HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 02/07/20202 0 2 0
KENT CITY COUNCIL ANNUAL STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT
Friday, February 7th, 12:00 o’clock noon - 4:45 p.m.
Saturday, February 8th, 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Green River College, Auburn; Student Union Building, Emerald City Room
AGENDA
THE MEETING’S PRIMARY GOALS:
1. Discuss strategic issues of interest and importance to all the members of the Council.
2. Provide opportunities for Council members to hear the issues of interest and concern to their colleagues
and learn if there might be a consensus among the entire Council to address any of them.
_____________________________________________________________
FRIDAY’S SESSIONS
12:00 Lunch will be provided. Please come early to enjoy the food and beverages and be
prepared to convene the meeting promptly at 1 o’clock.
1:00 Welcome! Review Meeting’s Purpose
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TONI TROUTNER
1:10 Review Agenda, Ground Rules, and Facilitation Techniques
FACILITATOR JIM REID
1:15 The Elected Officials’ Legacy and Vision
COUNCIL MEMBERS / MAYOR DANA RALPH
▪ What do you most want to accomplish by the time your service to the City ends?
▪ Thinking of Kent in 10-15 years, what about the city would make you proudest?
1:50 Review Vision, Mission, and Goals, and Accomplishments of 2019
COUNCIL / MAYOR RALPH / EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM (ELT)
▪ What do the vision, mission, and goals mean to each of you as elected officials? Why
are they important? How do you use them?
2
▪ When you reflect on the City’s performance in 2019, what were the most
significant accomplishments in terms of advancing the vision, mission, and goals?
o For this question, after the Council and Mayor have spoken, ELT members will
also have the opportunity to cite accomplishments that were significant for
advancing the vision, mission, and goals.
▪ What role did the Council play in advancing them that made you proudest?
▪ What, if anything, did we expect to make more progress on than we did?
▪ What do you think will be a major challenge facing Kent in the next five years?
▪ What do you think is most necessary to be able to effectively address it?
▪ In light of what we want Kent to be 10-15 years from now and what we anticipate
will be the major challenges facing Kent in the next five years, are the vision,
mission, and goals leading us in the right direction?
▪ If so why? If not, what do we do about them?
3:25 Break
3:40 Strategies for Strengthening External Communications
COUNCIL / MAYOR RALPH / BAILEY STOBER
▪ What are the contours of Bailey’s strategic plan for communications between the
City and its constituents and vice versa?
▪ What are the Council’s interests, reactions, direction, and advice?
▪ In 2020 the City will conduct a resident survey. How will the process for conducting
the survey, the content of the survey, and the analysis and reporting of its findings
differ from that of 2018?
▪ What are the Council’s interests, reactions, direction, and advice?
4:40 Preview Tomorrow’s Agenda
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TROUTNER / JIM REID
4:45 Adjourn Until Tomorrow Morning
2 0 2 0
KENT CITY COUNCIL ANNUAL STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT
Friday, February 7th, 12:00 o’clock noon - 4:45 p.m.
Saturday, February 8th, 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
3
Green River College, Auburn
AGENDA
THE MEETING’S PRIMARY GOALS:
1. Discuss strategic issues of interest and importance to all the members of the Council.
2. Provide opportunities for Council members to hear the issues of interest and concern to their colleagues
and learn if there might be a consensus among the entire Council to address any of them.
_____________________________________________________________
SATURDAY’S SESSIONS
8:00 Breakfast refreshments will be available. Please come early to enjoy them and be prepared to
convene the meeting promptly at 8:30 a.m. Thank you!
8:30 Welcome! Review Yesterday’s Discussions and Meeting’s Purpose
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TONI TROUTNER
8:35 Review Agenda, Ground Rules, and Yesterday’s Discussions
FACILITATOR JIM REID
8:40 Address the Structural Deficit
COUNCIL/ MAYOR RALPH / DEREK MATHESON / PAULA PAINTER / ELT
The Administration is taking a strategic, long-range approach to dealing with the fiscal structural
deficit of $2 million per year that faces the City. While it’s prudent to consider the long-term,
the problem is also immediate because it will influence the development of the 2021-’22
biennial budget. Finance Director Paula Painter will present the outline of the approach,
including hiring a consultant to work with the City to draft a 15-year budget strategy. After the
approach is presented, the Mayor and ELT would like to engage the Council in a strategic
conversation to seek direction and input on these questions:
▪ To refresh everyone’s thinking, what are the causes of this structural imbalance?
▪ What are the Council’s overarching interests in addressing it?
▪ Is the Council receptive to considering a range of strategies, including new
revenues, across the board reductions, targeted reductions, and/or variable
targeted reductions?
▪ If the City were to consider new revenues, what would be the potential sources?
▪ What might reductions look like? How would they affect services to the
community? How would they uniquely impact departments?
4
▪ Are any reductions “off the table?”
▪ Mayor Ralph is also considering framing a ballot measure to provide a stable,
consistent revenue stream for police and criminal justice. Is the Council supportive
of the Administration going forward to develop such a proposal and bringing it to
Council for consideration?
10:15 Break
10:30 Address Housing
COUNCIL / MAYOR / KURT HANSON / RAF PADILLA
Ensuring that there’s an adequate supply of housing for everyone is an interest the Council and
Administration share. An important element of this issue is maintaining and preserving the
existing supply. In 2019 Code Enforcement moved from Economic Development to the Police
Department.
▪ How is this organizational change working? What have been the benefits so far?
Have there been any challenges? If so, what are they?
Another issue is the variety of housing types. Council members expressed an interest in
ensuring a variety of options to meet the needs of Kent’s diverse population, including
communities of color, young people, seniors, and teachers, firefighters, and police officers.
Some Council members also stated their interest in ensuring more market-rate housing.
▪ What are the housing options available in Kent? What is the City currently doing to
expand the variety of housing?
▪ Are there other types of housing the City could encourage? What are they and
what might be needed to ensure they are built here?
▪ Because zoning is part of the equation, are there new ways to employ this tool to
help stimulate a greater variety of housing?
▪ Have other strategies been used by other communities that we might learn from
and adopt?
▪ Are there other interests of the Council in housing? If so, what are the strategic
elements of the issue that the Council wants to discuss? How would the City
address them?
11:45 Lunch and a Quiz: “How Well Do You Really Know Kent?”
12:30 Address Homelessness
COUNCIL / MAYOR / RAF PADILLA / JULIE PARASCONDOLA / MERINA HANSON /
TIM La PORTE
This is an increasingly important and vexing issue across most of the country and certainly in the
Puget Sound region.
▪ What is Kent advocating for at the statewide, countywide, and regional (south King
County) levels?
5
▪ Should anything be added to that list?
One element of this issue is tenants’ rights. A small group from the Administration and Council
has begun to discuss a draft ordinance for the Council’s consideration.
▪ How does the Council feel about this issue?
▪ Are there lessons we can learn from the experience of other cities?
▪ Is there support among the Council to address tenants’ rights? If so, what might
the City do?
We should also acknowledge that the rise in homelessness has become a larger challenge for
City departments such as Police, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation.
▪ How do the departments prioritize their efforts to address the impacts of
homelessness on City facilities, public health and safety, and the environment?
▪ Do we have the resources to address these impacts? What would it take to
effectively resolve problems related to the impacts?
▪ What else might we do to address these impacts but not lose focus on the core
functions of these departments?
▪ What are other interests of the Council in homelessness? Are there other strategic
elements of this issue that the Council wants to discuss? How would the City
address them?
1:45 Helping the Council Work as Effectively as Possible
COUNCIL
During the interviews to prepare for this year’s retreat, Council members said that they want
the Council to succeed and continue to be leaders on the issues that are vital to the
community’s quality of life. Many also stated that they want a Council culture that is
characterized by teamwork, openness, and transparency. The culture should also include candid
conversations during which everyone is heard and respected.
In October 2019 the Council moved away from a committee structure to the Committee-of-the-
Whole. Some Council members believe that it needs to be given time to work, while some seem
ready to return to the former structure.
▪ Why do some members of the Council want to return now to the former structure?
What are the benchmarks of success that are not being achieved or advanced by
the new structure? If addressed, would you support giving the COW more time to
work until it is reassessed? How long would be reasonable before assessing it?
What be would the criteria for evaluating the new structure?
▪ Are there any other issues related to how the Council works together that you are
interested in discussing?
2:15 Break
6
2:25 Council Talk Time
COUNCIL
This year, perhaps more than in the past, a number of issues were voiced by only one or two
Council members during the conversations that led to the development of this agenda.
Therefore, this session is an opportunity for the Council members to learn from each other
about these issues and why they are of interest, to “pitch these issues” to each other, and to
determine if there might be a consensus among the entire Council to address any of them soon
or in the future.
▪ Very briefly, what issues are important to you? Why?
▪ Now that we have generated this list, can some be clustered together by a strategic
policy direction?
▪ Are there any that capture the attention of the majority of Council members? If so,
let’s start by discussing them. And if there is interest in moving ahead, what is the
expectation? Are they new Council initiatives? If so, what is being done that would
be delayed or stopped?
▪ What should we do with the remaining issues? Should we keep them as “Issues on
the Horizon?” or address them in a different way?
3:45 Impressions of This Year’s Retreat
COUNCIL / MAYOR RALPH / ELT
▪ What are we taking away from the 2019 strategic planning retreat?
3:55 Review Quiz Results and Crown a Champion
EVERYONE
4:00 Adjourn
1
KENT CITY COUNCIL 2019 ANNUAL STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING
Friday, 1 February, Noon – 4:45 p.m. / Saturday, 2 February, 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Lake Wilderness Lodge / 22500 SE 248th Street, Maple Valley
F INAL SUMMARY
OF THE MEETING’S KEY DISCUSSIONS AND AGREEMENTS
Friday’s Attendees: Mayor Dana Ralph; Council President Bill Boyce; Councilmembers Marli
Larimer, Brenda Fincher, Dennis Higgins, Satwinder Kaur, Les Thomas, and Toni Troutner; Chief
Administrative Officer Derek Matheson; Executive Leadership Team (ELT) members Mike
Carrington, Marty Fisher, Pat Fitzpatrick, Kurt Hanson, Kim Komoto, Tim LaPorte, Dana Neuts,
Julie Parascondola, Raf Padilla, and Margaret Yetter; Council Administrative Assistant Cathie
Everett, and facilitator Jim Reid and note taker Jake Delbridge; Kent residents Bruce and Erica
Anderson, TJ Peterson, and Awale Farah
Saturday’s Attendees: All of the attendees from Friday plus Finance Director Aaron BeMiller;
Police Commander Mike O’Reilly; Human Services Manager Merina Hanson; Parks
Superintendent Garin Lee; Human Services Staff Member Christine Cain; and Kent residents Tim
Clark, and Bailey Stober
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The primary goal of this year’s City Council strategic planning meeting was to discuss the issues of greatest
interest and importance to the Council and Mayor and what needs to be done to advance the City’s vision
for the community’s long-term future.
Friday Afternoon Sessions:
COUNCIL AND MAYOR IDENTIFY MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2018
To lay the foundation for the discussions about the present and future, Councilmembers and Mayor Ralph
began the retreat by reviewing 2018 to identify the accomplishments of last year of which they are
proudest.
1. Solving the fiscal cliff: The Administration and Council worked collaboratively and diligently to
achieve a fiscally sound budget, which paved the way to address other important issues. In
addressing the fiscal cliff, both the Council and Mayor demonstrated nimble leadership and fast-
acting decision-making to address and solve an issue of mounting importance and urgency.
2. Communications: The City improved communications and its social media presence. As a result,
Kent is more effectively informing its residents about upcoming events to expand participation in
2
them, increasing the ability to “tell our own story,” and improving the public’s understanding of
our vision and “brand.”
3. Updated the Council vision and goals.
4. Departmental creativity and innovations: These examples were cited:
§ The Parks Department’s development of a recreation strategic plan, deployment of staff,
and changes in the management of the golf course.
§ The Public Works Department’s Transportation Master Plan, projects to improve traffic flow,
such as the 228th Corridor Project, and its proactive and successful pursuit of grants funding.
§ The Police Department’s investments in staffing and operational improvements.
§ The Economic and Community Development Department’s innovations in economic
development, including “Meet Me on Meeker,” implementation of Zoning Code reforms to
liven up downtown, and efforts to build support for the vision to strengthen Kent’s economy
(and the City’s budget) by attracting more manufacturing jobs (“Rally the Valley”).
§ Improvements in engaging neighborhoods.
5. Taking advantage of everyone’s ability to contribute: The unique perspectives of the elected
officials combined with the talents and dedication of staff and the cohesive decision-making of
the Council and Administration helped the City address key issues and resolve difficult challenges.
Important elements in our success were Council President Boyce’s leadership, Mayor Ralph’s
collaborative style, the leadership of Derek Matheson, and the support Council received from
Cathie Everett.
6. Kent’s stronger presence at regional forums: The City’s expanded presence at South King County
and countywide forums, and its coordination with both the state and King County improved the
City’s ability to advance its vision and interests.
7. Legislative accomplishments and launching key programs: Examples cited were: a) the passage of
the Rental Housing Inspection Program; b) implementation of the body camera program; and the
expanded use of school zone safety cameras.
ELT MEMBERS IDENTIFY ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 2018 AND CHALLENGES FOR 2019
The next discussion on Friday afternoon was the presentation of each department’s major
accomplishments of 2018 and the ELT members’ insights into their departments’ likely challenges in 2019.
The accomplishments and challenges are presented here in the order in which the ELT members spoke.
Margaret Yetter, Court
§ Accomplishments:
1. Transitioning of the new judge.
2. OCourt management system: The department is successfully going paperless; and an online
scheduling system that coordinates with Laserfiche is coming soon.
§ Challenges:
1. Continued funding for DUI court: sustaining the program when grant funding is exhausted;
the addition of red light cameras may create challenges and increase workload.
2. Departure of Judge Phillips in late November 2019 due to retirement.
3
Pat Fitzpatrick, Law
§ Accomplishments:
1. YMCA project: success attributable to great legal team efforts, extreme attention to detail,
and collaboration between the City Attorney’s Office and the Parks and Recreation
Department.
2. Transition in the filing cases in the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office:
o Criminal Division: Shifted attention away from probable cause method of case filings,
resulting in many fewer officers and civilians being subpoenaed to Court. Currently
applying the new system to older cases.
3. Civil Division: efforts on the 228th corridor work; review of the IT contracts; and review of
Sound Transit contracts.
§ Challenges:
1. Every prosecutor has been with office 10 years or more, making process change difficult.
2. Increase in case filings, but it is manageable.
3. Body cameras are coming online, which makes cases stronger but increases workload.
Kurt Hanson, Economic and Community Development (ECD)
§ Accomplishments:
1. The new permit process system has dropped wait times by 60%, which is even more
impressive given that 2018 was the second highest year for permitting year in both valuation
and numbers.
2. Restructured entire department and six of seven leadership team members are new leaders.
3. Sound Transit developments.
4. Rental housing inspection program.
5. Lodging Tax: now greater flexibility in use of funds to permit marketing and promotion of
Kent for advanced manufacturing, engineering, aerospace developments, conferences and
symposiums.
§ Challenges:
1. Technology is both a challenge and a motivation that will push us further along.
2. Implementing the permit tracking system highlighted the challenges we still face.
3. The restructuring of the department will create some organizational development challenges.
Dana Neuts, Communications
§ Accomplishments:
1. Increasing and improving City-resident engagement, including: Coffee and Conversation with
the Mayor; “Ask me Anything,” a new Facebook forum held every other month to answer
residents’ questions; and “Kent Now” videos, such as the one on the property and sales
taxes, which were huge hits with lots of viewership. – huge hit, lots of views
2. Mayor Ralph’s budget roadshow
3. EConnect
4. Started a blog and Instagram; grew Facebook audience by 44%, all through organic growth.
5. Adding 8 new neighborhood councils.
4
§ Challenges:
1. Streamlined Sales Tax: The loss of revenue has been damaging to the City and in the
department’s case.
2. Working to maintain the new tools that have been created and enacted.
Kim Komoto, City Clerk
§ Accomplishments:
1. Deployed electronic agenda management system for City Council committees; now using the
system more effectively.
2. Deployed the same system for City Council already in 2019.
3. Working with IT on Laserfiche.
§ Challenges:
1. High volume of public records requests creates workload challenges.
2. The growth in the use of body cameras will also increase the workload.
3. Budget constraints.
Marty Fisher, Human Resources
§ Accomplishments:
1. Employee labor relations: successful negotiations with Kent Police Officer’s Association
(KPOA) resulting in a new three-year contract; preparation for collective bargaining sessions
with AFSCME and the Teamsters.
2. Ongoing labor-management meetings: discussing issues proactively to prevent crisis
management or damage control.
3. Filled 110 requests for employees this year, many of which were for internal promotions.
4. Developed more comprehensive new employee orientation program.
5. For non-represented employees, working hard to make sure pay is competitive and job
descriptions updated
6. Risk management team has been doing great job defending the City against two major
lawsuits.
7. Training: held effective supervisory training to strengthen skills of supervisors; advanced
online training with new learning management system; developed and led new citywide
anti-harassment training, which will be repeated in the first quarter of 2019 (every employee
is required to complete it); hosted and will host a multi-cultural training program for all
employees to learn more about culture, customs, and needs of diverse communities; and
designed and implemented the LEAN innovation and improvement program.
