annexation in the East and
West Hill areas in the 1950's and 1960's. While annexation continued in the
1970's, the 29% increase in population between 1980 and 1987 (23,152 to
30,090) was as much a product of the greater number of multi-family
developments in the city as it was a result of that continued annexation.
Housing units totaled 6,750 in 1970, 11,006 in 1980, and 15,169 in 1987, a 37%
increase over the last 7 years. Compared to the percent change in overall
population figures, this increase reflects both the trend towards more
multi-family housing units and decreasing family size. The rate of
annexation, which has been very slow over the past several years, is expected
to pick up again for the next ten to twenty years. City policy being currently
reviewed advises substantial annexation in the East Hill Area. If this policy
is adopted, future population will take another major jump."
3.0 PLANNING SUBAREAS
3.1 West Hill
Delete fifth and ninth sentences, first paragraph.
3.2 Vallev Floor
Revise second paragraph to:
"The Valley Floor area was once an agricultural district surrounding the old
City of Kent. It is now primarily industrial in use or is fallow agricultural
land awaiting commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential
development. Most of the anticipated residential development will be
located east of the river and west of the existing downtown area. It is
difficult to know what the future holds for development of the valley
floor south of the Green River. While presently primarily agricultural,
it is unlikely to remain that way. The devlopment rights of 889 acres of
farmland have been purchased by King County in this area, the balance
of the farmland is susceptible to a multitude of development pressures.
10
,.;,Ill· ---------
The completion of SR 516, the proximity to the rapidly developing
northern portions of the City of Auburn, the ultimate decisions made
regarding the Mill Creek Basin program, the Kent Public Works
Department's city-wide drainage plan, the availability of services from Kent
or any other community or special district, and changes in the Corps of
Engineers diking program are all factors which will ultimately determine
the area's future."
Revise second sentence, fourth paragraph to:
"The Puget Sound Council of Governments currently estimates this
population at over 37,600 people, an increase of 38% over the 1980
population of 27,000."
3.3 East Hill
Revise third paragraph to:
"Apfroximately 58% of the planning area population lived in East Hill,
as o 1987. Whether this proportional relationship remains constant or
not deJ?ends largely on whether the City decides to pursue a more
aggreslVe annexation policy in the East Hill area over the next several
years or not."
11
----------------·---------------
V. INVENTORY OF EXISTING PROGRAMS & FACILITIES
1.0 THE KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
1.1 History
Revise third paragraph to:
"The Department remained a one-man operation until1962; since then it has
grown in size and responsibility in response to the substantial growth of the
City itself. In 1982, the Department employed 38 full-time staff; by 1988
this number had increased to 58. The 1987 operating budget was $3,
742,754., including $381,486 for the golf course operation."
1.2 Organizational Structure
Revise to:
" Figure V -1 describes the Department's internal organizational structure,
and its relation to the rest of the City administration. There are five
Divisions responsible to the Director .. The responsibilities of these divisions
are described below:
Golf Course Division
The Golf Course Division is responsible for operating and main-
taining the existing 9-hole course, the driving range, and the mini Putt-Putt.
In 1987, the facility provided 51,596 rounds of golf, and had 83,108 participants
at the Driving Range and 20,406 players at the Mini Putt-Putt. The
responsibilities and staffing of the Golf Course Division are scheduled to
increase in 1989 with the opening of the new 18 hole course.
Recreation Division
The Recreation Division is now responsible solely for the administration of
Kent Commons and the Recreation Program. Kent Commons provides
facilities and programs for recreation, education, cultural events, private and
public gatherings and social service agencies, serving more than 268,000
annually. The recreation programs serve the City of Kent and Kent School
District in active sports, community education and recreation. They
currently serve over 18,000 people annually, in programs ranging from
baseball to sign language. The emphasis has always been placed on keeping
programs accessible to all the residents by holding down costs. Appendix B
lists the recreational program types and compares the levels of participation
between 1982 and 1986.
Cultural and Leisure Services Division
The Cultural and Leisure Services Division provides programming services
in three major areas: (1) Recreation; cultural programs & events including
fitness and health, arts and crafts, performing arts, dance, movement, day
camps, and major event coordination including Kent's Canterbury Faire and
Balloon Classic; (2) Specialized populations resource recreation programs
serving the developmentally disabled, head injured, mentally ill, and
physically challenged; and (3) Kent Arts Commission projects.
12
,---------------·
.. -~-o.·•"• •·•-
I
l GOLF COMPLEX SUPT.
DIVISION HEAD
H_ 18 HOLE WJRSE
H_ 9 HOLE COURSE
H MINI COURSE
y__ DRIVING RANGE
SUPT. =SUPERINTENDENT
REVISED 7/88
I
I I RECREATION SUPT. l DIVISION HEAD
I ~ KENT COMMONS _I
I -j REC PROGRAMS I
I
I
H
--~~-~ ·-~·-~"""""""~-~ .. -.... ~-.... _..__,.. _____ "" ___ ;t-·""'---·-~--4"~-·'""---.....;·----,.-...................... _. ___ ·--··-" -·-· _,.__ --~ ......... _......._._ ____ --·•>
DEPARTME~T OF PARKS AHD RECREATION
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
I CITY COUNCIL -MAYOR I
J
IPOLICY-COUNCIL COMMITTEE I
I CITY ADMINISTRATOR I
'DIRECTOR -PARKS AND REC I
.,PUBLIC INFORM & MARKETINGI
I I
MAINTENANCE SUPT. l SUPT. OF PARKS ADMIN CULTURAL & LEISURE SUPT.
DIVISION HEAD DIVISION HEAD DIVISION HEAD
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE I -j CAPITAL PROJECT MGMT I .,POLICY-ARTS COMMISSION !POLICY -ARTS COMMISSION I
~ NURSERYMEN/LANDSCAPING I -j SENIOR CENTER I -jcuLTURAL/LEISURE PROGRAHsl
H PARK DEVELOPMENT I H PERSONNEL I ~SPEC POPS RESOURCE CENTERI
L{ ADMIN SERVICES I ~CITY ART FUND/AOUISITION I
FIGURE V-I
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
I
Parks Administration Division
The Parks Administration Division is responsible for planning, developing,
implementing, directing, and evaluating the department's goals, policies,
programs, and procedures. This division is also responsible for generating
financial resources for the department. The programming of the
Senior Activity Center is also managed by the Parks Administration
Division. This center provides educational, recreational, nutritional, social,
and health-related activities to the senior population (age 55+). This
program and its needs have grown rapidly since the new Senior Activity
Center was completed in 1986.
Parks Maintenance Division
The Parks Maintenance Division is responsible for the daily maintenance
and repair of park properties; the periodic preparation of recreational fields;
the construction of new park properties; the overseeing and \or providing of
maintenance for city-owned buildings; and the coordination of the
Adopt-a-Park program.
1.3 Cooperative Agreements with Others Regarding the Provision of
Recreational Services
Revise to:
" The Kent Parks and Recreation Department has historically provided
service to an area much greater than that contained within the municipal
boundaries. The city has established" recreation services agreements" with
both Kent and Federal Way School Districts regarding priorities for facility
use and responsibilities for programming those facilities. These agreements
are described below:
1.3.1 Kent School District
No revisions needed
1.3.2 Federal Way School District
Revise to:
"There have been arrangements made between the Federal Way School
District and the City concerning the cooperative use of school facilities. The
Federal Way School District overlaps the southwest corner of the study area
and serves most of the West Hill sub-area. For various reasons the existing
agreement has been minimally used for a number of years."
2.0 PARK LANDS AND FACILITIES INVENTORY
2.1 West Hill
MIDWAY PARK (City of Kent)
Delete entire entry
WEST CANYON PARK (City of Kent)
Revise to: WEST CANYON PARK ( City of Kent, King County )
13
f ,
" I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Add:
WEST FENWICK PARK (City of Kent)
42nd A venue S. & Reith Road
37 acres total
18 acres developed
Multi-purpose playfield, picnic area, children's play equipment, tennis,
outdoor basketball, parking, restrooms, jogging trail
GRANDVIEW PARK (King County)
Insert:
"Some interest exists on the part of the City to acquire this park from the
county."
Add:
AMUNDSEN DONATION (City of Kent)
Adjacent to Lake Fenwick
.3 Acres total
Paved access trail connecting residential neighborhood to Lake Fenwick
2.2 Valley Floor Parks
RUSSELL ROAD PARK
Revise to:
"This park serves as a community park for the entire Valley Floor and to a
lesser degree for the West Hill area. Russell Road Park is developed for
intense active recreation with lighted softball, baseball, and soccer fields. It
has good access from the Kent-Des Moines via Russell Road."
RUSSELL WOODS
Revise to:
15.8 Acres total
BRISCOE PARK (City of Kent)
Revise to:
6.7 Acres total
Located along the east side of the Green River in the northwest section of the
service area; this park provides fishing, wildlife observation, picnic,
canoe/kayak launch, trails, open playfield.
KIWANIS PARK #3
Tranfer entire entry to East Hill Parks
Insert:
BORDEN PLA YFIELD (Borden Chemical, permissive use)
Location Key: S. of James
E-4 E. of N. 4th
5.9 Acres
Baseball/ softball fields, soccer field, portable restrooms
This playfield is a community park serving primarily the residents of the
Valley Floor.
14
Insert:
VAN DOREN'S LANDING PARK (State of Washington, City of Kent)
Location Key: 21861 Russell Road
D-3
10 Acres
Kayak/ canoe access to Green River, dike walking/jogging, open playfield,
outdoor volleyball, horseshoes, children's play area, sunbathing areas, picnic
areas, portable restrooms, parking
This is a riverfront community park. It is a major stopping area along and
access point for the Green River.
