HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 10/17/2000 r
s{
KEN T
4..
�• WASH I NGTON COUNCIL WORKSHOP
AGENDA
October 17, 2000
The Council Workshop will meet in Chambers East in Kent City Hall at 5:30 PM on
Tuesday, October 17, 2000.
Council Members: President Leona Orr, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton,
Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Judy Woods, Rico Yingling
�... Speaker Time
1. Draft 2001 Legislative Agenda Dena Laurent 40 minutes
2. 2000 Citizen Survey Results Dena Laurent 20 minutes
The Council Workshop meets each month on the first Tuesday at 5:OOPM and the third
Tuesday at 5:30 PM in Chambers East unless otherwise noted. For agenda information
please call Jackie Bicknell at (253) 856-5712.
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD
CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (253) 856-5725 IN ADVANCE.
Item 1
Council Workshop
10/17/00
Draft 2001 Legislative Agenda
• f
City of Kent
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 10, 2000
TO: Kent City Councilmembers
FROM: Dena Laurent
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Doug Levy
Intergovernmental Affairs Consultant
SUBJECT: DRAFT 2001 City of Kent Legislative Agenda
Please find attached the DRAFT 2001 City of Kent Legislative Agenda. The document
reflects the concerns of key City staff, Councilmembers and the Mayor's Office as well as
input from neighboring cities and the Association of Washington Cities.
The Legislative Agenda serves as our advocacy workplan for the 2001 Legislative
Session. Once approved, we will discuss high priority items with the legislators who
represent Kent. We will again provide you updates of our work and the issues during the
Legislative Session and will provide monthly and end-of-session reports on our progress.
Our thinking is to review this document with you during the workshop, draft any changes
you request and circulate those to you in writing, then incorporate those changes in a
document scheduled for Council approval at your first meeting in November.
If you have any questions or concerns about the document, or this process, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 253-856-5708 or email me at dlaurentla�ci.kent.wa.us.
Thanks!
DRAFT 2-10/10/00
City of Kent 2001 Legislative Agenda
As with past legislative agendas, the City of Kent's 2001 Legislative Agenda is divided into
three sections:
1. The 2001 Action Issues lists matters on which the City will actively work on and lobby
for legislative/budget provisions.
2. The 2001 Support List details issues that are important to Kent, and on which the City
will play a supporting role in the upcoming session.
3. The 2001 Track/Monitor List notes important issues that the City will keep track of, and
possibly involve itself in if necessary, during the upcoming session.
Citv of Kent 2001 Legislative AtIenda
2001 Action Issues
Economic Development
• Economic Development Financing Tools: Washington is one of only 5 states in the
nation that does not authorize some type of"TIF" as an economic development and
brownfield redevelopment tool. Kent has actively supported a sales-tax-based form of
TIF through prior-year legislation such as the "Community Revitalization Act." The City
sees Tax-Increment Financing—or what some call `Value-Added Financing,' as an
important tool to help urban areas redevelop old industrial and brownfields areas.
Finance
• Prevent Unfunded Mandates/Local Revenue Preservation: Kent and other local
governments throughout Washington have been adversely impacted by mandates from
the state which are either `unfunded' or `underfunded' and require new or additional
services, remove revenue or taxing authority, etc. The City will actively work with other
local governments to urge the Legislature to refrain from imposing new mandates unless
the corresponding funding is provided to implement them. Further, Kent will work to
ensure that any changes in tax or budget policy enacted by the Legislature do not come at
the expense of local revenues.
• Local Government Financing/Address Voter Initiatives: Kent will join other local
governments in urging the Legislature to look at ways to provide a more stable and
predictable financial picture for cities and counties—either through mechanisms that
provide revenue enhancements or authority, or through provisions that help to reduce
local government expenses. The City will closely watch the work of the Local
Government Financing Task Force enacted through SHB 2392 in the 2002 Legislature.
Further, should voters approve citizen initiatives such as 1-722 to restrict growth in the
property tax, Kent will join other jurisdictions in asking the Legislature to address
revenue dislocation brought on by such initiatives.
• Infrastructure Financing: Kent has been represented within an "Infrastructure
Coalition" made up of cities, counties, Realtors, Associated General Contractors,
builders, Association of Washington Business, environmental organizations, labor, and
state agencies. The Infrastructure Coalition's objective is to push for both a long-term
plan to address an estimated $3 billion-plus infrastructure `deficit' at the local level—and
to secure a$100-200 million `downpayment' on infrastructure needs within the State's
2001-03 capital budget process. Kent will be emphasizing to legislators that the Growth
Management Act cannot work properly without investments in infrastructure to serve
current and anticipated growth.
Parks and Recreation
• Support for Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) Funding
within 2001-03 Capital Budget: Kent has been an avid supporter of the WWRP almost
since its inception 11 years ago. The City will work to ensure that funding in the 2001-03
capital budget for the WWRP is at least equivalent to the $50 million level of the current
biennium. Within the WWRP list of projects are ones critical to the City, including those
listed below.
Proiect Ranking IAC Contribution City Contribution
Clark Lake Expansion Ist of 72 $500,000 $3.75 million
Kent Service Club Phase 1 1 Oth of 72 $300,000 $2.184 million
Canterbury Neighborhood Park 12th of 72 $268,902 $268,903
Green River Gateway Park 2nd of 12 $300,000 $1.799 million
Public Safety
• Weapons restrictions in public facilities: Current state law allows cities and counties to
restrict the carrying of weapons in only certain public facilities—courthouse and
convention-related facilities, to be exact. Kent is considering a 2001 legislative initiative
to expand weapons restrictions in public facilities—particularly in light of the kinds of
emotional issues that come before City and County Councils and municipal bodies.
• Recriminalize alcohol violations—or provide `local option' allowing cities to do so:
1998 legislation passed by the State Legislature decriminalized alcohol violations such as
open container and public drunkenness. A number of cities, including Kent, are
concerned that the decriminalization may negatively impact public safety and downtown
revitalization efforts in urban cores. These cities likely will bring forward to the 2001
Legislature a bill to `recriminalize' these offenses—or at least provide `local option'
authority to jurisdictions to do so if it is important to their community.
• Technical Fixes to DWI Legislation: Kent is hoping to enlist sheriffs and police chiefs,
cities, and counties in an effort to make two important technical changes to the state's
DWI statutes in the 2001 Legislature. One of these would close a loophole on ignition
interlock violations that allows a violator to go free if the ignition interlock requirement
was not physically posted on his/her driver's license. Another would close a loophole
that precludes a person's refusal to have a blood draw in a `driving while drugged'
situation introduced in a court case on that `DWD' violation. The City will be taking
these technical fixes to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, the.
Association of Washington Cities, and others for assistance and endorsement.
• Kent will continue to join other cities and counties in urging the Legislature to provide
local jurisdictions with some immunity protection for the provision of probation
services—given a recent Supreme Court decision that substantially heightens liability
concerns regarding these probation services.
3
Public Works
• Expand authority for cities to use alternative contracting for public works projects
such as "design/build" and "general contractor/construction management
(GCCM)": Kent, along with several other cities and the Association of Washington
Cities, will urge the State Legislature to provide additional authority to cities to utilize
alternative contracting methods such as design-build and GCCM. Currently, only cities
150,000 and above may use the alternative contracting methods, and projects must be at
least$10 million in order to qualify. Kent will be part of a coalition advancing
legislation to lower the population threshold to 50,000—and potentially evaluate
lowering the dollar threshold as well.
• Supplemental Funding for Public Works Trust Fund: Kent will join others in asking
the Legislature to approve a$98 million supplemental appropriation that invests in a
series of critical infrastructure projects around the state. One of those is a loan to assist
the City with its portion of the "Pipeline 5" water supply project headed up by Tacoma
and involving Seattle, Kent, and others. The Public Works Board believes adequate
funds are available within the dedicated-funds portion of the Capital Budget to cover
these additional projects. Absent some kind of ongoing infrastructure financing source,
the low-interest loans provided through the PWTF program are the best state funding
option for jurisdictions that need help to make important infrastructure projects "pencil
out."
• Technical Fix to LID Law: Kent will be seeking a technical fix to the state's Local
Improvement District (LID) statutes, in order to explicitly ensure that a jurisdiction may
approve an LID assessment roll either before or after the construction of a project. Kent
is an example of a city that typically approves these assessment rolls before a project is
constructed; other cities do so after a project is constructed. The City recently defended
its approach before King County Superior Court—successfully—after a property owner
brought suit and challenged Kent's authority. The case has now been appealed. Kent
and other cities would like to have this issue more explicitly stated in the RCWs so it
does not have to incur legal expenses that come about even in a successful defense.
Transportation
• Transit Service Options for Municipalities: In the wake of Initiative 695, transit
agencies such as King County METRO have had to make significant service reductions—
dramatically impacting jurisdictions such as Kent. Further, Kent and many other `urban-
center' cities have Growth Management Act responsibilities to incorporate transportation
and transit elements into their comprehensive plans. In light of the 695 impacts, and the
GMA requirements these urban centers face, a number of them are considering a request
to the 2001 Legislature for local taxing authority to augment regional transit service.
4
a
• Transportation Funding—Overall Needs: Kent will join with other public and private
sector organizations in urging the 2001 Legislature to take comprehensive action on a
transportation funding package. In particular, the City will support and work to advance
provisions in the report from the "Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation"which
speak to new revenue ideas, funding `equity,' additional regional funding and governance
authority, principles to better ensure that `money follows growth,' etc. Kent officials
strongly believe that there must be a comprehensive, significant funding package to
address the congestion and traffic volume that is tightening its grip on South King County
and the Central Puget Sound as a whole. Addressing congestion in this area is key to
facilitating the movement of people and goods through this region and across the state.
• Transportation Funding—2281h Street Freight Corridor: The City will seek to ensure
that within the Legislature's approval of funding for projects submitted by the Freight
Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB), there are funds for Kent's 2281h Street
Freight Corridor extension project. Kent has made significant investments in upgrading
and improving freight corridors on the north (196th Street) and south(2771h Street) ends
of the Kent/Auburn Valley, but moving freight through the central core of the Valley
remains an Achilles heel. The City has applied to the FMSIB and the Transportation
Improvement Board (TIB) for a combined $7 million to help finance an estimated $20
million in Phase I work on 2281h—Phase I being the extension of 228th to Military Road
to better move truck freight to and from I-5 and Port access areas.
• Transportation Funding—Interstate 5/272nd Interchange: Where traffic exits 272nd
Street at I-5 and moves westbound underneath the freeway, there are significant capacity •�.
problems that need to be addressed. Buses are hard-pressed to negotiate the narrow
approach, particularly in light of Sound Transit plans to expand the park-and-ride facility
at I-5/272"d. As a result, Kent, Federal Way, Sound Transit, and King County have met
with the WSDOT regarding funds to start designing a wider approach. Kent will work
with these partners to request financial support to begin design on this important
intersection.
Water
• Water Rights—"Growing Communities Doctrine": Kent will strongly support what is
expected to be a legislative initiative by water utilities to strengthen the State's water
code and build into it an explicit recognition of the need to have a stable and adequate
water supply to serve growing communities. This idea of a"Growing Communities
Doctrine," modeled after similar efforts in states such as Oregon and Idaho, is premised
on making surgical changes to a water code that already contains some strong statutory
language recognizing the needs and responsibilities of water suppliers.
5
City of Kent
2001 Legislative Agenda—Support List
Economic Development
• Support"Main Street" legislation which includes tax incentives and credits to assist
local jurisdictions and Downtown Associations with downtown development efforts.
Finance
• Kent will strongly support a continuing"post-695" distribution of funds by the State
Legislature to local governments to assist them with meeting law enforcement and public
safety needs. A legislative task force, assisted by City and County associations, will
recommend speficic methodologies for providing such funding.
• Kent will support legislation to ensure a fairer system of taxing laundry-service
providers —so that out-of-state companies are not exempted from paying state sales tax
while in-state firms in Kent and elsewhere are required to do so —thus creating an
"uneven playing field."
Housing and Human Services
• Affordable Housing and Low-Income Housing—Increased Availability and Supply:
Kent will strongly support efforts to ensure an adequate supply of low-income housing in
the City and County—as well as efforts to make median-priced homes in King County
more affordable and available. Strategies on the low-income housing front have included
a proposed $3 recording fee on housing transactions; strategies on affordable housing
have ranged from making townhouses and condominiums available to first-time buyers.
