Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 02/15/2000 CITY OF INVICTA Jim White, Mayor COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA The Council Workshop will meet in Chambers East in Kent City Hall at 5:30 PM on Tuesday, February 15, 2000. Council Members: President Leona Orr, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton, Tim Clark, Connie Epperly,Judy Woods, Rico Yingling Speaker Time 1. Neighborhood Strategies Report Kevin O'Neill 45 minutes 2. Intergovernmental Update Dena Laurent 10 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. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL THE WASHINGTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388. 220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 CITY OF INVICTA Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-5454/Fax (253) 856-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 15, 2000 MEMO TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STRATEGY In early 1999, the City Council identified target issues for 1999 and 2000. One of the top priority issues was a neighborhood design strategy. As outlined on the attached sheet, this work �-- program identified articulating a vision for neighborhoods, and outlining the City's role in achieving this vision. A component of this project involves amending the City's street standards in residential areas for better connectivity within and between residential neighborhoods. Staff reported to the Council on progress on this issue in November, 1999, and work on this task continues to proceed. With regard to the larger issue of how the City as a whole can address the issue of neighborhoods, the Planning Department developed an action plan in early 1999 (attached), which identified working with an inter-departmental committee to develop a recommended framework. This committee was formed in September, 1999, and has been meeting since then to discuss issues pertaining to neighborhoods in Kent. The committee is made up of representatives from Administration, Fire, Parks, Planning, Police, and Public Works. In our meetings, we have discussed existing neighborhood level programs, how each department looks at the city in terms of neighborhood, or area, boundaries, and have examined neighborhood programs in other communities (a summary of these neighborhood programs is attached). The committee has developed a set of preliminary recommendations that we would like to present to the City Council at the workshop on February 15. A summary of these recommendations is attached for the Council's review. At the meeting, we will also present a map showing recommended "community"boundaries for your review. 220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 s NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STRATEGY February 15, 2000 Page 2 Staff from the various departments involved will be at the meeting on the 15`h, and we will be asking for Council input and direction as we continue the next phase of our work. We look forward to a productive discussion with the Council. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at 856-5438. KON/mjp:p:public\nis staff repts�ndsccmem.doc cc: Brent McFall, Director of Operations Jim Harris, Planning Director Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Norm Angelo, Fire Chief John Hodgson, Parks Director Members, Neighborhood Design Strategy task force City Council 1999-2000 Target Issues Top Priority Water Supply Policy ;VU51 - The policy issues for Council action on this item include updating the water conservation policy, address- ing program staffing and budget and reviewing water rates. Downtown Development and Redevelopment E) 7 Council action on this issue will in- clude development of a workplan for downtown development.Action will also be taken on the rail station area and performing arts center. Neighborhood Design Strategy The Council will articulate its vision for neighborhoods and define that vi- sion in a neighborhood design policy. The Council will also outline the City's role in achieving the vision. Economic Development Policy qFV Policy actions on this item will include changes to the zoning code, identi- fying the City's participation in infra- structure improvements;and.dev6 oping a.policy. r � TARGET ISSUES ACTION PLAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT TITLE: Neighborhood Design Strategy. ISSUES: Neighborhood definition, design options, standards, citizen involvement. IS THIS A MANDATE? IS THIS IN PROGRESS? One of the Council's eight goals is a"Variety of neighborhoods built for people." A coordinated neighborhood strategy has yet to be formulated by the City, although individual departments are involved in neighborhood activities, such as tot lots, and traffic control. IS THERE AN EXISTING POLICY? Kent's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan, under Framework Policies states that, "The City shall define neighborhoods to foster a strong sense of community. The City and each neighborhood shall cooperatively develop neighborhood plans addressing land use, mobility,parks, safety, and public facilities and services. " In addition, the Plan states that the City should, "Preserve, maintain and improve the City's existing single-family and multi family residential neighborhoods. " The Plan also states that the City should develop