HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 03/28/2016 (2)
For documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board, access the City’s website at:
http://kentwa.iqm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office in advance at (253) 856-
5725. For TTY/TDD service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at (800) 833-6388. For
general information, contact Economic & Community Development Department, Planning Division at (253) 856-
5454.
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
PUBLIC HEARING & WORKSHOP
AGENDA
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 28, 2016
7:00 P.M.
LUPB MEMBERS: Frank Cornelius, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; Jack Ottini, Barbara
Phillips, Randall Smith
CITY STAFF: Matthew Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager; Hayley Bonsteel, Long
Range Planner; Jason Garnham, Planner; Hope Gibson, Parks Planning & Development
Manager; David Galazin, Assistant Civil Attorney.
This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing
followed by a Workshop on MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. These meetings
will be held in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers, 220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA. The
public is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak at the
Hearing. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed
amendments may do so at the hearing or prior to the hearing by email to Hayley Bonsteel
at: hbonsteel@kentwa.gov; and to Jason Garnham at: jgarnham@kentwa.gov. No public
testimony is taken at the Workshop, although the public is welcome to attend.
The agenda will include the following item(s):
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of the March 14, 2016 Minutes
4. Added Items
5. Communications
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
M1 INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT ALLOWED USES [ZCA-2016-4]
Hearing to consider a proposed zoning code amendment to expand the uses
permitted in the M1 Industrial Park District to include a limited array of retail and
service uses. - Jason Garnham
OPIATE SUBSTITUTION TREATMENT FACILITIES [ZCA-2016-3]
Hearing to consider development of zoning code amendments that pertain to the
location and operation of opiate substitution treatment facilities. - Hayley Bonsteel
8. WORKSHOP:
PARKS and OPEN SPACE PLAN [CPA-2016-3]
Discussion to consider a proposed updated Parks & Open Space Plan including new
performance–based level of service analysis, and associated Comprehensive Plan
Element updates; including the Parks and Recreation Element and Capital Facilities
Element. – Hope Gibson
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
MARCH 14, 2016
1. Call to Order
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm
2. Roll Call
• LUPB Members: Randall Smith, Chair; Barbara Phillips, Vice Chair; Frank
Cornelius; Katherine Jones; and Jack Ottini were in attendance.
• City Staff: Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager; Matt
Gilbert, Current Planning Manager; Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner;
Jason Garnham, Planner; David Galazin, Assistant Civil Attorney were in
attendance.
3. Approval of Minutes
Board Member Cornelius MOVED and Board Member Phillips SECONDED a
Motion to Approve the Minutes of January 25, 2016. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
4. Added Items
None
5. Communications
None
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
None
7. Public Hearing
Plat Extensions [SCA-2016-1]
Matt Gilbert, Current Planning Manager, stated that this item was discussed before
the Land Use and Planning Board at workshop. Gilbert explained the city’s review
process for long subdivisions (aka plats) and explained why plat validity periods are
important. He discussed past legisliative extensions that helped developers and
builders while the housing market recovered from the 2007 recession. Tonight’s
recommendation would allow a one year extension for projects approved in 2008
(consisting of six development projects) with proposed amendments to Kent City
Code 12.04.221 Subdivision preliminary plat expiration.
A. Subdivision preliminary plat approval shall remain valid for that period of
time specified in Chapter 58.17 RCW, plus one (1) year. During this period,
an applicant must submit a final plat based on the preliminary plat, or any
phase thereof, and meeting all of the requirements of this chapter and
Chapter 58.17 RCW, to the city council for approval, or the preliminary plat
shall lapse and become void.
B. For preliminary plats approved between January 1, 2008 and December 31,
2008, one (1) extension of one (1) year shall be granted to an applicant who
1
files a written request with the planning department prior to the expiration of
the preliminary plat validity period.
Gilbert submitted two letters in support of plat extensions for preliminary plats
approved in 2008; for the record defined as: Exhibit 1 from Clem Martin; and
Exhibit 2 from Far Ghoddoussi.
Board Member Ottini moved and Board Member Jones seconded a motion
to accept the two exhibits from Clem Martin and Far Ghoddoussi into the
record. Motion Passed 5-0.
Concluding staff’s presentation, Chair Smith Opened the Public Hearing.
Far Ghoddoussi, 12120 SE 196th St, Kent, WA thanked staff for their consideration
and spoke in support of extending plat validity periods.
Heliana Sandulescu, 15315 72nd Ave NE, Kenmore, WA spoke in support of
extending the plat validity periods.
With no further speakers, Chair Smith Closed the Public Hearing.
After brief deliberations, with the Board acknowledging the need to extend the
validity periods; Board member Cornelius MOVED to recommend to full City
Council approval of amendments to Kent City Code (KCC) 12.04.221
Subdivision Preliminary Plat Expiration as proposed by staff and shown on
page two of the March 7th memo to grant a one-year extension to a
maximum of six development projects approved in 2008. Board Member
Jones Seconded the Motion. Motion Passed 5-0.
Nomination and Election of Officers
Board Member Ottini nominated Board Member Frank Cornelius for the position of
Land Use and Planning Board Chair; seeing no further nominations for Chair; Chair
Smith called for the vote. Vote was unanimous 5-0. Frank Cornelius was
acknowledged as Chair for the 2016 calendar year.
Board Member Ottini nominated Board Member Katherine Jones for the position of
Land Use and Planning Board Vice-Chair; seeing no further nominations for Vice-
Chair; Chair Smith called for the vote. Vote was unanimous 5-0. Katherine Jones
was acknowledged as Vice-Chair for the 2016 calendar year.
Adjournment
Chair Smith adjourned the hearing portion of the meeting at 7:25 pm.
_____________________________________________
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager,
LUPB Board Secretary
2
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
March 28, 2016
TO: Chair Frank Cornelius and Land Use & Planning Board Members
FROM: Jason Garnham, Planner
RE: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Districts Zoning Code Amendment
[ZCA-2016-4]
For March 28, 2016 Public Hearing
MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval/denial/modification of
the proposed code amendments to Title 15 of the Kent City Code (KCC)
including amendments to use tables and development conditions in KCC
15.04 as presented by staff.
SUMMARY: At the March 14, 2016 Land Use and Planning Board (LUPB) workshop,
planning staff presented a proposal to amend the zoning code to expand the land
uses permitted in the M1 Industrial Park zoning district. This expansion of uses
would include those uses that are currently permitted under the existing M1-C
designation. If approved, the proposed amendment will expand the wholesale and
retail, service, and cultural, entertainment, and recreation land uses permitted in
M1 zoning districts to include:
Bakeries and confectioneries
Food and convenience stores (retail)
Apparel and accessories (retail) as an accessory use, when related to the
principal use of the property
Eating and drinking establishments with drive-through
Miscellaneous retail (drugs, antiques, books, etc) as accessory uses, when
related to the principal use of the property.
Liquor stores
Computers and electronics (retail)
Hotels and motels
Auto repair and washing services (including body work)
Performing and cultural arts uses, such as art galleries/ studios
BACKGROUND: Proximity to retail services and amenities has become increasingly
important to industrial employers’ ability to attract talented, highly skilled workers.
The 2015 legislative docket included a staff-recommended item to strategically
expand such commercial opportunities at strategic locations in the industrial area.
Staff has determined that the uses currently allowed in the M1-C zone, if applied to
the M1 zone would create an appropriate expansion of uses. While the allowed
uses would be blended, existing minimum lot area requirements, height limitations
and other development standards would serve to maintain the distinction between
3
the two zoning districts. M1-C zoning designated areas would continue to allow
higher intensity commercial development while the M1 zone will maintain larger
land areas required by industrial business uses.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendments and will be
available at the March 28th public hearing for further discussion.
Note that two ordinances amending different portions of the land use table in Kent
City Code 15.04.090 are being considered at this hearing.
JG\pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-4 M1 Permitted Uses\3-28-16 LUPB Hrg Memo.doc
Encl: Attach A - Draft Ordinance; Attach B – DNS; Attach C - Decision Document; Attach D - SEPA Checklist
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
4
1 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 15.04
of the Kent City Code, to expand the uses
permitted in the M1 Industrial Park zoning district
to include those uses currently permitted in the
M1-C zoning district.
RECITALS
A. Kent City Code 15.03.010 establishes the purpose of the M1
zoning district is to provide an environment for a broad range of industrial,
office, and business park activities, while also allowing certain limited
commercial land uses that provide necessary personal and business
services for the general industrial area through application of the “C” suffix
(M1-C).
B. The M1-C zoning designation applies to several limited areas
in the industrial valley, concentrated near major street intersections and
highways.
C. In the context of technological changes and global
competition, proximity to supportive services and amenities is increasingly
important to industrial enterprises and for their need to attract and retain
highly-skilled employees.
D. Policy LU-12.3 of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan is to provide
for a mix of land uses which are compatible with manufacturing, industrial,
and warehouse uses, such as office, retail, and service in the area
5
2 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
designated Industrial. The Economic Development Element of the
Comprehensive Plan establishes expanding allowable zoned uses as a key
strategy for raising the amenity level and supporting employers in the Kent
Industrial Valley.
E. On October 20, 2015, the City Council approved a staff-
recommended docket item which proposed to expand commercial
opportunities at strategic locations in the industrial area.
F. On March 14, 2016, staff presented a draft code amendment
to expand commercial uses in the M1, Industrial Park zoning district to the
Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”) at a workshop meeting.
G. On March 2, 2016, the City requested expedited review under
RCW 36.70A.106 from the Washington State Department of Commerce
regarding the City’s proposed code amendment expanding the permitted
land uses in the M1 Industrial Park zoning district. The Washington State
Department of Commerce granted the request for expedited review on
March 17, 2016. No comments were received from State agencies.
H. The City’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible
Official conducted an environmental analysis of the impacts of the
proposed amendments and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on
March 22, 2016.
I. On March 28, 2016, the LUPB recommended
approval/modification of the proposed code amendment at a regularly
scheduled public hearing. Two ordinances amending the same land use
table in Kent City Code 15.04.090 were considered at the hearing.
J. On April 11, 2016, the Economic and Community
Development Committee considered the recommendations of the LUPB at
its regularly scheduled meeting, and recommended to the full City Council
adoption of the proposed code amendments.
K. At its regularly scheduled meeting on April 19, 2016, the City
Council voted to adopt the amendments to portions of Chapter 15.04 of
the Kent City Code, pertaining to the M1 Industrial Park zoning district.
6
3 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Amendment. Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code,
entitled “Zoning,” is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 15.04.070 Wholesale and retail land uses.
[Table on following page]
7
4 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally
Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory
Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
t
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
Bakeries and
confectioneries
P P P P P P P
Wholesale
bakery
P P
Bulk retail
P
(26
)
P
(26
)
P P P P
(1)
P
(1)
Recycling
centers
C P
Retail sales of
lumber, tools,
and other
building
materials,
including
preassembled
products
P P P P
Hardware,
paint, tile, and
wallpaper
(retail)
P P
(11
)
P P P P P P P
Farm
equipment
P P
General
merchandise:
dry goods,
variety, and
department
stores (retail)
P P
(11
)
P P P P P P
Food and
convenience
stores (retail)
P P P
(11
)
P P P P P P S
(12)
P
P S
(12
)
Automobile,
aircraft,
motorcycle,
boat, and
recreational
vehicles sales
(retail)
P P P
Automotive,
aircraft,
P P P P P P P
(13)
P
(13
P
(5)
8
5 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally
Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory
Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
t
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
motorcycle, and
marine
accessories
(retail)
) (13
)
Gasoline service
stations
S
(6)
S
(6)
S
(6)
S
(6)
S
(6)
S
(6)
S
(6)
S
(6)
S
(6)
Apparel and
accessories
(retail)
P P
(11
)
P P P P P P A(8) A
(8)
Furniture, home
furnishing
(retail)
P P
(11
)
P P P P P P P
Eating and
drinking
establishments
(no drive-
through)
P P P
(11
)
P P P P P P P P P P
(5)
Eating and
drinking
establishments
(with drive-
through)
S
(6)
(20
)
C
(7)
(20
)
P S
(6)
(20
)
P(20
)
P
(20
)
Eating facilities
for employees
P P P A A A A
Planned
development
retail sales
Drive-
through/drive-
up businesses
(commercial/ret
ail – other than
eating/drinking
establishments)
C
(22
)
P
(20
)
P
(20
)
P
(24
)
P
(24
)
P
(20
)
P
(20
)
Miscellaneous
retail: drugs,
antiques,
books, sporting
goods, jewelry,
florist, photo
supplies, video
rental,
computer
supplies, etc.
P P P
(11
)
P P P P P P A(8) A
(8)
Liquor store
P P P
(11
)
P P P P P P P P
Farm supplies, P P P
9
6 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally
Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory
Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
t
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
hay, grain,
feed, fencing,
etc. (retail)
Nurseries,
greenhouses,
garden
supplies, tools,
etc.
P P P P
Pet shops
(retail and
grooming)
P P P P
Computers and
electronics
(retail)
P P P P P P P
Hotels and
motels
P
(11
)
P P P
(25
)
P P P P P
Complexes
which include
combinations of
uses, including
a mixture of
office, light
manufacturing,
storage, and
commercial
uses
P P
Outdoor
storage
(including
truck, heavy
equipment, and
contractor
storage yards
as allowed by
development
standards, KCC
15.04.190 and
15.04.195)
P
(19
)
P
(19
)
A
(19
)
A
(19)
A
(19
)
A
(19
)
P
(19
)
Accessory uses
and structures
customarily
appurtenant to
a permitted use
A A A
(9)
(27
)
A
(27
)
A
(27
)
A
(27
)
A
(27
)
A A A A A A A
(16
)
A
(16
)
A
(17
)
A
(17
)
A
(17
)
A
(17
)
A
(17
)
A
(16
)
A
(16
)
A
(16
)
A A A A
Agriculturally
related retail
C
(21
)
Battery
exchange
S
(23
S
(23
A
(23
A
(23
A
(23
A
(23
A
(23
S
(23
S
(23
S
(23
S
(23)
S
(23
S
(23
A
(23
10
7 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally
Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory
Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
t
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
station ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
11
8 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
Sec. 15.04.090 Service land uses.
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S = Special
Uses
C =
Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory
Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
Finance,
insurance,
real estate
services
P
(22
)
P P
(1)
(12
)
P P P P P P P P P
(2)
Personal
services:
laundry, dry
cleaning,
barber,
salons, shoe
repair,
launderettes
P
(22
)
P P
(12
)
P P P P P P P
(10
)
P
(10
)
P
(2)
(10
)
Mortuaries
P
(12
)
P P P
Home day-
care
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Day-care
center
C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Business
services,
duplicating
and blue
printing,
travel
agencies,
and
employment
agencies
P
(12
)
P P P P P P P P P
(2)
Building
maintenance
and pest
control
P P P P P P P
(2)
Outdoor
storage
(including
truck, heavy
equipment,
and
contractor
storage
yards as
allowed by
P P A A A A
C
(9)
P
12
9 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S = Special
Uses
C =
Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory
Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
development
standards,
KCC
15.04.190
and
15.04.195)
Rental and
leasing
services for
cars, trucks,
trailers,
furniture,
and tools
P P P P P P P
(2)
Auto repair
and washing
services
(including
body work)
C P P P P P P P
(21
)
(23
)
Repair
services:
watch, TV,
electrical,
electronic,
upholstery
P P
(12
)
P P P P P P P
(2)
Professional
services:
medical,
clinics, and
other health
care-related
services
P
(20
)
P P P P P P P P P P
(2)
Heavy
equipment
and truck
repair
P P P C
(9)
P
Contract
construction
service
offices:
building
construction,
plumbing,
paving, and
landscaping
P
(16
)
P P P
(16
)
P
(17
)
P
(17
)
P
(2)
(17
)
P
Educational
services:
vocational,
trade, art,
music,
dancing,
P P P P P P P P P
(2)
13
10 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S = Special
Uses
C =
Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory
Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
barber, and
beauty
Churches
S
(4
)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
S
(4)
Administrati
ve and
professional
offices –
general
P P
(12
)
P P P P C P P P P P
(2)
Municipal
uses and
buildings
P
(13
)
P
(13
)
P P
(13
)
P
(13
)
P
(13
)
P
(13
)
P
(13
)
P
(13
)
P
(13
)
P
(13
)
P
(2)
(13
)
P
(13
)
Research,
development
, and testing
P C P P P P P P
(2)
P
(14
)
Accessory
uses and
structures
customarily
appurtenant
to a
permitted
use
A A A
(7)
(24
)
A
(24
)
A
(24
)
A
(24
)
A
(24
)
A A A A A A A
(18
)
A
(18
)
A
(19
)
A
(19
)
A
(19
)
A
(19
)
A
(19
)
A
(18
)
A
(18
)
A
(18
)
A A A A
Boarding
kennels and
breeding
establishme
nts
C C C
Veterinary
clinics and
veterinary
hospitals
C P
(8)
P
(8)
P
(8)
P
(8)
P
(8)
Administrati
ve or
executive
offices which
are part of a
predominant
industrial
operation
P P P P P
Offices
incidental
and
necessary to
the conduct
of a
principally
A A A A A
14
11 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S = Special
Uses
C =
Conditional
Uses
A = Accessory
Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
permitted
use
Sec. 15.04.110 Cultural, entertainment, and recreation land uses.
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional Uses
A = Accessory Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
Performing and cultural arts
uses, such as art
galleries/studios
P
(3)
P P P P P P P P
Historic and monument sites P P
Public assembly (indoor):
sports facilities, arenas,
auditoriums and exhibition
halls, bowling alleys, dart-
playing facilities, skating rinks,
community clubs, athletic
clubs, recreation centers,
theaters (excluding school
facilities)
P P C C P P P
(2)
P
(2)
P
(2)
Public assembly (outdoor):
fairgrounds and amusement
parks, tennis courts, athletic
fields, miniature golf, go-cart
tracks, drive-in theaters, etc.
C P P
Open space use: cemeteries,
parks, playgrounds, golf
courses, and other recreation
facilities, including buildings or
structures associated therewith
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P
(6)
C
P
(6)
C
C
(9)
C
(9)
C
(9)
C P
(7)
C
P
(7)
C
C C C C
Employee recreation areas A A A A
Private clubs, fraternal lodges,
etc.
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P
(5)
C
C P
(5)
C
C C P
(5)
C
C C C C
Recreational vehicle parks C
Accessory uses and structures
customarily appurtenant to a
A A
(10)
A
(10)
A
(10)
A
(10)
A
(10)
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
15
12 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional Uses
A = Accessory Uses
A-10
AG
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-4.
5
SR
-6
SR
-8
MR
-D
MR
-T1
2
MR
-T1
6
MR
-G
MR
-M
MR
-H
MH
P
NC
C
CC
DC
DC
E
MT
C
-1
MT
C
-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2
GC
M1
M1
-C
M2
M3
permitted use
Recreational buildings in MHP A
16
13 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage [OR five (5) days
after its publication], as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
17
14 Amend KCC 15.04 -
Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code
PASSED: day of , 2016.
APPROVED: day of , 2016.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2016.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
18
19
20
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT
Decision Document
M1 INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING REGULATIONS
ENV-2016-6, KIVA #RPSA-2160841
ZCA-2016-4, KIVA #RPP6-2160749
Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official Staff Contact: Jason Garnham, Planner
I. PROPOSAL
The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a
proposal to amend the City of Kent Zoning Code to permit a wider variety of
service, retail, and cultural land uses in M1 Industrial Park zoning districts.
See attached for proposed amendments to Kent City Code Sections 15.04.070,
15.04.090, and 15.04.110.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 4163), the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review
Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Construction Standards (Ordinance
3944) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will
require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by
the Applicant/Owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts.
These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to
roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention,
treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and domestic water
systems. Compliance with Kent's Construction Standards may require the
deeding/dedication of right-of-way for identified improvements. Compliance
with Title 11.03 and 11.06 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance
of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent in order to preserve trees, regulate
the location and density of development based upon known physical
constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes or proximity to lakes, or to
maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter
6.12 of the Kent City Code may require provisions for mass transit adjacent to
the site.
In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10,
1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094, and rules which took
21
Decision Document
M1 Industrial Park Permitted Land Uses
Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-4)
ENV-2016-6 / RPSA-2160841
Page 2 of 5
effect on May 10, 2014 in response to 2ESSB 6406 passed by the State
Legislature in 2012.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
A. Earth
All properties within the M1 (Industrial Park) zoning district will be
affected by this proposal. Located in generally flat areas within and
adjacent to the Green River valley, properties in the M1 zoning district
are a diverse mix of undeveloped natural, wetlands, and open space
uses, and developed with a mix of industrial, commercial, and some
residential uses.
Individual development projects will be subject to the City of Kent
standards for erosion and sedimentation controls. Specific
environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be
determined at the time of individual development permit review.
B. Air
While adoption of the proposal is a non-project action, a limited
expansion in the array of service, retail, and cultural land uses in the M1
zoning district is not expected to have a significant impact on air quality,
dust, or vehicle vapors. Temporary emissions from equipment would be
expected during construction of any new development. Following
completion, vehicle emissions will be generated from employees and
customers. The level of emissions generated may increase subsequent
to development of land uses generating higher rates of use and
visitation, such as hotels or drive-thru restaurants. Specific
environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be
assessed at the time of application for development permits.
C. Water
The proposal is city-wide within the M1 zoning district, which abuts the
Green River and includes Lower Mill Creek and various associated
drainage basins and wetlands. All lands within the Green River Natural
Resources Area, within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the
Green River, and impacted by associated wetlands are within Shoreline
Master Program jurisdiction. If individual development proposals impact
wetlands or streams, mitigation will be required in accordance with the
City’s Critical Areas regulations contained in Kent City Code Section
11.06.
Construction activities are regulated by the adopted codes of the City of
Kent, currently the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, the
2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, and the 2009 Shoreline
Master Program. Impacts to associated waterways and wetland areas
will be analyzed and mitigated at the time of development permit
review.
22
Decision Document
M1 Industrial Park Permitted Land Uses
Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-4)
ENV-2016-6 / RPSA-2160841
Page 3 of 5
D. Plants and Animals
The Green River is considered critical habitat for a number of threatened
and migratory species. This proposal is not anticipated to have a
significant adverse effect on plants or animals. Specific environmental
impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to plants and
animals will be determined at the time of individual development permit
review.
E. Energy and Natural Resources
This proposal is not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect on
energy and natural resources.
F. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare
By allowing a wider variety of service and retail uses in the M1 zoning
district, this proposal may lead to increased development and associated
traffic and noise. Current city codes regulate and minimize impacts to
neighboring properties by requiring landscape buffering and screening,
limiting building size and height, and regulating lighting of parking and
outdoor areas. Specific impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will
be determined at the time of individual development permit review.
G. Land and Shoreline Use
Adoption of the proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to
have significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposal applies to
all properties within the M1 zoning district, with a comprehensive plan
land use designation of I, Industrial. Shoreline jurisdiction applies to all
M1 properties located within 200 feet of the Green River, and to areas
associated with the Green River Natural Resources Area.
There are a variety of industrial, commercial, service, retail, and
residential uses within the M1 district. The proposed increase in the
types of uses permitted in M1 zoning is intended to facilitate co-location
of land uses that are supportive of modern industrial enterprises.
Impacts from associated development are anticipated to be limited, but
will be considered at the time of individual development permit review.
H. Housing
This proposal is not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect on
housing.
I. Recreation
While several City parks and multi-use paths lie within the M1 zoning
district, significant adverse impacts to recreation are not anticipated
from this proposal.
23
Decision Document
M1 Industrial Park Permitted Land Uses
Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-4)
ENV-2016-6 / RPSA-2160841
Page 4 of 5
J. Historic and Cultural Preservation
Although this is a nonproject action, if archeological materials are
discovered with site work for any project action, the application must
stop work and notify the State Department of Archaeology and Historical
Preservation.
K. Transportation
Development resulting from the proposed increase in permitted land
uses in the M1 district may increase vehicular traffic on area roadways.
Because the scope of related development is anticipated to be minimal,
significant traffic impacts are not anticipated. Each individual
development project will be required to pay a transportation impact fee
and may be required to construct street improvements.
L. Public Services
Additional demand for fire, police, and other public services may result
from development associated with this proposal. Impacts to public
services are anticipated to be minimal, and will be reviewed at the time
of development permit review.
M. Utilities
Properties in the M1 zoning district are predominantly developed and
served by City of Kent water and sewer utilities. Adoption of the
proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have
significant impacts on utilities.
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the
City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts
associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following
conditions and mitigating measures include:
1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted
pursuant to the State Growth Management Act;
2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent
Shoreline Master Program;
3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code;
4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley
Transportation Action Plan and current Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Plan;
5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan;
6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation
Element;
7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure
Improvements;
8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits;
24
Decision Document
M1 Industrial Park Permitted Land Uses
Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-4)
ENV-2016-6 / RPSA-2160841
Page 5 of 5
9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations;
10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments;
11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06
Recreation Vehicle Park;
12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control;
13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes;
14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning;
15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency
Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227;
16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and
Inspection Fees;
17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility;
18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan;
19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan; and
20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas.
B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be
issued for this non-project action.
KENT PLANNING SERVICES
March 22, 2016
JG:pm\S:\Permit\Plan\ENV\2016\2160841_ENV-2016-6decision.doc
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
March 21, 2016
TO: Chair Frank Cornelius and Land Use & Planning Board Members
FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner & GIS Coordinator
RE: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Zoning Code Amendments
[ZCA-2016-3]
For March 28, 2016 Public Hearing
MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval/denial/modification of
the proposed code amendments to Title 15 of the Kent City Code (KCC)
including a new definition in KCC 15.02 and amendments to use tables
and development conditions in KCC 15.04 as presented by staff.
SUMMARY: State law places responsibility for certification and approval of opiate
substitution treatment facilities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Social and
Health Services, which may only certify facilities in accordance with local land use
ordinances. Given that such facilities are not currently defined or addressed in Kent ’s
zoning code, staff has developed a new definition and associated development
conditions to regulate opiate substitution facilities.
BACKGROUND: Opiate substitution treatment facilities are currently considered a
“professional service: medical, clinics, and other health care-related service” according
to Kent City Code, and are permitted in nearly every commercial, manufacturing or
industrial district in the City. However, opiate substitution treatment facilities can have
differing impacts from other medical offices, particularly due to high levels of pedestrian
queueing and potential for graffiti, litter or other impacts to adjacent businesses. The
proposed draft amendment therefore addresses this need for a new definition, zoning,
and development conditions, including documentation requirements to ensure the City
has adequate information about any potential opiate substitution treatment facility
project.
The proposed amendment would only allow opiate substitution facilities in the
Commercial Manufacturing-1 (CM-1) zone with a conditional use permit and various
other requirements, including execution of a “good neighbor” contract agreement. The
proposal also includes a 500-foot spacing requirement, ensuring that facilities are
reasonably distributed within the CM-1 district in which they are proposed to be allowed
with a conditional use permit. Staff recommends approval of the amendment and will be
present at the March 28, 2016 hearing for discussion. Note that two ordinances
amending different portions of the land use table in KCC 15.04.090 are being considered
at this hearing.
HB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-3 Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities\LUPB\3 28 16
LUPB Final Hearing Memo _ OSTF.doc
Encl: Attach A - Draft ordinance; Attach B – DNS; Attach C – Decision; Attach D - SEPA Checklist
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Current Planning Manager
49
50
1 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapters
15.02 and 15.04 of the Kent City Code, to define
“opiate substitution treatment facilities” and adopt
appropriate land use controls to regulate them.
RECITALS
A. The state of Washington has declared that while opiate
substitution drugs used in the treatment of opiate dependency are
addictive substances, they nevertheless have several legal, important, and
justified uses and that one of their appropriate and legal uses is, in
conjunction with other required therapeutic procedures, in the treatment of
persons addicted to or habituated to opioids.
B. Because opiate substitution drugs, used in the treatment of
opiate dependency are addictive and are listed as a schedule II controlled
substance in chapter 69.50 RCW, the state of Washington has the legal
obligation and right to regulate the use of opiate substitution treatment.
The state of Washington has declared its authority to control and regulate,
in consultation with counties and cities, all clinical uses of opiate
substitution drugs used in the treatment of opiate addiction.
51
2 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
C. Washington state law places responsibility for the licensing
and location approval of opiate substitution treatment facilities under the
jurisdiction of the state department of social and health services. Pursuant
to RCW 70.96A.410, the department may only certify clinics that are in
compliance with local land use ordinances.
D. The Kent City Code does not currently define “opiate
substitution treatment facilities” or provide any specific land use
regulations related to the zoning of these facilities beyond those generally
applicable to all medical and other health-care related clinics.
E. Opiate substitution treatment facilities have land use impacts
that differ from other types of medical clinics, including, but not limited to:
a high volume of patients receiving daily medical treatment during a short
window of time; the distribution of medications that have the potential for
unauthorized re-sale by their intended recipients; and increased loitering in
and around the facilities themselves.
F. RCW 70-96A.410(1)(b) specifically provides that cities may
require conditional or special use permits, with reasonable conditions,
related to the location and operation of opiate substitution treatment
facilities.
G. The Kent City Council declares and finds that it is appropriate
and necessary, and in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare,
to define and classify opiate substitution treatment facilities and adopt land
use controls to regulate these facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
52
3 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – New Section. Chapter 15.02 of the Kent City Code,
entitled “Definitions,” is hereby amended to add a new section 15.02.307,
entitled “Opiate substitution treatment facility,” to read as follows:
Sec. 15.02.307. Opiate substitution treatment facility. Opiate
substitution treatment facility means an agency, business, clinic or other
facility that administers opiate substitution treatment services, including
the dispensing of approved opioid agonist treatment medication used in
the treatment of opiate dependency, in accordance with RCW 70.96A.400
through 420, and WAC 388-877B-0400, et seq.
SECTION 2. – Amendment. Chapter 15.04.090 of the Kent City
Code, entitled “Service land uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15.04.090 Service land uses.
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principall
y
Permitte
d Uses
S =
Special
Uses
C =
Condition
al Uses
A =
Accessor
y Uses
A-
10
A
G
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-
4.5
SR
-6
SR
-8
M
R-
D
M
R-
T1
2
M
R-
T1
6
M
R-
G
M
R-
M
M
R-
H
M
HP
NC
C CC DC DC
E
MT
C-1
MT
C-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2 GC M1 M1
-C M2 M3
Finance,
insuranc
e, real
estate
services
P
(2
2)
P P
(1
)
(1
2)
P P P P P P P P P
(2
)
Persona
l
services
:
P
(2
2)
P P
(1
2)
P P P P P P P
(1
0)
P
(1
0)
P
(2
)
(1
53
4 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principall
y
Permitte
d Uses
S =
Special
Uses
C =
Condition
al Uses
A =
Accessor
y Uses
A-
10
A
G
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-
4.5
SR
-6
SR
-8
M
R-
D
M
R-
T1
2
M
R-
T1
6
M
R-
G
M
R-
M
M
R-
H
M
HP
NC
C CC DC DC
E
MT
C-1
MT
C-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2 GC M1 M1
-C M2 M3
laundry,
dry
cleaning
,
barber,
salons,
shoe
repair,
launder
ettes
0)
Mortuari
es
P
(1
2)
P P P
Home
day-
care
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Day-
care
center
C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Busines
s
services
,
duplicati
ng and
blue
printing,
travel
agencie
s, and
employ
ment
agencie
s
P
(1
2)
P P P P P P P P P
(2
)
Building
mainten
ance
and
pest
control
P P P P P P P
(2
)
54
5 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principall
y
Permitte
d Uses
S =
Special
Uses
C =
Condition
al Uses
A =
Accessor
y Uses
A-
10
A
G
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-
4.5
SR
-6
SR
-8
M
R-
D
M
R-
T1
2
M
R-
T1
6
M
R-
G
M
R-
M
M
R-
H
M
HP
NC
C CC DC DC
E
MT
C-1
MT
C-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2 GC M1 M1
-C M2 M3
Outdoor
storage
(includi
ng
truck,
heavy
equipm
ent, and
contract
or
storage
yards as
allowed
by
develop
ment
standar
ds, KCC
15.04.1
90 and
15.04.1
95)
P P A A A A
C
(9
)
P
Rental
and
leasing
services
for cars,
trucks,
trailers,
furnitur
e, and
tools
P P P P P P P
(2
)
Auto
repair
and
washing
services
(includi
ng body
work)
C P P P P P P
(2
1)
(2
3)
Repair
services
P P
(1
P P P P P P P
(2
55
6 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principall
y
Permitte
d Uses
S =
Special
Uses
C =
Condition
al Uses
A =
Accessor
y Uses
A-
10
A
G
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-
4.5
SR
-6
SR
-8
M
R-
D
M
R-
T1
2
M
R-
T1
6
M
R-
G
M
R-
M
M
R-
H
M
HP
NC
C CC DC DC
E
MT
C-1
MT
C-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2 GC M1 M1
-C M2 M3
: watch,
TV,
electrica
l,
electron
ic,
upholst
ery
2) )
Professi
onal
services
:
medical,
clinics,
and
other
health
care-
related
services
P
(2
0)
P P P P P P P P P P
(2
)
Opiate
substitu
tion
treatme
nt
facility
C(
3)
Heavy
equipm
ent and
truck
repair
P P P C
(9
)
P
Contrac
t
constru
ction
service
offices:
building
constru
ction,
plumbin
P
(1
6)
P P P
(1
6)
P
(1
7)
P
(1
7)
P
(2
)
(1
7)
P
56
7 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principall
y
Permitte
d Uses
S =
Special
Uses
C =
Condition
al Uses
A =
Accessor
y Uses
A-
10
A
G
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-
4.5
SR
-6
SR
-8
M
R-
D
M
R-
T1
2
M
R-
T1
6
M
R-
G
M
R-
M
M
R-
H
M
HP
NC
C CC DC DC
E
MT
C-1
MT
C-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2 GC M1 M1
-C M2 M3
g,
paving,
and
landsca
ping
Educati
onal
services
:
vocation
al,
trade,
art,
music,
dancing
,
barber,
and
beauty
P P P P P P P P P
(2
)
Churche
s
S
(
4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(
4
)
S
(
4
)
S
(
4
)
S
(
4
)
S
(
4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
S
(4
)
Adminis
trative
and
professi
onal
offices –
general
P P
(1
2)
P P P P C P P P P P
(2
)
Municip
al uses
and
building
s
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
P
(2
)
(1
3)
P
(1
3)
Researc
h,
develop
ment,
and
P C P P P P P P
(2
)
P
(1
4)
57
8 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principall
y
Permitte
d Uses
S =
Special
Uses
C =
Condition
al Uses
A =
Accessor
y Uses
A-
10
A
G
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-
4.5
SR
-6
SR
-8
M
R-
D
M
R-
T1
2
M
R-
T1
6
M
R-
G
M
R-
M
M
R-
H
M
HP
NC
C CC DC DC
E
MT
C-1
MT
C-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2 GC M1 M1
-C M2 M3
testing
Accesso
ry uses
and
structur
es
customa
rily
appurte
nant to
a
permitt
ed use
A A A
(7
)
(2
4)
A
(2
4)
A
(2
4)
A
(2
4)
A
(2
4)
A A A A A A A
(1
8)
A
(1
8)
A
(1
9)
A
(1
9)
A
(1
9)
A
(1
9)
A
(1
9)
A
(1
8)
A
(1
8)
A
(1
8)
A A A A
Boardin
g
kennels
and
breedin
g
establis
hments
C C C
Veterina
ry
clinics
and
veterina
ry
hospital
s
C P
(8
)
P
(8
)
P
(8
)
P
(8
)
P
(8
)
Adminis
trative
or
executiv
e offices
which
are part
of a
predomi
nant
industri
al
P P P P P
58
9 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
Zoning Districts
Key
P =
Principall
y
Permitte
d Uses
S =
Special
Uses
C =
Condition
al Uses
A =
Accessor
y Uses
A-
10
A
G
SR
-1
SR
-3
SR
-
4.5
SR
-6
SR
-8
M
R-
D
M
R-
T1
2
M
R-
T1
6
M
R-
G
M
R-
M
M
R-
H
M
HP
NC
C CC DC DC
E
MT
C-1
MT
C-2
MC
R
CM
-1
CM
-2 GC M1 M1
-C M2 M3
operatio
n
Offices
incident
al and
necessa
ry to
the
conduct
of a
principal
ly
permitt
ed use
A A A A A
SECTION 3. – Amendment. Section 15.04.100 of the Kent City
Code, entitled “Service land use development conditions,” is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15.04.100 Service land use development conditions.
1. Banks and financial institutions (excluding drive-through).
2. Uses shall be limited to 25 percent of the gross floor area of any
single- or multi-building development. Retail and service uses which
exceed the 25 percent limit on an individual or cumulative basis shall be
subject to review individually through the conditional use permit process. A
conditional use permit shall be required on an individual tenant or business
basis and shall be granted only when it is demonstrated that the operating
59
10 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
characteristics of the use will not adversely impact onsite or offsite
conditions on either an individual or cumulative basis.
3. [Reserved].Opiate substitution treatment facilities are permitted
only with a conditional use permit, and must provide indoor waiting areas
of at least 15 percent of the total floor area. In addition to the general
requirements of KCC 15.08.030, all applications shall contain and be
approved by the city based on the following information:
a. A detailed written description of the proposed and potential
services to be provided, the source or sources of funding, and identification
of any applicable public regulatory agencies;
b. A written statement of need, in statistical or narrative form,
for the proposed project currently and over the following ten-year period;
c. An inventory of known, existing or proposed facilities, by
name and address, within King County, or within the region, serving the
same or similar needs as the proposed facility;
d. An explanation of the need and suitability for the proposed
facility at the proposed location;
e. An analysis of the proposed facility’s consistency with the City
of Kent Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, and plans and
policies of other affected jurisdictions, including but not limited to the King
County Countywide Planning Policies;
f. Documentation of public involvement efforts to date, including
public and agency comments received, and plans for future public
participation; and
60
11 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
g. A proposed “good faith” agreement for neighborhood
partnership. This agreement shall state the goals of the partnership and
address loitering prevention steps the facility owner/operator will take as
well as frequency of planned maintenance and upkeep of the exterior of
the facility (including, but not limited to, trash and litter removal,
landscape maintenance, and graffiti). The agreement shall serve as the
basis for a partnership between the City, facility, and local businesses, and
will outline steps partners will take to resolve concerns.
No opiate substitution treatment facility may be located within 500 feet of
an existing opiate substitution treatment facility.
4. Special uses must conform to the development standards listed in
KCC 15.08.020.
5. [Reserved].
6. [Reserved].
7. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a
permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage
facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones.
8. Veterinary clinics and animal hospitals when located no closer than
150 feet to any residential use, provided the animals are housed indoors,
with no outside runs, and the building is soundproofed. Soundproofing
must be designed by competent acoustical engineers.
9. Those uses that are principally permitted in the M3 zone may be
permitted in the M2 zone via a conditional use permit.
61
12 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
10. Personal services uses limited to linen supply and industrial laundry
services, diaper services, rug cleaning and repair services, photographic
services, beauty and barber services, and fur repair and storage services.
