HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 Council Retreat2007 Council/Administration Planning Workshop
Merrill Gardens, Large Group/Media Room
104 Burnett Ave. S, Renton, 98057
February 28-March 1, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
Agenda
Workshop Objectives:
• Discuss and Refine Renton's Business Plan Vision and Direction
• Continue Policy Direction/Development for Major Issues
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28
Start Item Purpose
Time
8:00 am Welcome & Logistics Agenda Overview by
Agenda Overview Council President
Opening Comments Nelson and Mayor
Keolker
8:15 am 2008-2013 Business Plan: City Vision and Direction Establish Council
• Vision: what do you want Renton to become? Does the vision and priorities
current vision statement reflect your vision for Renton?
Describe what "The Center of Opportunity in the Puget
Sound Region where businesses and families thrive" means
to you.
• Describe the achievements, challenges, issues and
opportunities you believe will impact Renton in the
future, and what you expect the effects of future
trends will be
• Does the City's Mission Statement still accurately
reflect what you believe to be our core purposes?
• Are we focusing on the right priorities?
• Summary of Council comments
12:30 pm Lunch
1:30 pm
Continue 2008-2103 Business Plan discussion (as needed)
Identify critical
Proposed Sonics Multi -purpose Arena: Objectives, Issues and
issues and process
next steps
strategy for coming
to an informed
decision
3:00 pm
Break
3:15 pm
Council -Only Session
An opportunity for
council to discuss
matters pertaining to
their interaction,
conducting business
or other items as
needed.
5:00 pm
Adjourn
THURSDAY, MARCH 1
Start
Item
Purpose
Time
8:00 am
Welcome & Logistics
Review Agenda
(Council President
Toni Nelson)
8:15 am
Council Only Session Report
(Council President
Toni Nelson:
message to staff -
more of/less of)
8:45am
Proposed Sonics Multi -Purpose Arena - next steps (continued, if
necessary)
9:30am
Policy Development/Work Planning: 2008 and Beyond
Discuss progress to
• Annexation policy
date on major issues
• Airport Development Policy: Priorities and Process for
and Council
priorities; establish
Examining Alternatives
Council priorities and
• Highlands Phase II priorities and process
direction and/or
• Emergency management/response (including storm update)
approval of next steps
• Regional transportation
10:30 am Break
10:45am Policy Development/Work Planning: 2008 and Beyond (continued)
12:00 pm Lunch
1:00pm
Overview: Level of Service/Outcome Management II process
Gain Council
• Budget process
concurrence in
• Capital improvement priorities
changes to budgetformat and processes
that focus on
effectiveness
measures and
program budgeting
2:30pm
Break
2:45 pm
"Crosswalk" between Council and Administration vision
Clarify direction for
2008-2013 Business
Plan; identify areas to
change; discuss next
steps for finalizing
plan
4:45 pm
Final Discussion and Adjourn
Wrap-up and identify
next steps
Items for future workshops or Committee of the Whole meetings not covered in this workshop:
• Utility Rates
• Parks and Libraries
• Regional Transportation
• Airport Policy Direction
0�.
Levels of Service -
Outcome Management Process
r i Mission of a City's Budget Process
I�' ji;.
The mission of the budget process is to
help decision makers make informed
choices about the provision of services
and capital assets and to promote
stakeholder pafticipatign in the process.
National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting
(NACSLB)
z
Context for budget development
■ State Law (RCW 35.33 / 34)
■ Council Financial Policies
■ Council Policy Direction
■ City Business Plan
■ City Core Service Delivery Plan (new)
■ Mayor's Initiatives
■ Department Initiatives
Effective Budgeting
■ Council must ""appropriate" before we spend
■ within correct fund
■ based on revenue estimates
■ Guided by Council financial policies
■ A good budget process aligns requirements
with overall plan for service to the community
4
2
Evolving City Process
From our budget process, can the public tell:
■ What do I get for my tax money ?
■ What does the community get for our tax
dollars ?
■ Are we getting value ?
w How can we know that what the City is doing
is having the intended affect in Renton ?
Terminology
6
I
Q4
Evolving City Process
■ Long tradition of
strong business plan
goals
■ Real progress over
the years
■ The plan has evolved
as a result and
continues to be
forward looking i
r .T wy� Qd*M '...
•tip
� ~�Y.' �`M1�..
7
w
Evolving City Process
J
■ Next steps — Beyond the Business Plan
■ Clarify the City's role in the community
■ Core services of the city (consistent with role)
■ Desired results in service areas
■ Better information for mayor and council to
use in determining correct appropriation levels
■ Align investment of resources with desired results
■ Understand "level of service" that budget represents
■ Ability to communicate with community about
progress towards desired results 8
4
Program Budget
■ Budget traditionally centered on city structure
■ City department oriented - - not
■ Core service oriented
■ Program budget provides both
■ City department view for financial accountability
■ Core service perspective for evaluation of
program results
9
P
_ Program Budget
■ What is a program budget?
■ It provides required traditional financial
accountability through funds, departments, etc.
■ It also summarizes activity by service type —
regardless of fund or department
■ We can see total city investments in
certain services
■ We can strategize around the service needs
and not around the organizational needs ►0
5
Program Budget
Conceptual Example
■ Citywide Core Service: Safe Community
■ Core service Areas (examples — among others):
■ Apprehension of Criminals
■ Emergency Response Operations
■ Investigation
■ Prevention
■ Education
■ Inspection
■ Activities
■ Alternatives to Crime
Program Budget
Conceptual Example
■ Citywide Core Service: Safe Community
■ City service Areas (examples — among others):
■ Prevention
■ Education
■ Inspection
■ Activities
■ Alternatives to Crime
■ Results or "Outcomes"
■ Reduced crime / increased safety
■ Avoidance of potential crimes before they happen
12
6
Program Budget
Conceptual Example
■ Question: What city agency has services that
relate to crime prevention?
■ Police (enforcement, investigation, prevention)
■ Community Services (alternatives to crime)
■ Fire (inspections, arson investigation, etc)
■ Public Works (code enforcement, etc)
■ Economic Development (jobs!)
■ Our budget will allow the community to see what we
are doing about crime prevention as a city (for example)
13
Program Budget and
Outcome Management
■ Once we illustrate core services and intended
results we need to evaluate progress
■ Indicators of Success will communicate results
within service areas
■ Crime prevention indicators might include:
■ Recidivism
■ Numbers of at risk youth involved in activities
■ Crime statistics
■ Community "sense of safety" (from survey)
14
7
Program Budget and
x , �i, Outcome Management (example)
w
eo
fM O Pitt 1 C.Irt�
111
� —�—x In�estlo�tetl VbYM
w
zo
ee
'° 15
ee o
2e05 30ee feel 30ee
L
How it fits
Vision — Mission - Citywide Core Service — Strategic Goals
Safe Culture /
Community E Leisure
Apprehension
Investigation, r
Prevention
Environment ~-== Community
Development
Open and
Mobility
Representative
Government
I
16
8
Financial System
�8
King County
IF Events Center
Renton's
Guiding Principles
City Council Retreat
February 28, 2007
Why might Renton want this?
• Current Comp Plan and zoning allows arena development
• 2003 Development Agreement pledges a portion of future
revenue to offset infrastructure cost
• To create a catalyst for additional development that will bring
new jobs and revenue to the City.
• To enhance shopping & dining options at The Landing and
expedite build out at Southport.
• To generate activity that will support existing restaurants, pubs,
and shops in Downtown Renton and throughout the City.
• To ensure the timely construction of regional road and transit
improvements benefiting Renton.
• To further the emergence of Renton as a regional economic
hub.
• Creates a new, accessible regional entertainment venue in
Renton.
7
What are our concerns?
• Traffic
• Public safety
• Changing neighborhood character
• Demands on City services
• Negative impacts to Boeing, The Landing and
other businesses
• Expectation of significant City financial
contribution
• Local control (King Co. PFD)
• Long-term commitment of team
What we will do (???)
• Perform due diligence to determine economic
benefits, potential impacts to neighborhoods and
traffic, and anticipated demands on City services.
• Engage professional assistance to protect City's
interests.
• Work with the team to ensure quality design and
sufficient mitigation of impacts.
• Consider investment based on anticipated new
a revenue from the events center itselfnd
development directly resulting from its construction.
• Provide results of our research to Legislature and
King Co. Council to aid them in their decisions.
• Work to identify and secure additional funding
sources (Fed gov't, Sound Transit, etc.).
What we will not do...
• Impose new taxes at the City -level
• Leave our neighborhoods unprotected
from negative impacts
• Subsidize cost of operations at the
expense of City services
• Put the City's fiscal health at risk
Influeno6rs
Media
Business
• Chamber, Restaurants, Hotels, Car
Dealers
Community
• Blue Ribbon Cammisee, RSD, RTC, VMC
• Rotary, Knvanis, Lions, Somplknlsts r
• Ads, Non•ProR Groups, Labor
• Youth and recreation
• Women's Groups (Stomn)
• Save Our Sonics & Storm
Intergovernmental
Governor
• Legislature (Doug)
• King Co ExedCounr3
• Federal (Ben)
Strategy
Interaction with Team
Jay, Alex
(Strat Advisor. P. Jacobs)
Renton:
Council
Mayor
Administrators
start
IrhPacts
Fiscal
• Econornic Benefit Analysis (Bent)
• FIS, Bond Counsel, Financial Advisor
I
Transportation
• Sound Transit, Metro
WSDOT
• S. Lake Washington Study (KPGlMlral)
Neighborhoods
• NRNA, KN& HCA, Otter Associations
• Communty Planning Consultant UBD)
Adjacent Businesses
• Boeing, Harvest Partners
• Southport, Fry's
• PA^CCAR, Java Trading. Stonewey
In
NJ
Due Diligence
• Strategic Advice: Paul Jacobs (<$10k)
• Economic Benefit Analysis: Berk &
Associates (<$20k)
• Neighborhood Impact: RFP (TBD)
Possible Timeline
Financing
$500 Million cost
Less $ 75 Million in parking savings
Less $300 Million from Restaurant, Hotel,
Car Rental Taxes, + State
Tax Credits
Less $100 Million from "private" sector
Less $ 40 Million from Sound Transit
GAP ($ 15 Million)
I
City of Renton
Request for Proposals
Urban Center —North Community Engagement
The City of Renton is seeking proposals from professional firms or consultant teams with
experience in urban design and public involvement to work with residential neighborhoods
surrounding the City's Urban Center —North (UCN).
