HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 04/02/2012AGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
April 2, 2012
Monday, 7 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2.ROLL CALL
3.PROCLAMATION
a. Volunteer Month ‐ April 2012
4.PUBLIC HEARING
a. Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan
5.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6.AUDIENCE COMMENT
(Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The
comment period will be limited to one‐half hour. The second audience comment period later on in
the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please
walk to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST
NAME.
7.CONSENT AGENDA
The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the
recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further
discussion if requested by a Councilmember.
a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/19/2012. Council concur.
b. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/26/2012. Council concur.
c. City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S. Lake Washington Roadway
Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) project; 11 bids; engineer's estimate $2,103,612.17;
and submits staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, ICON Materials, in
the amount of $1,968,690.65. Council concur.
d. City Clerk reports 3/28/2012 notice of Library Initiative Petition signature sufficiency from King
County Elections and submits for consideration of next steps the Initiative Ordinance, which
would restrict any and all downtown library improvements to the current 100 Mill Ave. S. site
unless a vote of the citizens authorizes otherwise. Information. (See also Item 7.e.)
e. Executive Department submits the Administration's recommendation that the City continue its
present course of action in constructing both the downtown and Highlands libraries, and
that Council decline to adopt or to place the library initiative ordinance regarding this issue on
the ballot. Council concur.
Page 1 of 449
f. Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012 carry‐forward ordinance in
the amount of $37,139,384, which increases the 2011/2012 Budget by carrying forward funds
from 2011 for projects that were not completed in 2011. Council concur. (See 9.a. for
ordinance.)
g. Community Services Department recommends approval of a new five‐year lease in the amount
of $1,000 per month with Rain City Catering for the operation of the Renton Pavilion Event
Center. Council concur.
h. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an Agreement for Construction
Services in the amount of $891,000 with Puget Sound Energy (PSE) for the relocation of PSE
facilities for the Rainier Ave. S. (SR 167)‐ S. Grady Way to S. 2nd St. project. Council concur.
i. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility Relocation Agreement in
the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Energy (PSE) for the relocation of PSE faclities for
the Rainier Ave. S. (SR 167)‐ S. Grady Way to S. 2nd St. project. Council concur.
j. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint Utility Trench Construction
Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with CenturyLink for relocation of CenturyLink facilities
for the Rainier Ave. S. (SR 167) ‐ S. Grady Way to S. 2nd St. project. Council concur.
k. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 to CAG‐10‐129,
grant agreement with the Washington State Department of Ecology, to accept $50,000 to
implement revisions associated with the National Pollutant & Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phase II Storwmater permit. Council concur.
l. Utilities Systems Division submits CAG‐10‐087, Stonegate Lift Station Replacement project;
and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of
$13,070.56, commencement of a 60‐day lien period, and release of retained amount of
$57,992.72 to Shoreline Construction, Co., contractor, if all required releases are obtained.
Council concur.
8.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics
marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held
by the Chair if further review is necessary.
a. Committee of the Whole: School District Impact Fees
b. Community Services Committee: Appointments to the City Center Community Plan Advisory
Board; Appointment to Planning Commission
c. Finance Committee: Vouchers; CROPWALK Fee Waiver Request; Summer Teen Musical Fee
Waiver Request
d. Public Safety Committee: Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan*
e. Transportation (Aviation) Committee: Lease Amendment with Rainier Flight Services
f. Utilities Committee: Amendment #1 to Solid Waste Services Contract with Waste
Management
9.RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Resolution:
a. Adopting the Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan (See 4.a.)
Ordinance for first reading:
Page 2 of 449
a. 2012 Carry‐Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.f.)
10.NEW BUSINESS
(Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425‐430‐6512 for recorded information.)
11.AUDIENCE COMMENT
12.ADJOURNMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA
(Preceding Council Meeting)
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
April 2, 2012
Monday, 5:30 p.m.
Port of Seattle "Century Agenda" Process; School District Impact Fees
• Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk •
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RECABLECAST:
Tues. & Thurs. at 11 AM & 9 PM, Wed. & Fri at 9 AM & 7 PM and Sat. & Sun. at 1 PM & 9 PM
Page 3 of 449
3
a
.
‐
V
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
M
o
n
t
h
‐
A
p
r
i
l
2
0
1
2
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton
Hazard Mitigation Plan
April 2012
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 5 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan i. April 2012
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-1
Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-1
Chapter 3: Public Input 3-1
Chapter 4: Mission Statement, Goals, Objectives and Action Items 4-1
Chapter 5: Plan Adoption, Maintenance and Implementation 5-1
Chapter 6: Flood Hazards 6-1
Chapter 7: Winter Storms 7-1
Chapter 8: Earthquakes 8-1
Chapter 9: Landslides and Debris Flows 9-1
Chapter 10: Volcanic Hazards 10-1
Chapter 11: Coal Mine Hazards 11-1
Chapter 12: Hazardous Materials 12-1
Chapter 13: Terrorism 13-1
Appendix 1: Synopsis of FEMA Grant Programs A1-1
Appendix 2: Principles of Benefit Cost Analysis A2-1
Appendix 3: Hazus Reports A3-1
Appendix 4: City Council Approval A4-1
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 What is a Mitigation Plan?
The City of Renton and the surrounding areas are subject to a wide range of
natural and anthropogenic hazards, including: floods, winter storms, earthquakes,
landslides, hazardous material spills and more. The impacts of potential future
hazard events on Renton may be minor, like a few inches of water in a street, or
they may be major, with damages and economic losses reaching millions of
dollars.
The impacts of major disasters on communities can be devastating. The total
damages, economic losses, casualties, disruption, hardships and suffering are
often far greater than the physical damages alone. Furthermore, recovery from
major disasters often takes many years and some heavily impacted communities
may never fully recover. Completely eliminating the risk of future disasters in
Renton is neither technologically possible nor economically feasible. However,
substantially reducing the negative impacts of future disasters is achievable with
the implementation of a pragmatic hazard mitigation plan.
Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan addresses each of the natural hazards that pose a
significant risk to Renton, along with the major anthropogenic hazards. The
mitigation plan addresses hazards such as severe weather events or localized
storm water drainage flooding that may happen in some locations almost every
year. The plan also addresses larger hazard events that will affect much or all of
the Renton community, albeit with lower probabilities of occurrence in a given
year. Infrequent hazard events, such as a major earthquake, which may occur only
every few decades or every few hundred years, still pose a substantial threat to
Renton because the consequences, when they do occur, may be extremely high.
Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan has several key elements.
1. Each hazard that may impact Renton significantly is reviewed to
determine the probability (frequency) and severity of likely hazard
events.
2. The vulnerability of Renton to each hazard is evaluated to estimate the
likely extent of physical damages, casualties and economic impacts.
3. A range of mitigation alternatives are evaluated to identify those with
the greatest potential to reduce future damages and losses in Renton,
and to protect facilities deemed critical to the community’s well-being
that are desirable from the community’s political and economic
perspectives.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 7 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-2
The purpose of Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan is to address only the
mitigation of hazards that originate within the City of Renton and those
that have an effect in Renton. Response to disasters and emergencies are
covered in detail in Renton’s Comprehensive Emergency Management
Plan.
Furthermore, this plan addresses only the mitigation efforts the City can
and will take in accordance with the legal limits of its authority. Although
some of the recommendations within the plan are made for infrastructure
providers that are not part of City of Renton government, individuals,
businesses and other government agencies are responsible for protecting
their own property from hazards and disasters. Private and public entities
alike are encouraged to review this plan and consider making mitigation
efforts as appropriate. Additional mitigation information resources for
Renton residents and businesses are available by contacting the
Emergency Management Office located at Renton City Hall.
1.2 Why is Mitigation Planning Important for Renton?
Mitigation simply means actions that reduce the potential for negative impacts
from future disasters including: future damages, losses and casualties.
Effective mitigation planning will help the residents of Renton deal with natural
and manmade hazards realistically and rationally. It will help identify specific
locations in Renton where the level of risk from one or more hazards may be
unacceptably high and then find cost effective ways to reduce such risk. Mitigation
planning strikes a pragmatic middle ground between unwisely ignoring the
potential for major hazard events on one hand and unnecessarily overreacting to
the potential for disasters on the other hand.
Furthermore, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) now requires
each local government entity to adopt a multi-hazard mitigation plan and to
update that plan every five years to remain eligible for future pre- or post-disaster
FEMA mitigation funding. An significant objective in updating Renton’s Hazard
Mitigation Plan is to maintain eligibility for FEMA funding and enhance Renton’s
ability to attract future FEMA mitigation funding.
This Plan is specifically designed to help Renton gather the data necessary to
compete successfully for future FEMA funding of mitigation projects. FEMA
requires that all FEMA-funded hazard mitigation projects must be “cost-effective”
(i.e., the benefits of a project must exceed the costs). Benefit-cost analysis is an
important component of mitigation planning, not only to meet FEMA
requirements, but also to help evaluate and prioritize potential hazard mitigation
projects in Renton, regardless of whether funding is from FEMA, state or local
government, or from private sources.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 8 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-3
1.3 Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan
This Plan is built upon quantitative assessments, to the extent that data allows, of
each of the major hazards that may impact Renton including their frequency,
severity and areas of the City likely to be affected. The hazards addressed are:
floods, severe winter storms, earthquakes, landslides, volcanic events, coal mine
hazards, hazardous materials incidents and terrorism/civil disturbance. Other
hazards, including extreme temperatures, drought and wildland/urban interface
fires are briefly addressed, but are not considered in detail, because they pose less
significant risks to Renton.
Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan also includes a qualitative or quantitative
assessment on the vulnerability of buildings, infrastructure and people possibly
impacted by each of these hazards, to evaluate the likely magnitude of future
disasters on Renton.
The review of hazards and the vulnerability of Renton to hazards is the foundation
of the mitigation plan. From these assessments, specific locations where buildings,
infrastructure and/or people may be at high risk are identified. These high risk
situations then become priorities for future mitigation actions to reduce the
negative impacts of future disasters on Renton.
Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan deals with hazards realistically and rationally and
strikes a balance between suggested physical mitigation measures and planning
measures. The overall goal is to reduce the negative impacts of future disasters
and better prepare the community to respond and recover from disasters.
1.4 Key Concepts and Definitions
The central concept of mitigation planning is that mitigation reduces risk. Risk is
defined as the threat to people and the built environment posed by the hazards
being considered. That is, risk is the potential for damages, losses and casualties
arising from the impact of hazards on the built environment. The essence of
mitigation planning is to identify high risk locations/situations in Renton and to
evaluate ways to mitigate (reduce) the impacts of future disasters on these high
risk locations/situations.
The level of risk at a given location, building or facility depends on the
combination of hazard and exposure as shown in Figure 1.1 below.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 9 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-4
Figure 1.1
Hazard and Exposure Combine to Produce Risk
HAZARD EXPOSURE RISK
Frequency Value and Threat to the
and Severity +Vulnerability of =Community:
of Hazard Events Inventory People, Buildings
and Infrastructure
Risk is generally expressed in dollars (estimates of potential damages and other
economic losses) and in terms of casualties (numbers of deaths and injuries).
There are four key concepts that govern hazard mitigation planning: hazard,
exposure, risk and mitigation. Each of these key concepts is addressed in turn.
HAZARD refers to natural or manmade events that may cause damages, losses or
casualties (e.g., floods, winter storms, landslides, earthquakes, hazardous material
spills, etc.). Hazards are characterized by their frequency, severity and the
geographic area affected. Each hazard is characterized differently, with
appropriate parameters for the specific hazard. For example, floods may be
characterized by the frequency of flooding, along with flood depth and flood
velocity. Winter storms may be characterized by the amount of rainfall in a 24-
hour period, by the wind speed or by the amount of snow or ice associated with a
storm. Earthquakes may be characterized by the severity and duration of ground
motions and so on.
A hazard event, by itself, may not result in any negative impacts on a community.
For example, a flood-prone five-acre parcel may typically experience several
shallow floods per year, with several feet of water expected in a 50-year flood
event. However, if the parcel is wetlands, with no structures or infrastructure,
then there is no risk. That is, there is no threat to people or the built environment
and the frequent flooding of this parcel does not have any negative impacts on the
community. Indeed, in this case, the very frequent flooding (i.e., the high hazard)
may be beneficial environmentally by providing wildlife habitat and recreational
opportunities.