11. [Reserved].
12. The ground level or street level portion of all buildings in the
pedestrian overlay of the DC district, set forth in the map below, must be
pedestrian-oriented. Pedestrian-oriented development shall have the main
ground floor entry located adjacent to a public street and be physically and
visually accessible by pedestrians from the sidewalk, and may include the
following uses:
a. Retail establishments, including but not limited to
convenience goods, department and variety stores, specialty shops such as
apparel and accessories, gift shops, toy shops, cards and paper goods,
home and home accessory shops, florists, antique shops, and book shops;
b. Personal services, including but not limited to barber shops,
beauty salons, and dry cleaning;
c. Repair services, including but not limited to television, radio,
computer, jewelry, and shoe repair;
d. Food-related shops, including but not limited to restaurants
(including outdoor seating areas and excluding drive-in restaurants) and
taverns;
e. Copy establishments;
62
13 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
f. Professional services, including but not limited to law offices
and consulting services; and
g. Any other use that is determined by the economic and
community development director to be of the same general character as
the above permitted uses and in accordance with the stated purpose of the
district, pursuant to KCC 15.09.065, Interpretation of uses.
13. Except for such uses and buildings subject to KCC 15.04.150.
14. Conducted in conjunction with a principally permitted use.
15. [Reserved].
16. Contract construction services office use does not include contractor
storage yards, which is a separate use listed in KCC 15.04.040.
63
14 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
17. Outside storage or operations yards are permitted only as accessory
uses. Such uses are incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the
property or structure.
18. Includes incidental storage facilities and loading/unloading areas.
19. Includes incidental storage facilities, which must be enclosed, and
loading/unloading areas.
20. Shall only apply to medical and dental offices and/or neighborhood
clinics.
21. Auto repair, including body work, and washing services are
permitted only under the following conditions:
a. The property is also used for heavy equipment repair and/or
truck repair; and
b. Gasoline service stations that also offer auto repair and
washing services are not permitted in the M3, general industrial zoning
district.
22. Any associated drive-up/drive-through facility shall be accessory and
shall require a conditional use permit.
23. Auto repair, including body work, and auto washing services shall be
allowed in the general industrial (M3) zoning district as follows:
a. For adaptive reuse of existing site structures, all of the
following conditions must apply:
i. The site is not currently served by a rail spur; and
64
15 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
ii. Existing site structures do not have dock high loading
bay doors, where the finished floor is generally level with the floor of
freight containers; and
iii. All ground-level bay doors of existing structures have a
height of less than 14 feet, which would generally impede full access to
freight containers; and
iv. Existing site structures have a clear height from
finished floor to interior roof trusses of less than 20 feet; and
v. Maximum building area per parcel is not greater than
40,000 square feet.
b. For proposed site development, all of the following conditions
must apply:
i. The site is not currently served by a rail spur; and
ii. Based on parcels existing at the time of the effective
date of the ordinance codified in this section, the maximum parcel size is
no greater than 40,000 square feet.
24. Accessory structures composed of at least two walls and a roof, not
including accessory uses or structures customarily appurtenant to
agricultural uses, are subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160.
SECTION 4. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
65
16 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 -
Re: Opiate Substitution Development Conditions
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 6. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2016.
APPROVED: day of , 2016.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2016.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
p:\civil\ordinance\amend 15.02 and 15.04 opiate treatment center.docx
66
67
68
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT
Decision Document
OPIATE SUBSTITUTION TREATMENT FACILITIES ZONING REGULATIONS
ENV-2016-7, KIVA# RPSW-2160849
ZCA-2016-3, KIVA #RPP6-2160370
Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official Staff Contact: Hayley Bonsteel
I. PROPOSAL
The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for this
project, which proposes to amend the City of Kent Zoning Code sections
15.02 and 15.04 to address zoning regulations for opiate substitution
treatment facilities.
See attached for proposed potential amendments to Zoning Code Sections
15.02, 15.04.090 and 15.04.100.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan, the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB
6094), Kent's Design and Construction Standards (Ordinance 3927) and
Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will require
concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the
Applicant/Owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts.
These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to
roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater
detention, treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and
domestic water systems. Compliance with Kent's Design and Construction
Standards may require the deeding/ dedication of right-of-way for identified
improvements. Compliance with Title 11.03 and Title 11.06 of the Kent City
Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent
in order to preserve trees, regulate the location and density of development
based upon known physical constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes
or proximity to lakes, or to maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance
with the provisions of Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code may require
provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site.
In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10,
69
Decision Document
Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities
Zoning Code Regulations
ENV-2016-7 RPSW-2160849
Page 2 of 5
1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094, and rules which took
effect on May 10, 2014 in response to 2ESSB 6406 passed by the State
Legislature in 2012.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
A. Earth
The Proposal may impact the Commercial-Manufacturing I zone,
including a range of developed and undeveloped properties. Areas in
this part of the Kent valley are generally described as flat.
Development of opiate substitution treatment facilities subsequent to
amendment of the zoning code may require fill and grading. Such
projects are subject to appropriate local, state and federal permits
which will be acquired at the time of implementation. Projects will be
subject to the City of Kent standards for erosion and sedimentation
controls. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation
measures will be determined at the time of development permit review
for individual projects.
B. Air
Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action, and no impacts to air
are anticipated. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate
mitigation measures will be assessed at the time of development
permit review for individual projects.
C. Water
Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action, and no impacts to
water are anticipated. Opiate substitution treatment facilities permitted
by this zoning change will be subject to the City of Kent Surface Water
Design Manual at the time of development permit review for individual
projects.
D. Plants and Animals
This proposal is not anticipated to have an effect on plants or animals.
If applicable, specific environmental impacts and appropriate
mitigation measures related to plants and animals will be determined
at the time of opiate substitution treatment facility development
permit review.
E. Energy and Natural Resources
This proposal is not anticipated to have an effect on energy or natural
resources. If applicable, specific environmental impacts and
appropriate mitigation measures related to energy and natural
resources will be determined at the time of opiate substitution
treatment facility development permit review.
70
Decision Document
Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities
Zoning Code Regulations
ENV-2016-7 RPSW-2160849
Page 3 of 5
F. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare
Opiate substitution treatment facilities can anecdotally be associated
with increased graffiti or litter, leading to a lower quality aesthetic.
One of the proposed conditions for development is a neighborhood
partnership agreement that would address these impacts. Minimal
impacts on noise, light and glare are anticipated with the development
of opiate substitution treatment facilities. Current city codes regulate
impacts to neighboring properties, and the proposed neighborhood
partnership agreement is intended to outline methods for resolving
conflicts with regards to impacts.
G. Land and Shoreline Use
Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated
to have significant environmental impacts. The Proposal is to allow
opiate substitution treatment facilities in the Commercial-
Manufacturing 1 (CM-1) district with a conditional use permit. No CM-1
zoned properties are located near shorelines of the state.
H. Housing
The proposal is not anticipated to impact housing availability.
I. Recreation
The proposal is not anticipated to impact recreation.
J. Historic and Cultural Preservation
Although this is a nonproject action, if archeological materials are
discovered with site work for any project action, the application must
stop work and notify the State Department of Archaeology and
Historical Preservation.
K. Transportation
Significant traffic impacts are not anticipated for potential opiate
substitution treatment facilities. If applicable, opiate substitution
treatment facilities would be required to pay traffic impact fees to
mitigate for any additional vehicular trips at the time of building permit
issuance and may be required to construct street improvements.
Additionally, some opiate substitution treatment facilities experience
higher-than-usual pedestrian queueing due to appointment structure.
The Proposal therefore includes the requirement that a proposed
facility provide an indoor waiting area of at least 15 percent of the
total floor area. This requirement is intended to reduce impacts to the
pedestrian realm. Applicants may also be required to accommodate
transit agency needs as part of permit review.
L. Public Services
71
Decision Document
Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities
Zoning Code Regulations
ENV-2016-7 RPSW-2160849
Page 4 of 5
Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated
to have significant environmental impacts, though police presence may
be required if the facilities become associated with illicit activity.
Police will most likely be aware of facility locations, and the proposed
neighborhood partnership requirement includes considerations of
additional security measures.
M. Utilities
Utility demand will not be affected by adoption of this non-project
action.
Opiate substitution treatment facilities may require similar utilities to
any medical office. Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action
that is not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts.
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the
City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts
associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following
conditions and mitigating measures include:
1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted
pursuant to the State Growth Management Act;
2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent
Shoreline Master Program;
3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code;
4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley
Transportation Action Plan and current Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Plan;
5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan;
6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation
Element;
7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure
Improvements;
8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits;
9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations;
10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments;
11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06
Recreation Vehicle Park;
12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control;
13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes;
14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning;
15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency
Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227;
16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and
Inspection Fees;
72
Decision Document
Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities
Zoning Code Regulations
ENV-2016-7 RPSW-2160849
Page 5 of 5
17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility;
18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan;
19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan; and
20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas.
B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be
issued for this non-project action.
KENT PLANNING SERVICES
March 21, 2016
HB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ENV\2016\ENV-2016-7_decision_Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities.doc
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Jeff Watling, Director
Phone: 253-856-5100
Fax: 253-856-6050
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA. 98032-5895
March 21, 2016
TO: Chair Frank Cornelius and Land Use and Planning Board Members
FROM: Hope Gibson, Parks Planning and Development Manager
RE: Parks & Open Space Plan [CPA-2016-3]
For March 28, 2016 Workshop
SUMMARY: This Parks and Open Space Plan update continues a pivot first
introduced in the 2010 update. The earlier update signaled a change in focus away
from expansion of the park system and toward taking care of the City’s existing
park inventory. It anticipated a new approach to Level of Service, which has been
completed in the current update. The new approach replaces the quantity-based
acres-per-thousand-residents with a performance-based focus.
The new LOS approach supports the four primary themes of this update, which
include:
1) A focus on quality public spaces: provide a high-quality park system that
promotes Kent as a livable city
2) A performance-based approach: plan and maintain the park system with the
help of a set of performance-based set of assessment tools
3) Transformation through reinvestment: reinvest in the existing system to
successfully transform into a vibrant and relevant urban park system, and
4) Sustainable funding: implement a funding model that supports a Level of Service
which reflects the community’s priorities.
BACKGROUND: After years of underinvestment, the city is facing a $60million+
parks capital maintenance backlog. Forty one percent of capital assets in our parks
are nearing the end of their useful life.
Since the last Parks and Open Space Plan update, the city has remained in
conversation with the community regarding their priorities regarding parks and
open spaces in Kent. In 2012, Parks convened a Citizens’ Advisory Committee to
look at the condition of parks in Kent. That Committee resulted in a list of
recommendations that included several strategic park improvement projects. That
list wound up on the Roads and Parks Levy in November 2012, which failed to pass.
Since then, Parks has reached out to the community in a variety of ways to
continue the conversation. In 2015, the city created its first Parks and Recreation
Commission. The Commission has worked with Parks on this update throughout the
process.
MOTION: For Information Only
95
In addition, Parks conducted two surveys in the course of this update. One, an
informal web-based survey, was conducted over the summer of 2015. Parks staff
and Commission members attended several summer city events to pass out cards
inviting the public to take the online survey. Almost 300 surveys were received.
Parks also hired a survey consultant to administer a statistically valid survey to over
600 residents. Both surveys were important resources that served to inform this
Parks and Open Space Plan update.
RECOMMENDATION: No action required.
Staff will be available at the March 28th meeting to answer questions.
HG:pm P:\Planning\LUPB\2016\Meeting Documents\3-28-16\MEMO LUPB for Parks Plan Update 2016.doc
Enc: Attach A-Draft Parks & Open Space Plan; Attach B-Ch 5 Parks & Recreation Element; Attach C- Ch 9 Capital Facilities
Element
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
96
1
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Glossary
Executive Summary
1. What is a Parks and Open Space Plan?
The Role of Parks and Open Space in the City
A Current Assessment
Why Do We Need a Plan?
2. Who We Are and the State of our System
Local Trends
a. Decreasing Resources
SIDEBAR - What's the Difference Between Routine and Capital Maintenance?
b. Aging Infrastructure
c. Changing Demographics
d. Changing Recreational Trends
Change in Focus
SIDEBAR - The Three Legs of the Parks Capital Program "Stool"
Kent Population and Demographics
Process of the Plan
a. Public Input
b. Input from City Staff, Parks Commission and City Council
3. A Call to Action and Where We Want to Go
A Call to Action
City of Kent Strategic Plan Goals
Park and Open Space Plan Goals
a. Quality Public Spaces
b. Sustainable Funding
c. Performance-Based Approach
d. Transformation Through Reinvestment
4. Level of Service – A New Approach
What is a Level of Service?
Comparing Kent to its Peer Cities
Defining a Performance-Based Level of Service
How the New Approach is Calculated
SIDEBAR - About Recreational Value
Kent's Level of Service Under the New Approach
Level of Service by City Region
a. Downtown Region
b. Green River Region
c. East Hill South Region
d. West Hill Region
e. East Hill North Region
97
2
Benefits of the New Approach
5. How We Can Get There
Why Classify Parks?
Traditional Classifications
Park Performance Tier Classifications
a. Tiers and Maintenance
Moving to a Project List
Strategic Projects
a. Downtown Region
b. Green River Region
c. East Hill South Region
d. West Hill Region
e. East Hill North Region
6. Filling our Funding Bucket
What is a Funding Bucket?
a. Funding Sources: Rocks
b. Funding Sources: Pebbles
c. Funding Sources: Sand
7. Parks Policies
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Open Space and Greenways
Trail and Corridor System
Historic and Cultural Resources
Cultural Arts Programs and Resources
Design Goals and Policies
Fiscal Coordination
8. Conclusion
Appendices
A. Recreational Value/Level of Service Overview
B. Overall Park Condition
C. Park Condition Multiplier Chart
D. Current Recreational Amenities
E. Potential Recreational Value Chart
F. LOS Methods Comparison
G. LOS Per Region
H. Current and Potential Performance Tiers
I. 2002 Recreational Amenities
J. List of all Park and Open Space Properties
K. Informal Survey Questions and Answers
L. Formal Survey Questions and Answers
98
3
M. SEPA Public Comments
N. LOS Explanation
99
4
Acknowledgements
This document is the result of a lot of input and collaboration by a large number of people.
The City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Human Services Department wishes to acknowledge and thank
the many individuals who participated in the surveys that helped shape this plan.
We also wish to thank the Parks and Recreation Commission for their commitment to understanding
the complex issues and challenges associated with addressing Kent residents’ recreation priorities and
needs. Their involvement had a profound influence.
Additional thanks go to the numerous staff in multiple departments who reviewed and commented on
the document in its various drafts. They made the document better.
Also, the department extends our extreme gratitude to the consulting firm of the Berger
Partnership,whose professional collaboration was crucial to the development of the document, as well
as an entirely new approach to Level of Service.
Our recognition and thanks are also extended to the Mayor and City Council for their interest and
support in this important effort.
Kent Mayor Kent Parks and Recreation Commission
Suzette Cooke Annette Bailes
Kent City Council Dan Barrett
Bill Boyce, Chair Randy Furukawa
Jim Barrios Kendrick Glover
Tina Buddell Kari Hedrick
Brenda Fincher Wayne Jensen
Dennis Higgins RJ Johnson
Dana Ralph Zandria Michaud, Vice Chair
Les Thomas Jorge Ramos
Jaleen Roberts
City Staff Annie Sauerwein, Chair
Jeff Watling, Parks, Recreation and Brayden Seims
Human Services Director Megan Stevens
Hope Gibson Tanda Topps
Brian Levenhagen Tye Whitfield
Garin Lee Yuriy Zaremba
Teri Petrole
Phung Huynh Berger Partnership, Consultants
Lynn Osborn Greg Brower
Andy Mitton
Stephanie Woirol
100
5
Glossary
This plan introduces a number of concepts associated with a whole new performance-based approach
to park planning, including a new way to measure Level of Service. This glossary is provided to expedite
the reader’s understanding of the terms associated with these concepts.
Asset (Park Asset) – Any built component in the park system valued over $10,000.
Asset Grade – A number assigned to each asset that reflects the asset’s physical condition. The scale
ranges from 1 through 5, with a grade of 1 reflecting an asset that is near or at the end of its useful life,
and the grade of 5 assigned to an asset that is new or like new.
Average Asset Grade – The average of all asset grades for a given park.
Current Recreational Value – See Recreational Value.
Level of Service (LOS) – A measure of a service provided by a public agency. The primary measure of
Level of Service for park systems in the U.S. has been acres per thousand population. The approach to
LOS being introduced in the 2016 Kent Parks and Open Space Plan update measures the performance
(as opposed to quantity) of Kent’s park system per 1,000 residents. Please see Chapter 4 for an in-
depth discussion of LOS.
Overall Park Condition- A grade calculated for each park that reflects the park’s physical condition. It is
derived by averaging together the Park Property Grade and Average Asset Grade of that park. This
score is converted to the Park Condition Multiplier. (Please see Appendix B)
Park Asset Analysis –An inventory of every capital asset in Kent’s park system that is valued at over
$10,000. It is a planning tool that tracks the year built, size, estimated lifecycle, current condition, and
estimated replacement cost of park assets.
Park Condition Multiplier-- A number that is determined by the Overall Park Condition. The resulting
number is then multiplied by the number of recreational amenities in a park to determine that park’s
Recreational Value. (Please see chart in Appendix C.)
Park Corridor - A connected grouping of parks, trails, open space, and/or other city amenities around a
significant natural, geographic, or manmade element of the city.
Park Performance Tier - Used to delineate groups of parks performing at similar levels, according to
their Recreational Value. Lowest tier for a functional park is 1. Parks assessed below Tier 1 are
considered non-functional from a Recreational Value perspective. Kent’s currently highest performing
101
6
park is a Tier 5, although higher tiers are achievable. Parks are grouped into both current performance
and potential performance tiers.
Park Property Grade- A grade given to each park to capture the general condition of the park
independent of the condition of its assets. The grades range from 5 (functionally new) to 1 (failing).
Performance-based Level of Service – A new approach to measuring Level of Service, which is focused
on the concept of Recreational Value.
Potential Recreational Value – See Recreational Value.
Recreational Amenities (RA) – Any feature in any park that provides opportunities to recreate, or that
makes recreation more comfortable, attractive or accessible. It may be a built feature, such as a
restroom, or a naturally occurring amenity, such as a view of Mount Rainier. The number of recreational
amenities in a given park is used in a Recreational Value formula to assess the park’s Current
Recreational Value. (Please see the list of Recreational Amenities in Appendix D.)
Recreational Value (RV) –Recreational Value is a calculation devised to measure the performance of an
individual park or a park system. The formula takes into account the fact that the age and condition of
parks and their assets impact the both the quality and quantity of recreational opportunities a park or
an asset provides. Newer parks and assets function at a higher level than deteriorated parks and assets.
Please see Appendix XXX for additional information on determining Current Recreational Value and
Potential Recreational Value.
Current Recreational Value (CRV) – An assessment of a park system’s or an individual park’s
performance. An individual park’s CRV is achieved by counting the park’s existing Recreational
Amenities and multiplying that figure by the Park Condition Multiplier. The system CRV is
achieved by counting the system’s existing RA’s multiplied by the Aggregate Park Condition
Multiplier.
Potential Recreational Value – An assessment of how much Recreational Value a park or
property can provide if developed, assuming the overall park condition is a 5 (functionally new).
The assessment is done park by park by determining how each park or property would be
developed given reasonable constraints and funding. That expected development is then
assessed by adding up the number of Recreational Amenities for each park or property.
102
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This 2016 Parks and Open Space (P&OS) Plan update continues with the significant shift in both
approach and goals that was started in the last update. This plan will introduce a new approach to LOS,
a new approach to classifying parks, will discuss strategies to address the challenges facing the park
system and will provide recommendations for moving toward a more financially sustainable future.
Kent’s park system is and has been operating under a critical lack of resources. An increasing number of
system assets are failing or heading toward failure, without resources to replace them. Without a
substantive reprioritization, the City will continue to remove failed assets, and, within the foreseeable
future, face the question of closing entire parks.
The time has come for the community to determine what their priorities are for the future of their
public park system. This parks plan attempts to contribute to that conversation by not only describing
the nature and extent of the existing challenge, but pointing to options for addressing the challenge.
One of the first steps toward addressing the challenge involves taking a fresh look at the park system.
That has required creating a new approach to “Level of Service”. A Level of Service (or LOS) is a
measure of how well a city is providing a particular service to its residents. Traditionally, park systems
have attempted to measure their LOS by counting property. The primary LOS measure has historically
been acres per thousand—as in acres of public park land per thousand residents.
This measure has been widely used, and its shortcomings have been long acknowledged. The primary
problem with using acreage as a measure is that it does not differentiate between an acre that is well
designed and well used and an acre that is not. Under the traditional approach, a poorly maintained
acre, or one with few or no amenities, provides just as much LOS credit as one that provides
considerable Recreational Value to the community. In addition, any increase in population requires an
increase in park land if the city wants to maintain its Level of Service.
With this update, the City is creating a new measure--one that assesses the quality of its recreational
land and not just the quantity. It will look not just at the number of acres or the number of amenities,
but the condition of those acres and amenities, as well as other factors that impact how well a given
park performs for its users.
This plan also rethinks the City’s approach to classifying parks. The classification system the City has
historically used is based on parks’ size and primary features. Such a system didn’t really provide much
useful information on what role a given park plays within its system, or provide much guidance for
planning new parks or upgrades to existing parks.
The plan doesn’t propose eliminating the existing classification system entirely, because it is still in
wide circulation; and so it provides value when discussing Kent parks with outside organizations and
agencies. The plan proposes to supplement the existing park classification system with one that
103
8
provides additional detail on the role a given park plays within the system. The new park classification
overlay is a tool to help guide park planning efforts by evaluating and planning parks within their
context.
One of the principal challenges facing Kent’s park system is the system’s growing capital maintenance
backlog. There is currently over $60 million worth of repair and updating work waiting to be done
throughout the park system. The growing capital maintenance backlog is increasingly restricting the
ability of the City's parks to perform their roles for the community. Some funding that was decreased
during the recession has started to come back; but even current funding levels are woefully inadequate
to address the backlog.
The size and extent of the backlog, combined with the fact that Kent is no longer the sleepy suburban
community it was when many of these parks were built, highlights the need for a thoughtful and
prudent strategy to respond the challenges facing the system . This plan lays out a strategy for
improvements to parks in every area of the City, to not just restore them but to transform the park
system in order to better serve Kent today and into the future.
This plan will also include a more in-depth discussion on capital financing than has been
attempted in prior parks plans. What this plan will make clear is the compelling need for a
financially sustainable approach to parks capital funding; and it will provide recommendations
for moving toward a more financially sustainable future.
Kent’s park system is facing serious challenges. The primary intents of this pioneering effort
include:
o Responding to changes to the community and recreational trends by proposing
a more diverse park system
o Establishing a new set of measurement tools that better identify how the park
system is performing
o Creating recommendations and a strategic road map for transforming the
system, and
o Connecting the need for funding and the role that it plays in the performance of
the park system.
104
9
1 WHAT IS A PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN?
The Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes planning requirements, including planning for park
and recreation facilities, for cities in the state of Washington. The GMA requires the City to complete,
and regularly update, a Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan includes a Parks and Recreation
Element as a chapter. The Parks and Recreation Element lays out a very general vision for the City’s
parks. Kent's latest Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2015.
This Park and Open Space (P&OS) Plan is a separate, but complementary, document. It expands on the
foundation laid in the Parks and Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and is incorporated
into the Comprehensive Plan via reference. This update discusses the current condition of the park
system and how it includes widespread deterioration, lays out a vision for transformation and provides
a reinvestment strategy to achieve the vision.
THE ROLE OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IN THE CITY
Parks and open spaces contribute to a healthy, livable city in multiple ways. People value parks and
open spaces for the opportunity to walk a dog, learn to ride a bike, play organized sports, explore a trail
or engage in a wide variety of other recreational activities. These activities lead to positive health
benefits by providing contact with nature, along with opportunities for physical activity and social
interaction. Well-designed and maintained parks also contribute to the economic development of a
community by providing popular amenities that people look for when deciding where they want to live
and work. Healthy open spaces offer habitat for urban wildlife, clean the air, and absorb storm water
run-off. Parks and open spaces contribute to a community's aesthetics and serve as landmarks that
people associate with a community's core identity.
The City is not the only provider of recreational opportunities in Kent. There are school playgrounds and
sports fields, private gyms, and other recreational sites owned by other organizations. All these
facilities are valued components of Kent's recreational "menu," and they all have important roles to play
in the community. They’re largely not discussed in this document, because the City has no authority to
plan, manage or improve such facilities. However, Kent’s Parks Department works with outside
departments and agencies on joint efforts and will continue to pursue such opportunities when they’re
consistent with Council goals and direction.
A CURRENT ASSESSMENT
Completed over several decades, Kent’s park system was forged through thoughtful planning and
community commitment. Over the past several years, investment into the park system has waned, and
many park amenities are showing their age and are in need of repair or replacement.
During the economic recovery of the last few years, the City made a number of improvements to its
park system. Recent projects include an expanded playground at Lake Meridian Park (2011); new
105
10
playground and park improvements at Tudor Square Park (2012), Turnkey Park (2013) and Green Tree
Park (2014); planting improvements at Service Club Ball Fields (2013); the replacement of synthetic turf
at Wilson Sports Fields (2014),PICTURE , the addition of exercise equipment to West Fenwick Park
(2015), PICTURE and trail improvements at the Riverview property (2015). With considerable assistance
from grants, the City has also made some significant strategic acquisitions: the Huse, Matinjussi and
Van Dyke properties in the Panther Lake area (2012); and continued assemblage at Clark Lake Park
(2013) and Morrill Meadows Park (2014). (Please refer to Appendix A for a list of all of Kent’s park
properties).
Despite these improvements, many park amenities are decaying faster than the city is replacing them;
and the capital maintenance backlog continues to grow. The stage is set for the City to look at
reinvesting in its park system to transform Kent’s aging parks into a vibrant park system of the future.
WHY DO WE NEED A PLAN?
There are many important reasons to create a P&OS Plan and keep it current. One key reason is that
the City is not eligible for state parks capital grants if it doesn’t have one. The plan keeps the City
eligible to receive grant funding through the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office
(RCO). The RCO has provided millions of dollars to Kent over the years to acquire, develop and
redevelop the City's parks; so meeting their requirement to regularly update the P&OS Plan is critical to
maintain grant eligibility.
There is an even more important reason for spending scarce resources on a planning effort. It is vital
that a city regularly take a critical look at its services and ask hard questions about how it is performing
those services. Are they still relevant? Are they meeting the needs and priorities of the community? Is
the city investing an appropriate level of resources into them? Addressing these questions is part of the
city’s responsibilities to its residents to do a prudent and responsible job of stewarding the resources
entrusted to it.
This is a pivotal time for the City and its park system, as many of its assets are beginning to fail, and its
very context is transforming from a suburban community to an increasingly urban one. This plan will
look to answer the following question:
How can an aging suburban park system adequately respond to the recreational needs of an increasingly
diverse and urbanizing community?
This plan will attempt to answer the question by introducing four key goals:
Improve quality
Identify sustainable funding sources
Institute a performance-based system for planning and managing the system
106
11
Transform the system, through reinvestment, to one that better addresses changing
demographics and recreational needs
Through achieving these goals, the City can help ensure that the park system that has served Kent
residents for over 100 years can provide vibrant, relevant, safe and attractive recreational opportunities
for residents today and into the future.
2 WHO WE ARE AND THE STATE OF OUR SYSTEM
LOCAL TRENDS
Every planning effort needs to consider its context in order to analyze current and anticipated trends.
Significant trends in Kent, and their impact on parks and recreational facility planning, include
decreasing resources, aging infrastructure, changing demographics and changing recreational trends.
DECREASING RESOURCES
Over the past several years, the City has faced significant revenue shortfalls. Some of the
revenue is coming back with an improved economy; some reductions in revenue are structural--
and those revenues are not coming back.
These shortfalls have hit parks capital budgets hard, exacerbating a capital maintenance
backlog that began long before the 2008 recession. During the parks facilities assessment work
last updated in 2012, the City’s parks capital maintenance backlog was determined to be over
$60 million. A recent update of the Park Asset Inventory indicated that the backlog has
continued to grow. One of the larger questions addressed in this P&OS Plan update is how to
respond to this trend. Options include identifying new sources of revenue, partnering with
other agencies and organizations, and adjusting the size of the park system .
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL MAINTENANCE?
Most cities, including Kent, have park maintenance employees on their staff. These employees are generally
responsible for routine maintenance tasks, such as mowing grass, cleaning restrooms and emptying trash.
They also complete minor construction projects, such as repairing plumbing and roofs and filling in potholes
in parking lots and along paths. This work is considered routine maintenance and is funded through the city’s
operations budget.
Larger projects, such as constructing a new restroom building, repaving a park’s parking lot, or replacing an
athletic field's worn-out synthetic turf, are considered capital maintenance projects. These are contracted out
to construction firms and paid through the Parks capital budget.
107
12
AGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Kent’s park system has a long and proud history. Kent’s first park, Rosebed Park, opened in
1906. Over one hundred years later, our system continues to receive good reviews, locally and
nationally. One indication of our reputation is that we consistently attract regional and national
athletic tournaments because players enjoy playing on our well-maintained grass fields.
We are proud of this reputation. Unfortunately, not all of our assets have aged as well as some
of our grass fields. Even at our most popular sports field sites, there are assets in desperate
need of reinvestment. For example, at Kent Memorial Park, the restroom building is in near-
constant need of repair, be it from a new leak in the aged roof or problems with the crumbling
plumbing system. At Hogan Park (formerly Russell Road Park), the parking lots have been
patched so many times that it is getting increasingly difficult to patch the patches.
Each category of park asset has a typical expected lifetime, along with its own typical amount
of routine maintenance and typical amount of capital maintenance. The expected lifetime of a
restroom building, and the amount of maintenance required to keep it functioning, are entirely
different from that of a playground, which is different from that of a grass athletic field. What
they all have in common are finite life expectancies, requiring continual investments
throughout the course of their lifetimes. Not surprisingly, both routine and capital maintenance
costs increase as assets age, with older assets requiring more frequent and more extensive
maintenance than their newer counterparts.
In 2012, the City updated its Park Asset Inventory, which inventoried and assessed the
condition of every park asset valued over $10,000. The analysis looked at 240 assets. The scores
ranged from 1 (nearing the end of its useful life) to 5 (functionally new). Seventy-nine assets
(33percent of the total) were ranked 1 or 2. Sixty-three percent of Kent’s parks contained at
least one asset ranked 1 or 2.
This inventory was updated again in 2015. It found that 96 assets (40percent of the total) were
ranked 1 or 2; and that 71percent of parks have at least one asset ranked at 1 or 2.
The 2012 analysis identified a capital maintenance backlog of over $60 million. From 2010
through 2014, the City spent approximately $5.7 million on parks capital projects. At this rate of
investment, it would take 47 years to complete the projects on our list of assets waiting to be
repaired or replaced.
CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS
Kent’s population has changed significantly over the past two decades, and continues to
change. At the time of the last P&OS Plan update, the City’s population stood at 88,380.
Shortly after the plan was adopted, the City annexed the area known as Panther Lake. The 2015
108
13
Comprehensive Plan shows Kent’s population at 122,900. This makes Kent the state’s sixth
largest city.
It’s not just the number of residents that has changed. The City has become increasingly racially
and culturally diverse. In 2000, 71 percent of Kent’s residents were white. The 2014 American
Community Service count put the percentage of white residents in Kent at 57.9 percent. In
2000, eight percent of Kent’s population was Hispanic. In 2014, that percentage jumped to 15.9
percent.
Kent has an increasing population of foreign-born residents, including a sizeable population
who does not speak English. The Kent School District’s website reports that their student
population comes from families speaking 137 languages.
In addition, the numbers show that our population is getting older. In 2000, 7.4 percent of
Kent’s population was over 65. The 2014 data shows that population at 9.4 percent.
These changes reflect the fact that the current City of Kent is not the same as the suburban
Kent that the park system was created to serve.
CHANGING RECREATIONAL TRENDS
In addition to Kent’s increasing population and diversity, recreational trends are also changing.
The 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) observed that, “The most
notable increase in participation is for ‘picnicking, barbecuing, and cooking out, which went
from the ninth-ranked activity in 2002 to the top-ranked activity in 2012.” The plan documents
a number of recreational activities that have significantly increased or decreased in popularity
over the past several years.
Many trends noted in the SCORP were neither new nor surprising. Its survey found that, “low-
cost activities, less strenuous activities, or activities that can be done close to home have high
participation rates among Washington residents.” It found high participation rates by youth
and adults for picnicking/BBQing, walking, hiking, playground use, swimming, bicycle riding,
nature activities, jogging/running, and water-related recreation. Walking, jogging and fitness
activities all had higher participation rates in urban areas than in self-identified suburban areas.
Overall, the SCORP survey reflected that, "the public would like to see an increase in the
quantity and diversity of recreation opportunities provided."
Statewide trends noted in the SCORP were reflected locally in both the informal and formal
surveys that were taken as part of this update. Respondents to both surveys indicated that they
value diverse, local recreational opportunities.
CHANGE IN FOCUS
109
14
The City’s last period of park facility expansion, which occurred in the early to mid-2000's,
included the construction of Service Club Ball Fields, Wilson Playfields, Arbor Heights 360 Park,
and Town Square Plaza. Funds for these projects were provided by councilmanic bonds. The
City is still paying on these bonds, with the last expected to be paid off by 2024.
With the City’s lower revenues, the fact that a percentage of that revenue is going toward debt
retirement, and aging park infrastructure, the primary focus in the past several years for the
Parks capital program has been on redevelopment. This approach points to something more
than just replacing worn-out assets with identical ones. “Making better use of what we have”
reflects the shift to a performance-based focus that prioritizes getting more Recreational Value
out of our park spaces in every redevelopment project.
This plan lays out a roadmap to transform Kent's park system from the suburban model that
relied heavily on programmed uses to a more urban model that provides a diverse range of
recreational opportunities, including a broader variety of unscheduled recreational
opportunities. This approach will more deliberately balance the opportunities for active
recreation in highly developed spaces and passive recreation in more natural spaces. Most of
the proposed focal points of the system, discussed in detail in Chapter 5, possess great natural
features and already support a mix of recreational uses. The vision laid out in this plan looks to
celebrate and enhance those opportunities to keep Kent's park system relevant and attractive
to a changing, diversifying, urbanizing community.
By making better use of what we have, the City can provide more and better recreational
opportunities for more users without needing to construct many additional parks. In this plan,
additional parks are proposed only in neighborhoods where there are lower concentrations of
parks compared to other City neighborhoods.
THE THREE PARTS OF A PARKS CAPITAL PROGRAM
A parks capital program consists of three primary categories, including acquisition, development and
redevelopment. All three categories are important, but a budget needs to find the appropriate balance of
investment among the three to meet the system's needs and the community's priorities.
“Acquisition” is obtaining new park or open space land, and is most commonly achieved through purchasing
private property. “Development” refers to the design and construction of new parks. “Redevelopment” can
include either the refurbishment or replacement of worn-out facilities through capital maintenance or the re-
imagining of park amenities-- or even entire parks-- based on changes in recreation trends and local
demographics.
Kent has been acquiring properties and developing parks for several decades. It has gotten well behind in its
reinvestment into its system. This park plan lays out a road map to reimagine the system so it will be well-
positioned to serve the community with a focus on redevelopment and a few strategic acquisitions and new
110
15
parks.
KENT POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
Any discussion on what kind of park system a community wants must begin with a basic understanding
of the community the system is to serve. This section will examine City regions, population and public
input that informed the recommendations in this plan.
Kent’s most recent update to our P&OS Plan was adopted in 2010. At the time of the update, Kent’s
population stood at 88,380 residents. Since then, the Panther Lake annexation added five square miles
and approximately 24,000 residents to the City. According to the latest Comprehensive Plan, Kent’s
current population stands at about 122,900. The population is fairly evenly split between genders, with
50.4 percent male and 49.6 percent female. Nearly 30 percent of Kent’s residents are under the age of
20, and 51.4 percent are between the ages of 20 and 54. The City’s median age is approximately 34
years old.
The majority of the population resides in owner-occupied homes on the East Hill or West Hill, separated
from the Valley, Downtown, and each other by steep topography. Soos Creek Trail, bordering Kent to
the east, and the Green River Trail system, cutting through the Valley north to south, provide the most
contiguous green spaces in and around the City, with additional green or open space interspersed in
pockets throughout the city.
Roughly one third of Kent's residents live on the East Hill, north of Southeast 24oth Street; one third
live on the East Hill, south of Southeast 240th Street, and the remaining one third lives in the remaining
areas of the City, including the Valley and the West Hill.
The Valley itself hosts few residents. Most of the land in the Kent Valley is used for commercial or
industrial purposes. This is of note for park planning because park needs for a mostly workday
population differ from the needs of residential populations.
PROCESS OF THE PLAN
It was clear from the start that the process for a P&OS Plan update needed to begin with community
outreach. The City engaged in an outreach effort to understand the community’s needs and priorities.
This section describes the nature and extent of the outreach effort and how community input informed
the plan. In addition, the section discusses the input provided by other City departments, and the
approval process for the plan.
PUBLIC INPUT
111
16
While public input on the update didn't formally begin until 2015, this plan has been informed by
dialogue with the public ever since the prior update. One process in particular, which involved
extensive public dialogue, merits specific mention.
2012 Citizens Task Force
In 2012 Kent Parks put together a citizens' committee to review the parks asset analysis and
prioritize a list of parks capital projects to be taken to the voters for funding through a levy. The
committee was comprised of citizens from diverse backgrounds and represented all the different
geographic regions of the city. The projects were prioritized based on the condition of the parks
included and the potential recreational impact completing the projects would have on the park
system.
The park improvement list was later combined with a number of road projects recommended by a
separate citizens' committee in a combined infrastructure levy. The authorizing resolution for the
levy passed the City Council in a 4-3 vote. The levy itself failed to pass.
Input During the P&OS Plan Update
City staff, assisted by the newly-formed Parks Commission, reached out to the public in a variety of
ways over the summer of 2015. Staff and Commissioners attended several community events, and
invited attendees to participate in an informal online survey about the park system. They handed
out hundreds of reminder cards with the web address of the online survey, in order to make taking
the survey as convenient as possible. The survey was framed around the question: "what do parks
do for you?" It asked participants how they use the parks and what their priorities are for their local
parks. Two hundred twenty five people completed the survey.
A second, more formal, survey was mailed to randomly selected residents in late summer. That
survey was designed to provide statistically valid results, and was done by a survey-consulting firm.
That survey received 603 responses.
The informal online survey provided lots of opportunity for in-depth comments. It contained a large
number of open-ended questions, and its online presence helped people feel free to spend as much
time on their answers as they wanted. The formal mail-in survey asked much more focused
questions, but had the advantage of being structured so that its results were statistically valid. The
combination of surveys provided a much broader array of input than either one alone could have
provided.
Highlights of the Informal Online Survey:
In general, people feel good about the park system.