an urban design strategy and that, "The urban design strategy shall communicate the desired visions on a citywide as well as a neighborhood scale. " WHAT ARE THE STEPS TN A T 4 R F NFTMI n -rn ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? The neighborhood issue needs to be put into the framework of a coordinated inter-departmental effort headed up by one department. TIMING FOR ADDRESSING THE ISSUE:The inter-departmental organizational framework should be worked out in the second quarter of 1999. `? HAT RESOURCES ARE NECESSARY? The Police, Planning, Public Works, and Parks Departments are the primary departments to be involved with neighborhood planning. The Planning Department should be given the lead to work out the organizational framework, working with the other departments. A budget should be formulated that would primarily kick in on January 1, 2000. This budget proposal may contemplate professional services funding for a consultant familiar with neighborhood planning. Staff commitments from all departments are crucial for neighborhood planning to be successful, since a great deal of citizen involvement will be necessary. COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT: The framework for neighborhood planning should be discussed with the City Council both at Council workshops and at the Public Works and Planning Committee for Policy guidance. Ultimately, the approval of funding and adoption of any neighborhood strategies and/or plans would be done by the City Council. NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STRATEGY �- SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAMS BY OTHER CITIES IN PUGET SOUND REGION Redmond ■ There are twelve neighborhoods, which are identified in the City's Community Development Guide ■ Neighborhood designations were established for the most part in the 1970's, have not changed much—based on "logical" boundaries—ie. land use patterns, arterials, natural features ■ Until recently, neighborhood boundaries were used mostly by community development staff—now other departments beginning to use them more (ie. Police Department changed patrol boundaries to correspond with these boundaries) ■ Is not possible for all departments and functions to use same boundaries—for example, storm water boundaries based on drainage basins, topography ■ City as a neighborhood matching program, run out of the Community Affairs Division of the Planning Department-425,000 allocated `- annually, no single grant may exceed $2,500 ■ Any two or more households can apply for a grant—program not dependant on neighborhood boundaries Bellevue ■ Has 12 designated neighborhoods, which are based on junior high school or elementary school boundaries (typically elementary school) ■ Each neighborhood has a City staff liaison assigned to it—staff liaisons from a variety of departments, including Planning, Police, Fire, and Parks • City devotes a portion of its Capital Facilities Program (CIP) to a neighborhood enhancement program, which is coordinated by the Planning and Community Development Department—approximately $950,000 per year dedicated ■ Most projects (particularly larger ones) done by the City without a matching requirement—some money set aside for smaller projects (ie. neighborhood signs, landscaping) which do require a match ■ The City also offers neighborhood traffic calming, a neighbors in partnership program (geared to apartment residents), and a neighborhood mediation program 1 ■ Not all City departments recognize the same neighborhood boundaries as the neighborhood enhancement program does Renton ■ Has 8 designated neighborhoods, which are established based on elementary school boundaries ■ The City has recently hired a neighborhoods coordinator, who works part-time in the Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning--coordinates grant program and neighborhood celebrations, events ■ The City offers a neighborhood grant program—(total budget), maximum grant amount is $5,000 ■ Each neighborhood has two City staff liaisons assigned to it from various city departments Kirkland ■ Designated neighborhood boundaries in the early 1970's-3 additional neighborhoods designated by the City upon recent annexations, 15 neighborhoods altogether—most have neighborhood associations ■ Neighborhood boundaries defined principally by arterial road network ■ City has recently hired a part-time neighborhood coordinator who works out of the City Manager's office ■ City provides a neighborhood CIP program which serves a few specific neighborhoods per year—cycles throughout city ■ There is a neighborhood services team which is made up of City staff from various departments—most City departments recognize the same neighborhood boundaries Shoreline ■ Has 13 designated neighborhoods; neighborhood boundaries,were established prior to incorporation, appear to be based principally major arterials ■ City has an Office of Neighborhoods and a neighborhood coordinator— this position staff each neighborhood council and serve as a liaison between neighborhood groups and other city departments 2 ■ City offers a neighborhood grant program, with a maximum grant amount of$5,000—applications are coordinated through the neighborhood associations Tacoma ■ Has 8 designated neighborhoods—boundaries were based on planning areas which were first identified in the 