The main point here is that hazards do not produce risk to people and property
unless there is vulnerable inventory exposed to the hazard. Risk to people,
buildings and/or infrastructure results only when hazards are combined with
exposure.
EXPOSURE is the quantity, value and vulnerability of the built environment
(inventory of people, buildings and infrastructure) in a particular location subject
to one or more hazards. Inventory is described by the number, size, type, use and
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 10 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-5
occupancy of buildings and by the infrastructure present. Infrastructure includes
roads and other transportation systems, utilities (potable water, wastewater,
natural gas, and electric power), telecommunications systems and so on.
Inventory varies markedly in its importance to a community and thus varies
markedly in its significance for hazard mitigation planning. Some types of facilities
are identified as “critical facilities” due to their import to the community,
particularly during disaster situations. Examples of critical facilities include police
and fire stations, hospitals, schools, emergency shelters, 911 centers and other
vital buildings. Critical facilities may also include infrastructure elements that are
essential links or nodes in providing service to large numbers of people such as a
potable water source, an electric power substation and so on. “Links” are
elements such as water pipes, electric power lines and telephone cables that
connect portions of a utility or transportation system. “Nodes” are locations with
crucial functions, such as pumping plants, substations or switching offices.
For hazard mitigation planning, inventory must be characterized not only by the
quantity and value of buildings or infrastructure present but also by its
vulnerability to each hazard under evaluation. For example, a given facility may or
may not be particularly vulnerable to flood damages or earthquake damages,
depending on the details of its design and construction. Depending on the hazard,
different measures of the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure are often
used.
RISK is the threat to people and the built environment - the potential for damages,
losses and casualties arising from hazards. Risk, which results only from the
combination of Hazard and Exposure as discussed above, is illustrated
schematically in Figure 1.2 below.
Figure 1.2
Risk Results from the Combination of Hazard and Exposure
RISK . . .RISK . . .
Exposure
Hazard
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 11 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-6
A disaster event happens when a hazard event is combined with vulnerable
inventory. The highest risk in a community occurs in high hazard areas (frequent
and/or severe hazard events) with large inventories of vulnerable buildings or
infrastructure.
However, high risk can also occur with only moderately high hazard, if there is a
large inventory of highly vulnerable inventory exposed to the hazard. For example,
seismic hazard is lower in Washington than in the seismically active areas of
California. For some buildings the seismic risk in Washington may be comparable
to or even higher than the seismic risk in California, because some of the building
inventory in Washington is much more vulnerable to earthquake damages.
Conversely, a high hazard area can have relatively low risk if the inventory is
resistant to damages (e.g., elevated to protect against flooding or strengthened to
minimize earthquake damages).
MITIGATION means actions to reduce the risk due to hazards and reduce the
potential for damages, losses and casualties in future disaster events. Repair of
buildings or infrastructure damaged in a disaster is not mitigation because repair
simply restores a facility to its pre-disaster condition and does not reduce the
potential for future damages, losses or casualties. Hazard mitigation projects may
be initiated before a disaster, or after a disaster has already occurred. In either
case, the objective of mitigation is always to reduce future damages, losses or
casualties.
A few of the most common types of mitigation projects are shown below in Table
1.1.
Table 1.1
Common Mitigation Projects
Hazard Mitigation Project
Flood Build or improve levees or flood walls
Improve channels for flood control
Improve drainage systems and culvert capacities
Create detention ponds for storage
Relocate, elevate or floodproof flood-prone structures
Acquire and demolish highly flood-prone structures
Winter Storms Add emergency generators for critical facilities
Improve redundancy of utility systems
Trim trees to reduce failures of utility lines
Earthquakes Upgrade seismic performance of buildings
Upgrade seismic performance of infrastructure
Landslides Remediate slide conditions
Relocate utility lines or structures
Wildland/Urban Interface Fires Increase fire safe construction practices
Vegetation (fuel load) control
General Enhance emergency planning and mutual aid
Expand public education programs
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 12 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-7
The mitigation project list above is not comprehensive and mitigation projects can
encompass a broad range of other actions to reduce future damages, losses and
casualties.
1.5 The Mitigation Process
The essential aspect of all hazard mitigation projects is that they reduce risk. The
benefits of a mitigation project are the reductions in risk, or the difference in
expected damages, losses and casualties before mitigation versus after mitigation.
These important concepts are illustrated below in Figure 1-3.
Figure 1.3
Mitigation Projects Reduce Risk
RISK
BEFORE
MITIGATION
BENEFITS
OF
MITIGATION
REDUCTION
RISK IN RISK
AFTER
MITIGATION
Quantifying the benefits of a proposed mitigation project is an essential step in
hazard mitigation planning and implementation. Only by quantifying benefits is it
possible to compare the benefits and costs of mitigation to determine whether or
not a particular project is worth doing or economically feasible. Real world
mitigation planning almost always involves choosing between a range of possible
alternatives, often with varying costs and varying effectiveness in reducing risk.
Quantitative risk assessment is central to hazard mitigation planning. When the
level of risk is high, the expected levels of damages and losses are likely to be
unacceptable and mitigation actions have a high priority. Thus, the greater the risk
the greater the urgency of undertaking mitigation.
Conversely, when risk is moderate both the urgency and the benefits of
undertaking mitigation are reduced. It is neither technologically possible nor
economically feasible to eliminate risk completely. Therefore, when levels of risk
are low and/or the cost of mitigation is high relative to the level of risk, the risk
may be deemed acceptable (or at least tolerable). Proposed mitigation projects
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 13 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-8
that address low levels of risk, or where the cost of the mitigation project is large
relative to the level of risk, are generally poor candidates for implementation.
The overall mitigation planning process is outlined in Figure 1.4 below.
Figure 1.4
The Mitigation Planning Process
Implement Mitigation Measures
Reduce Risk
Mitigation Planning Flowchart
Prioritize Mitigation Alternatives
Benefit-Cost Analysis
and related tools
Obtain Funding
Find Solutions to Risk
Identify Mitigation Alternatives
Risk Not Acceptable?