• Welfare Assistance/Skills Gap Training, Etc.: Kent will continue to strongly support
state legislation and budget provisions which provide more assistance, more flexibility,
and more skills-gap training to welfare recipients. The welfare caseload in Kent and
South King County is among the highest in the state—and the City believes it is critical
that the state continue to provide assistance, options, and training to those enrolled in the
"Welfare to Work" program.
Parks and Recreation
• Building for the Arts: The City will join others in asking the Legislature to approve an
estimated $4 million appropriation for the "Building for the Arts" funding in its 2001-03
capital budget.
6
Planning
• Recapitalizing "PERF" Program: The City will strongly recommend that the
Legislature approve a$3 million request to re-establish what is known as the "Planning &
Environmental Review Fund" (PERF)—a request being made by the Office of
Community Development within the State's Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development. The PERF fund, discontinued in 1997, allows jurisdictions to
receive grant money that assists them with pro-active planning and environmental review
of key areas. For example, Kent used a PERF grant to help develop its downtown plan,
which is being actively used as the City moves forward with downtown redevelopment
work.
• Oppose Pre-Emption of Local Zoning Authority for Manufactured Housing:
Representatives of the manufactured housing industry have brought legislation forward
the past few years seeking to pre-empt in whole or in part a city's authority to preclude
manufactured housing in single-family zones. The City of Kent strongly believes these
kinds of zoning decisions are best made at a local level and should not be mandated at a
pre-emptive level by the state. Kent will continue to strongly oppose such legislation.
• `Buildable Lands' Legislation/Funding for Buildable Lands Analyses: Past sessions
have seen Realtors and others forward legislation attempting to mandate that cities reach
certain housing targets, undertake additional housing inventories and analyses, etc. Some
of the legislative proposals have involved sanctions, punishment, or financial penalties
for cities that do not reach the targets. Kent is an example of a City that has met and
exceeded its targets—however, the City resists this kind of mandate-driven, punitive
approach to addressing housing goals under the Growth Management Act. Further, the
City will continue to emphasize to the Legislature that such legislation may well be
premature in light of continuing buildable lands inventories being conducted under prior
legislation. And, finally, the City will remind the Legislature that the buildable lands
work in the six most urban counties of the state, and the cities within them, has been
badly underfunded from the outset.
Public Safety
• If the state is going to ask all law enforcement agencies to collect and analyze data on
traffic stops to determine whether `racial profiling' exists, Kent will join others in
urging the Legislature to properly fund such requirements.
• As a"Project 2001" process moves forward to look at reform of local courts, Kent will
support efforts to have the Legislature authorize funds for collaborative efforts that
look at ways to better coordinate court duties and functions. The City would oppose,
however, legislation which undermines the authority of cities to operate Municipal
Courts that are more efficient and cost-effective than other courts.
7
Public Works
• Kent will support increased or more inflation-sensitive bid limits to potentially enable
more small public works projects to be done in-house—as a way of saving money and
enhancing efficiency on such projects.
• Kent will join the Association of Washington Cities in opposing `water/sewer district
assumption' legislation which undercuts current city authority.
• Kent supports additional funding and `bright-line' standards to help cities, counties,
and utilities comply with `Total Maximum Daily Load' wastewater discharge
requirements which are a part of the Federal Clean Water Act and are administered
through the State Department of Ecology.
• Kent will support AWC legislation to revise compensation for street vacations.
8
City of Kent
2001 Legislative Agenda
Track/Monitor List
Kent will closely track and monitor:
• Kent will strongly support and protect home rule authority for all cities and local
governments.
• "False Claims Act" and "Civil Rights Act" legislation which, in past years, may have
sounded good on the surface but had costly or problematic provisions for cities.
• A Regional Law Enforcement Services study authorized by the 2000 Legislature and
continuing beyond the 2001 session. The City wants to ensure that the ability and
autonomy of local police agencies is not compromised.
• `Certification/De-certification' legislation intended to establish clear standards and help
ensure that `bad actor' police officers who have been dismissed by one agency are not
mistakenly hired by another.
• Proposed legislation—if it is brought forward—to explicitly authorize local zoning
authority in the case of`mini-casino' operations.
• Legislation addressing access to health care coverage for public-agency retirees. ,..�
Kent will want to ensure such legislation is not overly onerous or costly for local
governments.
• Discussions regarding how State DCTED might better assist cities with their own
economic development offices
• All legislation in budget, tax, and `mandates' categories which would impact the City
of Kent's bottom line.
9
Item 2
Council Workshop
10/17/00
2000 Citizen Survey Results
City of Kent
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 9, 2000
TO: Kent City Councilmembers
FROM: Dena Laurent wlj
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: 2000 Kent Citizen Survey
At next Tuesday's workshop, I will be presenting to you the results of the 2000 Kent
Citizen Survey. This is the second consecutive annual survey asking Kent citizens to
evaluate our services. The survey is a key part of our performance measures program and
the results allow us to track our performance over time. Hebert Research in Bellevue
conducted the phone survey of 400 randomly selected Kent residents, and their report
compares responses to the 2000 Survey to the results from the 1999 Survey. The 2000
Survey Final Report is in final production and will be distributed at your Workshop next
Tuesday evening. In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns about the
Survey, do note hesitate to call me at 253-856-5708 or email me at
dlaurent@ci.kent.wa.us.
City of Kent
Citywide External Study
Executive Summary
September 2000
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citvwide External Stagy
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link
City of Kent
_ Citywide External Study
Executive Summary
September 2000
—
M r `
Table of Contents
RESEARCHGOAL AND OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................3
METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................................4
EXPLANATION OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS. .......................................................................... 5
SUMMARYOF FINDINGS......................................................................................................................6
QUALITYOF LIFE...................................................................................................................................... 7
Oualitvof Life Ratings.......................................................................................................................... 7
Accuracvof Citv of Kent s Vision......................................................................................................... 8
t,'olunteer AnaNsis................................................................................................................................ 9
HostImportant Issues in Kent............................................................................................................ 10
PUBLICINFORMATION...................................................................................................................... 12
— Primary Information Sources.............................................................................................................. 12
ValueofKTV's Information................................................................................................................ 13
Value of Kent ,%7ewsletter Information.............................................................................................. 14
CONTACT WITH CITY OF KENT EMPLOYEES................................................................... 15
Recent Contact With City Emplovees.................................................................................................. 15
CiteDepartments Contacted............................................................................................................... 16
1ethodof Contact............................................................................................................................... 17
Level of City Contact's Courtesv........................................................................................................ 18
Level of Cite Contact's Knowledge..................................................................................................... 19
CityContact's Williwness to Help..................................................................................................... 20
PUBLICSAFETY........................................................................................................................................ 21
Safetyin Citv of Kent........................................................................................................................... 21
Veighborhood Safety During the Dav................................................................................................. 22
Aeighborhood Safety After Dark......................................................................................................... 23
C'it-of Kent Crime Victims ................................................................................................................. 24
CrimeReported to the Police.............................................................................................................. 26
— Contact With Kent Police.................................................................................................................... 27
Courtesyof Police Employees............................................................................................................. 28
Kent Fire Department Emergencv Services........................................................................................ 29
Emer�,,encv Preparedness.................................................................................................................... 30
,Accident Preparedness........................................................................................................................ 31
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. Citv of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 1
RECREATIONALA CTI VI TIES........................................................................................................... 32
Leisure and Recreational Activities.................................................................................................... 32
Cities Visited for Leisure/Recreational Activities............................................................................... 33
Unfulfilled Recreational Needs in Kent.............................................................................................. 34 J,
ParkAmenith Importance Rathwly........................................................................................_............. 35
ParksVisited Most Frequently............................................................................................................ 36
Frequencyof Visits.............................................................................................................................. 37
Kent Recreation Programs, Activities and Cultural Events................................................................ 38
STREETSAND TRAFFIC......................................................................................... ........................... 39
Cleanliness of Neighborhood Streets.................................................................................................. 39
Cleanliness of Streets in Kent. Ch,erall............................................................................................... 40
Condition of Surface/Pavement of Neighborhood Streets................................................................... 41
Condition of Surface/Pavement of Kent Streets Overall.................................................................... 42
Condition of Ne4zhborhoodSideivalks................................................................................................ 43
Cut-Through Traffic on Side Streets................................................................................................... 44
ExcessiveSpeed on Side Streets.......................................................................................................... 45
CAPITALINVESTMENTS..................................................................................................................... 46
Supportfor Public Safen'Spending.................................................................................................... 46
Transportation..................................................................................................................................... 47
NaturalEnvironment........................................................................................................................... 48
OtherProiects..................................................................................................................................... 49
DEMOGRAPHICPROFILE..................................................................................................................50
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................52
QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................................................................................56
HEBERT RESEARCH,/NC City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 2
RESEARCH GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
,..
Research Goal:
The primary goal of this research was to evaluate citizen satisfaction with City of Kent services and
programs. A secondary goal was to track this satisfaction over time. This report includes data from the
second annual survey of Kent citizens, which has been compared with data from the initial survey.
Research Obiectives:
The following objectives were addressed in this research for the City of Kent:
1. Assess residents' perceptions of the quality of life in Kent.
2. Specify residents' sources of public information and measure their value perceptions of Kent TV
(KTV)and the Kent Newsletter.
3. Analyze residents' satisfaction with City customer service.
4. Measure residents' perception of their level of safety in Kent.
5. Evaluate the use of services from the Kent Fire Department and Kent Police.
6. Measure respondents' preparation levels to deal with serious medical emergencies and natural
disasters.
'— 7. Examine residents' perceptions of recreational opportunities in Kent.
8. Measure residents' perceptions of Kent streets and traffic.
9. Determine residents' priorities regarding capital investments.
10. Provide a demographic profile of Kent survey respondents.
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. Ciry of Kent—Citywide Externs!Study
Page 3
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6nlMichael J.Link
METHODOLOGY
.�
The total survey sample of 398 respondents, all residents of the City of Kent, were randomly selected
from phone directories by Hebert Research, and interviews were conducted during June and July 2000.
The response rate, representing the proportion of individuals who agreed to participate in the research,
was 53.7 percent, which is relatively typical for household opinion surveys. The overall incidence rate,
which represents people qualified to participate in the research, was 44.7 percent, largely as a result of the
necessity to fulfill sample quotas. The following quotas were used in order to obtain the most
representative sample possible: at least 20%of all respondents had to be from the East Hill, the West Hill.
and the Valley, respectively; at least 40% of all respondents had to be owners or renters, respectively; in
order to achieve gender equity, no more than 60%of all respondents could be either male or female.
The data sets were analyzed using generally accepted univariate measures of central tendency and
dispersion. For some questions multiple responses were accepted, therefore, the totals on graphs and
tables for these questions may be greater than 100%. Questions for which multiple responses were
accepted are identified throughout the summary.
Hebert Research has made every effort to produce the highest quality research product within the agreed
specifications, budget and schedule. The customer understands that Hebert Research uses those statistical
techniques, which in its opinion are the most accurate possible. However, inherent in any statistical
process is a possibility of error, which must be taken into account in evaluating the results. Statistical —
research can predict consumer reaction and market conditions only as of the time of the sampling, within
the parameters of the project, and within the margin of error inherent in the techniques used. With a
sample size of 398, the margin of error for the City of Kent survey was calculated to be +/- 4.9%. _
Evaluations and interpretations of statistical research findings and decisions based on there are solely the
responsibility of the customer and not Hebert Research. The conclusions, summaries and interpretations
provided by Hebert Research are based strictly on the analysis of the data gathered, and are not to be —
construed as recommendations; therefore, Hebert Research neither warrants their viabilitv nor assumes
responsibility for the success or failure of any customer actions subsequently taken.
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael I Link Page 4
EXPLANA TION OF MUL TI VARIA TE ANAL YSIS
Multivariate analysis was conducted among the following variables in order to examine differences
among respondents according to specific pre- and post-classified segments, or groupings:
I. All questions by number of years lived in Kent
_ • I to 5 years
• 6 to 10 years
• 11 to 20 years
• Over 20 years
2. All questions by area of residence
• West Hill
—" • Valley
• East Hill
3. All questions by own versus rent
• Own House
• Rent House
• Rent Apartment
4. All questions by gender
• Male
• Female
Multivariate analysis is a set of advanced statistical techniques used in testing hypotheses and measuring
�'- the degree of association between variables. It involves Chi Square, analysis of variance and other
appropriate tests of independence and association.
w
Interpretations and inferences set forth in the analysis are intended to provide an independent statistical
perspective. The statistical procedures utilized were applied with a 0.95 confidence level for estimating
_ values and/or providing significant inferences. A 0.05 significance level was used as the criterion to test
hypotheses.