People tend to most frequently use the park nearest where they live.
Overall, respondents feel their recreation needs are being met.
Parks that have the greatest use typically have active recreation opportunities.
112
17
Trails are particularly popular amenities.
In general, people feel the parks are well maintained but are supportive of having more
spent on capital maintenance.
Priorities tend to lean toward parks and recreation that give kids opportunities to be active.
The primary park-related concerns are safety and park condition.
Regarding resource allocation for parks, the highest priority among respondents is taking
care of what we already have.
Highlights of the Statistically Valid Survey
70 percent of households use neighborhood parks but only 21 percent rate the condition as
excellent.
43 percent of households rate their nearby parks as their most importance park and
recreation facility.
Only 4 of the 17 types of facilities are considered by a substantive percentage of
respondents to be in excellent condition. These include outdoor splash park, soccer fields,
senior center, and skate parks.
84 percent of households indicate a willingness to fund capital maintenance and park
upgrades with tax dollars.
75 percent of households feel that funding parks, trails, and recreation is equally or more
important than funding other City services.
The full results of both surveys can be found in Appendices K and L.
SEPA Comments
Because this P&OS Plan is a formal planning document adopted by the City Council, a State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review process was required as part of the adoption process. The
public comment component of the SEPA process provided another opportunity for the public to
provide input on their parks and open space priorities. Public comments associated with the SEPA
review are included in Appendix M.
INPUT FROM CITY STAFF, PARKS COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
In addition to reaching out to the general public, Parks Department staff regularly updated the
Parks Commission and the City Council’s Parks Committee, as the plan progressed, for their
feedback and input. Staff also presented drafts to several City departments for their input on the
plan.
____________________________________
113
18
3 A CALL TO ACTION AND WHERE WE WANT TO GO
A CALL TO ACTION
Kent's park system is seeing remarkable challenges to its continued viability. The challenges come from
a variety of sources, primarily the growth of the community and years of reduced resources. The park
system is aging and while improvements are being made, they are modest when compared to the
needs of the system. A backlog of work needed to replace dilapidated park features dwarfs the
resources available to do the work.
Meeting the community’s park and recreation needs now and into the future requires a call to action.
This section will lay out the primary themes that make up the call to action and their associated
strategies.
CITY OF KENT STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
In 2015, Kent’s City Council created a strategic plan that established a long-term vision for the City as an
organization. That vision includes the following goals:
Develop a sustainable funding model
Create neighborhood urban centers
Create connections for people
Foster inclusiveness
Beautify Kent
The primary themes of this plan are focused on how Kent’s park and open space system can support
that vision.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN THEMES
The four primary themes of this plan include:
Quality Public Spaces: Provide a high quality park system that promotes Kent as a livable city.
Sustainable Funding: Implement a funding model which adequately supports a Level of Service
that reflects the community's priorities.
Performance-Based Approach: Plan and maintain the system with the help of a performance-
based set of assessment tools.
Transformation Through Reinvestment: Reinvest in the existing system to successfully
transform it into a vibrant and relevant urban park system.
1. QUALITY PUBLIC SPACES
Provide a high-quality park system that promotes Kent as a healthy, livable city.
114
19
STRATEGIES:
1.1 ENHANCE THE APPEAL TO PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES INTERESTED IN CALLING KENT HOME
Parks play an important role in the desirability of any community and its ability to attract both
businesses and residents. We see parks featured prominently in city marketing materials, as well as
in rankings of livability. Transforming Kent's park system will help it be more competitive in
attracting residents and businesses.
1.2 SUPPORT THE NEWLY FORMED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AS THEY
ESTABLISH THEIR ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY
The Parks and Recreation Commission was established in 2015, when the first group of
Commissioners were recommended by the Mayor and appointed by the Council. One of the
primary roles of the Commission, particularly over the next few years, will be to serve as an key
conduit to the community for conversation regarding the level of quality that the community
expects of their parks system. The City can support that role by actively seeking the Commission's
engagement and input in important initiatives and proposals.
1.3 MAINTAIN HIGH LEVELS OF PUBLIC SAFETY
As our City becomes more urban, our parks and open spaces become more important as places to
relax or engage in recreation. For parks to be well used they need to be safe. The City should
continue to include safety considerations in design, operation and maintenance decisions.
1.4 CONTINUE TO PROVIDE QUALITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY
Parks provide people with the opportunity to experience healthy activity. This is more of a
necessity today than ever before. The transformation of the park system will help increase the
variety of recreational opportunities in Kent.
1.5 CONTINUE TO ANTICIPATE AND MEET THE CONSTANTLY CHANGING RECREATIONAL
NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.
The census and demographics show that the City is changing in both size and diversity. As Kent
continues to grows, the demand on the park system does as well. Maintaining an ongoing dialogue
with residents will be critical in order to keep up with recreational trends and changing priorities.
The City can achieve this by establishing and maintaining lines of communication with community
groups such as youth groups, senior organizations, ethnic groups, sports clubs, and schools. It will
also be important to continue learning to use new ways to communicate, including the utilization of
social media.
115
20
1.6 CONTINUE TO STEWARD OUR PUBLIC OPEN SPACES WITH THE GOAL OF RESTORING
DEGRADED AREAS AND MAINTAINING HEALTHY LANDS
Open spaces in an urban setting are under constant assault. Not only do frequent dumping and
vandalism threaten the health of these lands, but the native plant communities in these properties
are often in competition with aggressive invasive plant species that spread from past disturbances
on the properties or from nearby properties. In 2009, the City of Kent joined the environmental
organization Forterra and several other regional cities in a Green Cities initiative to help restore and
maintain our open spaces. The city will continue to build on its commitment to open spaces by
engaging local volunteers to remove invasives, plant appropriate native species and maintain for
long-term health.
2. SUSTAINABLE FUNDING
Implement a funding model which adequately supports a Level of Service that reflects the
community's priorities.
STRATEGIES:
2.1 SET THE SYSTEM ON A COURSE FOR LONG-TERM FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Events over the past several years have underscored the system’s need for a reliable,
consistent funding source. Between property tax caps that don’t allow the City’s revenues
to keep up with expenses, the state’s decision to recalculate revenue sharing in a way that
reduced Kent’s share of state sales tax and reduced property tax collections due to the
recession, Kent’s revenues have taken a series of hits. The City has responded by cutting
some services and lowering capital maintenance budgets. And the parks capital
maintenance budget has seen the most drastic cuts of any department. With forty percent
of parks’ capital assets approaching or at the end of their useful life, current funding levels
are not sustainable. To find an acceptable solution, the City will need to engage the
community in a dialogue to help determine what residents want to see in a park system
and how to fund it.
2.2 RENEW OR ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIPS WITH EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS.
A longstanding practice of Kent Parks is to foster partnerships with other organizations
that can participate in providing quality park and recreation needs to Kent residents. The
City will continue pursuing these partnerships, as they are more valuable now than ever
with the increasing demand for recreation. Partnerships may include shared facilities,
sharing of programs, or financial support. Organizations that may have interest in
116
21
partnering include schools and other public agencies, sports clubs, senior and youth
groups, local businesses, and independent recreation providers.
3.PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH
Plan and maintain the system with the help of a performance-based set of assessment tools.
STRATEGIES:
3.1 PRESERVE AND ENHANCE RECREATIONAL VALUE
Not every acre in a park system provides the same quality or quantity of recreational
opportunity. And the Recreational Value of a given acre will change as the assets on it
change. In this plan, Parks introduces a way to better assess and manage the Recreational
Value of the City's parks and open space acreage. Utilizing this set of tools will help the City
more effectively preserve and enhance the Recreational Value of its properties.
3.2 INCLUDE RECREATIONAL VALUE AS A FACTOR WHEN DECIDING WHERE TO
INVEST RESOURCES FOR PARK LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
Looking at Current and Potential Recreational Value of park properties can assist in making
wise and prudent decisions on investing and reinvesting in the park system. CRV and PRV
calculations can help identify areas of greater need as well as note opportunities for the
greatest increase in Recreational Value. Including these factors along with other important
considerations can ensure that capital dollars are utilized in ways that provide the greatest
benefits to the community.
3.3 INCLUDE RECREATIONAL VALUE AS A FACTOR WHEN DECIDING WHERE TO INVEST
MAINTENANCE RESOURCES
As assets get older, they contribute to a park's losing Recreational Value even as they
become more expensive to maintain. Using the tools proposed in this plan to assess
Recreational Value can help when creating strategies for the allocation of maintenance
resources.
4. TRANSFORM THROUGH REINVESTMENT
Reinvest in the existing system to successfully transform it into a vibrant and relevant urban park
system.
STRATEGIES:
117
22
4.1 ADDRESS THE LARGE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
For a variety of reasons, the maintenance backlog of the system has increased significantly
over the past several years. One major reason is the continued reduction of resources.
While there are prudent reasons to complete some strategic assemblages and develop a
limited number of new parks, this plan advocates for the focus of the next several years to
be on addressing the large and growing maintenance backlog.
4.2 MAKE BETTER USE OF OUR EXISTING PARKS
The system includes assets and entire parks that possess the potential for increasing their
Recreational Value through strategic reinvestment. The City can make smarter use of its
resources and prioritize reinvestment that will help each renovated park perform better for
the community.
4.3 INITIATE DIALOGUE WITH COMMUNITY ABOUT LOCAL PRIORITIES FOR
COMMUNITY CENTERS
The City is currently served by one municipal community center, Kent Commons, and one
Senior Center. Both of these facilities are in the downtown area. With the majority of the
City’s population residing on the East and West hills, this creates logistical challenges for
potential users.
As this plan is going to press, Kent is collaborating with the regional YMCA on a new
community center on the East Hill, at East Hill Park. This project is expected to meet some
of the City’s needs for indoor public recreation; and the early public response is both
positive and supportive. However, non-profit community centers do not operate under the
same mandate to provide broad public access that is expected of public community
centers. As a result, the new facility will address some, but not all, of the latent need for
public indoor recreation.
One of the recommendations of this plan is to start a conversation with the community to
learn their priorities for public indoor recreation in Kent and how those priorities might be
achieved.
4.4 CARE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT AND
MAINTENANCE
Healthy open spaces are a key component of even the most urban park systems. We are
increasingly aware of the connection between a healthy environment and a healthy city.
118
23
Open spaces within the city are places for wildlife habitat, recreation, storm water
management, and relief from the stress of urban living. As the City continues to emphasize
the importance of proper care and management of these spaces, it will not only enhance
urban life, but will also ensure that these landscapes will be around for generations to
come.
119
24
4. LEVEL OF SERVICE – A NEW APPROACH
Two important tasks of a parks and open space plan include measuring a city’s Level of Service for their
park system, and providing recommendations for maintaining or adjusting that Level of Service. This
section will discuss a new approach to those important tasks.
WHAT IS A LEVEL OF SERVICE?
Level of Service ( LOS) is a measure meant to describe to a community how much of a particular service
residents are getting for their tax dollars. For example, the LOS for emergency services usually tells
people how many minutes they can typically expect to wait for emergency responses to a 911 call, or
how long they will usually wait to get through a given intersection during rush hour. LOS is also used to
establish goals for a good or service that reflects the overall priorities and resources of the community.
Establishing a Level of Service for a park system can be a bit trickier than doing so for other municipal
services. How many parks are enough for a community? How many parks is the community willing to
support?
It has been widely shown that parks and recreation facilities provide immense value to a community.
Organizations like the American Planning Association, the Trust for Public Land and the Urban Institute
tell us that neighborhoods with well-used and well-maintained parks tend to have higher values and
lower crime rates than comparable neighborhoods without parks. The Centers for Disease Control and
the National Center for Biotechnology have produced research that demonstrates that parks have
positive impacts on physical and mental health. Surveys consistently show that people consider local
parks an important public amenity.
But, how many parks are enough? Communities all over the country struggle to answer this question.
As part of this plan's examination of the Level of Service for Kent’s parks, staff looked at peer cities in
the region and compared some of the numbers.
COMPARING KENT TO ITS PEER CITIES
In 2012, Kent’s City Council hired a consultant to evaluate City services compared to those of several
peer cities. Some of the cities selected for comparison include Bellevue, Renton, Federal Way and
Kirkland.
In 2015, Kent’s Parks Department compared Kent’s park system against those same peer cities. The
below chart compares x, x, x, and xxxxx among the various cities. The data provided in those charts is
useful in considering questions related to the optimum size of Kent’s park system.
120
25
How Large is Kent’s Park System
By most of these measures, Kent is behind its peer cities in providing developed parks to its residents.
While the next section explores some of the shortcomings of a quantity-based approach to measuring
Level of Service (LOS), it is still the best and most widely usedapproach for peer city comparisons.
DEFINING A NEW PERFORMANCE-BASED LOS
Acres-per-thousand can be seen as a barometer of a city’s commitment to its parks; but it is admittedly
an imperfect tool. The acres-per-thousand approach tells a very incomplete story that falls short as an
accountability tool to a city’s residents. Residents want to know not just how many parks are in their
city, but also how well those parks are functioning and how well the system as a whole is working to
provide recreational opportunities. The existing LOS measurement based on population and acreage
focuses only on quantity rather than the quality and performance. It is easy to understand why park
systems would rely on this method, as quantity is generally easier to measure than quality. This plan
proposes a new way.
“What do parks do for you?” provided the underlying theme for public input as part of the P&OS Plan
update. One intent of the survey was to gather input on the community's priorities for recreation in
order to identify key elements of the park system that could provide a framework for developing a new
121
26
LOS model. Feedback highlighted the notion that the success of a park is tied directly to user
experience. A park’s features, the demand for those features, their condition and their ease of access
are the primary factors in determining park performance. The challenge to planners working on the
new LOS was to figure out how to measure these factors in a meaningful way.
The new LOS measurement for the Kent parks system was established by creating a measure of the
Current Recreational Value of the existing parks inventory. Then, by estimating the Potential
Recreational Value of current and yet-to-be-developed parks, staff was able to demonstrate the City's
ability to improve the performance of its park system for both current and projected populations.
HOW THE NEW APPROACH IS CALCULATED
The number of Current Recreational Amenities of the system was determined by establishing a value
for every amenity in Kent's park properties. Parks received a whole or fractional point for each existing
amenity. Points were given for opportunities to play (both organized sports and unstructured play), for
individual support amenities (picnic shelter, parking lots, or restrooms), opportunities for walking or
biking, significant views, access to natural landscapes, art, and other more varied recreational
opportunities (off-leash dog areas, skate parks, or climbing pinnacles, etc.). Points for each park were
then added for a total number of amenities in each park or property. (Please see Appendix D).
After inventorying amenities, the condition of each amenity was assessed and given an Asset Grade.
The grade of 5 was at the top of the scale, with 5 representing a new or like-new condition; and a score
of 1 was given to each amenity that was at or very near the end of its useful life. Then each park was
given a Park Property grade to account for the property's condition. The Asset Grades for every asset
in a park were averaged, with the result averaged with the Park Property grade to arrive at an Overall
Park Condition grade. The Overall Park Condition grade was then converted to a Park Condition
Multiplier that was applied to the park's number of amenities. The result of this calculation became the
park's Current Recreational Value.
122
27
ABOUT RECREATIONAL VALUE
The new approach to Level of Service introduced in this plan is centered on what we’re calling
Recreational Value (RV). The Level of Service formula takes the Recreational Value score for the
entire park system and divides it by thousands of population. Because of its key role in LOS,
understanding what the Recreational Value score is and how the concept is used is critical to
understanding our new performance-based LOS.
The appendices contain extensive information on the calculation of Recreational Value. This
discussion is about the basis for the formula.
To understand the concept of Recreational Value, it is helpful to understand the boundaries of its
use. The most significant boundary is the fact that RV does not attempt to define the complete
value of any given park property or the park system. In addition to a property’s Recreational Value,
park and open space properties provide a wide range of benefits, including economic value, health
value, habitat value and aesthetic value.
We created a formula to assess Recreational Value as another tool to help with resource allocation
decisions. The goal of RV is so the City can make better, more data-driven decisions when
prioritizing capital investment. When a city is dealing with very limited resources, as is the situation
for Kent’s park system, making the best capital investment decisions is critical.
The concept of Recreational Value is based, in part, on the notion that a park's usefulness to the
community is strongly related to the number of recreational opportunities it offers. In determining
Potential Recreational Value, it is implied, although not calculated, that there is a recreational
“carrying capacity” for every park that should not be exceeded. Because Kent's parks are currently
in no danger of being overdeveloped, the team working on the calculations did not pursue a
formula to estimate Recreational Carrying Capacity. Years down the road, this could become an
issue; but for now it is not a concern.
Furthermore, early on it became evident that the evolving formula was going to score large
community parks higher than small neighborhood parks. Because the formulas were derived after
two public surveys, we worked with the benefit of understanding that the community values a
diverse system that includes a range of park sizes and offerings. To reflect that priority, we created
a tiered scoring system. If a small neighborhood park scores from the mid to high range of its tier,
this indicates it is performing its role in an acceptable fashion. Using this scoring system, small parks
don't need to compete with large parks to demonstrate their value to the community.
Finally, the formulas presented here are a first draft effort. Each component of the formula was
carefully beta tested, and wasn’t used until the team reached consensus on its use. However, the
team acknowledges that as we continue to use this approach, opportunities for improvement will
certainly arise. It will take time to determine if this new approach provides the value intended. It
may see a series of revisions, or wholesale replacement. The goal is to land on a data-driven
approach to evaluate park and open space properties that the City can use to continuously improve
on its approach to resource allocation decisions.
123
28
A Current Recreational Value measure was determined for each park and property in the City's
inventory. The result was a list of 81 parks, trails, and properties that could be sorted and ranked to
show the Current Recreational Value each contributes to the park system. The Current Recreational
Value of a park can now be compared with the current recreational amenities to show how much
Recreational Value has been lost due to aging and failing assets and poor park condition.
The Current Recreational Value of Kent’s park system does not include the potential of undeveloped
properties, planned park concepts, under-developed parks, or renovations that could be made to
existing but tired parks. In developing Kent’s new LOS, planners understood that the approach needed
to be able to compare the Recreational Value of Kent’s existing park system with its Potential
Recreational Value. Such a comparison could demonstrate the degree to which existing parks could be
restored or redeveloped to provide additional Recreational Value to accommodate population growth.
In this way, LOS measurements could reflect the value to the system provided by making park
improvements to existing properties.
A Potential Recreational Value measure was created to evaluate potential amenities that could be
built at a park or property, the natural or borrowed opportunities of a park, the feasibility of developing
park amenities, and the size and character of each park site. It was determined that the best way to
measure potential was to look at each park or property and assess typical recreational amenities that
could be reasonably built there, using the same point system used to calculate current recreational
amenities. This method factors in size, critical areas, location, and natural features, while also allowing
reasonably accurate comparisons of Current and Potential Recreational Value for each park, property,
or concept. Parks Department staff assessed each park, property, and concept and determined
potential recreational amenities. The result was a list of 87 parks, trails, properties, and concepts that
could be ranked according to recreational potential. (Please see Appendix E).
The comparison of Current Recreational Value to Potential Recreational Value provides an indication of
the degree to which current parks are performing to their potential. Looking at the Potential
Recreational Value of undeveloped properties shows how much developing these properties will add to
the City’s park system’s LOS. Dividing the Current Recreational Value per 1,000 residents provides a
current LOS measure for Kent’s park system, while dividing the Potential Recreational Value per 1,000
residents illustrates its potential LOS.
KENT’S LEVEL OF SERVICE UNDER THE NEW APPROACH
Below is a table comparing the old and new methods of measuring LOS for 1993, 2003, 2015, and
estimated for 2035 (based on growth estimates from Kent’s Comprehensive Plan).
124
29
1993 2003 2015 2035
Kent’s Population 41,000 84,275 122,900 138,156
Acreage Per 1,000 Residents Old LOS 20.72 15.98 7.00 6.23 1
Recreational Amenities Per 1,000
Residents ??? 3 2.44 2 2.11 ??? 3
Recreational Value Per 1,000
Residents
New
LOS ??? 3 ??? 3 1.63 1.45 1
1 Assuming no investment toward expansion
2 Estimate based on 2002 Park Map (Please see Appendix I).
3 Data unavailable.
Currently, the Level of Service for Kent’s park system per the new LOS approach is 1.63. This is the new
baseline measurement against which to compare future parks plans. Whether the LOS goes up or down
will be determined by the level of investment in the park system. Assuming a level of investment
between now and 2035 that stops current deterioration but includes no expansion (which would involve
a rate of investment higher than the rate over the last several years), by 2035 the LOS would drop to
1.45. This implies an 11 percent decrease in the system, relative to population.
The table shows that using the old acres-per-thousand-residents approach, LOS has been steadily
dropping since 1993. In order to achieve the same LOS in 2015 that Kent enjoyed in 1993, the city would
need to acquire hundreds of acres of new park land. Given the resources needed to address the
system's current capital maintenance backlog, this does not seem to be a realistic, or even desirable,
goal.
Comparisons using the new LOS measure are more challenging. One of the greatest drawbacks to
creating a new LOS is that there is no history of past measures to use as a basis of reference. Using
historical records, staff sought an approximate comparison.
First, staff estimated the number of recreational amenities that existed in the park system in 2003.
Because there are no records reflecting the physical condition of those assets, Recreational Value could
not be determined. However, the records indicate that the park system had roughly 20 percent more
recreational amenities per 1,000 residents than it does today.
If one assumes that the park system was in comparable condition in 2003 (a very conservative estimate,
as the system was likely in better condition), one could assume that Kent has lost approximately 14
percent of its park system’s Recreational Value between 2003 and 2015. That loss factors in the
improvements to the system since 2003, including Service Club Ball Fields, Town Square Plaza, and
Wilson Playfields.
LEVEL OF SERVICE BY CITY REGION
125
30
Assessing the citywide Level of Service is critical for planning. For a city the size of Kent, it is useful to
measure LOS by city region. This plan breaks Kent into five geographic regions: Downtown, Green
River, West Hill, East Hill North and East Hill South. The table below summarizes LOS in each region.
Downtown Region
The Downtown region is the commercial center of Kent. It is expected to see significant growth
over the next decade and is vital to Kent’s strategic vision for the future.
The high LOS for Downtown only tells part of the region’s story. The number comes from the
combination of facts that the current population is relatively small and the region has a high
number of small parks. The region lacks any higher tier parks, with Kent Memorial Park and Town
Square Plaza rating the highest, at Tier 3.
These parks are also generally some of the system’s oldest. They contain many deteriorated assets
and were built to serve a suburban Kent. Reinvestment is needed to replace failing assets, provide
quality recreational experiences, serve a high weekday population, and play a key role in ensuring
the development of a livable urban downtown core.
Green River Region
Kent’s Green River Valley has over 50,000 workers who use the parks in the valley before or after
work or during their lunchtimes. These workers are not accounted for in our model.
Re
g
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
/
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
Pa
r
k
a
n
d
T
r
a
i
l
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
a
l
u
e
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
a
l
u
e
Le
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
a
l
u
e
P
e
r
1
0
0
0
P
e
o
p
l
e
)
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Downtown 21 45.4 3662 49.75 37.65 125.5 10.28 34.27
Green River 19 157.98 16041 66.75 49.4 166 3.08 10.35
East Hill South/Kent Kangley 11 362.93 43786 88.25 70.1 191.25 1.60 4.37
West Hill 9 204.33 16125 29.25 21.75 83.25 1.35 5.16
East Hill North/Panther Lake 10 90.18 42162.5 24.5 19.63 98 0.47 2.32
Total in 2016 87 860.82 121776.5 258.5 198.53 664 1.63 5.45
Estimated 2035 138,156 1.44 4.81
126
31
The Green River is Kent’s most significant recreational amenity and the Green River Trail, Frager
Road, and the parks along them serve the entire population of Kent as well as South King County
and beyond. Over the past four decades, the City has acquired a significant amount of property
along the Green River to realize the vision of riverside trails on both sides of the river through much
of Kent. One result is a relative wealth of park properties along the Green River corridor.
The challenge moving forward will be to ensure that people continue to be able to enjoy the scenic
beauty of recreating along a river while balancing the priorities of flood control, real estate
development and habitat protection. Reinvesting in these parks and trails will ensure that the
Green River corridor continues to be a regional draw and recreational treasure.
East Hill South Region
The East Hill South region largely comprises Scenic Hill, Mill Creek, and the Lake Meridian
annexation area. This region has an LOS close to the citywide average. The key parks in this region
include Lake Meridian Park, Morrill Meadows Park and three newer parks built in the last 15 years:
Wilson Playfields, Service Club Ballfields, and Arbor Heights 360.
The greatest needs in this region can be met by improving three vastly underperforming parks: Mill
Creek Canyon, Clark Lake Park and Springwood Park. Springwood, the least well-known of the
three, is located in a well-developed area of the city that is lacking a higher tiered community park.
Mill Creek Canyon Park (part of Earthworks Mill Creek Canyon Park) can serve as a connector
between Scenic Hill, Downtown, and the East Hill while also providing recreational access to the
beautiful Mill Creek Canyon. Years ago, trails through Mill Creek Canyon used to connect these
important areas of the city, but a lack of funds prevented the City from repairing the trail after a
series of floods in the 1990s washed out several trail sections.
Clark Lake Park is centrally located on the East Hill, along the 248th Street park corridor, and has the
potential to be one of Kent’s highest performing parks. At over 120 acres, it is one of the City’s
largest parks and is currently mostly undeveloped. Developing this park into a true community park
will give people easy access to a beautiful lake and natural area right in the heart of Kent’s largest
population center.
West Hill Region
The West Hill of Kent has an LOS slightly below the City average. While it has the fewest number of
parks, it has more acres of parkland per person than every region except Downtown.
The greatest redevelopment opportunity in this region is reinvestment into West Fenwick and Lake
Fenwick Parks. Addressing the deterioration of these parks would also provide opportunities to
connect these two adjacent parks to one another as well as create a trail connection down the West
Hill to the Green River Trail and Meeker Street.
127
32
It is anticipated that the planned Link Light Rail Transit Station in Midway will bring more people to
the West Hill. Kent does not currently own any parkland in the Midway area; so it will be necessary
to acquire parkland to serve this area as it grows. (Please see Appendix G).
East Hill North Region
This region largely consists of the Panther Lake Annexation area and has, by far, the lowest LOS. If
one calculated East Hill North’s LOS separately from the rest of the city, this region would score at
0.47, compared to the LOS for the remainder of the city, which would score at 2.24.
Even after renovating all the existing parks in this area, the City will need to construct new parks to
bring this region's LOS up to that of the rest of the city. The Potential Recreational Value of all the
existing parks in this region does not increase East Hill North’s Recreational Value sufficiently to
bring it up to par with the rest of the City. New parkland could consist of one Top Tier park or
several smaller parks.
The project with the single highest Potential Recreational Value increase is the planned new
community park at the Huse property. This property has the added benefit of being located on the
Soos Creek Trail, which connects it to Lake Meridian Park in the East Hill South region. (Please see
Appendix G).
BENEFITS OF THE NEW APPROACH
The new approach to measuring Level of Service provides a useful set of tools for measuring the
Recreational Value of individual parks, city regions or the entire park system. These tools are intended
to help planners measure and more accurately describe the current performance of the City’s park
system, while also providing a benchmark to help the community determine where they want to go
from here. These are exciting possibilities from a park planning perspective; at the same time, this new
set of tools will continue to be tested and evaluated. Changes will likely be necessary and the tools
refined as time goes on.
128
33
5 HOW WE CAN GET THERE
WHY CLASSIFY PARKS?
The system of park classifications is an important tool park planners and designers use to help plan,
design and evaluate parks. Parks are classified based on their size, their recreational opportunities and
their use capacity. Evaluating a park system by looking at the number, location and categories of its
parks helps planners analyze how the system is serving its community. For example, few would want a
park system made up entirely of athletic fields or pocket parks. One of the challenges in parks planning
comes from trying to determine the mix of amenities, locations and park sizes to best serve a
community. Using park classifications helps in the planning process.
TRADITIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
The traditional approach to classifying parks utilizes eight primary categories. They include:
Community Parks – Serves the needs of the City with unique activities.
Golf Course – This is a very specialized facility. The City owns and operates one municipal course.
Neighborhood Parks – Meets active and passive recreation needs of an immediate neighborhood.
Indoor Recreation Facility – Provides social, cultural and programmed indoor recreation for the city.
Natural Resource/Open Space – Largely undeveloped properties that include open space,
environmentally sensitive areas and/or wildlife habitat.
Outdoor Recreation Facility – Provides programmed recreational opportunities.
Special Use - Parks, usually smaller, that don’t fit neatly into other categories. Examples include
urban pocket parks, skate parks and tot lots.
Undeveloped – Properties acquired for park purposes that have not yet been developed.
PARK PERFORMANCE TIER CLASSIFICATIONS
The above list of park categories provides an effective shorthand for describing each park’s basic job.
To reflect how well they perform their job, this plan creates an additional categorization tool called
“Park Performance Tiers.” These tiers group parks based on ranges of Current and Potential
Recreational Value scores.
Park Performance Tiers were established as a way to acknowledge that not all the parks in the system
are expected to provide the same level of Recreational Value. A high-functioning neighborhood park,
even though it plays a valued role in the park system, will never have the RV of even a moderately well-
129
34
functioning community park. In the tier system, it doesn't need to. To evaluate how well a given park is
functioning, one must consider its Recreational Value in the context of its designated tier.
The tiers in this performance-based ranking system are as follows:
Tier 6 – These parks will be the jewels of the Kent park system. They are likely to be part of a Park
corridor and have good bike/pedestrian connectivity. Eight Kent parks have the Potential Recreational
Value to earn this ranking. No Kent parks currently have this ranking.
Recreational Value Range: 17 or above
Target Classifications: Community, Community/Natural Resource, Community/Outdoor Rec
Facility, Special Use
Current Parks in Tier 6: 0
Potential Parks in Tier 6: 10
Tier 5 – These are very high-performing parks, generally Community Parks and Outdoor Rec Facilities
such as athletic fields.
Recreational Value Range: Greater than or equal to 12 and less than 17
Target Classifications: Community, Community/Natural Resource, Special Use, Outdoor Rec
Facility
Current Parks in Tier 5: 1
Potential Parks in Tier 5: 10
Tier 4 – These are parks that are performing well and can include parks of all of the classifications seen
in Tier 5 and 6. This tier will also include some high-performing Neighborhood Parks that fill service
area gaps.
Recreational Value Range: Greater than or equal to 7 and Less than 12
Target Classifications: Neighborhood Park, Special Use, and smaller Community Park
Current Parks in Tier 4: 8
Potential Parks in Tier 4: 18
130
35
Tier 3– Tier 3 parks are well-functioning neighborhood parks or special use parks like skate or bike
parks.
Recreational Value Range: Greater than 4 and Less than 7
Target Classifications: Neighborhood Park, Special Use
Current Parks in Tier 3: 8
Potential Parks in Tier 3: 15
Tier 2 – Tier 2 parks include small tot lots, and trailheads. Lower-performing Neighborhood Parks also
fall in this tier.
Recreational Value Range: Greater than 2 or less than or equal to 4
Target Classifications: Special use such as Urban or Pocket, Neighborhood Park
Current Parks in Tier 2: 15
Potential Parks in Tier 2: 13
Tier 1 – Tier 1 parks are the system’s lowest-performing parks.
Recreational Value Range: 2 or Less
Target Classifications: Special Use such as Pocket, Natural Resource/Open Space
Current Parks in Tier 1: 22
Potential Parks in Tier 1: 8
The tier system does not include a performance cap. Currently Kent’s highest performing park ranks as
Tier 5. The City has eight parks whose Potential Recreational Value indicates their potential as Tier 6
parks. Depending on long-range assemblage and redevelopment opportunities, some of Kent’s parks
could eventually achieve even higher rankings.
Current Performance Tiers versus Potential Performance Tiers
Below is a comparison of current performance tiers versus potential performance tiers for Kent’s
parks.
131
36
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6
Current # of Parks per Tier 22 15 8 8 1 0
Potential # of Parks per Tier 8 13 15 18 10 10
The graph above shows that the majority of Kent’s parks are underperforming. That's the bad
news. The good news is that the analysis indicates that, with additional investment, the system has
the ability to provide significantly more Recreational Value to the community.
Tiers and Maintenance Costs
An analysis of maintenance hours spent at each park tier was done in an attempt to look at how
many maintenance hours are spent for each point of Recreational Value in the different park tiers.
(Athletic complexes were removed from the analysis because the significant maintenance hours
associated with their operation makes them an outlier.) The analysis showed that parks in the
middle tiers had roughly the same operating cost per Recreational Value point. Parks in Tier 1,
however, require 30 percent more maintenance hours to operate than parks in Tiers 2-4. This tells
us that our lowest performing parks require a degree of maintenance resources that is out of scale
with the benefits they provide to the system.
A number of factors contribute to the increased relative cost of maintaining Tier 1 parks. First, an
asset in poor condition needs more extensive and frequent maintenance than an asset in good
functional condition. Second, a good portion of the time required to maintain a park can be
attributed to travel time. The additional trips associated with the additional maintenance needs of
a failing asset contribute to higher overall maintenance costs.
132
37
Finding the right balance between the amount of maintenance resources to direct to each park and
the benefit each park returns to the system is a question that will need to be further explored;
however, the tier system introduced in this plan is a tool that can help in maintenance resource
allocation decisions as well as capital planning decisions.
MOVING TO A PROJECT LIST
Thus far, this Park and Open Space Plan update has discussed a number of local trends and their impact
on Kent’s park system. The Plan has described a park system that was created in a different era, for a
smaller city, to address different recreational trends; and it has described how so much of the system is
tired and in need of attention. In response to this, the Plan has issued a call to action that focuses on
four core themes: quality, transformation of our park system, sustainable funding, and a performance-
based approach to park development and stewardship. And this section has discussed how park
classification categories and the new concept of park tiers are valuable tools that can aid in the planning
process. The next step is to move to a project list that can serve as an implementation guide for
transforming Kent's park system.
STRATEGIC PROJECTS
Kent’s park system has good bones. When analyzing the existing system, it becomes evident that many
of the City’s parks were created around significant built or natural features. These parks have
historically been thought of individually, but if we choose to plan these clusters as “park corridors”, they
have the potential to provide the foundation of the vibrant, updated park system envisioned in this
plan.
Each of the seven park corridors discussed below serves as one or more focal points for the city regions
described earlier in this plan. The following section lays out the strategic projects in each region that
could transform the park system into a high quality, high performing park system that could help
improve Kent as a place where people want to live, work, and play. In addition, this section lists several
interdepartmental opportunities that could support the park corridor approach and help support
several City Council goals, such as improved multimodal connections and enhanced aesthetics.
Downtown Kent
Woven among the historical district, Kent Station, the Showare Center, the Sound Transit Station,
Town Square Plaza, and the new Platform and Dwell apartment communities are a number of parks
that were created to serve a small town, and, later, suburban Kent. As Kent continues to evolve into an
urban center, it is important to transform the downtown parks to serve today’s community. Creating
quality Top Tier parks (Central Park, Uplands, KMP) in the Downtown region are key components of
that transformation.
133
38
Uplands Playfield Renovation – Convert two natural grass youth baseball fields into an active park
space to serve the growing downtown population.
Create an accessible destination playground.
Construct a lighted, synthetic turf multi-use field for youth sports and non-scheduled use.
Expand Lions Skate Park at Uplands Extension.
Add a new trailhead for the Interurban Trail.
Create a roller hockey/soccer rink at Showare (Commons) Park.
Downtown Place-Making Projects
Explore other place-making opportunities at downtown pocket parks in conjunction with a reimagined
Meeker Street. Potential projects could include components that make historical references to Boeing’s
Lunar Rover, the Lettuce Festival, flooding in the pre-dam valley, Fort Thomas, and the Interurban
Electric Railway.
Improve Willis Street as a gateway into the City.
Central Park –Explore opportunities for a transformational downtown park typical of livable urban
centers.
Earthworks Gateway –Update the vision of the original Earthworks Park/Mill Creek Canyon master
plan and 2011’s Mill Creek Canyon Trail Feasibility Study, which includes providing a great natural
amenity minutes from downtown.
Create a pedestrian connection between Downtown and East Hill.
Celebrate Kent’s only world-renowned landmark.
Kent Memorial Park Renovation – Refurbish Kent’s first athletic complex.
Replace aging assets including the restroom, bleachers, lights, parking lot, etc.
Add unscheduled recreational amenities to expand recreational opportunities and seasons of use.
Improve neighborhood connections to the park.
Downtown Parks on the Meeker Street Corridor
Public Works, Planning, and the Parks Department are collaborating on a new vision for Meeker
Street. This project has the potential of transforming Meeker Street into Kent’s Main Street, a
place people want to be. Meeker Street can also serve as an east-west bike/pedestrian
connection between downtown and the Green River Trail. In conjunction with the Central Park,
Uplands, Naden, Interurban, and Earthworks improvements, this will increase Kent’s downtown
as an area attraction.
Key
Connection
134
39
East Hill North
East Hill North largely comprises the Panther Lake Annexation Area and is Kent’s most densely
populated residential area. This region is also the City’s most underserved park region under both the
old acres-per-thousand-residents Level of Service (LOS) and the new performance-based LOS. There
are fewer existing parks in this region than in the rest of Kent, and because of this, it is necessary to add
Recreational Value in this region both by redeveloping existing parks and building new ones.
Huse Park Development
Create a new Tier 6 Park to serve Panther Lake that includes a trailhead for the Soos Creek Trail.
Improve the connection to Lake Meridian Park.
North Meridian Park Renovation/Expansion
Improve the park from Tier 1 to Tier 5.
Park Orchard Park Renovation
Improve the park from Tier 1 to Tier 3.
Garrison Creek Renovation
Revitalize/reimagine closed amenities.
Develop connections to 248th Street corridor
Panther Lake Park Development
Create a new Tier 4 park that includes public access to Panther Lake.
Kent Mountain Bike Park
Work with partners to create a new Tier 3 specialty park that would be the first mountain bike park in
Kent.
135
40
East Hill South
The south half of East Hill is a well-established residential area. Lake Meridian Park is currently Kent’s
only Tier 5 park, and the City will soon begin the second phase of a multi-phase renovation to ensure it
remains so. By contrast, Springwood Park is a "diamond in the rough," currently vastly
underperforming as a Tier 2 park, with the potential of becoming Tier 5.
Lake Meridian Park Renovations
Complete phased renovations begun in 2011.
Take care of our highest rated and most popular park.
Create connections to Soos Creek Trail*
Improve connection between Lake Meridian and Soos Creek Trail.
*Soos Creek Trail is a King County property; improvements affecting the trail will need to be
coordinated with King County Parks.
Springwood Park Renovation
Transform the park from Tier 2 to Tier 5.
Develop 132nd Ave Park
Create a new Tier 4 Park.
Construct Service Club Loop Trail.
Create a perimeter walking trail.
Lake Meridian Park, Huse Property, and Soos Creek Trail Park Corridor
Lake Meridian Park is currently Kent’s most popular park. The Huse Property has the potential to
be developed into a top tier community park in the underserved Panther Lake region. These two
parks are located along King County’s Regional Soos Creek Trail. When improvements are
completed, Kent will have two top tier parks connected by a comfortable bike ride on the Soos
Creek Trail.