Mitigation Desired
Acceptable?
Risk Acceptable?
Mitigation Not Necessary
Risk Assessment
Quantify the Threat
to the Built Environment
Is Level of Risk
The first step is a quantitative evaluation of the hazards (frequency and severity)
impacting Renton and of the inventory (people, buildings and infrastructure)
exposed to these hazards. Together the hazard and exposure data determine the
level of risk for specific locations, buildings or facilities in Renton.
The next step is to determine whether or not the level of risk posed by each of the
hazards impacting Renton is acceptable or tolerable. Only the residents of Renton
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 14 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-9
can make this determination. If the level of risk is deemed acceptable or at least
tolerable, then mitigation actions are not necessary or at least not a high priority.
On the other hand, if the level of risk is deemed not acceptable or intolerable,
then mitigation actions are desired. In this case, the mitigation planning process
moves on to a more detailed evaluation of specific mitigation alternatives,
prioritization, funding and implementation of mitigation measures. As with the
determination of whether or not the level of risk posed by each hazard is
acceptable or not, decisions about which mitigation projects to undertake can
only be made by the residents of Renton.
1.6 The Role of Benefit-Cost Analysis in Mitigation Planning
Communities, like Renton, that are considering whether or not to undertake
mitigation projects must answer questions that do not always have obvious
answers, such as:
What is the nature of the hazard problem?
How frequent and how severe are hazard events?
Do we want to undertake mitigation measures?
What mitigation measures are feasible, appropriate and affordable?
How do we prioritize between competing mitigation projects?
Are our mitigation projects likely to be eligible for FEMA funding?
Benefit-cost analysis is a powerful tool that can help communities provide solid,
defensible answers to these difficult questions. Benefit-cost analysis is required
for all FEMA-funded mitigation projects, under both pre-disaster and post-disaster
mitigation programs. However, regardless of whether or not FEMA funding is
involved, benefit-cost analysis provides a sound basis for evaluating and
prioritizing possible mitigation projects for any natural hazard.
Benefit-cost analysis software, technical manuals and a wide range of guidance
documents are available from FEMA at no cost to communities. A Benefit-Cost
Analysis Toolkit CD which contains all of the FEMA benefit-cost materials is
available from FEMA. The publication What is a Benefit? Guidance for Benefit-
Cost Analysis is particularly recommended as a general reference. This publication
includes categories of benefits to count for mitigation projects for various types of
buildings, critical facilities and infrastructure and has simple, standard methods to
quantify the full range of benefits for most types of mitigation projects.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 15 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-10
1.7 Hazard Synopsis
To set the overall context of hazard mitigation planning, we briefly review the
major hazards that impact Renton. Some hazards affect the entire city, while some
hazards have more localized impacts.
Renton has several areas of flood plains mapped by FEMA. These include areas
along the Cedar River, Green River, Springbrook Creek, May Creek and their
tributaries. Other portions of Renton, outside of the mapped floodplains, are
subject to flooding from local storm water drainage.
The entire City of Renton is subject to the effects of winter storms, including wind,
rain, snow and ice, as well as secondary effects such as power outages.
The entire City of Renton is subject to the impacts of earthquakes on the Cascadia
Subduction Zone off the Washington coast, on the Seattle Fault and other faults
within Washington.
Portions of the hilly areas of Renton are subject to landslides or mudslides, which
may affect buildings, roads and utilities.
Historically, several areas of Renton had active coal mines. Although none of these
mines are currently active, the old mine sites pose risks from possible collapses
and the release of underground water.
The entire City of Renton is subject to volcanic hazards from eruptions in the
Cascades, although the impacts are likely to be very minor ash falls.
Hazardous material releases are possible nearby or downwind from fixed site
concentrations (e.g., industrial sites) as well as along transportation corridors from
truck or rail accidents.
Terrorist incidents or other deliberate malevolent actions by vandals, disturbed
individuals, or employees or members of organized groups could affect Renton.
There are several other hazards, including extreme temperatures, drought and
wildland/urban interface fires, which pose only minor threats to Renton. Renton’s
moderate climate indicates that extremes of temperature (either hot or cold)
sufficient to have major impacts are very unlikely. Similarly, the high average
rainfall indicates that potential droughts are not a major concern. Renton and the
surrounding communities are largely built out, with very limited areas of high fuel
load vegetation, making the potential for major wildland/urban interface fires is
low. These hazards pose only minor threats to Renton and are not considered
further in this mitigation plan.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 16 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 1-11
The approximate level of risk posed to Renton by each of the hazards covered in
this mitigation plan is summarized below in Table 1.2. This ranking is based on
quantitative/qualitative judgment about the likely long-term average annual
damages and losses from each hazard, taking into account the probability of
hazard events and the severity of damages and losses when such events occur.
Table 1.2
Relative Risk to Renton from Hazards
Hazard Relative Risk to
Renton
Earthquakes High
Floods High
Winter Storms Moderate
Landslides Moderate
Coal Mine Hazards Moderate
Hazmat Incidents Moderate
Terrorism Low
Volcanic Events Low
Extreme Temperatures Very Low
Wildland/Urban Interface Fires Very Low
Drought Very Low
The remaining chapters of the Renton Mitigation Plan include the following:
• Chapter 2 provides a brief community profile for the City of Renton.
• Chapter 3 documents the community involvement and public process
involved in developing this mitigation plan.
• Chapter 4 outlines the mitigation plan goals, mitigation strategies and
action items.
• Chapter 5 documents the formal process of plan adoption,
implementation and maintenance.
• Chapters 6 through 13 cover each of the major hazards addressed in
this mitigation plan, including: floods, winter storms, earthquakes,
landslides, volcanic hazards, coal mine hazards, hazmat incidents and
terrorism.
The Appendices include synopses of FEMA mitigation grant programs and benefit-
cost analysis.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 17 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 2-1
2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE: RENTON
2.1 Population, Geography, Hazards and Climate
The City of Renton is located at the southern end of Lake Washington in King
County, about 10 miles southeast of downtown Seattle. Renton, which was
founded in the 1850s and incorporated in 1901, occupies an area of 23.79 square
miles.
