HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Minutes - 02/02/2019 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
U29t2019
City of Kent, WA
zor8 Resident Survey1i
I'
CounciI Presentation
Date: February L, 2019
. This is an "executive summary"
. A final report containing detailed resutts for all questions will be provided by
02/15/2019
. What's covered
. Who wc talkcd to (Mcthodology / Outcome)
. 5-Star Rating
. Recommending Kent to family and friends
. Key Drivers (How to "move the needle")
. Funding of services and facilities
. There is atso an Appendix that includes additionattables with results for key
questions and where applicable 2016 to 20LB comparisons
Overview
U29/20t9
Who we talked to
. Address-Based Sample (ABS) and mixed mode data cotlection
' ABS ensures complete coverage of atl households in Kent regardless of phone coverage
. Different outreach methods (mai[, emait, and phone) increases response rates, notably
among harder to reach populations (e.g., low income, renters, younger residents)
Methodologr
Address onty (no phone)
lnvitatron ancl reminder mailed
'Ema ls sent if enarl avarlable
SLrrveys conpleted oniine ol ifbouncl phone
call
lncentrve ($5 coffee carcl) giver to those who
completecl survey online ancl inbouncl caLl
Address + phone contact
tmail invitation sent if email availabte,
surveys conpleted ontine
'Outbound calls to sampte of phone numbers:
focus on cell phone
.lncentrve (S5 coffee card) grven to those who
completed suruey ontine (email rnvite): no
rncentive for outbound calls
7.
U29t2019
Online
Plrone
TotaI
Margin of Error
(95% confidence levet)
295
2t6
511
43%
t45
z)t
917
3.r%
' Si\ of these i:alls tvere rtbound catls
. A total of 977 surveys were compteted
. The significantty [arger samp[e in 2018 increases
the reliabitity of the results for the total sample
and for key subgroups (e.g., neighborhood /
district, key demographic segments)
Outcomes
Sample sizes (il are unweighted
2016 20L8
214,i
409632e6
419,i,
689,6
320,i
28oti'
12%
329r
1396 fl//A
499o
t7e'o
43%
56e'0
?Oeti'
1/96
i l'16
759i.
)\a:;
249b
ltc6
490,,6
57"6
l09t
39s6
3t9i
4l rn
519"
t /96
33.o.;
72%
2896
2.t9'
769a
66%
t4c'o
1O9t
309o
359d
I 596
230'6
619i,
31ea
5596
459i
Sample Demographics
. Sample demographics were monitored
during data co[lection to ensure that
kcy segments were represented
. Data are weighted to address non-
response bias and to ensure that
responses represent Kent's diverse
population
'Source t'ot populotionligutes 2014 AmeticoncommunitySuNey 5 yeor estilnotet
*'Aqe based on%oJpopulation 78+ who are head(s) oJ household
zul8 Kent
Suruev(rrnwciohied)
zulB Kent
Suryev(weiqhr6d)
Kent
Population*
bencer
Male
Femate
Age"
!€-34
35-54
55 Plus
Race
White Alone
Not White Atone
lnm-
Less than $35,000
$35,000 or greater
Lnloren tn nous€nolq
None
One or More
HOme Uwne6htp
Own
Rent
2010
20 More
Years Lived in Kent
0<5
5<10
a
1
U29t2019
56 Different Languages
Languages Represented
. Kent's ESL poputation is a[so we[[ represented
22o/o
% Speaking Language Other than
English
37o/o
3r%
% of Kent
Populatron
% of Respondents % of Respondents(Unv/erghted) (Werghted)
Kent's S-Star Rating
IJow ciel ye;Ln "st;],c:k'"ulp:"?
4
U29t20t9
5-Star Rating: Overview
. The-5-Star Rating is a composite index that
captures the essence of how we[[ a city
meets the critical needs and expectations of
its residents and uses a robust theoretical
and mathematical model
. lt is based on a weighted sum of five questions
. Resutts for these five questions can be
benchmarked against other cities nationwide, in the
Pacific Northwest, within the State of Washington,
and with other comparabte communities
20ot6
2lo:o
399'0
. Kent continues to be rated as a
3.5-Star community
' White half of Kent residents give the city
a rating of 4-stars or higher, 40% rale
the city lower than 3.5-stars
. There has been no significant change in
Kent's overa[[ rating from 2016
S-Star Rating: Results
% of Residents Rating Kent as.
2016
\ ,l .,rtt .. \L rr\ L l
2018
frfrft1
Greater than 4 Stars
! 4 Stars
r 3.5 Stars
Less than 3.5 Stars
@
5
ll29t20t9
399o
410,6
-18?0
5-Star Rating: Key Metrics
. While most ratings were stable, residents are less
about the direction they feel Kent is headed and t
the tax dottars paid
====
l
ffiffiHffi
QOL: 2016 QOL: 2018 QOS: 2016 QOS: 2018 COMP: 2016COMP: 2018 DIR: 2016 DIR: 2018 VALUE: VALUT:2016 2018
t{ r1,l' ,rp\ . rl..la,lll .rUrrr(,,',r drlrerelLe rrnLr-,'.e or dp,rp,rse) lroilr /018
p
h
@ @ @F
@ffi
ffit Ht
ositive (more neutral)
e value they receive for
Positive
! Neutral
Negatrve
Quality of Life
Quality ofValue of Seruices
-Other
3.5-Star Communities
-Washington
SIate Clties
Services
Direction
Comm0nity is
Headed
Conparabrlity to
Other
CofirDlJnities
-4-Star
Comnunities
5-Star Rating: Benchmarked
. When benchmarked against other 3.5-
Star communities nationwide, Kent...
. Outperforms in terms of the direction the city is
headed
. But underperforms in terms of its comparability
to other communities
. When benchmarked against other
Washington communities, Kent...
. ls dead-on in meeting resident expectations for
overal[ quality of services
tttl
6
U29t2019
Recommending Kent as a Place
to Live
And why"
, il\ ril (l \ | I'il:r kl \Ll)r ,, \l rr\ I \
Recommending Kent to Family /
. When asked if they would recommend
tiving in Kent, opinions were clearly
divided, the same as 2016
(Lr\ ril ir\ 1,1\Rl\Lf\r\r [\'\
'J.50h l5o/o
5 lo:o ':4qo
Score rs
NSS:62 NSS:61
Friends
Net Supporter Scorex
l Supporters
(9-10)
r Neutral
(7-8)
Non-Supporters
(0-6)
20i6 2018
Resrdents rated |ke|hood of recommending Kent on 11 pornt scale ('0 =
would nol reconrmend; "10" = definilely lvould recommend Net Supporter
srmilar to what rs commonly refered to as a Net Promoter Score and rs
drfference behveen those grv'ng r.,lrngs ot 9 or i0.rnd lhoce Srvrn8 rJte<
NSS score rrnqes f,om 0 to 200
7
ll29t20I9
I
j
Net Suppoft Score by Neighborhood
. Support for Kent (% woutd
strongty recommend versus those
who would not are or neutral) is
relativety consistent across the
city
. Exceptiona[[y strong support among those
living in downtown Kent
li
Key Drivers Analysis
l*low to "Move the Needle"
( lJ\'rl li! 1! r ritL\rl)L \t \r t\r\
I
U29t20r9
Overview of the Analysis
. Respondents rated Kent on 37 different attributes
. These attributes are grouped into seven dimensions and an overall score was computed for each
. Regression anatysis was used to determine which dimensions have the greatest
imfiact on Kent's 5-Star rating
. Asimilarapproachwasusedtoidentifytheimpactof theindividualfactorswithineachdimension
. Kev Drivers Anatvsis [ooks at relationships between the overall dimensions or the
att?ibutes within'each dimension and Keint's 5-Star Rating and identifies those
that have the greatest inftuence on Kent's 5-Star Rating
. Community strengths and areas of focus are identified based on these key
drivers and the qUatity ratings
. Strengths are those aspects of service that are key drivers of Kent's overall rating that receive above
average ratrngs
. Areas oi tocus are key drrvers that rqceiye below-average ratings for service or there has been a
significant decrease iir ratings from 2016
r' ' Irl "rl
Overalt Key Drivers and Performance (2018)
. Livability, government
performance and
economy are the three
primary drivers of Kent's
star rating
. Ratings for Kent are
somewhat lower than average
for these dimensions
Below-Av€rage lmportance / above-average Petforma nce Above-av€hg€ lmportance / above_ave rage P€ rforma n ce
Selow-Average tmpo{ance/ B€low-Average Peaformance above-Average lmportance/ Eelow-Average Pedorman.€
f,; tc.t.t t H,iruc;il
l(.r'l I.RAN(,,I
{.l1..l"RAl.lCl IilL,
L(_l l.l_RAN(;t.i
l(.r r.r RAN(.1 i
L
t/
I
|.1,,,n,,,,,,,
Ary sqntes Aev dnver ol 5 sl,tt t,ttttB: red Aey
L),,lotv ,il et,ttse pciorm,tn, e: yel/ow Aey - ,tvpr,Be
perfonnance; greert key = above''verue pert'brntante
t>
lCl i l.liAi'lCl I
9
Livability: Key Drivers and Performance (2018)
There are four attributes in
the tivabitity bucket
. At[ are key drivers of Kent's
overatl rating
. A sense of community is the
most significant driver and
receives a below-average rating
Below-Averagelmpo(ance/Above-Aveng€Pedormance Above-Ave6g€lmpoilance/Above-Averageperformance
gelow'Av€ragelmpoilance/Below-AverageP€dormance Above.AveraSelmportance/8elow-AveragePerformance
ICILLRAI\IGII
t,,,.rr*ora| f)
IC[LLRANCT.I
\t
,)r
--
,,toiloor,,r, 'f
Key = 5iUr11i"t O"t driver of 5-star rating; red key =
below-average perfonttattce; yellow key = average
performance; green key = a6or"-',r"rut" performance
U29t2019
% Positive 47o/o 48%
Variety of housing
choices (F % Negative 15% 1o%''
Mean 6.04 6.17
% Positive 48o/o 44%
Quality of commercial
districts on % Negative L3o/o !o%
Mean 6.19 6.15
% Positive 46% 38o/o
Vibrancy of
downtown Kent (F % Negative t6o/o 16%
Mean 5.92 5.69
% Positive 38% 36%
Sense of
community CF
% Negative 24% 2Lo/o
Mean 5.45 5.48
fulean based or 1l-point scale; 5 is lhe mid'point. % positive iicllrdes scale points 7-1O; 'ii
negative includes s.ale points 0-3. Key syrnbol = key driver of s,Star Rating
Livabitity: Changes from 2016
. There were few significant changes
in ratings between 20L6 and 2018
. White the percentage of positive ratings
for vibrancy of downtown Kent
decreased, this decrease is not
significant
20t6 2018
10
% Safe 87% 8O%',
Safety in commercial % unruf" 8% ro%
areas daytime Mean 4.36 4.0SV
% Safe 48o/o 50%
Neighborhood safety
% unsafe 40% 36%
after dark 6-Mean 3.07 3.I7
% Safe 59% 47%',
Neighborhood safetY % Unsafe s% B%daytime gn Mean 4.33 4.16V
%Safe 47% 36%V
Safety in commercial % unrrf" 40% 42%
areas after dark Mean 3.04 2.88
Mean based on 5-point scale; 3 is the nrid-point. % safe includes scale points 4'5; %
negative irrcludes scale poirrts 1-2. Key symbol = key driver of 5-Star Rating.