Insert:
UPLANDS GREENBELTS (City of Kent)
Location Key: Two locations: 228th and Green River, and 196th and Green
River
14.9 Acres total
Greenbelt
Insert:
UPLANDS PLA YFIELD (City of Kent )
Location Key: S. of Smith St., N. of Meeker St., E. of Puget Sound ROW, E. of
Harrison St.
2.3 Acres total
Softball, soccer, portable restrooms
Insert:
FOSTER PLAT (City of Kent)
Location key: N. of Green River, just east of Valley Freeway
4 Acres total
Developed; Greenbelt, Retention basin
Insert:
PUGET POWER DONATION (City of Kent)
Location key: Narrow strip between Green River and 68th Ave. S.
20 Acres total
Undeveloped
Insert:
EAGLE PARK (City of Kent)
Location key: 212th St.at the Green River
.3 Acres
Undeveloped
Insert:
NEELY FARMSTEAD (City of Kent )
Location key: Russell Road north of James St.
1.0 Acres
His to ric site
15
Insert:
KAIBARA PARK (Permissive use, 25 year lease)
Location key: E. of First Ave., both sides of Meeker St., W. of railroad tracks
1.0 Acres
Developed; Japanese garden, Rose garden, Koi fish pond, picnic tables,
portable restrooms, grass area
Insert:
POND PARK (State of Washington, City of Kent)
Location Key: S. of Meeker St.
C-5 W. of Frager St.
5.7 Acres
Picnic area, portable restrooms, bike rest stop, children's fishing pond
2.3 East Hill Parks
.MILL CREEK CANYON
Revise to:
105.0 acres
10.0 acres developed
95.0 acres undeveloped
This is a regional greenbelt park that runs from the Kent Valley Floor into
the East Hill area. An earthworks development with observation platforms,
grass areas, picnic facilities, restrooms, and an ampitheater are in the Valley
Floor section of the park.
CAMPUS PARK (City of Kent)
Revise to:
Grass area, picnic area, table, cross-country track, and parking
Insert:
SEVEN OAKS PARK ( City of Kent)
Location key: End of 118th Place S.E.
2.5 Acres total, two parcels
Undeveloped
Insert:
KIWANIS PARK #3 (City of Kent)
Location key: Alexander St. between Chicago and Seattle Sts .
. 8 Acres total
Developed; Serves Scenic Hill neighborhood primarily as a children's play
area
KIWANIS PARK #4
Delete entire entry
16
2.4 Special Recreation Features
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE ( City of Kent)
Revise to:
RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX (City of Kent)
167 acres total
36 acres developed
131 acres under development
9-hole golf course, 18 hole course( under construction), driving range
mini-putt putt, pro shop, jogging trail, river dike walking
SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER
Revise to:
SENIOR ACTIVITY CENTER
Location key: 600 E. Smith
4.0 acres
New recreation bldg. & grounds offering services and social programs for
seniors, meeting rooms, offices , and kitchen
Insert:
SPECIALIZED POPULATION RESOURCE CENTER
315 E. Meeker St.
0.3 acres
Recreation building, meeting rooms, kitchen, services and programs for the
physically challenged, developmentally disabled, head injured, and the
mentally ill.
17
TABLE V-I
PARK LANDS SUMMARY 1987
WEST VALLEY EAST
HILL FLOOR HILL TOTAL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS ACRES 14.2 0.0 37.8 52.0
ACRES/
1000 people 1.2 0.0 1.1 .8
COMMUNITY
PARKS ACRES 114.0 68.1 58 240.1
ACRES/
1000 people 9.8 4.7 1.6 3.8
MAJOR URBAN
PARKS ACRES 0 169 0 169
ACRES/
1000 people N/A N/A N/A 2.7
GREENBELT&
NATURAL ACRES 0.3 67.7 392.0 460.0
RESOURCE
PARKS ACRES/
1000 people N/A N/A N/A 7.3
POCKET PARKS
ACRES 4 2.4 .8 7.2
ACRES/
1000 people .3 .2 .1 .1
SPEOAUZED
RECREATION ACRES 0 44.3 0 44.3
FAOUTIES
ACRES/
1000 people N/A N/A N/A .7
UNDEVELOPED
PARKS ACRES 22.0 156.3 92.0 270.3
ACRES/
1000 people 1.7 10.7 2.4 4.3
TOTAL 154.5 507.8 580.6 1242.9
ACRES/1000 people 19.7
18
TABLEV-2
EXISTING PARK LANDS INVENTORY
Neighborhood
Park Lands
Subtotal
Community
Park Lands
Subtotal
Major Urban
Parks
Subtotal
Greenbelt/Resource
WEST HILL
Park (Owner)
Glenn Nelson (Kent)
Linda Heights ( Kent)
Grandview (King County)
Lake Fenwick (Kent)
West Fenwick (Kent)
Natural Area Park Lands Amundsen Donation (Kent)
Subtotal
Pocket Park
Lands
Subtotal
Specialized Recrea-
tion Facilities
Subtotal
Undeveloped Parks
Subtotal
TOTAL
King County Arts Commission
Earthwork Sculpture (King County)
West Canyon Park (Kent, King County)
19
Area ( Acres )
10.0
4.2
14.2
30.0
47.0
37.0
114.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
4.0
4.0
0.0
22.0
22.0
TABLE V-2 (cont.)
EXISTING PARK LANDS INVENTORY
Neighborhood
Park Lands
Subtotal
Community
Park Lands
Subtotal
Major Urban
Park Lands
Subtotal
Greenbelt/Resource
Natural Area Park Lands
Subtotal
Pocket Park Lands
Subtotal
VALLEY FLOOR
Park ( owner )
Commons Playfield (Kent)
Russell Road (Kent)
Kent Memorial (Kent )
Uplands Playfield (Kent)
North Green River (County)
Briscoe Park ( Kent )
Anderson Greenbelt (Kent)
Boeing (Kent)
Cottonwood (Kent)
Anderson Park (Kent)
Uplands Greenbelts (Kent)
Alvord ( Kent )
Russell Woods ( Kent )
Foster Plat (Kent)
Van Doren's Park (Kent, State of Wash.)
Pond Park (Kent, State of Washington)
Kiwanis-3 Parks (Kent)
Naden (Kent)
Old City Hall (Kent)
20
Area ( acres )
0.0
0.0
20.0
34.0
11.8
2.3
68.1
169.0
169.0
7.0
3.9
4.5
.8
.3
14.9
1.1
15.8
4.0
10.0
5.7
67.7
1.4
.7
.3
2.4
TABLE V-2 (cont.)
EXISTING PARK LANDS INVENTORY
VALLEY FLOOR
Specialized Recreation
Facilities
Subtotal
Undeveloped Parks
Sup total
TOTAL
Neighborhood Park
Lands
Subtotal
Community Park Lands
Subtotal
Major Urban Park
Lands
Subtotal
Park (Owner)
Kent Commons ( Kent )
Senior Activity Center (Kent)
River bend Golf Complex ( Kent )
Specialized Population Resource Center
(Kent)
Neely Farmstead (Kent)
Golf Course Expansion ( Kent )
Springbrook ( Kent )
Eagle Park (Kent)
Puget Power Donation (Kent)
EAST HILL
Scenic Hill (Kent)
East Hill ( County )
Park Orchard ( County )
Garrison Creek (Kent)
Pine Tree ( County )
Campus Park (Kent)
Lake Meridian (County)
21
Area ( acres )
3.0
4.0
36.0
.3
1.0
44.3
131.0
5.0
.3
20.0
156.3
4.1
5.6
6.3
5.0
9.8
7.0
37.8
58.0
58.0
0.0
0.0
Greenbelt/Resource
Natural Area Park Lands
TABLE V-2 (cont.)
Mill Creek Canyon (Kent)
Soos Creek ( County )
EXISTING PARK LANDS INVENTORY
EAST HILL
Park (Owner )
Subtotal
Pocket Park Lands Kiwanis #3 (Kent)
Subtotal
Specialized Recreation
Facilities
Subtotal
Undeveloped Parks Campus Park ( Kent )
North Meridian ( County )
Seven Oaks (Kent)
Subtotal
TOTAL
NOTES
1 Summary of total acreage:
West Hill 154.5 acres
Valley Floor 507.8·acres
East Hill 580.6 acres
1242.9 acres
2 City /County Shares:
105.0
287.0
Area (acres )
392.0
.8
.8
0.0
0.0
9.5
80.0
2.5
92.0
580.6
City of Kent
King County
Total
571.2 (46%) (includes Van Dore!"l's and Pond Parks)
671.7 (54%) (includes West Canyon Park)
1242.9 (100%)
22
VI. NEEDS ANALYSIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION: The Process of Needs Analysis
No revisions needed
2.0 FINDINGS OF PREFERENCE/USE SURVEY
2.1 Introduction
No revisions needed
2.2 lACs Outdoor Recreation Survey
Revise first sentence, first paragraph to:
" This survey was updated and utilized in the 1985 Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)."
Findings Regarding Recreation Uses & Preferences
Revise to:
The statewide survey on activity participation showed that the activities
that were most popular in terms of the number of people who participated
in them included (Based on unrevised 1979 SCORP Figures):
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Activity
Driving for pleasure I sightseeing
Camping
Gardening
Fishing
Picnicking
The recreation activities that people most often engaged in were (Based on
1983 SCORP Survey) :
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Activity
Boating
Bicycling
Field Games
Playground Activities
Swimming in a Pool
The top five activities in which the survey respondents wanted to parti-
pate more often were ( Based on unrevised 1979 SCORP Survey ) :
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Activity
Camping
Fishing
Boating
Swimming
Snow Activities
23
2.3 Pro /Parks Citizen Survey
No revision needed
2.4 City of Kent, Park Recreation Opinion Survev
Revise to:
"The 1987 survey was an update of the 1982 survey, designed to validate the
results of the earlier survey. The basic structure of the survey and methods
of surveying were identical in the two surveys; individual questions were
revised where necessary to bring them current. This survey evaluated the
importance of various types of recreation activities, assessed the level of
current satisfaction with the recreation system, and gauged the public's
willingness to pay for maintaining and improving that system. Unlike
the State and County surveys, it asked specific questions about Kent and
particular components of the Kent system. The 1987 survey required a
random sample of 260 registered voters within the study area to rate specific
activities on a scale of importance."