The 2010 population in Renton was recorded as 90,927 by the US Census Bureau.
Renton is the 4th largest city in King County and the 8th largest city in Washington.
Renton has experienced rapid population growth in recent years with the 1990
population of 39,340 more than doubling by 2008.
Renton’s dominant natural landscape features are Lake Washington and the Cedar
and Green Rivers. The Howard Hanson Dam provides flood protection for the
Green River, but recent needed repairs to the dam highlighted the vulnerabilities
of the dam/levee system. The topography of Renton varies, with generally flat
areas near Lake Washington and hilly areas in eastern and southeastern Renton.
Elevations in Renton range from about 45 feet at Lake Washington to about 400
feet in the hills.
Earthquakes and floods pose the greatest risk for Renton. The entire city is subject
to the effects of winter storms and to volcanic hazards. Portions of Renton are
subject to landslide hazards, coal mine hazards, and wildland-urban interface fire
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 18 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 2-2
hazards as well. The city is also exposed to risks from human-caused hazards,
including hazardous materials or terrorism incidents.
The climate for Renton is moderate. Mean daily temperatures range from highs of
about 77 degrees and lows of about 55 degrees in July and August to highs of
about 47 degrees and lows of about 35 degrees in December and January. The
average annual rainfall is about 38 inches. Average monthly precipitation varies
from nearly 6 inches in November through January to about 0.75 inches in July.
Average annual snowfall is about 12 inches.
2.2 Demographics
Demographic data for Renton from the US Census Bureau is shown below in Table
2.1. The age and ethnicity categories in Table 2.1 intentionally include overlapping
subsets for planning purposes.
Table 2.1
Population Demographics
(2010 US Census Bureau)
For emergency planning purposes, children, elderly adults, the disabled, people
whose primary language is not English and low income residents are considered
special needs populations. Based on census data, Renton has a substantial
population of children and elderly adults. As shown in Table 2.1 above, about 23%
of the population are children less than 18 years old, while about 10% are adults
over 65 years old. About 14% of the population 5 years or older is classified as
disabled, per the census data.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 19 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 2-3
Renton has large populations of Asian/Pacific Islander (22%) and Hispanic/Latino
(13%) households. Overall, about 25% of Renton’s residents were born outside the
United States; for most of these residents, English is a second language. Nearly
33% of the residents 5 years or older speak a language other than English at
home.
According to 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, about 7%
of families and 11% of individuals residing in Renton are below the poverty line.
The US Census website (www.census.gov) has a vast amount of demographic data
for Renton and for King County. See the website for additional demographic data,
including school enrollment, educational levels, disability status and other
categories of demographic data useful for planning purposes.
2.3 Transportation, Employment, Economics and Housing
Renton is situated at the center of a regional and international transportation
network, surrounded by freeways and in close proximity to air, sea and rail
transportation hubs. Renton is at the center of the regional highway
transportation network with three interstate highways and four major state
highways in or near Renton.
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is located only six miles from Renton. In
addition, Renton maintains its own airport, Renton Municipal Airport-Clayton
Scott Field which has a runway just over one mile in length capable of serving
most types of aircraft from general aviation to corporate jets and turboprops. The
airport is also home to the Will Rogers and Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base on
Lake Washington. The seaplane base provides land access for amphibian aircraft
of all types, and a few businesses at the airport provide floatplane launch/retrieval
services. Renton Municipal Airport is also home to The Boeing Company’s 737
with more than 5,000 deliveries and 7,000 orders. All new 737 aircraft produced in
the factory depart on their maiden voyage from the Renton airport.
Renton has a broad, diversified employment base with over 2,700 employers and
nearly 45,000 employees in the city. The Boeing Company is the largest employer
in Renton, providing approximately 30% of the jobs in the City. Renton has been
the home of Boeing for over 65 years. In addition to The Boeing Company,
Renton’s leading aerospace companies include AIM Aviation, Aero-Plastics, Harper
Engineering, Renton Coil Spring, Honeywell, Worldwind Helicopters and the
regional headquarters of the Federal Aviation Administration.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 20 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 2-4
Other major private sector employers in Renton include: PACCAR Inc., Wizards of
the Coast, Seattle Seahawks, TOPICS Entertainment, Providence Health & Services,
ER Solutions, IKEA, Wal-Mart, Young’s-Columbia of Washington, Kaye-Smith
Business Graphics, Fry’s Electronics and Sam’s Club. Major public sector employers
include: Valley Medical Center, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Seattle
Branch), Federal Aviation Administration, Renton School District, City of Renton
and Renton Technical College.
Overall, Renton’s economic condition is robust, with median household income,
average household income and per capita income all above the national averages.
Summary US Census Data for Renton’s housing stock is given below in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2
Renton Housing Data
(2005-2007 American Community Survey Estimates, US Census Bureau)
Single Family, Detached 48.0%
Single Family, Attached 6.0%
Apartments (2 to 9 units)17.7%
Apartments (10 or more units)25.8%
Mobile Home or Other 2.6%
Year Structure Built
2000 or later 16.4%
1990s 17.5%
1980s 15.9%
1960s or 1970s 30.1%
1940s or 1950s 17.1%
Before 1940 3.1%
Housing Data
Occupied Housing Units (25,524)
The census website (www.census.gov) has a vast amount of other economic data
for Renton. See the census website for additional economic data.
2.4 Land and Development
The City of Renton is located at the south end of Lake Washington, between
Seattle, Tacoma and Bellevue. Renton covers 23.79 square miles and is bordered
by King County, Kent, Tukwila, Newcastle, and Bellevue, with downtown Seattle
20 miles to the north. Two major freeways bisect the City - Interstate 405 and
Highway 167.
The overall pattern of land use and development in Renton is shown in Figure 2.1
on following page, the Renton zoning map.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 21 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 2-5
Figure 2.1
Renton Zoning Map (9/19/2011)
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 22 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 2-6
Renton has a mix of land uses throughout the City. The land uses within the City
include industrial and commercial uses located primarily in the downtown areas of
Renton. Boeing and the Renton Airport are located on the southern end of Lake
Washington in northwestern Renton, at the mouth of the Cedar River and the site
of past severe flooding. Also downtown are mixed use residential and commercial
land uses, with a mix of single and multi-family homes. Single family residences
dominate the eastern and southeastern portions of the City. In addition, in those
areas there are pockets of mixed-use commercial centers aimed at providing
services for residents living along the eastern edges of the City.