The UCN is a district within the City's regionally recognized urban center historically dominated
by industrial uses (namely Boeing and PACCAR production facilities). The area is now
transitioning to a vibrant mixed -use district that includes:
• The Landing, a 600,000-square foot retail and entertainment complex, with an additional
900 residential units, currently under construction;
• 300,000 square feet of additional large -format retail;
• Southport, a mixed -use complex that includes 40 esidential units as well as plans for a
hotel and 750,000 square feet of office space;
• Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, a 55-acr ity that includes a public swimming
beach and the largest and busiest public b launch o ake Washington;
• Ongoing Boeing and PACCAR office and an cturing operations that currently
provide more the 13,000 family wage jobs,
• The potential for a +/- 20,000-seat m L urpo rena that would host professional
sporting events, concerts, conventio meetings and other cultural activities.
The UCN is bordered by three residen ' igh hoods, North Renton, the Highlands and
Kennydale. North Renton is a histori w- rate -income neighborhood directly south of
the UCN, which is made up of appro y single-family and low -density multi -family
housing units. Kennydale is a m r enerally single-family neighborhood that stretches
to the north along Lake Washi n a In state 405. The Highlands is a working class
neighborhood east of the UC at cont ns a wide variety of housing types. Each
neighborhood has expressed co n out the impacts of ongoing and potential growth in the
UCN and the possible developmen multi -purpose arena. In general, these concerns
include traffic, parking on local streets, public safety, etc.
The City is seeking the assistance of a consultant to work with these neighborhoods to explore
resident concerns, as well as opportunities development might create, and make
recommendations to the City of potential projects that will preserve and enhance neighborhood
character. The selected consultant should consider itself the advocate for the neighborhoods as
the project develops. Recommendations would be implemented over time through project
mitigation and City -initiated capital investment.
The City will select a consulting firm based on a proposal demonstrating experience with urban
planning and community outreach, as well as professional reputation. The selected consultant
will be expected to work with the City and developers to communicate the scope of planned
development with residents, engage the neighborhoods in a discussion of community assets
and priorities, and facilitate the planning for and development of potential neighborhood
improvements.
The anticipated project will likely include an initial exploratory phase ramping up to a more
involved, lengthy process if an anticipated arena project moves forward. It is envisioned that the
initial phase of the project would take place prior to May 2007 and include:
• One to two meetings with City planners;
• One to two meetings with the arena architects and development team;
• One initial and one follow up meeting with leaders of each neighborhood;
• One large -group design charette with each neighborhood; and
• One large meeting with each neighborhood to report recommendations.
The main deliverable for this first phase would be a description of concerns and potential
mitigation measures developed by the community.
If an arena proposal moves forward, the consultant will then be asked to coordinate with the
neighborhoods, City staff and developers to further refine the mitigation measures and advocate
for their incorporation in project mitigation documents and City capital facilities planning and
land use regulations.
Interested firms should provide five copies of a Proposa at includes:
1) A written description of the firm and relevant p xperience, including site plans,
elevations and photographs of other large-s urb development projects and
description of public involvement in each p ect
2) An outline of the firm's approach to the d ri project and a description of work to be
completed during the two anticipated phas the project;
3) A project budget by phase;
4) References from jurisdictions in whic ro ave been completed; and
5) Qualifications of anticipated projaLt sta d any sub -consultants that might be utilized.
Proposals are due March 9, 2001, t e nt of Economic Development,
Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning, f Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, 6 h Floor, Renton,
WA 98055. For further informatii ebecca Lind, long-range planning manager, at
425-430-6588 or rlind(a ci.rent wow a.u�
(Excerpt from Mayor/Administrator Retreat)
2006 Accomplishments (We should celebrate and acknowledge our successes)
1. Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank and Trail
2. Managed three emergencies, successful emergency management
3. Emmitsburg training
4. Collaboration with WSDOT on transportation projects, design for most of 2007
projects, (I-405, 167, 169, major program underway)
5. Seahawks sited their training facility here
6. Connor Homes development
7. On schedule with Landing improvements, Landing agreements, groundbreaking,
maintaining vision, significant level of housing ("sanctuary" and "reserve")
8. Southport Phase II
9. Providence Health Systems purchase of $77 million, over 1000 employees
10. Assembled Coulon task force to work on safety issues
11. Federal Reserve Bank under construction
12. Completion of SW 27`h
13. Renaissance apartments - conversion to condos downtown
14. First Annual Art Walk a success
15. Redesigned and launched new City website
16. Maintained a good community event - Cinema in the Park
17. Developed the no -name (Heritage) Park, broke ground
18. Maplewood Water Treatment plan
19. Developed East Renton zoning proposal and convened Task Force
20. Got annexation legislation passed for sales tax credit
21. Petition for Benson Hill annexation
22. Built Sunset and Duvall interchange
23. Media coverage of city - probably up to $2M in free media - front page of Seattle
Times, NYT coverage
24. Produced Renton marketing DVD
25. Grant receipt - $4.6M for SW 27 h, $1.4M for Sam Chastain Trail, record number
of successful grant applications
26. HCA now a recognized City neighborhood
27. A record number of volunteer hours
28. Community Services re -accreditation
29. Began negotiations with King County on annexations, other interlocal agreements
30. Recovered $1.4M from PSE for Scoccolo case
31. E Police - on line
32. County contribution to security at transit center - successfully managed safety
concerns at the RTC
33. Largest # of home repairs ever done
34. New model for human services funding from General Fund
35. First -ever boards and commissions training
36. Maplewood Glen and Highlands - extended sidewalks
37. Opened negotiations for cable franchise renewal
38. Began installation of school zone/neighborhood speed signs and radar signs
39. Implemented facility changes and court security/screening program on 3`d floor
40. 2' successful year of Clean Sweep program
41. Kiosks installed
42. City's bond rating upgraded
43. 19 new positions added in budget
44. Electronic payment system
45. Launched wellness program
46.Old City Hall space planning begun
47. Tri-Park Master Plan
48. Lighting at the pool
49. Reorganized the Mayor's Office
50. Successfully survived 3 sockeye seasons
51. Began the Library Master Plan; new museum director and library director
52. Successfully hired and promoted deputies in Fire, Police, AJLS, EDNSP,
Transportation
53. Highlands Task Force
Renton City Council Workshop, Feb. 28-Mar. 1, 2007
Annexation Policy Considerations
Annexation Policy Direction (Is this approach working?)
• Renton welcomes those interested in becoming part of the City to start the petition process.
The City doesn't initiate annexations; we will provide information and answer questions.
• The City will work with King County to leverage the maximum funding available to annex.
• The City will negotiate with special purpose districts to ensure continuity of services at
Renton levels of service after transition
Why Annex? (Are these the "right" reasons?)
• Fulfill vision of GMA and regional planning policies
• Renton provides high -quality local government services that exceed County level of service
• Best chance to maintain control over quality of growth, development, density on our borders
• Alignment between those who use our services and revenue to support them
• Funding picture allows for more resources than ever available
• Ultimately the question is "how and where will the city grow?" (What will happen if the City
does not annex? What is the vision for PAAs?)
Annexation Service Issues
• Acceptance of 60% petitions
• Timing: keep costs down by selecting November election and March effective dates
• Library service and asset transfer
• Fire and EMS: Fire Districts 20, 40 (contract or assumption?)
• Park and property transfers/Lindbergh pool
• Sewer extension in PAAs: under what conditions will we extend sewer service in the PAAs?
• Surface water management: who will manage drainage ponds?
Annexation Funding Issues
• Road Map ILA status: Will we tap County Annexation Initiative funding to assist with
annexation? If not, what should our stance with King County be?
• Without one-time money from King County, how will infrastructure studies be funded? (Pre -
annexation costs include community outreach, pre -zoning hearing and mailing costs, and
election and voter pamphlet costs)
• How to leverage sales tax credit: is it more or less important to maximize funding to help
with annexations? Do any new annexations need to be revenue neutral?
Annexation Communications Issues
• What are the City and King County's respective communication responsibilities in PAAs?
• Should we do a survey in Benson Hill to gauge interest in annexation?
• Should we invest in additional CitySource distribution for outside -city communications?
• What should we be saying to PAA residents? "Right" level of communication in PAAs?
• What should communication with current residents be?
• Our workforce: how to convey "what will this mean for me?"
Considering Annexation by Area: East Renton, Benson Hill, Fairwood, West Hill
Airport Development Policy Priorities and Process for
Examining Alternatives
2007 Council/Administration Planning Workshop
March 1, 2007
Over the last few months the city council has solicited
additional public input on the airport plan and is now
interested in reviewing the airport policy development process.
Original Process:
The planning process was based on the building blocks of the
business plan of 2002 and the Airport Development Plan (May, 2005).
The latter included, among other elements, recommendation 2 (b) --
"development of an executive jet center." The subsequent 2006 work
on a draft Airport Layout Plan identified a preferred alternative based
on Policy 2(b). In addition, the city formally issued a Request for
Proposal for a Jet Center (following a council Transportation/Aviation
Committee briefing). Three proposals were received on October 31,
2006. Simultaneously, the city began the implementation of
Development Plan Policy Recommendation 2(a) - "pursue technical
solutions to create an all-weather runway" - by soliciting a draft scope
of work from a consultant to develop an RNP (required navigation
procedure). This was viewed as a necessary condition to attract a jet
center.
First Plan Revision- October 2006
At an October 9, 2006 Committee of the Whole, it was
recommended that more public feedback is needed before a
plan is adopted by the council. This led to an Open House at
Renton High School on November 21, 2006, a Renton public
meeting in council chambers on January 16, and a Mercer
Island meeting on January 29. During this period of time
public interest in the airport plan grew, both in Mercer Island
and in Renton. The city council transportation committee
discussed this on February 7, 2007, and agreed that the
council as a whole should re -visit this subject at the 2007
Council Administration Planning Workshop.
FAA Meeting on February 21, 2007
Renton and Mercer Island officials met with key FAA staff to
discuss two primary topics: development of two new
approaches and status of the airport master plan.
At the FAA meeting we learned the following very important
facts:
1. The FAA regional staff will be receiving RNP training in
2007 which would allow it to provide important threshold
information on the feasibility of RNP in Renton. This advice
from FAA to Renton would be free of charge and would be
important to have before any further investment in RNP
development is made by Renton.
2. Contrary to what the city was led to believe before, the path
to 3rd party development of RNP, and FAA approval, is not
guaranteed.
3. The city will need to convince the FAA office that prioritizes
RNP studies that Renton should be considered ASAP (may
need the help of our Congressional delegation).
4. An improved instrument approach - LPV/WAAS -- which
would apply to a very large percentage of General Aviation
planes in Renton (Class A and B or possibly for other classes
as well) can and will be approved by FAA no later than
November 2008.
S. The FAA is concerned with the delay in the ALP (aka Master
Plan) and will not wait until the issue of RNP is resolved. The
FAA expects a plan to be approved in the near future.
Based on this information, we can conclude the following:
1. Continuing with the consultant proposal of RNP is not
prudent at this time because of the uncertainties.
2. Without RNP the jet center proposal is pre mature.
3. By the end of 2007 we could get from FAA's newly
trained staff some important advice on the potential for
RNP.