Safety
. Concerns about safety-notabty
nei gh borhood safety-may be
influencing residents' feetings
about tivabitity
. White the majority of Kent residents
feel safe in their neighborhoods, there
has been a signlficant decrease in
those who state they feel safe during
the day
. White not as important as
neighborhood safety, we atso see a
decrease in perceptions of safety in
commercial areas
I't!I' 1.1 .. 'r i1\ J.I..' '\I\
2016 20!8
U29t2019
Government: Key Drivers and Performance (2018)
Six aspects of government
performance were evaluated
. A[[ are significant drivers of Kent's
overa[[ rating
. Having a clear vision and strategy
fo[owed by listening to its residents
are two of the most important drivers
of Kent's rating, both receive lower-
than-average ratings
. Being accountabte and transparent is
atso a major driver of this rating;
residents give Kent a higher than
average rating for this element of
government performance
Key = s.tr1S1"t O"U driver of 5'star rating; red key =
below'avetage perforntance: yellow key = average
perfornnnce: green key = n6ou" average perforntance
Below-av€rag€lmportanc€/Above-averaSeP€rformance Above-AveraBelmpoilance/Above-Av€ragePerformance
lctt t RAi\lGl: )
BelowAveragelmpodance/B€!ow-AveragePedormance Above'Averagelmpoilance/Below-AveragePeilormance
l( Ll tRi\l'l{,t i
t(.n I R^t'lc,t I
1(.t.t.t RANCI l
l(.Il.LItAl.l(,1
,)
\
/,
1l
,,,rrruor,,r,'Q,
f,l
,
\
,
11
33%
400/0
5).0:6
Government: Changes from 2016
. Kent residents are both less
positive and less negative
about whether Kent has a
clear vision and strategy for
the future-nearly hatf have
a neutral opinion
20I(t 2018
ffilffi
Having a Clear Vision and
Strategy for the Future
Posrttve
n Neutral
llegative@
U29t2019
39o/o
5A%
Government: Changes from 20L6
. Kent residents have also
adopted a more neutral
stance on how well the city
listens to its residents
. The percentage of residents who
are positive has decreased with a
corresponding increase in neutral
ratings; no change in negative
ratings
Listening to its Residents
@
2018
ffi
20 l6
Positrve
E Nleutral
Negative@
17,
30",,
: i1o,i)
ritil
.510.6
180419e,o
. Three out of ten residents feeI Kent is doing a good job in devetoping a
strong [oca[ economy, but the majority have divided opinions
2018
Economy
r% Positrve
r96 I'lcutral
9/o l',lcgativc
Kent's performance in attracting good lobs
for the next generation
Availability of high quality lobs and
economic activities in Kent
u29t20r9
Funding of City Services and
Facitities
iil\rt t, .i {itrRlltn\r\ll\r\
1i
t
u29t20t9
ness to pay more taxes for additional services are
in 2018
Vvil{ing to pay nrore taxes only it Witting to pay more taxes if Not willing to pay more taxes Recluce the level ot servrces if it
it wlll result ir) an rn{:rease in the necessary to supporl increasecl even it lhe crty nlrst recllrce olears my property taxes would
leveL ol servrces costs for current levels of servlce servrt:es due to increilsed cost of be lovler
providing servrces
I 2016 2018
Net Not Wilting to Pay More:
2016 37% 2018: 52%t
r5%
43%
23o/o
2Oo/"IqAA
14%
Wittingness to Pay
. Residents'wi[[ing
decidedty mixed
Net Wilting to Pay More:
2016: 63% 201,8: 49o/o{
Factors lnfluencing Wittingness to Support New Taxes
Wi[[ingness to_support additionattaxes is strongly associated with residents'
perce-ptions of th'e'current value they are receivTrig and the direction the city is
headed
550/o
4r%31%350/. 150/"
75%
6Bio
569n
42%
I0o/o
4%3%
29%30%24% n%
Heaclcd rn Wrong Drrection Neutral rtHeadecl in Rrght Dfie(]tron
Witlingness to Pay by Perceptions of
Direction City is Headed
73%u09'o
1ja,,o
60oh
50%
40o/;)
304,6
200/o
r0%
0%
800/o
7096
60%
500,6
40oa
300,6
?,0%
1o%
0%
Witlingness to Pay by Perceptions of
Current Vatue Received for Taxes Paid
r Nol Curreiltly Getting Vatue Neutral rtCurrently Gettlng Valu6r
Not WiLling to Pay Wilting to Pay more Willing to Pay More rt
lvlore l;rxes to Support lncre;rsed Results in lncrease in
Costs oi Seryrces Level of Service
ll
t\lot Willing Lo Pay Witting to Pay rnore Witting to Pay lvlore il
More laxes to Supfjort lncreased ResuLts irr lncrezrse rn
Costs of Seruices Level ot Service
14
\A/[l;'lI M/c] hl;l\/ff fl*:nr"nnr:rf ;lnai urhlclnfl wf]
p4CI finerrm firelne:
Recap
v29t2019
Take-Aways and Next Steps
. Kent has maintained its 3.5-Star Rating
. Very possible to see reaI improvement by focusing on moving the city forward in the right
direction and communicating that direction to the residents
. Demonstrate value delivered under existing tax structure
. "Low hanging fruit"
. Communicate that you have a clear vision / strategy
. Demonstrate that you listen to what residents say
. Areas requiring more effort
. Work on buitding a sense of community
. Focus on safety - notably identify why peop[e don't feel as safe during the day
. Follow up and track
. Do additional, targeted research (focus groups?)
. Continue to track progress-more frequentty?
15
lls,
U29t2019
16
Proximity and % Positive 60% 62o/o
availability of city % Nesative 9% 9%
parks Mean 6.78 6.68
% Positive 52o/o 46%
Quality of park
amenities % Negative rLo/o rlo/o
Mean 6.34 6.07
% Positive 5t% 38%V
Quality of youth
activities % Nesative r20/o 12%
Mean 6.19 5.84+
% Positive 50% 37%+
Safety within city
parks and trails % Negative L7o/o L8%
Mean 5.98 5.50V
Meon botcd on 11 point scale;5
'sthe
mid-pontt. v. positive includestcalepoittsT-lO:2,negotive hchtdes
tcole polnts D 3. Key symba! = key dnvet ol 5 Stdr RotilQ.
. Kent residents are very positive
about the proximity and
availability of city parks and, to
a lesser extent, the quatity of
park amenities
. Kent residents' ratings of the
quality of youth activities is less
positive in 2018 than 2016 (has
moved to neutral)
. Positive ratings for safety have
also decreased (moving to
neutra[)
Parks: General
20t6 2018
1129t2019
o/o Posilive 57o/t
Kent Commons % Negative 4o/o
Mean 6.68
% Positive 57%
City parks 96 Nesative 5%
Mean 6.62
% Positive 530/6
Athletic complexes % Nesative 5o/o
Mean 6.55
% Positive 50%
Senior center % Negative 8'a
Mean 6.40
% Poeitive 560/0
TfailS % Negative 7%
Mean 6.54
% Positive 43%
Open Spaces 9i Negative {!/o
Mean 6.05
Meao bosed on 1Ltoq1t tcole; 5 is the tnid-poltt. 4" posltive includes scole poiitt 7 lO: % negotlve
in.htdess@le points0-3. Key syhbol = keydiwrofs-Stot Roting.
Parks: Maintenance
. Residents are genera[[y positive
about the maintenance of Kent's
parks
. They are least positive about Kent's
maintenance of open spaces
17
{
U29t2019
Community and
neighborhood parks
Public trails
Public arts and
community events
Sports fields and
complexes
% Positive
% Negative
Mean
% Positive
% Negative
Mean
% Positive
% Negative
Mean
% Positive
7o Negative
Mean
58o/o
LI%
6.64
59%
!3o/o
6.48
49%
I4o/o
6.L24
49o/o
t$o/o
5.92
6Lo/o
L5%
6.44
58o/o
L4o/o
6.4!
45%
2L%
5.62
47%
2to/o
5.70
Mean based on l1-point scale; 5 is the mid-poiht. % positive includes scale points 7-10; %
negative ircludes scale poiots 0-3. (ey symbol . key driver of 5-5tar Rating.
Parks: Contribution to Quality of Life
. The majority of Kent residents
agree that Kent's parks (and park
activities) contribute to their
quality of tife
. There has been an increase in the extent to
which they feel public arts and community
events contribute to their quality of tife
20t6 20LA
9/o Positive 44r/o 42o/.
l(eeping residents informed % Nesative 2or/o L6%
Mean 5 7i 5.75
% Positive 40% 37r
Seeking involvement and
input 7o Negative 20% 7s%
Mean 5.60 5.74
Having a crear vision and
-olo Positive 40% 33%u
strategy for the future % Neeat:ve 23o/o 77o/'
Mean 5.4I 5.46
% Positive 39% 31%V
Listenin8 to its residents % Nesative 2oo/. 79%
Mean 5.56 5.37
% Fositive 36% 360/o
Being accountable and
transparent % Negative 23% 77%
Mean 5.28 5.58
% Positive 40% 36%
Approachability of Mayor
and city council
0'6 Nesatlve l7% 14%
Mean 5.77 5.69
Mean based on 11-point scale; 5 isthe mid-point.96 positive inckrdes s.ale pointsT-10; i6
negative inclrdes scale points0-1. (ey syqbol = kev driver ofs-Star Rating.
Government Performance:
Changes from 20L6
. Resident ratings of Kent's
government are decidedty mixed -
while more are positive than
negative, a significant percentage
have neutral impressions
. There has been a significant decrease in the
percentage of positive ratings for the extent to
which they feel Kent has a ctear vision and
strategy for the future and how wefl it is
listening to its residents
. The percentage of negative ratings has
remained unchanged-i.e., residents are
increasingly neutral in their opinions
18
% Positive 30%
Availability of high % Neutrat 5r%quality jobs and
economic opportunities % Negative 1'9%
Mean 5.30
% Positive 3I%
Attracting good jobs for % Neutral 5ro/o
the next generation % Negative 18%
Mean 5.33
vlean based on 11-point scale; 5 is the nrid-poirt. .06 positive i.ckrdes scale points 7 lo;
9/. negative iocludes scale points 0-3. Key symbol = key driver of 5 Siar Rating.
. The majority of Kent residents are
neither positive nor negative towards
the avaitabitity of high quatity jobs
and economic activities and Kent's
efforts to attract good jobs for the
next generation
Economy: 2018
2014
1t29t2019
t8%
58%
1ao/-
23%
62%
t5%'VMbad
condition all over
Mostly good, few bad spots
Road Conditions: Changes from 20L6
. Kent residents are
increasingly positive about
the quality of roads in their
ncighborhood
20t6 2018
l9
4
U29t2019
Mowing grass and % Positive 58% 59o/o
weeds on sides of % Negative 13o/o 9%
street Mean 6.46 6.47
Appearance of planters % Positive 57o/o 560/o
along sidewalks and % Negative !3o/o lI%
roadways Mean 6.52 6.45
% Positive 58o/o 5O%.1/
Cleanliness of streets % Negative !7o/o 13%
Mean 6.40 6.07V
Maintenance Of % Positive 53% 53%
sidewalks and % Negative L9% rL%V
walkways Mean 6.16 6.24
Mean based on 11-poirrt scale; 5 is the nlid-point. % positive includes scale points 7-10j %
negative includes scale points 0-3. Kev synrbol = key driver of 5-Star Rating.
Transportation Maintenance: Changes from 20L6
. Kent residents are generally
satisfied with the maintenance
of streets and sidewalks in
Kent
. Satisfaction with the ctean[iness of streets
has decreased (shifting to neutral)
. White satisfaction with maintenance of
sidewalks and watkways has remained the
same, the percent dissatisfied decreased
significantty
2016 2018
% Positive 74Yo 63%V
Getting around by car % Nesative a% 9o/o
Mean 1.4o 1.04.1'
% Positive 56% 48yo\,
Availability of public
transportation ;1"-,:"t" :Y ::;
%Positive 5!% 42%{
Easy to walk around Kent % Nesative 78% 18%
Mean 6.20 5.91V
% Positive 49% 37Y.,1'
Easy to bicycle around (ent
;l;,:"t" ::; ,K
7o Positive 4lo/a
Easy to park near public yo Nesative n.a. 22%transportation facilities
Mean 5.65
klean bdsed on 11 poini scalej 5 is the mid'po1nt. % pos{ive include! scale poi{s 7-10;9i negative includes sca:e
poinr\ 0 3. (ey syilrbol . key druer ot c S,ir Rdrrng
Ease of TraveL Changes from 20L6
. Kent residents are increasingty
less positive (trending toward
neutrat) about their abitity to
get around
7,0
c 0,1
Jo/o
tI%
16%
160/o
16%
4Lo/o
7.59
7.44
6.73
6.37
6.33
6.37
4.48
75o/o
71,o4
550k
52o/o
520
Building new bike lanes
les,
6204
27olo
Building nelv sidewalks
streets by rcpaving, fixing
and turn lanes
bicycles and pedestrians)
road capacity through
nnections, more tTavel [anes, traffic
gnal improvements
safety through mc,re
crossings. traffic calming.
safety, and guardrarts
lmproving
additional
an]enities, bus priority tanes
ping "complete streets"
with facitities for cars,
access to transit through
sidelvatks, transit stop
Support for Transportation Funding
. With the exception of
additional. bike lanes, the
majority of Kent residents
support additional funding
for improved transportation
Mean
U29t2019
96 [amitiar
94 Neutral
9'6 Not Familiar
Mean
20t6
SIOA
44o,/o
4.08
2018
3L%
41,9/o
4.31
96 Famitiar
96 Neutml
96 Not FamiLiar
Mean
2016
27%
33o/t
4t%
4.20
2018
219'0V
33o/o
46%I
3.86'l,
Famitiarity : Changes from 2016
Most residents are not
familiar with Kent's efforts to
reach out to and inc[ude its
diverse cultural and
[anguage populations
They are atso not aware of
what volunteer opportunities
are available
Outreach
Volunteer
?,1
4
U29t20t9
57%
6.82
s4%
8%
6.58
s5o/o
7yo
6.75
51%
8Yo
6.57
47%
6.32
45%
10vr
Children and youth
Elderly
lndividuals of diverse racial
or ethnic backgrounds
lndividuals with disabilities
Low-income families
58oli
6%
6.14
57%
7%
6.71
58%
4%
6.81
s3%
90/6
6.50
s7%
L2%
6.35
s7%
60A
residents Mean 6.46 6.1s
Mean based or 11-point 5cale;5 i5 the nid-troint.96 positive i.cludes scale poinis 7-10; %
ne8ative ircl(les scale points 0-3. Key svmbol= key driver ofs-Star Rating.
