Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Regular Minutes - 01/05/2021 Approved City Council Workshop Workshop Regular Meeting Minutes January 5, 2021 Date: January 5, 2021 Time: 5:00 p.m. Place: THIS IS A REMOTE MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Council President Troutner opened the meeting. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Toni Troutner Council President Present Bill Boyce Councilmember Present Brenda Fincher Councilmember Present Satwinder Kaur Councilmember Present Marli Larimer Councilmember Present Zandria Michaud Councilmember Present Les Thomas Councilmember Present Dana Ralph Mayor Present II. PRESENTATIONS Public Works Director, Chad Bieren provided a weather update and advised the Department Operation Center has been activated. He indicated that localized flooding is expected with the incoming heavy rains. Bieren provided information on the road closures over the past week due to localized flooding. The road closures included 256th Street, 148th Avenue, and James Street. All of these spots are considered to be "hot spots" for flooding issues. Crews are both out in the field and on standby to address any issues. Bieren discussed concerns over the James Street closure from the past weekend and addressed social media inquiries about the pump station. He noted that the pump station was constructed to reduce flooding, but it would not prevent flooding completely. He noted the capacity of the pump station and the amount of rainwater that actually flows through it. He mentioned that it pumped 4 million gallons of water directly into the river, so it is doing what it is intended to be doing. Councilmember Boyce inquired about the dredging timeline. Bieren noted that it could be another two years before permits are obtained for this project due to it being a salmon habitat area. 1 Transportation Master Plan - Concurrency Transportation Impact April Delchamps 45 MIN. City Council Workshop Workshop Regular Meeting Minutes January 5, 2021 Kent, Washington Page 2 of 4 Fees Senior Transportation Planner, April Delchamps, along with Fehr and Peers consultants Kendra Breiland and Emily Alice Gerhart presented an update on the Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) and Concurrency. Three key terms were reviewed: 1. Multimodal Level of Service Policies: The promise of how a transportation system will perform; 2. Concurrency: Making sure that the promise is kept; and 3. Impact fees: A method of paying for infrastructure needed to accommodate growth, including meeting concurrency. Transportation Impact Fees are one-time charges paid by new developments, are authorized by the Growth Management Act as a funding source for transportation improvements, that add capacity to accommodate development and can only be used to fund facilities that serve new growth, not for existing deficiencies. Fees must be used within 10 years and must be in capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan. Delchamps reviewed TIF rate comparison with surrounding jurisdictions. Breiland discussed key updates include updating the land use categories and considering expanding "downtown" discount zone to Midway and also make sure impact fees fund multimodal projects and also reviewed how TIFs can fund the TMP project list and advised that approximately half of the projects would be impact fee eligible. Breiland reviewed concurrency overview and legislation which is driven by both the Puget Sound Regional Council and RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). She also discussed multimodal system completeness which is a system that ensures there is adequate transportation infrastructure to meet the travel demands of new growth. She then discussed pros and cons of System Completeness. Delchamps reviewed next steps, to include a workshop in January and then returning to Council for Transportation Master Plan adoption in February 2021. There is continued work being done to craft Transportation Impact Fee and Concurrency programs during first quarter of 2021. 2 Human Services Commission Grant Award Process Merina Hanson 45 MIN. Human Services Manager, Merina Hanson presented an update on the Human Services Commission funding process. City Council Workshop Workshop Regular Meeting Minutes January 5, 2021 Kent, Washington Page 3 of 4 Hanson provided some background on the role Human Services plays related to community needs. The City started funding human services back in 1974 through federal revenue sharing by granting $5,000 to the Kent Food Bank. Funding was established by ordinance and the per capita rate currently is $8.12 - based on the 2019 population of 129,800 and the allocation was roughly $1,050,000. Hansen reviewed the 2020 process which was specific to funding for 2021- 2022, and indicated that the next cycle will be in 2021 for 2022-2023. She discussed the platform in which applications as submitted and the internal review process that is done to make funding recommendations. The final funding decisions are made by the Human Services Commission. Staff does participate in the review process and is available to answer questions by the Commission. It is the duty of the staff to ensure Commissioners have a high level of understanding about our community, the need, the gaps, and the services (both those that are funded and those that are not). Hansen discussed the pre-application process, application process, application timeline in detail. Hansen reviewed numerous equity and social justice trainings, committees, workshops, task forces, etc. that Human Services Staff have participated in over the years. She indicated that the work they have been involved in historically has all helped guide and inform the department. In 2020 there was some focused training around grant making using an equity lens with the Commission. She discussed the multiple training session that they participated in. As a result of the training, staff (with the commission’s input) revised the review “scoresheet” and added “equity analysis” questions to the Commission review sheet. There was more focus on the intended population for the project and cultural responsiveness. The program demonstrates an understanding/commitment to providing culturally responsive services and was developed with guidance and input of the community. Hansen indicated that the department recently wrapped up the funding allocation process with a new focus on equity and fallout of COVID-19. The city of Kent has allocated additional federal funding to help agencies responding to residents directly impacted by Covid-19, funding was expanded for the Community Engagement Center to increase hours and staff to ensure our homeless residents have a safe place to be during more hours of the day. The City’s Economic Development team is allocating $1.5 million in CARES act funds for small business grants. Hansen reviewed the tremendous amount of work that was done by the City Council Workshop Workshop Regular Meeting Minutes January 5, 2021 Kent, Washington Page 4 of 4 Human Services Department related to CDBG funds made available for COVID-19-related activities. Human Services Commission approved the recommendations, which will be submitted to the Mayor for final approval. Staff will work closely with the organizations recommended for funding via a rigorous contracting process to develop performance measures, refine budgets, and ensure that the programs will be able to meet program guidelines prior to requesting the Mayor sign contracts. She noted that all CDBG-CV funding is provided on a reimbursement basis and requires regular reporting and extensive backup documentation. Service reports and detailed backup information are required prior to the release of any funds. If agencies are unable to expend funds or provide required adequate documentation of expenses or services, the City will not provide payment and may reallocate dollars to another organization or program. The City anticipates receiving additional CDBG-CV funds, although the timing and funding formula is not yet known. Hansen discussed the significant amount of positive movement forward, but after further reflection she indicated that everyone felt it was important to engage a neutral consultant skilled in evaluation to review their efforts from beginning to end. Lori Guilfoyle advised that the work of the consultant will be done late January into February with recommendations made in March and final report will be available at the end of the first quarter 2021. Dinah Wilson provided an update on the next round of CDBG-CV funding, which will be round 3. They are currently in information gathering mode regarding eviction assistance and employment challenges. They want to ensure that funds are spread around in an equitable manner which means there is a need for some education and training out in the community as well. Meeting ended at 6:11 p.m. Kimberley A. Komoto City Clerk Presentation to City CouncilTransportation Impact Fees & ConcurrencyFehr & PeersKendra Breiland, AICPEmily Alice Gerhart, AICPJanuary 5, 2021City of KentApril Delchamps, AICP Agenda1.Key Terms2.Transportation Impact Fees 1013.Impact Fee Rate Comparison4.Key Updates5.How Impact Fees Can Fund TMP Projects6.Concurrency 1017.Recommended Concurrency Approach8.Next Steps Key TermsMultimodal Level of Service Policies: The promise of how a transportation system will performConcurrency: Making sure that promise is keptImpact Fees: A method of paying for infrastructure needed to accommodate growth, including (but not limited to) meeting concurrency Transportation Impact Fees 101•One-time chargespaid by new developments•Authorized by 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) as funding sourcefor transportation improvements•Funds improvements that add capacityto accommodate development providing a mechanism for “growth to pay for growth”•Can only be used to fund facilities that serve new growth, not for existing deficiencies4 Transportation Impact Fees 101•Must be used within 10 years on public streets and roads •Projects must be in capital facilities element of comprehensive plan•Some communities have begun funding more multimodal projects•Kent’s 2021 impact fee is $5,381.98 per trip, this translates to:5Land Use  Inside Downtown Outside DowntownSingle Family Home$3,951.94 $4,878.31 Multifamily Unit$2,564.35 $3,166.56 TIF Rate ComparisonPeer City Single Family RateMultifamily Unit RatePuyallup $4,545 $2,790Kent $4,878 $3,166Auburn $5,383 $2,529Fife $6,390 $3,350Des Moines $6,678 $4,340Federal Way $7,054 $3,314Bellevue $7,060$3,106Renton $7,820 $4,064 Key Updates•Update land use categories•Careful attention being paid to uses like middle housing, industrial categories, and daycare•Consider expanding “downtown” discount zone to Midway•Make sure impact fees fund multimodal (walk/bike/transit) projects How TIF Can Fund the TMP Project List8Number of Prioritized Projects96Total Prioritized Project Cost$253,783,588Number of Impact Fee Eligible Projects50Total Impact Fee Project Cost$227,693,193Total Eligible Impact Fee Cost$98,285,193 Concurrency Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Policies•Kent has taken a very multimodal approach to crafting its MMLOS policies.