4. We can still go ahead with a noise study and get
information which would help with any plan options that
have been provided in the ALP.
Key Governing Policies for the Airport:
We believe that the city has considerable consensus on the
following overarching principles:
1. The Airport has to be financially self-sustaining.
2. The mix of uses at the Airport will operate within the
regulatory framework set by FAA.
3. Airport operations will be sensitive to neighborhood
impacts, and will strive to minimize those impacts.
4. The mix of uses at the Airport will contribute to the
City's Business Plan goals and objectives.
Recommended Options for Proceeding:
l . Review and clarify policies adopted in 2005 as part of the
May 2005 Renton Municipal Airport Development Study.
2. Continue with financial analysis of the various layout
options.
3. Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
City of Mercer Island, outlining cooperative actions taken
and those to be taken Jinformation sharing, RAAC
involvement, noise study, approach alternatives).
4. Continue with noise study, jointly with Mercer Island.
5. Find a way to satisfy FAA's direction to finish the ALP
work in the near term. This may suggest that the area
currently designated in one option as a corporate
aviation center would be left as "a potential future
aviation center" with no steps taken to implement it; or
this area could be more vaguely labeled "undetermined
use"; or the area could be designated for a different
aviation use, and modified in the future.
6. Bring this new information together in very late 2007 or
2008.
7. Continue pursuing the LPV-WAAS approach
development by FAA.
8. Formally ask FAA to develop an RNP (resource issue).
9. Review the 2005 Airport Development Plan.
10. Determine the role of the RAAC in this revised process.
Other Issues
A number of other compelling decisions have presented
themselves. Given the regulatory framework from FAA, the
city is obligated to giving serious considerations to any
proposals that are made to the Airport. These include:
❖ Kenmore Air Proposal - length of lease
❖ Galvin Flying Service Pending Proposal
RENTOtit MUNICIPAL AiRPQRT
DEVELOPMENT STUDY
zoww5; e'
V. .
PRESENTED BYE ` A I
IN ASSOCATION WITH: G_/A
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
2 Market Demand Report
3 Develop Method Options Report
Kenton municipal Airport Development Study i May 23, 2005
RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary of the Renton Municipal Airport Development Study is organized as
follows:
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
BACKGROUND
Policy Decision Tree
Table 1: Market Sector Analysis
Table 2: Public vs. Private Investment in Airport Development
Explanatory Notes
Two reports are appended to the Executive Summary:
Market Demand Report
Development Method Options Report
The purpose of the Renton Municipal Airport Development Study is to perform a market study to
identify the aviation market sectors best suited to the airport, to analyze public vs. private
investment options for airport re -development, and to make policy recommendations to the City
of Renton regarding airport development.
Renton Municipal Airport Development Study t May 23, 2005
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Recommended Revised Vision Statement for Renton Municipal Airport.,
The vision of Renton Municipal Airport is to be:
a. The provider of safe, efficient, and customer -friendly general aviation facilities and
services;
b. The airport of choice for corporate aviation in Renton, the Kent Valley, and cities on the
eastern shore of Lake Washington;
c. A major economic engine for the City of Renton.
2. Recommended Policy Change for Airport Activity Mix:
Retain current mix of aircraft and activities on the airport and increase Renton's market share of
based jet and jet operations and air taxi/air charter by:
a. Directing Airport staff to pursue technical solutions to create an all-weather runway;
b. Pursue the development of an executive jet center with appropriate services as market
opportunities appear, and;
c. Encourage the development of hangars on the airport capable of storing light and medium
piston and turbine aircraft.
3. Recommended Policy Change for Airport Activity Mix:
Seek to attract aircraft production, aircraft retrofitting, aviation education and other maintenance
and repair services as market opportunities appear to add employment at the Airport.
4. Recommended Policy Change for Airport Activity Mix.•
Accept proposals for scheduled seaplane operations from the City of Renton.
Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 2 May 23, 2005
5. Recommended New Policy for Airport Development. -
Encourage the development of a Fixed Based Operator on the old restaurant property that will
accommodate:
a. A permanent home for U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
b. A passenger waiting area with a 'Northwest' motif/design;
c. Public access to the shoreline during normal business hours, and;
d. Necessary services for the flying public.
6. Recommended Policy Change for Airport Development. -
In addition to ground leases and rental of existing buildings at the airport, the City should also
consider public investment in desired facilities, contract facility operation, and other fiscally
sound methods of facility development and operation that would further the realization of the
City's vision for the Airport.
7. New Policy for Marketinq the Airport.
Develop and implement a plan to market the airport as an economic asset for the City of
Renton.
8. Recommended New Policy for Airport Development:
Evaluate the development of a new restaurant at the site of the Chamber of Commerce building
as the lease expires.
Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 3 May 23, 2005
BACKGROUND
For sixty years, Renton Airport, in conjunction with The Boeing Company, has created wealth
for Renton, King, and Pierce County residents. However, as Boeing downsizes its "footprint" on
the Airport, new opportunities will arise to use the facility to help the local economy create
additional wealth.
In 2002, the City finalized the development of a "Business Plan" for the Airport. The Renton
Municipal Airport Business Plan, December 5, 2002, (Business Plan) provided many useful
tools for the operation and management of the Airport. However, the Business Plan did not
provide a vision for the Airport's future that would turn the downsizing of Boeing into an
economic benefit for the community. The vision also did not position the Airport to maximize
public benefit from the Airport's role within the metropolitan system of airports. The Business
Plan contained a "no action" vision and "no change" development policy that proposed:
1. Monitor the effects of terrorism on air traffic;
2. Continue the current mix of activities;
3. Focus new growth on meeting the needs of the Puget Sound Region's light aircraft
activities;
4. Continue the practice of leasing land for tenant facility development.
Compared to most airports of its size, Renton is "land poor" meaning that there is not a lot of
property that can be developed. Therefore, it is critical that the City makes sound decisions as
to what types of aviation uses are attracted to the Airport. If the City elects to pursue the "no
change" vision and focuses all of the new growth to accommodating the needs of the Puget
Sound Region's light aircraft activities, Airport staff will mainly pursue the development of small
hangars to accommodate storage needs for these aircraft. However, the "opportunity cost" of
implementing that vision will mean that the individual aircraft owner will benefit greatly from
convenient storage and access to his or her aircraft, but the public will forgo future employment
opportunities and increased transportation options.
The Airport has an obligation in helping to continue to create wealth for the people of Renton.
Similar to having a "balanced personal investment portfolio", seeking a balance of aviation
related uses at the Airport is key to maximizing the public benefit from its Airport. The Market
Demand Report discusses aviation markets that the City can seek to attract to establish a solid
balance of uses at the Airport.
Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 4 May 23, 2005
Market Demand Report
Analyses of the aviation market and investment options for airport development have indicated
that the City of Renton would benefit by adopting a new, forward -thinking vision for the Airport
and consider taking a more active role in the re -development of airport land.
The Market Demand Report recommends that the City take actions to increase its share of light
and medium business jet traffic — the highest growth area of general aviation. Attracting a larger
market share of the jet fleet to Renton would produce greater revenues for on -field Fixed Base
Operators (FBOs) than just servicing the single -engine piston market. Each visit by a transient
corporate jet brings an estimated $1,300 of revenue to the FBO who sells fuel and provides
other services. In contrast, each single engine piston aircraft visit accounts for about one -tenth
of that revenue (fuel sales and tie -down fee). Higher revenues to operators would provide long-
term opportunities for the City to generate higher incomes from ground leases and/or income
from revenue participation provisions in those leases. It would also generate higher levels of
employment to provide the expanded services required by the jet fleet. More business jet traffic
would mean more affluent visitors to Renton and a business jet friendly airport would help
attract businesses to Renton and the east side of Lake Washington.
The Airport's current share of the business jet market in the Seattle area is about one percent.
The Market Demand Report indicates that the obtainable share is 10-20 percent of the business
jet activity in the Seattle area if Renton chooses to pursue that market segment. At this time,
however, the Airport lacks basic facilities and services needed to attract business aviation, both
permanently based, as well as transient. This 10-20 percent market share would not be
obtainable until facilities and services are improved, but could be obtained within ten years and
maintained for the long-term future.
The Market Demand Report also indicates that Renton employment could benefit by attracting
aircraft production, aircraft retrofitting, aviation education and other maintenance/repair services
to the Airport. The Airport is also well situated to accommodate seaplane air -taxi service and
attract the high end vacation traveler.
Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 5 May 23, 2005
If the City decides to develop certain market segments at the Airport, several steps will need to
be undertaken. On the following page, a "Policy Decision Tree" was developed to summarize
specific actions that will be needed to pursue certain market segments.
Table 1, the Market Sector Analysis, grades the market segments by criteria extracted from the
2002 Airport Business Plan, specifically:
• Should the City Target the Markets;
• Economic Benefits to the Community;
• Perceived Noise Impacts;
• Market Feasibility;
• City Investment in Facilities.
The Explanatory Notes at the end of the Executive Summary provide more detail about the
Market Sector Analysis.
Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 6 May 23, 2005
Policy Decision Tree
When airport property is available for re -development for aviation related purposes:
Focus on desired Market Sectors. See Continue focus on light aircraft activity and current leasing policies
Table 1 for analysis of aviation market and procedures (vision as set by the 2002 Renton Municipal
sectors. Airport Business Plan).
All -Weather Runway — Airport staff will pursue an improved I
instrument approach (FAA funded).
Executive Jet Center — Airport staff will identify a portion of Airport
Corporate Aviation (Transient property best suited for an executive jet center. Mayor/Council will
Aircraft) & Charter / Air Taxi decide on public or private investment options. See Table 2 for an
analysis of investment options.
Marketing Plan — Transportation Division & EDNSP staff will
actively market the Airport when seeking to attract business
development to the City of Renton. See Explanatory Notes for
more ideas for a marketing plan.
All -Weather Runway — Airport staff will pursue an improved
Corporate Aviation instrument approach (FAA funded).
(Based Aircraft)
RFP — Airport staff will prepare RFPs for leasing appropriate
available real estate unless there is a compelling need for public
investment (more control, more revenue). See Table 2 for public
investment advantages and disadvantages.
Aircraft and Parts Production
Marketing Plan — Transportation Division & EDNSP staff will
actively market these sectors when justified by public benefit, such
Aircraft Services as jobs. See Explanatory Notes for more about a marketing plan.
RFP — Airport staff will prepare RFPs for leasing appropriate
available real estate unless there is a compelling need for public
Aviation Education other than investment (incentive for providing living wage jobs, more control).
Flight Training See Table 2 for public investment advantages and disadvantages.
RFP — Airport staff will prepare RFPs for leasing appropriate
Light GA Aircraft Storage available real estate unless there is a compelling need for public
investment (more control, more revenue). See Table 2 for public
investment advantages and disadvantages.