% Positive
% Negaiive
Mean
% Positive
% Negative
Mean
% Positive
9'o Negative
Mean
% Positive
% Negative
Mean
% Positive
% Negative
Mean
7. Positive
%o Negative
Providing access to services
for non-English speaking
Support Services:
Changes from 20t6
. The majority of Kent residents
feelthe city does a good job
supporting the needs of different
poputation groups
. No significant changes from 2018
rB%
20%
17o/a
14%
60/o
6%
5%
1.%
4o/o
5%
4%
23o/o
78%
16%
17%
10%
60/o
3%
z -/o
3%
1%
7o/o
theft ,/ Car prowling
S
sm
rug-related crime
ng / traffic
cnme
nile crime
night noise / partying
enforcement
Domestic vio[ence
Other
Safety / Crime: Most Serious Police-Related Problem
. Kent residents continue to feel
that property crime is the
single most serious potice-
related probtem in their
neighborhood-41 % of all
residents
. Drug- and gang-related crime
is second-26% of a[[
residents
2016 2018
2,2,
% Reported Crime to
Potice
% Reported Crimex
ln-person
Over the phone
OnIine
78%
2204
68%o
260/o
57o/o
8%
t Sultls to nore than 100%: ntultiple responses allorled
83o/o
17%
690/o
32o/o
66%
22o/ot
Safety / Crime: Crime Victim
. One out of six Kent residents
reported that they or a member of
their household had been a victim
of a crime in the previous L2
months
. Of those, the majority reported the crime to
the potice
. Of those who reported the crime, most
continue to do so by phone; however, an
increasing number do so online
Victim of Crime in Past 12
Months
20t6 20L8
U29t20t9
No
Yes
Nature of contact
Report a crime
Community activity with potice
Tr.afflc accident
Asked for infofmation or advice
Witnessed a crime
Noise complaint
Routine traffic stop
Calls related to domestic violence
Arrested ol suspected of a crinre
Victim of a crime
Professionalisnr of offi cers
% Excellent
96 Good
o/a F atr
5204
604
4%
4e6
3ot'o
)70
)ol
Io/o I
0o/o
o%t
5o/o
4%
504
5%
6%
40/;
5%
0%
3%
46%
58o/o
26%
7o"o
64%o
36%
6LOA
24o/o
I2OA
66%
34%
Safety / Crime: Contact with Police
. One out of three Kent
residents report that they
had a personal contact with
the po[ice in the past 12
months
. The majority of these contacts
were a result of some sort of crime
. Nearly three out of 10 report that
the professionalism of the officers
with whom they had contact was
excellent; 26% said it was good
Contact with Police in Past 12 Months 2016 2018
2,7
Contact Method*
Phone 600/o
E-mait L9%
ln-person 26%
Social media 3o/o
Something etse 0%
* Sums to more than 10096; multlpte responses allowed
o
S
790/o
21%
82o/o
18%
68%
22o/o
14%
Lo/o
Jo/o
. Nearly one out of five Kent
residents had contacted
the City of Kent with a
question or problem in the
past L2 months
. The majority of those contacts
continue to be by phone
. There has been a decrease in the
percentage of in-person contacts
Contacted City
Contact with City of Kent in
Past 12 Months
20L6 2018
U29t2019
% Positive 65% 66%
Courteous and helpful % Negative 20% L3%
Mean 6.17 7.02
% Positive 56% 45%
Responded promptly to
% Negative ?2% 23%
mY concerns Mean 5.93 s.B2
PrOVideS accurate % Positive 52o/o 46%
answers the first time % Negative 26% 33o/o
asked Mean 6.10 5.4I
% Positive 55% 47o/o
Easy to reach the right
% Negative 27o/o 29%Person Mean 6.01 5.52
Mean based on 11-point icnle; 5 is the mid-poht. % positive includes scale points 7-10; % negative includes
scale points 0-1. Key symbol = key driverof s-SlarRating.
Base: Residetts who had contacted the City an the past 12 nrooths (n?016 = 113; n,o,, = 215)
Contact with City: Changes from 20L6
. Two out of three residents who
had recent contact with the city
report that the employees with
whom they had contact were
courteous and hetpful
. White sti[[ mostty positive, at least
some are having negative
experiences
2016 2018
?,4
46o/o
44o/o
2704
34%
Not asked
I2OA
lg06
6oh
Not asked
7%
7%
Not asked
9o/o
Not asked
2%
43%
4lo/o
200A
19o/o!
L3%
8o/o
9%t
9%
704
Bo/o
3o/o!
3%
2%i
Io/o
5o/o
direct mailers
Par ks and Recreation Guide
Facebook page
Scene"
AM or Streaming Radio
(The Kent Btog)
on NextDoor
website (generat)
ent's lnstagranr
TV 21
nt's Twitter
borhood Councils
Kent Reporter Newspaper
City of Kent Website
. Two out of five residents state
they get information about the
Citv of Kent from the Kent
Refiorter and/or the City of Kent
website
. Overa[[, information sources have
remained simitar to 2016 though
there are a few notable changes
with use of the fotlowing having
dropped significant[y
. The Quarterly Parks and Recreation Guide
. Radio (FM, AN/ or Streaming)
. Kent TV 21
. Neighborhood Councils
lnformation Sources
lnformation soures 20L6 2018
U29t2019
7.s
Krrur Ctry Cour.rcrr- 2019 Atrtruunl Srnnrecrc Pmrururrue Me errruc
SATURDAY
8:40 Advancing the City's Vision for Technology
COUNCIU MAYOR RALPH / MIKE CARRINGTON / ELTr What is our long-term vision for technology in supporting City operations and the provision of
services?. What progress have we made in achieving that vision? What approaches have we used to make
progress?. What are the next steps in advancing our vision?o What resources will be needed?
1,/30/2019
Information Tech nology
FEBRUARY 2019
Council Retreat
/A\/KENT
,ffi
'ffi
"ffi
'ffi
,,ffi
Systems Integratisn & Developrnent
Adrninistration
@ fechnical Serviees
Froject ManaEement Offiee
Multimedia
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
1.I nformation Tech nology
L/30/2}te
Desktop & Mobile Computing
> 810 Desktop Computers
> 241 Laptops
> 88 Police Department MDC/Mobile Data Computers
> 657 Cell Phones, Tablets, and PDAS
ffi
@/"Q
a
l
Infrastructure
> 29O Servers
> 176 Switches and Routers
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
ffi
@ff
@m
@/s
Email
> 173,381 per week
> SPAM: L23,L96 per week
Viruses
> -148 per week
Service Tickets Closed
> 8,173
Contracts Managed
> 115+
> VAR/value Added Resellers 3-4 levels deep
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
2I nformation Tech nology
!/30/2OLs
Press Jobs
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi >44
Graphics Jobs
> 1,392
Video Jobs
> 356
Print Shop Jobs
> 1,650
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Software, Applications and Business Systems
- Large - 15
> Complex Support Profile
D Medium - 42
> Average Support Profile
F Small - lOOs
> Light Support Profile
ffitr
g O Q o,o-'*..'
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
3I nformation Tech nology
7/30/20rs
595
4,4o7
626
189
276
1,981
161
116
29
854
93
888
10549
880
179,289,435
364,564,87r
96,700,577
101,558,991
140,804,609
209,597,465
8,775,432
s,697,863
3r7372
38,815,491
672,354
4,206,637
\,r50,28r,o94
95,856,7s8
Oracle lmaging
class (Parks/Flnancel
UtiliW Bllllns
B&O Tax
JDE
Kiva
GEN
SharePoint
Hansen
SCADA
TMA
Totals
Averages
'tr's Eata anel Reeords
> 37O+ Gigabytes in and out of the City per day
> 150+ Terabytes of disk storage space €onsumed
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Tnge fl{#ot Attae fl< Rerreediatiryna seprember20lB
Major Accomplishments
oalwarebytes
^Bs
"...TrickBot is a banking Trojan... that acts
as a data stealer..."
"...TrickBot has now overtaken Emotet as
our top-ranked threat for businesses..."
"...The authors are agile and creative...
ga i n i n g persisten ce, p ro pa g ation, stea I i n g
crede ntia I s a n d e ncrypti on..."
"...1T teams must remediate each infected
system one-by-one...a long and
painstaking process that's costly on time
and resources..."
TrickBot takes over as top business
threat
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
4I nformation Technology
7/30/207s
Major Accomplishments
"Mugshot Booking" Program (Enrollment in RBPC/Regional Booking Photo Comparison)
Showare POS/Point-of-Sale Replacement
Evidence Capture to Mobile (VeriPic)
B&O Solution Release(s)
Jail Control System Upgrade
KnowBe4 & ISP/tnformation Security Program
Data Center Hyper-Converged Infrastructure Upgrade
Network Optimization
Golf System Replacement
Enterprise MFD/Multi-function Device xcopier/scanner/fax and many more.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Staying Out in Front of the Barrage of Security Threats
Managing a Complex "Hybrid" Environment While
Migrating Systems and Data to the Cloud
nffi Respecting Department Service Calendars While Still
"Forging Ahead"
Enterprise Considerations for New GIS-Centric Systems
Adding our Transition Away From JDE into the Mix
Upcoming Challenges
I
o
I
a
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
5I nformation Tech nology
r/30/20rs
r,t
. , . City Operations & Service Provision
Technology Vision
Appnoach
ffi Resource Needs
*
l
; I Next stePs
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Technology represents tools and services that cities use to
reach their full potential. They enable residents, business
and government to work more efficiently, interact with each
other in new and improved ways while increasing the overall
quality of life
A fully connected and interactive city uses networks,
sensors/ data analytics, and emerging technologies to help
fuel it
Technology Vision
Why Technology Matters
Technofogy is the fuel for a"Sm.&-Ejty"
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
6I nformation Tech nology
r/30/2oLe
TAB I Technology Action Board Est.e42017
A project governance and oversight body created for
the specific purpose of guiding and vetting the City's
technology related capital investments
Technology Vision
Board Members
Derek Matheson, CAO & Chair
Mike Carrington, IT Director & Co-Chair
Dana Ralph, Mayor
Aaron BeMiller, Finance Director
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Establish and maintain open technology related communication with all City
of Kent departments
Promote the City of Kent's Technology Initiative Master Schedule and
Solutions Roadmap
Maintain a scoring mechanism to be used in the selection process for
proposed and active projects
Promote enterprise projects encouraging multi-department/division
approaches to common issues
Technology Vision
TAB Goals & Objectives
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
7I nformation Tech nology
L/30/20L9
Review proposals from all City of Kent departments/divisions wath enterprise
and resident points of view, making transparent decisions based on specific
criteria across all departments/divisions, regardless of their
department/division to ensure the City of Kent's limited technology
investments (monetary and staffing resources) are expended with strategic
intent to meet the City of Kent's strategic plan
Ensure technology investments consider project portfolio management best
practices to ensure spending and development efforts expand innovative
capabilities and potential ROI while reducing investment overlaps
Technology Vision
TAB Goals & Objectives
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Avoid ineffective technology investments that increase support costs
unnecessarily
Strive to avoid vertical solutions meeting the limited needs of only one
function or department/division by ensuring the use of common systems
unless compelling business case for alternate solution exists.
Avoid vertical solutions meeting the limited needs of only one.
Avoid duplication of systems, data and functions by consolidating and
sharing technical solutions wherever possible
Technology Vision
TAB Goals & Objectives
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
8I nformation Tech nology
L/30/2OLe
Ensure financial, resource and strategic goals are achieved during project
lifecycle by reviewing project process using project dashboards and
status reports
Drive down project cycle times
Promote innovatave technologies and create new best practices in
government
Technology Vision
TAB Goals & Objectives
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Become a City Enabled by
Technology Vision
Vlsion Statement
Technology Through
Innovation Pathways
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
9I nformation Tech nology
Technology Vision
Innovation Pathways & Growth Strategies
Our pathways promote transparency, engagement, efficiency &
effectiveness that goes on to encourage inclusion, opportunity and
innovation
The City of Kent's emerging Technology Plan highlights Growth Strategies
within two broad Pathways that together are intended to enable our ability
PATH\A'AY #1.
Infrastructure that promotes Kent's government, residents and businesses
to be digitally-connected, opportunistic and engaged
PATHWAY #2
Evolving our decision making process from Data to Information, leading us
to then progress from Information to Knowledge
to realize our technology vision
I NFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
1,/30/z}rs
Technology Vision
Innovation Pathways & Growth $trategies
PATHWAY #I.
Infrastructure that promotes Kent's government, residents and
businesses to be digitally-connected, opportunistic and engaged
This pathway, in particular, requires a guiding principal of.,.
Inner Focus
Before
Outward Focus
rrner
Establish a next generation platform of infrastructure, systems and data
all to enable efficiency, effectiveness and innovation
Outward
Extend our fnner-focused technology accomplishments externally to
engage and enable our community
:
:
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
I nformation Tech nology 10
Technology Vision
Growth Strategies & Initiatives
Class/ Point-of-Sale -> iNovah
Oracle IPM & Captivation -> Laserfiche
Hansen -> CityWorks
Law Dept (Civil) -> LawBase
Parks -> PerfectMind
Court (Case Mgmt) -) ocourt
HCMA/Human Capital Management & Automation (xJDE) -> tbd.:
Under...
Licenses (in-house Dev)
PATHWAY #1
Replacing Antiquated Core Business Systems
and
Establishing New Base Technology Platforms
Kiva (Permits) -> Bluebeam & Amanda
Kiva (Business Licenses) -> CoK Business
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
t/30/2ors
Innovation Pathways & Growth Strategies
PATHWAY #2
Evofving our decision making process lrom Data to Information, leading
us to then progress Jrom Information to Knowledge
This pathway requires a guiding principal of...
Technology Vision
Knowledge-Based
Measurable
Decision Making
In addition to also needing
Inner Focus
Before
Outward Focus
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
I nformation Tech nology 7!