8. Wellness and Benefits: brought on Alliant (Employee Benefits) to provide employee benefits
and wellness programs with a strong emphasis on promoting and maintaining wellness.
§ Challenges:
1. Upcoming collective bargaining negotiations
2. Working with IT to improve management systems
5
Mike Carrington, Information Technology
§ Accomplishments:
1. More than 8100 service tickets were closed.
2. More than 3400 multimedia requests were fulfilled.
3. Completed nearly thirty major IT projects.
4. Mug shot Booking program (Enrollment in RBPC/Regional Booking Photo Comparison)
5. ShoWare Center’s point of sales system replaced
6. Evidence Capture to Mobile (VeriPic)
7. B&O Solutions Releases
8. Jail Control System Upgrade
9. Information Security Program improvements and training
10. Data Center Hyper-Converged Infrastructure Upgrade
11. Network optimization
12. Golf System replacement
§ Challenges:
1. Trying to stay ahead of cyber security threats that seem to grow exponentially.
2. Managing a complex “hybrid” (servers vs. Cloud) environment while migrating systems and
data to the Cloud.
3. Respecting department service calendars while still “forging ahead.”
4. Enterprise Considerations for New GIS Centric Systems: important to utilize GIS as a core
element of doing business in the future; regulatory compliance requires us to support things
like end of year, beginning of year and payroll processing
5. Staffing: gratitude to Council and Mayor for supporting staffing of IT department. For
example, because of support IT office is now able to have new technological deployments
and have proactive and advanced tech efforts.
§ An Accomplishment and Challenge:
1. Trojan Virus (TrickBot) acts as a data thief and is now the top ranked threat to businesses.
We found it in our system, causing staff to remediate every single computer infected by the
virus, which is costly in terms of time and resources. Staff was instrumental in avoiding
multi-day or multi-week outage. Kent has been successful in preventing mass outages
through proactive, strong measures and immediate remediation when virus detected
Tim LaPorte, Public Works
§ Accomplishments:
1. Increased staff training and development has improved the department’s outcomes.
§ Challenges:
1. Transportation: Sound Transit’s new stations and new garage present an incredible
opportunity on the West Hill; the City needs to consider the infrastructure that will be
needed around them.
2. Staff development and training: it is difficulty to offer competitive salaries for top engineer
positions; thus, key vacancies remain. We should be developing staff and promoting from
within to balance external recruitments.
6
Julie Parascondola, Parks and Recreation
§ Accomplishments:
1. Provided services to millions of people all while facing a $1.1 million budget cut. We worked
to minimize the impacts on residents and staff.
2. Success of YMCA/Morrill Meadows Development projects : team effort with ECD, the City
Attorney’s Office, and Public Works.
3. Reorganized Parks Operations Division and improved data tracking to ensure equitable
maintenance and support across the City’s parks.
4. Kent’s “Call to Action:” prevention program that provides positive and healthy activities for
youth, including homework help and job offerings.
5. Broad, comprehensive constituent engagement with three formal and five informal
commissions, demonstrating the department’s commitment to making decisions with
substantive community input.
6. 100% in compliance with having full performance evaluations.
§ Challenges:
1. Managing the $1.1 million budget reduction while minimizing impacts on residents and staff
was extraordinarily difficult, but we continue to meet the challenge.
2. 2019-‘20: Focus on community marketing and low-barrier recreation programming to better
engage and support communities of color and vulnerable populations across the community.
3. Working with natural resources in Green Kent.
4. Working to maintain staff morale in light of budget cuts.
5. Need to conduct extensive planning and evaluation in the future to proactively address
expected changes in the workforce that will partially caused by upcoming retirements.
Raf Padilla, Police
§ Accomplishments:
1. Body Camera pilot project is underway. Twelve cameras going full-time; they are ahead of
schedule on knowledge, impacts report, and disclosure. Great leadership and cooperation
made it happen.
2. Funds savings: Purchased needed cars a year ahead at lower, older-model price.
3. Implementation of car per officer program: fully trained and capable officers are now able to
respond to incidents directly from their homes.
4. Hiring and employee retention: twenty-eight officers were hired; Internal civil service rule
reforms allowed us to get to top applicants faster; employee attrition rate dropped by
double digits.
5. Great improvements in outreach to homeless people.
§ Challenges:
1. Addressing the rise in homelessness.
2. Regional growth is increasing demand for service.
3. Demand for space runs up against office and storage space limitations.
4. Managing the impacts of reforms in the King County Regional Justice System. For example,
there is a lack of support for the County’s decriminalization/“zero youth incarcerations”
program. This complicates Kent’s efforts to manage and reduce crime, even with effective
enforcement practices.
7
5. Auto theft rate is one of the highest in the state; a lot of it is motivated by the opioid
epidemic and consequences of drug addition.
Derek Matheson, Mayor’s Office
§ Accomplishments:
1. New municipal court judges and new elected officials.
2. New leaders among City Staff; including: City Attorney Pat Fitzpatrick, Economic and
Community Development Director Kurt Hanson, Police Chief Raf Padilla, the City’s new
lobbyist and its new liaison to Sound Transit.
3. Negotiated key agreements with other local governments: the new agreement with the
Regional Fire Authority (RFA), which helped the RFA establish its goal of network
independence; and new franchise agreements with the water and sewer districts serving
Kent, which resulted in greater equity in taxes and fee levels paid by people served by City
utilities and those served by the Water and Sewer Districts.
§ Challenges:
1. Management of Kent Sound Transit stations and garage.
2. Employee workload – avoiding burnout.
3. Upcoming fiscal concerns: fiscal cliff resolution only pushed the structural imbalance out into
the future; costs of doing business growing faster than the growth of revenues; the
economic forecast is different than past budgets; and state laws create difficulties for cities
to raise enough revenues to maintain proper fiscal soundness.
When the discussion of accomplishments and challenges was coming to an end, everyone acknowledged
that the continuing and emerging challenges of the future will require partnerships and collaboration
among the departments and the open dialogue and collaboration between the Council and
Administration.
MAYOR RALPH REFLECTS ON HER FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE
Having recently completed her first year as Mayor, Mayor Dana Ralph offered reflections about City
government, the community, and her experiences in 2018. She cited these achievements:
1. Green Power passed through the Council.
2. Blue Origin is bringing good jobs with its new space.
3. Marquee on Meeker will be an amazing project and provide a perspective about what “Meet Me
on Meeker” will look like as it is implemented.
4. Highway project to connect 509 to I-5
5. Apprenticeship Ordinance coming before Public Works next week; it exemplifies how we are
supporting resident apprenticeships.
6. Sound Transit/Light Rail has been inspiring. Other cities are asking how we achieved the
development agreement with Sound Transit.
The Mayor also cited a few of the important things the City needs to work on this year and into the future.
1. Community outreach: We should demonstrate to residents how their input is fundamental and
integral to the City’s decision-making.
8
2. Technology: Because the number of City employees is relatively small in proportion to the level
of responsibilities and breadth of services, technology is uniquely vital to help the City provide
high quality customer services to both the public and one another and to increase efficiency and
effectiveness.
3. Regional conversations and working with other jurisdictions: The City’s presence at regional
forums advances our vision, goals, and interests. As we approach working with other jurisdictions,
we need to keep the big picture and the long-term in mind.
REVIEW OF THE 2018 COMMUNITY SURVEY
As a result of the discussion about the findings from the 2018 survey of Kent residents, the Council and
Administration will brainstorm how the City could more effectively communicate the City’s vision, goals,
and long-term direction to the public. The interest in helping the public understand that City officials have
a vision and are following it is based on the survey finding that many residents do not know or believe
that the City has a vision for Kent’s future and is working to implement it.
To launch the discussion, Dana reviewed these facts about the process and outreach:
1. These results are based on 6000 requests sent out in Round 1 and a second set of 6000 requests
sent out in Round 2.
2. The City received over 977 responses, nearly double the approximately 500 responses to the
2016 survey. Two reasons why the response rate may have increased so dramatically were: a) In
2018 requests to complete the survey were sent via email; and b) respondents were given a $5
gift card to Starbucks.
3. The respondents to the 2018 were more representative of Kent’s population than in 2016 as
evidenced by these three factors: a) more non-white residents participated, which is consistent
with the increase in the non-white population relative to the white population according to new
census findings for Kent; b) survey respondents were younger than the respondent sample for
2016; and c) the survey experts made special efforts to oversample populations in order to
ensure responses were representative of the city’s population.
4. In addition, the survey was weighted by age and gender to adjust for the sampling bias, so 2016
and 2018 percentage comparisons are “apple-to-apple” comparisons.
5. Kent’s residents for whom English is a second language (ESL) were well represented, according
to tracking of the percentage of respondents who speak languages other than English. Thirty-one
percent of respondents (weighted) spoke a language other than English, whereas 37% of Kent’s
population speaks a language other than English.
6. A limitation to the survey was that respondents could not answer “Not Applicable” or “I don’t
know.” That was intentional based on the finding that when these options are offered, too many
people opt out.
The survey’s key findings and metrics included:
1. Kent continued to received a “3.5 Star Community” rating.
2. Livability, government performance, and the economy are three areas where respondents rated
Kent “below average” and where the City should look to improve performance.
9
3. Compared to 2016, a smaller percent of residents feel “positive” about the allocation their tax
dollars and the value received for the services those dollars pay for. This decline fell within the
“neutral” category rather than “negative,” indicating that some of the respondents did not feel
strongly one way or the other.
4. Kent scored high for the variety of housing choices and quality of commercial shopping districts.
5. Safety: Crime rates in Kent have Crime decreased substantially (by double-digits), but survey
respondents reported feeling less safe, fueling a perception that the community is less safe
today. Could this be an issue of decreased or less visible police presence? Or might it reflect
concerns about property crimes over personal safety? The survey results do not shed light on
these questions because the survey question remained at a rather high level by asking about
crime and safety in general. And because the preponderance of responses fell in the “neutral”
category, residents may not feel that there is a crime problem.
Some of the themes from the survey were:
1. People are more in the neutral camp than before; that doesn’t necessarily mean that people feel
unsupportive of direction the City is going, but instead may not feel strongly in one camp or
another.
2. There are mixed feelings around the willingness to pay more in taxes to support City services,
with a reduction in willingness from 2016 to ’18. Survey respondents may not understand that
most taxes they pay are not imposed or collected by the City, but by the State of Washington and
King County. It is more likely that they were thinking about the total amount of taxes they pay
when asked if they are willing to pay taxes overall. Given this, could the City be more deliberate
in how it messages City taxes to residents?
3. Kent meets expectations for overall quality of services; it is performing above the performance of
other 3.5 Star Communities.
Listed below are strategies and ideas for the future that could help the City understand more precisely the
needs, concerns, and interests of Kent residents. No effort was made to reach agreement on these ideas;
they were the result of brainstorming during the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the 2018
Community Survey and its findings.
1. Conduct targeted or qualitative follow-up with the survey respondents. The purpose would be to
gain further insights into the public’s feelings and perceptions. For example, understand more
accurately why the feeling about the public’s safety during the daytime has worsened.
2. Rather than conduct a lengthy, broad survey in future years, conduct several shorter, more
focused surveys on various subjects, such as public safety or parks and recreation. This could
avoid asking questions for purely informational purposes and instead ask questions for which
there is a plan to move forward.
3. Responding to some of the key findings about how the City communicates and where residents
get their news, understand better why there was a decline in the use of certain information
sources such as the Quarterly Parks and Recreation Guide, radio (FM, AM, or streaming), Kent TV
21, and information published by the Neighborhood Councils.
4. Might any of these ideas improve communications between the public and City?
o Inform residents about the ability to view Kent TV 21 online.
10
o Educate people on the “brand” (identity) of the City by using utility bills or other such
publications.
o Use visuals and images, which may be more digestible than large quantities of text.
o When the Kent Reporter fails to write a story on something of importance to the City,
publish our stories using a variety of communications mechanisms.
o Issue a quarterly periodical like the one the RFA publishes.
Saturday Sessions:
COUNCIL DISCUSSES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VISION AND PATHWAYS
The Council’s retreat on Saturday morning began with a discussion, led by Mike Carrington, about the
City’s vision for information technology and the strategies that are being implemented and will needed in
the future to advance it. The discussion also included Mike’s assessment of the challenges that make
achieving the vision more difficult.
Vision:
Becoming a “Smart City” is an aspiration. The video Mike showed at the start of his presentation
illustrated the sophisticated strategies needed to reach that standard. It also highlighted that becoming a
“Smart City” requires deep commitment and a high level of resources. A “Smart City” integrates the
physical and digital worlds so that, for example, air quality is improved through the application of
technological advances.
If Kent cannot become a “Smart City” in the near future, Mike laid out two pathways for the City to make
strides toward achieving the vision.
1. Pathway #1: Invest in the infrastructure—hardware, software, and services—to strengthen and
modernize the City’s internal information technology, and expand its use across all departments.
Then, it to build technological connections between the City and the wider community,
including businesses.
§ In response to a Councilmember’s question, Mike said that the City has made incredible
progress in the last five years. Some current projects involve replacing older technologies,
while some involve innovations to maintain technologies so that they don’t become
outdated.
2. Pathway #2: Evolve from current accomplishments to future ones, from data to information,
and from information to knowledge (sensors provide data to inform better decision-making),
the result being knowledge-based measurable decision-making.
Mike commented that “enterprise solutions” and “business intelligence platforms” will allow the City to
advance toward the vision of knowledge-based decision-making. He complimented the Police and Parks
and Recreation Departments for already using these platforms.
Under the umbrella of this vision and the two pathways, Mike cited two tools that are representative of
the tools that can move Kent forward. They were: 1) the Open Data Portal that gives the public easy and
instantaneous access to all City records; and 2) the Technology Action Board (TAB), a subset of the ELT,
that receives recommendations from the IT department project managers, and agrees on the City’s IT
priorities.
11
Challenges:
Challenges that Kent faces today include:
1. The percent of data storage that is occupied continues to grow.
2. The vast majority of emails that come to the City are spam.
3. Each week the IT staff deals with an average of 148 viruses.
4. The incidence of “malicious viruses” and “bots” is increasing.
§ Mike reminded everyone to look carefully at the sender’s email address if the message
seems suspicious. It may contain unexpected numerals or letters within the address. If so, or
if there is anything else that raises suspicions, forward the email to the IT help desk to deal
with it.
§ Mike also mentioned that the TRAPS program is a sophisticated program that prevents the
transmission of TrickBot attacks into servers. However, it can miss a threat. When you click
on a suspicious link by mistake, turn off the computer and contact the IT staff.
5. The City is transitioning data to the Cloud and reducing “on premise” servers. But IT staff
recognizes the pros and cons of this strategy. Cloud storage must be stable, reputable, and
trustworthy because, for example, public records requests would be severely affected if
somehow data stored in the Cloud were inadvertently eliminated.
Responding to a Councilmember’s question, Mike commented that the City keeps its eye on “getting the
biggest bang for its buck.” For example, the City just negotiated with Comcast a ten-year franchise
agreement. He also said that to meet the challenges of the future, the City has to stay current, and even a
step ahead, of changes in technology.
Future Ideas and Strategies:
The Council, Mayor, and ELT briefly reviewed these strategies that Mike presented:
1. Examine “Smart Cities” that have funding/revenue source limitations similar to Kent’s to learn
how they are leveraging resources.
2. Ensure that projects are undertaken at appropriate junctures, which requires coordination with
other City schedules and projects.
3. Configure Cloud systems to more effectively avoid problems associated with customizing systems.
4. As current projects are finalized, the IT team should be able to focus on refreshing and
maintaining those systems as well as conducting comparisons between Kent’s and other cities’
technologies.
5. Like Tukwila, provide free Wi-Fi for students. In the past, the Kent Corridor hosted free Wi-Fi but
it became too expensive when vendors raised rates significantly. But the Parks and Recreation
Department is interested in exploring this strategy, so it may be worthwhile to learn from
Tukwila and engage local vendors.
COUNCIL DISCUSSES HOMELESSNESS AT LENGTH AND IN DEPTH
For this discussion of slightly more than two hours, Merina Hanson, the City’s Human Services Manager,
and Police Commander Mike O’Reilly joined Julie, Raf, and Tim in presenting what Kent is currently doing
to address homelessness, what other partners are doing, how homelessness impacts public health, City
facilities, safety, and the environment, and what more might be done at the local, regional, and state
levels to address the issue.
12
The first thing to note is that while our part of the country is thought to have some of the most strategic
and effective approaches to dealing with homelessness, the number of homeless people in the Puget
Sound area is increasing. Our situation mirrors what is happening elsewhere, lending credence to the
belief that homelessness is a nationwide problem.
To provide context to homelessness in Kent, Marina cited these statistics:
• In the annual regional count of the number of people who are homeless, the count in Kent was
177. But a more accurate number is likely to be 250.
• Eighty percent of students who experienced homelessness in 2016-‘17 were students of color.
Nearly all of them had experienced homelessness by temporarily living in hotels or motels, in
transitional living situations, and by staying with friends. Very few of them (less than 10%) were
unsheltered or living in a car.
What Kent’s Doing to Address Homelessness:
The City is currently:
1. Engaged in both preventive and reactive efforts, and investing in the continuum of “wrap around”
services that most effectively meet the needs of the community.