Airport staff may prepare RFP for leasing old restaurant property
Seaplane Air Taxi / Charters and will require a permanent home for Customs and Border
Protection. There may be compelling justification for public
investment (more control, more revenue). See Table 2 for public
investment advantages and disadvantages.
Renton Municipal Airport Development Study 7 May 23, 2005
City of Renton
General Government Financial Position
2006 Budget Year
General Government Summa
$ Difference
w/beginning
Revenues
Expenditures
over (under)
balance
10,593,628
January
4,128,104
5,009,360
(881,256)
9,712,372
February
9,053,308
11,190,827
(2,137,519)
8,456,109
March
13,539,113
16,988,658
(3,449,545)
7,144,084
April
22,207,639
22,512,980
(305,341)
10,288,288
May
33,002,479
28,017,150
4,985,329
15,578,957
June
37,745,158
34,476,304
3,268,854
13,862,483
July
41,834,564
40,562,392
1,272,173
11,865,801
August
46,887,876
46,726,495
161,382
10,755,010
September
50,365,980
52,640,188
(2,274,208)
8,319,420
October
60,500,757
58,276,027
2,224,730
12,818,359
November
69,639,776
64,550,730
5,089,046
15,682,675
December
74,402,130
72,544,296
1,857,834
12,451,462
Rev/Exp
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
Revenues
® Expenditures
-ow—Difference
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Page 1
Difference
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
(1,000,000)
(2,000,000)
(3,000,000)
(4,000,000)
City of Renton
Monthly Revenue Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
General
YTD
Annual %
Government
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
3,917,062
4,128,104
5.39%
Feb
8,490,035
9,053,308
6.63%
Mar
12,772,965
13,539,113
6.00%
Apr
21,760,638
22,207,639
2.05%
May
32,018,909
33,002,479
3.07%
Jun
36,739,849
37,745,158
2.74%
Jul
40,981,554
41,834,564
2.08%
Aug
46,202,340
46,887,876
1.48%
Sep
50,332,150
50,365,980
0.07%
Oct
59,350,742
60,500,757
1.94%
Nov
68,398,044
69,639,776
1.82%
Dec
73,615,150
74,402,130
1.07%
Percent of budget
101.07%
Property
YTD
Annual %
Tax
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
41,725
33,313
-20.16%
Feb
313,710
230,534
-26.51%
Mar
886,380
616,915
-30.40%
Apr
5,990,294
5,332,188
-10.99%
May
11,594,687
11,320,009
-2.37%
Jun
11,700,213
11,396,235
-2.60%
Jul
11,753,418
11,553,248
-1.70%
Aug
11,794,481
11,621,714
-1.46%
Sep
12,143,072
11,402,580
-6.10%
Oct
17,160,666
17,722,758
3.28%
Nov
21,965,440
21,945,179
-0.09%
Dec
22,076,707
22,064,717
-0.05%
Percent of budget
99.95%
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000.000
24,000,000
Total Revenue
General Government
Property Tax
r Budget
20,000,000 — —Actual
--- Last Year
16,000,000 ---- ---
12,000,000
8,000,000 - -
4,000,000
Page 2
�a� Quo t3`a 00, S, VJP .:O
City of Renton
Monthly Revenue Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
YTD
Annual %
Sales Tax
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
1,487,297
1,453,898
-2.25%
Feb
3,280,957
3,498,904
6.64%
Mar
4,648,845
4,884,690
5.07%
Apr
6,022,732
6,328,483
5.08%
May
7,728,528
8,189,897
5.97%
Jun
9,285,497
9,751,113
5.01%
Jul
10,880,205
11,429,758
5.05%
Aug
12,599,935
13,320,673
5.72%
Sep
14,248,638
15,043,548
5.58%
Oct
15,949,596
16,758,008
5.07%
Nov
17,756,996
18,637,281
4.96%
Dec
19,353,252
20,349,089
5.15%
Percent of budget
105.15%
YTD Annual %
I Utility Tax I
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
973,974
1,087,294
11.63%
Feb
1,802,217
1,889,694
4.85%
Mar
2,657,871
2,821,072
6.14%
Apr
3,501,299
3,726,529
6.43%
May
4,288,918
4,558,077
6.28%
Jun
5,006,926
5,341,578
6.68%
Jul
5,777,981
6,061,094
4.90%
Aug
6,611,351
6,968,744
5.41%
Sep
7,249,000
7,638,012
5.37%
Oct
8,161,546
8,692,016
6.50%
Nov
8,926,389
9,555,752
7.05%
Dec
9,860,036
10,443,362
5.92%
Percent of budget
105.92%
Sales Tax
21,000,000
.yam,
18,000,000 --- -Actual
15,000,000
12,000,000
9,000,000
6,000,000
3,000,000
12,000,000 — Utility Tax
ri Budget
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
Page 3
City of Renton
Monthly Revenue Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
Licenses/
YTD
Annual %
Permits
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
247,780
260,667
5.20%
Feb
471,948
462,691
-1.96%
Mar
735,126
1,055,203
43.54%
Apr
1,059,385
1,350,013
27.43%
May
1,352,060
1,597,456
18.15%
Jun
1,657,636
1,883,345
13.62%
Jul
1,919,069
2,085,113
8.65%
Aug
2,223,447
2,330,365
4.81 %
Sep
2,516,122
2,534,839
0.74%
Oct
2,787,547
2,736,211
-1.84%
Nov
3,184,281
3,010,815
-5.45%
Dec
3,421,898
3,162,454
-7.58%
Percent of budget
92.42%
YTD
Annual %
Intergovt'I
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
201,442
250,963
24.58%
Feb
307,660
364,957
18.62%
Mar
524,117
571,180
8.98%
Apr
740,498
786,907
6.27%
May
839,974
945,849
12.60%
Jun
1,821,061
1,816,538
-0.25%
Jul
2,038,935
2,028,514
-0.51 %
Aug
2,143,468
2,239,702
4.49%
Sep
2,359,925
2,448,277
3.74%
Oct
2,594,883
2,654,968
2.32%
Nov
2,745,878
2,850,049
3.79%
Dec
3,830,425
3,725,241
-2.75%
Percent of budget
97.25%
Licenses & Permits
4,000,000 - - -
Budget
3,500,000 tee,,,,,,,
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-ao Feo 0,0 NJr �J\ PJA �eQ
4,000,000
Intergovernmental
--------- -�--
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
Page 4
0 , ao SP SJ VJP ,0 ��� °, pea
City of Renton
Monthly Revenue Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
Charges for
YTD
Annual %
Svcs
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
471,944
503,286
6.64%
Feb
947,243
1,033,511
9.11 %
Mar
1,567,651
1,606,496
2.48%
Apr
2,181,849
2,104,152
-3.56%
May
2,752,579
2,700,851
-1.88%
Jun
3,440,723
3,362,463
-2.27%
Jul
4,162,273
4,063,210
-2.38%
Aug
4,890,388
4,714,620
-3.59%
Sep
5,469,683
5,349,795
-2.19%
Oct
6,015,288
5,783,081
-3.86%
Nov
6,545,975
6,281,068
-4.05%
Dec
7,137,690
6,747,971
-5.46%
Percent of budget
94.54%
Fines &
YTD
Annual %
Forfeits
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
50,825
57,260
12.66%
Feb
106,330
128,704
21.04%
Mar
156,694
199,311
27.20%
Apr
214,557
263,474
22.80%
May
330,202
318,042
-3.68%
Jun
384,213
384,770
0.14%
Jul
444,522
444,917
0.09%
Aug
495,955
663,555
33.79%
Sep
581,076
724,325
24.65%
Oct
630,817
781,399
23.87%
Nov
680,536
860,532
26.45%
Dec
732,350
920,168
25.65%
Percent of budget
125.65%
8,000,000
Charges for Services
� Budget
7,000,000 Actual
— Last Year
6,000,000 --
5,000,000 -- — —
4,000,000 --- —
3,000,000 ---
2,000,000 —
1,000,000
Jac Quo "o vs� ,a' JJ SJ PJA 49 Oc~ boa Qua
1,050,000
900,000
750,000
600,000
450,000
300,000
150,000
Page 5
Fines & Forfeits
Budget
Jac Quo `1` 0 0' JJc Joy 0, 49 Do" �o e
City of Renton
Monthly Revenue Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
YTD
Annual %
Misc
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
9,675
27,898
188.36%
Feb
41,984
65,375
55.71 %
Mar
89,940
105,055
16.81 %
Apr
145,882
141,793
-2.80%
May
303,236
301,916
-0.44%
Jun
373,305
374,030
0.19%
Jul
442,651
572,071
29.24%
Aug
503,918
602,987
19.66%
Sep
551,303
730,179
32.45%
Oct
684,537
763,751
11.57%
Nov
750,515
853,758
13.76%
Dec
839,850
949,552
13.06%
Percent of budget
113.06%
Note: General Fund
only
General
YTD
Annual %
Fund
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
2,990,940
3,078,279
2.92%
Feb
6,713,315
6,941,633
3.40%
Mar
10,014,452
9,988,445
-0.26%
Apr
15,476,279
14,808,436
-4.32%
May
21,709,780
21,067,712
-2.96%
Jun
25,509,068
24,980,993
-2.07%
Jul
28,701,204
28,133,738
-1.98%
Aug
32,597,269
32,303,281
-0.90%
Sep
35,921,328
34,941,699
-2.73%
Oct
41,449,371
41,686,496
0.57%
Nov
46,932,591
46,210,118
-1.54%
Dec
50,935,621
50,598,309
-0.66%
Percent of budget
99.34%
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Miscellaneous
Budget
—Actual
PQ� ��� JJc S, QJS�Q cl' �o Qp,
General Fund
60,000,000 ---- — ----- — -
Budget
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
Page 6
Sao Leo �a� 00, SJ , S V JP ,!0Q
City of Renton
Monthly Revenue Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
YTD
Annual %
Parks Fund
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
488,236
487,689
-0.11%
Feb
910,484
902,216
-0.91 %
Mar
1,401,997
1,704,035
21.54%
Apr
3,256,185
3,631,682
11.53%
May
5,115,119
5,582,748
9.14%
Jun
5,619,851
6,105,512
8.64%
Jul
6,239,609
6,795,587
8.91%
Aug
6,844,226
7,382,113
7.86%
Sep
7,256,305
8,015,832
10.47%
Oct
9,056,935
9,755,701
7.72%
Nov
10,842,425
11,645,701
7.41 %
Dec
11,299,136
11,745,646
3.95%
Percent of budget
103.95%
YTD
Annual %
Street Fund
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
263,994
284,048
7.60%
Feb
608,276
685,224
12.65%
Mar
935,174
1,020,178
9.09%
Apr
2,061,968
2,236,627
8.47%
May
3,255,319
3,569,215
9.64%
Jun
3,484,344
3,825,801
9.80%
Jul
3,700,923
4,054,020
9.54%
Aug
3,954,637
4,319,294
9.22%
Sep
4,152,818
4,507,190
8.53%
Oct
5,264,394
5,696,822
8.21 %
Nov
6,407,895
6,927,279
8.11 %
Dec
6,763,878
7,312,190
8.11%
Percent of budget
108.11%
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
Page 7
Parks Fund
Budget
lac Quo P, vo , ao S°�, �S' 0, 49 O°" �o pe°
Street Fund
)ac Quo �a� PQt �a� �Jo �J� PJo, geQ O°�°� pe°
City of Renton
Monthly Revenue Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
Library
YTD
Annual %
Fund
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
4,977
5,426
9.02%
Feb
11,004
85,188
674.15%
Mar
16,995
137,778
710.70%
Apr
404,486
584,406
44.48%
May
791,869
1,036,868
30.94%
Jun
797,606
1,043,927
30.88%
Jul
806,493
1,050,887
30.30%
Aug
1,020,129
1,057,245
3.64%
Sep
1,026,156
1,061,584
3.45%
Oct
1,413,774
1,508,467
6.70%
Nov
1,802,297
1,956,001
8.53%
Dec
1,809,862
1,843,871
1.88%
Percent of budget
101.88%
LTGO Debt
YTD
Annual %
Funds
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
158,015
272,663
72.56%
Feb
232,615
439,048
88.74%
Mar
380,358
688,678
81.06%
Apr
599,501
946,488
57.88%
May
1,179,384
1,745,936
48.04%
Jun
1,343,489
1,788,925
33.16%
Jul
1,535,099
1,800,333
17.28%
Aug
1,759,912
1,825,943
3.75%
Sep
1,926,936
1,839,674
-4.53%
Oct
2,171,199
1,853,271
-14.64%
Nov
2,463,231
2,900,677
17.76%
Dec
2,806,653
2,902,113
3.40%
Percent of budget
103.40%
Note: REET adjusted to amount budgeted in 2005 and 2006.