Technology Vision
Growth Strategies & Initiatives
Under,..
PATHWAY #2
Turning Data into Information
and then
Information into Knowledge
:. Establishing BIlBusiness Intelligence Ptatforms by way of
:
implementing a Enterprise Data Warehouse, complimented by:
associated PSPG/ Poticy, Standards, Proced u res and Gu idelines
. Foster and promote Data Stewardship and Information
Utilization throughout the entire City, along with end user :
tools and education
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
rl30/zore
Enterprise tsusiness Intelligence
tsy way of the tsIT I Susiness Intelligence Team
Est. Q4
Establishing an Enterprise Intelligence Framework
that allows for Strategic, Data Driven Decisions at the
Citv
Team Members
Somen Palit, Systems Integration & Development Manager & Team Lead (IT)
Mike Carrington, IT Director & Executive Sponsor (IT)
Terry Jungman, Park/Facilities Planning & Dev Coordinator (PRCS)
Catherine Crook, GIS Supervisor (PW)
Barbara Lopez, Deputy Finance Director (FIN)
Bill Ellis, Chief Economic Development Officer (ECD)
Erin George, Planning Manager (ECD)
tbd, Government Performance Coordinator (HR) .., and growing!
Technology Vision
I NFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
I nformation Tech nology T2
Q&A
Mike Carrington, rolr..ror
Admanistraion Olvielon I Information T€chnology Dept.
220 Foudh Avenua South, K6nt, wA 98032
Phone 253-a56-4607 | Frx 2t3-856-4700
trciai4!qr@ttrfllwa.qqi 2019 Coun.ilRettedt
r/30lzoLs
Next Steps. Continue to evolve the City's emerging Technology Plan (e.9.
The Pathways) including additional Growth Strategies and
associated initiatives and projects. Continue to execute on projects and programs in-flight and
queued-up
Continued executive leadership and departmental support
Continued funding of ongoing operations, vetted and approved
projects, programs and initiatives
Technology Vision
Next Steps and Needs
Neecls
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
I nformation Tech nology 13
crTY'oF KENT - TNTFORMAT'ION TECHhjOLOGY PROJECTS ROADMAP (TECH PLAN)01"120x9
20L7 20t8 Q1-2019 Q2-2019 Q3-2019 Q4-20le QL-2020 Q2-202O Q3-2020 Q4-2O2O 202L 2022 2023
L Laserfiche (Replace Captovation, Qracle IPM, and AP Process)2 Virtual Procurement I Contracts Mgmt
3 Online Records Search 4 Various Cltywide eForms and Workflow to facilitate a Paperless Workplace
5
6 7
I iNovah (Replace CTASS + Paymen:t Mgr for Finance/PD)
9 B&O I']il( (Rl)10 DEV: B&O Tax LL DEV: B&O Ta< (R3)L2 B&O (Changes, Other To<-Online FilinglPmts)
'l
IJ
13 DEV: Online Utility Billing (PaperlessJ M
t4 Business Licenses (Extracted from Kiva)15 Business Lic Portal-> FileLocal
45
16 Enterprise Bl (DataWarehouse, Metrics, & Dept Dashboards)
L7 Human Capital Management & Automation (Replace the HR, Time & Attendance, and Payrollelements of JDE)46
18 liflplo enla$oti'" pw AsSo t Man:agemenf &'worko r:dei sy ste m)47
19
20 GolfNow
+22
2L
23
24 I Resident Egmnt
(GovDelivery)25
26 WebQA Mobile (Resrdent
Reguesto
27
28
29
30 31 32 33 34 35
36 37 38 39
40 4L 42
43
Q4-2O20 202L 2022 202320L720L8Q1-2019 Q2-2OL9 Q3-2019 Q4-20L9 QL-2020 Q2-2020 Q3-2020
City Website Replacement/Upgrade
PerfectMind (Replace CTASS + Payment Manger for Parks)
Tiburon ReplacementlUpgrade (Solution - TBD)
New lntranet Solution (Replace SharePoint / CitySpace)
Agenda Mgmt (extend lQM2)
ilir r,'1,,,i,tlri 1.rrii,;l .j, lll \'r;t 1,, 1 r;.r i,t ili r,
1l" i',r1', i'tti11 t
( i.t t utr rr,r,(ri ll..i il',iili , ,i I iil:i{,t I i \,i( I ilitir,,,l r/1 rt rl L:1il,,l ,ri i\i,r'{)l I I i lri:il;,,iii,tr' i I ilt,tl
, i lrr,r'i,t t
l,1,lii( 1
, it l ttt \lti itLi 1L I lrrl iiLii I 1,1,1 1ri,r'ii\'
\t1/11 1 l(llttii[:;t, (.i.:t,iit:1,: irr ], lii(rj./ii.. i i\
r'iil),iji1,'q;1,,1:
, iiriii\ (
| , I r,t i ,lii,t,
:li lri:t,t'f
r,r'l r 1li1,Lr.'1 l,i
i.l,lr i r iir i,r, ir il i, i i('i(,jili
KENT
CITY CF KENT. I.IR & FIhIANCH FUINCTIOhIS 3"t2413.S
> 90o/o of Operational lssues
(Service Tickets)
HCMA - Human Capital
Management & Automation
Human
Resources
Employee Focused
* HRIS includes the following:
. Benefits Management. Leave Management. EEO Compliance. Job & Salary Management. Labor Statistics
LEGEND
. PDBA- Pay, Deductions, Benefits, Accruals. PCR - Personnel Change Request. HRIS - Human Resources lnformation System. IRS - lnternal Revenue Service. SSA - Social Security Administration. DRS - Department of Retirement Services
Finance
Strateg i clCu sto merlVe n do r
Focused
JDE
KENT
WAsHrNcroN
Krrur Crrv Courrrcrr- 2O19 Atlruunl Srnnrcctc Pmrurutruc Mrertruc
SATURDAY
10:00 How Should the City Address Homelessness?
COUNCIL / MAYOR RALPH / RAF PADILLA / JULIE PARASCONDOLA / MERINA HANSON /
TIM LnPORTE / ELT. What is the City currently doing to provide leadership in addressing homelessness?
What services are we providing? How much time are we devoting to this issue?
How many resources?r What services are our partners providing to address homelessness, including notfor-profits, the
private sector, other South County cities, and King County?o What are the impacts of homelessness on City facilities, public health and safety, and the
environment?r ln light of this inventory, are there any gaps in the delivery of services?o What do we know of the expectations and interests of Kent's residents and businesses? Does the
community survey shed any light on them?o ls there anything more that the Council is interested in exploring to address homelessness and
related issues?
Ll2e/20re
City Council Retreat
February 2,2019
Kent's Framework
n 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.
L
L/29/zoLs
Kent's Framework
The City provides and/or works with community partners to provide
. Basic Needs, EmergencyAssistance, Medical Care
Employment, Rent Assistance
. Outreach, Mental Health Resources, Job Training,
Housing Assistance, Substance Abuse Treatment,
Counseling, Case Management
Day Center Services, Shelter, Transitional Housing,
Mobile Medical
. Comprehensive Plan, Human Services Master Plan,
Consolidated Plan
. Ensure Safety for our Residents, Businesses, Visitors
and those who are Homeless
Services to Prevent
Homelessness
Services for lndividuals
Experiencing
Homelessness
Facilities for lndividuals
Experiencing
Homelessness
Policies to Guide
Planning and
lnvestments
Enforcement to Ensure
Public Safety
Kent By the Numbers
t homeless
160
men served by
HOME in 2018
/*509
students
experienced
homelessness
in 201
250+
estimated
homeless
residents in
Kent
*"' ,'
^4c'177
homeless
individuals
counted in Kent
in 2018
2
tl2e/20Ls
g,*il.s*qhsr iaatttl ruo6n
r _ k-* **- ""* -
.dH ,rrti.lt @F|sfr
kMr4rd{
!'rqda rlgfl
p.nnHow rnuch ara wa aDandlne
on homaLa$aart
lhe homeblt rcrponse Jyrtem h
xlnq Courty !prrwlr !clors
gov€rnment agcftl€taod
philanthiopt, Dut it{tms not iew
one centrillted budgcl. lo Gl(ulate
what lJ rp€nt and hw, w asled
lwrrnment aoeft l€t rnd lJnil€d
Wry tlng Countyfor lolt ooullions
budg€tr dedl.ated to homelelrn€rr.
IhG total dffi not lmludo prtunts
orgaruetlons thal don't recelve
gde.nmcnt lundlng, ruah a9 Unlo
0otpel MIstion, or dke(t grantt f.om
mElfr thllanihropis,
.,ffidfrsrHdffidtbr*,
tud avdfitr,rfr aur ht tsrft {M, kN&4AM-qa!@W.l/lry, M3MM&,tudhnra^5dil
ll(tw nato{tl, t3 39ttit
u.6fr'
rHldrhqffit
ltg
tltl
ffi
How much is our region spending
on homelessness?
s19s,588,512
r.:,rr 'iiir'r-. ,\.r ,,i, !
Regional Investments by City
2017 Human Services lnvestments
..""iC "$ """"r"u")*s*"slo.uf.""t "-..q"."*".$.""-f;C'^"::".C
160,000
140,000
'120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
'1,000,000
500,000
G
-Other
Human Seruices lnvoslmenls rHomeless Investmenls +Population
3
r/lelzoLs
Human Services lnvestments
Leverage
Partnerships
Resource and Referral
Policy and Planning
Special Operations Unit
Kent Response
Human Services lnvestments
Catholic Community Services
Catholic Community Services
Catholic Community Services
Catholic Community Services
Child CarE Resources
Crisis Clinic
DAWN
Hospitality House
Kenl Food Bank and Emergency Seryices
Kent Youth and Family Services
King County Bar Association
Multi-Seryice Center
Mulii-Seruice Center
Nexus Youih & Families
Public Health - Seaitle & King County
Sound (formerly Sound Mental Health)
St. Stephen Housing Assoc.
St. Vincent de Paul
YWCA Seatlle I King I Snohomish
Em€rgency Asslstance
HOME and WHOME Shelters
Katherine's House (CDBG)
Communily Engagement Center
Homeless Child Care Program
King County 2-'1-'1
DAWN Housing and Shelter
Hospitality House Shslter
Food Bank and Emergency Seryices
Watson Manor Transitional Living Program
Pro Bono Eviction Prevention Seryices
Kent Housing Continuum
Rent & Emergency Assistance (CDBG)
Nexus Arcadla House Youth Sholter
Mobile Medical Services
PATH Homeless Outreach
Transitional Housing
Holy Splrit Emergency Services
Anita Vista Transitional Housing (CDBG)
TOTAL
10,000
65,000
13,000
30,000
't0,000
5,000
30,000
10,000
70,000
'15,000
12,000
120,000
60,000
10,000
10,000
12,000
15,000
10,000,
20,000
527,000
4
L/2s/20re
Leverage
Kent's investments in human services are
heavily leveraged by support from other
significant funders including federal and state
programs, King County government, United Way
of King County, and a number of local
foundations including the Seattle Foundation, Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several
smaller family foundations.
Community Partners
Other Community Partners not Funded by the City
n CREW
r Salvation Army
n KentHOPE
n Union Gospel Mission
r Vine Maple Place
r Mary's Place
n Shared Bread
n Community Meals and other faith based programs
5
Ll29/2o7s
Resource and Referral
Human Services staff provides:
n Referrals to walk-in clients
r Brochures and resources guides
n Navigation team assistance
r lnternal cross-division staff training team
n Access to emergency food, hygiene kits, hand
warmers, and gloves and jackets when available
n Direction for organizations who contact us to learn
how to help
n Stakeholder convenings as needed/requested
Policy and Planning
n All Home FunderAlignment Committee
a Joint Recommendations Committee
n Homeless System Governance Work Group
n Veterans, Seniors and Human Services LevyAdvisory Committee
n Human Services Funding Collaborative
n Tri-County Change Network
n South King County Homeless Action Committee
n South King County Homeless Forum
a South King County Human Services Planners
a South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership
n King County Refugee Housing Task Force
a Continuum of Care Policy Development
a Application Review Panels for Countywide Funding
a Rotating ShelteriWinter Shelter Work Group
n Northwest Association of Community Development Managers
6
Ll2sl2ote
The Kent Police Department's SOU works
directly with those experiencing
homelessness in Kent.
Special Operations Unit
Scope of the Problem
u Estimatedl50 individuals
"camping" in Kent at a
given time.
n Kent Police Department
were made aware of 202
camps in 2018.
a 175 encampments were
posted and cleared in
2018.
7
7/29/2oLe
Green Spaces
Downtown Businesses
8
Ll2s/20tsI
Biohazards
'^nl " nf it\
'.{ .l ,'..