Key
Connection
136
41
Morrill Meadows Park Expansion – Improve Morrill Meadows Park and integrate it with the new YMCA
at the old East Hill Park site.
Protect/enhance Recreational Value of Morrill Meadows and East Hill Parks, including renovation of the
play area and reconfiguring the off-leash dog area.
Improve connections to the park from surrounding neighborhoods.
Construct new sports court(s).
Clark Lake Park Development- (Tier 2 to Tier 6)
Update and implement master plan/identify phasing opportunities.
Improve opportunities for connecting with nature (play, education, trails, and gatherings).
Connection to Other City Regions
Create a safe off-right-of-way connection between 248th, Campus Park, and Mill Creek Canyon.
Improve connection with North East Hill region through North Meridian Park.
Improve connection with South East Hill region through Springwood Park.
Wilson Playfields Expansion
Construct additional amenities to Wilson Playfields to expand recreational opportunities.
Mill Creek Canyon Trails
Create a pedestrian connection between downtown and East Hill on both sides of the canyon.
Create crossings to connect Scenic Hill and East Hill.
Restore the trail through the canyon.
South Mill Creek Park
Improve the gateway/trailhead to the upper canyon.
Clark Lake Park and the 248th Street Park Corridor
Public Works, Planning, and the Parks Department are collaborating on a new vision for 248th
Street. This project will provide a separated multi-modal trail along the right of way that will
allow safe and comfortable bike/pedestrian travel on this corridor that could eventually
connect to North East Hill, South East Hill and downtown regions. Improvements to Clark
Lake, Morrill Meadows and Wilson Playfields, and the development of the YMCA create
significant draws throughout the corridor that will highlight this area as a recreational
destination.
Key
Connection
137
42
Renovate the park to become a Tier 4 park.
Middle Mill Creek Park
Create a new Tier 4 park .
Construct a resting point at the halfway point up the canyon.
Connect Mill Creek Park to 277th Street Trail
Plan a future connection to 277th and beyond, to eventually connect Mill Creek to the Green River Trail.
Campus Park Renovation
Improve active and passive recreation opportunities.
Create a connection between 248th Street Corridor and Mill Creek.
Green River Corridor
The Green River corridor runs through the heart of Kent in the Green River Valley. It is Kent’s most
complete existing park corridor. Decades ago, City leaders laid out a vision for a network of parks along
both sides of the Green River that were to be connected by separated bike/pedestrian trails. Today this
vision (recently adapted into the Kent Valley Loop Trail system) is mostly complete and is a regional
draw for park users, bikers, runners, and walkers. Ensuring that the Green River Trail, Frager Road, and
the parks throughout the corridor are maintained and updated is critical for a key component of Kent’s
park system.
Complete the Kent Valley Loop Trail (KVLT) System
Complete the missing link of the Green River Trail between Foster Park and Central Ave.
Mill Creek Canyon Park Corridor
Nearly 40 years ago, Kent took a bold step by combining storm water infrastructure, a park, and
art to create Earthworks Park at the base of Mill Creek Canyon. This bold step was part of a vision
to transform Mill Creek Canyon into the jewel of Kent’s park system with trails, bridges, and other
recreational amenities throughout. It was an ambitious goal for what was at that time a small
city. After all these years Kent has grown into this vision and is ready for Mill Creek to meet its
enormous recreational potential. Doing so will make Mill Creek Canyon a Top Tier park, bringing
together downtown, Scenic Hill, and the East Hill.
Key
Connection
138
43
Complete the off-right-of-way portion of the Green River Trail between Veteran’s Drive and 212th.
Continue to add way-finding/interpretive signage and other trail enhancements.
Improve Frager Road for walking and biking.
Implement other recommendations from the approved KVLT Plan.
Maintain the Green River Trail and Frager Road
Improve trailheads and amenities in the parks along the loop system (Russell Woods, Riverview
property, Hogan Park, Boeing Rock, Old Fishing Hole).
Renovate deteriorating underpasses.
Create and implement a balanced vegetation maintenance strategy to preserve trail user safety and
quality of experience.
Broaden the recreational opportunities at the parks along the trail (3 Friends, Briscoe, Neely/Soames,
Foster, Boeing Rock, etc.).
Van Doren’s Park Relocation
Integrate park relocation with flood protection/habitat improvements.
Protect/enhance Van Doren’s Park’s Recreational Value.
Hogan Park at Russell Road Renovations
Convert the natural grass baseball field to multi-use synthetic field.
Add supporting recreational amenities that will make the park a dawn-to-dusk, year-round recreational
destination.
Riverview Park Development
Create a new Tier 5 park that serves as downtown’s Green River trailhead and southern anchor for the
Green River corridor parks.
PICTURE Master plan
Green River Levee and Habitat Improvement Work
The City is currently working on numerous flood protection and habitat projects up and down the
Green River Valley. Combining these projects with recreational improvements will increase
project efficiencies and help ensure that the Green River corridor remains a Top Tier component
of our park system, while enhancing salmon habitat and protecting the valley from flooding.
Key
Connection
139
44
West Hill
The West Hill is primarily residential with ribbons of commercial development along Pacific Highway
and portions of Military Road. It is bisected by Interstate 5. Long-range plans for development in the
Midway neighborhood will significantly increase the population of this region.
Lake Fenwick and West Fenwick Parks represent the greatest opportunities for improving Recreational
Value in this area. Together they form the bulk of an assemblage of approximately 180 acres of
parkland.
Connecting West Fenwick Park to the Green River Trail
Improve access to West Fenwick and Lake Fenwick Parks by providing a pedestrian connection from
the West Hill to the Green River Trail and Downtown Kent.
West Fenwick Park Renovation
Complete the park renovation begun in 2010.
Update the park to increase its Recreational Value.
Lake Fenwick Park Renovation
Complete deferred maintenance that has required closing portions of park.
Improve the park from Tier 2 to Tier 5.
Improve access, parking, picnic, seating, play, water access opportunities.
Glenn Nelson Park Renovation
Renovate the playground to add nature play elements.
Improve the park’s connections to the neighborhood.
West Hill Park Development
140
45
Create a new Tier 4 park.
Explore the possibility of creating a connection to the Green River Trail and West Fenwick Park.
Midway Link Light Rail Park Planning
Provide park and recreational opportunities for planned population center around new Link Light Rail
station at Midway.
Fenwick Park Corridor
Enhancing and providing formal connections between West Fenwick and Lake Fenwick Parks
will create a dynamic park corridor with numerous passive and active recreational
opportunities with trail access to the West Hill, Green River, and Downtown.
Key
Connection
141
46
6 FILLING OUR FUNDING BUCKET
Kent's park system currently has a maintenance backlog of over $60 million. This plan has provided
recommendations for addressing the backlog and laid out a vision for transforming a tired suburban
park system into a vibrant, urban system, organized, renovated and maintained according to
performance standards and expectations. The proposed approach is innovative and data-driven, with
the flexibility to respond to changing community priorities as the vision is implemented.
However, implementing the vision will require a substantial financial commitment and it will likely
require new revenues. This section discusses several options for funding parks capital needs.
Not all funding options are equal. Many municipal revenues come with restrictions that do not allow
their use for capital programs. Other potential revenue categories, such as private grants and
donations, tend to be smaller in scale and provide one-off opportunities that do not supply reliable
funding for ongoing concerns like public capital programs.
Another consideration in seeking funding is the comparison of the level of effort involved in obtaining
the resource with the size of the resource obtained. For example, it generally requires more staff time
to plan, organize and hold a volunteer event to install a small playground than it does to apply for and
administer a half million dollar state grant. Staffing levels are a necessary consideration when weighing
resource options.
WHAT IS A FUNDING BUCKET?
This chapter will organize revenue options according to size, reliability and efficiency of effort to obtain
compared to result. It will rely on the metaphor of a bucket and three types of materials: rocks, pebbles,
and sand.
The bucket is the size of the resource commitment, and the size of the bucket is the first decision the
community must make. It could decide to not address the parks capital need in its entirety. In such an
instance, it would then need to decide how to address assets and, potentially, entire parks that are
allowed to fail.
Below is a chart that shows different sized “buckets,” the amount of funding associated with them, and
the impact of the various levels of investment on the City’s Parks and Open Space Level of Service.
142
47
Level of Service at Different Funding Levels
Objective
Average
Annual
Investment
10 Year 20 Year 10 Year
Performance
20 Year
Performance
Current Level of Investment $1.0M $10M $20M 1.15 0.75
Maintain Current LOS $2.8M 28.8M $57.6M 1.63 1.63
Strategic Projects in 20 years $4.5M $45.5M $91.1M 2.04 2.44
Strategic Projects Plus 5 Rec
Value per year $6.1M $60.5M $120.9M 2.42 3.16
Strategic Projects in 10 years
then maintain* $9.1M $91.1M $122.7M 3.20 3.20
INVESTMENT RETURN/OUTCOME
Note: Current LOS is 1.63
*Annual Cost for just the first 10 years, $3,165,000 for the second 10 Years
The bucket stands for the parks capital need that the community decides is a priority to address. The
types of materials stand for the categories of funding options to address the prioritized need. Imagine
you can fill your bucket, one piece at a time, with rocks, pebbles and/or sand. You can mostly fill the
bucket quickly with a few rocks. However, rocks alone leave many voids, and your goal is to fill the
bucket as completely as you can. Those voids are best filled with a combination of pebbles and sand.
You can also try to fill your bucket using only pebbles, but this will take a greater effort, as you have to
gather a great number of pebbles to fill the bucket. Trying to fill the bucket with only sand, one grain at
a time, amounts to a monumental challenge.
The below list of rocks, pebbles and sand is not an exhaustive list, but notes the primary types of
opportunities for filling Kent’s funding bucket.
Funding Sources: ROCKS
Rocks are generally the largest and most reliable funding sources. Without rocks, a capital plan
becomes more of an exercise in wishful thinking. There are a few large sources of municipal
revenue that are allowed to be used on parks capital projects. They include:
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
143
48
Real estate excise taxes are the sales taxes collected when real properties are sold. The state allows
the city to collect 0.5 percent of the sales price to be used for various purposes. Currently, the City
allocates half of its REET funds to parks capital. The other half goes to debt payment and streets.
Voter Approved Bonds/Levies
These are funding sources that must be approved by a public vote. If approved, bonds may be sold
immediately, and are paid back over a period of several years. Bonds need a 60 percent majority to
pass.
Levies differ from bonds in that, if they are approved, the taxes are collected and spent as they
accumulate. There is no municipal debt involved. Levies require a simple majority to pass.
Non-Voter-Approved Bonds
Councilmanic bonds and revenue bonds may be issued by the city without voter approval. They
must be approved by the City Council. Repayment of these bonds is from existing city revenues or
income generated by an enterprise activity.
Parks and Recreation District
The state allows citizens to vote to create parks districts that are public entities entirely separate
from the governmental jurisdictions in which they sit. The boundary of a district is proposed in the
vote. It can be different from a city's boundary, as is the case of the Metro Parks District of Tacoma,
or can operate with the same boundary as the city, as done in Seattle. The parks district would be
empowered to raise funds through bonds for park and facility maintenance, improvement and
operation. A Parks and Recreation District may be funded solely by the funds it raises, as is the case
for the Metro Parks District of Tacoma, or they may also rely on city funding, as Seattle’s Park
District does.
Business and Occupation Tax
Kent currently imposes a Business and Occupation tax. Proceeds from the tax have been directed
to other City priorities. However, the City Council is empowered to use the proceeds, as some other
cities do, for parks capital purposes. This could be achieved either by redirecting the current
proceeds or increasing the revenues from this source.
Utility Tax
Kent provides water and sewer services to portions of the city. Other portions receive their services
from other providers. The City charges utility taxes to its water and sewer customers and uses the
revenues in a variety of ways. However, those revenues are not currently allocated for parks capital
maintenance.
144
49
Funding Sources: PEBBLES
Pebbles can range from moderate gifts (most often from service clubs or corporations) to sizeable
state grants. Pebbles can help fill in large gaps, so it is smart to pursue them aggressively. However,
pebbles are also unpredictable and sporadic, which makes it imprudent to rely on them as a primary
source for filling the funding bucket.
Public Grants
The largest source of grant funding comes from Washington State Recreation and Conservation
Office (RCO). The RCO administers a number of funding programs, each with their own schedules,
requirements and maximum award amounts. Every program for which the City is eligible to apply is
highly competitive and most require fund matching. Further, while RCO grants can be quite
sizeable, grant cycles are every other year, and jurisdictions can go several years between
successful grant applications.
Kent regularly receives grants from King County, usually for youth-sports-related projects. These
grants are moderately sized and work well to help fill gaps in individual project budgets.
Kent actively pursues other grant opportunities; however, most grants for which the City’s parks
capital projects are eligible are relatively small (well under $50,000,) and are frequently one-time
opportunities.
King County Conservation Futures Tax
These funds are from a dedicated portion of King County’s property tax and are used only for
property acquisition. The King County Council approves funding for projects submitted by cities
and the County.
Impact Fees
Impact fees are assessed on new developments to compensate the City for the additional strains
put on government services by new residents. These fees are required to be used only for expansion
or improvements to the system and specifically cannot be used for maintenance of existing
features. The City currently does not collect park impact fees.
Developer Mitigation Fees
Single family developments over a certain number of units are required to provide local recreation
amenities to their buyers. Some developments, generally those under the threshold, are allowed to
pay the city in lieu of creating their own spaces. These fees are based on the value of the pre-
developed property. As land available for development decreases, this source of revenue will
diminish.
145
50
City Property Divestiture
Selling, renting, or trading parcels of land that the City owns but does not use for park purposes
could be a method to finance acquisition and/or development of better suited sites. Other property
acquisition techniques, such as life estates and conservation easements, can also be used.
Funding Sources: SAND
Sand is primarily useful for filling in remaining gaps not addressed by rocks and pebbles. Since
every source in this funding bucket must be pursued, managed and administered individually,
trying to fill an entire bucket of any substantive size, one grain at a time, would be futile.
Private Donations and Grants
Private businesses and individuals can and do donate funds for park uses. The Parks Department
has received funds from a number of local businesses and individuals, sometimes for specific
projects or programs, other times with no earmark attached. These donations typically range from
a few dollars to a few thousand dollars.
Volunteers
Kent receives hundreds of hours a year of volunteer services. The services that Parks receives are
typically in the form of unskilled labor and used primarily for stewarding the City's natural spaces as
part of the Green Kent stewardship program.
The City has also participated in a national program that emphasizes the use of volunteers to build
playgrounds. Kent has competed for these very competitive grants, and won two of them in the
past five years. These grant/volunteer combination efforts have allowed the City to build new
playgrounds in two neighborhood parks.
Partnerships
The City partners with the Kent School District, other jurisdictions, and businesses on a number of
projects and programs. The City is currently working with the YMCA to establish a partnership for a
community center located in a park. This is a relatively rare occasion, with the majority of our
partnerships occurring on a much smaller scale.
Sponsorship/Naming Rights
Many cities around the state and the nation have established policies regarding the appropriate use
of sponsorships and naming rights. While this is an option, substantive funding is usually associated
with large regional, state, or national exposure. It is not uncommon for local organizations or
146
51
businesses to provide sponsorships for local facilities; but such funding is usually very limited in
both size and duration.
-----------------------------------------------------
147
52
7 Parks Goals and Policies
The following goals and policies lay out priorities related to the continuing development and
stewardship of the City's park and open space system over the coming years.
Overall Goal: Encourage and provide local public opportunities for physical activity, connecting to
nature, community engagement, and life-enrichment through the strategic development and
thoughtful stewardship of park land and recreational facilities, professional programming, preservation
of natural areas, and the optimum utilization of available community resources.
I. Park & Recreation Facilities Goals & Policies
Maintain and steward a high-quality park and recreation system designed to appeal to a diverse range
of abilities, ages and interests.
Goal P&OS-1:
Promote the provision of quality recreational opportunities throughout the city.
Policy P&OS-1.1: Work with other departments to encourage new single-family and multifamily
residential, and commercial developments to provide recreation elements.
Policy P&OS-1.2: When acquiring, planning, developing or redeveloping park properties, recognize
that the different areas of the City have different recreational needs (e.g., the parks needs for the
downtown area are different from those on, say, East Hill) and establish a protocol for incorporating
consideration of those different needs into the various decision-making processes.
Policy P&OS-1.3: Where appropriate, initiate with other private and public interests joint development
ventures that meet recreational needs and achieve City of Kent strategic goals.
Goal P&OS-2:
Develop, maintain, and operate a high-quality system of indoor facilities designed to appeal to a
diverse range of abilities, ages and interests.
Policy P&OS-2.1: Manage existing multiple-use indoor community centers that provide indoor
recreational and gathering opportunities for a wide range of ages, abilities and interests on a year-
round basis.
Policy P&OS-2.2: Continue to seek strategic partnerships with other public and private agencies to
provide indoor recreational opportunities, particularly in underserved areas of the city.
148
53
Goal P&OS-3:
Where appropriate, possibly in conjunction with other public and/or private organizations, develop and
operate specialized park and recreational enterprises that meet the interest of populations who are
able and willing to finance, maintain, and/or operate them.
Policy P&OS-3.1: Where appropriate and economically feasible (i.e., self-supporting), develop and
operate specialized and special interest recreational facilities like golf, ice skating, disc golf, mountain
biking and off-leash parks.
Goal P&OS-4:
Further develop the performance-based approach to stewarding park and recreation facilities as
outlined in the 2016 Parks and Open Space Plan.
Policy P&OS-4.1: Prior to acquiring and/or developing a potential park or recreational facility, carefully
evaluate its potential contribution to the system, and only proceed if the potential investment is
considered to be complementary to the system and can contribute to the system's overall
performance.
Policy P&OS-4.2: Prior to renovating a park asset or redeveloping a park, carefully evaluate its current
and potential contribution to the system, and only proceed if the potential investment is considered to
be complementary to the system and can contribute to the system's overall performance.
Policy P&OS-4.3: Periodically evaluate the entire system in terms of each park's and facility's
performance. Consider recommending the repurposing of any asset or property whose current and
potential recreational value is not expected to contribute to the system's overall performance.
Goal P&OS-5:
Despite having multiple water bodies in its jurisdiction, the City has limited public water access. Work
with other public and private entities to preserve and increase waterfront access and facilities.
Policy P&OS-5.1: Work with other public and private agencies to acquire, develop and preserve
additional shoreline access for waterfront fishing, wading, swimming, scenic viewing and other related
recreational activities and pursuits, especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake
Meridian, and Panther Lake.
Policy P&OS-5.2:
For any public or private waterfront projects, work with the property owner or project representative to
find ways to include public access, including access to scenic views of the water.
149
54
II. Open Space Goals & Policies
The City of Kent contains significant public open spaces and greenways. Through careful and
thoughtful stewardship of these properties, the City can improve urban habitat and pedestrian
connectivity and increase the public's appreciation and understanding of the importance of these
spaces in the urban setting.
Goal P&OS-6:
Thoughtfully and strategically acquire and manage public open space to improve wildlife habitat and
other environmental benefits as well as non-motorized connectivity.
Policy P&OS-6.1: Seek to improve greenway corridors within the Kent area.
Policy P&OS-6.2: Increase linkages of trails and other existing or planned connections with greenways
and open space, particularly along the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek
corridors; around Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, and Lake Youngs; and
around significant wetland and floodways such as the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA).
Goal P&OS-7:
Continue to develop an urban forestry management program that balances environmental benefits
with recreation and public safety priorities.
Policy P&OS–7.1 Connect people to nature and improve the quality of life in Kent by restoring and
enhancing the urban ecosystem.
Policy P&OS-7.2 Galvanize the community around urban ecosystem restoration and stewardship
through a volunteer restoration program.
III. Trail and Corridor System Goals & Policies
Develop a high-quality system of multipurpose park trails and corridors that create important linkages
and/or provide access to desirable destinations, including significant environmental features, public
facilities, developed neighborhoods, employment centers, and commercial areas.
Goal P&OS-8:
Continue to work with other departments and agencies to develop and improve a comprehensive
system of multi-purpose off-road and on-road trails that link park and recreational resources with
residential areas, public facilities, commercial, and employment centers both within Kent and within
the region.
150
55
Policy P&OS-8.1: Seek opportunities to develop trail "missing links" along using alignments of the
Puget Power rights-of-way, Soos Creek Trail, Mill Creek Trail, Lake Fenwick Trail, Green River Trail,
Frager Road, and the Interurban Trail.
Policy P&OS-8.2: Work with other City departments to create a comprehensive system of on-road
trails to improve connectivity for the bicycle commuter, recreational, and touring enthusiasts using
scenic, collector, and local road rights-of-way and alignments. Special emphasis should be placed on
increasing east-west connectivity.
Policy P&OS-8.3: Work with neighboring cities, King County, and other appropriate jurisdictions to
connect Kent trails to other community and regional trail facilities like the Green River, Interurban,
Frager Road, and Soos Creek Trails
Policy P&OS-8.4: Extend trails through natural area corridors like the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison
Creek, and Soos Creek, and around natural features like Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian and
Panther Lake in order to provide a high-quality, diverse public access to Kent's environmental
resources.
Goal P&OS-9:
Furnish trail corridors, trailheads, and other supporting sites with amenities to improve comfort, safety
and overall user experience.
Policy P&OS-9.1: Improve accessibility to trails by siting trailheads and appropriate improvements in
high-visibility locations.
Policy P&OS-9.2: Design and develop trail improvements that are easy to maintain and easy to access
by maintenance, security, and other appropriate personnel, equipment, and vehicles.
IV. Historic and Cultural Resources Goals & Policies
Through sensitive design, preservation and interpretation, the park system can help educate the public
regarding Kent's rich cultural and historical legacy.
Goal P&OS-10:
Preserve, enhance, and incorporate historic and cultural resources and multicultural interests into the
park and recreational system.
Policy P&OS-10.1: Identify and incorporate significant historic and cultural resource lands, sites,
artifacts, and facilities into the park system, when feasible.
151
56
Policy P&OS-10.2: Work with the Kent Historical Society and other cultural resource groups to
incorporate community activities at and interpretation of historic homes and sites into the parks and
recreation system.
V. Cultural Arts Programs and Resources Goals & Policies
Develop high-quality, diversified cultural arts facilities and programs that increase community
awareness, attendance, and other opportunities for participation.
Goal P&OS-11:
Work with the arts community to utilize local resources and talents to increase public access to artwork
and programs.
Policy P&OS-11.1: Support successful collaborations among the Arts Commission, business
community, service groups, cultural organizations, schools, arts patrons, and artists to utilize artistic
resources and talents to the optimum degree possible.
Policy P&OS-11.2: Develop strategies that will support and assist local artists and art organizations.
Where appropriate, develop and support policies and programs that encourage or provide incentives to
attract and retain artists and artwork within the Kent community.
Goal P&OS-12:
Acquire and display public artwork to furnish public facilities and other areas and thereby increase
public access and appreciation.
Policy P&OS-12.1: Acquire public artwork including paintings, sculptures, exhibits, and other media for
indoor and outdoor display in order to expand access by residents and to furnish public places in an
appropriate manner.
Policy P&OS-12.2: Develop strategies that will support capital and operations funding for public
artwork within parks and facilities.
VII. Facility Design Goals & Policies
Design and develop facilities that are welcoming to Kent's diverse community, are attractive, safe and
easy to maintain, with life-cycle features that account for long-term costs and benefits.
Goal P&OS-13:
152
57
Design park and recreational indoor and outdoor facilities to be accessible to a wide range of physical
capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests.
Policy P&OS-13.1: Look for opportunities to incorporate the principles of inclusive design in any new
construction.
Policy P&OS-13.2: When designing new recreational facilities, reach out to the public to learn their
priorities, needs and desires for the improvements; and use public input to inform the design.
Goal P&OS-14:
Design and develop park and recreational facilities to be of low-maintenance materials.
Policy P&OS-14.1: Design and develop facilities that are of low-maintenance and high-quality
materials to reduce overall facility maintenance and operation requirements and costs.
Policy P&OS-14.2: Incorporate maintenance considerations early in the process in all designs for parks
and recreational facilities.
Goal P&OS-15:
Design for a safe and welcoming park environment.
Policy P&OS-15.1: Using the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) and other
design and development standards and practices, seek opportunities to improve park safety and
security features for users, department personnel, and the public at large.
VIII. Fiscal Coordination Goals & Policies
Adhere to cost-effective, sustainable, and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, renovating,
operating, and maintaining facilities and programs that provide high quality and relevant recreational
benefits to the public. Provide recommendations for long-term financial sustainability to help ensure an
enduring, vibrant and viable park and recreation system.
Goal P&OS-16:
Investigate proven and practical methods of financing park and recreational requirements, including
joint ventures with other public agencies and private organizations, and private donations.
Policy P&OS-16.1: Investigate various public financing options that may contribute to a long-term,
sustainable approach to finance a vibrant, relevant, safe and attractive park and recreation system.
153
58
Policy P&OS-16.2: Where feasible and desirable, consider joint ventures with King County, Kent,
Highline, and Federal Way School Districts, regional, state, federal, and other public agencies and
private organizations to acquire, develop and manage recreational facilities (i.e., swimming pool, off-
leash park, etc.).
Policy P&OS-16.3: Maintain and work with foundations and non-profits to investigate grants and
solicit donations to provide secondary support for facility development, acquisition, maintenance,
programs, services, and operating needs.
154
59
8 CONCLUSION
Kent’s park system is at a crossroads. Years of underfunding capital maintenance has resulted in a
backlog of over $60 million. Restroom buildings are leaking, asphalt trails are cracking, play equipment
has been removed because replacement parts are no longer available. The boardwalk at Lake Fenwick
has closed because, even with years of repairs, it's simply at the end of its useful life.
The City has mostly kept up with routine maintenance,such as emptying trash or mowing grass. For
anyone not taking a close look at the system, the system looks okay. Upon closer inspection, however,
the wear on park amenities all over the City is evident.
People are beginning to notice the decline. In the informal survey taken in the summer of 2015, a
number of survey respondents who used the park system during thepast year expressed some level of
concern over the condition of the parks they used. However, at the same time the comments reflected
an assumption that the rest of the system was in better shape.
While the park system has been in decline, the City has been growing. More residents means more park
users. The increased number of residents, along with the fact that the City has not built any new parks
since 2010, has lowered the City’s Level of Service (LOS) for parks.
Using the historic approach to LOS means that no matter how much money Kent puts toward repairing
decaying park amenities, its LOS will continue to decline. Alternatively, if Kent were only concerned
with maintaining its LOS, it could continue to purchase additional properties, even if it couldn’t afford
to develop them.
This plan offers a new approach to LOS, which can be summed up in the phrase “making better use of
what we have.” It recognizes that some parks contain recreational amenities that continue to provide
valuable and popular recreational opportunities and simply need repair or replacement in kind. Other
parks are underused and need significant updating in order to better address current resident needs
and recreational trends. Finally, there are a few greatly underserved areas in the City that need new
parks created to bring their LOS up to match those in other areas of the City.
This performance-based LOS approach acknowledges and reflects in its measurements all of the
improvements made to the parks. If the community pursues the plan’s recommendations for
reinvesting in Kent’s park system, the resulting improvements will show up in future LOS calculations.
Even more important, this plan lays out a vision for updating the park system to make it more
responsive and relevant to an urbanizing community. The vision provides an efficient approach to
increasing the Recreational Value of the park system and includes a list of specific park improvement
recommendations to ensure that public dollars are invested with predictable increases in the system’s
Recreational Value to the community.
155
60
This plan lays out a strategic vision for effectively addressing the challenges facing Kent’s park system.
It provides a range of options for achieving parts or all of the vision, and it creates tools for holding the
City accountable for how it implements the options selected by the community.
The story doesn’t end with this plan. We place this tool in the hands of the community, in the belief that
they will use the plan to help it make the decisions that best reflect their values and priorities.
156
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 1
Chapter Five - PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
Purpose
Although the Parks and Recreation Element is a newer requirement required
under the Growth Management Act, Kent has long maintained a park and
open space element, because park and recreational opportunities are viewed
as an integral part of the City and essential to the quality of life for its
residents.
The Parks and Recreation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is
intended as an overview of the City’s planning efforts related to the provision
of parks and recreation facilities. It, combined with the other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, describes the City’s goals and priorities in a general
way.
The Comprehensive Plan is a useful and mandated city planning document; it
is supplemented by a number of other city planning efforts, including the
Park and Open Space Plan (P&OS Plan). The P&OS Plan fleshes out the basic
policies covered in this Parks and Recreation Element, as it can go into far
greater detail. It is also updated on a different schedule than the
Comprehensive Plan. The last P&OS Plan update was adopted in 2016.0 and
preparations are underway to begin the next P&OS Plan update which is
scheduled to be completed in 2016. As that update will be adopted after this
Comprehensive Plan update, this Element will look back to the prior update
to inform it. At the same time, this Element will look forward at some of the
What you will find in this chapter:
A description of how and why parks and recreation facilities are
planned;
A discussion of existing conditions and trends impacting parks and
recreation services;
A discussion of current and proposed approaches to measuring Levels
of Service; and
Goals and policies related to the provision of parks and recreation
facilities.
Purpose Statement:
Practice responsible stewardship of parks, significant open spaces,
recreational facilities and corridors to provide active and passive recreational
opportunities for all persons in the community.
157
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 2
policy shifts that began in the prior P&OS Plan and are expected to see
further development in the next Plan update.
Issues
Decreasing Resources
For reasons discussed in detail elsewhere in
this Plan, the City continues to face revenue
shortfalls. These shortfalls have hit parks
capital funds hard, exacerbating a capital
maintenance backlog that had begun long
before the 2008 recession.
Aging Infrastructure
Each category of park asset has a typical
expected lifetime, along with its own typical
amount of routine maintenance and typical
amount of capital maintenance. The latest
park amenity inventory indicated that 71
percent of Kent’s parks have at least one
amenity that is near or at the end of its
useful life. That translates to a capital
maintenance backlog of over $60 million.
Changing Demographics
Kent’s population is growing and changing.
The park system needs to respond to those
changes in order to remain relevant to its
community. has an increasing population of
foreign-born residents, including a sizeable
population who does not speak English. In
addition, the numbers show that our
population is getting older.
Change In FocusRecreational Trends
Recreational trends have changed and
continue to change. As the City focuses on
renovation of its existing facilities, they need
to respond better to changes in recreational
trends in order to remain relevant to the
community.
Change In Focus
With the City's lower revenues, the fact that
a percentage of that revenue is going toward
debt retirement and the aging park
158
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 3
infrastructure, the primary focus for the Parks
capital program has been on redevelopment,
or, what we're calling "making better use of
what we have."
Parks Planning In Kent
The Parks and Recreation Element works in concert with the Park and Open
Space (P&OS) Plan, which provides direction for the planning, acquisition,
development and renovation of parks, open space and recreational facilities.
The P&OS Plan was last updated in 20160, and is due to be updated again in
2016.
Since the lastprevious update of the P&OS Plan, fiscal realities for many local
governments have changed significantly. Kent has been no exception. While
we still aspire to a system that provides a high level of service to the
community, our current budget realities require an entirely new approach to
planning and maintaining our park system.
Built on great bones, Kent’s park system was forged through thoughtful
planning and community commitment. Over the past several years,
investment into the park system has waned, and many park amenities are
aging and in need of repair or replacement. During the economic recovery of
the last few years, the CityKent has managed to make a number of
improvements to its park system. TheseRecent projects include an expanded
playground at Lake Meridian Park (2011); new playground and park
improvements at Tudor Square Park (2012), Turnkey Park (2013) and Green
Tree Park (2014); planting improvements at Service Club Ballfields (2013);
and the replacement of synthetic turf at Wilson Sports Fields (2014), the
addition of exercise equipment to West Fenwick Park (2015) and trail
improvements at the Riverview property (2015). With considerable
assistance from grants, Tthe City has also managed to make some significant
strategic acquisitions: the Huse, Matinjussi and Van Dyke properties in the
Panther Lake area (2012); and continued assemblage at Clark Lake Park
(2013) and Morrill Meadows Park (2014).
All the property acquisitions and several of the park improvements were
funded either entirely or primarily through grants. The playground
improvements also benefitted from the use of in-house labor and
contributions made by volunteers.
The use of in-house labor, grants and volunteers can certainly help leverage
limited financial resources; but it’s simply not feasible to rely heavily on
159
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 4
these sources for the basic renovations and improvements needed to keep a
park system vibrant and relevant to its community.
The Role Of Parks And Open Space In The City
Parks and open space contribute to a healthy, livable city in multiple ways.
We know that people value parks and open space for the opportunity to walk
a dog, learn to ride a bike, play organized sports, explore a trail or engage in
a wide variety of other recreational activities. These activities lead to positive
health benefits by providing contact with nature, along with opportunities for
physical activity and social interaction. Well-designed and maintained parks
also contribute to the economic development of a community by providing
popular amenities that people look for when deciding where they want to live
and work. Healthy open space provides habitat, cleans the air, and absorbs
storm water run-off.
The City is not the only provider of recreational opportunities in Kent. There
are school playgrounds and sports fields, private gyms, and other
recreational sites owned by other organizations. All these facilities are valued
components of Kent's recreational "menu," and they all have important roles
to play in the community. They’re largely not discussed in this document,
because the City has no authority to plan, manage or improve those sites.
However, the City’s Parks Department does work with outside departments
and agencies on joint efforts and will continue to pursue such opportunities
when they’re consistent with Council goals and direction.
Relationship to Other Plans
Recreation and Conservation Funding Board's Manual 2
The Recreation and Conservation Funding Board, or RCO, is a state agency
tasked with distributing a number of state and federal grant funds. These
grant funds are dedicated to the acquisition, development and
redevelopment of recreational facilities across Washington State.
Eligibility for these funds is based, in part, on having a state-approved Parks
Comprehensive Plan, which must be updated every six years. Kent's 2010
Parks and Open Space Plan, last updated in 2010, met the state's
requirement and, as a result, qualified Kent to receive the $1,809,959 it has
received in RCO funding since 2010. As has been mentioned, the city is
preparing to embark on the next update, scheduled to be adopted in 2016.
The 2016 update sets up the City for the next cycles of RCO funding
opportunities.
160
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 5
Because the P&OS Plan is related to the Parks and Recreation Element of the
City's Comprehensive Plan, the RCO's grant requirements impact not only the
contents of the P&OS Plan but also those of the Parks and Recreation
Element.
Washington's 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
Washington’s State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, commonly
referred to as SCORP, provides a statewide look at recreation, with a focus
on recreation on public lands. It examines trends in recreation, identifies
current issues and sets recommendations for ways to improve outdoor
recreation in the state. It also sets the priorities for RCO funding. To receive
RCO funding, a project must be consistent with the goals laid out in SCORP.
Public Outreach
City staff, assisted by the newly formed Parks Commission, reached out to the
public over the summer of 2015 in a variety of ways, as they prepared the
update of the Park & Open Space Plan. Staff and Commissioners attended
several community events, and invited attendees to participate in an informal
survey about the park system. They handed out hundreds of reminder cards
with the web address of the on-line survey, in order to make taking the survey
as convenient as possible. The survey was framed around the question: "what
do parks do for you?" It asked participants how they use the parks and what
their priorities for their local parks are. A total of 225 people filled out the
survey.
A second, more formal, survey was mailed to randomly selected residents in
late summer. That survey was designed to provide statistically valid results,
and was done by a professional survey consulting firm. That survey received
603 responses. PICTURE of parks commission
The informal survey served as an initial parks plan-related conversation with
Kent residents that provided lots of opportunity for in-depth comments. It
contained a large number of open ended questions, and its online presence
helped people feel free to spend as much time on their answers as they
wanted. The formal survey that followed asked much more focused questions,
but had the advantage of being structured so that its results were statistically
valid. The combination of surveys provided a much broader array of input than
either one alone could have provided.
The surveys showed people generally feel good about the park system, tend to
use the park nearest where they live and are willingexpressed a willingness to
fund capital maintenance and park upgrades with tax dollars. HighlightsThe full
161
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 6
results of both of the surveys are included in the P&OS Plan, on the City’s
website and in the Park Planning and Development office in City Hall..
When the Park and Open Space Plan was last updated, its policies were
shaped, in part, from the responses the city received from its 2009 Park Plan
survey. The survey was widely advertised, was available online, and hard
copies were available at the city's facilities and neighborhood councils. The
outreach effort resulted in 631 responses. Some of the questions and answers
were included in the Plan. The entire survey results can be found online at the
city's website.
Likewise, during the next update, the city plans to have several conversations
with Kent residents to discuss priorities and resources. The analysis and
discussion provided briefly in this Element will be expanded upon in the P&OS
Plan. The capital goals laid out here will be updated annually as part of the
budget process.
Administration of the Parks Element and its Policies
Policy that guides the funding and operation of Kent’s park system is
administered by the Director of the Kent Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department. Policy direction is set by the three-member Parks
Committee of the Kent City Council. The City’s 16-member Parks Commission
advises the Council on most park- and recreation-related matters. The City's
12-member Arts Commission, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by
Council, advises the Council and approves public art and cultural
programming.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
Every large planning effort needs to consider its context. Part of doing so
involves analyzing and accounting for current and anticipated trends. This
effort is no exception. Significant trends in Kent, and their impact on parks
and recreational facility planning, include decreasing resources, aging
infrastructure and changing demographics.
162
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 7
Decreasing Resources
For reasons discussed in
detail elsewhere in this
Plan, tThe City continues
to face revenue
shortfalls. These
shortfalls have hit parks
capital funds hard,
exacerbating a capital
maintenance backlog
that had begun long
before the 2008
recession. During the
parks facilities
assessment work that
was last updated in
2012, the City’s parks
capital maintenance
backlog was determined
to be over $60 million. Based on a recent
update of the Park Asset Inventory, that
backlog has continuedIf current funding
trends continue, the backlog will continue
to grow. One of the larger questions to be
addressed in the upcoming2016 Park and&
Open Space Plan update will have to do
withis how to respond to this trend. Options
include identifying new sources of revenue,
partnering with other agencies and
organizations, and adjusting the size of the
park system, or a combination of both.
Aging Infrastructure
Kent's park system has a long and proud
history. Kent's first park, Rosebed Park, was
opened in 1906. Over 100 years later, our
system continues to receive good reviews,
locally and nationally. One indication of our
reputation is that we consistently attract
regional and national athletic tournaments
What's the difference between routine maintenance and capital
maintenance?
Most people are aware that many cities, including Kent, have
park maintenance employees on their staff. These employees
are generally responsible for:
Routine maintenance tasks, including such things as mowing
grass, cleaning restrooms and emptying trash.
Minor construction projects, such as making repairs to
plumbing and roofs and filling in potholes in parking lots, as
well as repairing sidewalkspathways and trails in the parks.
This work is considered routine maintenance and is funded
through the City's operations budget.
Larger projects, such as building a new restroom building,
repaving a park's parking lot or replacing worn-out athletic
fields' synthetic turf, are typically considered capital
maintenance projects, are contracted out to private
construction firms and are paid for through the Parks capital
budget.