Findings Regarding Recreation Use and Preference
The two classes of recreation facilities that were rated as "very important"
by the highest percentage of people were Neighborhood Parks and Open
Space. Water-related activities were given a relatively high rating with 37%
of respondents rating them as very important. In rating how well the City
of Kent currently provides for these activities, water-related activities were
rated by 30% as "very good" in 1987 as opposed to 20.5% in 1981; this is a
much improved performance. The importance and adequacy ratings of
1987 are quite consistent once again with the findings of the County and the
IAC.
When Kent residents rated the importance of recreation features for future
acquisition and/ or development, they again rated many water-related items
highly. Preservation of a greenbelt/natural area along the Green River
received the highest rating of 62.7% of respondents calling it "very
important", as opposed to 54.1% in 1981. Tied next in importance were the
establishment of a Green River trail system and the expansion of West Hills
Open Space & Parks with a rating of 45.4%. A close third in the ratings were
Neighborhood Parks, with 44.6% calling them "very important."
For a copy of the survey and a tabulation of the results see Appendix C.
Differences in Recreation Use and Preferences Among the Kent Subareas
In the 1981 survey differences among the three subareas regarding frequency
of use, importance of greenbelts/ natural areas, Green River Trail and other
district and regional facilities and programs, and the performance of the
City in providing these facilities and programs were minor. Differences
over the relative significance of more specific park proposals such as Mill
Creek and Garrison Creek were notable, however this was expected in light
of greater familiarity with more local recreational features.
In 1987, the survey responses were not analyzed with regard to geographic
24
(
I
l
I
I
I
J
!
l
I
j
~
I
I
l
subarea as the sample sizes were too small to draw valid conclusions."
3.0 RECREATION TRENDS
3.1 National
Delete fifth sentence, fifth paragraph:
"The higher price of gasoline is being given as the primary reason."
3.2 ~C>cal
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
N () revisions needed
FACILITY STANDARDS
In trC>duction
Revise second sentence, first paragraph to:
" These standards are normally established by consensus of experienced
municipal planners and park administrators, with adjustments for local
conditions such as availability of facilities managed by other agencies."
Revise, second sentence, third paragragh to:
"Use of King County Standards appears appropriate, particularly in light
C>f the large portion of the Service Area that is within unincorporated
King County."
Standards for Parks
No revisions needed
Facility Standards
No revisions needed
MC>dification of Standards
N C> revisions needed
4.5 Use of Standards
No revisions needed
4.6 Summary of Needs Analysis Based on Standards
Revise to:
"Tables V1-2 and V1-3 summarize needs as assessed by recommended
standards applied to projected residential population. The population figures
used to generate the needs are taken from Puget Sound Council of
Governments ( PSCOG) estimates for 1990 and 2000. Straight line
interpolation was used to arrive at the 1987 and the 1993 estimates.
Based on these population figures and the recommended park standards, a
number of notable deficiencies appear:
Neighborhood Parks
There is an immediate shortage of neighborhood parks in all three of Kent's
subareas. Currently only about 40% of neighborhood park needs are being
met in each of the subareas.
This shortage is even more dramatic considering the relatively high degree of
importance given to neighborhood parks in the opinion survey.
25
I
I
l
5.0
5.1'
5.2
This deficiency also becomes more severe as 1993 and 2000 population growth
projections are added to the park service area.
Community Parks
Based on resident population, there is a shortage of community parks in the
East Hill subarea, but not in the other two subareas.
It should be noted however, that the very high level of daytime non-resident
employment population in the valley floor creates a considerable demand for
park facilities which is not reflected in Table V1-2. Section ill of the 1982
Plan discussed the impacts resulting from Kent's large employment
population. It is estimated that as much as 30% of recreation program
demand results from non-resident employment population.
Special Facilities
Table V1-3 indicates both an existing and projected shortage of key
recreational facilities in various subareas. Looking at the service area in total,
the existing number of every type of recreational facility must be doubled
within the next 5 years, if standards are to be met. The exception is tennis
facilities which are more adequately provided for but still require a 25%
increase by 1993.
Previous comments on the effects of Kent's large employment population
apply to key recreational facilities as well as park space, i.e., the unmet
demand indicated by Tables V1-2 & V1-3, probably underestimates
actual needs in Kent, particularly in the Valley Floor area.
FACILITY SCHEDULING
Introduction
Another indicator of recreational facility need is by actual use demand. This
demand is noted by the department's programming services in particular.
Athletic Facilities
The major park need defined by Park department programmers is for
increased athletic field facilities. The Russell Road complex is over scheduled
during the summer months and this demand will steadily increase with
population and employment growth. An additional, centrally located Valley
Floor complex is in demand from a scheduling , current use perspective.
26
TABLE VI-1
SUMMARY OF NEEDS ANALYSIS
TOTAL EXISTING UNITS
1988-1993
NUMBER OF NEW
UNITS NEEDED
1993-2000
NEED STATE
SUPPORTED SURVEY
BY: REGIONAL
SURVEY
KENT
SURVEY
TRENDS
COMPARISON
WITH
NEIGHBOR
HOOD
PARKS
(ACRES)
52
164
263
N/A
•
•+
•
STANDARDsj
•+
GREENBELT
&SPECIAL
COMMUNITY RESOURCE
PARKS PARKS
(ACRES) (ACRES)
240.1 460
53 N/A
74 N/A
N/A •+
•+
•+
• •+
• N/A
KEY: • STRONG SUPPORT •+ VERY STRONG SUPPORT
"These are paved trails, not roads incl.
rvsd: 10/10/88
CULTURAL
FACILITIES
:Kent Commons
S~ecialized
op. Resource
Center
Sr.Activ. Ctr.
4 Acres
Performing
Arts Center
N/A
N/A
•+
•+
N/A
BASEBALL-
SOFTBALL SOCCER FOOTBALL TENNIS
FIELDS FIELDS FIELDS COURTS TRAILS*
34 .12 9 38 7.0 mi.
18 24 3 0 30 mi.
26 32 6 6 37mi.
• • • • •
N/A N/A N/A N/A •
N/A N/A N/A N/A •
• N/A • •
•+ •+ •+ • •
TABLEVI-2
PARK NEEDS AS ASSESSED BY STANDARDS
Neighborhood Residential
& District Neighborhoods
Parks
Commercial/
Industrial
Districts
Total
'
Community Parks
Total Acres
1988
West Valley
Hill Floor
14.2 0
X 5 X 7
0 0
N/A N/A
14.2 0
0 5 X
114 28.1
X y:
Acres or Facilities
Existing at End of 1987
East
Hill
37,8
X 8
0
N/A
37.8
~ 8
58
X 4
or Facilities
Needed to
Meet Standards ~-----.... Required Increase in Acres
or Facilities to Meet Standards
Total
52
fo 0
0
N/A
52
IX 0
240.1
X
1993 2000
West vaner East West Valley East
Hill Floo Hill Total Hill Floor Hill Total
~ X 3 /< 3 ~ 36 X ~ 8 /9{ 4 ~ 7
0 24 4 28 0 88 7 95
0 24 4 28 0 88 7 95
X 0 ;% l2f % 64 X ~ 6 X 1 i%
X X X 3 X X ;% ;< 4 X -
Note: As no standard for Commercial/Industrial district parks has formally been
adopted, the standards established in this plan have been applied to future
development only.
rvsd: 10/10/88
J
TABLEVI-3
FACILITY NEEDS AS ASSESSED BY STANDARDS
1988
West Valley East
Hill Floor Hill
Baseball Fields 1 8 7 v Yo Yo
Softball Fields 1 13 4
Ys Yo ·~ 4
3 8 1 Soccer Fields ~ Yo /< 7
Football Fields 1 1 7
~ 1/t y; .
Tennis Courts 6 2 30
Yo y Yo
Trails (miles)
N/A N/A N/A
--···~--
FOR KEY TOT ABLE SEE TABLE VI-2
rvsd: 10/10/88
Total
16
Yo
18
~ 2
12
~
9
~ .
38
Yo
7
~
1993 2000
West Valley East West Valley East
Hill Floor Hill Total Hill Floor Hill Total
/< I Yo Yo Yo y; /a y Yo
Ys 'Yo X Ys 8 y; Yo 0 ~ 2 ~ 6
i
' ·y; Yo ~ ~ 4 y; y ~ ~
y y Yo 0 y; )/( 0 ~
Yo Yo Yo y; y; Ys Yo /<
N/A N/A N!A ~ N/A N/A N/A ~ 7
.. ----~ -----------
VII. PARK & RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Delete second and third sentences, second paragraph.
2.0 PLAN PROCESS & MAJOR FEATURES
2.1 Plan Process
No revisions needed
2.2 Framework of Greenbelts and Special Features Parks
Revise, fourth and fifth sentences, third paragraph, to:
"Other greenbelt expansions in meander areas include the "T-Bridge",
and" Valley Freeway". There is interest in purchasing Clark Lake property
and developing it as a major new special resource park located centrally in
the East Hill planning area."
2.3 Major Community Parks
Revise second paragraph to:
-~ .. \\11.-----
"The West Hill complex is made up of the existing Lake Fenwick Park along
with the planned Woods at Lake Fenwick addition linking the lake
with the Green River Corridor and the Valley Floor."