In addition to measures of significance in which differences have been determined at the 0.05 level, a
measurement of association, identified as Cramer's V, will also be reported. These measurements vary
between '0' and `1.' A measurement of`0' indicates that the variable in question does not explain (or is
not associated with) the dependent variable, and a measurement of'I' indicates that the variable explains
all of the dependent variable. Typically, a measurement less than '0.1' will not be reported due to the low
level of association.
Note: Multivariate findings, when they are significant and meaningful, are included at the end of each
section.
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citvwide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 6
QUALITY OF LIFE
Quality of Life Ratings
The respondents were asked to rate various aspects relating to the quality of life in Kent using a scale of
`excellent,' `good,' `fair,' poor,' and `no opinion.' "The value of services received for your tav dollar"
was the most highly rated aspect in both 1999 and 2000, with 20.4% of the respondents reporting it as
`excellent' in 2000. "Kent as a place to live"was rated the second highest quality of life aspect (16.1%).
The lowest rated aspect was "the physical attractiveness of Kent as a whole" (10.3016).
Quality of Life Ratings
1999 Ratings Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion
The value of services received for your tax dollar 23.2% 51.6% 15.2% 4.2% 5.9%
Kent as a place to live 22.0% 56.5% 19.1% 1.7% 0.7%
_ The physical attractiveness of Kent as a whole 15.9% 54.5% 24.2% 4.6% 0.7%
The relationships between people of different 10.8% 53.8% 20.8% 3.7% 7 11.0%
races and cultures in the City of Kent
2000 Ratings Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion
The value of services received for your tax dollar 20.4% 59.5% 17.6% 1.8% 0.8%
Kent as a place to live 16.1% 54.8% 18.3% 4.8% 6.0%
The physical attractiveness of Kent as a whole 10.3% 53.8% 23.4% 4.0% 8.5%
The relationships between people of different
races and cultures in the City of Kent 12.8% 1 46.7% 1 33.4% 6.3% 0.8%
T
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Miehael J.Link Page 7
QUALITY OF LIFE _
Accuracy of City of Kent's Vision
The sample of Kent residents was then asked to indicate whether or not they felt, overall, that the City of
Kent is headed in the right direction. Over 60 percent of the respondents(63.6%) reported that the City of _
Kent is headed in the right direction. Twenty-two percent (21.6%) reported Kent is not headed in the
right direction and another 14.8%were unsure.
Accuracy of Kent's Vision
80.0% .
70.0% -- - -----
-- -
w.q�.
60.0% — -_
50.0% - - - ------- ----- _
y". 40.0%
C
30.0% ._—
a
20.0% — -
0.0/o
Yes No -- Don't know -
031999 70.7% 16.9% 12.5%
2000 63.6% 21.6% 14.8%
Additional analysis showed that residents who have lived in Kent for five vears or less are significantly
more confident that Kent is headed in the right direction than other residents. Residents who have lived
in Kent for more than 20 years are significantly less likely to feel that Kent is headed in the right
direction. [Cramer's V= 0.131]
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. Citv of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragdn/Miehael J.Link Page 8
QUALITY OF LIFE
Volunteer Analysis
(k
More than one-half of the respondents (52.3%) indicated that either they, and/or a member of their
household, volunteer time outside the home to benefit a charitable or commumtti organization, program or
project.
Volunteer Time Outside the Home
_ 90.0% _. -- -- - - -- - - -
80.0%
70.0% -- - ----- ---- -- -
60.0% - - -- --
d
O
50.0%
1 �
8
i 30.0%
20.0% _
�^ 10.0%
0.0%
Yes No
E3 1999 47.2% 49.5%
2000 52.3% _50.0010
Residents who have lived in Kent for less than 5 years are significantly less likely to report that they or a
member of their household volunteers outside the home than residents who have lived in Kent for 6 years
or more. [Cramer's V= 0.145]
Residents who own their homes are significantly more likely to report volunteering outside the home than
-- respondents who rent a house, condominium, or apartment. [Cramer's V= 0.167]
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Miehael I Link Page 9
QUALITY OF LIFE
Most Important Issues in Kent
Respondents were asked to list what they feel are the three most important issues facing the Kent
community overall. This open-ended question allowed respondents to give unaided responses. In 1999
`traffic' was seen as the most important issue with 35 percent (35.4%) of the respondents giving this _
response. The next most commonly reported issues were 'growth management' (21.5%),
'schools/quality'(14.9%)and `crime/vandalism'(13.0%).
In the 2000 survey, `traffic' was once again the most important issue with 41.2% of respondents giving
this response. `Overpopulation and growth management'(23.9%), `schools and education' (21.1%). and
,over development of land (11.3%) were the next most frequently reported issues. `Overpopulation' was the issue that saw the largest increase in importance (an increase of 12.4%), nearly doubling between
1999 and 2000.
Most Important Issues in City of Kent(1999)
Kent Issues Percent of Kent Issues Percent of
Respondents Respondents
Traffic 35.4% Community unity/image -1.4% _
Growth management/keep up 21.5% Gangs 2.4%
Schools/quality 14.9% More youth programs 2.2%
Crime/vandalism 13.0% Race relations 2.2% _
Overcrowding/overpopulation 11.5% Revitalize/preserve downtown 2.2%
Control development 8.8% Improve traffic signals 1.7% -�
Roads/street repairs 8.6% Need teen activities 1.7%
Too many apartments 5.6% Class size/too large 1.5%
Education 5.1% Housing demands 1.5%
Transportation 4.4% Faster police response 1.2% _
Adequate fire/police 3.7% Not enough single houses 1.2%
Drug/alcohol watch 2.9% Recreational facilities 1.2%
Rapid transit/rail system 2.9% Side of streets/bushes 1.2% _
Safety of citizens 2.7% None 1.5%
Taxes are too high 2.7% Don't know 14.4%
*Multiple Response Question
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citmide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 10
Most Important Issues in City of Kent (2000)
_ Kent Issues Percent of Kent Issues Percent of
Respondents Respondents
Traffic/Transportation 41.2% Cost of Living 2.8%
_ Overpopulation/Growth
Management 23.9% Preserving Green Space 2.8%
Schools/Education 21.1% Cleanliness 2.3%
Over development 11.3% Youth Violence/Vandalism 2.0%
Road Improvements 11.1% Local Government 1.8%
Crime/Security 10.6% More Activities/Entertainment 1.8%
Police/Law Enforcement 7.5% Community Awareness 1.5%
Rising Taxes 5.3% Commercial Growth 1.3%
Better Parks/More 4.0% Job Opportunities 1.3%
More for kids to do/youth
activities 4.0% Race Relations 1.3%
Railroad tracks going through
Revitalizing Downtown 3.8% downtown 1.3%
Affordable Housing 3.5% Zoning 1.3%
Homelessness 3.3% None 2.5%
Environmental Issues 3.0% Don't Know 1 10.6%
*Multiple Response Question
o__-
w
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page I
PUBLIC INFORMATION _
Primary Information Sources
f £�
w�lilu�
The `newspaper' was the primary source of information for 66.1% of respondents. Other frequent
responses included the 'KentConnections Newsletter' (36.2%), `Television' (33.7%), and `Word of
Mouth' (25.9%).
Residents reporting the 'City of Kent Government Access Channel 21' as a primary source of information
fell by more than 20 percent from 1999 to 2000, from 32.3% in 1999 to 8.0% in 2000. It is impossible to
ascertain whether this reflects an actual drop in viewership between 1999 and 2000, or whether it is an
issue of asking the question unaided. Likewise, the readership of the 'KentConnections newsletter'
dropped by nearly one-half, from 71.4% in 1999 to 36.2% in 2000. It is possible that some respondents who listed the newspaper as their primary source of information consider the 'KentConnections
newsletter' to be included in that source.
It should be noted that the questions were phrased slightly differently between 1999 and 2000. In 1999,
respondents were directly asked if they ever watched the Government Access Channel 21 or if they ever
read the City of Kent KentConnections Newsletter. In the 2000 questionnaire, respondents were simply _
asked their primary sources of information about the City of Kent. Asking specifically if respondents
have heard of certain sources of information is considered a measure of'aided awareness,' while the latter
method is considered a measure of 'unaided awareness.' Response to aided awareness questions is
typically more positive than responses to unaided awareness.
Primary Source of Information About Kent
Percent'.of Pereentvf
;Respondetfits Respondents
Primary Source (1999) (2000)
Newspaper NA 66.1%
City of Kent KentConnections Newsletter in the
Kent Reporter 71.4% 36.2% --
Television NA 33.7%
Word of Mouth NA 25.9%
Radio NA 9 8% r
City of Kent Government Access Channel 21 32.3% 8.0%
Other NA 21.6% ..,
Don't' Know NA 1.3%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of ti ent—Citvwide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 12
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Value of KTV's Information
.�
The portion of the sample that indicated that they watch Kent TV (KTV) was asked to rate how well the
channel informs them of City of Kent business. Over 60 percent of the respondents (62.5%) rated the
channel's value as `good' or `excellent. ' Thirteen percent (12.5%) of the respondents gave a 'poor'
rating.
The proportion of residents who rated the value of KTV's information 'poor' increased substantially from
0.8% in 1999 to 12.5% in 2000, while those who rated it `excellent' fell from 21.2% in 1999 to 9.4% in
2000.
Value of KTV's Information
60.0% _ --- - —--_ - - -
50.0% _ ---
v 40.0% __ - --- —
9
C
G
30.0% --
a:
�. 10.0% -_ x
a�
Excellent Good Fair Poor No opinion/don't
know
01999 21.2% 50.8% 25.8% 0.8% 1.5%
iM2000 9.4% 53.1% 25.0% 12.5% 0.00/0
_ HEBERT RESEARCH,INC � City q(Xent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 13
PUBLIC INFORMATION _
Value of Kent's Newsletter Information
mod' li�i
The respondents who indicated that they read the City of Kent's newsletter were asked to rate the
newsletter's ability to keep them informed of City business. Seventy-nine percent (79.1%) of the _
respondents reported a 'good'or 'excellent'rating in 2000.
Value of Newsletter Information
70.0%
60.0% -- -- - —
50.0% - - -- - -_
40.0% - - -—_ -
� V
30.0% -- - -- -
20.0% - ---- ------
0.0% - - -
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know/No ..�
Opinion --.,
,131999 18.2% 60.6% 17.5% 1.6% - 2.1%
02000 22.2% 56.9% 16.7% 2.1% 2.1%
"1
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 14
CONTACT WITH CITY OF KENT EMPLOYEES
Recent Contact With City Employees
Twenty-two percent(22.1%)of the respondents reported that they had contacted a City of Kent employee
regarding City services during the past 12 months. Seventy-seven percent (77.4%) of the respondents
indicated they had not made such contact during this time frame. Residents who reported contacting City
of Kent employees in the 2000 survey fell by over seven percent from 29.3% in 1999 to 22.1%.
Recent Contact with City Employees
90.0%
80.0% _
70.0% -
M
d K
S 50.0%
G r
9
30.0% __ w
20.0% Jim -
10.0% — — IP
0.0% -- sup
Yes --- ----- - No -
®1999 29.3% 70.7%
2000 22.1% 77.4%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael I Link Page 15
CONTACT WITH CITY OF KENT EMPLOYEES _
City Departments Contacted
The respondents who indicated they had contacted a City of Kent employee within the last 12 months
were asked which department they had contacted. The most frequently reported department was police'
with 20.5% giving this response. The next most common responses were 'planning' (14.8%), `utilin,
billing and customer service' (14.8%), and `public works' (13.6%). Residents who contacted a City of
Kent planning employee nearly doubled between 1999 and 2000, from 7.5% to 14.8%. Approximately
the same proportion of respondents contacted other city departments in 2000 as did in 1999. A more
complete listing of responses can be found in the table below:
City of Kent Department Contacted
City Department Percent of Percent of
Respondents Respondents
(1999) (2000)
Police 20.0% 20.5%
Planning 7.5% 14.8%
Utility billing and customer service 16.7% 14.8%
Public Works 9.20 13.6%
Parks and Recreation 10.0% 8.0%
Fire 5.0% 3.5%
Mayor's Office 4.2% 3.4%
Personnel/Human Resources/ES 5.0% 0.0%
Municipal Court 2.5% 0.0%
Other 18.3% 20.5%
Refused 0.0% 0.0%
Don't know 1.7% 1.1% _
*Multiple Response Question
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC City ojKent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 16
CONTACT WITH CITY OF KENT EMPLOYEES
Method of Contact
_ a
'— The respondents who indicated they had contacted a City of Kent employee reL'arding City services
within the last year were asked what method they used to contact that employee. Sixty percent (60.2%)
of the respondents reported that they used the `telephone' to contact the City employee. Thirtv-six
percent(36.4%)of the respondents said they contacted a City employee 'in person.