2. Balancing two interests that can seem in conflict: Ensuring public safety and operating with
compassion.
3. Working at the local and regional levels.
4. Contracting with a variety of community partners for services, some of which are intended to
prevent homelessness and some of which are focused on individuals experiencing homelessness.
Kent also supports service providers who manage facilities and the services offered within them.
5. Managing a biennial funding application process that includes:
§ Community partners submit applications for funding.
§ Human Services staff comprehensively reviews and analyzes the applications.
§ Staff recommends which applications should be funded.
§ The recommendations are included in the Mayor’s proposed budget.
§ The City Council reviews and approves them as part of the adoption of the budget.
What Community Partners are Doing:
There are many community partners that the City does not help fund but which the City depends on to
provide homelessness services. Among them are: 1) CREW, which provides mental health substance
abuse services; 2) The Salvation Army: conducts outreach to people residing in vehicles and has access to
three “low barrier shelters” that have in total more than 600 beds per night; 3) Kent HOPE, a day shelter
for women and children; 4) The Union Gospel Mission, which provides search and rescue to unsheltered
people; 5) Vine Maple Place, serving primarily homeless women and children and providing access to jobs
and financial empowerment; 6) Mary’s Place, which recently opened a shelter in Burien; and 7) Shared
Bread, which provides utility assistance, a safe parking program for people living in their cars, and hot
meals.
Furthermore, Seattle and King County are joining forces to work on homelessness issues this year. In
previous years, Seattle and the County had operated in separate silos. This partnership reflects significant
13
planning and cooperation at both the policy and operations levels, which should also benefit Kent and
other cities.
Additional Issues, Considerations, and Complications:
1. There is not a well-planned network of service hubs throughout the region.
2. Churches and other providers of shelter have not wanted to participate in the “rotating shelter
model,” which means this model may not be feasible.
3. Reducing restrictions on who may stay in shelters creates greater challenges for shelter hosting
groups.
4. Placing people in permanent supportive housing results in better outcomes in the long term, but
shelters are still needed to address short-term issues and challenges. Thus, the system must
balance short-term and long-term needs and invest in both.
5. Catholic community services is developing an eighty unit permanent supportive housing project
on Kent’s West Hill; 40% of the units will be set aside for homeless veterans, chronically
homeless people, and homeless people who have been the hardest to reach.
6. Under the definition of “being housed,” the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) doesn’t consider tiny homes as suitable, acceptable, or in compliance. Because the City
relies on HUD guidance and funding, we cannot afford to ignore or violate HUD’s very
prescriptive housing guidelines.
Public Safety Issues Around Homelessness:
Police Commander Mike O’Reilly led this part of the discussion with the Council, Mayor, and ELT. He
provided this overview of what the Police Department is doing to work with people who are homeless and
to address public safety issues related to homelessness.
The Police Department’s goal is to connect homeless people to services, not arrest them. The department
tries to balance support and enforcement. Today the Police Department spends approximately $650,000
annually on homeless services. This figure only represents the cost of personnel, not other related costs.
The department has little interaction with individuals and families facing the short-term crisis of
homelessness. Police officers interact with people with mental health and substance abuse issues when
there is a risk to public health and safety. Because their lifestyle is more solitary, the department’s
interactions with them are not all that frequent. But there are homeless individuals who frequently
demand the Police Department’s attention because they pose threats to public safety, including to other
homeless people. They often adamantly oppose assistance and referrals to service. These individuals draw
the largest portion of the Police Department’s time and resources that the Police would rather spend
helping homeless people connect to services.
The department has tailored its operations to particular situations. For example, the bike unit has
morphed into a team of officers responding to and providing services to homeless people. Another
challenging situation is the department’s work with homeless camps. They can pose significant
environmental and public health hazards from human waste, needles and syringes, and potential fires.
Some companies who contract to clean up these encampments have found that some camps are too
dangerous to abate. And some camps are reestablished even after they have been cleared.
Because there is a wide array of complaints from Kent residents about the camps, the Special Operations
Unit (SOU) prioritizes its work by the size and scope of the camps. Before making contact with a camp’s
residents, SOU defines what personnel are needed to clean it up (the jail crew, public works staff, etc.).
During the initial visit, SOU does not run the names of occupants through a database in search of
offenders; rather, it focuses on connecting people to services. SOU staff also tries to educate and provide
warnings about incompliance with codes. The size of the camp determines the amount of time provided
to the occupants to clean up and leave. SOU visits camps multiple times, providing service referrals or the
opportunity for occupants to set up alternative housing arrangements.
14
Commander O’Reilly ended his remarks by listing these limitations on the Police Department’s services:
1. The loss of the bike program has undermined the department’s efforts.
2. The department staffs its marine operations solely on overtime.
3. Significant time and energy are devoted to contacting and coordinating with the owners of the
encamped/trespassed lands.
4. The City pays for the cleanup of camps, but property owners are likely shouldering some of the
costs, too.
Public Works Issues Around Homelessness:
Tim LaPorte summarized the environmental issues and challenges presented by homelessness. He
described the environmental health problems created by the camps. For example, fecal and chemical
contaminants are washed into creeks and rivers. This is creating for the Public Works Department, acting
on behalf of the City, a challenge in complying with federal and state clean water and hazard abatement
mandates.
Parks and Recreation Issues Around Homelessness:
Julie Parascondola described the major challenges facing her department in addressing issues related to
homelessness. She said that the biggest conflicts result when homeless people camp in parks that are
used by the public. The perception that parks are unsafe reduces public health and wellness and
undermines public support for parks in general and recreation programs more specifically. This ”conflict
of use” problem also creates liability issues for the City.
In addition, Parks and Recreation employees and operations are affected. Staff may not feel safe or may
not want to spend their time cleaning up parks and recreation facilities after being used by homeless
people. Because the department is not receiving additional resources for these purposes, funds meant for
other programs and services could be siphoned away. All in all, these conditions are a burden on City
operations and may make working for the department less attractive.
Next Steps and Future Ideas and Strategies:
The next major step the City will take to address the issue will be the release in June of the Regional
Action Plan. Merina is a member of the Regional Task Force that is sponsoring the report. In March the
preliminary release of the report will illustrate how spending on homelessness has been tied to outcomes
and may highlight new focused strategies.
Other steps the City is taking to address homelessness include:
1. Monitoring proposed legislation in Olympia regarding mental health services funding, including
for homeless people.
2. Advocating that funding be channeled to prevention to help reduce the overall costs of
addressing homelessness.
3. Encouraging other cities to increase their investments. Kent uses a per capita funding model, but
other cities don’t. Staff is trying to influence other cities to adopt the per capita funding model so
that they begin to approach the funding level that Kent has attained.
4. The Police Department hopes to fully staff the SOU.
5. The Police Department also plans to establish a mental health response team, which would
include a mental health professional, a caseworker and a police office, to be able to respond
more rapidly and comprehensively to situations involving homeless people in need of mental
health services.
15
Councilmembers Larimer and Fincher reported that they have met and will meet with renters and
property managers to possibly propose an ordinance to add protections for renters that are aimed at
preventing to evictions and homelessness. If this proposal moves forward, the City Attorney’s Office will
need to be involved in drafting it.
Some Councilmembers also expressed an interest in ensuring that housing, including rentals, is affordable
for Kent residents. They want to see that residents of all income levels are served but that in particular
residents with low incomes are not pushed out of the city.
It was also suggested that expanding the hours of the Community Engagement Center could ensure
individuals have a safe place to be during the day, but it was noted that this could impact surrounding
businesses.
COUNCIL DISCUSSES VISION AND FUNDING FOR PARKS AND RECREATION
Parks and Recreation Director Julie Parascondola opened the discussion by commenting that while parks
and recreation programs have high returns on investment, these programs are usually the first areas to be
cut when budget reductions are in order. This is a national trend, not just local. In Kent, concerns about
future General Fund reductions and parks and recreation program cuts are creating stress for the Parks
and Recreation Department staff.
Julie also noted a recent success: The golf course plan was an excellent illustration of the importance of
strategic planning and the leveraging of scarce resources. And Julie told the Council that her long-term
vision includes getting the department designated as a nationally accredited parks system by 2023.
In the interests of preparing the department for the future, and to increase both its value and efficiency,
Julie is ensuring that:
1. The nine divisions within the department are coordinated and thinking and acting collectively.
Because they are at different stages of maturity when it comes to strategic planning, they are
working to align their strategies in eleven areas. Each set of strategies has performance measures
for the purposes of evaluation and process improvement.
2. Employees are increasing the level of data tracking and evaluation of implemented projects and
programs. For example, the department surveys residents to more accurately understand their
needs, concerns, and interests, and what projects they would prioritize. The surveys indicate that
Kent residents are very supportive of parks and recreation. One area that the department is
planning to further examine is the public’s interest in and need for additional public
transportation to access the parks and recreation facilities.
3. The department strategically identifies and applies for grants and other kinds of funding. Julie
assured the Council that these grants are aligned with the City’s vision and existing City, School
District, and King County policies and plans.
4. The department examines creating new sources of revenue to diversify and stabilize its funding
sources while reducing reliance on the General Fund. Survey results will direct it in exploring
permit and fee pricing structures, including the possibility of charging non-Kent residents more
than Kent residents for programs and services or basing those costs on a sliding scale determined
by need. In addition, the Washington Parks and Recreation Association is working at the state
level on possible legislation to allow Parks Districts to receive one-tenth-of-a-percent of sales tax
revenues or to gain the bonding authority currently given to Local Improvement Districts (LIDs).
16
In addition, the department is focusing on identifying funding from King County for the
Interurban Trail and recreation areas such as Panther Lake. Julie will soon meet with King County
Councilmember Reagan Dunn to advocate for returning to Kent more levy funding (Kent
currently contributes $3 million annually and receives in return $250,000).
5. Parks and Recreation implements “greening processes”—the use of environmentally friendly
products in the parks and processes throughout the department.
6. A succession plan captures the knowledge of existing professionals who will be retiring in the
coming years to ensure that institutional history is not lost and a smooth transition from long-
time to new employees. The Human Resources Department has been enlisted to help with the
succession plan.
COUNCIL REVIEWS CITY’S WORK TO ADDRESS SOME QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES
In preparing he retreat agenda, Councilmembers expressed interest in a variety of issues affecting the
quality of life in Kent. Kurt Hanson reviewed what the Administration has done or is doing to address a
number of quality of life issues.
Code Enforcement:
Code Enforcement has two code enforcement officers, including one who was recently hired. A number of
departments coordinate in this endeavor, particularly ECD and the Police, but occasionally Public Works
and the City Attorney’s Office, too. Hundreds of staff hours can be devoted to a single case. For example,
no action can be taken until the owner of a property is contacted, which can take a lot of time. Sometimes
abatement funds are used and sometimes, though rarely, criminal charges are filed. Some cases also
required coordination with the Regional Fire Authority (RFA).
An ordinance adopted by Council in July 2018 streamlined and improved Code Enforcement. When there
is a clear violation, the new ordinance provides officers the ability to immediately write citations for either
commercial or residential property. Citation recipients can either pay the fine or contest the citation, at
which point the goes to Court. Qualitative reports have shown this new system saves an enormous
amount of time because the City can move from initially identifying the problem to obtaining compliance
at a much quicker rate.
The Code Enforcement Division will soon be transferred from ECD to the Police Department’s
Investigations Division so that all filed operations are under one central leadership. The division already
deals with problem properties and related issues in the neighborhoods, so it makes sense for officers to
have the ability to enforce codes. The budget line item for Code Enforcement is accompanying the
program and staff’s move to the Police Department. Accountability measures will ensure that there is still
coordination between the Police and CED.
Rental Housing Inspection Program:
Before this program existed, the City did not have a mechanism to get into privately owned hazardous or
dilapidated housing facilities. Because they could not be adequately inspected, owners could take
advantage of the situation to violate size-of-bedroom requirements and other housing rental and/or
health codes. Today the City can inspect apartment dwellings where there are three or more units every
three years. Buildings with less than three units are not being registered, and, therefore, are not
17
inspected through this program. When there is a violation and tenants are disrupted, the landlord is
responsible for providing housing for those tenants.
The program will commence with rental inspections in the northeast corner of Kent because of the
relatively newer median age of the structures. Notices are being send to owners in that quadrant, letting
them know of this requirement and the City’s authority to inspect. In addition, because the City wants to
ensure that this program is self-funded, the annual apartment business license fee has been increased by
$15 to pay for it.
The Condition and Cost of Parking Signs:
Kurt mentioned that it is Important that the public understands that the City does not have a choice in
replacing and paying for reflective parking signs for parking zones; they are required for regulatory
compliance. This messaging to the public must be clear.
Windshield Inspections in Neighborhoods:
In ensuring compliance, fliers were sent to neighborhoods alerting them to the issues and requirements.
The fliers saved resources that would otherwise have been devoted to tracking down and sending letters
to each individual owner who was in violation of the Code.
RALLY THE VALLEY: TRANSFORMING KENT FROM WAREHOUSING TO MANUFACTURING
For over four decades Kent has received significant revenue from an economic infrastructure in the Kent
Valley that was based on warehousing. The State of Washington’s implementation of the streamlined
sales tax (destination-based sales tax) has led to a massive loss of revenue from sales tax, so Kent has
become a “pass through” whereby the state greatly benefits from Kent’s global e-commerce in the
warehouse industry while the City receives a declining portion of the tax revenues. From this
development emerged “Rally the Valley.”
Kent has gotten seven cities in South King County to agree to name the industrial valley the “Kent
Industrial Valley.” “Rally the Valley” is the effort to transform this industrial area from warehousing
towards the manufacturing, aerospace, and engineering industries. Twenty-seven percent of the Kent
Industrial Valley workforce is engaged in such industries, but 73% are not. These sectors bring in the
greatest revenues but are the minority of jobs. Kent and the cities of the Kent Industrial Valley are intent
upon reversing this.
Today warehousing generates a low level of revenue but consumes a high proportion of land. In addition,
it requires out of proportion land and street maintenance costs that are borne by the City. And today it
minimally contributes to the City’s employment market. Manufacturing holds the promise of generating
more jobs and revenue while costing less in terms of maintenance
Kurt outlined the long-range strategies. They are:
§ Recruit and promote manufacturing in the Kent Industrial Valley.
§ Demonstrate to employers the benefits of living in the region and why their employees want to
live and work here.
§ Incorporate design criteria into the industrial code to ensure pedestrian network connections at
key nodes.
§ Move toward performance based zoning; current zoning regulations, which are from the
previous era of warehousing, are outdated. The City is embarking on an eighteen-month process ,
18
including public meetings, to negotiate policy and Zoning Code changes that will promote
manufacturing industries.
§ Revisions to the lodging tax now allows the City to hire a public relations firm to conduct
marketing and promotion (including website and media campaigns) targeted specifically for
“blue” industry investments and manufacturing industries. This is a much more effective use of
funds than investing in general tourism promotion.
§ The seven partner cities have agreed to jointly market the Kent Industrial Valley for advanced
manufacturing.
§ The City is leveraging partnerships with industries by establishing “seed money” whereby
industries match City funding for manufacturing development.
At the end of Kurt’s presentation the Councilmembers appeared interested in and enthusiastic about this
vision for the valley and the Administration’s efforts to date, particularly gaining the support of the other
cities for calling the valley the Kent Industrial Valley and joining together to market it for manufacturing.
ISSUES ON THE HORIZON
Here are issues the Councilmembers expressed interest in and predicted would be topics of their future
conversations. These issues are not ranked and reflect individual member’s interests.
§ HR’s Cultural Community Conversation training has been great.
§ Current conversations to revamp and come up with Racial Equity and Social Justice training.
§ Location/landmark named for Officer Diego Moreno. Mayor Ralph and staff are looking into the
most appropriate landmark and location.
§ Inventory of available housing. Hayley Bonsteel will look into current version and revise if
needed and present it again to Council.
§ Codes for: 1) Design standards in new single-family developments; and 2) Enforcing existing
commercial design standards. Kurt and his staff have this information; Kurt offered to brief any
interested Councilmembers.
As this list was being generated, four ideas were generated that address current issues. The latter two will
be implemented.
1. City Council Districts: Election not at-large but by district. Most Councilmembers stated that they
do not favor district elections. It was also noted that the current Council is diverse and
representative of all principal Kent neighborhoods. Some Councilmembers noted that an
unintended consequence could be that there would be a reduced incentive to consider and
address needs of the entire city.
2. Update Council Manual to revised the Council Meeting dress code. There was a general
consensus that the Manual does not need to be updated, but that Councilmembers should be
reminded to avoid wearing of jeans, shorts, and flip-flops.
3. Protocol for Responding to emails from resident to the Councils. Everyone was reminded that the
practice is for the Council President to respond on behalf of the entire Council. Other
Councilmembers may respond there is a need for coordination. The Council President also
forwards messages to the appropriate Council Committee chair and department when the email
addresses issues for which a particular committee is responsible. Afterwards the Council
Committee chair should report back to the Council President on the status of the issue and reply.
Derek will update orientation materials to include e-mail protocol.
19
4. Councilmembers’ use of social media: Councilmembers must specifically state that they are
speaking from their personal perspective and that they are not speaking on behalf of Council.
Reminder: When on professional OR personal social media page, whatever a Councilmember
writes is subject to public records requests.