1950s, based on census tracts ■ Each neighborhood has a neighborhood council, which are organized as independent entities, although staffed by City staff ■ Each neighborhood council has a designated City department head liaison, and designated neighborhood planner—neighborhood plans are being undertaken for each neighborhood in the next 2 years ■ Capital facilities money has been allocated to neighborhood councils ■ Not all departments recognize these neighborhood boundaries for service boundaries 3 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN STRATEGY INTRODUCTION In early 1999, the City Council determined that a neighborhood design strategy was one of their top priority target issues for 1999-2000. In response to this, an inter-departmental task force was formed to discuss ways in which the City can respond to this issue. The task force is made up of representatives from Administration, Fire, Parks, Police, and Public Works, and is facilitated by staff from the Planning Department. During the course of these meetings the task force has discussed existing city programs, the physical and historic layout of the city with regard to neighborhood subareas, and has discussed neighborhood programs in other jurisdictions located in the region. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the discussions that have occurred to date, the task force is making the following recommendations: ■ The City should be divided into several 'communities", based largely upon existing Fire Department service areas. The community boundaries also recognize other factors such as census tracts, major streets, and general land use patterns. The communities will include the entire potential annexation area (PAA). We recognize that within each community there exist, or there is the potential to exist, several smaller neighborhoods. ■ Each community area will be focused around existing public facilities, such as Fire Stations, elementary schools, and other civic uses. ■ Existing neighborhood programs should be better coordinated within and between departments, and should be re-examined based on these established districts. City staff should also coordinate with the school districts on delivering services. • The City Council and staff should conduct meetings within each community area beginning in 2000 to begin to assess community needs and priorities within each part of the city. • As a result of these meetings, the City may wish to consider designating specific staff contacts for each area, or implement new programs to respond to community-level concerns. a CITY OF KE1tiT LEGISLATIVE LTPDATE . �. .. WEEK 5 OF 2000LE'GISLATIVE SE I0,1. FEBRUARN' 15, 2000 10-year Housing Bill(HB 2505/SB 6157): We had a good start to the week, then some fits and starts with Rules Committee, then a good end to the week. We testified on 6157 on Monday in Ways&Means and it came out of Committee Tuesday on a unanimous voice vote. Thursday it was pulled from the `white sheet' to the `green sheet' (Green is the one just before floor action) in Senate Rules—and Friday, Sen. Tracey Eide, D-Federal Way, will `pull' it to the floor for us. The bill passed the Senate unanimously over the weekend. HB 2505, after being bottled up in Rules, was pulled onto the floor Thursday and was taken up on Monday. It also passed with only eight negative votes. Special Districts' and County Role in GMA Planning (SSB 6519): As amended, this bill is a King County attempt to have an inside track in convening and potentially controlling water supply planning. Seattle is fighting them. You may well have seen the articles on front of B Section of Times and P-I on Thursday. One provision of bill amends state law on countywide planning policies so that they would also address "Policies to determine that adequate domestic water supplies exist or will be available to serve the projected population determined by the office of financial management." Another one calls for development of a new countywide policy for"delivery of urban services." 695 Backfill: The Association of Washington Cities(AWC), has presented legislative leadership with three additional proposals to `backfill' cities' loss of funding under Initiative 695. Each of the alternatives restores some level of lost criminal justice funding, and attempts to ensure that no city loses more than either 12 or 15 percent of its revenues. Preliminary estimates suggest the City of Kent could realize between $0 and $750,000 of one time money as a result of these proposals. All three of these proposals would cost the state roughly $35 million per year, with the allocation covering an 18-month period. Transportation Budget: We began hearing word last week that behind-the-scenes discussions among legislators included consideration of a combined highways, freight, ferry, and transit package of$350 million. Legislators in both the House and Senate are mindful that,to the extent possible, they must consider highways and freight mobility needs this session. Another plus came when Governor Locke, having received a written appeal from the Blue Ribbon Commission to take some action on construction-ready highway and freight projects, agreed to pursue some level of funding(his budget proposal to the Legislature had contained only transit backfill funds). Action was also taken