Method of Contacting City Employee
70.0°r° — --— —--- --- ——
60.0°ro -- — ---- -- —
50.0°ro — �
40.0% - - - - - - -
30.0% -
d
20.0% -- -
0.0% 1 - —
By phone In person tt Other
p 1999 59.2% 38.3% 2.5%
02000 60.2% 36.4% 2.3%
_ HEBERT RESEARCH,INC City oJKent-Citvwide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 17
CONTACT WITH CITY OF KENT EMPLOYEES _
Level of City Contact's Courtesy
r
The sample was asked to rate the courtesy of the City employee with whom they had contact using a scale
of`excellent' `good,' `fair,' `poor,' and `no opinion. Eighty-four percent(84.1%) of the respondents gave
ratings of 'excellent'or 'good. ' Only six percent(5.7%)of the sample gave a poor'rating. _
Level of City Contact's Courtesy `
60.0% ---- -- - --
50.0% —
40.0%
9
C
6
30.0% .-
10.0% -
0.0%
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't knox
p 1999 56.7% 31.7% 5.0% 4.2% 2.4%
E2000 50.0% 34.1% 8.0% 5.7% 2.3% .�
i
i
'1
i
�-t
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citvwide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Miehael J.Link Page 18
CONTACT WITH CITY OF KENT EMPLOYEES
Level of City Contact's Knowledge
Using the same scale of `excellent' to `poor,' the respondents were asked to rate the City employee's
knowledge regarding their particular issue. More than 80 percent of the respondents (80.6%) gave ratings
of `excellent'or `good ' Ten percent of the respondents(10.2%) indicated a �)oor'rating.
Level of City Contact's Knowledge
w
50.0% - - - -
45.0% ---- -
40.0% -- -- - -
35.0% _ - -- - - -
30.0% _
25.0% _ - -- - -
20.0
_ 15.0% - --- --
10.0% - -
5.0% -
0.0% -
Excellent Good Fair Poor No opinion/Don't
know
01999 43.3% 33.3% 10.1% --- _ 7.5% 5.8%
2000 38.6% 42.0% 6.8% 10.2% 2.3%
_ HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. Citv of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Miehael I Link Page 19
CONTACT WITH CITY OF KENT EMPLOYEES
City Contact's Willingness to Help
^.
Nearly three-quarters of the respondents(72.8%)gave City employees an 'excellent'or 'good'rating with
their willingness to address the respondents' concerns. Residents giving City employees an 'excellent' _
rating for their willingness to help fell eleven points from 50.8% in 1999 to 39.8% in 2000, while those
receiving `good'ratings increased eight percentage points from 25.0% in 1999 to 33.0% in 2000.
City Contact's Willingness to Help
60.0% - — — __ •—
50.0% — _ -— — -- --
9y�
h 40.0% ._ -----
a
30.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Excellent Good Fair Poor No opinion/Don't
kno"
01999 50.8% 25.0%o o —
10.9/o IO. o Oio 3.3%
E2000 39.8% 33.0% 12.5% 11.4% 3.4%
According to multivariate analysis, residents who rent a house were significantly more likely to rate City
of Kent employees -willingness to help as `excellent' while residents who rent a condominium or
apartment were significantly more likely to rate their willingness to help as 'poor. ' [Cramer's V =
0.2761
-1
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Miehael I Link Page 20
PUBLIC SAFETY
Safety in City of Kent
The total sample was asked to rate how safe they feel in Kent, overall, using a 0 to 10 scale, with 10
meaning"extremely safe" and 0 meaning "not at all safe." Slightly less than one-half of the respondents
(47.5%) indicated they felt `very safe'by indicating ratings of 8 to 10. Another 47.5% reported that they
L- felt 'somewhat safe, 'reporting ratings of 4 to 7. Only five percent(5.0%) indicated they do 'not feel very
safe'(0-3) in Kent.'
E
Safety in City of Kent
8
i.. 60.0%
50.0%
40.0% -_ —
a
�r a
30.0% ._ ✓
0
d
20.0%
f :
10.0% .— - -- - ------
Very Safe(5-10) Somewhat Safe(4-7) Not Very Safe(0-3)
131999 52.2% 44.1% 3.7%
02000 47.5% - 47.5% 5.0%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 21
PUBLIC SAFETY _
Neighborhood Safety During the Day
The respondents were asked how safe they feel walking alone in their neighborhood during the day using
a scale of 'very safe,' `somewhat safe,' `somewhat unsafe,' `very unsafe,' and 'no opinion.' More than
90 percent (94.2%) of the respondents feel 'somewhat safe' or 'very safe' walking alone in their
neighborhood during the day.
Neighborhood Safety During the Day
80.0% _
70.0°ro — - --_
60.0% -- ---- -- - -
50.0% - ----
C
6
40.0% --
0
30.0% ---
a
10.0% -
0.0% r
Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe
No opinion/Don't
know
E3 1999 71.7% 22.5% -- - 3.9% 0.2% 1.7%
- -----
2000 70.1% 24.1% 4.0% 1.0% 0.8%
^f
out
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 22
PUBLIC SAFETY
Neighborhood Safety After Dark
Using the same scale, the respondents were asked how safe they feel walking alone in their neighborhood
after dark. The percentage of people who indicated they feel 'somewhat safe' or 'very safe' significantly
decreased from 94.2% in the previous question to 61.6%. This was a consistent finding for both the 1999
and 2000 surveys. Fourteen percent(14.1%) of the respondents indicated they feel 'very unsafe' walking
alone in their neighborhood at night.
Neighborhood Safety After Dark
.� 40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0% -
6
20.0%
C
15.0% -- - —_
a`
10.0%
5.0% .
�► Very safe Somewhat safe unsafe Somewhat Very unsafe Refused No opinion/
don't know
M 1999 29.1% 34.2% 15.2% 13.00% 0.2% 8.3%
02000 26.9% 34.7% 17.8% 14.1% 0.3% 6.3%
Multivariate analysis indicates that male respondents were more likely to feel 'very sae'walking alone in
their neighborhood after dark than female respondents. [Cramer's V= 0.272]
Residents who have lived in Kent for more than 20 years were significantly more likely to report feeling
very unsafe' walking alone in their neighborhood after dark than other respondents. [Cramer's V =
0.153]
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC City of Kent—Citvwide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Micbael J.Link Page 23
PUBLIC SAFETY _
City of Kent Crime Victims
Seventeen percent (16.6%) of the respondents indicated that either they, or someone else in their
household, had been a victim of a crime in Kent within the past 12 months. The most commonly reported _
crimes involved 'vandalism' (48.5%), 'theft/burglary' (31.80/o), and 'assault' (16.7%). Between 1999
and 2000, crimes against property and simple assaults increased among survey respondents, while
vehicular crimes were not reported by any respondents in 2000. `Vandalism,' in particular, increased by
more than 31 percentage points from 1999 to 2000. A more complete listing of responses can be found in _
the table on the following page:
City of Kent Crime Victims
90.0°ro
80.0°i° —
70.0°ro - -- - ---- -- -- -
,��x
60.0% - -- - ---- - - -
50.0% -— ----
° 40.0%
30.0%
20.0% - -
q m
0.0% <.
Yes —_ No
0 1999 14.9% 85.1
2000 16.6% 83.4%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 24
Nature of Crimes
Nature of Crime Percent of Percent of
Respondents Respondents
(1999) (2000)
Vandalism 16.7% 48.5%
Theft/burglary 30.0% 31.8%
Assault 10.0% 16.7%
Property break in 11.7% 4.5%
Attempted burglary 3.3% 0.0%
Attempted rape 3.3% 0.0%
Car break in 16.7% 0.0%
—' Domestic violence 3.3% 0.0%
Hit and run 3.3% 0.0%
Mail theft 6.7% 0.0%
Stolen vehicle 13.3% 0.0%
Other 10.2% 3.0%
*Multiple Response Question
`Other'responses were reported by less than 2%of the sample
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 25
PUBLIC SAFETY _
Crime Reported to the Police
Residents who had been involved in a crime, either personally or through a household member, were
asked if they, or a member of their household, had reported the crime to the police. Nearly 80 percent —
(78.8%) of the respondents reported the incident to the police. A significant portion of the sample
(21.2%), however, stated that the crime was not reported. These proportions remained nearly unchanged
from 1999 to 2000.
Crime Reported to the Police
90.0%
80.0%
�r —
70.0
„ 60.0% -
c
g 50.0% - -
z
40.0% - -—-
d 30.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Yes No .�
p 1999 78.7% 21.3%
2000 78.8% 21.2% - -
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 26
PUBLIC SAFETY
Contact With Kent Police
The entire sample was asked if they have had any contact with Kent police in the past 12 months. One-
third (33.4%) of the sample indicated they were in contact with Kent police during this period. Twenty-
six percent (25.5%) reported that this contact had taken place because they had been a 'crime victim,
while 21.6% `were a witness to a crime' and 17.6% `were suspected of a crime.'
Recent Contact with Kent Police
70.0% --- --
60.0% --- - ---
50.0%
d "
'-s 40.0% — - — -- ---
s
20.0% --- - - - -- s
Fs .
10.0%
L 0.0%
Yes No
®1999 38.6% 61.4%
M 2000 33.4% 66.1%
Nature of Contact With Kent Police
Nature of Contact Percent of Percent of
Respondents Respondents
(1999) (2000)
Crime victim 29.3% 25.5%
Was a witness to a crime 11.4% 21.6%
_ Was suspected of a crime 3.6% 17.6%
Needed other assistance 17.9% 5.9%
Was suspected of a traffic
violation 9.6% 3.9%
Public education 4.3% 0.0%
Other 22.9% 37.3%
Don't know 1.4% 0.0%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. GO,of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 27
PUBLIC SAFETY _
Courtesy of Police Employees
ngpgg
The respondents were then asked to rate the courtesy of the officer or police employee with whom they
had contact. Over three-quarters of the respondents (75.2%) indicated that the officer or police employee _
they had contact with was `very courteous. ' Another seventeen percent (17.3%) reported the person was
`somewhat courteous. ' Only five percent (5.3%) of the respondents indicated the officer or police
employee was 'not very courteous'or `not courteous at all.
Courtesy of Kent Police Employees
90.0% --- - - -
80.0% — --- - --
70.0% - -- - ------ — -
h 60.0% - - ---
a 50.0% -
40.0%
30.0% -- -
20.0%
10.0% - ------ -- -
0.0% _ - -
Very courteous Somewhat Not very courteous Not at all courteous No opinion/Don't
courteous know -�
131999 77.8% 15.9% 0.6% - -- 1.9% 3.8%
E2000 75.2% 17.3% 1.501. 3.8% 2.3%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared ty Carlos A.A rag MlMichael J.Link Page 28
PUBLIC SAFETY
_ Kent Fire Department Emergency Services
Thirteen percent (13.2%) of those surveyed indicated that either they, or members of their household, had
received emergency services from the Kent Fire Department in the past 12 months. Of those who had
received these services, 85 percent(85.2%) indicated that the Kent Fire Department's emergency services
were 'excellent, 'with another thirteen percent(13.0%)rating them as 'good. '
Recent Contact with Kent Fire Department
100.0°i° - - - -- - - - -
90.0%
80.0°r° ---- -- — '
At
c
c
xa.
50.0% —
40.0% -- -
a ,
30.0%
20.0% -- --------
10.0% a.