Revise third paragraph to:
"The Valley Floor's community park facilities consist of Russell Road Park
and adjacent Golf Course with its 131 acre expansion. This concentration of
facilities will make up the City's largest park area and will serve a regional as
well as community function. This is consistent with its location along the
Green River Corridor, an important regional recreational feature, and with
its location at the "gateway" to Kent from Interstate 5. Interest also exists
in adding an additional athletic complex similar to Russell Road to
accommodate increasing demand for athletic fields. "
Delete second sentence, fourth paragraph:
"The City will be responsible for developing the passive recreational
components of the park on its lands to the west and north of the High
School."
Revise, second and third sentences, fifthparagraph,to:
"The plan proposes that a site suitable for active recreational development
be acquired in the block south of Meridian Jr. High School and north of
Clark Lake. This would be linked via trails with the Jr. High School, the
passive park lands of Clark Lake, and the woods and wetlands of the
County's eighty acre park property immediately north of the Jr. High
School."
30
2.4 Cultural Facilities
Revise first paragraph to:
"The updated master plan proposes two major new cultural facility projects.
These are:
1) A New Performing Arts Center in the downtown area, and
2) An East Hill Community Center which could be located at the site of
the previously discussed South Meridian Community Park"
2.5 Residential Neighborhood Parks
No revisions needed
2.6 District Parks in the Industrial Vallev
Revise fourth sentence, first paragraph, to:
"Some appropriate sites include N. Interurban, O'Brien, Valley
Center, and S. Interurban."
2.7 Trail Systems, Boulevards and Landscape Corridors
Insert at end of third paragraph:
"Work is to continue on implementation of whole plan. Of primary need is
the segment of trail adjacent to the golf course expansion"
3.0 DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPOSED PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOP-
MENT PROJECTS
Revise first paragraph to:
"A narrative description of each project (1988-1993) is contained
in the following paragraphs."
3.1 West Hill Neighborhood and District Parks
Revise paragraphs one and two to:
"Currently no suitable property is available for acquisition and development
in the neighborhood. As a need exists throughout the area, the city will
remain alert for any acquisition opportunities in the area. A need currently
exists for 15 acres of new parkland in the neighborhood."
3.2 \Nest Hill Special Resources & Greenbelt Parks & Trails
Lake Fenwick-
Delete entire entry.
3.3 Valley Floor Neighborhood & District Parks
Revise to:
"By 1993, a variety of neighborhood and district parks will be needed in the
Valley Floor area. It is projected that inventory will lag the standard by 29
acres. Land in both residential and industrial neighborhoods will be
purchased and developed. An additional 45 acres will be acquired to develop
an athletic field complex similar to Russell Road Park."
3.4 Valley Floor Community Parks & Cultural Facilities
Senior Activity Center-
Delete entire entry
31
~·
Performing Arts Center-
Insert:
" This regional facility would be logically located downtown, being central to
the service population. It would be a multi-purpose performance hall with
box office, offices, rehearsal hall and storeroom. Land acquisition should
occur within the next 5 years, 1988-1993."
Insert:
Kent Commons
"Expansion of parking at the existing Commons will increase access of the
facility to the population."
3.5 Valley Floor Special Resources & Greenbelt Parks & Trails
Riverfront Park (Additions) -
Delete entire entry
T-Bridge-
Delete entire entry
3.6 East Hill Neighborhood & District Parks
Revise to:
"This area is still in need of acquiring and developing 47 acres of
neighborhood and district parkland. These lands should be distributed
throughout the area , concentrating on the rapidly growing north and south
sections of the area. "
3.7 East Hill Community Parks & Cultural Facilities
Campus Park-
Delete entire entry
3.8 East Hill Special Resource & Greenbelt Parks & Trails
Clark Lake-
Insert at end of first paragraph:
"The City should investigate purchasing the privately-owned land at Clark
Lake."
32
I .. ]JL£ JWt 5 t a &Lw u ;;,:!!l,;a;u; ;o;w "", ... _.,.,.,-r,.,,..,,,. •• ,.,. •. ,.,.,,.,~.~...,.-"~ ~~--·-~ · ... ·
VIII IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Implementation Plan is to outline a set of actions which
will result in the accomplishment of the Park and Recreation Master Plan
presented in the previous section.
The implementation plan presented here consists of four segments: the first
is a discussion of a systematic approach to the establishment of priorities
within the plan, the second is a discussion of funding opportunities and
projections , the third is an analysis of the special opportunities offered by
cooperative agreements between the Kent Parks Department and other
agencies, and finally, the fourth section of this chapter brings all of these
considerations together in an Action Plan for the 1988 through 1993 period.
2.0 ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN:
A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH
Implementing the plan requires the ability to identify the park projects
which are most critical to the park system's immediate needs.
It is strongly recommended that a systematic evaluation process be utilized
to establish priorities. In this updated plan there is an attempt to allow the
City more flexibility in capitalizing on site specific opportunities as they
arise. Hence projects are often designated and prioritized by neighborhood
and function, rather than by specific site name. The evaluation involves
the assessment of three basic sets of factors for each potential park project:
1) The degree to which the project meets identified needs;
2) The degree to which the project meets cost considerations; and
3) The unique opportunities and/ or special timing considerations inherent
in the project.
It is highly recommended that a detailed list of criteria be developed under
each of the three categories and that a numerical point system be developed
to reflect the importance of each category. However, for this plan update a
quantitative weighted evaluation system was not used. The priorities listed
in Table VIII-6 are based firstly on percentage deficiency from standard;
secondly, on user support expressed in an opinion survey; and thirdly on
unique timing pressures or opportunities. As the systematic approach used in
the 1982 Plan proved to be too complicated and site specific, we recommend
developing a simpler, more flexible system for the 1993 Plan.
3.0 COST ESTIMATES FOR PRIORITY PROJECTS
Once a prioritized list of projects has been established it is necessary to
develop cost estimates as a first step towards identifying funding needs
and sources. Tables VTII-7 and VIII-8 summarize these estimated costs for
the 1988-1993 period.
Several factors are worth noting in regard to the cost estimates presented
here:
33
(1) The estimates utilize prototypical unit cost factors to arrive at dollar
amounts. Actual project costs may vary considerably based on special site
conditions and other factors. Therefore, the figures presented here should
not be used for detailed project planning;
(2) While the specific numbers for each project may not be highly accurate,
the overall totals for acquisition and development probably do give a good
indication of total costs since inaccuracies in individual projects will tend to
range both above and below actual costs, thus cancelling themselves out
within the overall totals.
(3) The numbers presented here are in 1988 dollars. Any use of the
numbers in subsequent years must be accompanied by the appropriate
adjustment in land acquisition and development costs.
4.0 FUNDING PRIORITY PROJECTS
4.1 Introduction
The uncertainties of economic projections present serious problems in
developing an implementation plan. It is critical that we look beyond the
present uncertainty and assume that longer-range growth, both economic
and human, will justify bold planning goals and programs that will allow
public needs to be met in an orderly and efficient manner.
4.2 Past Funding
The history of funding parks and recreation in the Kent area indicates both
creativity and commitment: creativity in the utilization of all available tools
and funding sources to augment local funds, and commitment by the City of
Kent in appropriating the local tax resources necessary to meet increasing
needs and demands. Table VTII-3 summarizes funding sources for capital
purposes during the period 1982-1987.
4.3 Future Projections of Needs
Tables VTII-1 and VTII-2list projected park and recreation capital needs
through 1993 of $ 16,502,500 million. This capital budget projection (at the
high level) is almost equal to the actual1982-1987 capital improvements
funds.
During the 1970-81 period, park land owned by the City of Kent increased
from approximately 52 acres to 253 acres (a 386% increase). From 1982-87,
approximately 153.2 acres were added (a 61% increase). Proposals for
1988-93 would add approximately 325 acres (a 57% increase).
Correlated to the proposed increases in park land and facilities is a
corresponding increase in the cost of maintenance. In 1987, the Parks
maintenance budget totaled $ 879,590. (or an average of $1,540. per acre of
land: $879,590/571.2 acres of city owned land). Table VIII-4 provides some
historic comparisons of the total Park Department operational costs, adds
the projected increase in costs due to increased park acreage maintenance
and projects these total costs into 1993.
34
4.4 Potential Funding Sources
4.5
4.6
5.0
5.1
The best guides to identifying future funding sources are the historic
patterns of Kent's capital and operational funding together with future
growth projections and the respective park and recreation requirements
identified in correlation to that projected growth. Table VIII-3 summarizes
this data and in general reflects a five-year need to stabilize this funding at
the 1982-1987level.
Table VIII-Slists the broad range of funding sources by jurisdiction and
includes both historic as well as untapped future sources. Those programs
that appear to be more favorable as future sources have been identified with a
(+),and those that appear to be diminishing as sources with a(-). It is
obvious that the projected trend in funding sources is shifting dramatically
from federal and state to local responsibility and initiative.
Capital Funding
Table VIII-3 represents a reasonable estimate of projected capital funding by
general source (federal-state-county-donation-local). This reflects an
increase in reliance upon local funding and a corresponding drop in the
federal and state percentage share of the program ( from 13% in 1982-1987, to
4% in 1988-1993 ).
Operational Funding
Table VITI-4 sets forth actual and projected total Park budgets for operations
during the years of 1982-1993. Projections for 1988-93 are based upon
estimated additions of parks and facilities by year in accordance with this
Updated Plan calculated at Kent's 1987 average maintenance and operating
cost of $ 1540. per acre.
The total projected increase in operating budget from 1988 to 1993 is
$500,500. Kent's recent innovative and aggresive approach to revenue
generating programs and facilities has provided a broad range of recreation
programs and facilities at a relatively low net cost to the City's general fund.
Should this revenue policy continue, the increase in other sources of
operating funds (i.e. general fund) needed to support the added recreation
facilities envisioned by this plan would be reduced.