,.t.r,,j l?,
ttr
a[l
Makeup of Homeless Population
r Three primary categories of Kent's homeless
popu lation:
. lndividuals/Families Facing Short-Term Crisis
. lndividuals with Mental Health/Substance Abuse
lssues
. Criminal Vagrants
9
L/29/2ots
What are the lmpacts
n Department Resources
u Entire SOU (bike unit) is assigned to full-time
homeless outreach
o Jail Work Crew exclusively assigned to camp
cleanup
n lmpact on Crime
n Commercial Burglaries and Shoplifting
n Vehicle Theft/Prowl
What are the lmpacts
r Quality of Life
n Fosters safety concerns from general public
n Litter, trash and biohazards in public spaces
n lmpact on residential neighborhoods, particularly
those with parks and green spaces
n Businesses
n Huge expense of cleanup and damage repair
n Customers feel unsafe to do business
n Frequent 911 calls for trespass/nuisance
L0
I
What is it Costing
n Jail Work Crew
n Loss of litter cleanup
n Loss of graffiti cleanup
L/29/2oLs
What is it Costing
n Large Financial lmpact
n Programs Not Being Staffed
n Bike program" r Loss of police presence in downtown core
r Loss of business contacts
r Reduced presence at special events
r ShoWare
r Cornucopia Days
r Splash
r lncreased calls to patrol officers
n Boat program
r Will need to hire officers on OT to cover
7L
Successes
t/29/2oLs
Wh at are we doing about it?
n Help connect individuals
to services
a Educate individuals by
providing information
about rules and potential
violations
n Enforce laws as needed
to ensure that public
health and public safety
are protected
https ://www.youtu be. com/
watch?v=54kqzNeygbw
t2
Public Works
n Public Works maintained facilities include:
under bridges, river and stream corridors,
and city-owned wetlands.
1,/29/2079
Public Works
Parks, Recreation and Community
Services
Operational lmpacts
13
Public Works
Public Works
i :,
a,l,"i 3'''*-.
4:.
\I
"$'
rl2el2oLs
T4
Public Works
Public Works
t/2s/zoLs
15
Public Works
Public Works
L/2elzots
T6
Public Works
n Operational lmpacts - What is it costing us?
u Staff Hours
r Approximately 500 hours of staff time annually
s Estimated expenditures annually between $27,000
and $30,000 including staff time, estimated dump fees
for waste and other miscellaneous fees (signage, etc.)
n This does not include administrative costs and lost
staff time.
1"/29/20L9
Parks, Recreation & Comm.
Services
A new challenge in public recreation and land
management:
s Direct conflict in public/resident use
r Unique issues vs. spaces that public normally doesn't
access
r Specific education and training for staff to engage with
this constituency more effectively and with greater
empathy
r Families, seniors, children, etc. directly impacted
r Loss of revenue and public engagement
r Public perception and subjectivity of personal safety
T7
Parks, Recreation & Comm.
Services
Public perception/subjectivity of personal safety:
a Not feeling safe in parks/facilities ranked 3rd
top reason for not participating or visiting Kent's
parks and facilities.
Sept 201 B Marketing and Engagement Suruey (qualitatlve, 1,014 respondents)
n Goncerns about safety and security ranked #1
top reason preventing residents from participating
or visiting Kent's offerings
December20lB City of Kent Suryey - 42ol" (quantifiable, 977 respondenls)
a 13Yo drop I in the public's perception of
safety in Kent parks and trails from 2016-2018.
50% ranked safoty as good or excellent in 2016 vs. 37% in 2018.
December 201 8 City of Kent Suryey (quanlifiable, 977 respondents)
u2e/201e
PRCS I Parks and Open Spaces
Park areas most impacted by homelessness
activities:
o Mill Creek/Earthworks
o Green River corridor and parks (Russell Woods, Van
Doren's Landing, Three Friends, Old Fishing Hole)
o lnterurban trail
o Morrill Meadows
n Clark Lake
o Scenic Hill
o Town Square Plaza and Downtown parks
s Kiwanis Tot Lots #1,#4
o Commons park (Showare)
s Salt Air
18
PRCS I Parks and Open Spaces
Operational lmpacts
n Park operations staff observe and report impacts from
homelessness behaviors/activity:
r Seeing individuals in distress. i.e. medical concerns, under
the influence, mental/behavioral, public drinking,
intoxication, drug use, etc.
r Overnight vehicles or overnight camping
r Reports of staff feeling personally threatened or unsafe
r Staff must come back multiple times in specific areas to
complete maintenance tasks
r Reduction of hours or city amenities like public restrooms
r 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. )
r/2e/20rs
PRCS I Parks and Open Spaces
Operational lmpacts - What is it costing us?
n Staff Hours
: Since 2015, trending from 300 to 650+ staff hours
specifically spent on homeless camp response, repairs and
clean up (not including administrative time spent on contract
management and support)
n Est expenditures annually between $40,000 - $50,000
r Contracting for clean up
r Repairs to fencing, lighting, electrical outlets, doors
n Do not track loss of inefficient operations or duplicated
trips, increased time to complete maintenance tasks
19
PRCS I Public Recreation
Balancing Programs with Conflicting Use:
o Kent Commons and Kent Senior Activity Center
r Fees are paid / changes public's expectation of safety and
security
r Have many vulnerable populations already using such as
seniors, children, disabled/adaptive recreation, etc.
r Added operational impacts (managing access, monitoring use,
cleanliness of public areas such as restrooms/locker rooms,
open spaces, managing visitor concerns, etc.)
r Cameras and other security protocols are in place to manage,
where applicable
r lnteractions with individuals who are violating facility use rules
can result in confrontations compounded by reactions under
the influence of alcohol, drugs etc.
r Balancing seasonal access for homelessness due to extreme
heat or cold
Ll2sl20Le
PRCS I Public Recreation
Balancing Programs with Conflicting Use:
o Programs in Parks
r Summer playground programs / camps / events:
r Securing restrooms to make sure they are clear of
illicit use, homelessness sleeping, drug
paraphernalia, etc.;
: Walking park grass, paths, amenities, etc. to visually
search for safety concerns such as drug
paraphernalia, condoms, human waste prior to
arrival of children, families and visitors
r Managing impacts/fear when activities occur during
active programs or events
r Loss of participation and.revenue b.ecause, parents or
paying users don't want to expose themselves or
families to potentially unsafe conditions
20
PRCS I Riverbend Golf Complex
Riverbend Golf Complex
o Significant homelessness along the Green River Corridor, which
parallels the golf course
s Fees are paid / changes public's expectation of safety and security
o Facility / Operational impacts:
r Removal of homeless individuals prior to course opening
r Added patrols to evaluate impacts
r Constant cutting of chain-link perimeter or other security fencing
(area of state prevailing wage increase)r Cutting of event tent multiple times per year to access
r Sleeping in storage containers on site
r Theft of golf cart batteries multiple times per year
o Estimated expenditures annually between $20,000 - $30,000 due
directly to homelessness impacts
tl29/201.9
PRCS I City Facilities
n City Hall Campus
r Regular clean up of stairwells and surrounding landscape in
the parking garage due to human waste, drug paraphernalia
r Managing balance between general public and employee
access to restrooms with homelessness use and activities
r Vandalism and unsanctioned use of electrical outlets and other
infrastructure
21.
E nviron mental
Business
Community Concerns
Ll29/zots
Envi ron mental Concerns
n Large amounts of litter
n Riparian zone pollution
n Human waste runs off into waterways that feed
into our lakes and rivers
n Topsoil polluted by non-biodegradable items
n Drug waste; used hypodermic needles
n Potential for disease/human health concern
r Using trees for firewood/risk of forest fires
n Tree health impacted from nails and broken
branches used to build shelters
n lmpacts to wildlife and other natural habitats
22
Business Concerns
n Employee and Customer Safety
n Private Security Costs
r Recent Case Samples -
' Harrison House
' Alliance Center
> DAWN
t Big Lots and Thai Chili Complexes
- Meeker Square
, Safeway
> Library
Ll2s/207s
Gaps in Services
Challenges
Opportunties
Summary
23
Gaps in Services
n lt is not financially feasible for every City to have a separate
homeless response system. ldeally there would be a well-planned
network of service hubs across the region.
n Expanded hours for the Community Engagement Center could
ensure individuals have a safe place to be during the day, but
impact to surround businesses would need to be monitored.
n The current rotating shelter model may not be feasible to maintain
long term.
n All cities in King County need additional Permanent Supportive
Housing options and housing that is affordable to those with
incomes 0-30% of median.
1./2elzarc
Challenges
n Homelessness is a complex societal issue for which there is no
easy answer.
n There are very real impacts on our environment and economic
systems.
n There is no agreement about what the solution for Kent is; for some
it means providing more services. For others it means discouraging
additionalfacilities in the downtown core.
o The City alone lacks the regional policy authority and financial
resources to address the issue in a significant way.
n Regional funding programs and policy discussions primarily center
around humanitarian needs and response. Those discussions do
not address local impacts. There is no comprehensive strategy that
considers both humanitarian needs and impact mitigation.
24
4,
Council Feedback
r Questions
n Follow Up Needed
r Future Presentations
L/29/2019
Opportunities
n There are intensive and ongoing efforts by social service providers,
government agencies and others to address homelessness in our
region:
n Reduce the number of people who experience homelessness by targeting
our Prevention resources
o Reduce the number of people who need emergency shelter by
utilizing Diversion strategies
s Provide immediate safety and a pathway to housing through Emergency Shelter
E lncrease the number of people who exii to permanent housing by
targeting Permanent Supportive Housing for the most vulnerable and by
maximizing Rapid Re-housing
a Kent can build on and collaborate with existing efforts, without
attempting to duplicate them.
n There is increased attention at the State and Federal level to the need
for adequate behavioral health and chemical dependency services.
25
HOMELESSNESS
STRATECY
FRAMEWORK
Homelessness is a national and regional crisis and requires
national and regional, forward thinking solutions.
20r 9
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
HOMELESSNESS STRATECY
FRAMEWORK
Introd uction
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 belowthe poverty line makes a household vulnerable to becoming homeless.
Homelessness exists in every zip code in King County. OnJanuarv 26,20.l8, 6,320
people were unsheltered in King County, including 3,372individuals residing in vehicles.
177 unsheltered in Kent. Many more spent the night in shelter, transitional housing, or
doubled up with friends and family. 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 orto get them back on the path to being stably housed.
The City of Kent is committed to working toward collaborative solutions for homelessness
byworking with All Home, 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.
Page 1
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
All Home Strategic Plan
The broader work addressing homelessness regionally operates under the All Home
Strategic Plan 20,l 5-2019. All Home is a community-wide partnership to align public and
private efforts to address homelessness in our region. The Plan revolves around the
vision that homelessness is rare in King County, racial disparities are eliminated, and if
one becomes homeless, it is brief and only a one-time occurrence.
The pillars of the All Home Strategic Plan 20.l 5-2019 include
. Make Homelessness Rare
. Make Homelessness Brief and One-Time
o A Community to End Homelessness
Make Homelessness Rare
A 20.l3 national study found that community rates of homelessness are driven by rent
increases, the availability of a strong safety net, economy, demographics, and large
numbers of people moving to a region. All Home's focus in making homelessness rare in
King county includes working together with community advocates, providers and partners
to align efforts towards prevention, increasing affordable housing, and supporting the
expansion of pre-adjudication programs and sentencing alternatives.
A New Focus on Prevention
The most logical approach is to stop homelessness before it happens. Some populations
(including youth exiting foster care, immigrants and refugees, and individuals exiting
treatment programs) experience homelessness at a much higher rate than the rest of our
population. Assisting these individuals before a crisis occurs prevents them from
spiraling into homelessness. All Home is committed to working closely with community
initiatives to target investments towards communities where the need and opportunity
are the greatest, making the shift from a costly, crisis-oriented response to health and
social problems to one that focuses on prevention, embraces recovery, and eliminates
d isparities.
A Commitment to Creating More Affordable Housing
All Home is committed to a community-wide effort to push for federal, state and local
policies and funding that increases housing for very low-income households (those
Page 2
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
earning below 30%of Area Median lncome). They also launched the OneHome campaign,
an innovative alliance with landlords who agree to open up units in their buildings to
prospective tenants who might normally be passed over in the screening process. ln
exchange landlords are eligible for incentives and services to tenants that are designed to
help tenants remain stably housed.
An Expansion of Pre-Adjudication and Sentencing Alternatives
Homelessness is common among individuals leaving institutions including jails, foster
care, treatment programs and hospitals. One in five people who leave prison become
homeless soon thereafter, if not immediately (Study: NAEH Re-Entry) and having a
criminal history creates ongoing barriers to securing housing. All Home is working with
localjurisdictions to support the enhancement and expansion of pre-adjudication
programs and sentencing alternatives in an attempt to help individuals avoid a criminal
history while also reducing criminal recidivism.
Make Homelessness Brief and One-time
A temporary crisis results in homelessness far too often for many people. While we
cannot prevent everyone from becoming homeless, shortening the length of time families
and individuals are homeless reduces trauma and helps maximize the value of our limited
resou rces
A New Focus on lndividualized Approaches
Homeless housing and services are tailored to an individual's needs. Similarlywe need to
craft a system level approach to realign our resources to create the right mix of services
that will be able to meet the needs of families and individuals, move them into permanent
housing faster, and connect them to community supports to maintain housing stability.
All Home, local housing organizations, and funders will use the System Wide Analytics
and Projection (SWAP) suite of tools to identify the appropriate range of homeless
interventions that best match the needs of people experiencing homelessness. lt is
anticipated this will result in freeing up more intensive, expensive interventions for
individuals that need them, while also allowing us to serve more people, more quickly.