by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) last week to reprogram and reallocate about$100 million in federal funds that were unobligated due to 695 impacts. This action eases some of the pressure on the Legislature to 'do it all' in the rail, freight mobility, and highway funding arenas. The PSRC action did not include any Kent projects. The$35.9 million reprogrammed by the state for freight mobility needs, enhances the chances Kent projects might receive funding from the Legislature. t� i Transportation Improvement Board Bonding Bill(HB 2788): This legislation's future is uncertain. It was in the House Rules Committee over the weekend and likely will pass the full �. House before Tuesday's 5 p.m. cutoff deadline; however, in the Senate, Sen. Haugen is very hesitant to look to any bonding solutions until she has a better sense of what general fund dollars may be made available for transportation. Transit Local Options bill (HB 3074): `Uncertain' is also a fail-way to characterize the fate of this bill, which eliminates the 6/10 of a cent sales tax lid on what transits may ask their voters to accept. (FYI-METRO of King County is an agency up against this current 6110 statutory limit). HB 3074 was still in the House Rules Committee as of Monday. Rights-of-way legislation (SSB 6676, SHB 2060): Both rights-of-way bills moved out of their respective chambers, but further negotiating sessions are likely. The City still has serious concerns with two issues in the bill: 1)the lack of specific timelines for telecommunications service providers to relocate their facilities to make way for a public works project; 2)the fact that for new wireless transmission facilities in the right-of-way, there is a murkiness in the bill about whether a charge for this use of the right-of-way may be captured. We expect to hear this week about a day for negotiating the bill further. Meanwhile, in the Senate, an amendment on relocation offered by Sen. Darlene Fairley DOES improve that portion of the bill. Other bills we're tracking.... HB 2397: Improving the Local Government Fiscal Notes process This bill, prime sponsored by Rep. Pat Scott, passed out of the House early last week. HB 2946: Clarify city zoning authority for mini-casinos and other gambling activities It appears that a compromise has been reached among cities and the Recreational Gaming Association, with language ensuring that a bill to clarify zoning authority for placement of mini-casinos is not meant to limit or preclude zoning authority for other activities. It is our hope that this bill can now move through the House floor and receive favorable consideration in the Senate. LEOFF/PERS Pension bills: The Senate unanimously passed last week both 3SSB 6530 and SSB 6792. The first of these bills sets up a new PERS 3 optional retirement program, reduces early retirement withdrawals for both PERS and LEOFF 2 members, reduces the LEOFF 2 retirement age from 55 to 53, and advances a new retirement eligibility for LEOFF 2 members who have 20 years of service and age 50. Estimated costs of this bill are $64 million for local governments, with estimated `savings' of$57 million—from an expected reduction in pension rates that would be handed down later this year—used to offset much of the cost. Meanwhile, SSB 6792 would eliminate employer and employee contributions to the LEOFF 1 program, and establish a process to ultimately set up a fund to cover LEOFF extraordinary medical expenses—using $50 million in surplus funds that currently exist in the program. It is estimated that this will produce a $7 million savings for local governments. SSB 6776: Shoreline Bill This bill to tie any compliance with new shoreline rules to the availability of full funding, is mired in the Senate Rules Committee. Coupled with that is the fact that key legislators apparently are on the verge of removing any funding to help cities and counties comply with the new rules. Without the bill, and without any money in the state budget, the State could promulgate shoreline rules that constitute an unfunded mandate. The AWC talked with its legislative steering committee last week about the possibility of litigation if this situation occurs. SSB 6683: Racial Profiling Bill On a more positive 'unfunded mandates' note, this bill has been revised to eliminate its costly features. Where it previously required all law enforcement agencies with 25 or more officers to collect data on all traffic stops to determine whether improper `racial profiling' was occurring, the substitute bill simply asks the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to coordinate a study and encourage agencies to provide statistical information. Bills that have died.............. �..