WHAT ARE WE TAKING AWAY FROM THIS YEAR’S STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT?
The Council, Mayor, and ELT answered that question by saying:
§ Importance of succession planning
§ Great presentations from departments
§ Very helpful and informative presentation on homelessness in Kent
§ Seeing everything we are doing to address associated issues
§ Exciting to see economic development in the Kent Industrial Valley
§ Great to address other issues that aren’t the budget
§ Importance of departments banning together to “tell our story”
§ Focus on the future of Kent—tackling today’s issues with a lens on improving the future
§ How state and regional efforts related to affordable housing will impact Kent
§ Excited to continue actively participating with Rally the Valley
§ Coordination and ability to work together as leaders
§ Fantastic professionals and responsive leadership
§ Exciting to see transformation of the City
§ IT roadmap and leadership is impressive
§ Resident survey: We must strategically think about how to work with residents to make decisions
for the betterment of the community
Our vision
Integrity
Caring
Communication
Teamwork
Innovation
Achievement
Thriving City
Evolving Infrastructure
Inclusive Community
Innovative Government
Sustainable Services
goals
The City of Kent is committed to
building a safe, thriving, sustainable
and inclusive community.
values
mission
2 0 2 0
KENT CITY COUNCIL ANNUAL STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT
FRIDAY
3:40 Strategies for Strengthening External Communications
COUNCIL / MAYOR RALPH / BAILEY STOBER
Council President Troutner and City Councilmembers,
As we move into 2020, we bring you a new communications philosophy that we
are implementing. We envision a dynamic and robust communications program
that balances the government’s need to disseminate information with the
public’s desire to know specifically what they want and availability of that
information when they want it. We want to transform our communications into a
modern communications program that doesn’t sound like, operate like or feel
like a boring government institution but rather a community leader who is
trusted, respected and looked to by residents and businesses for information.
We want to bring a human touch and feel rather than cold, robotic, traditional
communication. We want to make our information fun, warm and inviting so it
feels more like a conversation with a trusted friend.
We have unique challenges in Kent, but we also see them as opportunities. The
first obstacle we have is the lack of media coverage and attention in South King
County. But this also provides us with significant opportunity. While we might
not get the press coverage we want – it also allows us to tell our own story
without a media narrative with bias built in. The prime example is the Kent
Reporter recently featured their most read stories of 2019 – their top story
received 46,761 views. Their second most read story only had 23,000 views.
During a recent flood event one of our Facebook posts received 76,983 views
which is 64% increase over the Kent Reporter story. It is a reminder that we
have a farther and larger reach than even the biggest media source here and
we can use that avenue to tell our story. We can also use that platform to rebut
false information or dispel myths/rumors when they impact local government.
The other major challenge and opportunity we see is being able to communicate
on multiple platforms with an audience as diverse as the Kent community. It
would be impossible to reach every resident in every language – but we also
don’t think that excuses us from making an intentional effort to reach as many
as we can. We have compiled an ethnic media list that has 76 diverse media
outlets on it, and we plan to regularly expand that list. We also plan to hold
more community events in places where the community is at. We think it is
imperative to bring local government to the people it is supposed to serve
rather than the false expectation those residents come to City Hall.
We have an ambitious plan that we are setting into motion this year and it will
require all of us to make it a success. We will continue to highlight the great
work the Mayor and Council are doing to regularly improve the quality of life for
Kent residents. But we also plan to do more visionary communications with
regional media outlets and our social platforms to market the fact that Kent is
an amazing community with fantastic people and if you aren’t here – you’re
missing out.
We are looking forward to a robust discussion of our prior communications, our
new philosophy and our plan for 2020. Thank you for inviting me here today.
The Audience
Kent is the 6th largest city in Washington State and approximately 58.5% of
residents currently identify as an ethnic minority, making it a majority-minority
city. In 2019, WalletHub took a snapshot of America’s current cultural profile,
comparing more than 500 of the largest U.S. cities across three key indicators
of ethnic diversity. They examined each city based on ethnicity and race,
language and birthplace. In their analysis, Kent ranked as the 10th most diverse
city in the United States.
10.9% of the population is over the age of 65. 24.7% of the population is under
the age of 18. The largest segment of the population is those between the ages
of 18 and 65 which accounts for 64.4% of the population.
Different platforms have different audiences. While our traditional media
reaches an older audience several of our social media platforms reach a
younger and more middle age audience more effectively.
The 2019 Analysis
Having reviewed the communications and community relations work done in
2019 I believe it was average at best for our industry. Many local governments
did less and quite a few local governments did more. The real shining stars of
our 2019 communications efforts were the City’s multimedia team.
In the multimedia shop alone they:
• Printed and produced 1,358,162 documents
• Recorded 25 City Council meetings
• Recorded 29 Kent Now videos
• Produced every flyer and graphic for every department’s community
events
• They recorded every town hall, community meeting, open house event
• They designed and printed the budget books, finance forms, HR forms,
police forms, permit center forms, parks forms, court forms, business
cards, letterhead, handouts, postcards, posters, signage, etc.
• They received 11 awards last year from national and state organizations
From January 1, 2019 through November 15, 2019 the City posted
approximately 317 posts on Facebook. An average post reached 4,559 readers.
The total reach for that 11-month window was 1,445,199 people. During that
almost year period the Facebook page gained 2,121 new followers and 2,038
new likes.
The 2020 Objectives and Goals
In 2020 I want to create an even more transparent, accountable and accessible
local government. We will do this by creating a customer service model that is
implemented into our social media, our website and through increased
community events with high visibility.
Success will be defined by meeting these metrics:
• Establishing a truly accurate list of neighborhood councils and properly
recognizing who those local leaders are.
• Visiting each of those neighborhood councils to reaffirm our support of
them and check in.
• The successful recruitment of 6 new neighborhood councils.
• The revitalization of 3 neighborhood councils.
• Attending more community events representing the neighborhood council
program.
• Successfully graduate 30 graduates from the Winter cohort of Kent 101
and then graduate another 30 graduates from the Fall cohort.
• Establish a neighborhood monthly newsletter.
• Setting up 5 KentWalks in neighborhoods during the Spring / Summer.
• Setting up 6 coffee and conversation events throughout the City.
• Proactively engaging our Cultural Communities Board and other
community leaders in major policy and budget initiatives throughout the
year.
• Standing out as a regional leader on Census 2020.
• Establishing and implementing a citywide communications plan that
features an internal communications plan for the first time ever.
• Successfully implement a monthly internal newsletter from the CAO to
educate employees as to what is happening across the City.
• Establish and conduct social media training for our departments twice a
year.
• Audit our social media usage and best practices and use the audit results
to educate our users to best practices.
• Increase our social media reach to 5,000,000 annually.
• Increase our followers to 15,000 and our likes to 15,000.
• Utilize Facebook streaming for our City Council meetings and Committee
of the Whole meetings.
• Produce a monthly communications and social media statistics report so
departments can see what we are putting out and if it is effective or if we
should reevaluate the strategy.
• Conduct at least 4 virtual town halls or Ask Me Anything events with the
Mayor.
• Begin collecting data from customer facing departments such as metrics
on customer visits including reason for visit and frequently asked
questions so we can use that data to shape our communications.
• Successfully execute a resident survey to find out what residents want,
how they want it and the frequency they want it.
• Successfully execute a new annual Veterans day event.
• Successfully transition WinterFest into a City event.
• Rewrite all elected officials’ biographies.
• Successfully implement a marketing campaign featuring business profiles
explaining why businesses choose Kent and why they are successful here.
• Successfully implement a marketing campaign around Cuisines of Kent
featuring our diversity and less known but deliciously amazing food found
right here in Kent.
The Summary
As previously mentioned, I have a different communications philosophy than
some of my peers. I believe we must build authentic relationships with our
residents and show them our human side in order to become a trusted source of
information. Our lack of media coverage presents us a golden opportunity to
become the exclusive source of reliable information in our City. This news can
be presented without media bias or spin and can be delivered directly to the
residents of Kent. I have inserted humor and plain talk into much of our
communications and the results have paid off tremendously. From November
15th – February 1 a total of 2.5 months we gained 1,036 new followers on
Facebook which is a 10% increase in our followers. We’ve gained 1,000 new
likes to our page as well. The most impressive part is in that short 2.5-month
window our reach has been 494,632 readers, meaning in that window we hit
34% of last years total reach. More people are reading and engaging with our
posts and getting their information directly from the City.
We will continue to increase our reach – I have an ambitious goal of reaching
5,000,000 readers this year and I believe we can do it.
I appreciate your continued support, guidance and participation as we move our
communications program into the 21st century and are recognized as an
innovative government leader on this front.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bailey Stober
Interim Communications Manager
2/6/2020
1
Communications Update Bailey Stober,
Interim Communications Manager
A new
philosophy
Balance the government’s need to disseminate information with
the public’s desire to know specifically what they want and when
they want it.
Get away from boring institutional language and become more
conversational.
Create trust through authenticity.
We want to become a trusted, respected community leader not a
dry, boring one way communications steet.
2/6/2020
2
We have the
reach
2019 most viewed Kent Reporter story: 46,761 views
2019 most viewed City of Kent Facebook post: 76,983 views
A new
approach ‐
humor
2/6/2020
3
Flood Metrics
Facebook
Growth on a 3
mo. Average.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2019 3 Mo Avg Nov 15 ‐ Feb 1 2020
Facebook Growth –3 Month Average
Followers Likes
2/6/2020
4
Ethnic Media
58.5% of our residents identify as an ethnic minority –confirming
our status as majority‐minority.
WalletHub says we are the 10th most diverse City in the US.
Ethnic media list with 76 outlets and will continue to grow.
Regional vs
Local Media
2 0 2 0
KENT CITY COUNCIL ANNUAL STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT
SATURDAY
8:40 Address the Structural Deficit
COUNCIL/ MAYOR RALPH / DEREK MATHESON / PAULA PAINTER / ELT
1
Addressing the
Structural Deficit
City Council Retreat
February 8, 2020
Paula Painter, CPA, Finance Director
Finance Department
2
Agenda
•Objective
•Overview
•How Did We Get Here?
•Actions Taken To Date
•Financial Outlook
•Addressing the Structural Imbalance
2
Objective
Discuss a strategic and long-term
approach to address the City’s $2 million
annual structural deficit.
3
Fiscal Cliff
Unlike most other cities Kent faced a
fiscal cliff as the result of:
Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation –
Uncertainty in continued funding
Panther Lake Annexation Mitigation –
ending June 30, 2020
The City navigated successfully.
4
3
Structural Imbalance
•Like most other cities, Kent faces
an ongoing structural imbalance
•Current levels of service cannot be
maintained under current taxing
limitations in future years
•Revenues grow at a slower rate
than costs to provide services
5
Structural Imbalance (continued)
•Evolved over many years
•Most contributing factors outside
of the control and/or influence of
the City
6
4
How Did We Get Here?
Revenue Impacts
Decreased state-shared revenues
Tax-limiting measures
Outdated tax structure
State “sweeping” of accounts
7
Key Timelines
8
2000-2001
• Motor Vehicle
Excise Tax
Repealed
(I-695)
•1% Property
Tax Limitation
2007-2009
•Great
Recession
• Streamlined
Sales Tax
•Local B&O Tax
Apportionment
• Legislative
Sweep of
$368M from
PWTF
2011-2013
• State Shared
Revenue Cuts
• Liquor Profit
Caps
• Liquor Profit
Sweep of One
Year’s Revenue
2013-2015
• Local Liquor
Taxes Reduced
by 50%
• Sweep of PWTF
5
How Did We Get Here? (continued)
Expenditure Impacts
Demands for high-quality City
services
Rising labor (and benefit) costs
Unfunded mandates
9
What Have We Done So Far?
10
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
5
20
2
8
Expenses
Position Reductions XX X
Program Reductions XX
Revenues
Use of Fund Balance XXXX X
Business License Fee Restructure X
Permit Fee Restructure XX X X
Use of Property Tax Banked Capacity XX
Adjust Tax Allocations XX X
B&O Tax Increases XX XXX
Red Light/School Zone Cameras XX
Central Services Cost Allocations X
Secured SST Funding for Next Biennium X
Water/Sewer/Utility Tax Increases X
6
Financial Outlook
11
General Fund
Estimated Position Reduction (12)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
(in thousands)Actual Est Actual Adj Budget Forecast
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 21,595 23,340 31,890 30,320 29,020 27,510 24,340 23,850 24,880 25,360 23,270
Baseline Revenues 102,677 117,260 104,670 106,140 107,200 108,280 106,250 107,330 108,450 109,590 110,740
Additional B&O Revenues - - 3,400 3,900 6,000 6,000 6,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 12,400
Revenues from Capital - - - - - - 4,870 4,890 6,120 6,250 6,380
Baseline Expenditures 104,178 108,710 108,640 111,340 114,310 117,510 120,820 124,250 127,860 131,610 135,500
Reduce Transfer to Street/CRF - - - 400 (60) (3,210) (4,060) (4,770) (4,680) (4,690)
Change In Fund Balance 2,151 8,550 (1,570) (1,300) (1,510) (3,170) (490) 1,030 480 (2,090) (1,290)
ENDING FUND BALANCE 23,746 31,890 30,320 29,020 27,510 24,340 23,850 24,880 25,360 23,270 21,980
22% 29% 28% 26% 24% 21% 20% 21% 21% 18% 17%
Capital Resources Fund
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
(in thousands)Adjusted Est Actual Adj Budget Forecast
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 11,721 13,000 12,250 7,550 7,580 7,670 7,950 5,920 4,380 3,240 2,500
Baseline Revenues 18,815 7,223 11,000 10,170 10,290 10,410 10,540 10,660 10,790 10,920 11,050
SST / Marketplace Fairness - 935 3,850 2,700 500 500 510 520 530 540 550
Revenues moved to General Fund - - - - - - (4,870) (4,890) (6,120) (6,250) (6,380)
Total Debt Service 9,307 8,740 7,380 4,180 3,740 3,670 3,750 5,370 3,880 3,990 4,100
Baseline Available for Capital 8,232 8,880 12,010 3,300 3,300 3,400 300 300 300 300 300
Additional Available for Capital - - - 5,200 3,500 3,400 4,000 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,000
Change In Fund Balance 1,276 (752) (4,700) 30 90 280 (2,030) (1,540) (1,140) (740) (340)
ENDING FUND BALANCE 12,997 12,248 7,550 7,580 7,670 7,950 5,920 4,380 3,240 2,500 2,160
Forecast Assumptions
•Phase in $12M increases in new B&O Tax
Revenue
•Model Ordinance Change impacts timing of
Annual Filers for 2020
•Continued Reduction in Street Fund Subsidy
•No Other New Positions
•Consistent Revenue Growth
12
7
Forecast Assumptions (continued)
•Ordinance 4293 – Keep internal utility tax
(2%) in GF beginning in 2021 (~$1.5m per
year)
•Shift revenues to GF from CRF
•No longer transfer 4% Utility Tax from GF to
CRF (~$2.5m per year) beginning in 2024
13
Addressing the Imbalance
•Taking a strategic, long-term approach:
Engaging with Council
Consider Options
Increase Revenues
Decrease Expenditures
Hiring Consultant to Draft 15-Year
Budget Strategy
Results Not Likely Available for 2021-2022
Biennial Budget
14
8
Considering a Consultant
•Surveyed three cities – Auburn,
Everett and Kirkland
•Auburn and Everett hired a
consultant
•Auburn’s plan: Develop a Fiscal
Model to respond to a range of
assumptions and trends
15
Survey of Other Cities
Key Takeaways
•Importance of benchmarking to
comparable cities
•Kirkland Enhanced Public Services
and Community Safety
–Ballot Measure
16
9
Survey of Other Cities
Key Takeaways (continued)
•Common Strategies:
–Tax and Fee Policies
–Expenditure Management
–Economic Development
–Use of Fund Balance
17
Key Questions
•What are the Council’s overarching
interests in addressing the
structural imbalance?
18
10
Key Questions (continued)
•Is the Council receptive to
considering a range of strategies,
including:
–New revenues
–Across the board reductions
–Targeted reductions
19
Potential Revenue Options
•Property Taxes:
Levy Lid Lifts – General Government
or Specified Purposes
Single Year or Multi-Year
•Local B&O Taxes:
.2% maximum (higher rate requires
voter approval)
2020
11
Potential Revenue Options
•Utility Taxes:
Electric, natural gas and telephone –
>6% with voter approval
City water, sewer, drainage and
garbage - no statutory limit
Cable - not “unduly discriminatory”
2121
Key Questions (continued)
•If the City were to consider new
revenues, what would be the
potential sources?
•What might reductions look like?
–How would they affect services to the
community?
–How would they uniquely impact
departments?
•Are any reductions “off the table?”
22
12
Key Questions (continued)
•Is the Council supportive of a ballot
measure which would provide a
stable, consistent revenue stream for
Police and Criminal Justice?
–Would it be appropriate for
Administration to move forward with the
development of such a proposal and
bring it to Council for consideration?
23
Key Questions (continued)
•Is the Council interested in one or
more mini-retreats to discuss the
2021-2022 budget this
spring/summer?
–The mini-retreat could occur once we
have a better estimate of the gaps for
2021 and 2022.
–An opportunity to provide input to the
Mayor on her proposed budget.