163
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 8
because players enjoy playing on our well-
maintained grass fields.
That reputation is something of which we are proud. Unfortunately, not all of
our assets have aged as well as some of our grass fields. Even at our most
popular sports field sites, there are assets that are in desperate need of re-
investment. For example, at Kent Memorial Park, the restroom building is in
near-constant need of repair, be it from a leaky in the aged roof or problems
with the crumbling plumbing system. At Hogan Park (formerly Russell Road
Park), the parking lots have been patched so many times that it is getting
increasingly difficult to patch the patches.
Each category of park asset has a typical expected lifetime, along with its
own typical amount of routine maintenance and typical amount of capital
maintenance. The expected lifetime of a restroom building, and the amount
of maintenance required to keep it functioning, are entirely different from
that of, say, a playground, whose expected lifetime and maintenance are
different from that of a grass athletic field. What they all have in common is
the fact that they all have finite life expectancies, and they all require
continuing investments throughout the course of their lifetimes. Not
surprisingly, both routine and capital maintenance costs increase as assets
age, with older assets requiring more frequent maintenance than their newer
counterparts.
In 2012, Parks updated its undertook an aAsset Inventory, which assessed
analysis update to inventory and assess the condition of every park asset
valued over $1025,000. The analysis looked at 240 assets. The scores
ranged from 1 (nearing the end of its useful life) to 5 (functionally new).
Seventy-nine assets (32 percent of the total) were ranked 1 or 2. Sixty-three
percent of Kent's parks contained at least one asset ranked 1 or 2. The list
was updated again in 2015. It found that 96 assets (40 percent of the total)
were ranked 1 or 2, and 721 percent of parks have at least one asset ranked
1 or 2.
The analysis included a list of recommended projects to address the failing
assets in the park system. The 2012 analysis identified a capital maintenance
backlog ofestimate for the recommended work totaled over $60 million. From
2010 through 20132014, the City spent approximately $3.55.7 million on
parks capital projects. At thate current average rate of investment, it would
take 69 47 years to complete the projects on our list of assets waiting to be
repaired or replaced.
Changing Demographics
164
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 9
Kent’s population has changed significantly over
the past two decades, and continues to change.
At the time of the 2010last Parks and Open Space
Plan (P&OS Plan) update, the City's population
stood at 88,380. Shortly after the plan was
adopted, the City annexed the area known as
Panther Lake. The latest (2014) three-year
American Community Survey shows Kent’s
population at 121,400. Kent’s current (2015)
official Office of Financial Management population
is estimated to be 122,3900.
It's not just the number of residents that has changed. The City has become
increasingly racially and culturally diverse. In 2000, 71 percent of Kent’s
residents were white. The 2014most recent American Community Service
count put the percentage of white residents in Kent at 57.99.5 percent. In
2000, eight percent of Kent’s population was Hispanic. In 20140, that
percentage was 15.9jumped to 16.7 percent.
Kent has an increasing population of foreign-born residents, including a
sizeable population who do not speak English. The Kent School District's
website reports that their student population comes from families speaking
137 languages.
In addition, the numbers show that our population is getting older. In 2000,
7.4 percent of Kent’s population was over 65. The 2014 most recent data
show that population at 9.41 percent. These changes to Kent’s population
reflect the fact that the current City of Kent is not the same as the suburban
Kent that the park system was created to serve.
In addition to Kent’s increasing population and diversity, we know that
recreation trends are also changing. The Washington State Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan Executive Summary 2013-2018 observed that , “The
most notable increase in participation is for ‘picnicking, barbecuing, and
cooking out,” which went from the ninth-ranked activity in 2002 to the top-
ranked activity in 2012.” The plan documents a number of recreational
activities that have significantly increased or decreased in popularity over the
past several years.
The above changes will need to guide and inform the reinvestment effort, so
that the park system can be transformed in ways that will better suit our
changing circumstances.
165
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 10
These changes are expected to impact not only what our parks offer, but the
quality and type of access to our parks and the various amenities they offer.
The changing needs and priorities of Kent residents will require greater
flexibility than ever in planning new and renovated facilities that better suit
our changing citizenry.
Kent's changing demographics are also changingAs the community changes,
the City must make changes to how we engage the community in
conversations regarding their recreational needs and priorities. The old-style
"town hall" type of public meeting isn't as effective as it used to be. The City
continues to look at new and innovative ways to engage residents, in order
to get as broad a representation of thoughts and ideas as possible.
The next Park and Open Space Plan update will include an extensive public
outreach component, to determine where and how our parks are meeting the
needs and priorities of Kent residents, and how they can improve to continue
to provide relevant and vibrant recreational opportunities to the community.
Change in Focus
The City's last period of park facility expansion included the construction of
Service Club Ball Fields, Wilson Playfields, Arbor Heights 360 Park and Town
Square Plaza. Funds for these projects were provided by councilmanic bonds.
The City is still paying on these bonds, with the last of the bonds expected to
be paid off by 2024.
With the City's lower revenues, the fact that a percentage of that revenue is
going toward debt retirement and the aging park infrastructure, the primary
focus in the past several years for the Parks capital program has been on
redevelopment. This approach points to something more than just replacing
worn-out assets with identical ones, or, what we're calling "making better
use of what we have.". “Making better use of what we have” reflects the
shift to a performance-based focus that prioritizes getting more recreational
value out of our park spaces in every redevelopment project. That may mean
reconfiguring a worn-out parking lot in a high-use park with a more efficient
design that creates more spaces, or it may mean replacing an underused
sport court with a different kind of sport court that better addresses current
recreation trends. By making better use of what we have, the City can
provide more and better recreational opportunities for more users without
needing to construct a lot of additional parks. In the 2016 P&OS Plan,
additional parks are proposed only in neighborhoods where there are lower
concentrations of parks compared to other City neighborhoods.
The Three Legs of the Parks Capital Program “Stool”
166
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 11
Historically, parks departments all over the country have compared
their parks capital program to a three-legged stool, with the "legs"
consisting of acquisition, development and redevelopment. A parks
capital program is made up of three primary categories, including
acquisition, development and redevelopment. All three categories are
important, but a budget needs to find the right balance of investment
among the three categories that’s appropriate to the system’s needs
and the community’s priorities.
"Acquisition" is about obtaining new park land, and is most commonly
achieved through purchase of private property. "Development" refers
to the design and construction of new parks. "Redevelopment" can
include either the refurbishment or replacement of worn-out facilities
through capital maintenance or the reimagining of park amenities-- or
even entire parks-- based on changes in recreation trends and local
demographics.
The City of Kent has been acquiring and developing parks properties
for several decades. As previously mentioned, the City has seen many
changes over those decadesat time. Even without the City's current
financial pressures, the time is right for a prudent and community-
based look at the system to assess which properties are working well,
which properties could use having some of their current amenities
replaced in-kind and which properties need more creative re-
imagining.It has gotten well behind in its reinvestment into its system.
This park plan lays out a road map to reimagine the system so that it
will be well-positioned to serve the community with a primary focus on
redevelopment and a few strategic acquisitions and new parks.
When initiating this discussion, the city will make it clear that the
discussion isn't about raising funds. The discussion will be focused very
clearly on the park system, the community and what the community's
desires and priorities are for the future of the system are.
Park Inventory and Classification
The 2010 P&OS Plan update counted 1,434 acres of park and open space
land and 59 parks. The 2016 current inventory includes 8754 developed
parks and almost 861 acres of parksand atotal of 1,097 acres of developed
and undeveloped land. and trails.1094.68 acres (including 160.16 acres of
undeveloped properties) of land under our direct stewardship, and a system
of 53 developed parks. (Please see Figure P-1.)
Figure P-1
167
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 12
Parks and Recreation Facilities
The numbers appear to indicate that the system has shrunk, when the City
has actually added acres to the park property inventory. What’s the
explanation forHow to explain this seeming contradiction? There are four
factors that explain the differing numbers between 2010's count and today's.
a. The City has acquired 72.57 acres of new park land since 2010.
These were all strategic acquisitions that contributed to long-term
assemblages and system goals.
b. We have built no new parks since 2010. That park plan update
signaled a change in direction from system expansion to a focus on "taking
care of what we have."
c. During the facilities assessment process the parks department
undertook in 2012, the department took another look at how it defined
“park”. One result of this effort was that they broadened their park
categories list. In addition to neighborhood and community parks and open
space properties, they acknowledged that there are a number of special-use
parks that don't really provide the traditional functions fulfilled by
neighborhood and community parks. Some parks that provide specialized
uses, such as skate parks, were reclassified as special use parks. Properties
utilized primarily by sports groups, like Wilson Playfields, were classified as
Recreational Facility - Outdoor. In addition to revising park categories, the
CityDepartment de-listed a handful of properties that, according to any
objective measure, didn't function as parks and had little potential for ever
serving that role well.
d. An administrative decision was made to discontinue counting the
310 acre Green River Natural Resources Area as a park. Because its primary
function is to capture and detain storm water, which makes large portions of
the property inaccessible to the public, and because it is stewarded by the
City's Public Works department, it was felt that it distorted any discussion on
parks acreage in Kent by including a property whose recreational functions
are secondary to its public works functions. Reclassifying the GRNRA doesn't
take away the enjoyment people have when they use the property for
recreation, but it does better reflect the collection of properties stewarded by
the City for the primary purpose of recreation.
The ultimate result is that while the park system has seen minor growth in
acreage since 2010, the numbers don't reflect the growth, nor do the
168
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 13
numbers explain the performance-based approach to park planning that is
consistent with fiscal realities.
Table P.1
Parks and Facilities by the Numbers: 1993- 2015
1993 2003 2015
Population 41,000 84,275 122,300
Park property
(total acres all
categories)
849.5 1346.63 1094.68
Golf Course
(holes per 1000)
0.66 0.32 0.22
Indoor Recreation
Facilities
(sq. ft./person)
2.33 1.13 1.16
Our System by Category
Following is a list of the various categories of parks and properties stewarded
by the Kent park system, and an explanation of the role they serve in that
system. The list includes the number of properties in each category.
Neighborhood Parks
Kent has twenty five neighborhood parks. These tend to be small, intimate
parks, tucked into residential neighborhoods. They're typically accessed on
foot or by bike. They include amenities that tend to cause them to be natural
gathering places for the neighborhoods they serve, but they're not intended
to be destinations that attract use from outside of their neighborhood.
Community Parks
Kent has ten community parks. These parks are typically larger than
neighborhood parks, and contain amenities that attract a larger use area. For
that reason, parking lots are typically found in these parks. As larger
gathering spaces, they are often used for community-wide special events like
concerts or movies.
Special Use Parks
Not all parks fit into neat categories. Some parks are the size of
neighborhood parks, but they cater to a specialized audience. Arbor Heights
169
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 14
360 is such a park. With its primary features being a skate park and a
climbing wall, it draws a very active, usually young adult, audience seeking a
very specialized recreational experience.
Other examples of special use parks include several downtown "pocket
parks." These parks are not in a residential neighborhood; therefore, they
don't have a residential constituency. They are typically activated during
weekdays by business people seeking a short break from work.
Kent has nine special use parks.
Natural Resources
While Kent is known for its industrial and warehouse resources, the city also
benefits from a large amount of protected open space, both in the form of
publicly owned lands and critical areas protected by regulation. The Green
River, which runs south to north through the valley, is protected through its
designation as waters of the state. Other shoreline areas include Lake
Meridian, Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural Resources Area,
Springbrook Creek, portions of Soos Creek, and the Mill Creek Auburn
Floodway.
Recreational Facilities
Kent has a number of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. These are
spaces that are heavily programmed. As a result, they tend to have a low
incidence of use outside of their programmed use.
Kent's outdoor recreational facilities include Wilson Playfields, Hogan Park at
Russell Road, Service Club Ball Fields, and Kent Memorial Park. Indoor
facilities include the Kent Valley Ice Centre, the Nealy-Soames Historic
Home, the Kent Historical Society Museum, the Kent Commons, the Kent-
Meridian Pool, and the Senior Activity Center.
Since the 2010 Park Plan update, our Resource Center was closed and the
property was removed from the city's inventory.
Undeveloped Park Land
As noted above, over the years Kent has obtained a number of properties it
has not yet developed as parks. Since this acreage is intended for eventual
use, it is included as park property; still, the properties have few to no
facilities, and so recreational use at these sites is not supported by our
limited maintenance resources. Kent owns 148.27 acres of undeveloped
park land.
Other Facilities
170
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 15
In addition to parks and open space, the city's parks system includes a golf
complex, and a community pea patch (on property owned by others).
The 167-acre golf complex includes an 18-hole course, a par 3 course, a
driving range and a mini-putt course.
There are also over 28 miles of off-right-of-way trails in the city.
The next update to the P&OS Plan will include a broader discussion of the
city's indoor recreation facilities than in the last update. It will be based on a
planned dialogue with the community to determine the community's
satisfaction with the current level of service as well as their desires and
priorities for changes to the level of service.
The upcoming P&OS Plan update will include a detailed list of Kent’s parks,
open space and recreational properties.
A Call To Action
Our system is seeing remarkable challenges to its continued viability. The
challenges come from a variety of sources, primarily the growth of our
community and years of reduced resources. The park system is aging and
while improvements are being made, they are modest when compared to the
needs of the system. A backlog of work needed to replace dilapidated park
features dwarfs the resources available to do the work. PICTURE of bad
park asset
Meeting the community’s park and recreation needs now and into the future
requires a call to action.
Using the City Council’s vision as its starting point, the 2016 P&OS Plan lays
out a number of park-system-specific goals to help implement the Council’s
vision.
The four primary goals of the Plan include:
Quality Public Spaces: Provide a high quality park system that promotes Kent
as a livable city.
Sustainable Funding: Implement a funding model that adequately funds the
community’s desired Level of Service.supports a Level of Service that reflects
the community’s priorities.
Performance-Based Approach: Plan and maintain the system in
accordancewith the help of a with a performance-based set of assessment
tools.
Transformation Through Reinvestment: Reinvest in the existing system to
successfully transform it into a vibrant and relevant urban park system.
171
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 16
Park Performance Tiers
This plan acknowledges the traditional approach to categorizing parks, and
continues using it. Categorizing parks in terms of their roles—neighborhood
park, community park, athletic facility, etc.—is a useful tool, because of its
established use.
The 2016 P&OS plan creates a new way to categorize parksanother level of
categorizing parks that better illustrates focuses on the functional
relationships between certain groups of parks, as well asand how well they
perform in their roles within the system. We’re calling this park
categorization Park Performance Tiers, based on each park’s Current and
Potential Recreational Value scores.
The Tiers in this performance-based ranking system are as follows:
Tier 6 – These parks will be the jewels of the Kent park system. They are
likely to be part of a Park corridor and have good bike/pedestrian
connectivity. Eight Kent parks have the Potential Recreational Value to earn
this ranking. No Kent parks currently have this ranking.
Recreational Value Range: 17 or above
Target Classifications: Community, Urban, Community/Natural
Resource, Community/Outdoor Rec Facility, Special Use
Current Parks in Tier 6: 0
Potential Parks in Tier 6: 810
Tier 5 – These are very high-performing parks, generally cCommunity parks
and Outdoor Rec Facilities such as athletic complexes (special use).fields.
Recreational Value Range: Greater than or equal to 12 and Less than
17
Target Classifications: Community, Community/Natural Resource,
Special Use, Outdoor Rec Facility
Current Parks in Tier 5: 1
Potential Parks in Tier 5: 110
Tier 4 – These are parks that are performing well and can include parks of
all of the classifications seen in Tier 5 and 6. This tier will also include some
high-performing nNeighborhood parks that fill service area gaps.
172
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 17
Recreational Value Range: Greater than or equal to 7 and Less than
12
Target Classifications: Neighborhood, Special Use, Urban, and smaller
Community Parks
Current Parks in Tier 4: 68
Potential Parks in Tier 4: 178
Tier 3– Tier 3 parks are well-functioning neighborhood parks or special use
parks like skate or bike parks.
Recreational Value Range: Greater than 4 and Less than 7
Target Classifications: Neighborhood, Special Use, Urban
Current Parks in Tier 3: 108
Potential Parks in Tier 3: 185
Tier 2 – Tier 2 parks are Supporting Parks,include small Tot Lots, Trailheads,
and Urban Parks. Lower-performing neighborhood parks also fall in this Tier.
Recreational Value Range: Greater than 2 or Less than or equal to 4
Target Classifications: Special Use such as Urban, or Pocket,
Neighborhood
Current Parks in Tier 2: 15
Potential Parks in Tier 2: 13
Tier 1 – Tier 1 parks are the system’s lowest-performing parks.
Recreational Value Range: 2 or Less
Target Classifications: Special Use such as Pocket or Open Space
Current Parks in Tier 1: 22
Potential Parks in Tier 1: 78
Because there is no practical reason to establish a performance cap on the
tier system, it does not include a cap. Currently Kent’s highest performing
park ranks as a Tier 5. The City has eight parks whose Potential Recreational
Value qualify themindicate their potential as Tier 6 parks. Depending on
long-range assemblage and redevelopment opportunities, some of Kent’s
173
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 18
parks could eventually achieve Tier 7 or 8 rankingssome of Kent’s parks
could eventually achieve even higher rankings.
Below is a comparison of Kent’s parks’ current performance tiers versus their
potential performance tiers.
Figure P-1
Current Performance Tiers versus Potential Performance Tiers
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6
Current 22 15 108 68 1 0
Potential 78 13 185 178 110 810
174
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 19
The graph above shows that the majority of Kent’s parks are greatly
underperforming and that, with additional investment, the existing park
system has the ability to provide significantly more Recreational Value to the
community.
Park Corridors
When looking at a map of the park system, it’s quickly evident that many of
the City’s parks are clustered around significant built or natural features.
Looking at ways these “park corridors” function as sub-units of the overall
system can help planners better identify more localized park needs, which
should assist in the allocation of scarce resources. Corridors are located
within one of five regions: Green River Park Corridor, Downtown Kent, East
Hill South, East Hill North and West Hill.
The 2016 P&OS Plan takes a closer look at each park corridor to identify the
greatest needs for reinvestment into the park system, and calls out the Top
Tier and Higher Tier parks of each corridor along with their Current and
Potential Recreational Values. (see Figure P-2) Specific actions are identified
as next steps to either maintain or increase the performance of the system.
Once completed, improvements to each park will achieve the goals of this
plan by providing:
Enhanced recreational opportunities,
Expanded community facilities,
Opportunities to improve health and wellness, and
Increased protection and enhancement of the environment.
Figure P-2
Park Corridors[c1]
Other Local Recreation Facilities
The city is not the only public provider of recreational facilities in and around
Kent. The Kent School District owns a number of playgrounds and play fields
on its various school properties. Some of these are available for general
public use when school is not in session. Other facilities, like their synthetic
turf sports fields, are not open to the general public, but do host
programmed activities, such as Kent recreation league games.
In addition, King County owns several recreational properties in the local
area. They have the primary maintenance responsibility for the Interurban
175
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 20
Trail (owned by Puget Sound Energy, but leased to the County), as well as
the Soos Creek Trail. They also own the northern portion of North Meridian
Park, which they maintain as open space.
In addition, the city's Public Works department owns a number of properties
that provide some recreational value (typically via the trails they maintain for
access but allow the public to utilize for recreation), although that is not their
primary use.
These properties provide some recreational opportunities to Kent residents,
but they are not included in Kent's Level of Service equations because the
Parks Department has no control over how they are programmed, managed
and maintained.
The City is not the only provider of recreational opportunities in Kent. There
are school playgrounds and sports fields, private gyms and other recreational
sites owned by other organizations. All these facilities are valued components
of Kent's recreational "menu," and they all have important roles to play in
the community. They’re largely not discussed in this document, because the
City has no authority to plan, manage or improve those sites. However, the
City’s Parks dDepartment does work with outside departments and agencies
on joint efforts and will continue to pursue such opportunities when they’re
consistent with City Council goals and direction.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
One of the jobs of a parks and open space plan is to set the City’s Level of
Service for their park system and provide recommendations for maintaining
or adjusting that Level of Service. This section will discuss a new approach to
that important measure.
“Level of Service”, or LOS, is a measure meant to describe to a community
how much of a particular service residents are getting for their tax dollars.
For example, the LOS for emergency services usually tells people how long
they can typically expect to wait for emergency responses to their calls to
911, or how long they will usually wait to get through a given intersection
during rush hour. LOS is also used to establish goals for that good or service,
according to the overall priorities and resources of the community.
Establishing a Level of Service for a park system can be a bit trickier. How
many parks are enough for a community? How many parks is the community
willing to support?
It’s been widely shown that parks and recreation facilities provide immense
value to a community. Organizations like the American Planning Association,
176
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 21
the Trust for Public Land and the Urban Institute tell us that neighborhoods
with well-used and well-maintained parks tend to have higher values and
lower crime rates than comparable neighborhoods without parks. The
Centers for Disease Control and the National Center for Biotechnology have
produced research demonstrating that parks have positive impacts on
physical and mental health. Again and again, surveys show that people
consider local parks an important public amenity.
But, how many parks are enough? Communities all over the country have
struggled and continue to struggle to answer that question.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
Determining a level of service for parks, recreation facilities and open space
for a community is challenged by the fact that there really isn’t a one-size-
fits-all approach to providing these community facilities.
Population
Kent's most recent update to our Parks and Open Space Plan was adopted in
2010. At the time of the update, Kent's population stood at 88,380 residents.
Since that plan, the Panther Lake annexation added five square miles and
approximately 24,000 residents to the city. Kent's current (2015) population
stands at about 122,300. The population is fairly evenly split between
genders, with 50.4 percent male and 49.6 percent female. Nearly 30 percent
of Kent’s residents are under the age of 20, and 51.4 percent are between
the ages of 20 and 54. The city’s median age is approximately 34 years old.
More detailed information on Kent’s population may be found in the Profile
and Vision chapter of this Plan.
Needs Analysis
The P&OS Plan's Needs Analysis detailed the challenges of establishing Levels
of Service for parks and recreation facilities. Other public services enjoy
straightforward metrics, such as response time for emergency services,
quantity of materials disposed of or processed for waste management
services, and intersection wait times for transportation.
We know that parks and recreation facilities provide immense value to a
community. We know that communities with good parks tend to be healthier
than communities with few or no parks. We know that neighborhoods with
well-used and well-maintained parks tend to have higher values and lower
crime rates than comparable neighborhoods without parks. Because these
benefits accrue over time, it's really difficult to track them back to specific
177
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 22
budget years. As a result, it's very difficult to provide metrics for the value
that parks and recreation facilities bring to their communities.
Communities all over the country have struggled and continue to struggle to
provide a quantifiable Level of Service for parks and recreation facilities. The
2010 P&OS Plan looked at the traditional means of measuring Levels of
Service (based on acres per thousand for different facilities) and traced the
decades-long trend of declining Levels of Service in Kent, based on that
approach. It also looked at Levels of Service on a neighborhood-by-
neighborhood basis. This approach identified 32 neighborhoods currently
served by parks, four neighborhoods with partially met needs and four with
no park space. Three additional neighborhoods in the at-that-time un-
annexed Panther Lake area were also park-deficient.
Below is a table illustrating how Kent's parks and open space Levels of
Service have changed over time.
Table P.2
Level of Service 1993- 2035
1993 2003 2015 2035
Population 41,000 84,275 122,300 138,156
Neighborhood
Parks
(acres/1000)
2.53 1.13 .59^ .52*
Community Parks
(acres/1000)
18.19 14.85 1.24^ 1.1*
Golf Course
(holes/1000)
0.66 0.32 0.22 .19*
Indoor Rec
Facilities
(sq. ft./person)
2.33 1.13 1.16 1.03*
Parks property
(total acres)
849.5 1346.63 1094.68 1094.68*
Natural Resource # # 3.71 3.28*
Overall LOS
(acres/1000)
20.72 15.98 8.95 7.92*
178
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 23
Overall LOS Dev.
Parks – incl. golf
course
(Ac./1000)
# # 3.82 3.38
^Some of this change is due to reclassification of parks. Please refer to Park Inventory and Classification
section for further information.
*This assumes no additional acquisition or new development.
#Figure not available.
Using the above approach to Levels of Service, Kent would need to develop
60.55 of its 160.16 acres of currently-undeveloped land by 2035 in order to
stem any further erosion to its developed parks Levels of Service for its
projected population of 138,156.
While the 2010 P&OS Plan update did not propose a new approach to Level of
Service, it recognized the need for one.
How Much Is Enough?
"Level of Service" is an attempt to provide a gauge for a particular public
good or service being provided to a community. It is also used to establish
goals for that good or service, according to the overall priorities and
resources of the community. For example, when a community sets a goal of
having emergency services respond to a call for help within a certain number
of minutes, that number is then used to inform city leaders how many
resources need to be allocated to emergency services in order to achieve the
response time goal.
Parks, recreation facilities and open space Levels of Service measures are
used in the same way. How many parks are enough for a community? How
many parks is the community willing to support? Those are difficult
questions, but given the ongoing revenue shortfall, they are very relevant
questions that will require extensive community discussion during the next
park plan update.
The chart below, from 2013, shows the developed park acreage for Kent and
some of its regional peer cities. Looking at what Kent is providing in relation
to its peer cities provides some points of reference when discussing what's
right for Kent. Looked at in isolation, Kent's numbers, and the Levels of
Service they represent, have little meaning.
Figure P-2
179
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 24
Meaningful Measures
According to the chart above, Kent is behind its peer cities in providing
developed park land to its residents. However, acres per thousand, while a
useful measure, isn't the only metric used in discussing Levels of Service.
Manual 2, Planning Policies and Guidelines, published by Washington's
Recreation and Conservation Office, is a statewide reference for cities
developing and updating their Parks and Open Space Plans. Its Level of
Service Summary for Local Agencies discusses a variety of approaches to
assessing parks and recreation facilities Levels of Service. Options include
measuring quantity, quality, and distribution and access of local parks and
recreation facilities.
Kent's next P&OS update will consider using these and other potential
approaches as part of a shift to a performance-based Level of Service
assessment. The update will include determining which parks and recreation
facilities in the Kent system are performing at a high level, and which parks
are underperforming. By focusing on preserving recreational value of high-
performing parks and increasing recreational value of low-performing parks,
the update will examine the potential for increasing Kent's parks and
recreational facility Level of Service without relying exclusively on adding
acreage.
Comparing Kent To Its Peer Cities
In 2012, Kent’s City Council hired a consultant to evaluate City services
compared to several peer cities. Some of the cities selected for comparison
include Bellevue, Renton, Federal Way and Kirkland.
180
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 25
The below series of bar charts used those same cities for use in comparing
park systems. Specific areas of comparison include:
1. City area,
2. Population,
3. Total acres of park land,
4. Total developed acres of park land, and
5. Traditional level of service defined as acres developed park land per 1000
residents.
(Insert series of graphs)
Looking at what Kent provides for its level of service in relation to its peer
cities provides some points of reference when discussing what’s right for
Kent. Looked at in isolation, Kent’s numbers and the LOS they represent
have little meaning.
By most of these measures, Kent is behind most of its peer cities in providing
developed park land to its residents. While the next section explores some of
the shortcomings of the acres-per-thousand approach, it is still the best
approach to use for peer city comparisons, as it’s the only approach used
widely enough to provide a real apples-to-apples comparison.
New Level of Service Measure
The new Level of Service measurement for the Kent parks system iswas
created by looking at the cCurrent rRecreational vValue of the existing Kent
parks inventory, the condition of assets and parks as a whole and the
pPotential rRecreational vValue of current and yet-to-be-developed parks.
The comparison of cCurrent rRecreational vValue to pPotential rRecreational
vValue provides an indication of the degree to which current parks are
performing to their potential. Looking at the pPotential rRecreational vValue
of undeveloped properties shows how much developing these properties will
add to the City’s park system’s Level of Service. Dividing the Current
Recreational Value per 1000 residents provides a current Level of Service
measure for Kent’s park system. Looking at the Potential Recreational Value
per 1000 residents illustrates the potential LOS that Kent’s park system has.
181
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 26
Kent’s Level Of Service Under The New Approach
Below is a table comparing the old and new methods of measuring Level of
Service for 1993, 2003, 2015, and estimated for 2035 (based on growth
estimates used for the Comprehensive Plan).
1993 2003 2015 2035
Kent’s Population 41,000 84,275 122,3900 138,156
Acreage Per 1000 Residents
Old
LOS 20.72 15.98 8.957.00 7.926.23
Recreational Amenities Per
1000 Residents ??? 2.44* 2.11 ???
Recreational Value Per 1000
Residents
New
LOS ??? ??? 1.63 ???
*Estimate based on 2002 Park Map
Currently, the Level of Service for Kent’s park system is 1.63, per the new
LOS approach. This is the new baseline measurement for future parks plans
to compare against. Whether the LOS goes up or down will be determined by
the level of investment in the park system.
The table shows that using the old acres-per-thousand-residents approach,
system LOS has been steadily dropping since 1993. In order to achieve the
same LOS in 2015 that Kent enjoyed in 1993, the City would need to acquire
over 1400hundreds of acres of new park land. Given current fiscal realities,
that’s not a realistic goal.
Level Of Service By City Region
KnowingAssessing the citywide Level of Service is critical for planning; but,
for a city the size of Kent, it is also useful to measure LOS by city region. As
described previously, this plan breaks Kent into five geographic regions:
Downtown, Green River, West Hill, East Hill North and East Hill South. Below
is a table that summarizes LOS in each city region.
182
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 27
Re
g
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
/
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
Pa
r
k
a
n
d
T
r
a
i
l
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
a
l
u
e
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
a
l
u
e
Le
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
a
l
u
e
P
e
r
1
0
0
0
P
e
o
p
l
e
)
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Downtown 21 45.4 3662 49.75 37.65 125.5 10.28 34.27
Green River 19 157.98 16041 66.75 49.4 166 3.08 10.35
East Hill South/Kent Kangley 11 362.93 43786 88.25 70.1 191.25 1.60 4.37
West Hill 9 204.33 16125 29.25 21.75 83.25 1.35 5.16
East Hill North/Panther Lake 10 90.18 42162.5 24.5 19.63 98 0.47 2.32
Total in 2016 87 860.82 121776.5 258.5 198.53 664 1.63 5.45
Estimated 2035 138,156 1.44 4.81
The new performance -based Level of Service will allow parks staff to track
how much rRecreational vValue Kent’s Ppark Ssystem is providing.
Performance -based LOS is a tool that has the potential to link what is in our
parks, the level at which they are funded, where capital investments are
made, how maintenance hours are expended and acquisition priorities.
These are exciting possibilities from a park planning perspective, but at the
same time this is a new system that will be beta tested over the life of the
2016 P&OS Plan. Changes are likely as staff learns how to use this new
planning tool.
Goals & Policies
The following goals and policies lay out priorities related to the continuing
development and stewardship of the City’s park and open space system over
the coming years.are from the last Parks and Open Space Plan update. That
plan noted a shift in expressing how the City’s park and open space system
would best develop over the coming years and details measurable steps toward
achieving these goals.
Overall Goal: Encourage and provide local public opportunities for physical
activity, connecting to nature, community engagement local residents to
participate inand life- enrichment activities viathrough the strategic
development and thoughtful stewardship of park land and recreational facilities,
183
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 28
professional programming, preservation and enhancement of environmentally
sensitivenatural areas, professional programming, and the optimum utilization
of available community resources.
I. Park & Recreation Facilities Goals & Policies
Maintain and stewardDevelop a high-quality park and, diversified recreational
system designed to appeal to a diverse range offor all abilities, ages and
interests groups.
Goal P&OS-1
Promote the provision of quality recreational opportunities throughout the
City.Work with other agencies to preserve and increase waterfront access and
facilities.
Policy P&OS-1.1: Work with other departments to encourage new
single-family and multifamily residential, and commercial developments
to provide recreation elements.Cooperate with King County, Kent,
Federal Way and Highline School Districts, and other public and private
agencies to acquire and preserve additional shoreline access for
waterfront fishing, wading, swimming, and other related recreational
activities and pursuits, especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick,
Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake.
Policy P&OS-1.2 When acquiring, planning, developing or
redeveloping park properties, recognize that the different areas of the
City have different have different recreational needs (e.g., the parks
needs for the downtown area are different from those on, say, East Hill)
and establish a protocol for incorporating consideration of those different
needs into the various decision-making processes.Develop a mixture of
opportunities for watercraft access, including canoe, kayak, sailboard,
and other non-power-boating activities, especially on the Green River,
Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake, where
practicable.
Policy P&OS-1.3: Where appropriate, initiate with other private and
public interests joint development ventures that meet recreational neds
and achieve City of Kent strategic goals.
Goal P&OS-2:
184
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 29
Work with other public agencies and private organizations, including but not
limited to the Kent and Federal Way School Districts, to develop a high-quality
system of athletic facilities for competitive play.
Policy P&OS-2.1: Develop athletic facilities that meet the highest quality
standards and requirements for competitive playing for all abilities, age groups,
skill levels, and recreational interests.
Policy P&OS-2.2: Develop field and court activities like soccer, football,
baseball, basketball, softball, tennis, roller hockey, and volleyball that provide
for the largest number of participants, and allow for multiple use, where
appropriate.
Policy P&OS-2.3: Develop, where appropriate, a select number of facilities
that provide the highest standard for competitive playing, possibly in
conjunction with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other
public agencies and private organizations.
Goal P&OS-23
Develop, maintain and operate a high-quality system of indoor facilities that
provide activities and programs for the interests of all physical and mental
capabilities,designed to appeal to a diverse range of abilities, ages and interests
groups in the community.
Policy P&OS-32.1: Maintain and expandManage existing multiple-use
indoor community centers, such as the Senior Activity Center and Kent
Memorial Park Building, that provide indoor recreational and gathering
opportunitiesarts and crafts, music, video, classroom instruction,
meeting facilities, eating and health care, day care, and other spaces for
a wide range ofall ages groups, including preschool, youth, teens, and
seniors abilities and interests on a year-round basis.
Policy P&OS-3.2: Continue to seek strategic partnerships with other
public and private agencies to provide indoor recreational opportunities,
particularly in underserved areas of the city.
Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor recreational centers, such as
Kent Commons and the Kent-Meridian Pool, that provide aquatic,
physical conditioning, gymnasiums, recreational courts, and other
185
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 30
athletic spaces for all abilities, age groups, skill levels, and community
interests on a year-round basis.
Policy P&OS-3.3: Support the continued development and
diversification by the Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School Districts of
special meeting, assembly, eating, health, and other community facilities
that provide opportunities to school-age populations and the community
at large at elementary, middle, and high schools within Kent and the
Potential Annexation Area.
Policy P&OS-3.4: Develop and operate special indoor and outdoor
cultural and performing arts facilities that enhance and expand music,
dance, drama, and other audience and participatory opportunities for the
community at large.
Goal P&OS-34
Where appropriate, possibly in conjunction with other public or private
organizations, develop and operate specialized park and recreational
enterprises that meet the interest of populations who are able and willing to
finance, maintain or operate them.
Policy P&OS-34.1: Where appropriate and economically feasible (i.e.,
self-supporting), develop and operate specialized and special interest
recreational facilities like golf, ice skating, frisbeedisc golf, mountain
biking and off-leash parksarchery ranges.
Policy P&OS-4.2: Where appropriate, initiate with other public
agencies and private organizations joint planning and operating
programs to determine and provide for special activities like golf,
archery, gun ranges, off-leash areas, model airplane flying areas, frisbee
golf, mountain biking and camping on a regional basis.
Goal P&OS-4
Further develop the performance-based approach to stewarding park and
recreation facilities that are introduced in the 2016 Park & Open Space Plan.
Policy P&OS-4.1: Prior to acquiring and/or developing a potential park
or recreational facility, carefully evaluate its potential contribution to the
186
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 31
system, and only proceed if the potential investment is considered to be
complementary to the system and can contribute to the system's overall
performance.
Policy P&OS-4.2: Prior to renovating a park asset or redeveloping a
park, carefully evaluate its current and potential contribution to the
system, and only proceed if the potential investment is considered to be
complementary to the system and can contribute to the system's overall
performance.
Policy P&OS-4.3: Periodically evaluate the entire system in terms of
each park's and facility's performance. Consider recommending the
repurposing of any asset or property whose current and potential
recreational value is not expected to contribute to the system's overall
performance.
Goal P&OS-5
Despite having multiple water bodies in its jurisdiction, the City has limited
public water access. Work with other public and private entities to preserve and
increase waterfront access and facilities.
Policy P&OS-5.1: Work with other public and private agencies to
acquire, develop and preserve additional shoreline access for waterfront
fishing, wading, swimming, scenic viewing and other related recreational
activities and pursuits, especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick,
Clark Lake, Lake Meridian and Panther Lake.
Policy P&OS-5.2:
For any public or private waterfront projects, work with the property
owner or project representative to find ways to include public access,
including access to scenic views of the water.
Develop and operate a balanced system of neighborhood and community
parks, with active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the City.
Policy P&OS-5.1: Acquire and develop parks to meet the level-of-
service needs as Kent’s population grows and areas are annexed.
187
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 32
Policy P&OS-5.2: Identify neighborhoods bordered by arterial streets
and geographic features that act as natural barriers. Set aside
neighborhood park land within each neighborhood to meet the levels-of-
service.
Policy P&OS-5.3: Develop amenities in parks for individual and group
use, active and passive uses, while representing the best interests of the
neighborhood or community as a whole.
Policy P&OS-5.4: Encourage new single-family and multifamily
residential, and commercial developments to provide recreation
elements.
II. Open Space and Greenway Goals & Policies
The City of Kent contains significant public open spaces and greenways.
Through careful and thoughtful stewardship of these properties, the City can
improve urban habitat and pedestrian connectivity and increase the public's
appreciation and understanding of the importance of these spaces in the urban
setting.
Develop a high-quality, diversified and interconnected park system that
preserves and sensitively enhances significant open spaces, greenways and
urban forests. The establishment of greenways as urban separators is a
strategy that promotes connectivity of Kent’s open space system.
Goal P&OS-6
Thoughtfully and strategically acquire and manage public open space to
improve wildlife habitat and other environmental benefits as well as non-
motorized connectivity.
Establish an open space pattern that will provide definition of and separation
between developed areas, and provide open space and greenway linkages
among park and recreational resources.
Policy P&OS-6.1: Seek to improveDefine and conserve a system of
open space and greenway corridors as urban separators to provide
definition between natural areas and urban land uses within the Kent
area.
188
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 33
Policy P&OS-6.2: Increase linkages of trails, in-street bikes lanes, or
and other existing or planned connections with greenways and open
space, particularly along the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek and
Soos Creek corridors; around Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian,
Panther Lake and Lake Youngs; and around significant wetland and
floodways such as the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA) and
McSorley Creek wetland[c2].
Policy P&OS-6.3: Preserve and enhance, through acquisition as
necessary, environmentally sensitive areas as greenway linkages and
urban separators, particularly along the steep hillsides that define both
sides of the Green River Valley and the SE 277th/272nd Street corridor.
Goal P&OS-7
Continue to develop an urban forestry management program that balances
environmental benefits with recreation and public safety priorities.
Identify and protect significant recreational lands before they are lost to
development.