COOPERATION & COORDINATION WITH OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
Introduction
There are plans, programs, and projects that are carried out by agencies other
than the Kent Parks and Recreation Department that have direct and indirect
impacts on the parks, recreation, and open space system of the City. Some of
these agencies would have a direct interest in recreation while others would
have none. The practicality of multi-use and joint-use public projects is
self-evident in these times of tightly constrained government budgets. It is
important that the City Parks Department not only be aware of other agency
actions which might either diminish or increase recreational opportunities,
but be in a position to do something about it. The department should be
vigilant in seizing opportunities to formally involve itself in the process by
which such programs or actions are administered, so that where appropriate
it can be involved in the planning and implementation of these recreation
components.
35
5.2 School Districts
Both the Kent and Federal Way School Districts have sites within the study
area. Strong ties have been established with the Kent District, however
increased involvement in the siting of new school facilities would be useful
to both agencies. The Parks Department does not have a close working
relationship with the Federal Way District. This should be remedied as soon
as possible.
5.3 Kent Public Works Department
Two areas demanding cooperative action with this department are drainage
system planning and implementation and transportation planning and
implementation. Both of these systems have the potential for great impacts
on the open space and recreation resources of the city.
5.4 Kent Planning Department
The Planning Department is responsible for administering a number of
ordinances affecting development. With the strict enforcement of these
codes during the building permit process, there is the potential for preserving
some features of the natural environment with little or no cost to the general
public. The Planning Department is also currently involved in formulating
an annexation policy which will have a direct impact on recreation needs
and opportunities. Regular communication between the Parks Department
and the Planning Department is critical.
5.5 Green River Basin Program
The Green River Basin Program is an ongoing, long-term program concerned
with all plans and programs that could affect the Green River Valley. It is
coordinated by the King County Planning Department and involves all the
the River Valley communities: Auburn, Kent, Tukwila, Renton, as well as
King County. There are many studies, programs, plans, and projects that are
ostensibly part of the Basin Program. Continued monitoring and where
appropriate, involvement in the program by the Parks Department should
take place.
6.0 Action Plan
Table VIII-6 summarizes the action plan that is recommended as a guide to
capital improvements over the next six-year period. The projects are listed in
order of priority based on the prioritization criteria discussed in Section 2.0 of
this chapter.
An important feature of Table VIII-6 is the indication of other public
agencies that should be involved along with the Parks Department in project
implementation. In many cases, the cooperation of these agencies will be
critical to the successful completion of a project. Their cooperation may also
result in substantial cost savings for the City of Kent. Also, in reviewing
Table VIII-6, the reader should bear in mind that the priorization listed here
is a product of one evaluation at one point in time. It is essential that
projects be re-evaluated periodically, at least once a year. This will allow
more detailed information to be incorporated as it becomes available.
Re-evaluation will also provide an opp?rtunity to review and update the
36
criteria which make up the evaluation system. A very important by-product
of this review process will be a continuous updating of the goals, objectives,
and recommendations of the Kent Parks & Recreation Master Plan.
37
TABLE VIII-1
1988-1993
LAND ACQUISITION COST ESTIMATES ( 1988 $'s)
ACRES COST/
ACRE
West Hill Neighbor-
hood Park Lands 15 $ 50,000.00 I Acre
Acres
Valley Floor
Neighborhood & 74 * $ 65,000.00 I Acre
District Park Lands Acres
East Hill Neighbor-
hood & District 65 $ 50,000.00 I Acre
Park Lands Acres
Clark Lake 85 $ 25,000.00 I Acre
Acres
Green River
Frontage 40 $25,000.00 I Acre
Acres
Westside Ponds & 20
Wetlands Acres $ 25,000.00 I Acre
South Meridian 20 $50,000.00 I Acre
(E. Hill Comm. Park) Acres
Performing Arts 4 $65,000.00/ Acre
Center Acres
Kent Commons Pkg. 2 $65,000.00/ Acre
Acres
Total
TOTAL
COST
$ 750,000.
$ 2,405,000. **
$ 3,250,000.
$ 1,067,500. **
$ 1,000,000.
$ 50,000.
$ 500,000. **
$ 260,000.
$ 130,000.
$ 9 ,412,500.
* This 74 acres includes 45 acres allocated for a district athletic facility similar to
Russell Road Park.
** This property purchased over a ten year period. Hence a maximum of one-half
of its total purchase price is paid during period 1988-1993.
38
TABLE VIII-2
1988-1993
PARK DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATES (1988 $'s)
East Hill
Neighborhood Parks
Valley Floor
Neighborhood Parks
West Hill
Neighborhood Parks
Green River Trail System
Mill Creek Trail System
East Hill Community Park
Kent Commons Parking
TOTAL
Total
Units
65
Acres
29
Acres
15
Acres
9 miles
15
Acres·
2
Acres
39
Cost/
Unit
$35,000
/Acre
$35,000
I Acres
$35,000.
/Acre
$35,000.
Total
Cost
$ 2,275,000.
$ 1,015,000.
$ 525,000.
$ 2,000,000.
$ 500,000.
$ 525,000.
$ 250,000.
$ 7,090,000.
f
t
L
TABLEVTII-3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
FUNDING BREAKDOWN
1982-87
FEDERAL $1,011,304.00
STATE $1,109,920.00
COUNTY $207,822.00
DONATIONS $3,531,395.00
CITY OF KENT $9,566,428.00
REVENUE BONDS $ 701,575.00
KENT SCHOOL $105,838.00
DISTRICT
UNDETERMINED $0.0
FUND
TOTAL $ 16,234,282.00
%
6.0
7.0
1.0
22.0
59.0
4.0
1.0
0.0
100%
1988-93
(Projected) ****
$ 500,000.00
$ 400,000.00
$ 150,000.00 *
$ 1,500,000.00
$ 1,500,000.00
$ 4,583,425.00 **
%
2.0
2.0
1.0
7.0
7.0
22.0
$ 0.00 0.0
$ 12,452,500.00 *** 59.0
$ 21,085,925.00. 100%
4.583.425.00 **
$ 16,502,500.00
* Some additional funds may become available through the County for the
development of the Green River Trail System. At this time, the probability of this
funding cannot be projected with any certainty.
** These revenue bonds are dedicated to the completion of the Riverbend Golf
Complex and are not available for the funding of the 1988-1993 Action Plan.
*** This Undetermined Fund represents the additional funds necessary to
implement the 1988-1993 Action Plan. Possible sources for this fund include
Councilmatic bonds, General Fund bonds, etc.
****These projections are based on information provided by Park Department staff.
40
TABLEVTII-4
KENT OPERATIONAL BUDGETS & REVENUE
%
YEAR BUDGEf REVENUE REV/BUDGET DIFFERENCE
1985 2,832,000. 1,414,000. 50% 1,414,000.
1986 3,104,000. 1,552,000. 50% 1,552,000.
1987 3,742,754. 1,871,377. 50% 1,871,377.
1988 * 3,826,176. 1,913,088. 50% 1,913,088.
1989 * 3,909,598. 1,954,799. 50% 1,954,799.
1990 * 3,993,020. 1,996,510. 50% 1,996,510.
1991 * 4,076,442. 2,038,221. 50% 2,038,221.
1992 * 4,159,864. 2,079,932. 50% 2,079,932.
1993 * 4,243,286. 2,121,643. 50% 2,121,643.
* PROJECTED IN 1988 $'5
Note: Projected 1988 -1993 operational budget increases based on projected
increased acreage and 1987 maintenance cost per acre of $1,540.:
Assume a total 6 year increase of 325 acres;
Annual increase of 325/6= 54.17acres
54.17 x $1,540/ acre= annual increase of $83,422.
6 year increase = $ 500,500.
41
TABLE VIII-5
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
LOCAL COUNTY
()Kent General ( ) General Funds
Fund (Sales Tax)
( ) Bond Issues ( ) County-Wide
Bond Issue
( ) Cooperative ( ) King County
Agreements Arts
with Other
local Agencies
( +) Donations
( +) Volunteers
()Cooperative
Agreements
with Local
Improvement
Districts
( ) Park District
( ) Service Area
Act
STATE
(-)lAC
(State Portion)
(-) Outdoor Rec.
Grant
(-) Arts
Commission
( ) Boating Grants
( ) ORV Grants
( ) Snowmobile
Grants
()Cooperative
Agreements
FEDERAL
(-)lAC (Land &
Water Cons. Fund)
( ) Soil Conservation
Service Drainage
Projects
(-)Housing & Urban
Development
Block Grants
(-)Urban Park &
Recreation
Recovery Program
( ) Community
Development
Block Grants
()Revenue Sharing
( ) Economic Devel-
opment Grants
(-) CETA
(-) YCC
()Pittman-Robert-
son Grants
() Dingell-Johnson
Grants
(+) = anticipated increase ()=no change anticipated (-)=anticipated decrease
42
i
I
I
I l !
APPENDICES
44
APPENDIX A
CITY OF KENT
POLICY STATEMENT
CITY OF KENT
POLICY STATEMENT
Purpose. To establish a policy relating to the adoption of the Kent Parks and
Recreation Plan-i 982 as prepared oy Jones and Jones.
Organizations Affected. Parks and Recreation.
References. Kent Parks and Recreation Plan-1982.
Polley. The Kent Parks and Recreation Plan-1982, prepared by Jones and Jones, shall
be the official City document which identifies the needs for park and recreation areas,
facilities, and services; establishes standards, sets goals and priorities, and outlines
course of action for implementation.
The plan will be evaluated annually for accomplishments and modified to reflect
current and/or changing conditions, resources, etc. The plan indudes in its appendices
a prototype for a systematic approach to the establishment of priorities within the
action plan. This system is subjec~ to modification over time as the City's needs and
goals change. It provides a means to measure the desirability of certain types of parks
in certain areas depending on the factors of identified needs, physical features, cost
considerations, and unique opportunities and/or timing.