2,100,000
1,800,000
1,500,000
1,200,000
900,000
600,000
300,000
Library Fund
Jao Qeo PI 0,O SJo SJ' PJA RP dp' , oO Opp
LTGO Debt Funds
3,000,000 - -- ---- — -- -
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
Page 8
Sao �eo �`a PQ� �a� �Jo �J� PJO� �eQ Opt �pJ Opp
City of Renton
Monthly Revenue Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
I
YTD
Annual %
REET
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
269,230
543,897
102.02%
Feb
386,815
862,229
122.90%
Mar
602,648
1,346,900
123.50%
Apr
824,168
1,843,571
123.69%
May
1,142,863
2,439,252
113.43%
Jun
1,401,238
2,788,699
99.02%
Jul
1,705,373
3,399,051
99.31%
Aug
2,035,183
3,417,143
67.90%
Sep
2,297,458
3,973,483
72.95%
Oct
2,558,205
4,565,754
78.47%
Nov
2,919,183
4,959,462
69.89%
Dec
3,250,000
5,563,287
71.18%
Percent of budget
171.18%
Note: Combines
Funds 215
and 316
6,000,000
Real Estate Transfer Tax
� uuuw.,
5,000,000 Actual
— Last Year
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
Page 9
-ao Feo �� 0 0' QJo, 49
City of Renton
Monthly Expenditure Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
General
YTD
Annual %
Government
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
5,404,076
5.009,360
-7.30%
Feb
11,019,155
11,190,827
1.56%
Mar
16,409,810
16,988,658
3.53%
Apr
21,965,242
22,512,980
2.49%
May
29,541,983
28,017,150
-5.16%
Jun
35,859,413
34,476,304
-3.86%
Jul
41,871,895
40,562,392
-3.13%
Aug
47,900,780
46,726,495
-2.45%
Sep
53,814,843
52,640,188
-2.18%
Oct
59,528,341
58,276,027
-2.10%
Nov
65,360,388
64,550,730
•1.24%
Dec
74,559,545
72,544,296
-2.70%
Percent of budget expended 97.30%
YTD
Annual %
Legislative
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
22,159
16,183
-26.97%
Feb
44,995
37,854
-15.87%
Mar
67,210
57,466
-14.50%
Apr
89,438
78,685
-12.02%
May
112,531
97,910
-12.99%
Jun
135,516
118,543
-12.52%
Jul
158,014
137,948
-12.70%
Aug
181,373
156,622
-13.65%
Sep
203,858
179,346
-12.02%
Oct
226,409
198,606
-12.28%
Nov
249,192
218,235
-12.42%
Dec
266,749
238,040
-10.76%
Percent of budget expended 89.24%
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
Total Expenditures
General Government
Jac Qeo �`a� 00, )Jc SJ V0 49
300,000 Legislative
Budget
250,000 —Actual
— Last Year
200,000 - ------------
150,000 - -- -- — ---
100,000
50,000
Page 10
lac Few �a� PQ� �a� �0, SJ V0, 49 O� , Opp,
City of Renton
Monthly Expenditure Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
Court
YTD
Annual%
Services
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
123,613
111,315
-9.95%
Feb
254,335
245,352
-3.53%
Mar
384,657
371,017
-3.55%
Apr
518,213
495,547
-4.37%
May
652,025
619,021
-5.06%
Jun
787,615
749,462
-4.84%
Jul
918,546
876,890
-4.53%
Aug
1,068,562
1,002,122
-6.22%
Sep
1,205,353
1,124,973
-6.67%
Oct
1,340,270
1,248,633
-6.84%
Nov
1,475,299
1,373,941
-6.87%
Dec
1,601,202
1,522,600
-4.91 %
Percent of budget expended
95.09%
YTD
Annual %
Executive
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
76,600
76,489
-0.15%
Feb
156,585
155,113
-0.94%
Mar
248,338
223,222
-10.11 %
Apr
340,007
294,444
-13.40%
May
433,061
367,832
-15.06%
Jun
522,615
445,082
-14.84%
Jul
637,643
533,642
-16.31 %
Aug
742,889
612,944
-17.49%
Sep
809,158
688,083
-14.96%
Oct
891,300
765,501
-14.11%
Nov
972,828
836,607
-14.00%
Dec
1,057,433
916,277
-13.35%
Percent of budget expended
86.65%
Court Services
1,800,000
-- - --
ti Budget
1,500,000
Actual -
Last Year
1,200,000
--
900,000
600,000
-
300,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Page 11
Executive
r Budget
49 OuI 1 0 pp
City of Renton
Monthly Expenditure Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
YTD
Annual %
Finance
Budget
Actual
over (under)
1,600,000
Jan
113,968
105,212
-7.68%
1,400,000
Feb
247,240
233,330
-5.63%
1,200,000
Mar
368,251
354,463
•3.74%
Apr
499.093
466,635
-6.50%
1,000,000
May
637,413
584,253
-8.34%
800,000
Jun
776,371
740,037
-4.68%
600,000
Jul
918,851
879,335
-4.30%
Aug
1,055,536
1,020,439
-3.33%
400,000
Sep
1,186,751
1,143,133
-3.68%
200,000
Oct
1,321,441
1,260,434
-4.62%
Nov
1 444 913
1 389 267
-3 85°/
Finance
o ,ac fie,° �a 0 0'
Dec 1,558,009 1,502,777 •3.55%
Percent of budget expended 96.45%
Note: No comparison to last year as the department fundamentally changed in 2006.
City
YTD
Annual %
Attorney
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
95,982
81,761
-14.82%
Feb
207,457
167,621
-19.20%
Mar
305,779
244,489
-20.04%
Apr
403,000
330,792
-17.92%
May
495,313
420,422
-15.12%
Jun
582,248
548,204
-5.85%
Jul
683,081
682,485
-0.09%
Aug
775,577
830,529
7.09%
Sep
867,558
978,181
12.75%
Oct
958,437
1,097,369
14.50%
Nov
1,049,477
1,193,765
13.75%
Dec
1,146,744
1,287,545
12.28%
Percent of budget expended
112.28%
1,400,000-----__. City Attorney
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Page 12
City of Renton
Monthly Expenditure Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
FHuman
YTD
Annual %
Resources]
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
45,923
34,960
-23.87%
Feb
102,702
85,691
-16.56%
Mar
153,260
134,080
-12.51 %
Apr
206,709
180,939
-12.47%
May
258,840
228,033
-11.90%
Jun
317,230
271,595
-14.39%
Jul
373,137
312,072
-16.37%
Aug
429,369
359,545
-16.26%
Sep
478,520
403,777
-15.62%
Oct
528,015
456,732
-13.50%
Nov
581,114
505,609
-12.99%
Dec
636,753
555,634
-12.74%
Percent of budget expended
87.26%
FPIBIPW I
YTD
Annual%
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
372,697
340,385
-8.67%
Feb
758,610
735,444
-3.05%
Mar
1,144,665
1,124,837
-1.73%
Apr
1,532,371
1,506,195
-1.71 %
May
1,941,318
1,897,302
-2.27%
Jun
2,349,274
2,277,209
-3.07%
Jul
2,740,096
2,679,659
-2.21%
Aug
3,154,424
3,044,208
-3.49%
Sep
3,538,827
3,417,212
-3.44%
Oct
3,940,363
3,787,379
-3.88%
Nov
4,340,531
4,204,195
-3.14%
Dec
4,720,072
4,610,447
-2.32%
Percent of budget expended
97.68%
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Human Resources
d,
5000,000 Planning/Building/Public Works
,
4,500,000 ■
4,000,000
3,500,000 --
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000 -
1,000,000
500,000 A
Page 13
Sao 0, Pa 0 0' S§° SJ PJA , ep p°°
City of Renton
Monthly Expenditure Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
Other City
YTD
Annual %
Services
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
442,241
422,575
-4.45%
Feb
808.648
723,464
-10.53%
Mar
1,172,674
1,185,869
1.13%
Apr
1,524,207
1,479,503
-2.93%
May
1,889,560
1,787,909
5.38%
Jun
2,244,617
2,163,772
-3.60%
Jul
2,586,675
2,462,109
•4.82%
Aug
2,916,377
2,781,164
-4.64%
Sep
3,291,616
3,275,837
-0.48%
Oct
3,758,022
3,560,450
-5.26%
Nov
4,083,925
4,117,948
0.83%
Dec
4,576,647
4,496,977
-1.74%
Percent of budget expended 98.26%
YTD
Annual %
Police
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
1,426,488
1,401,410
-1.76%
Feb
3,000,562
2,995,104
-0.18%
Mar
4,404,117
4,616,834
4.83%
Apr
5,942,867
5,874,012
-1.16%
May
7,525,634
7,290,500
-3.12%
Jun
9,047,369
8,815,957
-2.56%
Jul
10,579,461
10,364,913
-2.03%
Aug
12,097,497
11,879,261
-1.80%
Sep
13,818,049
13,338,469
-3.47%
Oct
15,189,793
14,747,516
-2.91%
Nov
16,941,230
16,285,485
-3.87%
Dec
18,494,591
17,961,955
-2.88%
Percent of budget expended
97.12%
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
20,000,000
Other City Services
0,01 SJ' SJ VZP geQ C" , o0 Oea
Police
18,000,000 Budget
—Actual
16,000,000 — —Last Year
14,000,000 - ----
12,000,000 --
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
Page 14
City of Renton
Monthly Expenditure Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
7RreBudget
YTD
Annual %
Actual
over (under)
Jan
1,452,669
1,046,395
-27.97%
Feb
2,621,451
2,617,501
-0.15%
Mar
3,833,602
3,710,381
-3.21%
Apr
5,013,226
4,886,420
-2.53%
May
6,205,119
6,032,329
-2.78%
Jun
7,395,015
7,165,944
-3.10%
Jul
8,589,476
8,348,743
-2.80%
Aug
9,777,945
9,444,234
-3.41 %
Sep
10,947,869
10,543,538
-3.69%
Oct
12,106,096
11,668,291
-3.62%
Nov
13,298,987
12,792,658
-3.81 %
Dec
14,265,626
13,951,686
-2.20%
Percent of budget expended 97.80%
YTD
Annual %
City Clerk
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
37,646
31,650
-15.93%
Feb
131,695
76,366
-42.01 %
Mar
172,764
115,293
-33.27%
Apr
214,849
210,967
-1.81%
May
255,484
249,305
-2.42%
Jun
293,053
287,998
-1.73%
Jul
329,577
325,221
-1.32%
Aug
366,451
359,625
-1.86%
Sep
410,025
394,573
-3.77%
Oct
452,133
434,481
-3.90%
Nov
499,802
472,583
-5.45%
Dec
555,582
519,807
-6.44%
Percent of budget expended
93.56%
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Page 15
Fire
4"
City Clerk
Sao hero ,a
City of Renton
Monthly Expenditure Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
Human Svcs
YTD
Annual %
(Parks)
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
15,904
19,250
21.04%
Feb
36,529
56,345
54.25%
Mar
68,929
88,397
28.24%
Apr
144,256
170,408
18.13%
May
194,123
204,343
5.26%
Jun
229,031
237,393
3.65%
Jul
294,395
292,258
-0.73%
Aug
347,849
345,671
-0.63%
Sep
377,399
376,619
•0.21 %
Oct
421,818
434,228
2.94%
Nov
488,854
482,129
-1.38%
Dec
580,649
571,298
-1.61%
Percent of budget expended 98.39%
Hearing
YTD
Annual %
Examiner
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