•Kent has established a layered network, which identifies priority networks for each mode and the facilities that would be needed to provide acceptable level of service for that mode.•This approach has formed the basis of the TMP and guided the development of the project list. Concurrency Overview•Adequate provision of public facilities and services relative to demand•Auto delay is traditional metric, but more communities going multimodal•Once a community has adopted MMLOS policies in its Comprehensive Plan, the State’s concurrency law says that communities must maintain stated performance policies as they grow.•There is some flexibility in how communities like Kent approach concurrency management.Land Use DevelopmentTransportation Facilities Provision Concurrency Legislation•RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) states that transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate development impacts need to be made concurrently with land development.•Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) guides cities to “address nonmotorized, pedestrian, and other multimodal types of transportation options in concurrency programs —both in assessment and mitigation.” Multimodal System Completeness•System completeness requires that a city define a set of transportation investments that aligns with a given amount of growth and implement that system commensurate with development.•System completeness measures progress in building the identified system, not that a set performance metrics (or level of service) are met on individual facilities.•Examples: Redmond, Kirkland, and Kenmore (adopted); Olympia (in development) System Completeness: PROS & CONSPros:-Would recognize capacity provided by multimodal infrastructure provided citywide- Explicitly considers City’s MMLOS policies- Would satisfy PSRC’s guidance to consider multiple modes- Can streamline development review process if tracking-spreadsheet is developedCons:-Requires new tools/procedures- May require additional steps in development review process to ensure safe site access and overall corridor operations Next Steps Next StepsReturning to City Council for TMP adoption in February 2021Crafting TIF and Concurrency programs in Q1 2021 Appendix Methodology•Over half of the projects on the prioritized project list are eligible for inclusion in a TIF program•The maximum defensible rate does not dictate what the City must charge, but the upper limit for that rate.•The City may elect to establish a lower rate, as guided by financial realities in Kent.•The lower the TIF rate the City charges, more project costs would need to be covered by other sources, such as grants, gas tax revenues, or city funds, to ultimately deliver projects. Land Use Categories19•There are 40+ land use categories in the 2020 fee schedule•The project team will update categories to align with ITE Manual 10th Edition. Key changes to:•Multifamily•Industrial•Office uses•Potential new uses:•ADUs•“Apodments”•Potential consolidations:•Retail uses Adjustment Method20•The project team is considering person trip rates•Rates could be varied to reflect relative impact of trips from subareas based on:•Mode split•Trip length•The project team is also considering adjustments for truck space based on industrial land uses Concurrency Approaches1. Multimodal system completeness 2. Individual facilities –intersection focus with multimodal elements3. Individual facilities – all modesThe project team is pursuing a multimodal system completeness approach to concurrency. System Completeness: Ledger TrackingEstablish Land Use Growth & Transportation ProjectsDevelop Trip BankEvaluate Development’s Use of Trip vs. Trip BankConsiderations:Can be spreadsheet basedExamples: Redmond, Kenmore KENTHUMAN SERVICES PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES KENT CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP JANUARY 5, 2021 BACKGROUND •The City of Kent first provided human services funding in 1974. •Human Services funding is based on a per capita amount with an annual CPI escalator. •The application process occurs every two years. •Kent is one of 17 cities in King County participating in the Human Services Funders Collaborative (HSFC). •Funding recommendations are made by our Human Services Commission. PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS Strategic Planning and Evaluation Pre -Application Work with HSFC Partners Pre -Application Work with Non-Profit Partners Training for Staff and Commissioners Application Workshops APPLICATION PROCESS Share1App Website Technical Assistance Application Review Process Human Services Commission Review and Recommendation Reporting and Compliance