A Commitment to Rapid Re-Housing
Rapid re-housing is a best practice housing model for households experiencing
homelessness. Rapid re-housing is an intervention that helps homeless families exit
Page 3
HOMELESSNESS STMTEGY FRAMEWORK
shelters and get back into permanent housing quickly. Communities across the country
are using rapid re-housing approaches because it shortens the time families spend
homeless and serves more families by providing cost-effective short-term assistance.
Rapid re-housing is less expensive than emergency shelter or transitional housing. The
model has shown impressive outcomes nationally, and our local pilot for families is
designed to transition families experiencing homelessness into permanent housing
quickly by offering:
. Housing Search and Stabilization Services
. Short-Term Rental and Move-ln Assistance
. lndividualized Employment Assistance
A Community to End Homelessness
Homelessness in our region is a large scale problem, which will only be solved by
individuals who come together in a community-wide partnership to create positive
change. Homelessness exists in every city in King County, but no jurisdiction can solve
this challenge alone. lf we are to succeed in ending homelessness it will take our entire
community coming together in caring and compassionate engagement. Homelessness
isn't somebody else's problem. lt is our problem. Everyone has a part to play in meeting
the challenge posed bythe people in our communitywho are living on our streets.
Uniting Neighbors in a Common Cause
All Home is engaged in a public campaign to engage the community around the issue of
homelessness. Community members are encouraged to volunteer at a local shelter or
homeless service organization, make donations of goods or money, or participate in
community conversations and forums that build awareness and formulate new ideas.
Expanding the Circle of Engagement
All Home is also working to engage other sectors of the community to maximize the
opportunity to make a difference. They continue to reach out to the business community
to build partnerships around issues like job creation and training for those currently or
recently experiencing homelessness, housing access, and advocating for needed state
and local policy changes.
Page 4
HOMELESSNESS STRATECY FRAMEWORK
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. ln 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 are primarily dedicated to those who are 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 abilityto respond. ln
December 2017, King County Executive Dow Constantine, Seattle MayorJenny Durkan
and Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus announced 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 thatwere identified as part of this process included:
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
Rising housing
costs make it
difficult to find
appropriate
housing
BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH
lndividuals 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
lnteraction with
this expensive
system inhibits
individuals'
ability to obtain
housing and
employment.
EMPLOYMENT
lnability to
access
employment and
regional wage
gaps make it
difficult for some
to afford
housing costs.
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 MayorJenny Durkan recently outlined their
Page 5
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FMMEWORK
support for a new unified entity that will set policy and fund solutions to make
homelessness rare, brief and one time. Leaders hope that a new independent entitywill
have the accountability and authority to strengthen coordination and improve outcomes
for people experiencing homelessness.
It is expected that the entity's primary authority and purview will include
Unifying prevention and emergency funding and services including shelter,
outreach, and diversion;
Coordinating permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, and rapid
rehousing;
Overseeing policy, contract management, performance management, and technical
assistance;
Continuum of Care funding and functions required by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development to receive federal funding;
Clear metrics and milestones for measuring success and for accountability.
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. A new regional governance structure will include the
Continuum of Care, currently known as All Home, as required by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
King County and Seattle have outlined implementation actions for 201 9 that will include
Continue to increase housing stock and pathways to housing while preparing the
transition to a new, unified entity;
Begin development of regional action plan with costs and measurable goals to
reduce homelessness through both crisis and prevention efforts;
Work with the All Home board to define its specific role and adopt an updated
Continuum of Care governance charter for the new entity that meets HUD
requirements;
Engage community stakeholders, providers, employees, and clients to shape a
unifying implementation plan and ensure mutual accountability;
Begin co-locating key staff and integrating processes across organizations and
j u risd iction s;
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Page 6
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
. Work with Councils to adopt an interlocal agreement;
. Create and charter a new, unified entity;
. Develop a process to allocate City and County resources to 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. lt will require a combination of the approaches detailed in the All Home
Strategic Plan, a balanced methodology, and a community effort. Different segments of
the homeless population face unique challenges and there is no one size fits all solution.
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
Page 7
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
services, housing assistance) can mitigate the risk of veterans experiencing
homeless ness.
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 peryear. 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 l0 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.
Case Study Data from Seattle's attempt to clear out the 'tungle" homeless encampment:
BetweenJanuary I andJune .l7,2016, more than .l,000 people were contacted through
outreach visits. Fewer than 100 accepted referrals to shelters or sanctioned homeless
encampments, and of those who did there is no guarantee that they followed through.
Of the people approached,46l were ineligible for shelter, including 93 due to substance
use and 79 for issues related to mental health. Others cited having too many belongings
or because they lived with family or pets. (Most shelters segregate people by gender and
very few allow animals.)
772 declined the offer of shelter due to negative experiences with the shelter system,
because they preferred to stick with friends or family, or because of privacy concerns.
Reasons cited included concern about cleanliness, bed bugs, stealing, mental health
iSsUeS, and COnfl iCt between ClientS. $eattle's Homeless Emergency; No End in Sight, Crosscut,June 28,2016)
Page B
HOM ELESSN ESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
The South King County Response to Homelessness highlighted a collective model to day
center activities in our region. lt 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 l6th, 2013. They provide 3 meals a day, showers, 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 daycenter 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. ln early 20.l8 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 forthe project, and resulted in
expanded hours and days per week the center is available.
Over the past 8 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 CountyJoint Planners and the South King County Homeless Action Committee. The
SKCJoint Planners meet bimonthlyto 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 has worked to
keep stakeholders up to speed on regional work, such as the All Home Strategic Plan
update and One Night Count facilitation. However, in the absence of dedicated staff
Page 9
HOMELESSNESS STMTEGY FRAMEWORK
capacity, South King County lost momentum toward achieving local goals and lost
connection to countywide priorities and planning. While South King County
representatives do participate in regional committees, staff often lack the time and
capacity to coordinate across jurisdictions and, without the appropriate outreach, are
reluctant or unable to speak on behalf of the entire region. For 2016 - 20.l8 the City of
Kent joined with other cities, agencies, and funders in South King County to work with
Housing Development Consortium to hire a South King County Housing Plannerto help
manage the coordination of a network of South King County stakeholders on issues
related to affordable housing and homelessness. This partnership is known as the South
King Housing & Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP). This position disseminates
information about regional funding and comment opportunities and catalyzes progress
on the implementation of local comprehensive plans and the South King County Response
to Homelessness. Awork group spent much of mid to late 20lB meeting to develop an
enhanced collaborative structure that will continue the work in 20.l9 and beyond. Support
for this work will help align South King County interests with needed homeless and
affordable housing interventions, resources, and promising practices. As a result, South
King Countycommunities will be able to speakwith a united voice to attract resources for
locally supported housing solutions.
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;
o 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;
o Promotes collaboration and coordination on every level including among local
governments, private funders, non-profits, religious organizations, the business
communitv, our residents, and consumers;
Page 'l 0
o
o
HOM ELESSN ESS STRATEGY FRAM EWORK
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. Civen 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 I 990s, 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 abilityto 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. lt 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 proactivelytogether.
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
Page 1 1
HOMELESSN ESS STRATECY FRAM EWORK
homeless, who use far more emergency services. ln 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. lndividuals 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 forworking
fam ilies.
Kent is a city of opportunitywith 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 project based housing complexes are in Kent.
Many more families utilize Section 8 vouchers from both King County Housing Authority
and Seattle Housing Authorityto 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 immigrants and newly
arrived refugees within our city limits. This is both awonderful asset to our community
and a unique challenge. lmmigrants 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
Page 1 2
HOM ELESSN ESS STRATEGY FRAM EWORK
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 forthe 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 theywork.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.
lnvestments
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.
Page 1 3
HOMELESSNESS STMTECY FRAMEWORK
ln 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 theycome across in theirwork. 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. lnvestments are provided along the
continuum, from basic needs to prevention, to 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
ass i stance
. 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
o 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)
Paqe I 4
HOM ELESSN ESS STRATEGY FRAM EWORK
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
She/ter
. 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
o 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
o Nexus: Arcadia House co-ed shelter for young adults age 1 8-24
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 lyoung 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
o
a
a
a
a
o
a
Page 1 5
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FMMEWORK
. Catholic Community Services: Case Management for families attempting to regain
stable housing
. Catholic Community Services: Aftercare program of ongoing staff support to
maintain long term housing stability for Katherine's House graduates
o Crisis Clinic 2l l: 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.
ln 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. 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
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 20,l2 in partnership
with the City of Kent and Catholic Community Services (CCS). lt 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
Page I 6
HOM ELESSN ESS STRATEGY FRAM EWORK
situations. ln 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.
On March l6th, 2014, KentHOPE and a network of churches launched a Women's Rotating
Overnight Shelter to house clients after the Holy Spirit/Catholic Community Services
Women's Winter Shelter closed for the winter season. Once again starting in April 20.l 5,
six Kent churches partnered to provide overnight shelter in their facilities for 20 women
per night through October, when Holy Spirit/Catholic Community Services reopened the
Women's Winter Shelter. The organizations involved continue to expand the program
ensuring that homeless women in Kent have access to shelter year-round.
Recent Council Actions
ln January 2017, the Kent City Council unanimously passed a Source of lncome
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.
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 2017-201 B budget to enact a Proactive
Rental lnspection 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.
a
a
Rental Housing lnspection 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
Page 1 7
HOM ELESSNESS STMTEGY FRAMEWORK
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. lt 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 lndividuals and Families from Becoming Homelessness.
. lncrease 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.
o lmprove lnfrastructure and the Coordination of Service Delivery.
Page 1 8
HOM ELESSN ESS STRATEGY FRAM EWORK
Key City of Kent Strategies include:
. Consider Balanced Legislation that lmproves Tenant Rights or Protections.
. Ensure all Tenants are Educated about Landlord-Tenant Law.
. Keep the Broader Community Engaged.
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.
o Parth€r 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.
o Participate in the work facilitated by the Vehicle Residents Workgroup.
. Partner and participate in the South King County Housing Action Group.
r Participate in grant review and allocation processes at the County and
Philanthropic level, increasing South King County's voice in recommendations.
o Participate in theJoint Recommendations Committee that provides funding
recommendations and advice on guidelines and procedures for King County and
Page I 9
HOMELESSNESS STMTECY FRAMEWORK
its consortia city partners on a wide range of housing and community
development issues.
r Participate in theJoint South King County Planners Group.
o Participate in the South King County Homelessness Forum.
. Continue efforts with the South King County Housing and Homelessness
Partnership (SKCHHP).
. Continue to support the Catholic Community Services proposed Permanent
Supportive Housing project development for the West Hill of Kent, which would
include 80 units of housing for those earning below 50% AMl. 36 of the units
will be set aside for homeless veterans.
. Convene the City's internal task force on homelessness as needed.
. lncrease 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.
o 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.
o Develop new partnerships between nonprofits and landlords to expand housing
options for formerly homeless individuals and families.
o Track strategies attributed to localjurisdictions within All Home's Youth and
Young Adult lnitiative, Family Homelessness lnitiative, and Single
Adults/Veterans work.
o 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
o
Page 20
HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
a 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
a
a
Page 2 1
Krrur Crrv Courlcrr- 2019 Aruruunl Srnnrre rc PlRrlrrrlc Me rrrruc
SATURDAY
1:00 Discuss How the City is Advancing the Vision for Parks and Recreation
COUNCIL i MAYOR RALPH / JULIE PARASCONDOLA / ELT
o What are the department's current planning efforts and how do they influence overall
departmental vision and connect throughout the City and County?
e How will the new capital revenue stream help achieve our vision for parks and recreation?
. How will we develop pliable yet practical methods to achieve strategic business goals,
sustainable workflow, and maintain high levels of customer satisfaction?
Ll29/2Or9
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
-6', F RoM s.Y'ty^1YJll,g,lP,
,T,l;l
R I v I N G
.,L".*."i6*t,
We are committed to
providing safe and
inviting parks and
facilities, meaningful,
inclusive and diverse
recreationa I progra ms,
cultural activities and
human services.
e\,-q
PARKS r
'ACITITIES
. MARKEIING AND
rj.,."oJ-rllr{aty'#dlBjt6aq ).**r;.l,xtgOMJUlNtIX. * ^,..,,,.
DEDICATED TO
ENRICHING
LIVES
ADMINISTRATION &
TEADERSHIP
ACCOUNTING &
PERFORMANCE
PARK PTANNING &
DEVETOPAAENT
HOUSING & HUMAN
SERVICES
RIVEIBEND GO$
COMPTEX
RECREATION &
CUTTURAT SERVICES
1
1"/79/7OL9
TRANSFORMATION THROUGH STRATEGIC PLANNING
Finding Common Vision and Connection:
. Many national industries driving practices, trends and strategy within (9) division
. Over 20+ higher education college degrees utilized within the department
. Many divisions and staff are not interchangeable - completely different professions
. Very little or non-existent:
/ community and staff built vision and strategy
/ eperational planning, policy, process or standardization
){ focus on emplayee engagement, devetopment and culture
,r,,til t perfomance accauntability and understanding of purpose / expectations
,:. / lntentionat, pro-active focus on sociat, racial, geographic and other equity
.-:' / data analytics to make informed decisions
. Fragmented understanding of what we are fying to collectively accomplish - no alignment of strategy with
tracking of meaningful community outcomes/results
impact other strategic directions and/or areas throughout the city,
Iv
'. i, ,.i
,", "i.lUrL.4&4t$./rlrar\r&4)r!Le.--,r.
of
3rl
I
t
t
L. il, .\\:: .s i -r,:
U N DERSTAN DI NG STRATEGIC MATU RITY
PEOPLE, PLANNING AND PROCESS
Managed
ffiDFocused&lntegratcd
"
J
$latlcI
.em p engagement " efficiency . sustainability "quality
?
f,o-Ao[ro
ld lloc
$ystemic
Pro-Active
Slructured
. High pressLrrej stress
. Teritorial; competition
. Low risk'taking
. Survival; self preserv.