The plan shall be adopted with the understanding that it is a long range goal and a
flexible guide for future park acquisition, development and may need to be modified to
take advantage of unforseen opportunities. The basic philosophy of the plan, however,
is recognized as a guide to accomplish long range goals for the community needs,
active, passive and cultural activities.
The Parks Committee of the City Council recognizes that certain elements of the plan
are dependent upon the type of financing available, induding City budgets, grants
from various government agencies, private donations, etc.
It is recognized that some of the elements in the 1972 ORB Comprehensive Park Plan
have not been totally implemented because of certain mitigating conditions, i.e.,
availability of funds, donations, shift in population, shift in perception of needs, and
revised C.I.P. plans, as approved by City Council. However, the elements have been
considered in light of changing needs, goals and are an integral part of this developing
process.
45
I
I
I
I ; • <
APPENDIXB
1987 RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS & PARTICIPATION RATES
(from City of Kent 1988 Gold Medal Award Application)
1983 1987
Type of Program Number Registrants Number Registrants
Athletic Progrems-lnc. youth & adult basketball, softball, 40
skiing, open gym, soccer, gymnastics, tennis
Athletic Clinics, Camps
Athletic Tournements
Community Education Classes-Inc. youth, adult special Interest
classes and outdoor recreation
Invitational Track Meet (elementary youth)
Kent Parks Annual ~Inter Fun Run-SK, 10K Run
fun Runs/Road Races
Community Center (Kent Commons)
Classes, Rec Programs.·lnc, volleyball, open gym
B acQJet ball
Summer Day Camp (Ages 6-12 at Hill Creek Park)
Residence Camp (Cascade Mountains)
cultural Arts Programs-Inc. fitness, aerobics, youth performing
groups, preschool/youth/adult dance & art classes
Visual Arts-Includes exhibits ··•
Conm..nlty 1\r.ts Events-Inc, literature & video festivals, dra11ing
work5hops, face painting, fine art recitals, artist forums,
designer a11areness symposium
5
20
34
0
1
10
78
1
0
0
215
4
14
performing Arts Events 32
Canterbury falre (three day, ell-city event featuring hot-air 0
balloon rally, ~5 performing arts events, Renaissance village,
antique car shell, sports events)
Golf Course, Driving Range, Hfnf Putt Putt 3
Sen! or Act hi ty Center Prognwns
l<!gaf and Tax Services 0
)lut rf t I on-ltnches 13
Soorts Program<! 5
Recreation Services-classes, programs, dances 38
Aci.Jl t Day Care, Alzheimer & Arthritis Support 0
lleelth Services-Includes mental health, foot clinic 1
Social-participants not duplicated obova 1
Special PoPJlations-Resour·ce Center for youth & adult activities 5
Including:
Developmentally Ofsabled-&dult/youth social club, Special
Olympics, theatre project, aquatics, day camp
Physical Dlsabllltles-llheelchalr sports, stroke support group,
heed InJuries, aquatics, mental health
Community Allareness-Kfds on the Bloc~ Puppet She~, toy lending
library
~dopt-A-Park 0
Facility Rentals-Private-Inc. receptions, parties, meetings, gym, 953
Holiday Bazaars
Totals
46
13,100
441
6,633
465
0
m
5,083
~2,074
27,256
0
0
3, 763
20,000
1, 6!36
7, 214
0
93,524
0
15' 030
96
574
0
1,040
4,000
152
0
130,833
373,741
50
8
35
106
5
131
228
5
16
1,8
62
3
70.
30
16
79
4
2
1
82
8
1,317
2 1311
17,000
625
11,723
1,235
350
1,023
9,864
70,214
22,735
1,84
104
5,439
25,000
4,275
16,215
60,000
174,275
840
27,183
235
1,536
94
1,840
9,600
3,271
107
171,987
537,254
f t
I
f.
I
'
I
I
I
' ' ~
'
APPENDIXC
CITY OF KENT
EXCERPTS FROM
"CITY OF KENT PARK AND RECREATION OPINION SURVEY"
Leonard Gus & Associates
December, 1987
This report briefly discusses key findings for the respondent group as
a whole, cites any differences by sub-group that are statistically
significant (since the sample was small, one must be careful of
interpreting the data if the subgroup is too small) and compares the
current survey to the 1981 survey. A number of figures graphically
illustrate these comparisons.
Although the demographic questions were asked last, as they usually
are, it seems useful to start with a comparison of key items of the
December, 1987 survey with that of September, 1981. More detail is in
the Computer Appendix.
Table 1
Comparisons of Survey Respondents
Item 1987 1981
number respondents 260 405
% 2-4 person households 78 72
% own home 87 85
% lived in Kent 5 or more years 92 64
% (of those reporting) with family
income of $25", 000 or more 44 51
% age 18-35 20 39
% age 36-50 31 32
% over 50 48 29
% male 33 55
% female 67 45
% frequent users of parks 34 27
The samples are comparable in many regards; they differ in that the
1987 survey has:
fewer person~ under 35, more over 50
fewer men, more women
a higher percentage of long term Kent residents
a higher percentage of frequent users (or the ratio of
frequent users of park facilities has grown over the last 6
years)
47
The questions are discussed in the order in which they were asked.
1. Rating of Various Park Activities and Facilities Whicl1 Could Be
Considered. Respondents were asked to rate the following on a scale of
1 to 5, with 1 being very important and 5 being very unimportant.
1). Open Space, Green Belts and Natural Areas-rated at 1.78
overall overage, a higher rating that the 2.01 given by the 1981
survey. Renters rate this lower than average, as do those who never
use the parks. 61 percent gave it a fll rating.
2). Organized Sports Programs and Facilities rated at 2.25
average, with only 45 percent giving it the fl1 spot. This was of less
than average interest to people under 35, and to men. The average was
the same in 1981.
3). Arts Classes and Programs-this had a relatively low rating
of 2.45, with 30 percent rating it fll (only 23 percent of the 36-50 age
group and only 19 percent of the men gave it a fll).
4). Cultural Events and Projects-this had an even lower average
rating of 2.63, with only 21 percent of the sample rating it very
important. Older persons valued this option more highly, while younger
voters valued it less than average.
In 1981, questions 3) and 4) were combined into one; at that time this
option received the very low rating of 2.74, with only 16 percent
rating it as very important.
5). Neighborhood Parks-rated very high, at 1.7 average, with 81
percent rating it 01. The 1987 rating was considerably higher than the
1981 rating of 2.08 average, when 45 percent rated it as very impor-
tant.
48
I
I
i
I
f
l
l
i
i
t
i
-1
i
·~
6) Sports Facilities another relatively low rating of 2.34
average, with 37 percent rating it as very important. This evaluation
is up from 1981, when 24 percent rated it as #1 in importance. Younger
persons rate this higher than average, while older persons rate it
lower than average -an unsurprising finding.
}) Water Related Parks and Facilities -the 1987 rating of 2.4
average, with 37 percent rating it very important, was identical in
1981. Hen, and persons 36-50 rated it a little higher than average.
8) Specialized Education Programs - a relatively high rating of
1.86, with 59 percent rating it very important, rated higher by women
and lower by men. This question was not asked in 1981.
Table 2 shows the eight activities rated in descending order based on
those who rated it #1, while Figure 1 shows the means (averages) of
each rating in 1987 compared to 1981, and Figure 2 shows the high
ratings only for each topic, in 1987 compared to 1981.
Table 2
Topics Rated Very Important, 1987
Topic
Neighborhood parks
Open space, green belts, natural areas
Specialized education programs
Organized sports programs and facilities
Sports facilities
Water related parks and facilities
Arts classes and programs
Cultural events and projects
49
l Rating
64
61
59
45
37
37
30
21
If 1
j
I
2. The next set of questions asked how well the respondent feels that
the City of Kent provides for the following: choices were ''very good",
"adequate", "poor", "don't know".
1) Open space, green belts and natural areas -39.6 percent rated
this as very good, up considerably from 1981's 27.2 percent.
2) Specialized sports programs -48.5 percent rated the city "very
good" in this regard, just about the same as 1981's 50.1 percent.
People 65 and older rated this a little lower than average.
3) Arts classes and programs -30.4 percent rated this very good
but, again, respondents 65+ rated it lower.
4) Cultural events and projects -the same evaluation was given to
this, when 28.9 percent rated Kent as "very good" in this regard.
Questions 3) and 4) were combined in the 1981 survey, but the response
was comparable: 25.2 percent gave Kent a "very good" rating on arts and
cultural events and programs.
5) Sports facilities -38.5 percent rated Kent as very good,
higher than the 30.1 percent of 1981.
6) Water related parks and facilities -30 percent rated this as
"very good", much higher than the 20.5 percent of 1981. Respondents 65+
gave it a lower rating than average.
7) Specialized education programs -only 21.5 percent rated Kent
as very good in this regaid, while people 65+_ gave it even fewer top
ratings, as did men; women, to the contrary, rated performance high a
bit better than average. This question was not asked in 1981.
Figure 3 sho~s the percent of respondents who rated each option as
"very good" in 1987 and 1981.
50
FIGURE 3
r . -. ··-· ....... -~
·~.. HOW WELL DO YOU FEEL KENT PROVlDES FOR
'
THE FOLLOWING PARKS,ACTIVITIES,FACILITIES
( 1 9 8 7 vs. 1 9 8 1 )
f I LEGEND
OPEN SPACE
ORG.SPORTS
ARTS CLASSES/PROG.
vr ....
CULTURAL EVENTS
SPORTS FAC.
WATER-RELATED
SPEC.ED.PROGRAMS
0 10 20 30 4-0 ~0
PERCENT
PERCENT RATING VERY GOOD
60
~ 1987
D 1981
.,4 ....... ________ _
Table 3 compares the degree of importance, as shown in Table 2, with
voters' opinions of performance, as discussed above.