0.0% y'
Yes No Don't Knox
p 1999 13.2% 86.8% 0.0%
2000 13.6% 86.2% 0.3%
Emergency Service Rating Percent of Percent of
Respondents Respondents
(1999) (2000)
Excellent 87.0% 85.2%
Good 9.3% 13.0%
Fair 3.7% 0.0%
Poor 0.0% 0.0%
No Opinion/Don't Know 0.0% 1.9%
Multivariate analysis shows that residents of Kent's West Hill rated the emergency fire and medical
services lower than other respondents, and were significantly more likely to give it a `good' rating than
an 'excellent'rating. [Cramer's V= 0.743]
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 29
PUBLIC SAFETY _
Emergency Preparedness
The respondents were asked how prepared their household is for dealing with an emergency such as an
earthquake. More than one-quarter of the respondents (26.4%) indicated that they are 'very prepared'
and one-half (50.0%) said they were `somewhat prepared. ' Eight percent (7.8%) of the respondents
indicated they were `very unprepared ' Emergency preparedness increased from 1999 to 2000 among
Dent residents. Those saying they were `very unprepared' fell from 12.0% in 1999 to 7.8% in 2000,
while those who were `very prepared' increased from 22.0% in 1999 to 26.4% 1112000. `
Emergency Preparedness
60.0% -- -- - --- -- - - - -
50.0% --- - - -
40.0% - - - - -
9
C
G
30.0% — - --- - - _ - - - --
20.0% --- _
10.0% _ —
Lin
0.0% -- Very prepared Somewhat prepared Somewhat Very unprepared No opinion/don't ...
unprepared knoxN'
1999 22.0% 48.4% 14.7% 12.0% _ 2.9%
02000 26.4% 50.0% 15.1% 7.8% 0.8%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. Cih,of Kent-Citvwide External Studp
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragdn/Miehael J.Link Page 30
PUBLIC SAFETY
Accident Preparedness
Respondents were then asked how prepared their household is for dealing with an emergency such as a
heart attack or serious accident. Thirty-seven percent of respondents(36.9%)are 'very prepared.' while
43.0% are `somewhat prepared.' Only four percent(4.0%)are 'very unprepared.'
Accident Preparedness
50.0% - --____ ----------.___-- .-_
45.0% - -- --- - _
40.0% —
9 30.0% ---
a
25.0% - -
ire 20.0% _ --- -
a
15.0010 --- — —--
10.0% --
n :
5.0% .-- --- -- -
0.0% - - - - - --
Very prepared Somewhat Somewhat Very unprepared No opinion/don't
prepared unprepared know
-— - - _ ---- ---
M Preparedness 36.4% 43.0% 13.6% 4.0% 2.5%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citvh,ide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 31
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES _
Leisure and Recreational Activities
The respondents were asked to list the three leisure and recreation activities that they and their family
members participate in the most. The three most common responses were 'walking' (21.4%). 'bicvcling' _
(15.3%) and `camping' (14.6%). Other frequently reported activities included 'hiking' (10.6%),
`swimming'(10.3%), and `golf'(10.1%). A more complete listing of responses can be found in the table
below:
Leisure and Recreational Activities
Activity Percent of Percent of Activity Percent of Percent of
Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents`
(1999) (2000) (1999) (2000) --
Walking 20.0% 21.4% Church activities 2.9% 3.5%
Bicycling 16.4% 15.3% Skiing 3.4% 3.5%
Camping 15.4% 14.6% Running/jogging 2.4% 3.0%
Hiking 11.7% 10.6% Exercise/working out 2.4% 2.8%
Swimming 9.3% 10.3% Soccer 3.4% 2.8%
Golf 13.7% 10.1% Basketball, playing 2.9% 2.5% -
Gardening 6.4% 8.5% Bowling 0.0% 2.5%
Fishing 7.3% 8.3% Shopping 2.9% 2.5%
Traveling/sightseeing 6.1% 6.5% Computers 0.0% 2.3% --
Movies 8.1% 5.8% Crafts 0.0% 2.3%
Reading 5.6% 5.8% Baseball,watching 0.0% 2.0%
Television 2.7% 5.8% Tennis 2.9% 2.0%
Boating 6.4% 5.3% Sports, watching 9.3% 1.5%
Sports, playing 2.4% 5.0% Basketball, watching 0.0% 1.0%
Family/kids 4.4% 1 4.3% 10ther 15.2% 1 42.5%
Dining Out 2.2% 4.0% INone 8.6% 6.0%
Baseball, playing 5.9% 3.8% 1Don't Know 1?% 2.0%
*Multiple Response Question
`Other'responses were reported by less than 1.0%of the respondents
.>. ,.,
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC City of Kent-Citvwide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael I Link Page 32
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Cities Visited for Leisure/Recreational Activities
The respondents were asked to identify the city in which they participate in the leisure/recreational
activities mentioned in the previous question. Over three-quarters (79.0%) of the respondents indicated
that they stay in 'Kent' to participate in recreational activities. `Seattle' was the next most common
response with eleven percent(10.7%), followed by 'Renton'(9.3%), 'Auburn'(8.5%), and 'Federal Way'
(5.5%). A more complete list of responses can be found in the table below:
Cities Visited For Leisure/Recreational Activities
City Percent of Percent of
Respondents Respondents
(1999) (2000)'
Auburn 5.9% 8.5%
Bellevue 1.0% 1.6%
Burien 0.8% 0.8%
Covington 1.0% 5.2%
Des Moines 1.8% 3.8%
Federal Way 5.9% 5.5%
Issaquah 1.3% 0.3%
Kent 76.7% 79.0%
Maple Valley 1.0% 2.5%
_ Puyallup 0.5% 0.5%
Renton 7.0% 9.3%
SeaTac 1.8% 1.4%
_ Seattle 13.2% 10.7%
Tacoma 2.1% 3.0%
Other 32.00/. 38.0%
_ Don't Know 4.9% 1.1%
*Multiple Response Question
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 33
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES _
Unfulfilled Recreational Needs in Kent
More than one-third of the respondents (37.2%) indicated that they do not have any unfulfilled recreation
needs in the City of Kent. The responses varied widely for this question, with the most frequently _
mentioned unfulfilled needs being 'swimming' and 'bic-
ycling' (3.4% and 1.5%, respectively). Other
unfulfilled needs included 'sports' (1.3%), `baseball, ' basketball, ' 'movies' and 'dining' (1.0%,
respectively). A more complete listing of responses can be found in the table below: -
Unfulfilled Recreational Needs in Kent
Unfulfilled Recreation Percent of Percent of
Needs Respondents Respondents
(1999) (2000) -
Swimming 3.4% 3.5%
Bicycling 1.5% 1.5%
Sports, playing 0.0% 1.3% -
Baseball, playing 0.0% 1.0%
Basketball, playing 1.2% 1.0%
Movies 0.7% 1.0%
Shopping 0.0% 1.0%
Dining Out 0.7% 0.8%
Horseback Riding 0.0% 0.8% -
Tennis 1.0% 0.8% -�
Dancing 1.0% 0.5%
Family/Kids 0.7% 0.5% --
Golf 0.0% 0.5%
Hiking 0.0% 0.5%
Plays 1.0% 0.5%
Skiing 0.0% 0.5%
Soccer 0.7% 0.5%
Volleyball 0.0% 0.5% -
Art Exhibits 0.0% 0.3%
Ballet 0.0% 0.3%
Boating 0.0% 0.3% -
Bowling 0.0% 0.3%
Camping 0.0% 0.3%
Canoeing/Kayaking 0.0% 0.3%
Exercise/working out 0.0% 0.3%
Walking 0.0% 0.3%
Other 0.0% 31.9%
None 50.9% 37.2%
Don't Know 21.3%
*Multiple Response Question
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 34
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Park Amenity Importance Ratings
w
'- Using a 0 to 10 scale, with 10 meaning `extremely high importance" and 0 meaning "extremely low
importance," the respondents were asked to rate the importance of specific park amenities. The most
important amenities were `major parks that serve all areas of the city with picnic areas. trails and open
play areas that serve groups and families' (mean=8.08), `outdoor athletic facilities jor vouth'
(mean=8.02), `small neighborhood parks that serve families and individuals' (mean=8.01), and 'natural
areas and open spaces' (mean=7.98).
Park Amenity Importance Ratings
Very Somewhat Not Very
Park Amenity(1999) Important Important Important Mean
(8-10) (4-7) (0-3)
Natural areas and open spaces 75.5% 19.9% 4.6% 8.22
Major parks that serve all areas of the city with
picnic areas,trails, and open play areas that serve 68.4% 26.2% 5.4% 7.93
groups and families
Outdoor athletic facilities for youth 72.0% 21.8% 6.2% 7.93
Small neighborhood parks that serve families and 66.8% 27.8% 5.4% 7.83
individuals
Expanded recreational trails in and out of parks 59.6% 34.6% 5.8% 7.42
Indoor recreation facilities for social programs, 51.6% 39.8% 8.6% 7.07
-- events and athletics
Parks with fishing, boating and swimming 51.4% 38.7% 9.90/0 7.07
Outdoor athletic facilities for adults 48.1% 44.5% 7.4% 6.96
Very Somewhat Not Very
Park Amenity('2000) Important Important Important Mean
(8-10) (4-7) (0-3)
Major parks that serve all areas of the city with
picnic areas,trails an open play areas that serve
groups and families 68.0% 29.0% 3.1% 8.08
Outdoor athletic facilities for youth 69.4% 25.4% 5.2% 8.02
Small neighborhood parks that serve families and
individuals 1 70.8% 25.0% 4.4% 8.01
Natural areas and open spaces 63.9% 33.3% 2.9% 7.98
Expanded recreational trails in and out of parks 56.5% 38.5% 5.0% 7.41
'- Indoor recreation facilities for social programs,
events and athletics 52.2% 41.4% 6.3% 7.27
Outdoor athletic facilities for adults 51.5% 42.5% 6.1% 7.18
Parks with fishing, boating and swimming 51.2% 41.1% 7.6% 7.05
Bicycle trails and a BMX park 50.4% 38.9% 10.7% 6.97
Indoor aquatic facilities 45.8% 43.4% 10.8% 6.78
Additional skate parks 32.8% 49.5% 17.6% 6.01
Formal or botanical gardens 31.3% 50.1% 18.6% 5.91
_ HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City q(Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragdn/Micbael J.Link Page 35
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES _
Parks Visited Most Frequently yIy�aam�,,
Respondents were asked which parks they visit most often. The most frequently visited park, according
to respondents, is `Lake Meridian' (29.1%). Other popular parks include `Fenwick Park' (12.3%), `Lake
Wilderness' (6.8%), `Soos Creek Trail' (6.3%), `Earthworks Park' (5.8%), and `Saltwater .State Park'
(5.8%).
Parks Visited Most Frequently
Percentpof: ,Percent of Percent of
Parks Visited Respondents Parks°Visited Respondents Parks Visited Respondents
Lake Meridian 29.1% Lake Sawyer 1.0% Densacot Park 0.3%
Fenwick 12.3% Woodland Park(Seattle) 1.0% Fin Lake 0.3%
Lake Wilderness 6.8% Garrison Park 0.8% Gary Grant Park 0.3%
Soos Creek Trail 6.3% Kiwanis Service Clubs 0.8% Grandview Park 0.3% _
Earthworks Park 5.8% Lincoln Park(W. Seattle) 0.8% Kent Kennaly 0.3%
Saltwater State Park 5.8% Mt. Rainier 0.8% Lake Chelan 0.3%
Russell Road Park 5.0% Alki Beach(Seattle) 0.5% Lakemont Park 0.3% -
Green River Trail 4.5% Cherry Hill 0.5% Manchester State Park 0.3%
Riverbend Golf Course 4.0% Ft. Dent(Renton) 0.5% Marina Park(Des Moines) 0.3%
oulen Park 3.8% Gas Works(Seattle) 0.5% Palmer Park 0.3%
Kent Commons 3.5% Grasslawn 0.5% Panther Lake 0.3%
Flaming Geyser 3.0% Green Lake (Seattle) 0.5% Pea Patch Park 0.3%
Dash Point State Park 1.8% Pine Tree Park 0.5% Ravensdale Park 0.3%
Marymoor Park(Redmond) 1.8% West Hill Park 0.5% Reat Road Park 0.3%
East Hill Park 1.5% Anderson Park 0.3% Sand Park 0.3% -
Kanaskit Park 1.5% Arbor Village Park 0.3% Steel Lake Park 0.3%
Mill Creek Park 1.5% Belfair State Park 0.3% Turnkey Park 0.3% _
Steel Lake Park 1.5% Canterbury Trail 0.3% Other 21.1%
Glen Nelson Park 1.3% Canyon Park 0.3% None 6.0%
Kent Memorial Park 1.3% Carco Park 0.3% Don't Know 17.8%
Interurban Trail 1.0% Cedar River Park 0.3%
*Multiple Response Question
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. Citv of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 36
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Frequency of Visits
All respondents were asked how many times (annually) they visit these parks. Among parks reported by
at least 5.0% of respondents, `Russell Road Park' received the most visits annually (mean=51.9,
median=27.5). Other parks that were visited frequently include Soos Creek Trail 0mean=35.4,
median=15.0), Fenwick(mean=41.2, median=13.5), and Lake Meridian (mean=22.8, median=]0.0).