Southwest Renton, west of Highway 167, is a mix of commercial office space, light
and heavy industrial and resource conservation lands. To the east of Highway 167,
in southern Renton, is a mix of low-density single family, multi-family infill lands,
single family homes and commercial office space.
The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of Renton development 20 years into
the future. The vision includes infill into existing neighborhoods on vacant lots
with an increase in multi-family housing in the downtown areas, again with the
emphasis on infill rather than on urban sprawl. Resource conservation lands are
located along major rivers and creeks in areas associated with critical areas
(wetlands, aquifer protection areas, fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded
and geologically hazardous areas as defined by the Growth Management Act and
RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations) and in the Valley (south of SW 16th Street
and west of Highway 167) where significant wetlands exist.
Some existing development occurred in hazard areas prior to the adoption of
current zoning and development standards regulating development in sensitive
areas. According to the City of Renton Zoning Map (9/19/2011), much of the
hazardous and sensitive areas are zoned to allow only very low-density residential
uses. The exception is building within the areas where soil conditions and the
potential for liquefaction or lateral spreading increase seismic hazards, since
seismic hazard areas encompass much of downtown and southwest Renton.
Multi-family infill development has increased over the past ten years to
accommodate the growth expected within the City. Much of the downtown
increased seismic hazard area is designated as a mixed-use downtown center.
While this accommodates the growth expected for the region it may also increase
both the day and nighttime populations of downtown Renton. Single-family
residential growth is occurring in eastern Renton, largely outside of hazard zones.
The City currently controls development of lands that are identified hazard areas
in several ways. The Critical Areas Regulations, adopted into zoning in 1999,
protect lands with identified aquifers, flood hazards, steep slopes, geologic
hazards, and wetlands. Lands that are mapped in these designations, and lands
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 23 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 2-7
that are identified as “critical areas” based upon adopted criteria upon site-
specific review, are subject to restrictive standards and additional environmental
analysis. Development regulations require that critical areas be deducted from the
buildable area of the land in question for regulated hazards. For lands with
characteristics below regulated thresholds, additional technical analysis – such as
geotechnical reports or wetlands analysis – is required to ensure that
development adequately addresses hazardous conditions.
Analyzing Development Trends
The Puget Sound Regional Council’s population and employment forecasts project
growth for the City. Over the twenty-one-year interval from 2001 to 2022 they
estimate an increase of 9,723 households and 33,600 jobs. Growth targets
adopted by the Growth Management Planning Council anticipate 6,198
households and 27,597 jobs. Both forecast growth and targets are well within the
City’s estimated land capacity of 11,261 units and 32,240 jobs established through
the Buildable Lands requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Renton
is planning for its regional share of forecast growth over the next 20 years at the
high end of the range, and the adopted target at the low end of the range. In the
first nine years of growth management actual growth in Renton exceeded targets,
but was within the range predicted by the forecast growth assumptions. With
external factors, including the regional economy, state/federal transportation
funding and the GMA regulatory environment remaining constant or improving,
Renton’s growth is anticipated to continue.
Table 2.3 summarizes Renton’s forecast growth, targets and land-use capacity.
Table 2.3
Renton’s Forecast Growth
Incorporated Renton
2001-2011
Adjusted Target/Capacity Reflecting
Growth/Annexation/Land Use Changes
in 2001 and 2002
Forecast
Growth
9,723 Units
33,600 Jobs
22,266 Population
None
Growth
Targets
6,198 Units
27,597 Jobs
14,194 Population
4,253 Units
26,736 Jobs
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 24 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 2-8
2.5 Parks and Recreation
Renton has an extensive park, open space and urban trails system. The City’s park
system includes:
• 28 developed public parks
• 12.5 miles of trails (including a 4.5-mile paved trail along the Cedar River)
• 732 acres of open space for hiking, wildlife viewing and enjoying nature
• Maplewood Golf Course, an 18-hole, 190-acre, public golf course
• 45-acre Ron Regis Park includes a lighted regulation sized baseball/softball
field and all-weather soccer field, lighted basketball court and opportunities
for future baseball/softball and soccer field expansion.
• Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, a beautiful 55-acre park with nearly 1.5
miles of Lake Washington waterfront and a public boat launch, is the most
popular city park with 1.5 million visitors each year. Additional amenities
include two restaurants, 1.5 miles of shoreline and over-water walking paths,
picnic facilities and a large children’s play area.
• The public has additional water access at the mouth of the Cedar River on Lake
Washington where the Cascade Canoe and Kayak Center offers canoe and
kayak rentals.
In addition, the City has a unique combination of recreational and cultural
opportunities and facilities that make Renton a quality community where people
choose to live, work and play, including:
• The Henry Moses Aquatic Center which features two separate pools, a 9,000-
square-foot leisure pool and a 3,300-square-foot, six-lane lap pool. The leisure
pool includes popular features such as a zero-depth entry, wave machine,
water spray play area, lazy river, island lagoon, water slide, toddler water area,
large sun and shade spaces, a bathhouse and a concession area.
• A skate park, community center, two neighborhood centers, senior center,
two King County library branches and a history museum.
• The City’s historic walk -- “History Lives Here" a self-guided tour of 22 markers
highlighting historically significant places, people and events in Renton.
Brochures along with a brief summary, historical photographs and pictures of
related memorabilia are available at the King County Library located in
downtown Renton as well as at City of Renton buildings.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 25 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-1
3.0 PLANNING PROCESS
3.1 Historical Overview
Renton has always considered hazards as part of the community planning
process. Hazard maps are maintained at Renton City Hall in a common area for
public review. Formal consideration of flood hazards is an integral part of
Renton’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program; with about 951
flood insurance policies currently in place in Renton.
Renton’s first hazard mitigation plan was developed as a result of the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 and was authorized by City Council Ordinance No. 3680
adopted on December 22, 2003.