Table 3
Topics Rated Very Important
Compared to Evaluations of Kent Performance
Neighborhood parks
Open space, green belts, natural areas
Specialized education programs
Organized sports programs and facilities
Specialized sports facilities
Water related parks and facilities
Arts classes and programs
Cultural events and projects
l Rating
64
61
59
45
37
37
30
21
i! 1 l Rating Performance
Very Good
not asked
39.6
21.5
48.5
38.5
30.0
30.4
28.9
3. The next question asked whether the voter was in favor of spending
municipal funds on these items. 42 percent rated this as #1 and 63.5
percent rated it as 01 or #2. Unsurprisingly, frequent users regist-
ered as much more in favor of this idea than occasional or non-users.
These ratings are up considerably from 1981, when 28.7 percent were
most in favor, and 55.6 percent favored the idea in total. Figure 4
shows these comparisons.
4. The next set of questions asked for ratings of suggested acquisi-
tions or developments.
1) Green river pedestr1an and bicycle trail system-the 1987
average was 2.23, while 45.4 percent rated it as very important.
Frequent users rated it higher than average, while people 65+ rated it
lower than average. Both of these ratings are higher than in 1981.
2) Preservation of green belt and natural area along Green river-
this achieved the very high rating of 1.74, while 62.7 percent rated it
#1. Frequent users gave it somewhat higher ratings. All ratings are up
over 1981, when 54.1 percent gave it a #1 evaluation.
52
FIGURE 4
I ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF SPENDING MUNICIPAL
I FUNDS FOR THESE ITEMS?
l ( 1 9 8 7 vs . 1 9 8 1 )
I
!
'
' 1987
1981
10.8
-----+----+-----f---+----+---.f--~
0 10 20 6() 70
PERCENT
53
LEGEND
·~ lN FAVOR
ri~ NOT IN FAVOR
i
I
I
' I
j
j
t
l
't
3) Evaluation of a Garrison creek natural area -this received a
low average score of 3.65, with only 24.6 percent giving it fl rating.
Younger people and women favored it more; older people and aen favored
it less. Ratings in 1981 were even lower, when only 13.6 percent gave
it highest priority.
4) Continued development of Mill Creek park on East Hill _ this
re~eived the moderate score of 2.63, with 36.5 people believing it very
important. This is a considerable jump from 1981, when only 16.8
percent rated it as very important.
5) Expansion of West Hill open spaces -this scored fairly high
with 2.32, and 45.4 percent rating it ill; frequent users rated it a
little higher. This is much higher than 1981, when only 18.5 percent
rated it as very important.
6) Expansion of East Hill open space parks -achieved a rating of
2.6, with 36.9 percent rating it very important, women much more than
men. Not asked in 1981.
7) Additional sports fields such as Russel Rd. complex -fairly
low rating of 2.97, with 29.6 percent rating it very important, again
women rating it higher and men lower. Not asked in 1981.
8) Neighborhood parks -moderately high rating of 2.36, with 44.6
giving it "very irnporcant". People under 50 favor this more than
people over 50, frequent users favor it more than occasional users. In
1981 the overall rating of 2.35 was the same, but a smaller percentage
of people voted it "very important", compared to 1987.
Table 4 ranks the ratings in terms of the percentage of voters rating
it as "very important", while Figure 5 shows the means of the various
ratings for these alternatives, and Figure 6 shows the percentage of
those who rated each alternative as "very" or "somewhat" important.
54
I
I
' t
I
i
ATTITUD~S J,JjO OriitiO!IS Of KCIT VOT[H .,OVT
TH!: crrr , ... ~ MID "t:c~ttA.TJOt' srsrnt
Hello, "'7 l'&nll 1• , "'Hh Leon•rd Gual Aa•oci•L••, •n
opJnlo" r••••rch fh,. JocU.•d here J• \tuhtncton. \le •r• conductJn& 1 •hort
aur·u7 tor Uu City oC x.,,, oft th• 1u.bja<t of p.atkt and other uer.attaA
Cul)hhl. J vould lllt.a to ~peak <viLh _______________ _
::ot•: 1! Lh• rcq1.1cstcd ptraon Ia nat .... ,IJ .. ~l•. ••• the ;:~~rrson on tha
t•le~I\One,•.t.re J'O, , I'Ci,l.Jt.ettd votcrl• ~r FO. ttn::dnaLt. rr rrs. atkt
,..,,£ '10U .a. J.l~J5':t:"!~ vo-;t?.l
I "'"''de: ll•• to 4 ..... yo•: • !•..,. que•tlor.t ·~c:•Jt y::u: pllrt!cu1a: pr.-lcrenc.c:s In
far:n: ud rccrC'atlon.
L !'!ra:., : .... u; u.ac:: ~ l~st ot v.~r1cut ;: .. :J.s. .ctlv't I ell llt\d !acl1Jt11"s
"'hi:!'\ eoul1 t1 co:'lsiC:ertd bJ the CJt1 at~ ... ,:.. · .. ·ould you ple.a:u r•tc the~
u f :t.l~ :.1".~~. s-::•1• o! J to },J"'It.~ J btJfiZ vc:·r 1-~por:..-"t •n~ ~
!-:1!":-t ve:y U:"Jir::?::>r:.u~ot.
Op.,, s;.•~•. ll'"f'lt!1 !.•Its an~ n•t.\:f.al ,, .. .,
C.r.-•rdz.•c: a:;:oor:.s p:oif.l:':'l .1:"11! l•o;:II-
L't!•s. wuo;:h •• ao:tt.aJl, soccer, en~
:.h, J!'.,.
,:..,Jturt.l •rt.s cl••••s/protru:s, such
.IIJ: C:li:"IC•. ••robles, cr,.tt.J, mu$1C,
t!".c•t.r't, =ovu:~tlt. c:hlldt11n!l <!IJC• '9
O::ultur•l c·.rent:/projects .auch as.
.Itt ••h I bl t s, l•t. tur• s, ! ""'It i"'•lll,
•n~ u·t ~n put.llc: ";JI•C!ll
S~otts t•clllt.ic.t such .IS t•r.rdJ.
COY(tS, t'•sk:ttb.1Jl COYttS, t.nd CQr;-
.::I!Jt~C.nJni •G.'·dpr:~cnt th.1t "'o,Jld t:c
IV•l].&!)}~ o., lr. •l:'ISC~adulc~ b•.sls
Z?r:uil!tc::l ot:1••:-'lion ;,Jro;,ra.-:.:~ J\I.C~
.;s: -:cv~lc-;:u~o::"';~Jll'! <~.s.ablc~ • .stroll.-,
l\t.1:= lnjt..::•c!, hoea:-!ni .&::1~ vtstull)'
l:"::~•ln(. .a!"-! S;J~CI•I O!yr::;dc.s
.'t :.:.•: ,""-··•. · :~:.Jr:L ; tu·...-il' Jo...;.~ fC.lC t.:J )<:...:. t'l.J'-' -..~JI Cu ya .. {('.cl lh~
:i-.:' o! ;;. .. ,._. ;-co·,:~.ts for ~tcl'".i Cr.?"'..: !ti!l t!'lt"/ -~ll .:~ ''try t<:~-!"1
Jy~r. •t-"=~ .•. ~-~~.-. ~eJ:s •r.~ ."'l~tur~l
-'If":·''
.;:i"=-~:.c.; ~~c.1 • • .;. j):-ccr~:":"s o~r.~ Co~cll·
t:Je.O: :;;u:t'; .1' ,.,tt';•!J, .'\~CCCl·, .HI~
.;'o.llt:..ro~: .. :-t-.:.~~~~t/~·:-o,r-1.-:~s such
.11: :.~:-.:c, .J'!-:o:i~;;s., cr.a!t~. r.:.us1C,
':./',eo~:rc. r:.ov-..,~n~ .... ~"lildrcns C:Jyc.-:np
:~.:!UH.l; o:->.·c:-.~~/pr"JeCt.li s.uch .lt"l
.,.._~-~~~~':.J, lc-c:.•Hf'!:-, (e,;ti"'-'~~ls .. ,~ .1rt
ir. ;.~.:';d ic ~! "''""
S;.;arts. ! ,., i l1"..1 11':0 IY(lo ,.:;. tcr.r.l:.
:C"utts., ~.l,lo.ct~-111 courts, .ar.C:
CO:'IC:I:.to"'llni fi!~:Jirno::nt. l~Ut ~o~ouiC
!.',t.tr -: .. l•t~-: ;:;o~r;.;a ,.,.,d !.acillti"'
S;oor.::.I&I:CJ [du(>~l ~:J:\ "tQo4t-lr.l.IO ~ouch
.It; !Jev,..lo~:=.~l'lt•l:;t C:ls.abl•~. atro;.c_
!'l•.&! ~njl.>tll'd, ~~~.annt •nC: v:uully
:~p.a:rc~ .. .,~ S;:-r.ci.d 'Jlyn?lo:
.l.t>~ 1 .l 1n to~· . ..:: u:
I tC'."'IIII.: ~~ !'l.a•rc ju.JI
hl&h!) Jp;.rop:JJt•.
~h.: ••;.<•adltur• ol
d i I CUI lol' j ~ 0;~ •
~n~ b•Jr,l hlthly
r -· • -! t h.. ~ 1 ~ ~
.~..: l" r;:. .\ t •· I'r c: Oon • \.
)((!')""
._.,,. lC J f'• J t"ru{s t.hot ,..,. r I o"a
sc.alc of I tn L '"'llh 1 b•tnc:
11"11\)j)C"oprtatc ~.co... jo 10') r~~'
DC"n' ( )I: no..,
55
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
15
16
1 7
18
19_
U1
"'
--~--·--· .. .;.,;... __ _:"'""" ·-··· _..__"' ·--,.__..._._..,.,.._, ,~...__....~.,_.~.''-.......... ,ll$>cofi'1'mii!"~NIII*IIIIIfW--~-r. ---·-
FIGURE 5
RATING SUGGESTED PARK.