Policy P&OS-7.1: Connect people to nature and improve the quality of
life in Kent by restoring and enhancing the urban ecosystem.Cooperate
with other public and private agencies and with private landowners to
protect land and resources near residential neighborhoods for high-
quality, low-impact park and recreational facilities before the most
suitable sites are lost to development. Suitable sites include wooded,
undeveloped, and sensitive lands along the Green River, Soos Creek,
Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek Canyon corridors, and lands adjacent to
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power line rights-of-way.
Policy P&OS-7.2: Galvanize the community around urban ecosystem
restoration and stewardship through a volunteer restoration program.In
future land developments, preserve unique environmental features or
areas, and increase public use of and access to these areas. Cooperate
with other public and private agencies and with private landowners to
protect unique features or areas as low-impact publicly accessible
resources, particularly along the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison
Creek, Mill Canyon, and SE 277th/272nd Street corridors.
189
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 34
III. Trail and Corridor System Goals & Policies
Develop a high-quality system of multipurpose park trails and corridors that
create important linkages or provide access to desirable destinations, including
significant environmental features, public facilities, and developed
neighborhoods, employment centers and commercial areasbusiness districts.
Goal P&OS-8
Continue to work with other departments and
agencies to develop and improveCreate a
comprehensive system of multi-purpose off-road and
on-road trails systems that link park and recreational
resources with residential areas, public facilities,
commercial and employment centers both within Kent
and within the region.
Policy P&OS-8.1: Seek opportunities to develop trail “missing links”
Where appropriate, create a comprehensive system of multi-purpose off-
road trails using alignments of the Puget Power rights-of-way, Soos
Creek Trail, Mill Creek Trail, Lake Fenwick Trail, Green River Trail, Frager
Road and the Interurban Trail, Parkside Wetlands Trail, and Green River
Natural Resource Area (GRNRA).
Policy P&OS-8.2: Work with other city departments to Ccreate a
comprehensive system of on-road trails to improve connectivity for the
bicycle commuter, recreational and touring enthusiasts using scenic,
collector and local road rights-of-way and alignments. Special emphasis
should be placed on increasing east-west connectivity.
Policy P&OS-8.3: Provide connections from residential neighborhoods
to community facilities like Kent Commons, the Senior Activity Center,
the Kent-Meridian Pool, schools, parks, and commercial districts.
Policy P&OS-8.34: Work with neighboring cities, Renton, Auburn,
Tukwila, Federal Way, Des Moines, Covington, King County and other
appropriate jurisdictions to connectlink and extend Kent trails to other
community and regional trail facilities like the Green River, Interurban,
Frager Road and Soos Creek Trails.
190
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 35
Policy P&OS-8.5: With proposed vacation of right-of-way and street
improvement plans, consider potential connectivity with existing or
proposed trail corridors, parks, and neighborhoods.
Policy P&OS-8.6: Link trails with elementary and middle schools, the
downtown core, and other commercial and retail activity centers on East
and West Hills.
Policy P&OS-8.47: Extend trails through natural area corridors like the
Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek and Soos Creek, and around
natural features like Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian and
Panther Lake in order to provide a high-quality, diverse public access
tosampling of Kent’s environmental resources.
Policy P&OS 8.8: Revise development regulations so that key trail
links that are identified within the corridor map are provided to the city
during the development approval process.
Goal P&OS-9
Furnish trail corridors, trailheads and other supporting sites with convenient
amenities to improve comfort, safety and overall user experienceand
improvements.
Policy P&OS-9.1: Improve accessibility to trails by siting trailheads
and appropriate improvements in high-visibility locationsFurnish trail
systems with appropriate trailhead supporting improvements that
include interpretive and directory signage, rest stops, drinking fountains,
restrooms, parking and loading areas, water, and other services.
Policy P&OS-9.2: Where appropriate, locate trailheads at or in
conjunction with park sites, schools, and other community facilities to
increase local area access to the trail system and to reduce duplication of
supporting improvements and amenities.
Policy P&OS-9.23: Design and develop trail improvements that
emphasize safety for users and are easy to maintain and easy to access
191
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 36
by maintenance, security and other appropriate personnel, equipment
and vehicles.
IV. Historic and Cultural Resources Goals & Policies
Through sensitive design, preservation and interpretation, the park system can
help educate the public regarding Kent's rich cultural and historical legacy.
Develop a high-quality, diversified park system that includes preservation of
significant historic and cultural resources, as well as programs to recognize the
city’s multicultural heritage.
Goal P&OS-10
Preserve, enhance and incorporate historic and cultural resources and multi-
cultural interests into the park and recreational system.
Policy P&OS-10.1: Identify, preserve, and enhance Kent’s multi-
cultural heritage, traditions, and cultural resources, including historic
sites, buildings, artwork, views, monuments and archaeological
resources.
Policy P&OS-10.12: Identify and incorporate significant historic and
cultural resource lands, sites, artifacts and facilities into the park system,
when feasible to preserve these interests and to provide a balanced
social experience. These areas include the original alignment for the
interurban electric rail service between Seattle and Tacoma, the James
Street historical waterfront site, and the Downtown train depot, among
others.
Policy P&OS-10.23: Work with the Kent Historical Society and other
cultural resource groups to incorporate community activities andat
interpretation of historic homes and sites into the park and recreational
systemprogram.
Goal P&OS-11:
Incorporate man-made environments and features into the park and
recreational system.
Policy P&OS-11.1: Incorporate interesting, man-made environments,
structures, activities, and areas into the park system to preserve these
192
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 37
features and to provide a balanced park and recreational experience.
Examples include the Earthworks in Mill Creek Canyon Park and art in
public places.
Policy P&OS-11.2: Work with property and facility owners to increase
public access to and utilization of these special features.
V. Cultural Arts Programs and Resources Goals & Policies
Develop high-quality, diversified cultural arts facilities and programs that
increase community awareness, attendance and other opportunities for
participation.
Goal P&OS-112
Work with the arts community to utilize local
resources and talents to increase public
access to artwork and programs.
Policy P&OS-1211.1: Support
successful collaborations among the
Arts Commission, business
community, service groups, cultural
organizations, schools, arts patrons
and artists to utilize artistic resources
and talents to the optimum degree
possible.
Policy P&OS-1211.2: Develop strategies that will support and assist
local artists and art organizations. Where appropriate, develop and
support policies and programs that encourage or provide incentives to
attract and retain artists and artwork within the Kent community.
Goal P&OS-123
Acquire and display public artwork to furnish public facilities and other areas
and thereby increase public access and appreciation.
Policy P&OS-123.1: Acquire public artwork including paintings,
sculptures, exhibits and other media for indoor and outdoor display in
193
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 38
order to expand access by residents and to furnish public places in an
appropriate manner.
Policy P&OS-123.2: Develop strategies that will support capital and
operations funding for public artwork within parks and facilities.
VI. Wildlife and Natural Preservation Goals & Policies
Incorporate and preserve unique ecological features and resources into the
park system in order to protect threatened plant and animal species, preserve
and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and retain migration corridors for local
fish and wildlife. Such incorporation is intended to limit habitat degradation
associated with human activities.
Goal P&OS-14:
Designate critical fish and wildlife habitat resources and areas.
Policy P&OS-14.1: Identify and conserve critical fish and wildlife
habitat including nesting sites, foraging areas, and wildlife migration
corridors, within or adjacent to natural areas, open spaces, and
developed urban areas.
Policy P&OS-14.2: Acquire, enhance and preserve habitat sites that
support threatened species and urban wildlife habitat, in priority
corridors and natural areas with habitat value such as the Green River
Corridor, the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), North
Meridian Park, Soos Creek, Mill Creek, and Clark Lake Park.
Policy P&OS-14.3: Enhance fish and wildlife habitat within parks, open
space, and environmentally sensitive areas by maintaining a healthy
urban forest with native vegetation that provides food, cover, and
shelter, by utilizing best management practices.
Goal P&OS-15:
Preserve and provide access to significant environmental features, where such
access does not cause harm to the environmental functions associated with the
features.
194
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 39
Policy P&OS-15.1: Preserve and protect significant environmental
features, including environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands,
open spaces, woodlands, shorelines, waterfronts, and other features that
support wildlife and reflect Kent’s natural heritage.
Policy P&OS-15.2: Acquire, and where appropriate, provide limited
public access to environmentally sensitive areas and sites that are
especially unique to the Kent area, such as the Green River, Soos Creek,
Garrison Creek and Mill Creek corridors, the Green River Natural
Resource Area (GRNRA), and the shorelines of Lake Meridian, Panther
Lake, Lake Fenwick, and Clark Lake.
Goal P&OS-16: Develop and maintain an Urban Forestry Management
Program.
Policy P&OS–16.1 Connect people to nature and improve the quality of
life in Kent by restoring urban forests and other urban open spaces.
Policy P&OS-16.2 Galvanize the community around urban forest
restoration and stewardship through a volunteer restoration program.
Policy P&OS-16.3 Improve urban forest health, and enhance urban
forest long-term sustainability, by removing invasive plants and
maintaining functional native forest communities.
VII. Facility Design and Access Goals & Policies
Design and develop facilities that are welcoming to Kent’s diverse community,
are attractiveaccessible, safe and easy to maintain, with life-cycle features that
account for long-term costs and benefits.
Goal P&OS-137
Design park and recreational indoor and outdoor facilities to be accessible to a
wide range ofall physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels and
activity interests.
Policy P&OS-137.1: Look for opportunities to iIncorporate the
principles of inclusive design in any new construction. Design outdoor
picnic areas, fields, courts, playgrounds, trails, parking lots, restrooms,
and other active and supporting facilities to be accessible to individuals
195
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 40
and organized groups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups,
income levels, and activity interests.
Policy P&OS-137.2: When designing new recreational facilities, reach
out to the public to learn their priorities, needs and desires for the
improvements, and use public input to inform the design. Design indoor
facility spaces, activity rooms, restrooms, hallways, parking lots, and
other active and supporting spaces and improvements to be accessible
to individuals and organized groups of all physical capabilities, skill
levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests.
Goal P&OS-148
Design and develop park and recreational facilities to be of low-maintenance
materials.
Policy P&OS-184.1: Design and develop facilities that are of low-
maintenance and high-quality materialscapacity design to reduce overall
facility maintenance and operation requirements and costs.
Policy P&OS-148.2: Incorporate maintenance considerations early in
the process in all designs for parks and recreational facilities. Where
appropriate, use low-maintenance materials, settings, or other value-
engineering considerations that reduce care and security requirements,
while retaining the natural conditions and environment.
Policy P&OS-18.3: Where possible in landscaping parks, encourage
the use of low maintenance plants.
Goal P&OS-159
Design for a safe and welcoming park environment.
Identify and implement the security and safety provisions of the American
Disabilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED), and other standards.
Policy P&OS-159.1: Using the Implement the provisions and
requirements of the American Disabilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design (CPTED) and other design and
development standards and practices, seek opportunities tothat will
196
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 41
improve park safety and security features for users, department
personnel and the public at large.
Policy P&OS-19.2: Develop and implement safety standards,
procedures, and programs that will provide proper training and
awareness for department personnel.
Policy P&OS-19.3: Define and enforce rules and regulations
concerning park activities and operations that will protect user groups,
department personnel, and the public at large.
Policy P&OS-19.4: Where appropriate, use adopt-a-park programs,
neighborhood park watches, and other innovative programs that will
increase safety and security awareness and visibility.
VIII. Fiscal Coordination Goals & Policies
Adhere to cost-effective, sustainable and efficient methods of acquiring,
developing, renovating, operating and maintaining facilities and programs that
provide high quality and relevant recreational benefits to the public. Provide
recommendations for long-term financial sustainability to help ensure an
enduring, vibrant and viable park and recreation system.
Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating, and
maintaining facilities and programs that distribute costs and benefits to public
and private interests.
Goal P&OS-1620
Investigate proven and practicalinnovative methods of financing park and
recreational requirements, including joint ventures with other public agencies
and private organizations and private donations.
Policy P&OS-1620.1: Investigate various public financing options that
may contribute to a long-term, sustainable approach to finance a
vibrant, relevant, safe and attractive park and recreation system.
Investigate innovative, available methods, such as growth impact fees,
land set-a-side or fee-in-lieu-of-donation ordinances, and inter-local
agreements, to finance facility development, maintenance, and operating
needs in order to reduce costs, retain financial flexibility, match user
benefits and interests, and increase facility services.
197
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 42
Policy P&OS-1620.2: Where feasible and desirable, consider joint
ventures with King County, Kent, Highline and Federal Way School
Districts, regional, state, federal and other public agencies and private
organizations, including for-profit concessionaires to acquire, and
develop and manage regional facilities (i.e., swimming pool, off-leash
park, etc.).
Policy P&OS-20.3: Maintain and work with foundations and non-profits
support a Park Foundation to investigate grants and solicit donations to
provide secondary support and private funds, develop a planned giving
program and solicit private donations to finance for facility development,
acquisition, maintenance, programs, services and operating needs.
Goal P&OS-21:
Coordinate public and private resources to create among agencies a balanced
local park and recreational system.
Policy P&OS-21.1: Create a comprehensive, balanced park and
recreational system that integrates Kent facilities and services with
resources available from King County, Kent and Federal Way School
Districts, and other state, federal, and private park and recreational
lands and facilities, in a manner that will best serve and provide for the
interests of area residents.
Policy P&OS-21.2: Cooperate, via joint planning and development
efforts, with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and
other public and private agencies to avoid duplication, improve facility
quality and availability, reduce costs, and represent interests of area
residents.
Goal P&OS-22:
Create and institute a method of cost/benefit and performance measure
assessment to determine equitable park and recreation costs, levels of service,
and provision of facilities.
Policy P&OS-22.1: In order to effectively plan and program park and
recreational needs within the existing city limits and the potential
198
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation Element Page 43
annexation area, define existing and proposed land and facility levels-of-
service (LOS) that differentiate requirements due to the impacts of
population growth as opposed to improvements to existing facilities,
neighborhood as opposed to community nexus of benefit, requirements
in the city as opposed to requirements in the Potential Annexation Area.
Policy P&OS-22.2: Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring,
developing, operating, and maintaining park and recreational facilities in
manners that accurately distribute costs and benefits to public and
private user interests. This includes the application of growth impact
fees where new developments impact level-of-service (LOS) standards.
Policy P&OS-22.3: Develop and operate lifetime recreational programs
that serve the broadest needs of the population and that recover
program and operating costs using a combination of registration fees,
user fees, grants, sponsorships, donations, scholarships, volunteer
efforts, and the use of general funds.
Related Information
http://kentwa.gov/content.aspx?id=1282(Insert
link)
City of Kent 20106 Park &
Open Space Plan
199
200
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 1
Chapter Nine - CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
PURPOSE
Under the Growth Management Act, the City is required to include a capital
facilities element in its Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Element
describes how public facilities and services will be provided and financed.
Capital facilities planning helps local jurisdictions manage their limited funds
to provide the greatest value to residents and take full advantage of available
funding opportunities.
A key concept of capital facilities planning is concurrency. That is, specific
public facilities will be available when the impacts of development occur, or a
financial commitment is in place to provide the facilities within six years of
the development, called “concurrency.” Concurrency of the transportation
system is required by the Growth Management Act. In addition to
maintaining adequate levels of service on City-provided facilities, the city of
Kent must coordinate with special purpose districts and regional providers on
providing adequate levels of service for forecasted growth.
"Public facilities" include streets,
roads, highways, sidewalks, street
and road lighting systems, traffic
signals, domestic water systems,
storm and sanitary sewer systems,
parks and recreational facilities, and
schools.
RCW 36.70A.030.12
"Public services" include fire
protection and suppression, law
Issues
Place-making
Capital facilities can contribute to the
look and feel of places, including their
vibrancy or their decline.
Safety
The public expects capital facilities
and services to maintain or enhance
their safety, including the perception
What you will find in this chapter:
An inventory of existing public capital facilities, including their location and
capacity;
A forecast of future needs for public capital facilities, their proposed
locations and capacities;
A financing plan for the public capital facilities, including funding capacities
and sources of public money; and
Goals and policies for providing public capital facilities to meet adopted
levels of service, including adjusting the land use element if funding falls
short of meeting the needs.
Purpose Statement:
To provide sustainable funding for desired public goods and services.
201
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 2
enforcement, public health,
education, recreation, environmental
protection, and other governmental
services.
RCW 36.70A.030.13
Capital budgeting: Cities must
make capital budget decisions in
conformance with its comprehensive
plan.
RCW 36.70A.120
Capital facility or improvement:
Capital facilities have an expected
useful life of at least 5 years and a
cost of at least $25,000.
of safety.
Levels of Service
The City’s level of service for capital
facilities needs to reflect an
increasingly urban environment.
Impacts on Low-Income
Communities and People of Color
Public facilities, services, safety and
opportunities for success should be
accessible to all members of the
community.
Sustainability, Rehabilitation,
Replacement and Retrofit
To maintain sustainable public
facilities and services, it is necessary
to plan and implement maintenance
and replacement of infrastructure.
Climate Change
As additional scientific information is
identified regarding climate change,
the City will evaluate the potential
impacts to its existing public facilities
and services.
Funding
Public facilities and services may be
funded by the rate payers or via
capital facilities budgets. When
applicable, grants may also help offset
the cost of large capital projects.
CAPITAL FACILITY PLANNING
Capital facilities planning in Kent is separated into two categories:
General Government Funds, which include funds for general capital needs
such as streets and transportation, buildings, parks and trails, and other
improvements.
Enterprise Funds, which include funds for which fees are received in
exchange for specific goods and services. These include water, sewer, storm
drainage, and the Riverbend Golf Complex.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FUNDS
202
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 3
General government facilities are designed, built and operated for the
general public, unlike enterprise funds, which serve specific fee paying
customers. Any person may drive on City streets, walk on a trail, play in a
City park, etc.
Kent organizes it general government facilities needs into similar
programmatic categories, which are referred to as funds. There are four
categories of funds, which illustrate the focus of the City’s capital planning
and spending. All phases of a capital project are included in capital planning,
from plan and project development, preliminary engineering, right-of-way
acquisition, permitting, construction engineering, to construction.
The Street Operating Fund is specifically identified for transportation and
street improvements, and includes arterial asphalt overlays, residential
streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, illumination, and safety guard rails.
Funding for the program’s projects is primarily through grants, local
improvement districts (LIDs), motor vehicle excise tax, business and
occupation tax, and utility tax.
The Capital Improvement Fund is for the acquisition and development of
land for parks and recreational facilities, including the planning and
engineering costs associated with the projects. This fund is also designated
for maintenance and repair projects and other capital projects not provided
for elsewhere. Funding comes from grants, real estate excise tax, and a
portion of sales tax revenues.
The Information Technology Fund provides for the hardware and software
to support the technology needs of the City. Primary funding is from internal
computer and network fees and cable utility tax, after operating expenses
have been paid.
The Facilities Fund is for government buildings, such as the City Hall
campus, Kent Commons, Senior Activity Center, and the maintenance shop.
Primary funding is from internal square footage fees, after operating
expenses have been paid.
General government sources of revenue for capital expenditures and
allocation percentages by funding category are shown in Figure CF.1.
Figure CF-1
General Government Capital Sources and Uses
203
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 4
ENTERPRISE FACILITIES FUNDS
Enterprise Funds are supported by revenues generated by user fees and
charges. Developer contributions supplement the Water, Sewer and Storm
Drainage Funds. Enterprise funds are used by public agencies to account for
operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private
business enterprises. They are established as fully self-supporting operations
with revenues provided primarily from fees, charges or contracts for services,
and require periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred,
and net income for capital maintenance, public policy, management control
and accountability.
In order to provide for the short-term and long-term operating and capital
needs of the water, sewer and storm drainage utilities, the City evaluates
and utilizes a combination of revenue sources such as utility rates, bonds,
loans, grants, developer contributions, Public Works Trust Fund loans, and
local improvement districts (LIDs). An example of enterprise capital sources
of funds and expenditures is illustrated in Figure CF.2.
Figure CF-2
Enterprise Capital Sources and Uses
Water Fund – Approximately 59% of the area of the City is served by Kent’s
Water Utility. The remainder of the City is served by other districted.
Available revenue sources include bonds, local improvement districts, Trust
Fund loans, rate increases, and developer contributions.
Sewer Fund – Approximately 69% of the area of the City is served by Kent’s
Sewer Utility. The remainder of the City is either not served or served by
other districts. Available revenue sources include bonds, local improvement
districts, rate increases, and developer contributions.
Storm Drainage Fund – This fund accounts for operations and capital
improvements for the management of the City’s storm drainage and surface
water. Storm Drainage capital projects are required to correct deficiencies
and to meet Federal, State and local mandates. Required infrastructure is
paid for by developers, interlocal agreements, and grants, but the largest
fund contribution comes from the utility’s ratepayers.
204
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 5
Riverbend Golf Complex Fund – This is a publicly-owned facility funded by
user fees. An enterprise fund may be used to report any activity for which a
fee is charged to users for goods or services. The City has chosen to use the
enterprise fund structure to provide transparent accounting of user fee
revenues and operation, maintenance, and improvement costs of the
municipal golf facilities. The difference between the Riverbend Golf Complex
Fund and other utility enterprise funds is that the golf fund serves voluntary
customers as opposed to the users of water, sewer, and storm drainage
funds, who have no choice in service provider. While the Golf Complex is not
expected to meet its capital and operating needs in the short term, elected
officials and city staff are actively pursuing a multi-faceted solution in right-
sizing golf facilities. Once these activities are completed, the Golf Complex is
expected to be in a stable position to meet ongoing capital and operating
needs.
CAPITAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES
POLICE and CORRECTIONS
The Kent Police Department (KPD) provides police services, corrections
services and has law enforcement authority within the city limits of Kent.
Vision Statement
To be the most respected and effective police department in the region.
Mission Statement
The Kent Police Department partners with our community to:
Aggressively fight crime
Impartially protect rights and
Identify and solve problems
Table CF.1
Current Police Facilities Inventory - 2015
FACILITY NAME LOCATION CAPACITY
Police Headquarters 232 Fourth Avenue S. 18,000 s.f.
Police West Hill Substation 25440 Pacific Highway S. 1,174 s.f.
Evidence area-City Hall 220 Fourth Avenue S. 1,250 s.f.
Police North Substation 20676 72nd Avenue S. 132 s.f.
Police East Hill Substation 24611 116th Avenue SE 840 s.f.
Police Training Center 24611 116th Avenue SE 4,185 s.f.
Police Firing Range 24611 116th Avenue SE 4,685 s.f.
Police Panther Lake Substation 20700 108th Avenue SE 1,400 s.f.
Detective Unit Offices 400 West Gowe S. 6,226 s.f.
205
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 6
The Kent Police took occupancy of the current police headquarters in 1991.
The building previously served as the Kent Library and was remodeled to be
a temporary facility until a permanent police headquarters could be built.
Twenty four years later, the department has vastly outgrown the
headquarters. In an effort to mitigate the overcrowding and meet the need
for increased service, the department established offsite work stations and
outside storage facilities.
Table CF.2
Current Correctional Facilities Inventory - 2015
Facility Name Location Capacity
Correctional Facility 1230 Central Avenue S. 21,000 s.f.100
cellbeds/30 work
release beds
Corrections Annex 8309 South 259th Street 3,053 s.f.
The city of Kent Correctional Facility (CKCF) has a capacity of one hundred
cell beds and thirty work release beds (130 beds total). The Kent Police
Department has focused efforts to address the increasing demands for jail
capacity. The CKCF Programs Division added day reporting and work time
credit programs to the existing electronic home detention, work release and
work time credit programs for non-violent offenders.
Analysis of Demand for Facilities and Services
Police Calls for Service
The level of police service provided by the Kent Police Department in terms
of call response is contingent on the number of officers available at any given
time to respond to 911 calls. The Department has a level of service goal of
four minutes or less for response to emergency and priority 1 calls to 911.
This standard is based on historical data related to shooting incidents and
particularly active shooter incidents over the last decade. The data indicate
that 69% of all active shooter incidents are completed within 5 minutes.1
These emergency incidents require that police officers both stop the actions
that are causing the risk to life and facilitate emergency medical services in a
time frame that assures a high survival rate of those injured. Research
indicates that brain death begins within the first 4-6 minutes of someone not
breathing.2 Arriving within the first four minutes of these incidents assures
1 US Department of Justice, FBI Study – A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States between
2000-2013, Washington DC 2014
2 The American Heart Association Data on brain death and permanent death.
206
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 7
that lifesaving intervention can be provided in time to assure the highest
likelihood for survival.
The following data show our response time to calls from emergency (E) calls
through priority (4) or routine calls for service.
• Priority E calls are emergency calls and are the highest priority.
This category represents a confirmed emergency, which could result in
loss of life and/or property. This category represents the greatest
potential for officers to encounter immediate danger. Current average
is a 2.66 minute response time.
• Priority 1 represents a potential emergency which could result in
loss of life and/or property; personnel safety may be at risk or
seriously jeopardized. Current average is a 3.92 minute response
time.
• Priority 2 represents a minimal hazard with considerably less
potential for life and/or property loss and minimal risk to officers.
Current average is a 8.26 minute response time.
• Priority 3 represents a low hazard, non-life threatening situation
with minimal risk of property loss. Current average is an 11.22 minute
response time.
• Priority 4 represents police reports or cold calls which require a
non-code response. Current average is a 15.54 minute response time.
Currently the average response time to emergency and priority 1 calls for
service is 3.29 minutes and the department is meeting its level of service
standard. However, there is reasonable concern that as population and calls
for service continue to grow, response times will increase.
Currently the Kent Police Department is authorized 148 sworn police officers,
which allows for 1.19 officers per thousand population. Amongst our
comparable cities (Auburn, Bellevue, Everett, Kirkland, Federal Way, Renton
and Vancouver) the average officer per 1000 population percentage is 1.42
officers per 1000.3 The department seeks to increase the number of officers
to a level commensurate with our comparable cities, thus allowing for
enhanced level of service. This represents an increase of sworn police
officers to 177 officers from the current 148, with a projected growth to 196
sworn police officers by 20354.
3 2011 Police Comparable Data Analysis, Kent Police Officers Association, 2011
4 Puget Sound Regional Council Forecasts for 2035/2014 OFM Average of 2.58 population per household
207
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 8
Meeting the Needs
Police Headquarters
Police services are centered around the main police headquarters that serves
the entire city and supports the required staff, many of whom operate on a
patrol basis throughout the city. The police department took occupancy of
the existing 18,000 square foot police headquarters in 1991. At the time the
city’s population was 61,281 and the department had 86 sworn police
officers. Currently the headquarters houses 126 sworn police officers in
addition to 22 full time and 3 part time civilian support staff. Police
headquarters provides both designated and temporary work space, meeting
rooms, common areas, locker rooms, storage space, utility space, temporary
holding cells, electrical and utility space, evidence storage space and records
storage space. Another 18 sworn police officers that make up the detectives
unit have been housed offsite due to lack of space. Additionally, the
department maintains temporary offsite evidence storage that represents
approximately 2,500 square feet of space. Ideally, the 18 officers would be
housed in police headquarters and permanent evidence storage facilities
should be obtained.
Although both city population and the number police department employees
have nearly doubled since 1991, there has been no increase in facility space
at police headquarters.
The police department seeks the construction of a new police headquarters.
An initial space needs assessment and cost analysis was completed in March
of 2014, which identified the need for a headquarters that provided 47,770
square feet of space at a cost of $34,044,544.5 This analysis accounted for
both the immediate need (6-year plan) and the anticipated long term need
(20-year plan).
The anticipated cost of a police headquarters far exceeds current funding
levels. Current police funding is primarily directed toward current operating
and maintenance costs. There are no identified capital budget funds. It is
proposed that the city pursue funding via a bond measure. (See Table C.3)
Failure to pass the bond measure would significantly impact the police
department’s ability to maintain the current level of service. Police
Department administration would seek solutions to mitigate this impact, but
without increased facilities the end result would likely necessitate the
consideration of reduction in the level of police service standards.
5 Police Space and Cost Estimate, David A. Clark Architects, PLLC
208
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 9
Corrections Facility Capacity and Infrastructure Update
The City of Kent Corrections Facility (CKCF) was constructed in 1986 and was
initially designed to 48 inmates (beds). Currently the 2100 square foot
facility has a 100-bed capacity with an additional 30 beds designated for
work release inmates. The facility faces both a capacity deficit and
significant infrastructure needs.
Capacity Issues: Over the past several years, the jail inmate
population has seen significant increases in both female inmates and
inmates that require maximum security status/crisis cells due to
violent tendencies or mental disorders.
A review of CKCF jail population data indicates that from 2010 to
March of 2015 the average percentage of inmate population requiring
maximum security status or crisis cell status is 11.15 inmates. The
CKCF currently has six cells suitable for maximum security status/crisis
cell inmates, a 47% deficit. In order to meet the current need,
maximum status/crisis cells would need to be increased by 5 cells.
The CKCF facility has 19 beds available to house female inmates. A
review of jail population data indicates that from 2010 to March of
2015 the average female inmate daily population is 25, equating to a
24% deficit of bed space. In order to meet the current need, female
bed space should be increased by five female cells.
In addition to inmate capacity, CKCF is currently undersized to provide
adequate work space for the 23 corrections officers and one civilian
support staff. Although significant work has been done since 1986 to
more than double jail bed capacity, virtually no space has been added
to accommodate the increase in corrections personnel working in the
facility.
The police department seeks to complete construction of additional
female jail beds and maximum security status/crisis cells to meet the
current level of service requirements. In October of 2014, a CKCF
space needs assessment was conducted which indicated that an
increase of 4,100 square feet would be required to meet the increased
demand for female bed space, maximum security status/crisis cells
and modestly expanded work space. The estimated cost for
construction is $1.4 Million.6
6 Proposed Addition – Kent Corrections, Dave Clark Architects, PLLC, 2014
209
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 10
Infrastructure Issues: The 30-year-old CKCF is in immediate need
of infrastructure updates. Both the plumbing system and electrical
wiring of the facility routinely fail and are in need of replacement. The
video recording system at the jail is outdated and poses significant
safety and liability concerns. The master control panel software is
outdated and in need of upgraded software and hardware.
Although final costs estimates have not been obtained, initial
consultation with the City of Kent Facilities Department indicates that
the estimated costs for each infrastructure project would be as follows:
Plumbing $200,000
Electrical Wiring $100,000
Camera System Replacement $ 40,000
Master Control Panel $ 45,000
Total $385,000
The police department would seek to fund both the capacity projects and
infrastructure updates out of existing funding sources. (See diagram CF.3)
Table CF.3
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021-
2035 Total
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Project 1 – Police Headquarters
Cost $34.04
Million
$0 $0 $8.51
Million
$8.51
Million
$8.51
Million
$8.51
Million
$0 $34.04
Million
Revenue Source -
Public Safety Bond
$0 $0 $8.51
Million
$8.51
Million
$8.51
Million
$$8.51
Million
$0 $34.04
Million
Project 2 – CKCF
Bed Capacity
Increase
Cost $1.4 Million
$0
$0
$350K
$350K
$350K
$350K
$0
$1.4
Million
Revenue Source
1-
Jail Capacity
Fund
$0 $0 $350K $350K $350K $350K $0 $1.4
Million
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS
Project 3 – CKCF Plumbing
Cost $200,000 $0 $40K $40K $40K $40K $40K $0 $200K
Revenue Source –
School Zone
Speed Camera
Fund
$0 $40K $40K $40K $40K $40K $0 $200K
Project 4 – CKCF
210
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 11
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021-
2035 Total
Electrical Wiring
Cost $100,000
Revenue Source
– School Zone
Speed Camera Fund
$0
$0
$50K
$50K
$50K
$50K
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100K
$100K
Project 5 – CKCF
Camera
System
Replacement
Cost $40,000
$0
$40K
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40K
Revenue Source
–
School Zone
Speed
Camera Fund
$0 $40K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40K
Project 6 – CKCF
Master Control
Panel
Cost $45,0000 $0 $45K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45K
Revenue Source
–
School Zone
Speed
Camera Fund
$0 $45K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45K
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects $0 $0 $8.86
Million
$8.86
Million
$8.86
Million
$8.86
Million
$0 $35.44
Million
Non-Capacity
Projects
$0 $175K $90K $40K $40K $40K $0 $385K
Goals and Policies
Police and Correction Services
Goal CF-1:
Ensure that residents, visitors and businesses in Kent continue to feel safe
throughout our community.
Policy CF-1.1: Establish, maintain, and monitor effective services and
programs with the goal of increasing the sense of safety throughout our
community. Such services and programs should be consistent with other
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Goal CF-2:
Establish, maintain and strengthen community relationships through direct
contact opportunities, community awareness, education and volunteer
programs.
211
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 12
Policy CF-2.1: Establish and maintain direct contact between
representatives of the Police Department and concerned citizens,
community groups, schools, business operators, local media, and human
services providers.
Policy CF-2.2: Establish and maintain community education programs
that promote the awareness of public safety, community-based crime
prevention, domestic violence prevention, alcohol and substance abuse,
and available human services for impacted populations.
Policy CF-2.3: Establish and maintain volunteer programs that meet
the Police Department objectives of increasing community awareness,
involvement, public safety, and crime prevention.
Goal CF-3:
Maintain responsive, quality patrol service throughout Kent’s service area and
other areas requiring response capability assistance.
Policy CF-3.1: Consider average response times as a level-of-service
measure in assessing needs for patrol service improvements.
Policy CF-3.2: Maintain or improve annually-calculated average
response times to emergency calls, where potential loss of life or
confirmed hazards exist.
Policy CF-3.3: Maintain or improve annually-calculated average
response times to non-emergency calls, where no immediate danger or
potential loss of life is indicated.
Policy CF-3.4: Coordinate with the City Information Technology
Department and the Valley Communications Center to improve response
times.
Policy CF-3.5: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing patrol
practices, and research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-3.6: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best
practices that will improve responsiveness of patrol services.
Policy CF-3.7: To improve long-term patrol service effectiveness, work
with various members of the community to improve staff awareness of
localized issues and community resources.
212
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 13
Goal CF-4:
Provide effective and professional investigation services.
Policy CF-4.1: Consider annually-calculated crime clearance rates as a
level-of-service measure in assessing needs for patrol service
improvements.
Policy CF-4.2: Maintain or improve annually-calculated Part I crime
clearance rates, which is a measure of the rate of arrests or clearances
for reported crimes.
Policy CF-4.3: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing
investigations practices, and research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-4.4: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best
practices that will improve responsiveness of investigations services.
Policy CF-4.5: To improve long-term investigations service
effectiveness, work with various members of the community to improve
staff awareness of localized issues and community resources.
Goal CF-5:
Provide effective corrections services that protect the community and reduce
repeat offenses among corrections clients.
Policy CF-5.1: Coordinate with the Kent Municipal Court to ensure
appropriate correctional processes and facilities are available for criminal
offenders.
Policy CF-5.2: Maintain or improve facilities available for the
incarceration of criminal offenders. If additional facilities capacity is
necessary, coordinate with other agencies to locate and provide
appropriate facilities for the purposes of incarceration.
Policy CF-5.3: Establish and maintain effective alternative s to
incarceration for lesser criminal offenses.
Policy CF-5.4: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing
corrections practices, and research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-5.5: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best
practices that will improve responsiveness of corrections services.
213
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 14
Policy CF-5.6: Acquire and maintain accreditation through the
American Corrections Association.
KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
The Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority (KFDRFA) is an all-hazards
emergency response agency established as an independent municipal
corporation under chapter 52.26 RCW in April of 2010. The KFDRFA’s service
area is irregular in shape, running east and west from 2 to 12 miles and
north and south from 4 to 13 miles. Total service area is approximately 60
square miles including the City of Kent’s 34 square miles. The cities of
SeaTac, Covington and King County Fire District 37 make up the balance of
the service area.
Demand for service in 2014 exceeded 22,000 emergency incidents. Service
to these incidents was provided through a total staff of 260.8 personnel: 225
uniformed and 35.8 non-uniformed civilian employees. Emergency response
personnel work 48-hour shifts at 11 fire stations distributed strategically
across the service area. On a daily basis, the City of Kent receives
emergency services from resources in 10 of 11 fire stations. At any given
time, minimum on duty emergency staff is 40 firefighter/EMTs.
KFDRFA Fire Based Services
Response services:
Include; fire, basic life support (BLS), and hazardous materials
response.
Rescue services:
Include; confined space, high and low angle rope rescue and swift
water rescue.
Prevention services:
Include; land use and building plan review, fire permit issuance,
building inspections, fire code enforcement, and fire investigations.
Public education services:
Include; education in fire and life safety, injury and fall prevention and
emergency management planning and education.
Specialized services:
214
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 15
The FD-CARES (Community, Assistance, Referrals & Education
Services) Division is focused on connecting people who have health
and welfare issues with appropriate public and private services to
improve patient service and reduce the impact of frequent requests for
medical aid.
KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan
As a separate municipal corporation, the KFDRFA developed and adopted its
own Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan (CF&EP) adopted by reference in
this document. The purpose of the CF&EP is to identify capital resources
necessary for the Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority (KFDRFA), to
achieve and sustain adopted levels of service concurrently with the next 20
years of anticipated development and population growth.
Table CF.X shows the KFDRFA’s facilities, equipment, and size that serve the
Kent Planning Area.
Table CF.4
Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority
Current Facilities Inventory – Fire (2015)
Facility Location Equipment/ Services Size (Sq. Ft.)
Fire Stations
Station 70 407 Washington Ave N No services 3,464
Station 71 504 West Crow Street Aid 70 – Staffing Dependent
Aid 71
Engine 71
CARES 71
Boat 71 – Surface Water
Rescue
10,858
Station 72 25620 140th Avenue SE Engine 72
Tender 72
Reserve Engine
7,772
Station 73 26520 Military Road South Engine 73
Fire Investigators
Reserve Aid Car
Reserve Engine
13,000
Station 74 24611 116th Avenue SE Aid 74
Battalion 74 – East Battalion
Ladder 74
Engine 74 – Staffing
Dependent
Reserve Battalion
Rescue 74
17,053
Station 75 15635 SE 272nd Street Engine 75
Haz-Mat 75
Decon 75
12,425
215
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 16
Facility Location Equipment/ Services Size (Sq. Ft.)