24
2018 2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Adjusted Est Adjusted
(in thousands)Actual Budget Actual Budget
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 21,595 23,340 23,340 31,890 30,320 29,020 27,510 24,340 23,850 24,880 25,360 23,270 21,980 18,300 11,810 2,420 (9,970) (25,550)
Revenues
Taxes
Property 29,971 29,980 30,640 30,460 30,880 31,310 31,740 32,180 32,620 33,070 33,520 33,980 34,440 34,900 35,370 35,840 36,320 36,800
Sales Tax 24,699 21,770 27,080 20,850 20,010 20,410 20,810 22,970 23,390 25,030 25,580 26,130 26,700 27,280 27,870 28,470 29,090 29,720
Utility 19,289 19,600 19,520 19,280 20,790 20,830 20,880 20,930 20,980 21,030 21,090 21,150 21,210 21,280 21,350 21,420 21,490 21,570
Business & Occupation Tax 9,422 11,500 11,740 14,900 15,400 17,500 17,500 17,500 20,500 20,500 20,500 23,900 23,900 23,900 23,900 23,900 23,900 23,900
Other 1,070 880 860 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 990 1,000 1,010 1,020 1,030 1,040
Licenses and Permits 7,558 7,080 7,420 7,490 7,000 7,100 7,210 7,310 7,420 7,530 7,650 7,760 7,880 8,000 8,120 8,250 8,370 8,500
Intergovernmental Revenue 7,920 6,760 6,620 2,950 3,150 3,160 3,170 3,180 3,180 3,190 3,200 3,210 3,220 3,220 3,230 3,240 3,250 3,260
Charges for Services 6,603 6,000 7,910 6,280 6,900 6,960 7,020 7,080 7,140 7,210 7,270 7,340 7,400 7,470 7,530 7,600 7,660 7,730
Fines and Forfeitures 1,361 1,110 1,300 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150
Miscellaneous Revenue 2,643 2,180 3,190 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450
Transfers In 950 960 980 1,360 1,400 1,410 1,420 1,430 1,440 1,450 1,460 1,470 1,480 1,490 1,500 1,510 1,520 1,530
Total Revenues 111,486 107,820 117,260 108,070 110,040 113,200 114,280 117,120 121,220 123,570 124,840 129,520 130,820 132,140 133,480 134,850 136,230 137,650
Expenditures
Salaries 39,738 40,750 42,260 42,860 44,810 45,930 47,070 48,250 49,460 50,690 51,960 53,260 54,590 55,960 57,360 58,790 60,260 61,770
Benefits 14,702 18,270 17,180 19,250 18,590 19,270 19,980 20,720 21,490 22,290 23,130 24,000 24,910 25,860 26,850 27,880 28,950 30,070
Supplies 2,496 2,990 2,510 2,900 3,020 3,140 3,270 3,400 3,530 3,680 3,820 3,980 4,130 4,300 4,470 4,650 4,840 5,030
Services & Allocations 26,172 28,110 27,030 25,180 26,170 27,320 28,500 29,710 30,980 32,370 33,820 35,330 36,910 38,480 40,120 41,830 43,600 45,440
Transfers Out 26,101 20,830 19,730 18,450 18,750 19,050 18,630 15,530 14,730 14,060 14,200 14,240 13,960 14,030 14,070 14,090 14,160 14,190
Total Expenditures 109,334 110,950 108,710 108,640 111,340 114,710 117,450 117,610 120,190 123,090 126,930 130,810 134,500 138,630 142,870 147,240 151,810 156,500
Change in Fund Balance 2,151 (3,130) 8,550 (1,570) (1,300) (1,510) (3,170) (490) 1,030 480 (2,090) (1,290) (3,680) (6,490) (9,390) (12,390) (15,580) (18,850)
ENDING FUND BALANCE *23,746 20,210 31,890 30,320 29,020 27,510 24,340 23,850 24,880 25,360 23,270 21,980 18,300 11,810 2,420 (9,970) (25,550) (44,400)
22%18%29%28%26%24%21%20%21%21%18%17%14%9%2%-7%-17%-28%
*Ending Fund Balance Reduced in 2020 due changes in the B&O model ordinance in which annual filer payments are not due till the following April
Estimated Amounts Needed to Maintain 18% Fund Balance:
Positions (12) (10) (19) (19) (17) (15) (16)
Amount**(1,780) (5,140) (11,580) (21,280) (34,070) (49,790) (68,790)
ENDING FUND BALANCE W/ REDUCTIONS 20,210 31,890 30,320 29,020 27,510 24,340 23,850 24,880 25,360 23,270 23,760 23,440 23,390 23,700 24,100 24,240 24,390
18%29%28%26%24%21%20%21%21%18%18%18%18%18%18%18%18%
**Amounts are cumulative based on prior year(s) reductions.
15-Year Forecast
General Fund
FY 2020-2034
Forecast
Last Updated: 2/4/2020
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Est Adjusted
(in thousands)Actual Actual Budget
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 11,721 13,000 12,250 7,550 7,580 7,670 7,950 5,920 4,380 3,240 2,500 2,160 2,220 2,140 1,940 1,660 1,500
Revenues & Other Sources
Sales Tax 5,138 5,800 4,460 4,940 5,040 5,140 3,500 3,600 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Real Estate Excise Tax 1st Qtr %3,845 4,630 1,700 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150
SST / Marketplace Fairness 935 3,850 2,700 500 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 600
Miscellaneous Revenues 10 360 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Transfer In-General Fund - 4% util tax 2,886 2,910 3,040 3,060 3,080 3,100
Utility Tax - 2% for Debt Svc 1,509 1,550 1,570
Transfer In-Other 5,426 683 210
Total Revenues & Other Sources 18,815 16,868 14,850 12,870 10,790 10,910 6,180 6,290 5,200 5,210 5,220 5,230 5,240 5,250 5,260 5,270 5,270
Expenditures (Transfers)
Debt Service Expenditures 9,307 8,740 7,380 4,180 3,740 3,670 3,750 5,370 3,880 3,990 4,100 4,210 4,360 4,490 4,630 2,200 2,200
Allocations 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160
Capital Projects
ECD 500 (150)500
Facilities 117 2,200 2,150
Fleet 1,940
Information Technology 1,250 4,400 2,860 1,500 1,500 1,550
Parks 3,665 40 5,500
Public Safety 150 100
ShoWare 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Streets 2,400 600 1,500 1,500 1,550
Additional Available for Projects 5,200 3,500 4,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 500 500 450 2,770 2,610
Capital Project Expenditures 8,232 8,880 12,010 8,500 6,800 7,400 4,300 2,300 2,300 1,800 1,300 800 800 800 750 3,070 2,910
Total Expenditures (Transfers)17,539 17,620 19,550 12,840 10,700 10,630 8,210 7,830 6,340 5,950 5,560 5,170 5,320 5,450 5,540 5,430 5,270
Change In Fund Balance 1,276 (752)(4,700)30 90 280 (2,030)(1,540)(1,140)(740)(340)60 (80)(200)(280)(160)-
ENDING FUND BALANCE 12,997 12,248 7,550 7,580 7,670 7,950 5,920 4,380 3,240 2,500 2,160 2,220 2,140 1,940 1,660 1,500 1,500
*per Ordinance 4295, 2019 increased B&O square footage rate could be available for this fund (~$3m annually). For the 2019-20 biennium, these additional funds went towards Parks capital.
Capital Available
2021-2034
43,230$
15-Year Forecast
Capital Resources Fund
FY 2020 - 2034
Forecast
Last Updated: 2/4/2020
2 0 2 0
KENT CITY COUNCIL ANNUAL STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT
SATURDAY
10:30 Address Housing
COUNCIL / MAYOR / KURT HANSON / RAF PADILLA
2/4/2020
1
Code
Enforcement
Commander Rob Scholl
2/4/2020
2
Code Enforcement
History:
-Early years with fire department
-Later years with Community Development
-2019 moved to Police Department, under Special
Operations Unit
Code Enforcement
Current Staff, two officers (non-sworn) and one
administrative assistant
AA – Abbie Taylor
Officer – Doug Garrett
Officer – Laine Farr
Code Enforcement
2/4/2020
3
Code EnforcementCode Enforcement
History of Handling Complaints:
‐Community Development administrative staff would take complaint and give to CEO.
‐CEO would be responsible for calling or e‐mailing reporting party and find out details and enter it into “Kiva”
records system.
‐They would then be responsible to investigate and conduct any follow‐up notifications to the complainant.
‐No civil citation process, would have to go through legal to file civil case against person in violation. No court
process, would go to hearing examiner or collections.
‐Final step would be criminal case that they would have to bring to police department for PD to investigate.
Code Enforcement
How we handle complaints now:
- On line (Cop-logic) or hotline 253-856-5909
- Vetted by AA and classified
- If cased, goes to CEO to investigate, and reporting party notified
- If no case, reporting party notified why not and where they need to
go for their issue
- Timeline and steps of investigation (letter, citation, criminal)
Code Enforcement
2/4/2020
4
Code Enforcement
Steps taken in investigation:
-Once cased, admonishment letter sent - compliance, case closed.
-No compliance to letter, follow-up to see why - no compliance,
citation. Compliance, case closed.
-No compliance after three citations, criminal case by Police NRT
Officer. Case only cleared once compliance is achieved.
-CEO’s have ability to be flexible with investigative process depending
on issue and level of engagement of party in violation. Bottom line
is, voluntary compliance is the #1 goal.
Code Enforcement
Code Enforcement
Priorities of unit:
- Impact to Safety and Health of the community (Attraction of
criminal element, rodents, insects, etc.)
- Impact to the environment (Contaminants getting into storm
drain system)
- Impact to the quality of life (Uncut grass, vehicles parked on
lawn, fences falling down, etc.)
Code Enforcement
2/4/2020
5
Code Enforcement
How is it working?
- Before weeks behind in responding to complaints. Now able to
respond in a day and never more than three.
- CEO’s able to concentrate of investigation as AA is able to make RP
contacts and enter cases. AA also able to do all administrative tasks
that CEO’s before had to do.
- Communication between CE Officers and NRT Officers is seamless as
they are in the same area. CE case going criminal is a flow with no
pauses in investigation. (All CE cases in same records system as
police cases)
Code Enforcement
Code Enforcement
Challenges:
- Space: Everyone is crammed in a small area which is great for
communication, not good for distractions. (Working to get CEO’s and
their AA in the same area, but still close proximity to NRT officers).
- Staffing: Most cities the size of Kent have 4 to 6 CEO’s. Current
staffing allows us to respond and deal with most all high priority
issues. Unable to do much, if anything, with minor violations. No
capacity of proactive Code Enforcement.
Code Enforcement
2/4/2020
6
206th Property (North End)
Property Unpermitted Construction
Divsar Property (West Hill)
Before After
2/4/2020
7
Star lake Property
Before After
Soos Creek Trail Property
Ariel Photo Ariel Photo
2/4/2020
8
Questions
Code Enforcement Complaint Processing
There are two primary ways to report code enforcement violations
A) Code enforcement hotline (253-856-5909) it should be noted that this is a voice
mailbox only. Complaints that come in via the hotline are manually entered in our
reporting system
B) On line at kpdonlinereport.com click on “code enforcement on the left side of the
page and follow the prompts, it will automatically take you to coplogic.com to submit
the report
• After a report has been made, it is reviewed by the administrative assistant. The
complaint is vetted and if it falls outside of the purview of code enforcement, it is
routed to the appropriate division or the reporting party is notified that the action is not
unlawful.
o All reporting parties are contacted and notified that their complaint has been
received.
• Alleged violations are researched to determine who owns the property and/or who is
committing the alleged violation.
o A case is created
o An admonishment letter is sent to the alleged violator, notifying them of the
allegations and what needs to be done to correct the violation.
o A deadline is included in the admonishment letter. Typically, violators are given
two weeks to make corrections; however, this timeline may be as much as 30
days. (some violations, such as derelict vehicles are given 30 days because it is
required by law)
• After the allowed time has elapsed, an onsite inspection is conducted by one of our two
code enforcement officers.
o If the issue has been corrected the case is closed.
o If there is a violation, a Notice of infraction is issued. The fine is $513 per
violation.
o If a violation persists (generally 3x infractions issued) and is egregious, the case is
sent to the NRT and a criminal case is started.
• Important information to understand:
o The above process may be altered depending on specific circumstances of any
given case
o The process takes time, this is intentional and necessary to allow for compliance
o The goal of Code Enforcement is not punitive but rather to achieve compliance
o Due to the limited number of code enforcement officers, we do not have the
ability to proactively seek out code enforcement violations
o Code enforcement prioritizes cases based on the severity of the issue. An un-
mowed lawn will not be handled before nor receive as much attention as a
dilapidated, flop house
2/4/2020
1
Housing in Kent
KENT CITY COUNCIL ANNUAL
STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT
02/07/2020‐02/08/2020
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
42,815
Occupied
Housing Units
Renter
Occupied
45%Owner
Occupied
55%
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
2/4/2020
2
Occupied or Vacant
Occupied
94%
Vacant
6%
Homeowner
Vacancy Rate: .8
Rental Vacancy
Rate: 6.4
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
Number of Housing Units in Structure
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
One Unit,
Detached
One Unit,
Attached
Two Units 3 or 4 Units 5 to 9 Units 10+ Units Mobile Home
or Other
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
2/4/2020
3
Age of Housing Stock
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
2014 or later2010‐20132000‐20091980‐19991960‐19791940‐19591939 or earlier
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Home Values
(Owner Occupied Units)
Median: $316,400
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES,
US CENSUS
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2/4/2020
4
Household Income (as percent)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Less than
$10,000
$10,000
to
$14,999
$15,000
to
$24,999
$25,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000
to
$149,999
$150,000
to
$199,999
$200,000
or more
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
Median:
$68,880
Mean:
$85,568
Household
Size 30% AMI
Affordable
Monthly
Rent
50% AMI
Affordable
Monthly
Rent
60% AMI
Affordable
Monthly
Rent
80% AMI
Affordable
Monthly
Rent
100% AMI
Affordable
Monthly
Rent
1$ 23,175 $ 579 $ 38,625 $ 966 $ 46,350 $ 1,159 $ 61,800 $ 1,545 $ 77,250 $ 1,931
2$ 26,475 $ 662 $ 44,125 $ 1,103 $ 52,950 $ 1,324 $ 70,600 $ 1,765 $ 88,250 $ 2,206
3$ 29,794 $ 745 $ 49,656 $ 1,241 $ 59,587 $ 1,490 $ 79,450 $ 1,986 $ 99,312 $ 2,483
4$ 33,100 $ 827 $ 55,166 $ 1,379 $ 66,200 $ 1,655 $ 88,266 $ 2,207 $ 110,333 $ 2,758
5$ 36,409 $ 910 $ 60,682 $ 1,517 $ 72,818 $ 1,820 $ 97,091 $ 2,427 $ 121,364 $ 3,034
6$ 39,718 $ 993 $ 66,197 $ 1,655 $ 79,437 $ 1,986 $ 105,916 $ 2,648 $ 132,395 $ 3,310
7$ 43,028 $ 1,076 $ 71,713 $ 1,793 $ 86,055 $ 2,151 $ 114,741 $ 2,869 $ 143,426 $ 3,586
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
King County Household
Area Median Income:
$95,009
2/4/2020
5
Monthly Housing Cost (for those units with a mortgage)
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Less than
$500
$500 to $999 $1,000 to
$1,499
$1,500 to
$1,999
$2,000 to
$2,499
$2,500 to
$2,999
$3,000 or
more
Median:
$2,010
Gross Rents
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Less than
$500
$500 to $999 $1,000 to
$1,499
$1,500 to
$1,999
$2,000 to
$2,499
$2,500 to
$2,999
$3,000 or
more
Median:
$1,286
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
2/4/2020
6
Monthly Housing Cost to Income –An Illustrative Look at
Affordability
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
What’s Not
Captured in the
Data?
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
Non‐Typical Scenarios (roommates, renting SFH,
etc.)
Non‐Typical Scenarios (roommates, renting SFH,
etc.)
Complexities of monthly cost vs home value
(especially for those on fixed income, related to
property taxes)
Complexities of monthly cost vs home value
(especially for those on fixed income, related to
property taxes)
Who wants to live here but doesn’tWho wants to live here but doesn’t
Wages –important to think about the relationship
between workforce and housing
Wages –important to think about the relationship
between workforce and housing
2/4/2020
7
What Types of Housing are Missing in Kent?
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
What Can Cities Do?
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
Zoning – dictates what is allowed but
not necessarily what gets built (market)
Opportunities to allow more gentle density in SF
zones
Incentives –very few options available under state law (upcoming proposal)
Reducing barriers –permit review streamlining, fee waivers or deferrals (upcoming
proposal)
Which tools work for which cities depends on many factors including land price,
projected rents (i.e., inclusionary zoning)
2/4/2020
8
Impact Fees
These can have enormous influence
on housing development projects:
◦School district
◦Transportation
◦Fire
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
Kent’s Adopted Housing Policy Direction
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
FOCUSING GROWTH
IN URBAN AREAS
MAXIMIZING TOD PRESERVE EXISTING,
ENCOURAGE VARIETY
2/4/2020
9
County/Regional/State Policy Direction
Focusing growth in urban centers
Focusing growth around transit
Great interest in loosening SF restrictions from the state
legislature this year
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
How to make these
work for Kent?