13,119
10,993
-16.21%
Feb
26,248
23,994
-8.59%
Mar
39,374
36,018
-8.52%
Apr
52,639
48,248
-8.34%
May
65,740
60,796
-7.52%
Jun
79,078
73,347
-7.25%
Jul
92,586
85,561
-7.59%
Aug
105,939
97,951
-7.54%
Sep
119,569
110,661
-7.45%
Oct
132,660
122,935
-7.33%
Nov
146,539
136,131
-7.10%
Dec
156,875
148,850
-5.12%
Percent of budget expended 94.88%
700,000 Human Svcs (Parks)
Budget
600,000 -Actual
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
49 cl�
180,000 -
150,000
120,000
90,000
60,000
30,000
Page 16
Hearing Examiner
T Budget
Sao Qeo �t`a� 0 ,Sad sP SJ\ PJA SPR d°' , °O pea
City of Renton
Monthly Expenditure Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
FEDNISPI
YTD
Annual %
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
135,554
109,906
-18.92%
Feb
270,853
251,284
-7.22%
Mar
399,625
378,297
-5.34%
Apr
553.859
504,778
-8.86%
May
682,172
614,540
-9.91%
Jun
816,196
725,990
-11.05%
Jul
948,640
840,929
-11.35%
Aug
1,102,500
973,294
-11.72%
Sep
1,257,584
1,064,839
-15.33%
Oct
1,394,327
1,159,406
-16.85%
Nov
1,535,592
1,268,904
-17.37%
Dec
1,699,736
1,386,005
-18.46%
Percent of budget expended
81.54%
General
YTD
Annual %
Fund
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
4,197,523
3,832,435
-8.70%
Feb
8,323,700
8,468,609
1.74%
Mar
12,260,138
12,709,638
3.67%
Apr
16,359,432
16,616,033
1.57%
May
21,686,083
20,579,524
-5.10%
Jun
25,762,628
24,794,273
-3.76%
Jul
29,883,635
28,950,436
-3.12%
Aug
33,988,098
33,094,873
-2.63%
Sep
38,201,131
37,245,050
-2.50%
Oct
42,214,603
41,166,141
-2.48%
Nov
46,464,860
45,549,714
-1.97%
Dec
51,700,002
49,999,002
-3.29%
Percent of budget expended
96.71 %
EDNSP
1,750,000
. uuuw.,
1,500,000 Actual
1,250,000
1,000,000
750,000
500,000
250,000
Sao 0, �o vs� 0' JJc SJ vzp 49 &, �o pea
General Fund
60,000,000
Budget
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
Page 17
)ao Leo �a� V4 ,01 )� S� Q J°' geQ O°� °� peu
r
City of Renton
Monthly Expenditure Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
YTD
Annual %
Parks Fund
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
625,507
651,167
4.10%
Feb
1,442,862
1,493,234
3.49%
Mar
2.250,613
2,426,266
7.80%
Apr
3,074,370
3,360,849
9.32%
May
4,129,877
4,250,577
2.92%
Jun
5,267,703
5,196,891
-1.34%
Jul
6,503,625
6,375,860
-1.96%
Aug
7,676,893
7,654,652
-0.29%
Sep
8,713,650
8,682,051
-0.36%
Oct
9,661,686
9,520,929
-1.46%
Nov
10,545,925
10,461,742
-0.80%
Dec
11,433,136
11,433,136
0.00%
Percent of budget expended 100.00%
YTD
Annual %
Street Fund
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
484,261
427,949
-11.63%
Feb
1,030,396
978,655
-5.02%
Mar
1,564,102
1,469,508
-6.05%
Apr
2,077,160
2,022,205
-2.65%
May
2,808,442
2,526,689
-10.03%
Jun
3,341,400
3,091,059
-7.49%
Jul
3,895,278
3,656,320
-6.13%
Aug
4,489,363
4,241,083
-5.53%
Sep
5,028,163
4,841,125
-3.72%
Oct
5,508,077
5,378,839
-2.35%
Nov
6,083,757
5,979,965
-1.71 %
Dec
6,791,878
6,597,907
-2.86%
Percent of budget expended 97.14%
12,000,000
Parks Fund
Budget
10,000,000 Actual
Last Year I
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
lac Few 4, vs�,a' �0o
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
Page 18
Street Fund
Budget
�Acfual
City of Renton
Monthly Expenditure Analysis - 2006 Budget Year
Library
YTD
Annual %
Fund
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
104,615
97,508
-6.79%
Feb
240,021
248,817
3.66%
Mar
362,254
381,734
5.38%
Apr
486,400
512,381
5.34%
May
670,452
658,848
-1.73%
Jun
797,240
820,177
2.88%
Jul
914,827
1,005,681
9.93%
Aug
1,031,813
1,161,791
12.60%
Sep
1,168,512
1,297,867
11.07%
Oct
1,288,432
1,442,022
11.92%
Nov
1,421,651
1,591,063
11.92%
Dec
1,821,929
1,762,402
-3.27%
Percent of budget expended 96.73%
YTD
Annual %
LTGO Fund
Budget
Actual
over (under)
Jan
-
302
100.00%
Feb
84
1,512
1700.30%
Mar
309
1,512
389.40%
Apr
5,597
1,512
-72.98%
May
285,001
1,512
-99.47%
Jun
721,882
573,904
-20.50%
Jul
721,882
574,095
-20.47%
Aug
775,124
574,095
-25.94%
Sep
775,124
574,095
-25.94%
Oct
931,139
768,095
-17.51 %
Nov
931,139
968,247
3.99%
Dec
2,812,600
2,751,849
-2.16%
Percent of budget expended 97.84%
Library Fund
2,100,000 --
rti Budget
1,750,000 —Actual
— Last Year
1,400,000
1,050,000 _
700,000
350,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
Page 19
LTGO Funds
City of Renton
Monthly Enterprise Fund Financial Report - 2006 Budget Year
Utilities
I Budget
Revenue
Expense
Jan
2,498,195
2,889,695
2,431,088
Feb
5,744,062
5,058,943
5,066,993
Mar
8,301,248
8,494,530
7,677,296
Apr
10,824,388
10,883,624
10,389,056
May
13,317,863
13,958,963
13,010,467
Jun
15,839,655
19,778,001
16,712,840
Jul
19,186,649
23,180,717
19,437,900
Aug
21,756,645
25,968,589
22,251,507
Sep
24,363,384
28,973,947
24,994,002
Oct
26,917,199
32,375,240
27,794,958
Nov
29,434,945
35,247,447
30,473,618
Dec
33,709,282
38,009,767
33,344,486
Note: Operations only
Airport
Budget
Revenue
Expense
Jan
70,831
114,286
51,062
Feb
157,360
163,542
126,192
Mar
224,117
331,640
201,592
Apr
327,506
409,120
271,482
May
408,745
489,487
334,149
Jun
499,182
574,258
402,765
Jul
564,096
661,081
465,729
Aug
632,742
750,271
552,651
Sep
702,725
864,032
622,442
Oct
775,621
950,379
683,350
Nov
917,919
1,042,304
755,506
Dec
921,800
1,132,609
836,612
Note: Operations only
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Page 20
Utilities
§o Leo �a� 00, SJo SJ V 0 ep
Airport
City of Renton
Monthly Enterprise Fund Financial Report - 2006 Budget Year
Golf Course
Budget
Revenue
Expense
Jan
99,653
78,019
163,069
Feb
240,257
246,438
308,311
Mar
453,677
295,227
468,759
Apr
620,360
498,471
640,168
May
783,111
783,865
797,615
Jun
1,051,425
1,085,073
1,050,061
Jul
1,230,390
1,423,351
1,198,621
Aug
1,393,752
1,754,862
1,368,609
Sep
1,560,483
2,011,938
1,523,742
Oct
1,838,223
2,189,924
1,713,842
Nov
1,889,966
2,254,751
1,841,002
Dec
2,441,880
2,324,575
2,311,700
Note: Operations only
Golf Course
2,800,000
_
Budget
2,400,000
--*—Revenue
Expense
2,000,000
1,600,000
— — --
1,200,000
— —
800,000
400,000
-04
Page 21
City of Renton
All Funds - Revenue and Expenditures
Cash Basis through December 31, 2006
Balance
Revenue
Total Funds
Budgeted
Expenditure
Ending
Funds
01/01/2006
12/31/06
Available
Expenditure
12131!06
Balance
GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
10,593,628
74,402,130
84,995,758
74,559,545
72,544,296
12,451,462
000 General
6,922,731
50,244,665
57,167,396
51,335,168
49,669,898
7,497,498
004 Community Dev Block Grant
(64,997)
332,319
267,322
333,834
315,979
(48,657)
007 Parking Garage Maintenance
86,125
-
86,125
-
-
86,125
010 Fire Memorial
35,783
4,385
40,168
12,500
11,573
28,595
011 Wellness
-
16,940
16,940
18,500
1,552
15,388
101 Park
674,396
11,745,646
12,420,042
11,433,136
11,433,136
986,907
103 Street
945,638
7,312,190
8,257,828
6,791,878
6,597,907
1,659,921
106 Library
163,208
1,843,871
2,007,080
1,821,929
1,762,402
244,678
201 Ltd GO Bonds Gen Govt Debt
20,297
995,207
1,015,504
990,300
987,461
28,043
207 1978 Limited GO Bonds
28,205
22,168
50,373
21,500
20,961
29,412
215 Gen Govt Misc Debt Service
1,782,242
1,884,738
3,666,980
1,800,800
1,743,427
1,923,554
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS:
102 Arterial Street
238,838
522,470
761,307
440,000
440,000
321,307
110 Hotel Motel
276,258
296,175
572,432
302,500
296,305
276,127
118 Reserve for Paths & Trails
2,905
123
3,028
-
-
3,028
125 1 % For Art
93,351
20,402
113,753
60,000
35,440
78,313
127 Cable Communication
181,690
73,162
254,852
143,900
59,502
195,350
131 Park Memorial
154,879
7,117
161,996
-
-
161,996
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS:
219 1989 Unlimited GO Bonds
576,036
524,271
1,100,307
518,400
514,998
585,309
220 L.I.D. Debt Service
67,827
-
67,827
68,000
67,828
(0)
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS (CIP):
301 City Hall/Garage CIP
170,982
7,857
178,839
-
-
178,839
303 Community Dev Mitigation
611,835
277,874
889,709
-
-
889,709
304 Fire Mitigation
1,281,612
383,516
1,665,128
525,000
525,000
1,140,128
305 Transportation Mitigation
3,856,206
715,177
4,571,383
1,984,800
965,000
3,606,383
306 Leased City Properties
356,762
440,106
796,868
939,248
645,985
150,883
307 Aquatics Center
183,010
8,410
191,420
-
-
191,420
316 Municipal Facilities CIP
12,928,344
5,057,581
17,985,925
5,621,096
3,356,610
14,629,315
317 Transportation CIP
7,355,846
8,314,331
15,670,177
22,093,600
8,625,847
7,044,329
318 So Lake WA Infrastructure Proj
-
18,186,230
18,186,230
24,925,587
9,184,623
9,001,607
ENTERPRISE FUNDS:
402 Airport
2,456,497
1,393,293
3,849,790
2,654,043
2,199,695
1,650,095
403 Solid Waste Utility
1,370,980
10,025,751
11,396,731
9,670,248
9,670,248
1,726,483
404 Golf Course
1,035,127
2,324,575
3,359,702
2,441,880
2,311,700
1,048,001
405 Water Utility
515,657
11,378,434
11,894,091*
8,362,528
7,897,494
..............
3,996,597 1
1 406 Waste Water Utility
2,045,852
4,226,951
6,272,803
3,958,762
3,801,119
2,471,684 1
1 407 Surface Water Utility
1,558,857
3,343,535
4,902,392
3,299,744
3,068,726
1,833,667 1
...416 King County Metro
...............
(400854�
9.035:095