Frequency of Visits
Mean Number I Median
Percent of of Annual Number of
Parks Visited Most Frequently Respondents Visits Annual Visits '
Russell Road Park 5.0% 51.9 27.5
Soos Creek Trail 5.8% 35.4 15.0
Fenwick 6.8% 41.2 13.5
Lake Meridian 29.1% 22.8 10.0
Saltwater State Park 5.8% 11.2 9.0
Lake Wilderness 6.3% 9.3 7.5
Earthworks Park 12.3% 37.9 7.0
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared kv Carlos A.Aragdn/Michael J.Link Page 37
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES _
Kent Recreation Programs, Activities and Cultural Events
Respondents were asked to list the Kent recreation programs, activities or cultural events, in which they
have participated within the last year. The most common response, given by more than one-third (36.7%) _
of the respondents, was festivals. ' Other common responses included 'concerts' (24.9%), 'youth
athletics'(22.9%)and `adult athletics'(]4.6%). `Festivals'and `concerts'were reported more frequently
in 2000 than in 1999, while 'youth athletics'was reported less frequently. Other responses were reported
in approximately the same proportion from 1999 to 2000. A more complete listing of responses can be
found in the table below:
Type of Program,Activity or Event
Program,Activity Percent of Percent of _
or Event Respondents Respondents
(1999) (2000)
Festivals 30.1% 36.7%
Concerts 14.1% 24.9%
Youth Athletics 33.3% 22.9%
Adult Athletics l 7.9% 14.6%
Adult enrichment such as
cooking or aerobics 7.1% 9.0%
Senior center activities 8.3% 8.5% _
Youth/teen activities 9.0% 7.8%
Youth enrichment such as ballet 3.2% 6.8% --�.
Late night teen program (called _
Lighthouse) 0.0% 2.0%
Saturday/Sunday market 3.2% 1.8%
Special populations(physically _
challenged) 0.0% 0.8%
Cornucopia Days 3.2% 0.0%
Canterbury fair 2.6% 0.0%
Street fairs 1.9% 0.0%
Other 0.0% 7.5%
Refused 0.0% 23.6% _
Don't Know 4.5% 8.8%
*Multiple Response Question
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael I Link Page 38
STREETS AND TRAFFIC
Cleanliness of Neighborhood Streets
Nearly 90 percent (89.9%) of the respondents reported that the streets in their nei'=hborhood are
'somewhat clean' to 'very clean, ' while less than ten percent (9.5%) indicated that they thought their
neighborhood streets were 'somewhat dirty'to 'very dirty. '
Cleanliness of Neighborhood Streets
60.0% - ---- - ----- - -- - -
50.0%
40.0% x
c %A
6
30.0%
° ✓
0.0%
Jim-
Very clean Somewhat clean Somewhat dirty Very dirty Don't know.
131999 47.9% 41.1% 7.1% 2.2% 1.7%
- ------ - -- ----- -- _
2000 45.7% 44.2% 7.5% 2.0% 0.5%
Residents of Kent who rent apartments or condominiums were significantly more likely to rate the
a' cleanliness of streets in their neighborhood as 'somewhat dirty'or 'very dirty'than residents who rent or
own homes. [Cramer's V= 0.160]
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. Citv of Kent-Citvwide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael A Link Page 39
STREETS AND TRAFFIC _
Cleanliness of Streets in Kent, Overall
� .
The respondents were then asked how they would rate the cleanliness of Kent streets, overall. Ninetv
percent (89.9%) of the respondents reported the streets are 'somewhat clean' or 'very clean. ' Only eight _
percent(8.1%) indicated that the streets are 'somewhat dirty'to `very dirty.'
Cleanliness of Streets in Kent, Overall _
70.0% -- -- - -
60.0% - --- - -
50.0% �-
40.0°ro s,- --
_,
S 30.0% F, - - - -- -- -
6 �
20.0%
10.0% -
q t
ay
No opinion/Don't
Very clean Somewhat clean Somewhat dirty Very
kno),ti
E3 1999 32.3% 57.5% 6.4% 0.6% 3.2%
�2000 30.957. 59.0% 7.3% 0.8% 2.0%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citvwide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragdn/Michael 1.Link Page 40
STREETS AND TRAFFIC
Condition of Surface/Pavement of Neighborhood Streets
One-third (33.7%) of the respondents indicated that the surface/pavement of streets in their neighborhood
are in 'good condition overall. ' More than one-half of the sample (55.8%) said the streets are 'mostly
good, but there are a few bad spots here and there. ' Only ten percent (9.8%) said there are 'many bad
spots. ' Fewer residents reported that the streets in Kent were in 'good condition overall' in 2000 (33.7%)
than in 1999 (41.6%).
Condition of Surface/Pavement of Neighborhood
Streets
60.0% -_ - --___---
50.0% —
40.0%
9
30.0%
`e
20.0%
10.0% _ ----- -
0.0%
�-*- Good,but a few bad
Good condition overall spots Many bad spots No opinion/don't know
- --- -- — - - - -- --
p 1999 41.6% 49.4% 6.8% 2.2%
2000 33.7% 55.8% 9.8% 0.8%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 41
STREETS AND TRAFFIC _
Condition of Surface/Pavement of Kent Streets, Overall
Twenty-one percent of the sample (20.6%) indicated that they would rate the surface/pavement of streets
in the City of Kent as being in `good condition overall. ' Nearly 70 percent (69.3%) said they would rate —
the surface of the streets in Kent as `mostly good, but a few bad spots here and there. ' Only eight percent
(8.3%) said they would rate the streets as having `many bad spots. '
Residents who reported that the overall condition of the surface and pavement of Kent streets was in —
`good condition overall' fell twelve percent from 32.8% in 1999 to 20.6% in 2000. Residents who
reported that the condition was `good, but a few bad spots' increased from 56.2% in 1999 to 69.3% in
2000, perhaps indicating some problems with road maintenance within the past twelve months. —
Condition of Surface/Pavement of Kent Streets —
Overall
80.0°i°
70.0°r° - - - - --
60.0°ro
50.0°ro - - - -- -- - - _ -
40.0% — -
T�.
30.0% — "
a"
20.0%
0.0%
Good condtion Good,but a few bad No opinion/don't —
overall spots Many bad spots Refused know
p 1999 32.8% 56.2% 5.9% - 0.0% 1% -
02000 20.6% 69.3% 8.3% 0.3% 1.5%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Miehael J.Link Page 42
STREETS AND TRAFFIC
Condition of Neighborhood Sidewalks
The sample was asked to rate the condition of the sidewalks in their neighborhood. Thirty-five percent
(34.9%) reported that the sidewalks are in 'good condition overall. ' Another twenty percent (19.8%)
indicated that the sidewalks in their neighborhood are 'mostly good, but a few bad spots here and there. '
Only five percent(5.0%) rated the sidewalks in their neighborhood as having 'many bad spots. ' Over 36
percent(36.7%)of the respondents indicated that they do not have sidewalks in their neighborhood.
Condition of Neighborhood Sidewalks
�. 45.0% — -
40.0% - -
35.0%
30.0% -- - - - --
a 25.0% -
20.0%
d 15.0% - -. - - - -
10.0% a
5.0%
0.0% NM
--
Y
Good condition Good,but a few No opinion/
Many bad spots No sidewalks Refused
overall bad spots don't know—
E3 1999 40.1% 23.0% 3.4% 30.8% 0.5% 2.2%
0 2000 34.9% 19.80/0 5.00/0 36.7% 0.3% 3.3%
1
Residents of the Kent Valley were significantly more likely to say that the sidewalks in their neighborhood
were in `good condition overall, ' while residents of other areas reported more frequently that 'there are
not any sidewalks in our neighborhood. ' [Cramer's V= 0.1601
Kent residents who rent an apartment or condominium rated the sidewalks in their neighborhood as
o being in 'good condition overall'significantly more frequently than other residents. Residents who own
their homes reported significantly more frequently that 'there are not any sidewalks in our neighborhood'
than those who rent homes, apartments, or condominiums. [Cramer's V= 0.167]
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 43
STREETS AND TRAFFIC _
Cut-Through Traffic on Side Streets
r
Nearly one-quarter(23.6%) of the sample 'strongly agreed'that cut-through traffic on neighborhood side
streets is a problem in their particular neighborhood. Twenty-one percent (21.4%) 'somewhat agreed' _
that this is a problem. Twenty-nine percent(28.9%) 'strongly disagreed'with the statement.
Cut-Through Traffic on Side Streets
35.0% - - - - --
30.0% _ —.- ---
25.0% — - - —
20.0% --- ---- -- - -_
G
vx
L
10.0% - -
5.0% --
Somewhat Strongly No opinion/
Strongly agree Somewhat agree disagree disagree Refused Don't knoNN `
p 1999 25.7% 17.8% 16.7% 32.0% 6.2% -7.6%
2000 23.6% 21.4% 21.4% 28.9% 0.00/0 4.8%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC City of Rent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 44
STREETS AND TRAFFIC
Excessive Speed on Side Streets
A
Over 60 percent(62.8%) of the respondents `somewhat agreed'or strongly agreed'that excessive speed
on side streets in their neighborhood is a problem. Nineteen percent(18.6%) strongly disagreed. '
Excessive Speed on Side Streets
�- 40.0% — - - -- —
35.0% . f"` -- ----- --
30.0% ------
H
25.0% -.-
20.0% -
0
15.0% --
a
10.0% :. __ g
5.0%
0.0%
ly
Strongly agree 'Somewhat agree Somewhat Strong Refused No opinion/
disagree disagree Don't know
- --
p 1999 37.2% 24.0% 10.8% 22.0% 0.2% 5.8%
�2000: 35.7% 27.1% 16.1% 18.6% 0.00% 2.5%
HEBERT RESEARCH,IN City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael J.Link Page 45
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS _
Support for Public Safety Spending
Respondents were asked to rate how strongly they support city spending for needed police and fire
facilities and replacement of fire engines and equipment using a scale from 0 to 10. 60 percent (60.4%) _
of respondents 'strongly support' city spending, while only 9.7% of respondents 'rt,eakh, support' city
spending. The average(mean) level of support was 7.50 on a scale from 0 to 10.
Nearly 60 percent(58.5%) of respondents are willing to pay additional taxes for these public safety needs,
while 32.7% of respondents are not. Nine percent (8.8%) of respondents were unsure if they would be
willing to pay extra taxes.
Support for Public Safety Spending _
70.0% -- - - - - -
60.0% - -- - -- -
x
W
50.0%
-
h 4
40.0%
,. t _.
o �
u
20.0% - --
10.0% -- - - - - - a
0.0% —AM-
Weakly Support(0-3) Support(4-7) Support Strongly(8-10)
i E3 Rating 9.7% 29.9% 60.4%
4
1
i
1
1
7
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Rent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 46
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
Transportation
Respondents view 'east-west routes/arterials' and `north-south routes/arterials' (mean=7.47 and 7.20,
respectively) as the most important transportation projects, while 'better bus service' was the least
important project(mean=6.65).
Transportation Projects
Very Somewhat Not Very
Important important Important Mean
ransportatian (8-10) (4-7) (0-3) (Average)
East-west routes/arterials 60.3% 31.9% 7.7% 7.47
North-south routes/arterials 57.1% 33.7% 9.2% 7.20
Intersection/signal improvements 49.1% 40.6% 10.2% 6.86
Better bus service 48.5% 35.8% 15.8% 6.65
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragdn/Michael J.Link Page 47
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS _
Natural Environment
Respondents rated `fish habitats' and `protection of agricultural lands' as the most important(mean=7.72
and 7.47 respectively) natural environment projects, while `storm and flood improvements' were less
important(mean=6.46).