Upcoming Residential Supply Plan ‐
Which of these topics seem most important
for Kent to address in the Plan?
◦SF zoning amendments to allow “gentle density”
◦Further incentivizing urban growth (i.e., what
else we can do downtown)
◦TOD planning for RapidRide
◦Tiered school generation rates for more accurate
impact fees
ALL DATA FROM AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2018 5‐YEAR ESTIMATES, US CENSUS
2 0 2 0
KENT CITY COUNCIL ANNUAL STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT
SATURDAY
12:30 Address Homelessness
COUNCIL / MAYOR / RAF PADILLA / JULIE PARASCONDOLA / MERINA HANSON /
TIM La PORTE
2/5/2020
1
HOMELESSNESS IN KENT
City Council Retreat
February 4, 2020
Root Causes of Homelessness
2/5/2020
2
Federal
Statewide
Regional
Local
Homelessness Advocacy
Regional Homeless Authority
Kent is part of a broader regional system that is currently in
transition and includes the Continuum of Care (CoC). The CoC
is a federally mandated body to coordinate federal funding
and ensure compliance with federal law.
The Regional Homeless Authority will include:
Governing Committee (12 members) including three Sound Cities
Association seats
Implementation Board (13 members) with collective expertise in a
variety of areas
CoC Advisory Committee to ensure federal compliance
Focused work on the Five Year Plan, Sub-Regional Planning
Principles, and Coordination across Systems and Services
2/5/2020
3
Policy and Planning Tables
1.Continuum of Care Funding Recommendation Committee
2.Joint Recommendations Committee
3.Homeless System Governance Work Group
4.Veterans, Seniors and Human Services Levy Advisory Committee
5.Human Services Funding Collaborative
6.South King County Homeless Action Committee
7.South King County Homeless Forum
8.South King County Human Services Planners
9.South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership
10.King County Refugee Housing Task Force
11.Application Review Panels for Countywide Funding
12.South King County Enhanced Shelter Work Group
13.Northwest Association of Community Development Managers
How much is our region spending on
homelessness?
2/5/2020
4
Kent’s Framework
The City cannot fix homelessness, and finding lasting solutions
in our community will be a long-term process. However, in
partnership with local community providers, the City is
addressing immediate needs related to homelessness and
working on longer-term strategies.
•Ensure safety for our residents, businesses, visitors, and those who are
homeless.
•Acknowledge that homelessness cannot be solved by one entity.
•Recognize that King County holds the primary responsibility for addressing
homelessness, but that all levels of government need to participate in
regional efforts.
Kent’s Response
The City provides and/or works with community partners to provide:
• Basic Needs, Emergency Assistance, Medical Care,
Employment, Rent AssistanceServices to Prevent
Homelessness
• Outreach, Mental Health Resources, Job Training, Housing
Assistance, Substance Abuse Treatment, Counseling, Case
Management
Services for Individuals
Experiencing
Homelessness
• Day Center Services, Shelter, Transitional Housing, Mobile
Medical
Facilities for Individuals
Experiencing
Homelessness
• Comprehensive Plan, Human Services Strategic Plan,
Consolidated Plan, Advocacy at Regional Tables, Funding
Review Panel Participation
Policies and Planning to
Guide Investments
• Ensure Safety for our Residents, Businesses, Visitors and those
who are Homeless
Enforcement to Ensure
Public Safety
2/5/2020
5
South King Housing and Homelessness
Partners (SKHHP)
Pools resources and creates
staffing capacity in SKC to
collectively focus on housing
and homelessness issues
Assists member cities in efforts
to assess and address
affordable housing needs.
Supports efforts to preserve
existing affordable housing
stock in SKC.
Advocates for SKC in regional
efforts to address the
challenges of those who are
experiencing homelessness.
•Confirmation that Kent is advocating at the
appropriate levels and strategy areas?
•Should we be changing focus or adding
anything?
•General questions?
Council Discussion10m
2/5/2020
6
Roles and Responsibilities
Pending Legislation
Existing Kent City Code
Tenant Rights
Tenant Rights
Unless specified in Kent City Code - currently adhere to the State of
Washington’s Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.18).
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.18
This includes mobile homes:
The Attorney General's Office has the legal authority to accept and
attempt to resolve disputes concerning issues that arise from
mobile/manufactured tenancy where an individual owns the home and rents
a lot for the home in a mobile/manufactured home park.
Manufactured Housing Dispute Resolution Program at (866) WAG-
MHLTA (1-866-924-6458) or file a complaint regarding your
mobile/manufactured home dispute.
2/5/2020
7
Tenant Rights
Being considered this legislative session:
Just Cause (HB 2453) requires a legitimate business reason to terminate
tenancy
Installment Payments for Move In Fees (HB 1694) allows a series of three
payments if requested
Restrictions on Post Tenancy Debt (HB 2520) requires receipts/invoices
for large deductions from security deposits
Improve Access to Rental Housing for People with Criminal Records would
create a framework to address rental housing discrimination
3 year notice of closure of manufactured housing communities would
give owners more time to make informed decisions when land under their
homes is sold for redevelopment
Tenant Rights
July 2019 statewide changes:
14 day Notice to Pay or Vacate – Tenants have more time to catch up
on rent. Judges have more flexibility to create payment plans.
Other changes include – Tenant rent payments cannot be applied to
other non-rent charges, fees or penalties. New limits were imposed on
attorney’s fees. 60 days’ notice is required for most rent increases. 120
days' notice is required before major renovations.
To date Kent has enacted:
Source of Income Discrimination (now statewide)
Rental Housing Inspection Program
2/5/2020
8
Tenant Rights
Pending Discussions / Actions:
Community Group Advocacy
Possible ballot initiative considerations
Mayor, CAO, Former and Current Council President, City Attorney and
Councilmember Fincher working together in reviewing tenant rights
proposal from Councilmembers Fincher and Larimer
•How does the Council feel about this issue?
•Are there lessons we can learn from the experience
of other cities?
•Is there support among the Council to address
tenants’ right? If so, what might the City do?
•General questions?
Council Discussion10m
2/5/2020
9
Consolidated impacts to City Services
How we prioritize homelessness response
Financial and service delivery impacts
What we need to assist existing efforts
Impacts on Operations
Crime
Violent Crimes – Homicides, Robberies and Assaults
Property Crimes – Vehicle Thefts and Prowls, Commercial and Residential Burglaries,
Arson, Shoplifting, and Theft of Services (power/water)
Nuisance Offenses – Trespassing, Litter/Illegal Dumping, Public Urination and
Defecation
Quality of Life
Fosters safety concerns from general public
Impact on residential neighborhoods, particularly those with parks and green spaces
Public feeling fear and uncertainty in spaces with homelessness activities
Businesses
Huge expense of cleanup and damage repair
Customers feel unsafe to do business
Frequent 911 calls for trespass/nuisance
Reluctance to expand current business or invest in businesses in Kent
Collective Impacts
2/5/2020
10
Operational/Staffing Impacts
Seeing individuals in distress. i.e. medical concerns, under the influence,
mental/behavioral, public drinking, intoxication, drug use, etc.
Overnight vehicles or overnight camping
Reports of staff feeling personally threatened or unsafe
Staff must come back multiple times in specific areas to complete maintenance
tasks
Reduction of hours or city amenities like public restrooms
Added maintenance task impacts (encampment clean up, human feces/urine,
needles, trash/garbage, vandalism/theft, damage to assets, increase in patrols
or investigations of complaints, etc.)
Reduction of other critical city services because focus shifts to homelessness
response
Vandalism and unsanctioned use of electrical outlets and other infrastructure
Collective Impacts
Environmental Impacts
Large amounts of litter
Riparian zone pollution
Human waste runs off into waterways that feed into our lakes and rivers
Topsoil polluted by non-biodegradable items
Drug waste; used hypodermic needles
Potential for disease/human health concern
Using trees for firewood/risk of forest fires
Tree health impacted from nails and broken branches used to build shelters
Impacts to wildlife and other natural habitats
Not meeting environmental or city code mandates
Collective Impacts
2/5/2020
11
Public Recreation and Golf
Fees are paid / changes public’s expectation of safety and security
Have many vulnerable populations already using such as seniors, children,
disabled/adaptive recreation, etc.
Added operational impacts (managing access, monitoring use, cleanliness of
public areas such as restrooms/locker rooms, open spaces, managing visitor
concerns, etc.)
Cameras and other security protocols are in place to manage, where applicable
Interactions with individuals who are violating facility use rules can result in
confrontations compounded by reactions under the influence of alcohol, drugs
etc.
Balancing seasonal access for homelessness due to extreme heat or cold
Cannot quantify those participants that won’t come back due to poor
experiences with homelessness interactions – revenue loss
Collective Impacts
Parks Department Prioritization
City facilities, recreation and golf
Prioritization of homelessness activities are handled immediately due
to the impacts on users, programs, revenue and public/staff use.
Parks, natural areas and trails
Prioritization matrix focusing on the following criteria (see
attachment):
Public safety
Location of encampment or homelessness activity
Type of encampment itself (single, multiple, illegal activities witnessed, etc)
Park Owned vs. Other Land Owners
parks trails facilities recreation golf
2/5/2020
12
Parks Department
What is NOT getting done as a result of homelessness response:
Operating Impacts:
Shifts of staff resources impact adopted park maintenance levels of services
(mowing, restrooms, landscapes, litter/garbage, etc), resulting in not meeting
frequencies (by park and by maintenance function)
These shifts compound with existing challenges (such as lack of quality seasonal staffing, vacancies
and reductions in career staff, increased demands on public spaces, etc.)
Revenue goals are not being achieved – participation declining
Budgeted line items are going towards cleanup, not critical program or
maintenance supplies
Encampment cleanup timeframes take longer to achieve or not at all
Indirect/Intrinsic Impacts:
Deferring Costs More – lack of proactive vs. reactive response adds significant
costs
Decline of public’s access to nature – impacting community health and other
outcomes
Limits attainment of full recreational value in Parks
parks trails facilities recreation golf
Kent Police Prioritization
Public Safety
Violent Criminals
Mental Health/Behavior Health Crisis
Property Crimes
Homeless Camp Outreach
Mental Health Services
Housing Placement
Addiction Treatment
Homeless Camp Clean Up
Public Spaces
Private Property
Corrections Work Crew
2/5/2020
13
Kent Police
What is NOT getting done as a result of homelessness response:
Loss of Community-based Bicycle Patrol
Lack of visible police presence = Lack of deterrence
Downtown core
Parks and trails
Shopping Centers
Resources diverted to deal with explosion of property crime
Graffiti and litter cleanup
Public Works - Priorities
Safety
Public and employee
safety
Environment
Proximity to water bodies
104thKDM
For occupied illegal campsites, site assessment is performed by Police. A
site is not posted by Police until the corrections crew(s) are finished with
current site and available to take on a new site
Public Works is dependent on the corrections crew to perform the ‘lions
share’ of campsite cleanup; even unoccupied campsites
KDM Camp
Mill CreekRedondo Camp
2/5/2020
14
Public Works –
Cost of Response Efforts
2019
Solid Waste crews collected over 33 thousand pounds of
garbage and spent 313 hours on illegal campsite issues. This is in addition
to what was collected by the corrections crew
Over 40 hours spent installing ‘No Trespassing’ signage
specifically for areas with illegal campsite issues
7-10% of staff time is being spent on illegal campsite issues
2020
Solid Waste crews have already collected 2,300 pounds of
trash and spent over 40 hours on illegal campsite cleanup efforts.
Solid Waste and Vegetation staff are spending approximately 65 hours a month
visiting known illegal campsites checking for reoccupation
Drone flights
Unanticipated Costs:
Time spent on encampment clean up and reoccupation monitoring
reduces time available to perform annual, and scheduled,
maintenance of City assets
Time spent by staff traveling to maintain sites, unload and prep
equipment, is time lost when these areas turn out to be occupied.
All City work must be put on hold until camp is cleared
PW Shops
Redondo Camp
Target Camp
Public Works – Impacted Services/
Impacted Personnel
What services are not being provided:
Reduced litter pick up from roadways
Bus stop maintenance reduced
Street side vegetation maintenance reduced
Frequency of mowing reduced
Impact to staff:
Leadership must increase site inspections
which reduces time directing, training and
assisting field staff
Administrative staff spends more time
responding to, and researching ownership of property being reported. Land that is commonly
reported tends to be multi-jurisdictional and requires coordinating with other City departments
and other agencies
Staff morale suffers as a result of not being able to perform the job they were hired for
Demoralizing to walk into the site and see the damage done to, and disregard for,
property that staff has worked hard to cultivate, restore and maintain
Cost to the reputation of the Public Works department due to the public’s misconception
that there is a lack of responsiveness, or that Public Works does not care
Staff is responding over and over for the same issues, often in the same locations. There
seems to be no end in site. There is no accomplishment in this work, no win for staff
Target Camp
2/5/2020
15
City-wide Prioritization
General departmental alignment specific to public safety, however, currently
no high level prioritization process in place that prioritizes outside of
departments and/or geographically.
Geographic Balance Conflicts – highest criteria, ‘Public Safety’ is rarely balanced
across the City resulting in specific areas of the City receiving more services than others
At times, encampment clean up by the department or crews, creates a problem at a
later date for another department – migration / pushing around the issue
Preliminary Financial Impacts
Cost modeling/testing has begun on tracking comprehensive homelessness
activities. Estimated 2019 August – December (5 months) tracking shows
$970,000 spent to date. Work in progress.
Working towards all-inclusive costing (includes Human Services staff, Patrol/KPD,
maintenance and operations, Human Services community funded partners, etc.)
Does not include all staffing impacts due to coding limitations.
Does not include impacts on loss of revenue or shifted activities.
Does not include overhead, fleet or other direct support functions.
Majority of funding for current activities/services comes from shifts in existing
baseline City functions/adopted budgets and Human Services per capita.
Council allocated it’s first targeted encampment clean up funding (outside of
existing budgets) for Mill Creek Canyon ($400,000) in 2020.
2/5/2020
16
•Does the Council agree with how departments prioritize
their homelessness response?
•Does the Council believe prioritization should occur at a
city level as well, not just departmentally?
•How does the Council propose to help the departments
manage these impacts?
•General questions?
Council Discussion20m
HOMELESSNESS
STRATEGY
FRAMEWORK
2020 City of Kent, Housing and Human Services -Parks,
Recreation and Community Services
Homelessness is a national and regional crisis and requires national and
regional, forward thinking solutions.
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY
FRAMEWORK
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 1
Introduction
Homelessness and poverty are inextricably linked. Low-income individuals and families are often unable to
pay for housing, food, childcare, health care, and education. Difficult choices must be made when limited
resources cover only some of these necessities. Living in poverty means being an illness, an accident, or a
paycheck away from living on the streets. While it is rare that a person would become homeless for just one
reason, poverty is a common thread among nearly everyone who experiences homelessness. Whether the
reason is situational (like outstanding medical expenses) or generational, falling below the poverty line makes
a household vulnerable to becoming homeless.
Homelessness exists in every zip code in King County. Count Us In 2019 found 11,199 people experiencing
homelessness across the region on January 25, 2019, including 5,971 people sheltered in emergency shelters,
safe havens and transitional housing and 5,228 people on the streets, in vehicles or staying in tents or
encampments. The count marks a seventeen percent decrease in unsheltered people and an eight percent
decrease overall, the first decrease in homelessness in the region in the past seven years. Point in time counts
are typically an undercount. There were decreases observed across all subpopulations, including families
experiencing homelessness (seven percent), veterans (ten percent), and unaccompanied youth and young adult
homelessness (twenty eight percent). While the estimate of unsheltered homelessness decreased, the number of
people sheltered on the night of the count increased, indicating more people in crisis in our community are
connecting to the services and resources they need. Seattle, King County and other jurisdictions added just
over 530 new emergency shelter beds across the system in 2018. While the numbers vary in our community
from year it is clear that many individuals and families continue to need resources to prevent them from
becoming homeless or to get them back on the path to being stably housed.
The City of Kent is committed to working toward collaborative solutions for homelessness by working with All
Home, the new Regional Homelessness Authority, the Sound Cities Association, and other jurisdictions in South
King County and the region. It is in the best interest of all communities to seek to better understand the scope
of and causes of homelessness as well as the systems in place to address homelessness. Strategies addressing
homelessness should be informed by local community needs, but also by national best practices, and other
local and regional policy documents. The path out of poverty for families in Kent and other suburban cities will
require strategies that cut across jurisdictional boundaries and policy silos, and connect decisions around
affordable housing, transportation, services, and community and economic development at the regional level.
Addressing Root Causes of Homelessness
Many community efforts to address homelessness are focused on helping people get back into housing after
they have already become homeless. In order to truly address homelessness, efforts have to be taken to
prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. While All Home’s efforts primarily focus on those
currently homeless or preventing those who are unstably housed from becoming homeless, efforts centered on
root causes of homelessness have not been as focused. While more than 20,000 individuals exit homelessness
annually in King County, more than 30,000 people lose housing. The need continues to outpace the system’s
ability to respond. In December 2017, King County Executive Dow Constantine, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan
and Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus convened One Table, a regional effort to bring together leaders from the
business, nonprofit, philanthropic, faith, government, and community sectors to identify solutions to prevent
homelessness. One Table participants were charged with focusing on the root causes of homelessness through
broad, scalable, multi-sectored community actions that better utilize community resources. One Table’s efforts
to address root causes of homelessness also are centered on undoing the racial disparities and
disproportionality that result from these system failures. The systemic factors contributing to homelessness that
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 2
were identified as part of this process included affordable housing, behavioral health (mental health and
substance abuse), the child weather system, criminal justice, and employment.