Fire Stations
Mobile Generator
4 Wheel ATV 75
Station 76 20676 72nd Avenue South Engine 76
Haz Mat 76
Battalion 76 – Central
Battalion
13,104
Station 77 20717 132nd Avenue SE Engine 77
Reserve Engine
Reserve Ladder Truck
Training Engine
15,900
Station 78 17820 SE 259th Street
O/S Kent City Limits but
provides services to areas of
Kent
Engine 78
MCI Unit
Reserve Engine
17,685
Fire Prevention
Fire Prevention 400 W. Gowe Street, Suite
414
Fire Marshal
Code Enforcement
Development Services
Fire Investigations
Public Education
5,000
Training
Police/ Fire Training
Center
24543 116th Avenue SE 9,600
Training Annex 24611 116th Avenue SE Information Technology Unit 1,152
Drill Tower 24543 1116th Avenue SE 4,652
Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance Facility 20678 72nd Avenue South 10,865
Emergency Management and Logistics
Office of Emergency
Management
24425 116th Avenue SE 4 Wheel ATV 2,860
Logistics Warehouse 8320 South 208 Street,
Suite H-110
20,000
Total 165,3907
Level of Service Standard
Community Risk Types within city of Kent
The KFDRFA maintains a “Standard of Cover” document as part of their
accreditation process through the Center for Public Safety. The Standard of
Cover is the “Standard” or Level of Service (LOS) to which the fire
department will deliver services to the community. The continuum of time of
fire service performance to adopted level of service standard includes three
7 Includes 5000 square feet utilized by Fire Prevention and owned by city of Kent.
216
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 17
components measured at the 90th percentile (9 out of 10 times) of
performance:
Dispatch time: The time interval from when a 9-1-1 call is answered
and appropriate resources dispatched through alerts to firefighters;
Turnout time: The time interval that begins when audible or visual
notification is received by firefighters from the 9-1-1 center and ends
when firefighters have donned appropriate protective equipment and
safely seat-belted themselves in their response vehicle ready to drive.
Travel time: The time interval that begins when a response unit
begins to move in route to the emergency incident location and ends
when the unit arrives at the addressed location.
Benchmark for: Fire, Haz-Mat, Rescue Level of Service 90%
performance expectations
Urban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (4:15) =
7 minutes 20 seconds
Suburban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (4:35) =
7 minutes 40 seconds
Rural Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (5:30) =
8 minutes 35 seconds
Benchmark for: Minimum First Alarm Arrival Objectives (first three
units) 90% performance
Urban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (6:30) =
9 minutes 35 seconds
Suburban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (6:45) =
9 minutes 50 seconds
Rural Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (7:00) =
10 minutes 05 seconds
Full First Alarm Arrival Objectives 90% performance
Urban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (8:55) =
217
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 18
12 minutes 00 seconds
Suburban Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (8:55) =
12 minutes 00 seconds
Rural Service Area:
o Dispatch (1:10) + Turnout (1:55) + Drive Time (9:55) =
13 minutes 00 seconds
Level of Service Capacity Analysis
Fire service resources are impacted by service
demand. To achieve level of service standards,
fire service resources being called upon to
deliver service must be available at least as
often as they are expected to achieve a given
performance measure. This level of service
capacity measure is referred to as “unit
reliability.” If a unit is called upon so often that
availability of that unit, from its assigned fire
station, falls below 90% of the time, it is no
longer reliable to the level of service standard.
The KFDRFA measures unit reliability by hour of
day against the following requirements:
Minimum Hourly Unit Reliability8
Urban Service Area: Units are available from assigned station 90% of the
time.
Suburban Service Area: Units are available from assigned station 90% of
the time.
Rural Service Area: Units are available from assigned station 90% of the
time.
As unit reliability falls below 90%, additional units are then needed to provide
additional service capacity. Service capacity at each fire station is then
limited by the space available to house fire service units and staff. The more
hours each day that a unit’s reliability falls below 90%, the more often that
unit is unavailable to provide emergency services. When this happens, units
8 Unit reliability measures a unit’s ability to meet level of service objectives.
Measure above 90% indicates reserve capacity, 90% or below, resource
exhaustion is occurring.
218
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 19
from fire stations farther away respond in place of the unreliable resource,
leaving this next-up resource’s home area without service. This ripple effect,
caused by a single unit’s sub-standard reliability, then begins to affect
response times and levels of service throughout the total service area of the
KFDRFA. Therefore, in planning for future resource needs, the KFDRFA
utilizes unit reliability measures to evaluate unit and station capacity to
maintain concurrency with future development.
To better relate community growth with future demands on service and the
associated impacts to unit reliability, the KFDRFA has developed a “Fire
Concurrency Management Plan” that identifies factors that predict future
impacts of new development by property type. See Table CF.5.
Table CF.5
Projected Increase in Emergency Incidents – Kent Growth (2035)
Structure Type Incidents Per
Unit Per Year
Projected New Kent
Dwelling Units9
Projected Increase to
annual Incident Workload
Single-family/Duplex/MH 0.19 3,299 627
Multi-Family 0.14 4,032 564
Incidents Per Sq.
Ft Per Year
Projected New
Square Feet
Non-residential 0.04 11,500,00010 460
Total 1,651
Future Resource Needs
If unit reliability is adequate but response standards are not met, other
factors must be considered. Impacts of traffic density also have a significant
influence on response time; even though a unit or a station has adequate
reliability, drive time of emergency response units can be increased by traffic
congestion. These factors have been considered in the KFDRFA’s planning
documents. To assure fire service concurrency to the KFDRFA level of service
standards, three additional fire stations and their associated equipment are
needed within the City of Kent over the next 20 years. A complete listing of
9 Ratio of Single Family to Multi-Family is estimated at 55% MF and 45% SF
based upon total Household Targets of 53,664 projected by 2035 (LUT HH).
This target assumes 7,331 new dwelling units compared to April 2014
inventory of 46,333 units (source Washington OFM). This estimate assumes a
modest annual growth rate of 0.79%.
10 Based upon 80% of the low commercial growth projections contained in
the KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan.
219
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 20
resource needs and locations are found in the KFDRFA Capital Facilities and
Equipment Plan.
Table CF.6
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Fire11
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035 Total
407 Washington -$ -$ -$ 651$ 2,173$ 3,578$ 1,086$ 7,488$
Benson 565$ 429$ 765$ 2,574$ 699$ -$ -$ 5,032$
Riverview -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,711$ 4,711$
75 Move -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,961$ 9,961$
Total 565$ 429$ 765$ 3,225$ 2,872$ 3,578$ 15,758$ 27,192$
407 Washington -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Station 71 10$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 26$ 94$ 130$
Station 72 27$ -$ -$ -$ 22$ -$ 27$ 76$
Station 73 21$ 15$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 171$ 207$
Station 74 67$ 15$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 174$ 256$
Station 75 42$ -$ 25$ 35$ -$ -$ 102$ 204$
Station 76 15$ 24$ 30$ 5$ -$ -$ 134$ 208$
Station 77 36$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 69$ 105$
Station 78 -$ -$ -$ 10$ -$ -$ 78$ 88$
Benson Station -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40$ 40$
Total 218$ 54$ 55$ 50$ 22$ 26$ 889$ 1,314$
Annual Taxes to Capital 218$ 54$ 320$ 2,275$ 2,275$ 2,275$ 647$ 8,064$
Voter approved Bonds -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Councilmatic Bonds -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Sale of Surplus Property -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Covington LOS/Impact fees 565$ 404$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000$ 1,969$
Kent LOS/Impact fees -$ 25$ 500$ 1,000$ 619$ 1,329$ 15,000$ 18,473$
Expenses 783$ 483$ 820$ 3,275$ 2,894$ 3,604$ 16,647$ 28,506$
Revenue 783$ 483$ 820$ 3,275$ 2,894$ 3,604$ 16,647$ 28,506$
Unfunded Balance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Capacity Projects - Summary of New Construction Costs
Non-Capacity Project Costs - Necessary to Maintain Existing Assets
KFDRFA Revenue Sources
Summary of Revenue less Expenses
Figure CF-3
Existing and Proposed Fire Stations
11 Cost does not include fire apparatus for new fire stations. These costs are
found within the KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan. Current 2015
cost of a fully outfitted fire engine is $850,000. New fire engines will be
required for new 407 Washington, Benson and Riverview fire stations. Total
apparatus cost for these new stations will be $2,550,000.
220
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 21
Goals and Policies
Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority
Goal CF-6:
Maintain fire service concurrency through long range planning and mitigation
efforts that predict and mitigate the direct impacts of future development
upon the KFDRFA’s ability to deliver fire and life safety services in accordance
with its adopted level of service standards.
Policy CF-6.1:
Recognize that regional economic vitality depends upon orderly growth
and support community growth through development; participate in
the orderly growth of the Kent community necessary in maintaining
concurrency of fire and life safety services.
Policy CF-6.2:
Evaluate all new development proposed to occur, identify any adverse
impacts that may affect the KFDRFA’s ability to maintain level of
service standards and apply the mitigations outlined in the KFDRFA
Mitigation and Level of Service Policy as necessary to maintain fire
service concurrency with new development.
Policy CF-6.3:
Work cooperatively with the city of Kent to coordinate long-range
planning efforts that support fire service concurrency.
PARKS
The City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department:
manages parks and open space resources, as well as the Senior Activity
Center, Kent Commons, and Riverbend Golf Complex;
manages other facilities and buildings necessary to the administrative and
maintenance functions of the City;
provides a wide range of recreational programs throughout the facilities;
and
administers funding in support of a variety of community service activities.
Details for community service activities can be found in the Human Services
Element, the Housing Element, and the Consolidated Plan for Housing and
221
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 22
Community Development. The Park & Open Space Plan and the Parks Element
of the Comprehensive Plan provide greater detail about facilities and LOS
standards.
Facilities Management
Table CF.7
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Current Facilities Inventory – 2015
Facility Location
Size/Amount
(Square Feet)
Type 1 - Administration
Centennial Center 400 W. Gowe 71,600
City Hall 220 4th Ave S. 33,000
Total Type 1
104,600
Type 2 - Information Technology
City Hall Annex 302 W. Gowe 4,600
Total Type 2
4,600
Type 3 - Maintenance Facility
Russell Road Shops 5821 S. 240th 26,158
East Hill Maintenance Facility 12607 SE 248th Street 840
East Hill Maintenance Trailers 12607 SE 248th Street 2,040
Total Type 3
29,038
Type 4 – Police
Police Headquarters 220 4th Avenue South 18,000
Police and Fire Training 24611 SE 116th Avenue 8,369
Woodmont Substation 26226 Pacific Highway South 1,174
Panther Lake Substation 10842 SE 208th 1,400
East Hill Police Substation 24611 SE 116th Avenue 840
Firing Range 24611 SE 116th Avenue 4,685
Corrections 1230 S Central 21,000
Corrections Annex 8323 S 259th 3,053
Total Type 4 58,521
Type 5 – Natural Resources
Natural Resources Building 22306 Russell Road 1,960
Total Type 5 1,960
Type 6 – Historical Building
Historical Society 855 E Smith 3,720
Neely Soames House 5311 S 237th Place 2,256
Total Type 6 5,976
Type 7 – Recreation
Kent Commons 525 N 4th Avenue 50,000
Kent Memorial Park 850 N Central 3,000
222
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 23
Facility Location
Size/Amount
(Square Feet)
Kent Pool 25316 – 101st Ave SE 16,000
Senior Center 600 E Smith 21,000
Total Type 7 90,000
Type 8 – Golf
Driving Range 2030 W Meeker 1,800
Par 3 2020 W Meeker 1,380
Riverbend 18 Hole 2019 W Meeker 11,296
Total Type 8 14,476
Type 9 – Court
Municipal Court 1220 Central Ave S 15,000
Total Type 9 15,000
Type 10 – Fire
Fire Burn Tower 24611 SE 116th Ave 3,957
Fire Headquarters 24611 SE 116th Ave 6,324
Station 74 24611 SE 116th Ave 14,000
Station 75 15635 SE 272nd 10,621
Total Type 10 34,902
Total All Types 359,073
Table CF.8
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List
Project and Cost/Revenue
(thousands $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021-
2035 Total
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS) - None
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Project 1 - HVAC
Cost 200 100 100 100 100 100 2,592 3,292
Facilities Revenues 200 100 100 100 100 100 2,592 3,292
Project 2 – Emergency Repairs
Cost 100 100 100 70 100 100 1,400 2,000
Facilities Revenues 100 100 100 70 100 100 1,400 2,000
Project 3 – Kitchen
Equipment
Cost 45 40 25 20 20 30 350 530
Facilities Revenues 45 40 25 20 20 30 350 530
Project 4 – Roof Repairs
Cost 500 0 0 35 195 145 1,145 2,020
Facilities Revenues 500 0 0 35 195 145 1,145 2,020
Project 5 – Kent Pool
Lifecycles
Cost 25 25 25 25 25 25 350 500
Facilities Revenues 25 25 25 25 25 25 350 500
223
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 24
Project and Cost/Revenue
(thousands $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021-
2035 Total
Project 6 – Centennial
Reseal
Cost 45 45 45 50 0 0 185 370
Facilities Revenues 45 45 45 50 0 0 185 370
Project 7 – Fire Alarm
Upgrades
Cost 20 0 0 0 0 0 20
Facilities Revenues 20 0 0 0 0 0 20
Project 8 – Parking Lot
Lifecycle
Cost 9.5 195 130 0 0 0 685 1,020
Facilities Revenues 9.5 195 130 0 0 0 .685 1,020
Project 9 – Floor Covering
Replacements
Cost 150 0 0 200 60 100 940 1,450
Facilities Revenues 150 0 0 200 60 100 940 1,450
Project 10 – Racquet Ball
Wall Repairs
Cost 40 0 0 0 0 0 40
Facilities Revenues 40 0 0 0 0 0 40
Project 11 – City Hall
Elevator Doors
Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project 12 – City Hall
Council Chambers
Renovation
Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project 13 – Facilities Card
Access
Cost 0 36 75 0 0 0 111
Facilities Revenues 0 36 75 0 0 0 111
Project 14 – Corrections
Portable Backup Connection
Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project 15 – Tenant
Requested Renovations
Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Non-Capacity Projects $1,134.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5
Total Costs $1,134.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5
224
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 25
Project and Cost/Revenue
(thousands $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021-
2035 Total
Facilities Fund Balance $500
Facilities Revenues $634.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5
Total Revenues $1,134.5 $541 $500 $500 $500 $500 $7,647 $11,322.5
Table CF.9
Parks
Current Facilities Inventory – 2015
Facility Location
Size/Amount
(Acres or Square Feet)
Neighborhood Parks various
Total NP
72.6671.82 acres
Community Parks various
Total CP
152.1587.26 acres
Golf Course (holes/1000) Riverbend Golf Course
Total GC
167.00 acres
Natural Resource
Total NR
various
453.76486.79 acres
Recreation Facilities – Indoor
Total RF-I
various 142,130 sq. ft. on
13.56 acres
Recreation Facilities - Outdoor
Total O
Various
75.3992.34 acres
Undeveloped
Total U
Various
160.16148.27 acres
Total Types
1094.681096.82 acres
Source: Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
Table CF.9-1
Parks
Citywide Facilities Inventory* – 2016 Park & Open Space Plan
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6
Current 22 15 10 6 1 0
Potential 7 13 18 17 11 8
*The new tiered Level of Service measurement for the Kent parks system was created by
looking at the current recreational value of the existing Kent parks inventory, the
condition of assets and parks as a whole, and the potential recreational value of current
and yet-to-be-developed parks. Tier 6 parks are the jewels of the system and Tier 1
parks are the system’s lowest-performing parks.
Source: 2016 Park & Open Space Plan
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: 6 pt
225
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 26
Table CF.10
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Natural Resource Parks
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 9.78 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 1196.1 453.76 (742.33)*
2021 127,057 1242.62 453.76 (788.86)
2035 138,156 1351.17 453.76 (897.41)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = 3.71 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 453.76 453.76 0
2021 127,057 471.38 453.76 (17.62)
2035 138,156 512.56 453.76 (58.8)
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
* Change in LOS in this category is due primarily to reclassification of significant properties.
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Neighborhood Parks
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 1.02 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 124.75 72.66 (52.09)*
2021 127,057 129.6 72.66 (56.94)
2035 138,156 140.92 72.66 (68.26)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = .59 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 72.66 72.66 0
2021 127,057 74.96 72.66 (2.3)
2035 138,156 81.51 72.66 (8.85)
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Community Parks
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 1.27 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 155.32 152.15 (3.17)
2021 127,057 161.42 152.15 (9.27)
2035 138,156 175.46 179* 3.54
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
Formatted: Left
226
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 27
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = 1.24 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 152.15 152.15 0
2021 127,057 157.55 152.15 (5.4)
2035 138,156 171.31 179 7.69
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
*This figure reflects the total new park development reflected in the 20 year Parks Capital
Facilities Plan.
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Indoor Rec. Facilities
Time Period Population
Square Feet
Needed to Meet
LOS standard
Current
Square Feet
Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 1.71 SQUARE FEET PER PERSON
2015 122,300 209,133 142,130 (67,003)
2021 127,057 217,267 142,130 (75,254)
2035 138,156 236,247 142,130 (94,117)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = 1.16 SQUARE FEET PER PERSON
2015 122,300 142,130 142,130 0
2021 127,057 147,386 142,130 (5,256)
2035 138,156 160,261 142,130 (18,131)
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Outdoor Rec. Facilities
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 2.93 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 358.34 75.39 (282.95)
2021 127,057 372.28 75.39 (296.89)
2035 138,156 404.8 75.39 (329.41)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = .62 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 75.39 75.39 0
2021 127,057 78.78 75.39 3.39
2035 138,156 85.66 75.39 10.27
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
227
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 28
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Undeveloped
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 1.06 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 129.64 160.16 30.52
2021 127,057 134.68 160.16 25.48
2035 138,156 146.45 133.31* (13.14)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = NO ADJUSTMENTS PROPOSED
2015 XXX XXX XXX XXX
2021 XXX XXX XXX XXX
2035 XXX XXX XXX XXX
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
* This figure reflects the total new park development reflected in the 20 year Parks Capital
Facilities Plan.
2015 Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Overall LOS
(acres/1000)
Time Period Population
Acres Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
Acres Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 16.23 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 1984.93 1094.681096.82 (890.25)(881.11)
2021 127,057 2062.14 1094.681096.82 (967.46)(965.32)
2035 138,156 2242.27 1094.681096.82 (1147.59)(1145.45)
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD = 8.95 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
2015 122,300 1094.68 1094.681096.82 0
2021 127,057 1137.16 1094.681096.82 (42.48)(40.34)
2035 138,156 1236.5 1094.681096.82 (141.82)(139.68)
Source: Kent Planning Department (Assumes a constant growth rate of 4,757 people per year.) Kent Parks Inventory, 2015
2016 Level of Service Requirements Compared to 2015
1993 2003 2015 2035
Kent’s Population 41,000 84,275 122,300 138,156
Acreage Per 1000 Residents Old LOS 20.72 15.98 8.95 7.92
Recreational Amenities Per 1000
Residents ??? 2.44* 2.11 ???
Recreational Value Per 1000
Residents
New
LOS ??? ??? 1.63 ???
Source: 2016 Park & Open Space Plan
Formatted Table
Formatted: Font color: Background 1, Not
Highlight
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Font: 6 pt
228
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 29
Level of Service by City Region
Table CF.11
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List – Parks
Re
g
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
/
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
Pa
r
k
a
n
d
T
r
a
i
l
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
a
l
u
e
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
a
l
u
e
Le
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
a
l
u
e
P
e
r
1
0
0
0
P
e
o
p
l
e
)
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Downtown 21 45.4 3662 49.75 37.65 125.5 10.28 34.27
Green River 19 157.98 16041 66.75 49.4 166 3.08 10.35
East Hill South/Kent Kangley 11 362.93 43786 88.25 70.1 191.25 1.60 4.37
West Hill 9 204.33 16125 29.25 21.75 83.25 1.35 5.16
East Hill North/Panther Lake 10 90.18 42162.5 24.5 19.63 98 0.47 2.32
Total in 2016 87 860.82 121776.5 258.5 198.53 664 1.63 5.45
Estimated 2035 138,156 1.44 4.81
Formatted: Left
229
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 30
Summary - ALL Projects
Financial Sources and Uses (Amounts in thousands)
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond
Capital Uses
Land, Land Rights 6,445.4 250.0 255.0 260.1 265.3 270.6 276.0 4,868.0
Buildings, Bldg Improvements - - - - - - - -
Site Improvements 134,597.3 6,060.8 6,455.2 10,684.2 8,822.6 9,303.9 7,456.6 85,814.0
Vehicles, Equipment & Other 7,951.6 465.0 345.0 345.0 345.0 345.0 345.0 5,762.0
Artwork - - - - - - - -
Project Management 4,132.7 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 3,083.0
Total Uses 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,527.0
Capital Sources
Federal Grant - - - - - - - -
WA State Grant 996.5 - 125.0 871.5 - - - -
King County Grant - - - - - - - -
King County Levy 1,185.0 232.0 235.0 237.0 239.0 242.0 - -
Other Grant - - - - - - - -
Gas Tax 189.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 135.0
Donations/Contributions - - - - - - - -
Revenue Bonds - - - - - - - -
LTGO Bonds - - - - - - - -
Voted Bonds - - - - - - - -
General Fund Revenues 120.0 120.0 - - - - - -
Youth & Teen Revenues - - - - - - - -
CIP Revenues 6,300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0
CIP REET 2 Revenues 27,350.0 500.0 500.0 1,000.0 950.0 900.0 900.0 22,600.0
Facilities Revenues - - - - - - - -
Sources to be determined 116,986.5 5,789.8 6,061.2 9,046.8 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0
Total Sources 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,527.0
Operating Needs
Ongoing Operating Needs - - - - - - - -
Total Operating - - - - - - - -
By Project Type
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Existing Capacity 106,870.9 4,996.8 5,367.0 9,571.1 7,684.3 8,139.8 6,266.2 64,846.0
New Capacity 37,717.5 1,464.0 1,493.3 1,523.1 1,553.6 1,584.7 1,616.4 28,482.0
Programmatic 8,538.6 490.0 370.0 370.0 370.0 370.0 370.0 6,199.0
Total 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,527.0
230
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 31
Tab # Project Name Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond
Tab - 1 Community Parks Reinvestment Program 8,729.0 409.2 411.0 412.2 413.4 415.2 270.0 6,398.0
Tab - 1.1 Community Parks Reinvestment Program - Unfunded 16,457.5 1,138.9 1,167.8 1,198.1 1,229.1 1,260.2 1,438.9 9,024.5
Tab - 2 Neighborhood Park Reinvestment Program 3,801.5 272.8 274.0 274.8 275.6 276.8 180.0 2,247.5
Tab - 2.1 Neighborhood Park Reinvestment Program - Unfunded 2,047.4 137.1 144.9 153.3 161.9 170.8 169.7 1,109.7
Tab - 3 ShoWare 6,300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0
Tab - 4 GreenKent 353.1 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 263.1
Tab - 5 Adopt-A-Park 590.6 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 440.6
Tab - 6 Eagle Scout Volunteer Program 234.3 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 174.3
Tab - 7 Park and Open Space Plan 120.0 120.0 - - - - - -
Tab - 7.1 Park and Open Space Plan - Unfunded 467.8 - - - - - - 467.8
Tab - 8 Path and Trails 3,897.3 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 3,843.3
Tab - 8.1 Path and Trails - Unfunded 12,922.6 1,043.1 1,064.8 1,086.2 1,108.1 1,130.5 1,153.3 6,336.6
Tab - 9 Master Plans - Unfunded 591.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 441.0
Tab - 10 Architect/Engineering - Unfunded 472.8 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 352.8
Tab - 11 Lake Meridian Park Phase 1 1,750.0 - - 500.0 450.0 400.0 400.0 -
Tab - 12 Kent Valley Loop Trail Implementation - Unfunded 550.0 250.0 150.0 150.0 - - - -
Tab - 13 Van Dorens Park Renovation - Unfunded 2,143.0 - 125.0 2,018.0 - - - -
Tab - 14 Russell Road Field Conversion - Unfunded 1,993.0 - 250.0 1,743.0 - - - -
Tab - 15 Kent Memorial Park Renovation - Unfunded 932.0 - - 121.0 811.0 - - -
Tab - 16 Lake Fenwick Park Phase 1 - Unfunded 1,285.0 - - 100.0 1,185.0 - - -
Tab - 17 Springwood Park Improvements - Unfunded 2,800.0 - - - 200.0 2,600.0 - -
Tab - 20 West Fenwick Phase 2 Park Renovation - Unfunded 731.0 - - - - - 731.0 -
Tab - 21 Mill Creek Earthworks Redevelopment - Unfunded 1,021.0 - - - - - - 1,021.0
Tab - 18 Strategic Development 3,318.0 - - - - - - 3,318.0
Tab - 18.1 Strategic Development - Unfunded 27,954.2 1,214.0 1,238.3 1,263.0 1,288.3 1,314.1 1,340.4 20,296.1
Tab - 19 Strategic Acquisitions - Unfunded 6,445.4 250.0 255.0 260.1 265.3 270.6 276.0 4,868.4
Tab - 22 Athletic Fields 6,050.3 - - - - - - 6,050.3
Tab - 22.1 Athletic Fields - Unfunded 21,177.9 1,711.7 1,745.5 1,780.4 1,816.0 1,852.4 1,889.4 10,382.4
Tab - 23 Strategic Redevelopment - Unfunded 17,991.4 - - - - - - 17,991.4
Total: 153,127.0 6,950.8 7,230.2 11,464.3 9,607.9 10,094.5 8,252.6 99,526.7
231
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 32
Summary - Funded Projects Only
Financial Sources and Uses (Amounts in thousands)
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond
Capital Uses
Land, Land Rights - - - - - - - -
Buildings, Bldg Improvements - - - - - - - -
Site Improvements 24,591.3 566.0 569.0 1,071.0 1,023.0 976.0 734.0 19,652.0
Vehicles, Equipment & Other 6,420.0 420.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0
Artwork - - - - - - - -
Project Management 4,132.7 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 3,083.0
Total Uses 35,144.0 1,161.0 1,044.0 1,546.0 1,498.0 1,451.0 1,209.0 27,235.0
Capital Sources
Federal Grant - - - - - - - -
WA State Grant - - - - - - - -
King County Grant - - - - - - - -
King County Levy 1,185.0 232.0 235.0 237.0 239.0 242.0 - -
Other Grant - - - - - - - -
Gas Tax 189.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 135.0
Donations/Contributions - - - - - - - -
Revenue Bonds - - - - - - - -
LTGO Bonds - - - - - - - -
Voted Bonds - - - - - - - -
General Fund Revenues 120.0 120.0 - - - - - -
Youth & Teen Revenues - - - - - - - -
CIP Revenues 6,300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 4,500.0
CIP REET 2 Revenues 27,350.0 500.0 500.0 1,000.0 950.0 900.0 900.0 22,600.0
Facilities Revenues - - - - - - - -
Sources to be determined - - - - - - - -
Total Sources 35,144.0 1,161.0 1,044.0 1,546.0 1,498.0 1,451.0 1,209.0 27,235.0
Operating Needs
Ongoing Operating Needs - - - - - - - -
Total Operating - - - - - - - -
By Project Type
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond
Existing Capacity 24,228.1 691.0 694.0 1,196.0 1,148.0 1,101.0 859.0 18,539.0
New Capacity 3,318.0 - - - - - - 3,318.0
Programmatic 7,598.0 470.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 5,378.0
Total 35,144.0 1,161.0 1,044.0 1,546.0 1,498.0 1,451.0 1,209.0 27,235.0
232
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 33
Summary - Unfunded Projects
Financial Sources and Uses (Amounts in thousands)
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond
Capital Uses
Land, Land Rights 6,445.4 250.0 255.0 260.1 265.3 270.6 276.0 4,868.0
Buildings, Bldg Improvements - - - - - - - -
Site Improvements 110,006.0 5,494.8 5,886.2 9,613.2 7,799.6 8,327.9 6,722.6 66,162.0
Vehicles, Equipment & Other 1,531.6 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 1,262.0
Artwork - - - - - - - -
Project Management - - - - - - - -
Total Uses 117,983.0 5,789.8 6,186.2 9,918.3 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0
Capital Sources
Federal Grant - - - - - - - -
WA State Grant 996.5 - 125.0 871.5 - - - -
King County Grant - - - - - - - -
King County Levy - - - - - - - -
Other Grant - - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - - -
Donations/Contributions - - - - - - - -
Revenue Bonds - - - - - - - -
LTGO Bonds - - - - - - - -
Voted Bonds - - - - - - - -
General Fund Revenues - - - - - - - -
Youth & Teen Revenues - - - - - - - -
CIP Revenues - - - - - - - -
CIP REET 2 Revenues - - - - - - - -
Facilities Revenues - - - - - - - -
Sources to be determined 116,986.5 5,789.8 6,061.2 9,046.8 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0
Total Sources 117,983.0 5,789.8 6,186.2 9,918.3 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0
Operating Needs
Ongoing Operating Needs - - - - - - - -
Total Operating - - - - - - - -
By Project Type
Total
Request 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Existing Capacity 82,642.8 4,305.8 4,673.0 8,375.1 6,536.3 7,038.8 5,407.2 46,306.0
New Capacity 34,399.6 1,464.0 1,493.3 1,523.1 1,553.6 1,584.7 1,616.4 25,165.0
Programmatic 940.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 821.0
Total 117,983.0 5,789.8 6,186.2 9,918.3 8,109.9 8,643.5 7,043.6 72,292.0
233
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 34
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
A complete assessment of transportation facilities is considered in the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element as well as the Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) which was adopted in June 2008. Figure 5 of the
Transportation Element Technical Report illustrates the City’s recommended
project list through 2035 which includes four types of improvements:
intersection improvements, new streets, street widening, and railroad grade
separations. The list includes 40 projects totaling nearly $509 million.
Table CF.12
Transportation Recommended Project List
Type of Project Number of Projects Cost ($)
Intersection Improvements 17 15,577,000
New Streets 4 84,715,000
Street Widening 14 269,389,000
Railroad Grade Separation 5 139,300,000
Total
and freeways)
40 $508,981,000
Source: City of Kent 2015 Transportation Element Technical Report. Figures are in 2007 dollars.
The goal and policies, including Level of Service (LOS) policies and inventories
related to the provision of transportation services and facilities are contained in
the Transportation Element and Transportation Technical Background Report of
this Comprehensive Plan and in the Transportation Master Plan.
Table CF.13 shows a breakdown of the City’s streets by classification. There are
more miles of local streets than any other category, as local streets are present
in all neighborhoods. Local streets represent 66 percent of the streets.
Principal arterials represent only 7 percent of the roadway miles, but carry
most of the daily traffic volume.
Table CF.13
Transportation
Existing Street Functional Classification
Functional Classification Miles of Roadway Percentage of Total
Principal Arterials 30 6.5
Minor Arterials 39 8.5
Collector Arterials
Industrial 13 2.8
Residential 31 6.8
Residential Collectors 41 9.0
Local Access Streets/ 303 66.3
Unclassified
234
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 35
Functional Classification Miles of Roadway Percentage of Total
Total (excluding state highways
and freeways)
457 100
Source: City of Kent 2008 Transportation Master Plan
Level of Service (LOS)
The City of Kent uses roadway corridors to evaluate LOS. Roadway LOS is a
measure of the operational performance of a transportation facility. A letter
grade, ranging from A to F, is assigned based on the delay experienced by
drivers. LOS standards are used to assess existing and projected future
traffic conditions. In general, LOS A and B indicate minimal delay, LOS C and
D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indicates that traffic volumes are
approaching capacity, and LOS F indicates congested conditions where
demand exceeds capacity. For signalized intersections and unsignalized, all-
way stop-controlled intersections, the LOS is determined by the average
delay experienced by all vehicles. For unsignalized, side-street stop-
controlled intersections, LOS is determined by the movement with the
highest delay. Table CF-14 displays the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
thresholds used to determine LOS at signalized and unsignalized
intersections.
Table CF.14
Intersection Level Of Service Criteria
Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Unsignalized Intersection Delay per
Vehicle (Seconds)
A < 10 < 10
B > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15
C > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25
D > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35
E > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50
F > 80 >50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010, Transportation Research Board
The City’s adopted LOS standard requires that nearly all corridors operate at
LOS E or better during the PM peak hour. The only exceptions are the Pacific
Highway South corridor and the downtown zone which are allowed to operate
at LOS F.
The LOS was re-examined in 2015 using 2014 vehicle counts to compare
with 2006 data used for the adoption of the 2008 TMP. The results indicate
that overall traffic congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same,
235
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 36
or improved somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the City. The 2014
analysis indicates that all corridors are currently meeting the City’s LOS
standard.
The work completed in 2015 included analyzing 20-year land use forecasts.
The forecasts project land use growth to the year 2035 based on the Puget
Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) regional Land Use Target (LUT) forecasts.
Table CF-15 summarizes how the 2035 LUT forecast compares to previous
land use forecasts.
Table CF.15
City Of Kent Land Use Forecasts
Policy Document Forecast Year Employment1 Households
2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) 2031 81,900 48,400
2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS
Proposal 2031 93,600 68,900
2013 Downtown Subarea Action Plan EIS
Proposal 2031 73,300 57,100
2015 Comprehensive Plan Update 2035 81,900 53,500
Notes: 1. Employment totals do not include construction jobs.
Compared to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan, the 2035 LUT forecast
includes the same number of jobs throughout the City, but roughly 5,100
more households. The 2035 LUT forecast is well below the employment and
household figures assumed for the 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Proposal. Therefore, the 2008 TMP
and 2011 Midway Proposal forecasts bookend the 2035 LUT forecast. Both of
these scenarios were analyzed in detail in the 2011 Midway EIS.
The results of the corridor LOS analysis presented in Table 2 and Figure 3 of
the Transportation Element Technical Report indicate that the overall traffic
congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same, or improved
somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the City. The 2014 analysis
indicates that all Corridors are currently meeting the City’s LOS standard.
Table CF.16
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Transportation
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035 Total
(thousands $)
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
B&O Projects
Overlay Projects
3,549.0
3,550.0
3,550.0
3,550.0
3,550.0
3,550.0 53250 74549
236
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 37
Sidewalks
895.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0
900.0 13500 18895
Striping
226.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0 3300 4626
Signal Loops
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0 450 630
B&O Revenue
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
70,500.0
98,700.0
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Street Fund & Utility Tax
Traffic Controllers
-
-
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
2,700.0
3,420.0
Traffic Signal Damage
-
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1,500.0
1,900.0
Street Light Mtc.
-
-
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
1,425.0
1,805.0
UPS Cabinets - New
-
-
50.0
50.0
50.0
-
-
150.0
UPS Cabinets - Repl.
-
-
-
-
-
45.0
675.0
720.0
Traffic Counts
-
-
-
-
150.0
150.0
2,250.0
2,550.0
Traffic Cameras - New
-
-
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
-
128.0
Traffic Cameras - Repl.
-
-
-
-
-
-
150.0
150.0
Neighborhood Traffic
Control
-
-
193.0
243.0
250.0
250.0
3,750.0
4,686.0
Street Fund & Utility Tax
Revenue
-
-
650.0
700.0
857.0
852.0
12,450.0
15,509.0
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Metro Transit Services
Metro Transit Services
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
2,325.0
3,255.0
Metro Transit Revenue
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
2,325.0
3,255.0
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Solid Waste Tax Projects
Residential Streets
2,508.0
2,520.0
2,545.0
2,571.0
2,596.0
2,622.0
42,637.0
57,999.0
Solid Waste Utility Tax
2,508.0
2,520.0
2,545.0
2,571.0
2,596.0
2,622.0
42,637.0
57,999.0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects
4,855.0
4,855.0
5,505.0
5,555.0
5,712.0
5,707.0
85,275.0
117,464.0
Non-Capacity Projects
2,508.0
2,520.0
2,545.0
2,571.0
2,596.0
2,622.0
42,637.0
57,999.0
Total Costs
7,363.0
7,375.0
8,050.0
8,126.0
8,308.0
8,329.0
127,912.0
175,463.0
Baseline Funding - Estimated Available Funds
B&O Funds
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
4,700.0
70,500.0
98,700.0
Street Fund & Utility Tax
-
-
650.0
700.0
857.0
852.0
12,450.0
15,509.0
Metro Transit Services
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
155.0
2,325.0
3,255.0
Solid Waste Utility Tax
2,508.0
2,520.0
2,545.0
2,571.0
2,596.0
2,622.0
42,637.0
57,999.0
Total Revenues
7,363.0
7,375.0
8,050.0
8,126.0
8,308.0
8,329.0
127,912.0
175,463.0
Partial and Unfunded Street Projects
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035 Total
(thousands $)
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Street Widening
80th Avenue South
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,323.0
1,323.0
237
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 38
South 212th Street
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,100.0
10,100.0
SR
181/WVH/Washington
Avenue
-
-
-
-
-
-
16,150.0
16,150.0
116th Ave SE
-
-
-
-
-
-
46,430.0
46,430.0
132nd Ave SE (SE 200
- SE 236)
-
-
-
-
-
-
20,990.0
20,990.0
132nd Ave SE (SE 248
- SE 236)
-
-
-
-
-
-
11,950.0
11,950.0
Military Road South
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,630.0
13,630.0
West Meeker Street
(Fenwick - GR)
-
-
-
-
-
-
70,000.0
70,000.0
West Meeker Street (64
- GR)
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,960.0
5,960.0
SE 248th Street
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,640.0
5,640.0
SE 256th Street
-
-
-
-
-
-
16,980.0
16,980.0
132nd Ave SE (KK - SE
248)
-
-
-
-
-
-
23,200.0
23,200.0
South 272nd Street
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,916.0
13,916.0
132nd Ave SE (SE 288
- KK)
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,120.0
13,120.0
269,389.0
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Intersection
Improvements
SE 192nd/SR515-
Benson
-
-
-
-
-
-
540.0
540.0
South 196th/80th Ave
South
-
-
-
-
-
-
250.0
250.0
South 196th/84th Ave
South
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,190.0
1,190.0
South 212th/72nd Ave
South
-
-
-
-
-
-
330.0
330.0
South 212th 84th Ave
South
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,710.0
1,710.0
South 212th/SR 167
-
-
-
-
-
-
400.0
400.0
South 240th/SR 99
-
-
-
-
-
-
420.0
420.0
SE 240th/SR 515
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,650.0
1,650.0
Smith/Central
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
20.0
Meeker/Washington
-
-
-
-
-
-
780.0
780.0
South 260th/SR 99
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,180.0
1,180.0
Military/Reith
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,945.0
1,945.0
SE 256th/SR 515
-
-
-
-
-
-
550.0
550.0
Kent-Kangley/108th
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,410.0
1,410.0
SE 256th/132nd Ave
SE
-
-
-
-
-
-
302.0
302.0
South 272nd/Military
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,540.0
1,540.0
Kent-Kangley/132nd
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,360.0
1,360.0
15,577.0
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
New Streets SE 196th Street
238
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 39
- - - - - - 45,200.0 45,200.0
72nd Ave South
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,015.0
1,015.0
South 224th Street
-
-
-
-
-
-
36,000.0
36,000.0
108th Ave SE
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,500.0
2,500.0
84,715.0
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Railroad Grade
Separations
South 212th/UPRR
-
-
-
-
-
-
33,000.0
33,000.0
South 212th/BNRR
-
-
-
-
-
-
33,000.0
33,000.0
South 228th/UPRR
-
-
-
-
-
-
24,200.0
24,200.0
Willis Street/UPRR
-
-
-
-
-
-
26,500.0
26,500.0
Willis Street/BNRR
-
-
-
-
-
-
22,600.0
22,600.0
139,300.0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects
-
-
-
-
-
-
369,681.0
369,681.0
Non-Capacity Projects
-
-
-
-
-
-
139,300.0
139,300.0
Total Costs
-
-
-
-
-
-
508,981.0
508,981.0
Baseline Funding - Estimated Available Funds
Street Fund & Utility Tax
-
-
-
-
93.0
148.0
32,700.0
32,941.0
Total Revenues
-
-
-
-
93.0
148.0
32,700.0
32,941.0
SOLID WASTE
The City of Kent has entered into an inter-local agreement (ILA) with King
County Solid Waste and most jurisdictions in King County. This inter-local
agreement expires in 2040. As a partner to the ILA, all municipal solid waste
generated in the City of Kent must be taken to King County’s Cedar Hills
Landfill located near Maple Valley. This landfill was originally permitted in
1960 and is King County’s last active landfill; King County has worked to
extend the life of the landfill through waste diversion. At the present time,
Cedar Hills is expected to close around 2028, however increased diversion
may extend that time frame. The King County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan identifies several landfills that are potential locations for
solid waste disposal following the closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill.