- As occurs every year, a number of bills 'die' in the legislative process because they do not get out of committees, or off the floor, in synch with required cutoff dates. SSB 6562 the so-called buildable lands'/GMA housing density bill, died in the Ways & Means Committee. SHB 2306, a mobile home park bill which at one point had language in it requiring that no areas zoned for mobile home parks could have the underlying zoning changed for at least 30 years. Court Reform' bills — SB 6191/HB 2898, which would have cast a cloud on the continuation of Municipal Courts by calling for elected judges to institute new .consolidated court' processes by a majority vote of themselves SSB 6423, also fell prey to the cutoff deadline. SSB 6423 established would have allowed one cent of the state sales tax on new construction to be transferred to local ,,overnments for their infrastructure tundinL, needs. Seattle-King County Workforce Development Draft Plan SCA Draft Comments—February,2000 About the Plan The Draft Plan was prepared by the UW's Northwest Policy Center in collaboration with at least three WDC Standing Committees. It is comprised of both a strategic plan and an operating plan. The Strategic Plan gives a nice over view of the local economy and demonstrates the countywide need for trained employees. Key industries for projected job growth include construction, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade and high tech. The analysis documents employer needs not only for trained workers, but also for folks with basic workplace skills. Further, the report demonstrates that Seattle has 32% of the County's population, and that in the 1990s, County growth has occurred outside Seattle. Finally, the analysis looks at issues of color, disability and TANF status. In describing the current workforce development system, the report notes that WIA funds will represent only 4.1% of the $190 million in system funding. The review of the current system also includes anecdotal information about individual city efforts (p. 25). The conclusions drawn from the review of the current system is that it is highly categorical, decentralized, fragmented, not focused on a dual-customer base and lacking in common outcomes and oversight. The next section of the report provides performance information on each of the components of the current workforce development system. Performance standards for future programs are currently being negotiated. The vision, goals, objectives and strategies section begins on p. 47. It goes on to include visions for the three areas of the operating plan...the skills gap, wage progression and one-stop service delivery. Several areas in this section do speak to the need for basic skills, and daycare services. The Operating Plan echoes the strategies for skill gap and wage progression outlined in the Strategic Plan and adds a discussion of one stop service delivery. Plan goals are outlined on p. 57. One stop centers are described beginning on p. 62. An excellent report of the goals of the One Stop Committee begins on p. 106. Areas of Concern Strategic Plan • Background demographic information should lead to conclusions for service delivery that the future system much be geographically balanced and focused on a series of growth industry sectors. • Other system sectors seeking to receive money should be required to identify resources they bring to the table in their grant proposals to ensure maximum leveraging and cooperation is achieved between sectors. • Little connection is made between the performance of current programs and decisions about future ones in the operating plans. If we're continuing with status quo programs, what research supports these methods? How can the programs be improved for better results? Do the results vary across geographic areas, populations served or industries targeted? (Commitments are made to use Baldrige program evaluation tools and CQI methods.) Performance of future programs should depend on outcome statistics as well as customer satisfaction surveys. • Training provider guidelines favor CTCs. Would these leave CBO programs out?(p.36) • The vision section needs to include stronger statements about geographically balanced service delivery, connection with local systems for youth recreation, economic development and human services and should speak more strongly to needs for basic work skills, daycare and transportation. • The skills gap plan to ask for proposals from industries to focus on in year I may exclude needs in key industries with high projected growth which are less organized. Further, the skills gap plan says that additional industries would be added to focus only if funds allow. • The wage progression plan calls for new apprenticeships in areas of emerging technology. Again, this technique should broaden its focus to include industries projected for job growth. • The youth plan must include a statement about geographic dispersion of services. It should also include an emphasis on connecting with local city and even church programs. The plan seeks to have facilities and to emphasize case management. These seem like expensive approaches limiting the number of youth that can be served. Efforts should be made to extend the use of local facilities already in place and research should be provided to support case management as the most effective tool in reaching youth. Operating Plan • Opportunities for youth programs should be open to local rec programs and consortiums of local youth service providers. Did the youth plan reflect the input of youth employers? • The section on one-stop operations appears to mirror Employment Security operations, rather than the vision developed by the One Stop Committee for a dual-customer focused system. There is no detailed description of specific employer needs and services to be offered. • All sections of the plan should include a marketing component with aggressive efforts to connect and provide information to every local