Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 02/08/20202 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