ACQUISITIONS OR DEVELOPMENTS
( 1 9 8 7 vs 1 9 8 1 )
GREEN R. FT/CYCLE TRL ~
GREEN R. GREEN BELT
GARRISON CRK NAT.AREA
MILL CRK PK.-EAST HILL
EXPAND WEST HILL PARKS
EXPAND EAST HILL PARKS
SPORTS FIELDS(RUSSEL RD)
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
I
~*d~~~
~»7/~0:?::-'"T-~..?/J --~~51~%~~;--o'?'-' ,.._:,: .. -.:."'A-<-.._: ... .:..~~:.C/_.0· .. >:..'!:....-.<'!.:.-..:;.-GV-..:.a.:.-~
0
. ;.~~;7 ... "'7.7.?;>''7~//7 ~-T,1 0-:..--~'//~// ///./£~---/. .._.·::.%/_..d
·7:~//"'/':-%.7%?777/"':;/';:'i:/7/~ -~-~/../.L'.L..//.L·.~~~.L.d
~~~~7:~-f(/.? -~~/ - . ...... ~-. .. :.. . ~ 0 ~-... 0 o··.-: ;0 Y., /~YY. •' • ...,'_L'A-.: •.• 1'.:-.v.•" ~~.f>C",C:..__..;:,.'_Jej
T
2 .J
PERCENT
-------~-------~
4 5
AVERAGE RATING. SCALE 1 - 5
LEGEND
~ 1987
KS~ ~981 t:: :Lx.' .L..IJ 0
SCALE: 1 -VERY IMPORTANT, 5-VERY UNIMPORTANT
,~~*"-i£'* '"' ~w ~~,._,.,,~~ e CM.aa a a : =u--...;;; ua: a • :a-~---., , za ;..,_ • .,.,.. ~ " ~ --~~"-~~-·
VI
......
FIGURE 6
RATING SUGGESTED PARK.
ACQUISITIONS OR DEVELOPMENTS
( 1 9 8 7 vs 1 9 8 1 )
GREEN R. FT /CYCLE TRL ~ ~.r.ro
GREEN R. GREEN BELT
GARRISON CRK NAT.AREA
MILL CRK PK.-EAST HILL
EXPAND WEST HILL PARKS
EXPAND EAST HILL PARKS
SPORTS FIELDS(RUSSEL RD)
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
0 20 40 60 eo 100
PERCENT RATING 1 OR 2
LEGEND
f@%1 1987
1111 1981
SCALE: 1 -VERY IMPORTANT, 5-VERY UNIMPORTANT
!
I
!
' l ~ ,, •
Table 4
Rating Suggested Park Acquisitions or Developments
Item % Rating "very important"
preserve green belt/natural area
along the Green river
Green river pedestrian & bicycle trail system
expansion of West Hill open space parks
neighborhood parks
,expansion of East Hill open space parks
continued development of Hill Creek park on
East hi 11
additional sports field such as Russel rd.
establishment of a Garrison creek natural area
62.7
45.4
45.4
44.6
36.9
36.5
29.6
24.6
This question also asked for additional suggestions for acquisition and
development. These are listed in Appendix C.
5. The next question asked if the voter would pay reasonable addi-
tiona! taxes' to provide local share of funding. An overwhelming 75.4
percent responded "yes", just about the same ratio as in 1981.
The same question asked for other suggestions on raising funds. 17
suggestions were made, almost all of which were for user fees, while
three people said "tax corporations".
6. The next question asked which of four alternatives the City of Kent
should emphasize. All received high ratings, but Figure 7 shows the
rankings; using school facilities was the highest and acquiring parks
for future use the lowest.
7. The last substantive question asked whether the voter felt it is
important that parks and other recreational facilities be located in
the City. 75 percent fel~ it was very important and 19 percent somewhat
important while 6 percent felt it was not important.
8. Figure 8 shows that the percentage of frequent users of Kent's parks
has grown, while the percentage of those who never use the parks has
declined, in the six years since the last survey.
58
~-~ ..... -----............ -.............. ~--..------
\.11
~
FIGURE 7
SHOULD KENT EMPHASIZE THE FOLLOWING:
( 1 9 8 7 vs 1 9 8 1 )
MAINT.EXISTING FACIL.
PRESERVE OPEN SPACE
USE SCHOOL FACILITIES
ACQ.PARKS FOR FUTURE
o 10 20 30 40 so eo 70 eo go 100
PERCENT SAYING "EMPHASIZE"
LEGEND
~ 1987 m 1981
L~
~---~~ ~-~--~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~--
eo
!50
<4-0
~ as.
u 30
0:::::
LLJ a..
20
10
FIGURE 8
HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE
KENT PARK FACILITIES?
( 1 9 8 7 VS 1 9 8 1 )
LEGEND
~ FREQUENTLY
m OCCASIONALLY
rzlj NEVER
0 1 v<<<<~ , c 4 r<<L-<~ , #C 1 1
1987 1981
'
,-\2PE~DIX D
POPULATION G~OWTl-I PROJECTIONS
. I -~ ~ / 1.-I
I
19SO *I
}
POPtTLA -:'!00; I :'8:'1-'1".-\TIO~< i POP I
!
WEST HILL
10,460 1 I I STUDY AREA 11,222 1 ~~SC6 I
!
12,017 I I I VALLEY FLOOR
STUDY AREA 14,310 1-±,593
I I
I EAST HILL
29,6031
I
I I STT..TDY AREA 35,614 36,S3C
I TOTAL
52.0801 I I STUDY AREA 61.146 63.023
STLiDY AREA CENSUS TRAC:S
'Nest Hill Study Area: Valley Floor Study Area:
3600-2/3 (!#291); 3500: l /3 (::1298.0l). 3/4 ( #297 ), 2/3 (#:'52.82);
3500-2/3 (#998.0 1 ); 3600-(#292.01); 2/5 (it283), 1/3 (#::?.91;;
3040-1/3 (#290)
3700-l/ 6 (#289)
P.S.C.O G. Draft Population & Household Forecasts, ?'-)ov. i9S7
P.S.C.O.G. Population & Housing Estimates, April:, :986
... Straightline interpolation from ?.S.C.O.G. Growth Projections
I
I
I
I
I
I
//V ~j-../
PCP:.C~L.~-~:C< I rcr·---~ ..... ~.-:-~c>.: I I
I I
'"''"" ---:2,571 .... ..:...,/::;I I I
I
i I l5,4~0 I l6.57CJ I
i I
40,G6
I
4-±.:':?0 I
I I 74-.331 68,6/:3 I I
East Hill St:.1C:v Area:
3500~(#295>, 1:.-s (~297), :/3 ~~:.s2.o2;;
342.0-1'3 \:::::.9b), 3, ~ \#317.01;;
-_ . .)J..
:?OPU: __ .,__ ":'100: I ~C7L-LA.7:0>~·
I
15,757. i 17,-~:90
19,206 I 21,':?73
52,856 I 66,725
S"' ---I 1 2,:),) I -;.o6,1S7
3-111-L 3 I :¢318) \~29~ 02), ('":::.9.; 01), l s (#:293 02), 1/3 (#293.01);
t
I
!
I
I
I
ADDENDillv1 I
III.
2.0
2.2
BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN
ELEMENTS OF THE PARKS & RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
Community Involvement in the 1988 Master Plan Update
Revise to:
As in the original plan process, the primary mechanism for assessing public
attitudes was a statistically random telephone survey. The survey polled
260 registered Kent voters on their attitudes toward recreation facilities,
programming, funding, and their general satisfaction with the Kent Parks
& Recreation system.
In addition, Park Department staff presented a display of their planning
documents, including the Master Plan Update Draft, at the annual public
Kent Town Meeting. Staff members were available to explain the
department's policies and processes, and to answer any questions from
individuals. During the open forum segment of the meeting, the
Department Director answered specific questions from the entire
assemblage.
The consultants made one public presentation on the Master Plan Update
to the Kent City Council Parks Committee. The meeting was advertised
and public comment was welcome.
Ongoing public input on Park & Recreation Department facilities and
programs is also sought through the "Fill Us In" questionaires published
in each department quarterly report. This report is mailed to every Kent
resident. Specific issues raised by returned questionaires are reviewed by
department staff and a written response is mailed to the original
respondant.
Public demand for specific facilities and programs is constantly monitored
and recorded through the scheduling and registration processes of the
department. These actual demands were treated by the consultants as direct
public comment on the present facilities and programs.
Finally, a fourteen minute narrated slide presentation on the Park &
Recreation system was produced for the 1988 national Gold Medal Award
competition. The presentation is now being shown to all interested local
service organizations. The Department Director and other staff have been
present at all presentations to date to answer questions.
62
ADDENDUM II
IV. NEEDS ANALYSIS
Add:
6.0 KENT TOWN MEETING
Public comments made to staff during the annual Kent Town Meeting
generally supported the findings of the telephone opinion survey.
Citizens expressed strong overall satisfaction with the Kent Parks &
Recreation system.
7.0 "FILL US IN" QUESTIONAIRES
The approximately one hundred completed questionaires received by the
department each quarter also express strong general support for the present
Parks & Recreation system and for future planned development. When
specific facility or program questions are addressed in a returned form, the
questions are answered by department staff and a written response is
mailed to the original respondant. This process insures ongoing
department accountability.
8.0 GOLD MEDAL AWARD SLIDE PRESENTATION
This narrated fourteen minute slide presentation of the Kent Parks &
Recreation system was just completed in mid-1988. The presentation is
now being shown to all interested local service organizations. Department
staff has been present at all presentations to date. Public comments
concerning the Kent parks system have been very positive. The slide
presentation is proving to be a very effective tool in giving the public a
broad survey of the accomplishments and the challenges of their park and
recreation system.
63