ROOT CAUSES
Following the One Table effort and a series of recommendations to unify the region’s approach to
homelessness by consultants and subject matter experts, King County Executive Dow Constantine and Seattle
Mayor Jenny Durkan outlined their support for a new unified entity to set policy and fund solutions to make
homelessness rare, brief and one time.
It is important to note that creating a single entity alone will not solve the lack of affordable housing, lack of
behavioral health resources, and other root causes that contribute to homelessness.
King County Regional Homelessness Authority
2020 will be a year of building and implementation as the region shifts to stand up a new King County
Regional Homelessness Authority. The Authority will oversee policy, funding, and services for people
experiencing homelessness countywide. The legislation approved by both the King County and Seattle City
Councils in December 2019 included an Interlocal Agreement between the city and the county,
The new regional authority is designed to address the fractured system of governance that currently exists
and improve the coordination of both services and funding countywide. The new authority is also charged with
improving and strengthening equity and social justice efforts throughout the service systems, centering its focus
on the customers of homeless programs and services and persons disproportionately impacted by
homelessness. People with lived experience of homelessness played a key role in the discussions around
equity, and retain a significant role in the new governance structure going forward.
Services
The King County Regional Homelessness Authority will focus on unifying and coordinating the homeless
response system for Seattle and King County. This will include coordination of all outreach, diversion, shelter,
rapid re-housing, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing services and some of the region’s
prevention efforts. Capital funding for housing construction will not be included, nor will the City of Seattle’s
Navigation Team. A new Office of the Ombuds will be created to ensure customer voice is central to decision
making.
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
Rising housing costs
make it difficult to
find appropriate
housing
BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH
Individuals lack
access to necessary
mental health and
substance use
treatment.
CHILD WELFARE
SYSTEM
One-third of
homeless youth in
King County have
been in the child
welfare system.
CRIMINAL
JUSTICE
Interaction with this
expensive system
inhibits individuals’
ability to obtain
housing and
employment.
EMPLOYMENT
Inability to access
employment and
regional wage
gaps make it
difficult for some to
afford housing
costs.
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 3
The Continuum of Care (CoC) Board mandated by the federal government is expected to join the Regional
Homelessness Authority as an advisory committee. The “Coordinated Entry for All” coordinated assessment
and referral to housing placements and the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) will also move
to the new authority.
Funding
King County will dedicate about $57 million in program funding and space for the new offices. The City of
Seattle will invest about $75 million, which includes about $2 million in stand up funding. These totals include
federal funding coordinated by the Continuum of Care. Actual funding will be subject to appropriations
through the normal budget process of the respective councils.
Governance
The Interlocal Agreement will create an Implementation Board which will make recommendations as it relates
to policy plans and budget. The CEO will report directly to the Implementation Board. The Governing
Committee has oversight and accountability for the entity and can only make major amendments to plans and
the budget with a supermajority (2/3) vote.
• Implementation Board of 13 members: Three appointed individuals with lived experience and ten
appointed experts from criminal justice, fiscal oversight, physical and behavioral health, affordable
housing, research or evaluation, equity, business, homelessness services, labor unions/workforce, youth
services, and child welfare services.
• Governing Committee of 12 members: Executive and two King County Councilmembers including one
representing a district including Seattle; Mayor and two Seattle City Councilmembers; 3 members
representing the Sound Cities Association; and 3 members representing people with lived experience.
• Chief Executive Officer, who reports to the Implementation Board and provides annual reports to
City and County Councils.
• Retains the opportunity for the Continuum of Care Board to serve as an advisory committee to the
regional authority and in alignment with mandatory federal HUD requirements.
The authority will develop and adopt a new Five Year Plan to define objectives and strategies for shelter,
housing, and other services that will both address homelessness today and reduce it in the future. Sound Cities
Association will work with the new organization to help develop sub-regional plans as part of the overall
response plan.
Next Steps
Staff from both the city and the county continue to meet to plan for co-location of staff beginning in March
2020. The governing bodies will form and meet in early 2020 to begin the appointment process and the
recruitment and hiring of key leadership positions for the new entity.
The Reality of the Challenge
No jurisdiction will build their way out of or arrest their way out of the current challenge of homelessness. It
will require a combination of the approaches, a balanced methodology, and a community effort. Communities
that are successful not only look at strategies to address the immediate health and safety concerns of those
living outside, but also are working quickly to develop plans to create more affordable housing and better
leverage mainstream workforce, housing, and health care systems to expand permanent housing solutions.
Different segments of the homeless population face unique challenges and there is no one size fits all solution.
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 4
Families
Typically, families become homeless as a result of some unforeseen financial crisis (illness, job loss, etc.) that
prevents them from being able to maintain their housing. Most homeless families are able to bounce back
from homelessness quickly, with relatively little public assistance. Homeless families generally need rent
assistance, housing placement services, job assistance, and other short-term, one-time services before being
able to return to independence and stability.
Youth
Young people between the ages of fourteen and twenty-four often become homeless due to family conflict
(such as divorce, neglect, or abuse). These youth are finding themselves in dangerous situations and lack
critical supports for healthy childhood and adolescent development. There is less definitive data on the youth
homelessness population, as they are much less likely to work with standard homeless assistance programs or
government agencies. Our community needs to do more to ensure youth have permanent connections, social-
emotional well-being, stable housing, education, and employment.
Veterans
Veterans often become homeless due to war-related disabilities (physical disability, post-traumatic stress) that
make readjusting to civilian life difficult. Difficulties readjusting can lead to ongoing issues with addiction,
abuse, and violence, which can eventually lead to homelessness. Preventive measures for veterans (job
placement services, medical services, housing assistance) can mitigate the risk of veterans experiencing
homelessness.
Chronic Homelessness
The chronically homeless includes a subset of individuals with disabling health conditions who remain homeless
for long periods of time. These men and women commonly have a combination of mental health problems,
substance use disorders, and medical conditions. Without connections to the right types of care, these
individuals cycle in and out of hospital emergency rooms, detox programs, jails, prisons, and psychiatric
institutions, all at a high cost to the public. Studies indicate chronically homeless individuals can cost taxpayers
as much as $30,000 to $50,000 per year. The solution to chronic homelessness is permanent supportive
housing that combines supportive services.
South King County
Response to Homelessness
The South County Response to Homelessness was drafted in response to the first 10 Year Plan to End
Homelessness. The document provided key information on the state of homelessness in South King County and
served as a guide to strategies and actions that could be employed in a coordinated response to
homelessness in our communities.
The South King County Response to Homelessness highlighted a collective model to day center activities in our
region. It called for multiple cities and agencies to operate a model of day centers that share the impact and
responsibility of day time activities and hygiene center services in our region. After visiting many sites, holding
focus groups with currently homeless men and women, and having lengthy dialogue with funders and service
providers, it was agreed upon that the best option was one that had a day center open alternating days in
different areas of South King County instead of having one single site in one area. The KentHOPE Women
and Children’s Day Center opened in Kent on December 16th, 2013. They provide 3 meals a day, showers,
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 5
laundry facilities, clothing, computers with internet access, health care, life skills classes, and advocacy, as well
as emergency overnight shelter in local churches. KentHOPE reports 84% of their guests who work with case
management find housing within four months. Catholic Community Services also began offering drop-in day
center services in 2015 in their Kent office to connect individuals and families with service providers and
resources. They are operating under a community engagement model, bringing other service providers in to
make the critical connections. The Community Engagement Center was initially only open two days per week,
however services have evolved with additional funding. In early 2018 the City of Kent committed an
additional $20,000 per year in funding to the day center in order to allow Catholic Community Services to
apply for a matching grant from King County. This leveraged an additional nearly $75,000 in outside
funding for the project, and resulted in expanded hours and days per week the center is available.
Over the past 9 years, Kent and our South King County stakeholders have met to deepen cross-jurisdictional
coordination, create a common understanding for housing and homelessness needs and strategies, and move
forward strategies identified in the South King County Response to Homelessness. Two separate groups
currently meet – the South King County Joint Planners and the South King County Homeless Action Committee.
The SKC Joint Planners meet bimonthly to address regional needs related to housing and the suburbanization
of poverty in general. Cities represented in these meetings typically include: Federal Way, Kent, Renton,
SeaTac, Tukwila, and Auburn.
The South King County Homeless Action Committee meets monthly and works to keep stakeholders up to speed
on regional work and One Night Count facilitation. However, in the absence of dedicated staff capacity,
South King County lost momentum toward achieving local goals and lost connection to countywide priorities
and planning. South King County staff often lacked the time and capacity to coordinate across jurisdictions
and, without the appropriate outreach, were reluctant or unable to speak on behalf of the entire region.
These challenges lead to a successful pilot project jointly funding staff to assist in these areas. South King
Housing and Homelessness Partners (SKHHP) was created as a new collaboration involving King County and
nine South King County cities, which now includes Auburn, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent,
Normandy Park, Renton, and Tukwila.
SKHHP will assist member governments in developing affordable housing policies, strategies, development
regulations, programs, and projects, and work plans. The collaborative will support the cities' efforts to
preserve and create high-quality housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households and address
the challenge of those experiencing homelessness. SKHHP is governed by an executive board made up of the
jurisdictions' mayors, city managers, or administrators (or their designated representatives). SKHHP staff will
also eventually be responsible for the administration of a housing capital fund to provide direct assistance for
affordable housing.
City of Kent
Guiding Principles
As part of our human services system, the City of Kent values a framework for addressing homelessness issues
that also:
• Recognizes, respects, and builds on the strengths of individuals, families, and communities;
• Moves people along the continuum toward self-sufficiency, while providing ongoing support to those
who need it, promoting maximum independence;
• Uses resources wisely within a coordinated and collaborative system;
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 6
• Promotes collaboration and coordination on every level including among local governments, private
funders, non-profits, religious organizations, the business community, our residents, and consumers;
• Works regionally to successfully address needs and gaps, prevents the duplication of services, and
implements strategies that will eliminate homelessness and the root causes of homelessness; and
• Commits to ensure safety for our residents, businesses, visitors, and those who are homeless.
Values play a critical role in the framework for addressing homelessness. Given the scarcity of resources, it is
critical that efforts are made to build upon and align our current service delivery model to meet the needs of
the homeless while exploring opportunities to access additional resources to address the problem over the
long term. The traditional approach is referred to as the Continuum of Care model, in which homeless
individuals and families receive graduated services that lead to eventual self-sufficiency. This approach,
mandated by HUD in the 1990s, seeks to move individuals and families from shelter to transitional housing to
eventual permanent housing, and often places requirements (such as sobriety) on one’s ability to transition
from one placement to the next.
The Continuum of Care approach has been replaced in recent years by the Housing First model, which is a key
focus of this framework. The Housing First Model places a value on the immediate provision of permanent
housing and supportive services, rather than a shelter or transitional housing placement. It assumes that
housing stabilization is key to the return of the individual or family to independent living and that needed
supportive services can effectively be provided to the client either on site or at agency offices. The general
theory behind the Housing First model is that the root cause of homelessness is economically based. Further,
programs based on the Housing First model believe that individuals and families facing homelessness are
more engaged and responsive to needed support services once they are safely living in permanent housing.
Long-term stability and self-sufficiency are seen as attainable goals only after the immediate housing need is
addressed. The bottom line involves creating better housing, ensuring there are adequate counseling and
support services, and getting everyone to work more proactively together.
The goal of Housing First is to heal people enough so they can move on to productive lives, leaving their
supportive housing units to be filled by new residents. The highest need clients should be served first, those we
consider the hardest to serve chronic homeless, who use far more emergency services. In the long run, the
model of targeting high-end users saves money.
The community shift to Housing First has been complex for both funders and the non-profit agencies that have
been required to shift their philosophy.
Unique Challenges
Kent’s population will become increasingly diverse as lower-income residents and communities of color
continue to move to our area in search of more affordable housing, challenging our already overburdened
service delivery systems to deliver culturally and linguistically competent services. Individuals and families will
continue to need accessible transportation, health care, child, and dependent care. Housing cost in part fuels
this growth and, although housing in Kent is less expensive than other parts of King County, it is still not
affordable for many (defined as a threshold of 30% of income). Kent has a large inventory of old housing,
both apartments and single-family homes. This housing stock is in need of upkeep and improvements in order
to maintain an appropriate level of livability. Low-income households are too often crowded in older
apartments not intended for their family size, and home ownership opportunities are limited for working
families.
Kent is a city of opportunity with a large supply of affordable housing compared to some of our neighboring
cities, and as such many low-income families call Kent home. Three of King County Housing Authority’s largest
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 7
project based housing complexes are in Kent. Many more families utilize Section 8 vouchers from both King
County Housing Authority and Seattle Housing Authority to subsidize rent in apartments and houses in Kent.
Being home to large numbers of low income families also means that many of our families are living on the
edge and vulnerable to becoming homeless.
Additionally, local refugee resettlement organizations house many newly arrived refugees within our city
limits. This is both a wonderful asset to our community and a unique challenge. Immigrants and refugees face
barriers that predispose them to poverty, including lower paying jobs, language barriers, issues related to
legal status, and cultural differences. Social service sectors both at the State and Federal level should
dedicate more resources to further research and address the barriers perpetuating homelessness in the
immigrant and refugee community.
Suburbanization of poverty and the resulting increase in concentration of poverty is a concern that needs to
be acknowledged and addressed regionally. Concentrated neighborhood poverty impacts everything from
higher crime rates to more limited social mobility. Access to affordable housing across our region is critical for
the health of our residents and cities. According to the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force, we need to
build, preserve or subsidize a total of 244,000 net new affordable homes by 2040 in our region if we are to
ensure that all families in King County have a safe and healthy home that costs less than 30% of their income.
Community leaders need to ensure affordable housing exists within their own communities so that families are
able to live where they work. Regional efforts should focus on ensuring cities increase the development of new
affordable housing, preserve existing affordable housing, and also address issues of substandard housing.
Regional efforts in South King County are critical for all high priority issues such as housing, transportation and
human services. While the migration of low-income individuals and families to South King County is well
documented, the proportion of public funds has not followed. Additionally, simply moving the resources will
not solve the fundamental problems associated with poverty in the region. Kent and other South King County
cities do not have the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs because public policy has not kept pace with
the rise of poverty in the suburbs. While there is no simple solution to this issue, it is critical that any approach
to system change must be addressed at a regional level, including local partners in every part of the process.
Investments
While the City of Kent invests nearly half its human services funding in programs addressing homelessness, we
rely on community partners to provide direct services. We continue to work with our local businesses, faith-
based organizations, service clubs, and non-profits to serve the homeless. Community and regional
partnerships are critical because no one jurisdiction will be able to solve homelessness challenges alone.
In addition to working with our community and local non-profits, City of Kent human services staff work across
other City departments to stay connected on issues related to homelessness. An internal City Task Force that
includes representation from the Mayor’s Office, Parks, Human Services, Police, Public Works, Legal, and
Planning meets periodically to discuss issues, trends, challenges and opportunities related to homelessness.
Human Services staff work closely with the Kent Police Department (KPD) to ensure that they are aware of the
latest resources available for homeless individuals and families they come across in their work. KPD has a
Patrol Commander assigned to be the point person for local issues related to homelessness. This has been an
invaluable partnership to have in place and has resulted in increased communication and collaboration
between Human Services and Police.
The City of Kent commits a significant portion of its human services funding to address those who are in the
most need in our community. Investments are provided along the continuum, from basic needs to prevention, to
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 8
intervention and case management. Programs funded by the City of Kent that specifically address
homelessness and homeless prevention issues include:
Basic Needs and Homelessness Prevention Services
• Catholic Community Services: Community Engagement Center for homeless or unstably housed
individuals (light lunch, computers, and other service providers on site, as well as showers, laundry and
a kitchenette)
• Catholic Community Services: Emergency Assistance Program rental and utility assistance
• Child Care Resources: Homeless Child Care Program short term subsidies for homeless families
needing child care assistance
• DAWN: Eviction prevention and financial assistance services for clients affected by domestic violence
• Kent Food Bank: Emergency Assistance in final-notice situations for eviction prevention and assistance
with utility bills
• King County Bar Association: Housing Justice Project for tenants facing eviction
• Multi Service Center: Rent and Emergency Assistance program (eviction prevention and move in
funding)
• South King County Mobile Medical Program: Medical and Dental Services for homeless individual
• St. Vincent de Paul: Holy Spirit Emergency Services for families facing imminent eviction or
homelessness
Shelter
• Catholic Community Services: HOME Homeless Men’s Shelter and Women’s Winter Shelter
• Catholic Community Services: Severe Weather Shelter collaboration for emergency shelter during the
winter months
• DAWN: Domestic Violence Housing emergency shelter and hotel voucher program
• Hospitality House: Shelter and intensive case management for single homeless women
• Multi Service Center: Family Shelter for homeless families
• Multi Service Center: Homelessness prevention services including utility bill assistance, bus tokens, etc.
for people in crisis and motel vouchers for specific at-risk populations in severe weather
• Nexus: Arcadia House co-ed shelter for young adults age 18-24
Transitional Housing
• Catholic Community Services: Katherine’s House transitional housing for homeless adult women in
recovery
• Kent Youth & Family Services: Watson Manor Transitional Living Program for pregnant and parenting
single homeless teenage/young adult mothers
• Multi Service Center: Service enriched housing for families and single adults in recovery
• YWCA – Seattle King Snohomish: Anita Vista Transitional Housing Program for women with children
who have experienced domestic violence
Case Management and Housing Stability
• Catholic Community Services: Community Engagement Center resource hub for homeless adults to
connect with services
• Catholic Community Services: Case Management for families attempting to regain stable housing
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 9
• Catholic Community Services: Aftercare program of ongoing staff support to maintain long term
housing stability for Katherine’s House graduates
• Crisis Clinic 211: Resource and referral and access to the Coordinated Entry System for those who
need shelter and housing.