Workshops Contracting APPLICATION TIMELINE 4 Mar. 2020 Application process opened March 4, 2020 4 Mar. 2020 Application workshop held March 4, 2020 (in person and recorded) 9 Mar. 2020 Application workshop held March 9, 2020 (online only) 17 Mar. Technical assistance sessions held for those applying to Kent who did not receive funding in the last a process: March 17 7 Apr. –5 May 2020 Application process deadline extended from April 7th to May 5, 2020 27 May Staff review for completeness. Applications assigned to Commission teams for review May 27 16 June Commission reviews due June 16 18 June Human Services Commission Application Review Process –Round 1 9 July Human Services Commission Application Review Process –Round 2 16 July Human Services Commission Application Review Process –Round 3 EQUITY LENS Foundational Equity Work: -Parallel Application Process -Immigrant and Refugee Panel Presentation -Kent Cultural Diversity Initiative Group -Refugee Employment Summits -Good Jobs Initiative -Neighbor 2 Neighbor/Seattle Foundation -Cultural Communities Board -King County Immigrant and Refugee Task Force -Governing for Racial Equity and Inclusion -Government Alliance on Race and Equity -Panel Presentation of Ethnic Community-Based Organizations EQUITY LENS FOCUS •Anti-Racist, Multi-Cultural Continuum Training •Grantmaking with an Equity Lens Training (2 Sessions) –Implicit Bias and Grantmaking –Guiding Framework for Decision Making and Equity Analysis •Revised scoresheet to include equity analysis questions to the commission review sheet Guiding Equity Lens and Framework •Mission, vision and proposal articulates commitment to equity, inclusion, and diversity. •Clearly articulates a history and track record of equity values put into practice through successful community participation in programs. •Applicant has strong community relationships; demonstrated record of successfully engaging community members; and ability to reach and convene community to address priorities, needs, and issues. •Core components of the program including the target population and how/when services are provided are relevant to addressing the identified need. •Applicant has the culturally relevant expertise to carry out the project. •Applicant’s staff, leadership, membership, and board members reflect the racial, ethnic and/or cultural communities being served. EQUITY PROMPTS Question assumptions about unknown/lesser-known groups: Is there a reason we have not heard about this agency? Is this the first grant application they have written? How might we be overly scrutinizing groups we do not know? Conversely, how might we be much easier on organizations that we are more familiar with? Are there conflicts of interest? What role might our knowledge of organizations be playing in our decision-making? Are there individual follow-ups that staff could be making to clear up any questions? COMMISSION REVIEW Historically primary focus has included: meeting identified needs in the community, previous performance, presence and partnership in our community, quality of the proposal, cost-effectiveness of the proposed program, and maintaining a balance of program types along the continuum of human services. COMMISSION REVIEW In an effort to further racial equity, more focus this cycle was placed on: intended population for the project, board and staff reflecting community served, partnerships or collaboration, demonstrated understanding of challenges and barriers associated with accessing programs and services, understanding/commitment to providing culturally responsive services, and guidance and input of the community to be served is evident in program design. COMMISSION REVIEW Commissioners score sheets were guided by the following : 1.The proposed program addresses an emerging and/or unique need or identified priority. 2.The program components ensure access to and engagement in services and activities and creates an environment on a continuum toward inclusion and belonging. 3.Program demonstrates the positive impact of the activity on the community and clients for which it is intended. 4.Does this investment reach the populations most impacted by society’s structural inequities? 5.Is this a good use of our funds? Would you recommend funding this program? ALLOCATIONS •106 applications were submitted in 2020. •Requested funds totaled $2,672,421. •8 applications did not move forward to review. •Allocated $1 million+ General Fund human services investments for 2021-2022. •12 new programs were funded for 2021-2022. •Allocated an additional $670,541 in federal CDBG-CV funds with a focus on equity and impacts of covid-19. GRANTMAKING EQUITY ANALYSIS Contracting with Equitable Future Activities will include six (6) focus groups with the following stakeholder groups: (1)organizations who have applied for and received funding from the City of Kent and (2)organizations who have applied for and did not receive funding from the City of Kent. A survey and interview will be offered to organizations that serve Kent residents and did not apply, or those that were funded in the past that did not apply. QUESTIONS THANK YOU FOR YOUR ONGOING COMMITMENT TO INVESTING IN HUMAN SERVICES. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO US ANY TIME WITH QUESTIONS. CONTACT US AT: HUMANSERVICES@ KENTWA.GOV