. Constant flux
. Hirinq qaps
. No data / results
' Need to
. Process
Adaptiue
Continuour
lmprovenent
Gruatlng Advantaqo
Genuine joy and flow
High level of self
leadership / autonomy
Collective contribution
to outcomes
Continuous
improvement live in a
state in inquiry
Comfortable working
within the'unknown'
More fluid concept of
lime anci ROI
Constant
experimentation and
innovation
Enhanced ability to
respond to change
. Road map in action. Honest and authentic
conversations. Data driven. Empowerment
. Closer collaboration. Higher risk tolerance. Learning from mistakes
. Development is a priority
. Awakenecl individuals -
meaning and purpose
. Full-filling potential
. Positive work
environment
0ppoltunistic
lncomplote
Conpoting
. Planning; thinking ahead. Deliberate decision
making - bureaucracy
. Slow decisions, inaction
, . lnsufficlent supporting
r data
, . Standards; consistency, . Little spontaneity
. Short term, opportunistic. lJnauthentic feedback
. Consensus-based
decisions
. lnequitable results
. Low self-esteem
. Conforming to norms. Not facing reality
. Staff disengaged
'play it safe
mindset
Principle centered over
people centered
,,'.,. cridjJ*{titLss&L&,ra u,,,... .,,,. {NL\r,,.,,,,,,.,
7
Ll29/2Or9
'(
WHO ARE IMPACTED BY OUR SUCCESSES
OUR CONNECTION TO KEY REGIONAL, COUNTY AND CITY-WIDE PLANNING
-'r&
fi.<'lF
oz
oz
u
(.)
2o
o ry*,
J&
!@
G-
rtu
I:rElnr
Fz
o
o4:a
z
Y
E
AIIGNMENT OF DEPARTMENTAI PATH AND PURPOSE
VISION w:;,2 ALIGNMENT u-.;> EXECUTION
,
qr
I
.rt;r.*, aru*" t\'.,.t i.,,, , $ ,\\..,. ,{Js. L.\,1..
Build alignment and connection, community
with clarity and engaging in dialogue,
providing inspiration so everyone is moving
in the same direclion.
Leadership to champion execution ol vision
throughout all levels of the department,
through momentum, structure and
performance to capitalize on its talents and
make vision a reality.
Crafl a departmental collective vision in
alignment with the City's vision, mission and
values, to explore new possibilities for the
future, with lhe community we serve.
I
*o*non*u ! tRocEtE Ff.rjn-{lt -t}ATnx ffiqVENTuRE IYEAKIIIESSrir. SI,VOT ANALYSIS
i. f-rnlcron"FLANNlNG r oPPoRruNlrY:: s- -'- pnoieci 5 ; ' '**'"aE fri@ ve
E Fioo
d r'k\
3
1,/29/2Or9
CREATING THE DECISION MAKING PATH FOR PARKS
a 2014-2018 Housing
and Human Services
I General securily
Plan(a[areas, racirt6
2018"2023
Riveilrend Goll
complex Business
4 2015,2022
Mark€lino and
Commu-nilv
tngagenent Flan
a
Pa*l €nd
Recreatonal
Facililies ADA
Risk
RECREATION &
CULTURAI-
SERVICES
PARKS
MAINTENANCE &
OPERA]IONS
HOUSING &
HUMAN
SERVICES
RIVERETND GOTF
COMPTEX
ADMINISIRAIION
& LEADERSHIP
PARK PIANNING
& OEVEI.OPMENT
FACil.tTIES
MAINTENANCE &
OPERATIONS
I 1998-2018 aacihies
Masler Plan
I Recycling and Zero
Waste Plan (.nar6i
2018-2020Parks and
Oper Space Plan
Kenl Valley Loop
Irail PIan
Lets Go KentPlan
cr'ad!,r tonl B.r rl il.'l ll.r:
Erue turnl Erfnng Flan prr)r to 201 7 (pendtrq updal.J
a Plan complete by end of20l9
i Plan complete by ond oi 2O2O
Iiansilion Plan
I Downtown Parks
I Pa'ks tand
I tnvlonmenlal
Susrainabiliv Plan (all
areas. Par(s Lead)
a Pa.ks Maintenance
Management Plan
Glandr(ts, lr.quencier,
opernling proceduret
a tmployae
a Race and Social
.hrstice Plan lor
Parks, Proqrams and
4 2020,2025
Recrealion?rog.anr
2028-2022 Kent Ans
Plan
2014 Resource
Allocation and Cost
Recovery Philosophy,
Model and Poliiy
a 2014-201A
Consolidated PIan for
Housing and
Communily
Developmeni
a KentYouth: Call
2009-2029 Green Kent
20 Year Plan
a Pa*s tjrban
I Parks Natrral
Mdniqemenl PIans -
Srie Spocilic
a Paiks Preventative
Maintenance Plan
a Fleet Managemeniplan
(arraed, Pnrt5 (e!d)
IN FTUENCING COMMUNITY OUTCOMES
THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT HOLDS ITSETF ACCOUNTABLE
FOR INFLUENCING AND PROMOTING POSITIVE CHANGE IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
1. Social Equity and Inclusion
2. Basic Needs and Self-Reliance
3. Placemaking and Brand Image
4. Health and Community Wellness
5. Economic Development
6. Out of School Time / Youth
7, Healthy Aging
8. Public Lands and Facilities Stewardship
9. Arts and Culture
10. Environmental Sustainability
L1. Active Transportation
\- -$WS : -:41 _!r-L:
4
1,/29/2OI9
{
\
\c
ATIGNING WITH CITY VISION FROM ALL LEVELS
IIE CllY Or KtNt tS COMMmIO tO BUItotNG A SAFE, tHRrVrNG. SUSIATNABT.E AND TNCT.US|VE COMI\ UNrry
E\/OTVIIIOIMRA$RIJETUM NNOVATIVIGOVERNNlE|lT INCTU$VICOfull/luNIIY TllRI\/Il\lcCITY SWTAINABIESERVICES
I'n here to btikl a
sofe, thriving,
sustqinqble qnd
i nc ht s iv e c o nnttut ity.
)
tennuuatk
calt.rw
fuwnuali.an
))
i al.i:
MAPPING OUR JOURNEY TO 2032
,*,i'
rtF*rrillrdorr!t*4r14.rhn&t
&*t'
CUIDING
I
I
Iffid@sff@b
5
1"/29l2OI9
TRANSITIONING FROM VISION TO PRACTICE
COMMISSION FOR ACCREDITATION OF PARK AND RECREATION AGENCIES
1 5 lvlember National Commission Representing:
. National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA). American Academy for Parks and Recreation Administration (AAPRA)
. lnternational City / County Management Association (ICMA). Council of State Executive Directors (CSED). National Association of County Parks and Recreation Directors (NACPRo)
. American Association of Physical Activity and Recreation (AAPAR). Armed Forces Recreation Society (AFR)
151"Standards in 10 Major Categories; Standard is Met or Not Met
Evidenc.e must be provided, on-site visit required to audit system and all evidence; valid for (5) years
.ri-iroJ", O.{,lk tt ,a't " ,, u .\\.... . r\r I tt:\
"2
Goal: Achieve the highest level of
excellence with a nationally accredited
park system by 2023 (2028).
'l; Agency Authority, Role and Responsibility
?, Planning
3. Organization and Adminislralion
4. Human Resources
5. FinrnciJlMandgemenl
6. Programs and Services lvlanagement
7. Facility and Land Use Management
B. Public Safety, Law Enforcement and Security
L Risk Management
FISCAT STRATEGIC PLANNING AND GOALS
Through strategic and pro-active plannin$
. Key focus on diversification of funding pie - introduction of new slices/sources
. Strategies will be created in alignment with liscal realities, limitations and opportunities - 'right-
sizing' programs and services (ie: Riverbend Golf Complex)
. Outreach, engagement, trends, best practices, etc. will balance conflicting policy, community,
infrastructure and staff priorities to assist in understanding divestiture, enhancements, shifts
. Will,be able to fotecast out long term financial impacts to allow for strategic city-wide financial
planning and budgeting
' , liAnsitioning the Kent Parks Foundation to the Kent Community Foundation
. Working at the state and legislative level to create 'new'funding tools for city's to consider both for
capital and operations
. Marketing and Engagement to focus on participant and revenue increases / achieving capacity in
programs and events and will create broader community understanding of our'story'
i I,'.';,,,, n, "
dribln46d& l;auUtz.u-t'tllltllt x* . *i *J,i.-.
6
rl29/2OL9
{t
CHATTENGES TO CONSIDER
. Managing the appropriate pace and balance of change - internally & externally
. Resources - both budget and capacity of staff to plan while still focusing on day to day delivery
. Buy-in - general consensus of staff and policy leaders to understand and support our sttategic path
. lmpacts on othq areas within the City - reliance on others to assist in the work, if needed
. Could potentially outpace city-wide collective planning
. Qut$ide influences could alter our strategic planning path or pace
,,;r Koeping up with the dynamic ever-changing community needs
',11i,: 'ealancing of special interest vs. broad base
-;i:,.
. .
Having vision and innovation stymied due to fiscal realities
. Planning paralysis - adaptability; do not need perfection
OUR COTAPETITORS
JUST T.1AOE OUR NEIrJ
FIVE.YEAR PLAN I.\OOT
ItrJHILE U'E I^JERE
STRATEGIZING, THEY
r^t€RE ooIN6 50t{E-
TH1NG I g€LI€.VE THEY
CALL "lrJORK."
...I;.JLJ", ,ildt*v !.\'..;'t t , . n .\\,.-,".\\,,. n,'-
HOW CAN COUNCIT SUPPORT?
. Keep learning, ask questions often, influence with opinions; fully engage where applicable
. Help with outreach efforts to residents, users, constituents etc; represent their voice if needed
. Assist in helping with priority setting; at times our path may conflict or compete with other areas
. Support business concepts, equity goals and other best practices that guide shifts in services
. Support the transformational change process with both staff and community - focus on the why
. Once plans are built and framework in place, political one-off decisions can become difficult to
dgfgnd - special C?S€s (why did we do for one when we didn't do for att?)
. . Transition mindset to begin thinking of the 'result' of what we do, not each task or service
. Transformation is hard - innovative thinking, risk-taking, creativity, idea-testing is all par for the
course - help with questioning the status quo, support consideration of new concepts
,i , t,:
7
Ll2912OL9
QUESTIONS AND A
JUTIE PARASCONDOIA, DIRECTOR
253.856.5007 I lporoscondolo@kenlwo.oov
lx\-/ KENT
8
(l
Krrur Ctry Couwctr- 2019 Atttr,tuRl SrRnrccrc PmNrutruc Mrrrtrue
SATURDAY
1:45 Discuss Quality of Lile lssues
COUNCIL / MAYOR / KURT HANSON / RAF PADILLA / ELT
ln preparing for the retreat agenda, Council members expressed interest in a variety of
issues affecting the quality of life in Kent.. What has the Administration done this past year to strengthen Code enforcement in the interests
of improving community aesthetics and public health and safety?r Are there any other quality of life issues that the Council is interested in briefly discussing or
putting on a list for future discussion?
1./29/2019
J
Code Enforcement
City Council Retreat
Februa ry 2, 2019
KENT
f*k
Kdift
Code Enforcement in 2018
. 766 new cases opened; volume down from prior years
. 803 cases closed (includes carry-over cases from past)
. Resolved some of our largest cases ever
. Streamlining Efforts - lnfractions
. Created Rental Housing lnspection Program lx\/ KENT
t
Ll29/2019
ii
2Ot8 Major Efforts & Successes
Childress Residence - 23604 - 98th Ave S.
BEFORE AFTER
Crouch Residence - 2t44I - L00th Ave SE
BEFORE AFTER
2
r/29/2019
Command Labor Building
307 Lincoln Ave N.
BEFORE
BEFORE
AFTER
Divsar 4-Plex - 2717 S. 256th St
BEFORE IN PROGRESS
3
1,/29/2019
Q4.
Streamlining with lnfractions
. Ordinance adopted by Council in July 201,8
. Less paperwork
. Easier for public to understand
. Expecting faster compliance
-4h f}
Kdlit
Rental Housing lnspection Program
a Partnership with Living Well Kent & Futurewise
a Held 3 Community forums; 182 participants
a Learned of many health & safety problems in
rental housing, particularly apartments
. Top issues: small bedrooms, mold, pests,
electrical, plumbing or heating issues
f}
t<fit
RTNTAT HOUSING
lN\Pl ( I l{)l'l I'R(Xillril,'1&.ftA',\fF G
4
Ll29/201.9
Rental Housing lnspection Program
GOAL: lmprove health, safety & welfare of tenants by
encouraging proper maintenance of rental housing
o Landlords hire private inspectors from our list; passing
inspection required for business license
a Cost to landlords will depend on number of units,
extent of repairs needed and inspector fees
a City costs: $12 - $L5/unit business license increase
Small fee to submit reports via online portal
fiH'fiT ./x\-./ KENT
JFaILi#&.RENTAI HOUSIIIG
lll\Pf ( Il0t',1 l'll0Gliirltl
Changes for zOLg
. Focus on implementing first year of Rental Housing Inspections
. Transitioning Code Enforcement to Police
6 fr
Kdift
5
1/29/2019
Why the move of CE to Police?