• Multi Service Center: Case Management for homeless families
• Sound (previously Sound Mental Health): Path Program Case Management and Outreach to sheltered
and unsheltered homeless individuals
• St. Stephen Housing Association: Housing Case Management for homeless families in temporary
housing
A number of other programs funded by the City of Kent also include elements designed to prevent
homelessness.
Additional information on critical partnerships:
In 2007, the City Council allocated emergency funds for use in operating an emergency cold weather shelter
during the winter months and the program continues to operate successfully. The City partners with Kent
Lutheran Church to provide the site and volunteers. In late 2019 Holy Spirit Catholic Church signed on to serve
as a backup location when needed. The City funds Catholic Community Services to provide professional
staffing.
Kent Rotary clubs purchased a mobile shower unit that follows HOME, allowing participants to shower. There
are also numerous feeding programs in place, primarily run through local churches.
Catholic Community Services (CCS) currently operates all of the men’s shelters in South King County. The Kent
Shelter, HOME, generally has room for 30+ individuals depending on the church hosting the program.
Hygiene services are available for HOME clients on site through the mobile shower trailer. Case management
during a client’s participation in HOME identifies the barriers to permanent housing and assists the clients in
setting long and short-term goals to reduce the barriers and secure housing. CCS has been very successful in
helping participants in the HOME shelter move to permanent housing from the shelter. CCS is also then able to
provide ongoing case management to assist the clients in maintaining their housing.
The Women’s Winter Shelter at Holy Spirit Parish began operation in 2012 in partnership with the City of
Kent and Catholic Community Services (CCS). It is now funded by United Way, City of Kent, and Sisters of
Providence (Oregon). CCS provides site supervision and services to facilitate the transition of the women into
housing and into more constructive situations. In their first year during the four months of service, 34 women
received shelter, a hot dinner, breakfast and a sack lunch, along with case management and wrap-around
services (including mental health, alcohol and substance abuse counseling, medical and dental treatment, and
referral services). Of the 34 women, 14 were placed in housing the first year.
In December 2013, KentHOPE and Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission (SUGM) established the KentHOPE Day
Center for Women and Children in Kent. They serve an average of 30 women and 2 children a day,
meeting their immediate needs and linking them to community resources to find jobs and housing. In March of
2014, KentHOPE and SUGM initiated the KentHOPE Women’s Overnight Shelter during April through
October. (Catholic Community Services Women’s Winter Shelter operates November through March.) In
2015, KentHOPE expanded the number of overnight beds to 30 with funding from the City of Seattle Human
Services Department. Ten generous Kent churches now provide year round overnight shelter, in addition to
Holy Spirit/Catholic Community Services’ 15 bed Women’s Winter Shelter.
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 10
KentHOPE also established a local safe parking site for families and individuals living in their cars in
partnership with a local church. A social services case manager visits the site weekly to offer assistance.
KentHOPE continues to move forward with their partner, Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission (SUGM), towards our
vision of a 24/7 KentHOPE Resource Center in Kent, to assist men and women who are homeless in pathways
to stable housing and a more secure future.
In 2018 Kent staff worked with Catholic Community Services to open the Community Engagement Center
(CEC). The CEC offers a welcoming environment to individuals experiencing homelessness or on the verge of
losing their housing. The CEC offers access to showers and laundry facilities, an open kitchenette where clients
are welcome to cook their own food, or use food provided, computers, and service providers on site with a
confidential meeting space. Showers and laundry are provided on a first come, first served basis. Service
providers such as HealthPoint, Valley Cities Counseling, CCS Shelter Staff, King County Mobile Medical Van
and Sound Mental Health are consistently onsite to either connect with current clients or introduce themselves to
those in need of such services. The CEC is currently open Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays.
In 2019 a subgroup of the Homeless Action Committee began to meet to explore the need for the
development of two enhanced shelters for adults without children in South King County. The group’s goal is to
develop shelters that are subregional in focus and supported by surrounding jurisdictions, utilizing a housing
first approach to ending homelessness. The vision for the enhanced shelters is to build upon and add to the
existing faith-based responses to poverty in South King County, intentionally linking people to permanent
housing resources. While Kent is not currently a location of focus due to the expected development of 24/7
shelter by KentHOPE, Kent staff are tracking progress and support the subregional support.
The 2019 Washington State Legislature enacted HB 1923, which created a grant opportunity made
available to cities in Washington State for the purposes of encouraging an increase in urban residential
building capacity. SKHHP member cities (Auburn, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton and Tukwila) submitted a
grant application with a request of $100,000 for each city. Each City will contribute approximately $15,000
to $20,000 to a collective pool of money that would total $90,000 to $120,000. This pooled money will be
used for the purpose of developing a comprehensive assessment of the housing stock in South King County,
including growth, type, associated demographics and income/affordability. Each City would retain
approximately $80,000 to $85000 to utilize for housing policy development within its own boundaries.
SKHHP and its Administering Agency will be the holder and the manager of the pooled funds totaling no more
than approximately $120,000 and the City of Kent Community and Economic Development Department will
manage the grant and any consultant contracts associated with the use of these funds.
Recent Council Actions
• In 2019 Kent City Council adopted a resolution of intent and passed legislation to authorize the
maximum capacity of a local sales and use tax credit credited against the state sales tax collected
within the City (not an additional tax). HB 1406 was designed to encourage investments in affordable
and/or supportive housing and the funds can be used to create housing, preserve existing housing,
and for operations and maintenance. Kent is exploring the concept of pooling funds with other SKC
cities through SKHHP to deploy funds as quickly as possible and maximize the impact of the new
revenue tool.
• In January 2017, the Kent City Council unanimously passed a Source of Income Discrimination
Ordinance. This tenant protection ensures that people already facing high barriers to housing are not
discriminated against solely based on use of a Section 8 voucher or other form of public assistance.
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 11
This can have a significant impact on communities like Kent whose low income residents
disproportionately need to rely on housing subsidies to make ends meet, including households of color,
seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and single parent households with young children.
• The City Council including funding in the 2017-2018 budget to enact a Proactive Rental Inspection
program in the City of Kent. This tool will both help protect tenants who fear speaking up about
substandard housing conditions, and ensure that rental properties are adequately maintained.
Rental Housing Inspection Programs are designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare of
tenants by encouraging proper maintenance of residential housing. Programs are designed to identify
and require correction of substandard housing conditions, and to prevent conditions of deterioration
and blight that could adversely impact the quality of life for residents. Municipalities can use this tool
intelligently to target rental properties that might be particularly susceptible to sub-standard
conditions and maintenance within the state’s limitations that prevent inspections from occurring more
than once every three years.
Additional policies related to affordable housing and homelessness priorities will continue to be introduced at
the State legislative level. City Council should monitor and advocate for public policy that is in line with local
goals when applicable. Addressing these issues City by City is not cost effective and is confusing for both
residents and landlords.
Conclusion
Rising rents, growing economic inequality and long-term unemployment will continue to intensify the challenge
of homelessness in our community. Homelessness is a national and regional crisis and effectively addressing it
will require national and regional, forward thinking solutions.
Effective collaboration is an ongoing process that never truly ends. Accomplishing community-level outcomes,
such as ending homelessness, requires a strong infrastructure and shared accountability. Homelessness in our
region continues to be a large problem, but it will not be solved by large organizations or new rules and
regulations. It will be solved by individuals who come together in a community-wide partnership to create
positive change.
Strategies related to homelessness need to be addressed both broadly on a regional level and more
specifically at the local level.
Key Regional Strategies include:
• Prevent Individuals and Families from Becoming Homelessness.
• Increase the Regional Capacity to Meet Short and Long Term Housing Needs.
• Support the Housing First model as a National Best Practice.
• Expand Access to Mental Health, Substance Abuse and other Supportive Services.
• Improve Infrastructure and the Coordination of Service Delivery.
• Consider Balanced Legislation that Improves Tenant Rights or Protections.
• Ensure all Tenants are Educated about Landlord-Tenant Law.
• Keep the Broader Community Engaged.
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 12
Key City of Kent Strategies include:
Kent Housing & Human Services staff will:
• Continue funding non-profit agencies to provide a safety net for Kent residents in need.
• Support and work with other community partners providing homelessness prevention and services.
• Support community partners receiving family homelessness prevention funds from Best Starts for
Kids levy funding.
• Continue efforts to strengthen regional and subregional partnerships to work on strategies related
to homelessness.
• Partner and participate in work groups convened by All Home.
• Partner and participate in applicable and supported strategies outlined in the Regional
Affordable Housing Task Force Five Year Action Plan.
• Participate in regional planning as King County and City of Seattle work to consolidate
homelessness funding and policy-making under a new joint authority.
• Represent Kent and South King County on the All Home Funder Alignment Committee, formed to
evaluate, allocate and monitor resources and funding strategies, and leverage grant making to
ensure accountability to All Home policies, priorities, and best practices.
• Represent Kent and South King County on the Senior Committee of the Veterans, Seniors and
Human Services Levy Advisory Board.
• Participate in the work facilitated by the Vehicle Residents Workgroup.
• Partner and participate in the South King County Housing Action Group.
• Participate in grant review and allocation processes at the County and Philanthropic level,
increasing South King County’s voice in recommendations.
• Participate in the Joint Recommendations Committee that provides funding recommendations and
advice on guidelines and procedures for King County and its consortia city partners on a wide
range of housing and community development issues.
• Participate in the Joint South King County Planners Group.
• Participate in the South King County Homelessness Forum.
• Continue efforts with the South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP).
• Continue to support the Catholic Community Services proposed Permanent Supportive Housing
project development for the West Hill of Kent, which will include 80 units of housing for those
earning below 50% AMI. 36 of the units will be set aside for homeless veterans.
• Convene the City’s internal task force on homelessness as needed.
• Increase outreach to the community to ensure residents are aware of their rights under the
Landlord-Tenant Act.
• Convene and participate in meetings related to unique challenges facing our immigrant and
refugee residents.
• Work with SKCHHP to create a gap analysis of need versus availability of homeless services in
Kent and South King County.
• Convene and participate in meetings and activities to ensure that Kent’s housing stock is healthy
and safe.
• Develop new partnerships between nonprofits and landlords to expand housing options for
formerly homeless individuals and families.
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Page 13
• Track strategies attributed to local jurisdictions within the new framework of the new Regional
Homelessness Authority.
• Continue to analyze the Regional Homelessness Authority Interlocal Agreement and determine
benefit of joining the ILA. There is recognition that the success of the new Authority will require
valuing the differences in local context, needs, and priorities through effective subregional
planning. Kent staff will monitor alignment in this area.
• Support the Homeless Action Committee’s efforts to develop two 24/7 enhanced shelters in South
King County.
• Track the Affordable Housing Committee and the Housing Interjurisdictional Team as
implementation efforts of the Five Year Action Plan begin.
• Track potential legislation related to increased tenant protections and inform Council and
Administration of potential impacts to Kent and its residents.
Additionally staff will work with our South King County partners and SKCHHP to ensure that:
• County and state decision makers receive input from South King County stakeholders early in the
decision making process to ensure a more effective and efficient public engagement process
• South King County stakeholders are better informed of opportunities to impact regional and state
housing programs and policies, including regional plans, state legislative proposals, and funding
opportunities
• South King County stakeholders are better able to speak with a united voice to ensure external
programs and policies address local community needs
• South King County stakeholders, including those in the education, employment, and health sectors,
are more engaged in housing and homelessness activities
King County Executive
King County Council
Representing district whole
or in part of Seattle
King County Council
Representing district outside
of Seattle
Seattle Mayor
Seattle City Council
Seattle City Council
Sound Cities Association
Sound Cities Association
Sound Cities Association
KING COUNTY REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY
AS PASSED BY THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL
December 11, 2019
GOVERNING COMMITTEE - 12 MEMBERS
IMPLEMENTATION BOARD - 13 MEMBERS WITH THE BELOW COLLECTIVE EXPERTISE
THE GOVERNING COMMITTEE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - CONTINUUM OF CARE
OTHER KEY PROVISIONS
SUB-REGIONAL PLANNING PRINCIPLES
Specifies that funding and services will be distributed
throughout the County regardless of whether a jurisdiction
joins the interlocal agreement. Specifies that sub-regional
planning would inform and be integrated in the development
of the five year plans.
Perform the functions of the mandatory Federal Continuum of Care Board.
THE IMPLEMENTATION BOARD
• Power to create additional committees and respective appointments
• Members cannot be elected officials, current contract holders or their representatives
• King County Executive, King County Council, Seattle Mayor, Seattle City Council,
and Sound Cities Association each appoint two members of Implementation Board
respectively
• Three members representing lived experience appointed by Advisory Committee after
receiving recommendations from the Lived Experience Coalition
• Requires the membership of the Implementation Board to reflect the racial makeup of
King County.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Reports to Implementation Board and regularly provides information to the Governing Committee including quarterly
performance reports. Provides annual presentations to the King County Council and Seattle City Council.
Role: Develop and recommend to the Governing Committee the Authority’s plans, budgets and operations, and be primarily responsible for ensuring
their implementation.
COORDINATION ACROSS SYSTEMS AND SERVICES
CEO shall assign liaison to ensure coordination and
collaboration with homelessness crisis response partners and
activities and adjacent systems whose work intersects with
homelessness.
FIVE YEAR PLAN
Required to address at least youth/young adults, families,
veterans, single adults, seniors and those with acute
behavioral challlenges.
• Mission: The mission of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority is to significantly decrease the incidence of homelessness
throughout King County, using equity and social justice principles.
• Organization: Establishes a Governmental Administrative Agency between King County and the City of Seattle. Additional parties may sign on
later as subscribing agencies. No Public Development Authority would be created.
Representing lived experience
Representing lived experience
Representing lived experience
Additional Characteristics:
• Majority able to represent marginalized populations
statistically disproportionately represented among people
experiencing homelessness
• Reflect geographic diversity
• Local business community
• Faith/religious groups
• Philanthropy
• Neighborhood/community associations
• Hire CEO with 2/3 majority; may fire CEO with nine votes
• Three members representing lived experience appointed by the
Advisory Committee
• Approve and amend all plans governing the Authority and all budgets
with 2/3 majority; nine members constitute a quorum
• Confirm members of the Implementation Board
• Approve Authority’s organizational structure
• Criminal Justice
• Fiscal Oversight
• Physical or Behavioral Health
• Academic Research or Data Performance Evaluation
• Affordable Housing Finance or Development
• Business Operations or Strategy
• Equity Implementation
• Homelessness Service Provision
• Federal Continuum of Care Service Provision
• Labor Unions/Workforce
• Youth Services
• Child Welfare Services
• Three members representing lived experience
Priority Level Level Description Camp Description Camp Location Response Protocol Park Ops Follow Up
1 Immediate Threat to Life,
Health and Safety
Camp has obvious signs of illicit
activity, violent behavior or open lewd
conduct.
Anywhere on Park Property
Call Kent PD, report to supervisor, then
follow City of Kent SOP for illegal
encampment removal.
Staff follows up at least weekly for two
months to ensure camp has not returned.
Resume regular Park Operations LOS after
that.
2 Significant Threat to
Public Safety, Health and
Well‐Being
Camp impacts the real or perceived
public safety of people.
Located on Park Property in Parks,
Trails, Roads, Open Space, etc. Near
active/passive recreation
opportunities, transportation routes,
or in a highly visible location.
Report Camp to Supervisor and follow City
of Kent SOP for illegal encampment
removal.
Staff follows up at least weekly for two
months to ensure camp has not returned.
Resume regular Park Operations LOS after
that.
3 Environmental Threat Camp is likely to negatively impact
environmentally sensitive areas.
Located on Park Property near
Critical Areas including rivers,
streams, wetlands and steep slopes.
Report Camp to Supervisor and follow City
of Kent SOP for illegal encampment
removal when resources are available.
Staff Inspects area as dictated by Park
Operations LOS
4 Illegal Camp with Minor
Public Safety or
Environmental Concerns
Camp is isolated on public land and is
not an immediate threat to public
safety, public use or the environment.
Located on Undeveloped Park
Property
Report Camp to Supervisor and follow City
of Kent SOP for illegal encampment
removal when resources are available.
Staff Inspects area as dictated by Park
Operations LOS
5 Inactive Camp Remnants of a past encampment, no
sign of recent inhabitation.
Located on Undeveloped Park
Property
Report Camp to Supervisor and schedule
cleanup when resources are available.
Staff Inspects area as dictated by Park
Operations LOS
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Park Operations Encampment Removal Prioritization Scale