Natural Environment Projects
Very . Somewhat Not Very
,Important :Important important '
atural Environment - M'10) (47 (0-3) Mean
Fish habitat 63.1% 32.1% 4.8% 7.72
Protection of agricultural lands 57.7% 34.9% 7.4% 7.47
Storm and flood improvements 42.2% 43.3% 14.7% 6.46
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 48
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
Other Projects
Respondents indicated that a `cultural center for family and community activities was the most important
capital investment (mean=6.75), while `downtown redevelopment efforts' (mean=6.58) and `jail costs for
holding misdemeanor offenders' were less important(mean=6.00)
Other Types of Projects
Very Somewhat Not"very
zripr#ant mpvrtant 'Important Mean
ther pr' ects- 0140) �(10) (0-3) (Average)
Cultural center for family and community
activities 44.4% 42.9% 12.7% 6.75
Downtown redevelopment efforts 39.1% 51.5% 9.4% 6.58
Jail costs for holding misdemeanor
offenders 32.0% 51.4% 16.6% 6.00
w
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC_ City of Rent—Citywide External Study
Prepared ty Carlos A.AragonlMichael J.Link Page 49
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
The typical survey respondent resides in the East Hill area of Kent (45.0%), owns their home (53.5%),
and has no children under 18 living in their home at least half the year(65.2%). They also work in Kent
(26.2%), have a household income between ,S50K and,S75K(21.3%). and are in the range from 36 to 45
years of age (26.4%).
Residency
Percent of Percent of
Respondents Respondents
(1999) (2000)
West Hill 17.1% 23.6%
Valley(Downtown) 18.8% 25.1% -
East Hill 59.9% 45.0%
Other 0.0% 4.5%
Refused 2.0% 0.8% -
Don't Know 2.2% 1.0%
Residency Status
Percent of Percent of
Respondents Respondents
(1999) (2000) -�
Own House 70.7% 53.5%
Rent House 18.3% 31.7%
Rent Apartment or
Condo 6.6% 11.8%
Other 0.0% 1.8%
Refused 2.7% 1.0%
Don't Know 1.7% 0.3%
Number of Children
Percent of Percent of
Respondents Respondents
(1999) (2000) -
None 60.2% 65.2%
One 14.3% 13.5%
Two 16.5% 15.3% _
Three 5.8% 4.4%
Four 2.7% 1.3%
Five 0.5% 0.3%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragdn/Michael J.Link Page 50
Gender
Percent of Percent of
Respondents Respondents
(1999)`' (2000)
Male 45.5% 39.2%
Female 54.5% 60.8%
Household Income
Percent of
Respondents
Under$20,000 6.6%
$20,000 to $34,999 12.2%
$35,000 to $49,999 17.4%
$50,000 to $74,999 21.3%
$75,000 to $89,999 7.8%
$90,000 to $105,000 4.2%
Over$105,000 5.1%
Refused 25.4%
-
Age
Percent of
Respondents
18to25 8.1%
26 to 35 15.2%
36 to 45 26.4%
46 to 55 18.8%
56 to 65 12.5%
`- Over 65 16.6%
Refused 2.4%
Work
Percent of
Respondents
Auburn 3.9%
Bellevue 2.9%
Burien 0.5%
Covington 0.7%
Des Moines 0.5%
Federal Way 1.2%
Issaquah 1.0%
Kent 26.2%
Puyallup 0.5%
Renton 5.6%
SeaTac 2.4%
_ Seattle 11.5%
Tacoma 1.2%
Other 9.1%
_ Not Applicable 28.9%
Refused 3.9%
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Miehael J.Link Page 51
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
�a
The following conclusions were determined based upon the telephone survey conducted by Hebert
Research for the City of Kent:
Quality of Life
■ The majority of survey respondents gave either 'excellent' or `good' ratings to 'the value of services
received for your tax dollar' (79.9%), `Kent as a place to live' (70.9%), `the physical attractiveness of
Kent as a whole' (64.1%), and `the relationships between people of different races and cultures in the
City of Kent' (59.5%). The answers dropped slightly between 1999 and 2000, but it is unclear
whether the decline signifies a trend, or whether it is simply variation from year to year.
■ Sixty-four percent(63.6%) of the sample indicated that they believe the City of Kent is headed in the
right direction in 2000, compared to 70.7% of the sample in 1999. New residents were more likely to
agree that Kent is headed in the right direction.
■ More than one-half (52.3%) of the respondents, and/or a member of their household, have
volunteered time outside their home to benefit a charitable or community organization, program or
project. This is a slight increase from 1999, when only 47.2% of the sample volunteered.
Homeowners and long-time residents were more likely to report volunteering.
■ The most important issues facing the Kent community, overall, were 'trafc/transportation' (41.2%),
'overpopulationlgrowth management' (23.9%), `schools/education' (21.1%), and `over development'
(11.3%). As these issues strongly correlate with the 1999 survey, it is clear that traffic, growth, and
education continue to be important issues to Kent residents.
Public Information
■ The 'newspaper'was the primary source of information for 66.1% of Kent residents, followed by the
'KentConnections Newsletter in the Kent Reporter' (36.2%), `television' (33.7%), and 'word of
mouth' (25.9%). It should be noted that the questions were phrased slightly differently between 1999
and 2000. In 1999, respondents were directly asked if they ever watched the Government Access
Channel 21 or if they ever read the City of Kent KentConnections Newsletter. In the 2000 _
questionnaire, respondents were simply asked their primary sources of information about the city of
Kent. Asking specifically if respondents have heard of certain sources of information is considered a
measure of 'aided awareness,' while the latter method is considered a measure of 'unaided
awareness.' Responses to aided awareness questions are typically more positive than responses to
unaided awareness questions.
■ Nearly two-thirds (62.5%) of Kent residents gave the KentConnections Newsletter either an -'
`excellent' or 'good' rating with regard to its value in keeping them informed of City of Kent news.
This is slightly down from 1999, when 72.0% of respondents gave it an 'excellent' or 'good' rating.
In particular, the percent of residents who gave it an 'excellent' rating declined significantly, while
those who gave it a 'poor rating' increased nearly tenfold. Additionally, readership appeared to
decline between 1999 (71.4%)and 2000(36.2%), although the reason for this is unclear.
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of!Cent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 52
■ Only eight percent of Kent residents (8.0%) reported watching the City of Kent Government Access
Channel 21 in order to receive news about the City of Kent. This is a significant decline from 1999,
when 32.3% of respondents reported watching Channel 21. Respondents rated the Channel slightly
better in 2000, when 79.1% gave it an `excellent' or 'good' rating, than in 1999, when 78.8% gave it
an `excellent' or `good' rating.
Contact With City of Kent Employ
■ Twenty-two percent of respondents(22.1%) had reason during the past 12 months to contact a City of
Kent employee, with the `Police Department,' the `City Planning Department,' and the 'Utility
Billing/Customer Services Department' being contacted the most often. Of those who had contacted
a city employee, the majority made this contact by `telephone.' Residents who contacted the 'City
Planning Department' doubled between 1999 and 2000.
■ The majority of the respondents who had contacted a City employee gave a rating of 'excellent' to
good' regarding their contact's courtesy (84.1%), level of knowledge (80.6%), and willingness to
help (72.8%). Eleven percent (11.4%) of the sample gave a `poor' rating for willingness to help,
while 10.2% gave a `poor' rating for level of knowledge. These ratings are not significantly changed
from 1999 to 2000.
Public Safety
■ Nearly one-half of the sample indicated that they feel `very safe' overall in the City of Kent, while
5.0% report feeling `not very safe.' Seventy percent of the sample (70.1%) feel 'vei-1, safe' walking
alone in their neighborhood during the day, although only 26.9% feel `very safe' walking in the same
area after dark. Those who feel `very unsafe' rose from 1.0% during the day to 14.1% after dark.
Women were more likely than men to feel unsafe after dark, while long-time residents were more
likely than more recent residents to feel unsafe.
■ Seventeen percent of respondents (16.6%) reported that they, or a member of their household, had
been victim of a crime in Kent during the past 12 months. The most common type of crime involved
'vandalism,' followed by `theft/burglary,' and `assault.' Approximately 80 percent of these crimes
were reported to the Kent police, either by the respondent or by a member of their household.
`Vandalism' increased significantly from 1999 to 2000.
■ One-third (33.4%)of the total sample indicated that they have had contact with Kent police during the
past year,with 25.5%of these respondents having been a `victim of a crime' and 21.6% having been a
`witness to a crime.' Three-quarters (75.2%) of the sample reported that the Kent police employees
they had encountered were `very courteous.'
■ Fourteen percent (13.6%) of residents reported contact with the Kent Fire Department during the
previous year. Eighty-five percent of these respondents (85.2%) rated the service they received
`excellent.' Residents of West Hill rated the emergency fire and medical service they received
significantly lower than other residents.
■ One-half (50.0%) of the sample reported that they were `somewhat prepared' to deal with an
emergency, such as an earthquake. Twenty-six percent (26.4%) reported being 'very prepared' and
7.8% stated that they were `very unprepared' for such an event.
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared ty Carlos A.Aragon/Miehael J.Link Page 53
• More than one-third (36.9%) of respondents reported that they were 'very prepared' to deal with an _
accident, such as a heart attack. Forty-three percent(43.0%) reported being 'somewhat prepared' and
4.0% stated that they were 'very unprepared' for such an event.
Recreational Activities
■ The leisure and recreational activities having the greatest level of participation among the respondents
and their families included `walking,' `bicycling,' `camping,' `hiking,' `swimming,' and `golf.'
Considering all activities mentioned, nearly 80 percent take place within Kent, while 11 percent
(10.7%) take place in Seattle. Sixty-six percent of the sample (65.8%) either indicated that they had
no unfulfilled recreational needs in the City of Kent, or could not think of any. 'Swimming' and
`bicycling'were the most frequently mentioned recreational needs.
■ In evaluating specific park amenities, respondents placed the highest importance on `major parks that
serve all areas of the city with picnic areas, trails, and open play areas that serve groups and
families,' `outdoor athletic facilities for youth,' and `small neighborhood parks that serve families _
and individuals.' The least important amenity was `formal or botanical gardens.'
■ The most frequently named City of Kent Parks and Recreation facility was 'Lake Meridian,' with _
29.1% of respondents and/or their household members using this facility. `Fenwick Park' was also
frequently mentioned by residents, with 12.3% of respondents. `Lake Meridian' was visited an
average of 10 times per year by respondents, while `Fenwick Park' received an average of 13.5 visits
annually. There was a great deal of change in the parks mentioned by respondents between 1999 and -'
2000. It is unclear whether this is a result of actual changes in behavior, or whether it is a result of
the slightly modified manner of asking the question in 2000.
■ Among residents who had participated in a City of Kent recreation program, activity or cultural event
within the past 12 months, `festivals' and `concerts' were most frequently mentioned. `Youth --.
athletics' and `adult athletics' were also popular activities. `Concerts' were reported significantly _
more frequently in 2000 than in 1999,while `youth athletics' saw a decline in participation, according
to survey respondents.
Streets and Traffic
■ In examining the cleanliness of City of Kent streets, overall, nearly one-third (30.9%) of the sample
determined them to be `very clean,' while 59.0% perceive them as being `somewhat clean.' Forty-six
percent of respondents (45.7%) reported that their neighborhood streets are `very clean,' and another
44.2% indicated that these streets are `somewhat clean.'
■ A `good condition, overall,' or a `good, but a few bad spots' rating was given by 89.9% of the sample
in reference to the City of Kent streets, overall, and by 89.5% for the respondents' neighborhood --
streets. There was a moderate decline in the percent of respondents who gave `good condition,
overall' ratings for both City of Kent streets, overall and neighborhood streets from 1999 to 2000.
More respondents gave `good, but a few bad spots' ratings in 2000 than in 1999.
■ Respondents were also satisfied with their neighborhood sidewalks, with 34.9% giving them a `good
condition, overall' rating, and another 19.8% reporting that these sidewalks are 'good, but have a few
bad spots.' There was a slight increase in the proportion of respondents reporting 'no sidewalks'
between 1999 and 2000. Kent Valley residents reported more often that their neighborhood did not
have any sidewalks, as did residents who were homeowners. _
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citvwide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 54
■ Survey results indicate that excessive speed on side streets in the respondents' neighborhoods is a
larger problem in the City of Kent than is cut-through traffic on these same streets. Sixtv-three
percent (62.8%) of the sample either `strongly' or `somewhat agreed' that speeding is a problem in
their neighborhood, as compared to the 45.0%who indicated that cut-through traffic is a problem.