. More in line with PD operations
. Allows for better alignment with crime fighting and quality of life
efforts
. Allows all field operation resources needed to deal with problem
nuisance properties to be housed in one department (SOU, NRf, Code
and Jail Work Crew)
. Eliminates duplicate complaint process and provides community
members with one point of contact for problem nuisance properties
. Allows ECD to focus on other priorities ft
Kdft
What will Change?
. Code Enforcement will become part of the lntelligence Led Policing
Model
. Data will drive priorities (complaints, criminal intel and in-field observations)
. Weekly and Monthly Accountability and Follow-up on major cases
. Quicker development of criminal cases if needed
. Safer work environment for CE Officers
. No anticipated reduction of current services provided
6
rl29 /20L9
Questions?
KENT
fk
KdlTt
Proactive Enforcement
. 4 focus areas determined by Police & Neighborhood Program
. Neighborhood survey revealed
issues residents cared about most
. Postcard sent to residents
. L00 properties cited
. I00% compliance rate
7
dr
Krrur Crry Coutrtctt- 2019 Aruruunl Srnnrucrc PLANNTNG MEETTNG
SATURDAY
2:40 Review Development Standards lssues
COUNCIL / MAYOR RALPH / KURT HANSON / ELTo What is the City doing to encourage manufacturing in industrial areas rather than warehousing?
ls there more the City could do?o What are the Council's other interests in the City's development standards?
rlzs/zoLs
Kent Valley History
Kent Council
Kent lndustrial
Valley Revenues
State Legislature
Mnney
I1i29t2419
I
:l'f L/2e/2O1s
Wetre data-rich, but we still
have questions.
z
o
t-
-o
o4
ut
tr
UI
J
J
Fzu
X
What we know:
Tax Revenue, Jobs, Size of
Principal lndustries, Trends in Land
Use, Development Costs
What we don't know:
Does our capital allocation match
to our highest revenue producing
uses?
What are the investments most
valued by our key stakeholders?.
I,r.,.&
t&bv
Ljq4.rq,.!,?,r!5t,
t
I
l
l
l
I
.
I
'j
1
I
t,
;
I :.t il
1i2.9i241,)
52oK
s 16K
512 K
s8K
s4K
$r<
Average S&U, Average B&O,
& Number of Businesses
Kent lndustrial Valley
600
500
400
300
200
100
z
o
F
6
o
L
utu
lrJ
J
J
F
t
IJJ!
t.
Manufactu ring
I Sales & Use
I Business & Occupation
tr NLrmber of Businesses
n 0
Warehouse &
Wholesale
Retail Services & Other
t i29t?_c 19
Averoge S&U dnd B&O: onnual, dll Kent businesses (7/17 to 6/18, Irom City of Kent Findnce).
NumberofBusinesses:physicollylocatedintheKentlndustrialVolley (2015,Hooversstudy).
.l
2
Ll29/2C)L9'
Kent Valley Reposition
Three Pronged Approach
z
o
F
-o
og
Irl
tr
UJ
J
J
t-z
tllI
Built Environment: Land Use and
Transportation
Promotion: Events and Marketing
Partnersh i ps : Em ployer-Su pportive
Programs and Projects
1t29t2019 5
2
o-F
6
oL
uJ
tr
ruJJ
Built Environment: Land Use
and Transportation
The Challenge: Our plans, tools, and
investment strategies do not match our
ambitions.
Staff Efforts: Rally the Valley, Transportation
Master Plan
6
Fz
lII
! 1t2et2o1e
6
g
o
It
A.
I
o
o
E
o
o.
I
o
E
t
o
t
.A
3
flt rl2e/20Ls
Manufacturing # Warehousing
z
o
I
F
6oa
UJ
E
uJJJ
So why do our policies and finance
strategies treat them the same?
1129t201!)7
Fz
ulx
o.
al)
E
g
A-
I
E
.9
o
o
A.
I
(l,
o
E
t
6
Question Our Assumptions
3 Warehousing is intended to support manufacturing
F But it's taken on a life of its own.
tuJJ
1!292019 8
Fz
lrJv
oo
&gI
c
4
6)
g
A
I
E
o
o
Eo
o-
I
c,
E
o
E
:'
E
4
KHh{T tfAn-tHY RffipSSg?leru
trs;r
{IJ
SItF
!f,
Cr'
o
Promolion - Partnershipst EnvironmenlEui
KHNT VALLEY REPSSITICIN
- Promolion - Porlnerships
B
q
ts
ir;
6&
Builr Environment
P
N)(o
NJots
r.oul
t .lt 1./2s/207e
zo-l-
6oL
]Ut
lrlJJ
Fz
lu
X 1t2512019 11
g
o
(t
4
I
c
o
o
0
a
I
co
E
o
E
t
E
z
9!aoa
lrJg,
lrJJJ
lnstead of
trucks, Ietts
think about
moving
people to
places,
112912019 12
0I
trg,
l-z
qJ
I
e
o
Ito.
I
t
o;o
o
o.
I
E
o
E
E
It
Eu
Io
6
KENT VALLEY REPOSITIOhT
- Promotion - PorlnershipsBuilt lnvironment
KENT VATLHY REPOSITION
E
tr
ttr#
m3
-t-lo
IJ
IJo
IJrltt
!o;lo
IJrf
IIql
I
oo
I
tr
ffIIo
IJo
- Promotion - PallnershipsBuill Environmenl
ts
t\)(o
NJc-ts('o!
a,)rl2e/20re
9!o
oo
ut
tr
uIJJ
Design Standards
15
Z Same function.
Better experience for people.
l-z
lu
y 1129t2019
e
{,
C
E
4
E
.3
o
E
o
c
I
Eo
E
o
EE
t
G
z
o
I
F
6
oI
LI
E
qJ
JJ
Built Environment Potential Solutions:
Pedestrian Network and Design Standards:
Reorient to people, not trucks.
Gapital Project Allocation: Prioritize capital
investments for people, not trucks.
Zoning/Traffic lmpact Fees: Encourage uses we
want. Discourage those we do not.
Bus Stops: Transit coordinated to land use
1t29/2t)1!)t6
Fzu
X
aa
tU
E
o.
I
o
o
E
o
a.
I
{,
E
E
o
tg
:'cl
8
1./2s/261s'
z
o
-F
6
oL
lrJ
E
lrJJJ
Promotion: Events and
Marketing
The Challenge: Our voice and profile are
diluted in the story of Seattle.
Staff Efforts: Message Kent Valley as Center
of Gravity for Advanced Manufacturing
'171t29t2049
Fz
lrlI
a
o
E
oo-
E
o
Eo
E
q
3
!a
c
o
ot
o
e
z
9
Lo
oI
IrItr
uJJ
Marketing and Events
1B1t2912019
l-z
lllI
e
E
o
E
oa
I
o
E
E
o
a
-o
t
o
0
E
o
o.
9
t .1,Ll2slzots
z
o
-F
6
o4
uI
tr
uJJJ
Gollaborative Website
1i29!2419 10
Fz
luv
I
g
{,g
o
A.
I
E
o
E
o
E
t
aa
o:o
E
o
a
z
o-F
6
oL
UI
&
EIJJ
Fz
ulg
Public Relations and Media
Gampaign
. .n srrlls hrs !sF;;:.':,:.
(ihinl is nol u innilrg lhr n*
@@EELfr".Jil
1 29tz}19
$r&nlrd.!9trifi orbrlr&'bFr.sh etdx!
20
What Does A Publlc Relations
Ageney Do?
***
l*Jru"y, rfr" next south Lake union c.
REAfiN ff BOAM
Fh4rdrqAL h& Feb-?rbr \.r:rgr r.\r{b
EntS -
oE--
S \n.r & pblk ftirie| {ws &1
Mitulri droil Grzr. tun bnnd _lld'or'k'
dL {.e.Fd'Eqtr&nd.eqsF4dlrr$ld fl
NrDl '' arqdro "Fd Na'd *aennb
Brltd! rd ddii[ rl.ft h 3hES. u. lNL ll{\dr!
1!r tur nnk no*, i, wtrd
e
g
g
0o.
c
o
t
E
o
t
o
o
o
C
o
e
10
.$
{'}
!1.,_d
tr?
(J
r1,
!il
1{,
rit
',1
,t
' ;q.
3.,,
"..$
lr I
\,1
Huge Story
Research & Development Facility
PR Coup for Kent Valley Storyline-if
National Media Knows About US
t t?ai21) 1:)
1
rlt
E
o
Eg
ta
o
o
E
o
A
g
E
0
oc
ItA
I
rl2e/2a79
Promotion Activities:
l:l,.ii.tstii'V ;:;il{-}It:i{j{'i,1ii iil/r,tf til* Ycill' ir4.(.}{.i ili-l
l-:n rn r rrgl Merr:l i at, L-r n hanci trc,; Visibi I i ly, liiro ll itl h li t t g
tiitr.:lrltr,ri fii:slric:; in t\tir'rt-{i;,t; i{rlnt Villl+ly l\/e,:sl;ar"1ittt1 iu
I li.r,1r-: l\/r,:<lra ilutlii.l;
,i:lr,lilriirrr.; \l\lt:h;,;ii:<l: lir l.artnclt Q'l li0'19 and lnr:lusivr,:
of trli':ir yir buri rtrl ( lot rt r r It.t i t i tir,x,,l it r l(err t \/:lIIr:v
l:12!lr 2ij I lj lt
l.r I
..1
.,1
rill
:J
i-,.-
T.p
I l.l
i.{
' !;:.1
t)
11
'tJj
iit
:' 1.,
1,!
oE
h
o
E
g
a.
I
I
c
a)
E
o
Eiu
ao
o
o
E
o
1"1
lAl./)1,/29/2079
z
o
I
F
v,
oI
tu
g,
IJJJJ
{
Partnersh i ps: Employer-
Supportive Programs and Proiects
The Ghallenge: Unrecognized need for more
institutional support for Kent Valley
businesses.
Staff Efforts Underway: Recruit Programs,
or Find Partners to Develop New Services
1i2.9!2419 23
Fzuv
I
o
o
E
o
c
I
o
E
E
o
to
z
o
-F
6
oa
UI
tr,
uJJ
Fz
lrJI
Rally the Valley
Bringing our neighbors together. All of these cities
showed up to support for our efforts:
Auburn Tukwila
Renton Federal Way
Des Moines Sumner
SeaTac
Auburn and Renton are key partners, supporting
scoping, outreach, and consultant selection.
1t29t2019 24
I
.9
o
E
o
A
I
o
o
r
=I
E
e
o
oA
72
z
9!o
o4
lu
&
UJJJ
Fz
UJv
Gultivate Relationships with
lndustry Associations & Employers
ili0sn$ RIlfisruilEl
o
A0ror0|$ J0l0l Asrrrnlicr:th C0mmltler
1t29i2419
&
AFA
A
.\aA
"f;.5F"I:ffi,]n /J,:ffi
25
impact:
,rra,;hirrltirjr
6"1{ CAMPS
;{ l.' #ff**"
I
.3
o
E
o
o.
I
E
o
E
E
o
t
=5
6
L/2e/2e:s
zI
La
oIl!u
utJJ
Actions Beyond Slogans
-
\<\+=
26
Fzuy 1t2st2D1e
I
E
.9
o
c
o
A
I
E
o
c
E
o
.;
E
g
::
00
13
f ir-!'1,/29/2019
Actions Beyond Slogans
OMIC R&D tlenrt of the OMIC Enterp.le
World.Clrls Fa<lllter lnnovntlm Dlrtrl(l::], ..._.- ..., ;*--..,----..-*.--
.i*,"", -r',i._..-*-," --.*:-.--:*ry:-?- ;..-"_.,.__._-
r-!6r:..,-r,i & /.' r \*4r.-:,n
Contact i ... .. ..,,*, .. -.-^..
;******* lnnovarlmAtt.actingk6*kt.*r to(al.stale Federal and
l?F****" P.tvare support
ffiryte
2I!h
oLu
v,
tuJJ,(
Fz
tuv
Shaping the
Future of
Manufacturing
t
...i
112912419 27
I
o
o
Eo
A.
o
E
z
o
E
q
=I
6
,I
=o
o
&
IJJ,v
ulJJ
Fzu!
Partnershi p Activities:
Cultivate Relationships: Employer Groups & Local
Employers
Advocacy: State lnvestment in Workforce
Development or Business lncubation
Advanced Manufacturing Services: Working with
Partners on lnvestment
Autonomous Trucking: Pilot, and Consolidated Truck
Park for Efficient Land Use
1t2LJt2o19
o
o
E
o
&
E
o
E
E
o
E
I
E
a
o
E
tt
o.
L4
1t.
Ll2s/2013
This means we need you.
2
o
F
6oat!
E
lrlJ
J
Fz
IIJ
Y
Build infrastructure for people, not things.
Be ambassadors for Kent.
Cultivate a legacy of sustained partnership.
1t2St2A19 29
15