The first hazard mitigation plan was developed prior to the creation of The Office
of Emergency Management. The Office of Emergency Management was created
as a part of the Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department in 2007 when
Renton’s first Emergency Management Director was hired. In 2008, the Office of
Emergency Management was expanded to include an Emergency Management
Coordinator and AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer. In 2009, the most recent addition
was an Administrative Secretary I, shared with the Community Risk Reduction
Section of the Department.
Prior to 2007 emergency management work was completed by staff with other
duties. The creation of the Office of Emergency Management has allowed for
dedicated personnel assigned to emergency management work. Since the
development of the office, hazard mitigation planning has been conceptually
incorporated into Renton’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
(CEMP), the latest revision of which was authorized by City Council Ordinance
No. 3988 adopted on December 8, 2008. The Basic Plan portion of the CEMP
provides a listing of the major hazards posing threats to the City of Renton. Each
Emergency Support Function includes a supportive statement and
encouragement to apply mitigation measures appropriately. As the Office of
Emergency Management has expanded and become a fixture of the City of
Renton more work is being done to further incorporate hazard mitigation
planning in all city plans.
3.2 Planning Process
The development of the new City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan was
coordinated by the Office of Emergency Management and the Hazard Mitigation
Steering Committee, with the assistance of consultant Ken Goettel. The work
began in late 2008, with ten steering committee meetings from November 2008
to April, 2010.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 26 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-2
The City of Renton’s Emergency Management Group functions as the Hazard
Mitigation Steering Committee in Renton. The Emergency Management Group
meets monthly and carries out the full spectrum of emergency management
coordination topics including mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.
Although the composition of the group is primarily City staff, the local hospital
and college have been included in the membership. All members of the Office of
Emergency Management participate in this committee.
The first hazard mitigation plan was used as a guide in the drafting of this plan.
Historical information and mitigation actions listed in the original plan were
considered in the rewrite. Mitigations actions not completed were evaluated and
included in the new plan if deemed valid by the affected department and/or the
Emergency Management Group. In nearly all cases lack of funds were
responsible for mitigation actions identified in the initial plan not being
completed.
Through the Emergency Management Group each department was asked to
participate and, based on their expertise and knowledge, add details into the
new plan. Internal and external studies as well as historical information were
included in the chapters related to the hazard addressed. The initial drafts of the
new plan were created by the consultant. Reviews and changes were completed
by the Emergency Management Group during planning meetings and in contact
with Emergency Management staff. Final wrap-up of the plan was completed by
the Office of Emergency Management based on input from the Emergency
Management Group, the public and Washington State Emergency Management.
The inclusion of public input and the planning meetings held are detailed below.
During the current revision of the Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan, two public
workshops were held at Renton City Hall. The first public workshop, held April 9,
2009, presented the expired Hazard Mitigation Plan to the public and initiated
dialogue for suggestions on improvements to the plan. After extensive
coordination within the Emergency Management Group and with other City staff
to develop revision recommendations, a second public workshop, held on March
16, 2010, provided an opportunity to review and comment on the first draft of
the plan. Additionally, the plans were posted on the City of Renton website for
public review and electronic comment.
These public workshops in Renton gave both public-sector and private-sector
stakeholders in Renton opportunities to contribute the City of Renton Hazard
Mitigation Plan. These public workshops were advertised on the rentonwa.gov
website and in the local Renton newspaper. City staff with subject-matter
expertise were in attendance at the two workshops with maps and other visual
displays to explain the hazards, answer questions and engage in dialogue with
members of the public.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 27 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-3
As a result of the Hazard Mitigation Plan development process, and the desire to
further involve the public in planning, the Emergency Management Group has
recommended the formation of a separate group, the “Community Risk
Reduction Committee”. This committee will meet at least twice yearly to gain
more external and public participation, on an ongoing basis, for prevention and
mitigation activities citywide to better inform the Emergency Management
Group on mitigation issues and progress.
Hazard mitigation planning and public meetings conducted during the
development of the Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan are summarized below.
Meeting attendees are listed in Section 3.3 at the end of this chapter. Scanned
copies of the meeting minutes, sign-in sheets, and advertisement for public
meetings, where available, are included in Appendix 4.
Following the completion of the final draft, the plan was submitted to the State
of Washington Emergency Management Division (EMD) for review as to FEMA
requirements for Hazard Mitigation Plans. Recommendations made by the WA
State EMD were incorporated into the plan by the Office of Emergency
Management. The plan was then submitted to FEMA for final review and
approval. Recommendations made by FEMA were incorporated into the plan by
the Office of Emergency Management prior to submittal to City Council for
adoption.
Planning Meeting #1 (November 6, 2008)
The Emergency Management Group was introduced to the Hazard Mitigation
Plan revision needs on November 6, 2008 at Renton City Hall. A brief discussion
emphasized the importance of hazard mitigation planning and garnered
participation from the key contributors to the plan revision.
Planning Meeting #2 (March 3, 2009)
The Community Services Department set up a meeting with consultant Ken
Goettel for advice on Hazard Mitigation Grant Program applications.
Additionally, the smaller meeting group entertained a verbal proposal to have
him compile and put narrative to the hazard mitigation planning efforts of the
City’s Emergency Management Group.
Planning Meeting #3 (March 5, 2009)
The third planning meeting was held on March 5, 2009 to identify the hazards
most significant for Renton and to begin the process of identifying mitigation
goals, objectives and action items. Consensus opinions and suggestions from
this meeting included:
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 28 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-4
• The greatest losses to the City would be caused by earthquakes and floods.
• Power outage is a potential in all disasters and can also be the primary
disaster in and of itself. The December 2006 windstorm highlighted the need
for backup power for City facilities to protect critical services.
• Public input in this plan is important and a meeting for input should be held
soon.
Planning Meeting #4 (April 2, 2009)
Considerable internal coordination and information sharing with the consultant
occurred between the third and fourth planning meeting. The fourth planning
meeting was held on April 2, 2009 at Renton City Hall. This meeting followed up
on action items proposed in Meeting #2. Participants also reviewed and
discussed the relative merits of two grant project proposals being considered for
submission under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. City staff were
confirmed for their roles in the scheduled April 9, 2009 public meeting to present
the expired mitigation plan to the public and solicit input and concerns to guide
plan development.