community and its leaders. • Expansion of one stop centers, affiliates and other sites should be geographically balanced. Current sites are in north Seattle, Bellevue and Renton. In the next five years, additional proposed sites are to be in Auburn.. Rainier, and West Seattle. These expansion should be made strategically based one services needed by dual customers in various areas. • Strategies for serving dislocated workers should connect with local economic development efforts. Who Else Should Comment on the Draft Plan? The Draft Plan is open for public comment and review during the month of February with the standing committees receiving, reviewing and incorporating comments and changes. A final plan will be submitted to the State in mid-March. Groups of folks from the local government family who might offered valuable input on the plan include our elected officials, our human services planners, youth/teen programmers and our economic development types. Chamber of Commerce and school district types may also have comments....although they are also represented at the table and may be reached through the contact of their colleagues. About the WDC Background In 1983, the federal Job Training Partnership Act required the establishment of local Private Industry Councils (PIC)to receive federal funds for local job training programs. In 1998, a new federal job training law was passed, the Workforce Investment Act(WIA). The WIA requires the formation of Workforce Development Councils (WDCs). An Executive Order from Governor Locke further defines the responsibilities of WDCs. Local WDCs are required to submit a unified (strategic and operating) plan to the State by March 15. Locally......... Mayor Schell and Executive Sims set the direction for change from the PIC to the WDC. The WDC will not deliver services as the PIC has done in the past. Rather the WDC will focus on policy, planning and effective service delivery and on program oversight. The goal of this change is to build community capacity that is more responsive to local needs. Secondary goals are to focus on the needs of the system's primary users-employers and job seekers and to increase system accountability. The Seattle-King County WDC (SKCWDC) The SKCWDC is 50+ members, including significant(50%+ as required) representation from business, as well as representatives from labor, education and social services. The large group will give direction and review the Unified Plan and oversee its implementation. A consultant has been retained to help draft the Plan---Northwest Policy Center from the UW. The PIC will go away once the WDC is up and running. The WDC has hired an interim executive director, Melinda Nichols who was most recently HR Director for Seattle City Light. Federal guidelines designate three populations for support: disadvantaged youth, dislocated workers and disadvantaged adults, deleting summer youth employment which was funded under the old JTPA. The federal legislation also stipulates that services be delivered through "one-stop centers." One stop is an effort to transform the delivery of employment and training services for job seekers/workers and employers—a customer-focused system. The centers will deliver multiple services for both groups at one site, which can match customers with services from one location. One stop operates on the principles of universal access, customer focus/choice, service integration and accountability. What's at Stake; How to get involved The SKCWDC will likely oversee the distribution of approximately$10 million in job training funds. However, the SKCWDC is designed to leverage the partnership and collaboration of the area's workforce training system (more than $200 million statewide) and its resources to deliver customer focused training and placement for both employers and employees of various ages, abilities, education and income levels. Providing input on the design of the Unified Plan as well as commenting on the draft Plan is a critical opportunity. SCA Themes Sought for Incorporation into the WDC Plan and Service Delivery System • Analysis and service delivery must be countywide; must be driven by population and employers needs. Analysis should identify where the jobs are and deliver service in those geographic areas. • Service delivery should be need driven, not grant driven. • Outcome-based accountability is critical in program design and delivery. • No one industry's needs should be favored over others. • Job training services should connect with local human services to help certain populations overcome barriers. • Job training services should capitalize and coordinate with local economic development efforts. • Local youth training programs should seek to connect with City recreation programming. • The services should have strategic outreach efforts to clients, stakeholders and community leaders. Current efforts aren't adequate. • Employers in some areas will train for their needs, but need people with basic life skills that enable them to be successful employees. Life skills training should be provided and connected with job placement in businesses willing to do their own job-specific training. • Other employers find that their employers experience significant barriers related to transportation and daycare. WDC efforts should seek to collaborate to address these issues.