Capital Investments
■ Sixty percent (60.4%) of residents `strongly support' city spending for needed police and fire
facilities, including the replacement of fire engines and equipment. Only 9.7% of respondents
weakly support' city spending for public safety.
• Respondents said that `east-west routes/arterials' and `north-south routes/arterials' were the most
important transportation projects, while `fish habitat' and `protection of agricultural lands' were the
most important natural environment projects. A `cultural center for family and community activities'
was the most important other project.
-
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citvwide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 55
QUESTIONNAIRE -
l�'l'
Hello, my name is and I'm a research assistant from Hebert Research in Bellevue, WA. We are an
independent market research firm, currently conducting a survey on behalf of the City of Kent, regarding
citizens' opinions about the City. This call is for research purposes only and does not involve sales or —
campaign activities of any kind. I can assure you that your individual answers will remain strictly
confidential. Are you at least 18 years of age? May we get your opinions?
l. How many years have you lived in Kent? [RECORD ANSWER] [IF LESS THAN 12 —
MONTHS, THANK AND TERMINATE]
Quality of Life in Kent `
2. How would you rate Kent as a place to live? [READ]
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor —
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
3. Given that approximately 20 cents of each property tax dollar and 9 cents of each sales tax dollar
you pay goes to the City of Kent for basic services such as Police, Fire, and Streets and Parks;
how would you rate the value of services received for your tax dollars? [READ] —'
1. Excellent —�
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
4. How would you rate the relationships between people of different races and cultures in the City of
Kent? [READ] —
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair _
4. Poor
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
5. How would you rate the physical attractiveness of Kent as a whole? [READ]
1. Excellent
2. Good --
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
6. Do you feel the City of Kent is headed in the right direction? —
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragdn/Michael J.Link Page 56
1. Yes
2.No
3. Refused
4. Don't know
7. Do you and/or a member of your household volunteer time outside the home to benefit a
charitable or community organization, program or project?
1. Yes
_ 2.No
3. Refused
4. Don't know
8. In your opinion, what are the three most important issues facing the Kent community overall?
[VERBATIM]
Public Information
9. What are your primary sources of information about the City of Kent?(ACCEPT UP TO 4
RESPONSES)
1.Newspaper
2. Television
3. Radio
4. Word of Mouth
5. City of Kent Gov't. Access Channel 21 [IFNOTANSWERED, SKIP TO Q12]
6. City of Kent KentConnections Newsletter in Kent Reporter [IFNOTANSWERED,
SKIP TO Q12]
7. Other [SPECIFY]
8. Refused
9. Don't Know
10. How would you rate the channel's value in keeping you informed of City business?
[READ]
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5.No opinion
6. Refused
7. Don't know
11. How would you rate the newsletter's value in keeping you informed of City business?
[READ]
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
Contacting the City
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. ..n z,.z City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 57
12. During the past 12 months, have you had contact with any City employee regarding Citv -
services?
1. Yes
2.No [SKIP TO Q181
3. Refused [SKIP TO Q181
4. Don't know [SKIP TO Q18]
13. Thinking of your most recent contact, which City department was it with? (ACCEPT ONLY 1 -
ANSWER)
1. Police
2. Fire
3. Planning
4. Public Works
5. Parks and Recreation -
6. Mayor's Office
7. Utility billing and customer service
8. Personnel/Human resources/ES -
9. Municipal Court
10. Other [SPECIFY]
11. Refused
12. Don't know
14. Was that contact in person, by phone, or some other way?
1. In person -
2. By phone
3. Other [SPECIFY]
4. Refused
5. Don't know
15. How would you rate the City employee's courtesy? [READ] ...
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
16. How would you rate the City employee's knowledge of your issue? [READ]
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
17. How would you rate the City employee's willingness to help address your concern?
[READ]
1. Excellent
2. Good _
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Refused
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Arogon/Michael J.Link Page 58
6. No opinion/don't know
Public Safety
_ 18. Using a 0 to 10 scale with 10 meaning "extremely safe" and 0 meaning "not at all safe," please
_. rate how safe you feel in Kent overall?
19. How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day? [READ]
1. Very safe
2. Somewhat safe
3. Somewhat unsafe
4. Very unsafe
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
20. Walking alone in your neighborhood after dark? [READ]
1. Very safe
2. Somewhat safe
3. Somewhat unsafe
4. Very unsafe
5. Refused
6. No opinion/don't know
21. During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime in
_ Kent?
1. Yes
2.No [SKIP TO Q241
3. Refused [SKIP TO Q24]
4. Don't know [SKIP TO Q24]
22. What was the nature of the crime(s)or incident(s)? [SPECIFY]
23. Did you or any member of your household report the crime to the police?
1. Yes
2.No
3. Refused
Don't know
24. Have you had any contact with Kent Police in the past 12 months?
1. Yes
2. No [SKIP TO Q27]
3. Refused [SKIP TO Q27]
4. Don't know [SKIP TO Q27]
25. What was the nature of the contact(s)? [ACCEPT UP TO 3 RESPONSES]
1. Crime victim
2.Needed other assistance
3. Was a witness to a crime
4. Public education
5. Was suspected of a crime
6. Was suspected of a traffic violation
7. Other [SPECIFY]
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Michael 1.Link Page 59
8. Refused -
9. Don't know
26. How would you rate the courtesy of the officer or police employee that you had contact with?
[READ]
1. Very courteous
2. Somewhat courteous _
3.Not very courteous
4.Not at all courteous
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
27. Have you or members of your household had any contact with the city of Kent Fire Department
for fire or medical services in the last 12 months? -
1. Yes
2.No [SKIP TO Q29]
3. Refused [SKIP TO Q29] -
4. Don't know [SKIP TO Q29]
28. How would you rate Kent's emergency fire or medical services? [READ] -
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
29. How prepared are you and your household to deal with a disaster such as an earthquake, flood, or
other natural disaster? [READ]
1. Very prepared -
2. Somewhat prepared
3. Somewhat unprepared
4. Very unprepared -
5. Refused
6. No opinion/don't know
30. How prepared are you and your household to deal with an emergency such as a heart attack or -
serious accident?
1. Very prepared
2. Somewhat prepared -'
3. Somewhat unprepared
4. Very unprepared
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
Recreational Opportunities --
31. What three leisure and recreation activities do you and your family participate in the most?
[SPECIFY] -
32. Where, as in what city, do you participate in the activities you just mentioned? [SPECIFY]
[USE CITY CODES]
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Michael J.Link Page 60
33. What leisure/recreation opportunities would you like to see in Kent that you can't find there
now? [SPECIFY] [ACCEPT UP TO THREE RESPONSES]
Using a 0 to 10 scale with 10 meaning "extremely high importance" and 0 meaning "extremely loxN
importance" please rate the importance of the following park amenities.
34. Small neighborhood parks that serve families and individuals
35. Major parks that serve all areas of the city with picnic areas, trails and open play areas that serve
groups and families
36. Outdoor athletic facilities for youth
_ 37. Outdoor athletic facilities for adults
38. Expanded recreational trails in and out of parks
39. Parks with fishing, boating and swimming
40. Indoor recreation facilities for social programs, events and athletics
41. Natural areas and open spaces
42. Formal or botanical gardens
43. Bicycle trails and a BMX park
44. Additional skate parks
45. Indoor aquatic facilities
46. Name the parks you visit most often
47. How many times in the past year have you or members of your household visited the parks you
mentioned above?
48. What types of recreation programs,activities or cultural events have you and/or your
household participated in the last 12 months? [READ] [ACCEPT UP TO 3 RESPONSES]
1. Youth athletics
2. Adult athletics
3. Youth enrichment such as ballet
4. Adult enrichment such as cooking or aerobics
5. Concerts
6. Festivals
7. Senior center activities
8. Special populations(physically challenged)
9. Youth/teen activities
10. Late night teen program (called Lighthouse)
11. Other [SPECIFY]
12. Refused
13. Don't know
Streets/Traffic
49. How would you rate the cleanliness of streets in your neighborhood? [READ]
1. Very clean
2. Somewhat clean
3. Somewhat dirty
4. Very dirty
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
~ HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. Ciry of Rent-Citywide External Studv
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Miekael J.Link Page 61
50. How would you rate the cleanliness of streets in Kent overall? [READ] -
l. Very clean
2. Somewhat clean
3. Somewhat dirty
4. Very dirty
5. Refused
6. No opinion/don't know
51. How would you rate the surface/pavement of streets in your neighborhood? [READ]
1. Good condition overall
2. Mostly good, but a few bad spots here and there
3. Many bad spots
4. Refused
5.No opinion/Don't know -
52. How would you rate the surface/pavement of streets in Kent overall? [READ]
1. Good condition overall
2. Mostly good, but a few bad spots here and there
3. Many bad spots
4. Refused -
5.No opinion/Don't know
53. How would you rate the sidewalks in your neighborhood? [READ]
1. Good condition overall
2. Mostly good, but a few bad spots here and there
3. Many bad spots
4. There are not any sidewalks in our neighborhood -
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know
For the following two statements please indicated whether you "strongly agree,"
"somewhat agree," "somewhat disagree," or "strongly disagree." -
54. Cut-through traffic on neighborhood side streets in my neighborhood is a problem.
1. Strongly agree _
2. Somewhat agree
3. Somewhat disagree
4. Strongly disagree
5. Refused -'
6.No opinion/don't know
55. Excessive speed on neighborhood side streets in my neighborhood is a problem. -
1. Strongly agree
2. Somewhat agree
3. Somewhat disagree -
4. Strongly disagree
5. Refused
6.No opinion/don't know -
Capital Investments
Using a 0 to 10 scale with 10 meaning extremely high importance and 0 meaning extremely low
Cit
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC. y of Kent-Citywide External Study
Page 62
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Miehael I Link
importance,please rate the importance of the following projects. Following each rating,please tell me
whether you would be willing to pay additional taxes to support the project.
56. How strongly do you support city spending for needed police and fire facilities and replacement
of fire engines and equipment?
57. Would you be willing to pay additional taxes to pay for these public safety needs?
1. Yes
2. No
Using a 0 to 10 scale with 10 meaning extremely high importance and 0 meaning extremelv/on,
importance,please rate the importance of the following projects.
Thinking first about transportation...
58. East-west routes/arterials
59. North-south routes/arterials
60. Better bus service
61. Intersection/signal improvements
Thinking now about protecting the natural environment...
62. Storm and flood improvements
63. Protection of agricultural lands
64. Fish habitat
Thinking now about other projects
65. Downtown redevelopment efforts
66. Cultural center for family and community activities
67. Jail costs for holding misdemeanor offenders
68. Extra taxes
Demographics
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE FOR DEMOGRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY
69. Do you consider yourself a resident of the West Hill,the Valley(Downtown), or the East Hill
area of Kent?
1. West Hill
2. Valley(Downtown)
3. East Hill
4. Other [SPECIFY]
5. Refused
6. Don't know
71. Do you own or rent your home?
1. Own house
2. Rent house
3. Rent apartment or condo
4. Other [SPECIFY]
5. Refused
6. Don't know
70. In what neighborhood or apartment complex do you live? [RECORD ANSWER]
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC City of Kent—Citywide External Study
Prepared by Carlos A.Arag6n/Miehael J.Link Page 63
72. How many children under the age of 18 live in your household at least half a year?
[RECORD NUMBER OF CHILDREN]
73. May I ask your ethnic background?
1. Caucasian
2. African-American _
3. American Indian
4. Latino/Hispanic
5. Pacific Islander
6. Asian -
7. Russian
8. Ukrainian
9. Other [DO NOT SPECIFY] -
10. Refused
74. Into which of the following categories does you annual household income fall in to?
[READ]
1. Under$20,000
2. $20,000 to $34,999 -
3. $35,000 to $49,999
4. $50,000 to $74,999
5. $75,000 to $89,999
6. $90,000 to $105,000 -
7. Over$105,000
8. Refused
75. Into which of the following categories does your age fit? --.
1. 18to25
2. 26 to 35
3. 36to45
4. 46 to 55
5. 56 to 65 -
6. Over 65
7. Refused
76. Which city do you work in? [SPECIFY] [USE CITY CODES]
THAT CONCLUDES OUR SURVEY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
POST CODE GENDER
1. Male
2. Female -
� :.;.
HEBERT RESEARCH,INC City of Kent-Citywide External Study
Page 64
Prepared by Carlos A.Aragon/Micliael J.Link