8:634,241
8,418,000
8,906:898
(272:658)l
424 Golf Course Capital .........
295 864
.................................................................................................................................................;
162 989
458 852
442 398
307 812
151 041
..............................
1 425 Water Utility Construction
4,725,858
1,799,375
6,525,233
11,431,550
5,339,592
1,185,641
426 Waste Water Construction
(60,823)
1,594,277
1,533,454
4,622,000
1,065,436
468,018
427 Surface Water Construction
1,289,031
1,503,335
2,792,366
3,874,793
1,187,827
1,604,539
451 Waterworks Revenue Bond
311,298
3,127,931
3,439,229
3,414,464
3,324,983
114,246 j
461 Waterworks Bond Reserve
3,114,332
83,244
3,197,576
-
-
3,197,576 1
471 Waterworks Rate Stabilization
-
-
-
-
-
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS:
501 Equipment Repair/Replacement
4,193,872
3,402,771
7,596,643
3,255,110
3,277,081
4,319,561
502Insurance
9,122,124
3,397,768
12,519,893
4,386,001
2,663,210
9,856,682
503 Information Services
-
3,826,790
3,826,790
3,690,550
2,837,173
989,617
512 Insurance, Healthcare
1,862,604
6,781,547
8,644,151
7,024,904
7,174,350
1,469,801
522 Insurance, Leoff1 Retirees HC
32,354
1,865,222
1,897,576
1,748,130
1,161,368
736,208
FIDUCIARY FUNDS:
601 Firemen's Pension
4,811,901
293,374
5,105,275
477,300
433,034
4,672,240
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
$ 77,210,537
$178,803,192
$256,013,729
$215,354,081
$163,889,181
$ 92,124,549
Note: Waterworks Utility Funds are managed as a system and are designated by the dotted lines.
Page 22
Av.
JAE
46
All; 0;
7-1
C�
ustorm z
Action R
D06
.a.nort"
emergency Management Division
After Action Report
2006 Wind Storm / Power Outage
By
I. David Daniels, MIFireE, MHRM
Fire Chief / Emergency Management Director
Table of Contents
IncidentOverview....................................................................................................1
EmergencyOperations............................................................................................ 2
Fire...................................................................................................................... 2
Police................................................................................................................... 2
Planning/Building/Public Works...........................................................................2
Emergency Operations Center............................................................................ 2
CommunityServices............................................................................................ 3
Damage Assessment.............................................................................................. 4
Community Response.............................................................................................4
WhatWas Effective?............................................................................................... 5
WhatWere The Challenges?.................................................................................. 6
Short -Term Recommendations............................................................................... 7
Long -Term Recommendations................................................................................9
2006 Windstorm After Action Report
Incident Overview
On December 14, 2006, the entire Puget Sound region faced high winds and rain
similar in nature to the Inaugural Day Storm of 1993. At its peak, between midnight
on the 14th and 2:00 a.m. on the 15th, sustained wind speeds in Renton reached
over 40 mph with 60 mph gusts. According to the Associated Press, winds on
Mount Rainer were recorded as high as 113 miles per hour. Seattle -Tacoma
International Airport registered a new observed wind speed record of 69 mph.
Though there was substantial property damage, there were no fatalities reported
as a direct result of the storm.
In the wake of the storm, there was a significant power outage that in effect
became the second and more devastating emergency. Though exact numbers in
the City of Renton can not be determined, the City's major power supplier, Puget
Sound Energy lost power to over 700,000 customers across Western Washington.
The power outage lasted for a total of eight days
The City recorded one fatality over the duration of this event. It was attributed to
carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning. Additionally several others were transported to
medical facilities for exposure to CO. The CO poisoning cases were linked to two
causes; improper use of charcoal grills for indoor heating and operating generators
inside buildings without adequate ventilation which allowed CO to migrate to living
spaces. Additionally, the outage created an unprecedented need for shelter in that
many residents were without power for multiple days in sub freezing temperatures.
The storm tested the response and recovery capability of the entire City of Renton.
In total the City responded well and has much to be proud of in terms of its
progress in emergency management. The level of cooperation among City
departments throughout this incident was exceptional. Though many were placed
in roles that they had not functioned in before, there was a willingness from every
department to assist where they could for the good of the City at large.
85 of PSE's 164high- 70Q,00
vot�p a �asmission tries homes and.
whitfi bring power to M of PsEs 358 businesses
ubstauans were krr dmil neighborhood fort paarer
dawn by trees -- c -aws su6sta -.11 came and were
worked first to repair this offhne and were rasfare4i
• backbone of the system re-eneig-rc
0.
4& !f}
._ _.
Source: Puget Sound Energy Service Alter http://www.ose.comrinsidePSE/serviceAlerLasox Thousands of trees were
uprooted, and many trees
and branches fell onto
ibLfflon lines
-
City of Renton Emergency Management
Emergency Operations
Fire - During the initial response phase of the storm, the Fire Department was
most significantly impacted. Staffing on fire apparatus was increased to twice its
normal compliment the evening before the storm in anticipation of high call
volumes. In the two day period of December 14 and 15, the Fire Department
responded to 265 calls for service, which is approximately four times the normal
call volume for an average two day period. The most significant response was to
structural collapse rescue caused by a large tree that fell on and destroyed a home
in the Highlands Neighborhood. Firefighters rescued the occupants who suffered
only minor injuries. When sustained wind speeds reached 40 miles per hour, fire
resources stopped responding as a measure to protect the safety of Fire
Department personnel.
Police - The Police Department was at normal staffing levels. The event did not
generate the high call volumes for responding officers, however this allowed police
personnel to assist with the related traffic incidents as needed. Officers assisted
by checking downed tree and wire calls, reporting the information to the correct
Department. Police Officers were also pulled off the streets due to the wind speed
and the associated debris that posed a safety hazard.
Planning/Building/Public Works - For PBPW, the storm presented unique
challenges. The cleanup process was a bigger item than the initial response, with
"debris management" issues as a significant concern. PW Crews worked in 16 —
20 hour shifts. This was determined to be the limit for effective work cycles. The
Signal Shops staff was confronted with significant traffic flow issues due to
massive signal outages.
Emergency Operations Center - The Renton Emergency Operations Center
(EOC) was activated at 6:00 p.m. on December 14th. The Police, Public Works
and Community Services joined the Fire Department with representation in the
EOC. Departments also established "Department Operations Centers" (DOC) to
coordinate specific activities during the storm's build up and throughout the
response phase of the incident. The EOC functioned for two operational periods
lasting a total of 20 hours total.
The Chief Administrative Officer and Mayor were in kept informed of major events
during the operation of the EOC. City Council members were also briefed as
information became available. The City did not declare an emergency based on a
variety of factors, including the fact that the County Executive declared the entire
county a disaster.
-2-
2006 Windstorm After Action Report
Community Services — A preplanned holiday event on December 16, 2006
was attended a by a number of families from the Highlands Neighborhood, as well
as the Mayor, members of the City Council and the Fire Chief. At the conclusion of
the event, event organizers and the Mayor were approached by a participant in the
event that had been without power since the storm, requesting assistance with
shelter overnight due to the temperature falling rapidly and no ability to heat the
home. The Mayor consulted with the Fire Chief regarding City sheltering options.