Table CF.17
Potential Locations for Out-of-County Landfill Disposal
Landfill Name Location Capacity (tons) Year of Estimated
Closure
Columbia Ridge
Landfill
Gilliam County, OR 201,000,000 2135+
239
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 40
Roosevelt Regional
Landfill
Klickitat County,
WA
205,000,000 2075+
Finley Buttes
Regional Landfill
Morrow County, OR 124,000,000 2100+
Simco Road
Regional Landfill
Elmore County, ID 200,000,000+ 2100+
Eagle Mountain
Landfill
Riverside County,
CA
708,000,000 2125
Mesquite Regional
Landfill
Imperial County,
CA
600,000,000 2110
Following the closure of the Cedar Hills landfill, waste will be exported out of
the county via train to one of the landfills identified above or via waste to
energy conversion technology such as anerobic digestion. As the closure of
the landfill nears, King County Solid Waste division will follow the technology
to identify what process or processes would be best suited to King County.
Technology for waste to energy conversion is likely to have significant
improvements over the next decade.
Kent contracts solid waste collection for municipal garbage, recycling and
yard and food waste with a contractor. The contractor collects solid waste in
Kent and disposes the garbage directly to the Cedar Hills landfill or a King
County Solid Waste transfer station. Co-mingled recycling is processed at
the contractor’s materials recycling facility in Seattle. All yard and food
waste collected by Kent’s contractor is taken Cedar Grove to be converted
into compost.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water
The principal sources of water supply for the City's municipal water system are
Kent Springs and Clark Springs. During high demand periods, supplemental
well facilities are activated. These sources meet the 6.2 million gallon average
daily demand (ADD) and the approximately 12.1 million gallon peak daily
demand (PDD). To meet long-term demands, the City executed an agreement
in 2002 to partner with Tacoma Water, Covington Water District and Lakehaven
Utility District in the Green River Second Supply Water Project. This additional
water source will meet the City’s long-term peak day demand projections
identified in the Water System Plan of approximately 18 million gallons based
upon growth projections to 2030. In fact, existing water supply can produce 30
million gallons per day; however, additional storage reservoirs will be needed to
deliver this water to customers. Please see the Utilities Element and 2011
Water System Plan for additional information.
240
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 41
The 2011 Kent Water System Plan estimated water demands through 2030.
To estimate future water demands, historic consumption, land use and
population forecasts were used. Kent has municipal water supplies of
approximately 30 MGD which is sufficient to the meet the Average Daily
Demand and the Peak Day Demand through the planning period in the 2011
Kent Water System Plan as outlined in the table below.
NOTE: For security reasons, water sources and capacity are combined in the
tables below.
Table CF.18
Water
Current Facilities Inventory – Water (2011)
Facility Location
Size/Amount
(Gallons Per Day)
Various springs, wells, and
partnerships
Citywide 30 million gallons/day in municipal
water
Source: 2011 Water System Plan
Table CF.19
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Water Supply
Time Period ERU
Average Daily
Demand (ADD) and
Peak Day Demand
(PDD)] Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
[Average Daily
Demand (ADD)]
Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 197 gallons PER ERU per day ADD and 358 gallons PER ERU per day PDD
2015 43,460 7.43 MGD (ADD) –
13.83 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
22.57 MGD
(ADD) – 16.17
MGD (PDD)
2016 43,881 7.74 MGD (ADD) –
14.27 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
22.26 MGD
(ADD) – 15.73
MGD (PDD)
2017 44,302 8.05 MGD (ADD) –
14.7 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
21.95 MGD
(ADD) – 15.30
MGD (PDD)
241
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 42
2018 44,723 8.35 MGD (ADD) –
15.13 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
21.65 MGD
(ADD) – 14.87
MGD (PDD)
2019* 45,144 8.66 MGD (ADD) –
15.57 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
21.34 MGD
(ADD) – 14.43
MGD (PDD)
2020 45,567 8.97 MGD (ADD) –
16.0 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
21.03 MGD
(ADD) – 14.00
MGD (PDD)
2035 52,801 10.4 MGD (ADD) –
19.0 MGD (PDD) 30 MGD
19.60 MGD
(ADD) – 11.00
MGD (PDD)
ERU – Equivalent Residential Unit
Note* - 2035 data estimated from the 2008 Water System Plan
Source: 2011 Water System Plan – Table 6 Appendix D and Figure 3-6 - with straight-line extrapolation to 2035
FIRE FLOW
Fire flow is the measure of sustained flow of available water for fighting fire
at a specific building or within a specific area at 20 psi residual pressure.
When fire flow is provided, WAC 246-290-230(6) requires the water
distribution system to provide a maximum day demand (MDD) plus the
required fire flow at a pressure of at least 20 psi (140 kPa) at all points
throughout the distribution system, and under the condition where the
designated volume of fire suppression and equalizing storage has been
completed.
Table CF.20 below shows the minimum fire flow rates and duration for the
residential, commercial and industrial uses within the city. The 2008 Water
System Plan included modeling based on the land use types in the service
area, and consistent with the development of the demand projections as
presented and used in the development of the plan. Fire flow analyses
resulted in deficiencies within the 590 pressure zone. It was determined that
pipe upsizing and looping would not drastically improve flow, and thus
justified a new pressure zone. This new pressure zone will be the 640
pressure zone which will take a number of years to fund and complete. The
640 Zone Creation Report, 2008, is located in Appendix F of the 2008 Water
System Plan.
242
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 43
Table CF.20
Water
City of Kent Minimum Fire Flow Rates and Duration
Classification
Rate and Duration
Residential (1)
Commercial
Industrial
1,000 gpm or 1,500 gpm for 60 minutes
3,500 gmp for 180 minutes
3,250 gpm for 240 minutes
(1) Where fire flow availability is greater than 1,000 gpm but less than 1,500 gpm, the Fire Marshal requires the
residence to be sprinkled.
Source: 2011 Water System Plan
Table CF.21
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List – Water
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035 Total
(thousands $)
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
640 Pressure Zone
1,500.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
9,000.0
17,000.0
Water Revenue
1,500.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
9,000.0
17,000.0
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
HCP Implementation
(Clark Springs)
-
95.0
240.0
895.0
215.0
240.0
1,800.0
3,485.0
Tacoma Pipeline
-
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
450.0
600.0
Water Conservation
-
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
750.0
1,000.0
Landsburg Mine
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1,500.0
2,000.0
Water System
Improvements
-
620.0
625.0
170.0
200.0
175.0
12,415.0
14,205.0
Large Meter & Vault
Repl.
-
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
1,125.0
1,500.0
Hydrant Replacements
-
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
450.0
600.0
Water Generators
-
-
200.0
-
-
-
800.0
1,000.0
Wellhead Protection
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
4,550.0
5,050.0
Reservoir Maintenance
-
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
1,250.0
1,500.0
Security Impv. Water
Sites
-
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
750.0
1,000.0
Transmission Mains
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3,260.0
3,760.0
SCADA
-
-
-
-
-
-
900.0
900.0
Guiberson Reservoir
2,800.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,800.0
Water Revenue
2,800.0
1,300.0
1,650.0
1,650.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
30,000.0
39,400.0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects
1,500.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
1,500.0
9,000.0
17,000.0
243
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 44
Non-Capacity Projects
2,800.0
1,300.0
1,650.0
1,650.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
30,000.0
39,400.0
Total Costs
4,300.0
2,300.0
2,650.0
3,150.0
2,500.0
2,500.0
39,000.0
56,400.0
Water Revenues
4,300.0
2,300.0
2,650.0
3,150.0
2,500.0
2,500.0
39,000.0
56,400.0
Total Revenues
4,300.0
2,300.0
2,650.0
3,150.0
2,500.0
2,500.0
39,000.0
56,400.0
Sewer
The City of Kent sanitary sewer service area encompasses approximately
twenty-three (23) square miles and includes most of the incorporated City, as
well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated King County. Since the
existing collection system already serves most of the City's service area,
expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill development, which
will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local
improvement districts.
The City’s sewer system has been designed and constructed in accordance
with the growing needs of the City. Because Kent’s sewer service area is not
coincident with the City limits, the City uses the future population forecast for
the actual area served by Kent sewer. The sanitary sewer system in Kent has
been designed assuming the tributary areas have been fully developed in
accordance with the land use plan and no further growth could be
accommodated. Please see the Utilities Element and the 2000 Sanitary Sewer
Plan for additional information.
The City of Kent has inter-local agreements with King County METRO to treat
sanitary sewer from Kent and other municipalities in south King County via
the large sewer interceptors that run through the City. As such, Kent does
not incur any direct capacity-related capital facilities requirements or costs
for sanitary sewer treatment.
The City has eight sanitary sewer pump stations located throughout the city
to pump waste into the King County METRO interceptors that take the waste
to the treatment plant.
The sanitary sewer system is designed to provide a level of service of; 60
gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for residential; 2,000 gallons per acre per
day (gpad) for light industrial; 4,000 gpad for heavy industrial; 3,000 gpad
for light commercial; and 7,000 gpad for heavy commercial. During the
design of any sewer system, calculations are made assuming the tributary
area is fully developed in accordance with the land use plan and no further
244
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 45
growth can be accommodated. As such, the City is meeting the level of
service for the sanitary sewer utility.
Table CF.22
Sewer
Current Facilities Inventory – Sewer (2015)
Pump Station Location
Size/Amount
(Pump Capacity*)
Horseshoe Acres 7942 S. 261st St. Two 650 gpm pumps
which run alternately
Linda Heights 3406 S. 248th St. Two 330 gpm pumps
which run alternately
Lindental 26432 118th Pl. SE Three 2,000 gpm
pumps which run
alternately
Skyline 3301 S. 222nd Pl. Two 150 gpm pumps
which run alternately
Victoria Ridge 4815 S. 272nd Pl. Two 100 gpm pumps
which run alternately
212th St. Pump Station 9001 S. 212th St. Two 100 gpm pumps
which run alternately
Frager Road 21233 Frager Road S. Two 650 gpm pumps
which run alternately
Mill Creek 26710 104th Ave. SE Two 150 gpm pumps
which run alternately
*If needed, pumps at the pump station can operate concurrently to meet capacity.
Table CF.23
Level of Service Requirements Analysis – Sewer Capital Facility
Time Period Total Acreage Served
by system
Gallons per Day
(GPD) Needed to
Meet LOS standard
Current
[Gallons Per Day
(GPD) Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = 4,546 Gallons per acre per day (GPAD)
2015 9,030 41.05 MGD 68.42 MGD 27.37 MGD
2016 9,218 41.91 MGD 68.42 MGD 26.51 MGD
2017 9,406 42.76 MGD 68.42 MGD 25.66 MGD
245
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 46
2018 9,594 43.62 MGD 68.42 MGD 24.80 MGD
2019 9,783 44.47 MGD 68.42 MGD 23.95 MGD
2020 9,971 45.33 MGD 68.42 MGD 23.09 MGD
2035 12,793 58.16 MGD 68.42 MGD 10.26 MGD
Source: 2000 Comprehensive Sewer Plan - with straight-line extrapolation to 2035
Table CF.24
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Sewer
Project and
Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035 Total
(thousands $)
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Misc Sewer
Replacement
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
23,800.0
30,375.0
Linda Heights
Replacement
-
-
-
-
-
1,900.0
-
1,900.0
Skyline
Replacement
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,200.0
2,200.0
Horseshoe
Replacement
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,000.0
2,000.0
Derbyshire
Improvement
-
2,000.0
2,000.0
Sewer Revenue
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
30,000.0
38,475.0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity Projects
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-Capacity
Projects
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
30,000.0
38,475.0
Total Costs
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
30,000.0
38,475.0
Sewer Revenue
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
30,000.0
38,475.0
Total Revenues
1,075.0
1,000.0
1,300.0
1,500.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
30,000.0
38,475.0
Storm Drainage
The stormwater system is comprised of a nearly 325-mile network of ditches,
pipes, and stormwater quantity and quality control facilities which connect
individual parcels with the City’s surface water systems. The City also owns,
246
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 47
operates and maintains several regional quantity and quality control facilities.
The City has established a replacement program to repair or replace segments
of the pipes each year. Segments also may be targeted for improvements
before the end of the service life, usually due to inadequate capacity after
increases in development. An analysis of the existing storm drainage pipes
within the City indicated approximately 41% have failed to meet the minimum
requirements for passing a 25-year storm event. These systems are noted
within the 2009 Drainage Master Plan (DMP).
The DMP included an evaluation of watersheds and drainage basins, analysis of
open channel components (receiving water) for insufficient capacity, and a
determination and prioritization of projects needed to reduce flood risks,
improve water quality, enhance fish passage and instream/riparian habitats,
and efficiently serve planned growth in a cost–effective way. Further details on
each project are located in Chapter 7, Table 7-1 of the DMP. Total project costs
range from $52 million to $ 67 million in 2008 dollars.
Land development activities requiring approval from the City of Kent must
meet the requirements of Kent’s Surface Water Design Manual. When
discharging to streams or open channels, runoff rates from development
sites are required to meet certain water quality and flow control standards.
Details of design criteria and core requirements can be found in the current
Surface Water Design Manual. The city ensures development activities meet
the requirements of the SWDM.
The level of service for the maintenance of the stormwater system is
measured by meeting requirements of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Phase II permit for Western Washington, issued by the
Washington State Department of Ecology. The city is currently meeting this
level of service.
The King County Flood Control District (KCFCD) has primary responsibility for
operation and maintenance of the Green River levees. However, the city is
leading the effort to obtain FEMA accreditation for the levees, which
documents that they meet federal standards for design, construction,
operation and maintenance. The city is partnering with the KCFCD to make
improvements to the levees in the valley and maintain them as needed to
meet accreditation requirements.
247
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 48
Table CF.25
Regional Stormwater Detention and Water Quality Facilities
Current Facilities Inventory – Stormwater (2015)
Pump Station Location
Size/Amount
(Pump Capacity*)
Green River Natural
Resources Area
East of Russell Road,
north of S. 228th Street
Detention and Water
Quality
Upper Mill Creek
Detention Facility
East of 104th Avenue SE
near SE 267th Street
Detention
Lower Mill Creek
Detention Facility
Within Earthworks Park Detention
98th Avenue/Garrison
Creek Detention Facility
98th Avenue at SE 233rd
Street
Detention and Water
Quality
Meridian Meadows
Detention Facility
East of 128th Avenue at
266th Street
Detention
South 259th Street
Detention Facility
North of S. 259th Street
between 1st and 3rd
Avenues
Detention and Water
Quality
Table CF.26
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Stormwater
Project and
Cost/Revenu
e 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035 Total
(thousands
$)
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Green River
Levees
500.0
6,795.0
6,190.0
6,185.0
6,180.0
6,125.0
8,425.0
40,400.0
Mill/Garrison/S
pring & GR
Tributaries
4,100.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,000.0
58,925.0
68,025.0
NPDES
-
205.0
210.0
215.0
220.0
225.0
3,975.0
5,050.0
Soos Creek &
Tributaries
-
-
-
-
-
-
12,875.0
12,875.0
Storm
Maintenance &
Replacement
3,400.0
-
-
-
-
32,200.0
35,600.0
West Hill
Drainage
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,700.0
4,700.0
248
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 49
Drainage
Revenue
8,000.0
8,000.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,350.0
121,100.
0
166,650.
0
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity
Projects
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-Capacity
Projects
8,000.0
8,000.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,350.0
121,100.
0
166,650.
0
Total Costs
8,000.0
8,000.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,350.0
121,100.
0
166,650.
0
Drainage
Revenue
8,000.0
8,000.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,350.0
121,100.
0
166,650.
0
Total
Revenues
8,000.0
8,000.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,400.0
7,350.0
121,100.
0
166,650.
0
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Telecommunications in Kent include both wired and wireless telephone
services, cable and satellite television, and high-speed broadband
technology. With expansion of telecommunications infrastructure, new
technologies and competition, telecommunications utilities are expected to
meet voice, video and broadband demands during the planning period. (See
also the Utilities Element in this Plan.)
Table CF.27
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Current Facilities Inventory – (2015)
Facility Location
Size/Amount
(Num, Sq Ft, Acres)
Type 1 – Office Locations
City Hall 2nd Floor 220 Fourth Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 5,110 Sq. Ft.
Annex Building 302 W Gowe St, Kent 98032 4,600 Sq. Ft.
Total Type 1
9,710 Sq. Ft.
Type 2 – Data Center
Fire Station 74 24611 116th Ave SE, Kent, WA 98030 800 Sq. Ft,
City Hall 2nd Floor 220 Fourth Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 1,240 Sq. Ft.
Total Type 2
2,040 Sq. Ft.
Type 3 – Print Shop
City Hall 1st Floor 220 Fourth Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 1,332 Sq. Ft.
Total Type 2 1,332 Sq. Ft.
Total All Types 13,082 Sq. Ft.
Source: XXX
249
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 50
Table CF.28
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Level of Service Requirements Analysis –Capital Facility Type
Time Period
Population
(IT Employees,
including temps)
Square Feet
requirements
Needed to Meet
LOS standard
Current
[Square Feet]
Available
Net Reserve or
(Deficit)
CURRENT LOS STANDARD = SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE POPULATION
2015 34 9,977 13,082 3,105
2021 40 11.027 13,082 2,205
2035 46 12,077 13,082 1,005
ADJUSTED LOS STANDARD
2015 XXX XXX XXX XXX
2021 XXX XXX XXX XXX
2035 XXX XXX XXX XXX
Source: http://operationstech.about.com/od/startinganoffice/a/OffSpaceCalc.htm
Table CF.29
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List
Project and
Cost/Revenue
(thousands $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035 Total
CAPACITY PROJECTS (Projects Required to Meet LOS – Level of Service)
Hardware Lifecycle
Cost $939,700 $508,900 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $9,330,000 $13,266,650
Revenue
Source 1
$939,700 $508,900 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $622,000 $9,330,000 $13,266,650
Software Lifecycle
Cost $303,750 $744,900 $1,125,000 $1,175,000 $875,000 $975,000 $21,425,000 $26,623,650
Revenue
Source 1
$303,750 $744,900 $625,000 $625,000 $125,000 $175,000 $2,970,000 $5,568,650
Revenue
Source 3
$500,000 550,000 $750,000 $800,000 $18,500,000 $21,055,000
Tech Plan
Cost $203,500 $193,200 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $3,000,000 $4,196,700
Revenue
Source 1
$6,500 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $45,000 $63,500
Revenue
Source 2
$197,000 $193,200 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $2,955,000 $4,133,200
NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Project 1
Cost $X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X
Revenue
Source 1
$X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X
250
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 51
Project and
Cost/Revenue
(thousands $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035 Total
Revenue
Source 2
$X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X
Project 2
Cost $X $X $X $X
Revenue
Source 1
$X $X $X $X
Revenue
Source 2
$X $X $X $X
COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Capacity
Projects
$1,447,000 $1,447,000 $1,947,000 $1,997,000 $1,697,000 $1,797,000 $33,755,000 $44,087,000
Non-
Capacity
Projects
$X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X
Total Costs $1,447,000 $1,447,000 $1,947,000 $1,997,000 $1,697,000 $1,797,000 $33,755,000 $44,087,000
Source 1 -
Cable Utility
Tax
$1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000
$1,250,000 $750,000 $800,000 $12,300,000 $18,850,000
Source 2 -
Tech Fees $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $3,940,000
Source 3 -
Internal
Utility Tax
$500,000
$550,000 $750,000 $800,000 $18,500,000
$21,100,000
Total Revenues $1,447,000 $1,447,000 $1,947,000 $1,997,000 $1,697,000 $1,797,000 $33,755,000 $44,087,000
PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES
Most of Kent's residential areas are served by the Kent School District No. 415.
However, Kent residents are also served by the Auburn, Federal Way, Highline
and Renton School Districts. Detailed inventories of school district capital
facilities and levels-of-service are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
of each school district. The CFPs of the Kent, Auburn, Federal Way and Highline
School Districts and associated school impact fees are adopted annually. The
CFP for the Renton School District is incorporated by reference, although no
school impact fees are collected for the Renton School District for residential
development within Kent. Estimated total student enrollment figures of Kent’s
Planning Area households for each school district are provided in Table CF.4
below.
Locations of schools within the Kent School District and the boundaries of other
school districts serving Kent’s Planning Area are illustrated in Figure CF-4.
251
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 52
Figure CF-4
Educational Service Areas and Facilities
Table CF.30
SCHOOL DISTRICT KENT STUDENT ENROLLMENT - 2015
Kent
School
District
Auburn
School
District
Federal Way
School
District
Highline
School
District
Renton
School
District
Estimated Total Kent
Planning Area Resident
Student Enrollment
20,642 42 2,083 291 119
To accommodate projected growth, the school districts have noted the following
projects in their 2014 Capital Facilities Plan:
Kent: Temporary reopening of former Kent Elementary School (now Kent
Valley Early Learning Center) to house kindergarten and early child
education classes for Kent and Neely-O’Brien Elementary; Voter-
approved funding for Elementary School #31 reallocated to capital
projects for safety and security; Expansion of Neely-O’Brien
Elementary School; Replacement of Covington Elementary School.
Anticipated funding is through local and state funds and impact fees.
Federal Way: Replace Federal Way high school; increase capacity at Decatur
High. Norman Center (Employment Transition Program)
financed through state-approved LOCAL program through 2020.
Phased in full-day kindergarten and decreased K-3 class size
create need for additional classes. Funding for improvements
would be through land sale funds, bond funds, state match, and
impact fees.
Auburn: 1 Elementary School and 1 Middle School construction;
Acquisition of future school site: Technology Modernization;
Facility Improvements – Funded through capital levy, bonds and
impact fees
Highline: New elementary school and two new middle schools –
dependent upon voter-approved capital bonds
252
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 53
PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES
The City of Kent is served by the King County Library
System in the 22,600 square feet Kent Library
building at 212 2nd Avenue North. The library opened
in 1991 and renovation was completed in March,
2010. The project included interior remodeling such
as relocating the meeting rooms, restrooms, and
front entrance. An Automated Materials Handling
system was also installed in the back room to speed
delivery. .Detailed information regarding the King
County Library System is available on the internet at
www.kcls.org.
Goals and Policies
GENERAL
Goal CF-7:
As the City of Kent continues to grow and develop, ensure that an adequate
supply and range of public services and capital facilities are available to provide
satisfactory standards of public health, safety, and quality of life.
Policy CF-7.1: Assess impacts of residential, commercial and
employment growth on public services and facilities in a manner
consistent with adopted levels-of-service.
Policy CF-7.2: Ensure that public services and capital facilities needs
are addressed in updates to Capital Facilities Plans and Capital
Improvement Programs, and development regulations as appropriate.
Policy CF-7.3: To ensure financial feasibility, provide needed public
services and facilities that the City has the ability to fund, or that the
City has the authority to require others to provide.
Policy CF-7.4: Periodically review the Land Use Element to ensure that
public services and capital facilities needs, financing and levels-of-service
of the Capital Facilities Element are consistent and adequate to serve
growth where it is desired.
Policy CF-7.5: With the 2016 update of the Park and Open Space Plan
and the 2017 update of the Transportation Master Plan, adopt one or
253
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 54
more of the following options to ensure the City can accommodate the
projected 20-year growth in households and jobs: Demand
Management, Revised Level of Service, Land Use Revisions,
Partnering, or Phasing.
Policy CF-7.6: Coordinate the review of non-City managed capital
facilities plans to ensure consistency with the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy CF-7.7: Ensure that the planning, design, construction and
operation of public facilities projects will not result in conflicts or
substantial inconsistencies with other Comprehensive Plan policies.
Goal CF-8:
Base standards for levels-of-service upon the appropriate provision of public
services and facilities as outlined in the operating comprehensive plans of the
City and other providers of services and facilities to Kent and its Potential
Annexation Area.
Policy CF-8.1: Establish levels-of-service appropriate to the core
mission of the City and City departments in their provision of services
and access of facilities to the public.
Policy CF-8.2: When appropriate and beneficial to the City, its citizens,
businesses, and customers, pursue national organizational accreditation
for all City of Kent agencies providing public services and facilities. Such
accreditation should be linked with performance standards applied by
City agencies.
Policy CF-8.3: Coordinate with other jurisdictions and providers of
services and facilities to ensure that the provision of services and
facilities are generally consistent for all Kent residents, businesses, and
others enjoying City services and facilities.
Goal CF-9:
Encourage effective non-capital alternatives to maintain or improve adopted
levels-of-service. Such alternatives could include programs for community
education and awareness, energy conservation, or integration of methods and
technologies to improve service delivery.
254
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 55
Goal CF-10:
Ensure that appropriate funding sources are available to acquire or bond for the
provision of needed public services and facilities.
Related Information
KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment
Plan: S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan
Documents\Capital Facilities and
Equipment Plan_Proposed-2015LOS-
Changes.pdf
KFDRFA Mitigation and Level of Service
Policy: S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan
Documents\Mitigation and LOSC
Policy_September2014.pdf
KFDRFA Mitigation Policy adopting
documents: S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan
Documents\Adoption Resolution and
Supporting Documents.pdf
KFDRFA 2014 Standard of Cover:
S:\PUBLIC\FIRE\Comp Plan
Documents\KFDRFA-2014-SOC-Draft.pdf
2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plans of
Kent, Federal Way, Auburn and Highline
School Districts
2015-2020 City of Kent 6-year Capital
Improvements Program
Capital Facilities Element
Background Report
POLICE
Police Services
K-9
The K-9 team consists of a sergeant and three officers. The generalist teams
are used for a variety of applications. They are primarily used to locate
suspects. This is done through tracking the suspects from crime scenes,
255
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 56
performing building searches, or searching areas. The generalist teams are
also able to locate evidence that would have otherwise one undetected. The
use of the K9’s also increase the safety of officers. The use of police dogs in
these roles greatly enhances the ability of the Kent Police Department to
aggressively fight crime.
Traffic
The Traffic Unit is tasked with providing safe and efficient vehicular,
pedestrian and bicyclist movement throughout the city. The unit works to
prevent and reduce injury and death related to vehicle collisions through
aggressive traffic enforcement and education. Comprised of one sergeant,
eight officers and one parking enforcement officer, the unit utilizes
motorcycle, marked, and unmarked traffic vehicles to conduct enforcement,
respond to collisions and other traffic/parking related calls for service. The
officers, who also serve as members of our Collision Analysis and
Reconstructions Squad (CARS), respond to collisions that result in life
threatening injuries or death. They utilize advanced investigative techniques
and equipment to complete these complex investigations.
The Traffic Unit is actively engaged in community presentations and
meetings, conducting training at the Kent Police Traffic School and partnering
with the City’s traffic engineers to address road design issues. They also
partner with the Washington Traffic Safety Commission and neighboring
agencies to conduct various traffic emphases, including DUI and speed
patrols, illegal street racing, pedestrian crossing, seatbelt enforcement and
others.
Special Operations Unit (SOU)
The Special Operations Unit is a team of four bicycle officers that are
supervised by a patrol sergeant. The unit was formed to tackle issues and
situations that are not as accessible to regular patrol officers in vehicles.
These areas include bike trails, city parks and business venues.
This year bike officers concentrated most of their efforts in the downtown
core of the city. Their focus was criminal behavior and quality of life issues.
They worked closely with the downtown business association, parks
department, public works department and Kent Corrections to clean up areas
of illegal camps and dumped garbage helping make the community safe and
enjoyable for all.
Bicycle officers are the primary team that works on the police patrol boat and
in the park at Lake Meridian during the summer months. They provide police
services at community events including 4th of July Splash, Dragon Boat
Races and Cornucopia Days. They provide marine enforcement and conduct
256
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 57
safety inspections on Lake Meridian to educate the public and promote safe
boating practices on the water.
In 2014 the SOU unit will be expanding to eight officers and a full time
sergeant. This will ensure better unit coverage and the ability to address
many more of the criminal and quality of life issues in the City of Kent.
Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU)
The Kent CDU is made up of 13 officers, two sergeants and one commander.
The CDU is trained to effectively deal with large crowds and to minimize
criminal behavior during civil unrest. The unit is a part time team made up of
officers from all different divisions of the police department.
Kent CDU is part of the regional Valley Civil Disturbance Unit (VCDU) which
consists of officers from Renton PD, Tukwila PD, Federal Way PD, Auburn PD
and Port of Seattle PD. Together the unit is able to bring over 90 officers
together if there is civil unrest or a threat of civil unrest. VCDU is comprised
of a command element, line officers, bike officers, a CUT team (specially
equipped and trained to safely cut or dismantle protestor devices and chains)
and SART (special munitions deployment team).
VCDU also partners with Bellevue PD, WA State Patrol, North Pierce Metro
and local Homeland Security teams for training and large incidents that
require more resources. An example was an operation in Tukwila where 160
CDU officers participated.
SWAT
The Kent Police Department participates in a regional SWAT team with five
other agencies from the South King County area. Partners in the Valley SWAT
team (VSWAT) include Renton PD, Tukwila PD, Federal Way PD, Auburn PD
and Port of Seattle PD. This participation allows Kent PD to have access to
one of the largest, best equipped and well trained team in the state. VSWAT
is comprised of six officers from each agency for a total of 36 tactical officers.
Each agency also provides a Commander for oversight and leadership.
Detectives
The Detective Unit consists of two detective sergeants, 15 detectives and one
six month rotating detective position that is staffed by a patrol officer as a
contractually bid position. One detective sergeant and eight detectives are
responsible for investigating crimes against people; this unit includes a
forensics expert who is responsible for the retrieval and analysis of
technological evidence. The remaining personnel investigate crimes against
property including burglaries, frauds and stolen vehicles. The rotating
detective position is often utilized for both types of investigations and gives
257
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 58
patrol officers experience in the handling cases on a more in-depth level than
is possible while working in a patrol environment. The rotating detective then
returns to their patrol crew and can help teach their co-workers the advanced
investigative techniques that they have learned.
The Detective Unit includes one detective who is assigned to ensure that all
sexually violent offenders residing in Kent have a current residential address
on file. Detectives physically verify the residency of every offender within the
city limits to ensure compliance.
Special Investigations Unit (SIU)
SIU uses covert investigative techniques to combat high impact offenders,
identify and apprehend violent offenders and solve problems in the city. SIU
focuses on gang activity, prostitution operations and narcotics investigations.
SIU has two members that are currently assigned part time to the FBI’s Child
Exploitation Task Force and one member who is assigned to the Homeland
Security Investigations District 10 for Operation Community Shield. The unit
also assists detectives with shooting investigations, homicides, and
robberies.
Neighborhood Response Team (NRT)
This team addresses crime trends and neighborhood problems through
intense interaction with community members, landlords, and businesses. One
way NRT addresses neighborhood problems is through the use of crime
notification letters. These letters go out to the owners of nuisance properties.
Community Education Unit (CEU)
Crime prevention is a vital component of the Intelligence Led Policing
approach to law enforcement and is a powerful tool in accomplishing the
department’s mission. Community Education Coordinators work closely with
the Neighborhood Response Team, focusing on crime prevention and quality
of life issues.
Providing police services outside of traditional methods, the unit focuses on
crime prevention, traffic safety education, youth outreach, youth
drug/alcohol prevention and other problem solving strategies working directly
with Kent residents. The unit works with neighborhood block watches,
businesses, and schools to solve problems and enhance the effectiveness of
the police department. These community partnerships improve
communication and increase awareness; resulting in a reduction of crime.
258
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 59
Some of the outreach programs facilitated by CEU include graffiti cleanup
events, block and business watch meetings, and prescription drug take back
program. Annual events for CEU include National Night Out, the Game of Life
Youth Leadership Conference, and Safety Street at Cornucopia Days.
Through partnerships with the Kent Drug Free Coalition and the Washington
Traffic Safety Commission, CEU focuses on DUI enforcement, alcohol
compliance checks, school prevention programs, and other environmental
strategies that drive community change.
Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team (VNET)
VNET is a combination of seven local law enforcement jurisdictions including;
Auburn, Federal Way, Kent, Port of Seattle, Renton, Seattle and Tukwila -
along with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) on the federal level. Their
focus is primarily mid- to-upper level drug trafficking organizations. VNET
also includes one DEA group supervisor, two DEA federal agents, seven task
force officers (detectives from local jurisdictions), one National Guard officer,
two support staff, and one King County prosecutor.
Recruitment
The department has taken several steps to pursue high quality police
candidates to fill vacant positions due to retirements, attrition and city
growth. The recruiting officer is chosen to lead the review of hiring practices
in order to attract well-qualified candidates, while also maintaining a focus on
enhancing agency diversity. Our partnership with various community groups
has been an integral part of attracting more candidates. The agency
continues to hire both lateral experienced officers and entry-level officers to
help maintain an agency that is well balanced with experience levels.
Chaplaincy Program
The Kent Police/Fire Chaplaincy Program has grown considerably since it
began several years ago. The program has been a huge success for both
residents and city employees. Historically, a full-time chaplain has facilitated
the program, but in 2012 a part-time, volunteer chaplain was added to meet
additional needs.
The chaplains are available to respond 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, to
emergency scenes involving serious injury or death of a community member
or city employee and its purpose is to bring short-term care and compassion
to everyone involved.
The chaplain services have proven to be a valuable resource, far exceeding
original expectations. In fact, chaplains instruct classes at the state basic
academy so every new corrections officer in the state is trained on how to
deal with critical incident stress management. Nationally recognized for their
259
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 60
efforts, Kent’s chaplains have been invited to speak at or facilitate state and
national events.
Records
The Records Unit has two records supervisors and nine records specialists,
who provide the public with non-emergency information services, distribute
court orders, maintain case files, run criminal background checks for officers,
and maintain the police-reporting database. Walk-in services include case
copies, fingerprinting and concealed pistol licensing.
Evidence
The Evidence Unit consists of one supervisor and two custodians. Besides
documentation, storage, and proper disposal, the supervisor is responsible
for crime scene response, processing items for fingerprints and forwarding
items to the Washington State Crime Lab for examination.
Training
The Training Unit includes one sergeant and a range master which provides
training and maintains training records for more than 192 sworn and civilian
employees. The Training Unit hosts several in-service training days per year.
These consist of state required training classes such as first aid and dealing
with the mentally ill. Also offered is specific training such as EVOC
(Emergency Vehicle Operations Course), PIT (Precision Immobilization
Technique), and rifle training. Kent also participates in regional training such
as active shooter, SWAT, and civil disturbance.
The Kent training facility also hosts regional training. Agencies from all
around Washington and surrounding states come to attend classes taught by
national training instructors. The courses range from interview and
interrogation techniques to a variety of leadership courses. The facility also
houses a five lane indoor shooting range where all sworn employees are
required to pass a variety of courses in both handgun and rifle ranges at a
level 10% higher than state standards.
Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS)
VIPS volunteer their time under the guidance of staff members. Their
primary activities involve disabled parking enforcement, graffiti removal,
Hands of Friendship in-home visits, Citizen Patrol, and fingerprinting services.
They also assist with crowd or traffic control at public events such as Kent
Cornucopia Days and the Fourth of July Splash. They assist with clerical work
in the station, allowing patrol officers to handle calls for service. VIPS are
trained to assist with vehicle lockouts, stranded motorists, and a number of
other non-emergency related calls for services. These dedicated volunteers
260
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 61
give thousands of hours of work to the Kent community every year and save
the city tens of thousands of dollars.
Corrections Division
The Corrections Division is responsible for the booking and housing of all
misdemeanor arrests made by the Kent and Maple Valley Police
Departments. Felony arrests are held at the Kent Jail for a short time until
they are transferred to the King County Jail.
The division consists of a commander, six sergeants, 17 officers and one
civilian staff. There are also four contract employees from Occupational
Health Services that staff the medical clinic and two contract employees from
Consolidated Food Management that staff the full service kitchen.
Corrections Volunteers
Many community members volunteer their time to meet with inmates in an
attempt to help them with alcohol, drug, or other issues that impede their
lives and cause them to return to jail. Hundreds of hours of volunteer
services are donated by local church members and volunteers from Alcoholics
Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous organizations.
Inmate Programs
The Corrections Division has a sergeant and two officers to supervise inmate
programs. Alternatives to incarceration include work release, supervised
work crew, work crew and electronic home detention.
Work release inmates work at their personal job in the community and return
to the facility during non-work hours. In 2014, the work release program will
be offered to offenders with misdemeanor sentences from outside agency
courts. Supervised work crew inmates are supervised by a correctional officer
and clean garbage from roadways, remove graffiti and clean up homeless
camps within the community. Work crew inmates are assigned to work at
local non-profit organizations. Participating non-profits include the Tahoma
National Cemetery, Kent Police Department, Kent and Auburn Food Banks
and the Kent Senior Center. Inmates on electronic home detention are
restricted to their homes except to work and to attend treatment or school.
All inmates submit to a thorough screening process before being accepted to
participate in any of the alternatives to incarceration.
261
Kent Comprehensive Plan – Capital Facilities Element Page 62
KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
Community Risk Types
Urban (High-Risk) Service Area:
Is a geographically area or group of occupancy types where potential
loss of life is high and fire has the potential to spread beyond the
original unit or structure. These geographic areas have zoning and
land uses that allow more than six dwelling units per acre with little or
no separation between occupancies or contain commercial structures
built prior to modern fire code. Six units per acre zoning with
roadways and open space will net between 2.7 and 3 units per built
acre of development and may produce population densities greater
than 3,000 people per square-mile.
Suburban (Low to Moderate Risk) Service Area:
A geographic area or occupancy where potential loss of life is limited to
a small number of occupants and property damage is unlikely to
spread beyond the original structure. Buildings are small to large in
size, and include detached single-family homes. These areas have a
minimum zoning of R-4 (four homes per acre) and a maximum zoning
of R-6, including communities of older rambler style homes with
spacing between houses of 15 to 30 feet. Suburban (moderate) risk
can also include commercial occupancies such as grocery stores,
smaller strip malls, low hazard industrial/commercial, churches,
schools and other associated, buildings, but most commercial
structures of any size or consequence have fire suppression and
notification systems installed. Population density in the suburban (low
to moderate risk) area, generally range from 1,000 to 3,000 people
per square mile.
Rural (Low-Risk) Service Area:
Is a geographic area or occupancy with little potential for exposure risk
and includes low-density residential areas located outside the
designated Urban Growth Boundary. Zoning is less than 3 homes per
acre. Population densities are typically less than 1,000 people per
square mile.
262