Following communication with the Community Services Administrator, it was
determined that a "warming shelter" could be established at the Highlands
Community Center.
This was the first time in recorded history that a disaster shelter was opened in
Renton; and the effort was handled almost exclusively by City resources. Due to
the timing of the storm and communication issues with the Red Cross, this facility
was not designated as an official Red Cross Shelter. The Red Cross was able to
send a small number of cots and blankets due to wide spread nature of the storm.
Eleven staff members managed the shelter function over 8 days with
approximately 20 other staff helping "behind the scenes". In addition to a warm, dry
place to stay, the shelter provided three hot meals a day. Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) trained citizens assisted after day three. The needs of
those staying at the shelter varied. Some occupants stayed during the day and
then go home at night to tend to their pets. Additional services provided include hot
showers at the Renton Community Center as well as transportation services for
those in most need.
Day/Date
Sheiter,Po ulation
Saturday, December 16
_
3
Sunday, December 17
30
Monday, December 18
74
Tuesday, December 19
29
Wednesday, December 20
20
Thursday, December 21
10
Friday, December 22
0
Saturday, December 23
Shelter officially closed at 8 a.m.
Services extended outside the shelter including a situation where a citizen in a
wheelchair did not want to leave their house. Human Services was able to provide
Meals on Wheels for the citizen. Two families were left homeless by a tree falling
on their home. Both were provided accommodations at a local hotel. This
prompted a number of policy questions regarding the City's responsibility in these
types of situations.
-3-
City of Renton Emergency Management
Damage Assessment
As the power was restored and damage assessments were conducted, it was
determined that the City suffered an estimated $239,281 in damage to public
property, with the most significant damage occurring to City Hall where the sign on
the east side of the building fell and broke a number of windows primarily on the
third floor. There was also a significant amount of private property damage that
was reported to private insurance carriers. Preliminary damage estimates
breakdown as follows:
Category
lndudes
cost
Debris Clearance
Labor costs for removal of down trees and other
material from City property.
$ 1,100
Protective Measures
Overtime labor costs for Fire and Public Works
personnel.
$ 22,164
Road Systems
Damage caused by fallen trees, flooding, etc.
$ 5,677
Water Control Facilities
Sewer system overflows due power outage, as well
as damage to sewers stem infrastructure.
$ 29,500
Public Buildings and Equipment
Damage to City Hall and Community Services
facilities.
$ 32,840
Parks/Other
Tree replacements necessary, as well as damage to
the golfcourse.
1 $148,000
v _9
TOTAL
$239,281
Community Response
In the aftermath of the storm, City Administration was contacted by members of the
general public concerned that they were not able to assist to a greater degree
during the storm and outage. Some stated that they were not sure how to help and
believed that the City should have provided more guidance for them in their efforts
to assist. Many felt that they should have been able to bring food to the shelter and
/or help staff the facility. The challenge was the liability faced by the City with
respect to public heath for meals served in a public facility as well as a concern
that those working in shelter should be background checked prior to being allowed
to work in a situation with potentially vulnerable citizens.
Social service agencies in the City were not well suited to assist given their lack of
infrastructure and training. The same was true of the faith based community. In
one case a facility designed to store and distribute food was found to be without
back up power or a plan to support the staff necessary to provide these types of
services. Overall, many do not have appropriate resources or training to serve in
the capacities that they would like; combined with the fact that there is no resource
list of what community members could provide and would be willing to commit to
prior to an emergency.
-4-
2006 Windstorm After Action Report
What Was Effective?
• Pre -storm communication, cooperation and coordination among
departments helped them to function well during the height of the storm.
• The website was available with links to other agencies and press releases.
• We all talked to each other. This was especially important as we
approached the weekend, and the EOC was no longer activated.
• Weather information sources including the county EOC and media outlets
proved to be quite accurate.
• Regular updates to all levels from Puget Sound Energy helped decisions
makers at all levels.
• Though the Valley Communication Center functioned throughout the storm
and outage their system got overloaded with calls for service.
• Though no formal process exists, individuals checked the phone numbers
being given to the public to verify their usability.
• The Fire Department recalled staffing to put every piece of equipment in
service. This included all reserve Engine, Ladder, Aid and Utility vehicles.
Additional Staff Cars were also pressed into service. This turned out to be a
positive step, as all crews were used heavily for the main storm response.
• Due to call volumes at normal levels, Police were able to assist with the
related traffic incidents as needed. Officers also assisted by checking tree
and wire calls, and reporting that information to the correct Department.
• The Airport remained open during the storm and Airport Maintenance crews
did a great job of contacting the people about their "tie down" aircraft. There
was only one problem with any of the planes and it was an owner issue.
• The Signal Shops backed up various intersections with battery packs &
generators.
• Though the Parks Department generally plays a secondary role in tree
removal, their assistance was invaluable during this incident.
• No injuries to City employees were reported as a direct result of the storm.
• The Fire, Police and PBPW Departments each determined at a particular
point that is was unsafe for City employees to provide services.
• Fire Stations and other City buildings provided shelter for on -duty City Staff
during the height of the windstorm.
• Public Works crews were given strict orders that if trees were down with
electrical or telephone wires they were to wait for PSE to verify the wires
were not "live" before proceeding.
-5-
City of Renton Emergency Management
• Crews worked with PSE when and where they could. PSE would verify the
lines were `off' and we would remove the trees.
• The Community Center provided free showers, and people were van pooled
back and forth.
• Power in the downtown core of the City was not disrupted throughout the
storm, which allowed the downtown business core to do business at regular
and in some cases, increased levels due to other jurisdictions being without
power.
• Some employees brought family members to the City Shops to stay warm.
While there, some of them assisted with phone calls.
What Were The Challenges?
• Communication networks with neighborhoods were difficult. It was difficult to
know where to focus limited resources, especially when faced with getting
the word out about shelters.
• At times language became an issue. The limited number of materials in
other than English created a challenge for those who did not speak English.
According to the Renton School District there are approximately 79 different
languages spoken in Renton.
• A need for standardized forms related to the press releases and associated
information was identified.
• Keeping the media updated was challenging given their deadlines and our
resources to accomplish this goal.
• The City website is only good for those who have power to access the
information.
• The overall damage assessment process was "ad hoc".
• Non -governmental shelters do not appear to be adequately trained or
resourced to function effectively during an emergency.
• The Emergency Operations Center demobilized prematurely.
• There was no list of pre -designated shelters.
• Many of the resources necessary to set up shelters was not in a position of
need; especially supplies at the pre -established shelter locations.
• Local faith based organizations and service agencies were not utilized, and
by their own admission lacked the full scope of training and resources to
assist.
• People in the community wanted to help, however there was no "volunteer
registration" process to ensure that volunteers had the necessary skills and
the City had the necessary protections to efficiently utilize volunteers.
-6-
2006 Windstorm After Action Report
• People also wanted to drop off food and supplies which also raised some
safety and health concerns.
• Some of the signal backup battery packs & generators were stolen.
• The Airport does not have emergency power.
• There were a number of facilities including nursing homes and residential
day cares that did not have back-up power or any emergency plans.
• Many gas stations were without back-up power. (Some states are starting to
require them to have systems in place.)
• City maintenance facilities do not have adequate back-up power.
• Facilities such as food banks did not have back up power or a plan to get
volunteers in place to function during the emergency.
Short -Term Recommendations
• A need for a "Public Information Hotline" was identified. This should be a
central phone number for the public to call into for the latest City
information.
• The City's neighborhood program should be used to foster improved
communication between the City and the neighborhoods, with emphasis on
"neighbors helping neighbors" as the first phase of our emergency
preparedness strategy. This concept should be communicated throughout
all of our various communication networks that do not require power to
transmit.
• Develop and utilize standardized press release forms.
• Develop a "one page" emergency preparedness plan that every household
in the City could be given to list the first steps to take after an emergency,
similar to what we find in hotels, emphasizing:
o First five to eight things to do after an emergency.
o Emphasizing the need to check on neighbors
• Develop emergency preparedness information in multiple languages.
• Complete a "shelter inventory" and ensure that the facilities we identify are
both trained and equipped to function as shelters of various types.
• Develop a "Neighborhood Preparedness Typing System". This is where we
would identify:
o Type 5 - Those who can not be reasonably expected to be prepared.
(children, disabled, etc.)
o Type 4 - Those who could reasonably be expected to be prepared for
less than three days.
-7-
City of Renton Emergency Management
o Type 3 - Those that have a minimum of "three days/three ways" level
preparedness
o Type 2 - Those who are prepared for more than three days, and
there is also a neighborhood preparedness strategy. (Such as extra
resources stored in specific locations).
o Type 1- Those who are Type 2 with a functioning CERT Team in the
neighborhood.
• Establish a consistent system to confirm that service agencies such as Red
Cross, Salvation Army, Food Bank, etc, are open and available prior doing
referrals.
• An improvement in the storage of the emergency supplies so access to
materials is handled in a more timely fashion.
• Community Service department staff learned a lot. The shelter plan has a
long way to go. They need more manuals, SOPs, and a work schedule.
• The City needs to establish a "minimum staffing policy". What does it take
for the City to function at a bare minimum?
• Establish a clear policy on employee sheltering and a process to ensure that
their families are accounted for during major incidents.
• Establish a mode of operation at the EOC that is "Level 0.5" or a partial
activation of key departments during the day to ensure that the recovery
process is managed.
• Clarify the process of declaring a disaster in the City with the authority to
recommend vested in key public safety administrators and the Chief
Administrative Officer, with execution by the Mayor or City Council President
or Mayor Pro Tem, or other members of the council as applicable.
• Establish cross -departmental "damage assessment teams" that can be
dispatched immediately after an emergency to begin the assessment
process.
• Develop training and registration process for City emergency volunteers.
This could be elements of CERT, but should be complimentary to CERT
training.
• Create an opportunity for public input into the city's overall emergency
preparedness efforts.
2006 Windstorm After Action Report
Long -Term Recommendations
• Fire and Building Codes revisions may need to require retroactive
installation of back up power at assisted living facilities, other facilities with
vulnerable populations and gas stations.
• The City needs a policy on its role in providing shelter and accommodations
for unique situations.
• Similar to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the City should
consider conditioning neighborhood grants on development of emergency
plans and preparedness levels.
• Expedite the video conferencing ability between the EOC and City Hall to
avoid the need to bring policy and decision makers to the EOC
unnecessarily during emergencies.
• Evaluate secure options for signal system back-up.
• Develop a list of "critical infrastructure" that needs to be "hardened" with
additional emergency supplies as well as back up power, such as the City
Maintenance Shops.
I