Public Meeting #1 (April 9, 2009)
The first public meeting with representatives of the planning team was held on
April 9, 2009 at Renton City Hall. Major topics addressed included:
• Purpose of a Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• Identification of the major hazards within the City of Renton: floods, winter
storms, earthquakes, landslides and debris flows, abandoned coal mines,
hazmat incidents, volcanic eruptions and terrorism.
• Explanation of mitigation measures and solicitation of input into plan
revision.
Planning Meeting #5 (May 7, 2009)
The fifth planning meeting was held on May 7, 2009 at Renton City Hall. Only a
portion of the Emergency Management Group meeting was devoted to the
Hazard Mitigation Plan and focused on general updates on the status of the
consultant’s work and outstanding information needs to be satisfied by planning
team members.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 29 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-5
Planning Meeting #6 (June 4, 2009)
The sixth planning meeting was held on June 4, 2009 at Renton City Hall. The first
draft of the Hazard Mitigation Plan from the consultant was available for review.
Emergency Management Group members went through a page by page review
of the plan and identified missing information and discussed action items.
Planning Meeting #7 (July 2, 2009)
The seventh planning meeting was held on July 2, 2009 at Renton City Hall.
Between the sixth and seventh planning meetings, Emergency Management
Group members worked on their narrative assignments and provided them to
the Emergency Management Director for compilation in advance. The second
draft of the Hazard Mitigation Plan was presented to the group members for
another detailed review. Additional clarification was made through discussion on
various topics as they were systematically reviewed. Follow up assignments were
given to specific team members.
Planning Meeting #8 (August 6, 2009)
The eighth planning meeting was held on August 6, 2009 at Renton City Hall.
Only a portion of the Emergency Management Group meeting was devoted to
the Hazard Mitigation Plan and focused on final edits needed to the plan.
Planning Meeting #9 (February 4, 2010)
The ninth planning meeting was held on February 4, 2010 at Renton City Hall.
Only a portion of the Emergency Management Group meeting was devoted to
the Hazard Mitigation Plan and consisted of a last call for final edits needed to
the plan before presentation at the March 16, 2010, public meeting.
Public Meeting #2: Presentation and discussion of Public Review Draft Hazard
Mitigation Plan (March 16, 2010)
The Public Review Draft of the Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan was presented and
discussed March 16, 2010, at a specially scheduled public meeting at Renton City
Hall. The context and purposes of the plan were discussed, along with goals,
objectives and action items. Additional public comment was encouraged.
Planning Meeting #10 (April 1, 2010)
The tenth and final planning meeting was held on April 1, 2010 at Renton City
Hall. The group reviewed and considered public comments received during the
open comment period and incorporated them appropriately into the plan before
submission.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 30 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-6
3.3 Planning Participants
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Kelley Balcomb-Bartock, Executive, City of Renton
Kelly Carey, Fire & Emergency Services, City of Renton
Kent Curry, Police, City of Renton
Dennis Conte, Community Services, City of Renton
Suzanne Dale-Estey, Community & Economic Development, City of Renton
Jeff Dosch, Security & Emergency Management, Valley Medical Center
William Flora, Fire & Emergency Services, City of Renton
Abdoul Gafour, Public Works, City of Renton
Lisa Garvich, Executive, City of Renton
Gregory Hartman, Fire & Emergency Services, City of Renton
Gina Jarvis, Finance & Information Services, City of Renton
Adriana Johnson, Community & Economic Development, City of Renton
Kayren Kittrick, Community & Economic Development, City of Renton
Bob Mac Onie, Public Works, City of Renton
Mindi Mattson, Fire & Emergency Services, City of Renton
George McBride, Finance & Information Services, City of Renton
Elman McClain, Emergency Management, Renton Technical College
Norma McQuiller, Community & Economic Development, City of Renton
Sonja Mejlaender, Community Services, City of Renton
Rachel Myers, Fire & Emergency Services, City of Renton
Deborah Needham, Fire & Emergency Services, City of Renton
David Pargas, Fire & Emergency Services, City of Renton
Robert Robertson, Human Resources & Risk Management, City of Renton
Tracy Schuld, Finance & Information Services, City of Renton
Colleen Shannon, Human Resources & Risk Management, City of Renton
Preeti Shridhar, Executive, City of Renton
Raymond Sled, Public Works, City of Renton
Michael Stenhouse, Public Works, City of Renton
Ron Straka, Public Works, City of Renton
Rocale Timmons, Community & Economic Development, City of Renton
Timothy Troxel, Police, City of Renton
Chip Vincent, Community & Economic Development, City of Renton
Donnaann Visneski, Finance & Information Services, City of Renton
Neil Watts, Community & Economic Development, City of Renton
Marty Wine, Executive, City of Renton
Cindy Zinck, Finance & Information Services, City of Renton
Distribution List for Notices and Planning Materials
Renton Hazard Mitigation Planning Team members listed above
Renton Reporter
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 31 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-7
300 Emergency Worker Volunteers
350 Neighborhood Leaders
http://www.rentonwa.gov
Planning Meeting #1 (November 6, 2008)
Kelley Balcomb-Bartok, Communications Specialist, Executive
Dennis Conte, Facilities Supervisor, Community Services
Jeff Dosch, Security & Emergency Management, Valley Medical Center
Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Supervisor, Public Works
Jim Henriksen, Emergency Prep, Public Health
Kayren Kittrick, Engineering Supervisor, CED
Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fire & Emergency
Services
Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Program Coordinator, Community & Economic
Development
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
Linda Parks, Director, Finance & Information Services
Robin Robertson, Risk Manager, Human Resources & Risk Management
Karl Rufener, Fire Battalion Chief/Safety Officer, Fire & Emergency Services
Mike Stenhouse, Director, Public Works
Clark Wilcox, Sergeant, Police
Planning Meeting #2 (March 3, 2009)
Leslie Betlach, Parks Director, Community Services
Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator, Community Services
Kelly Beymer, Golf Course Manager, Community Services
Ken Goettel, Consultant
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
Peter Renner, Facilities Director, Community Services
Planning Meeting #3 (March 5, 2009)
Daniel Carey, Surface Water Engineer, Public Works
Kent Curry, Commander, Police/Patrol Services
Dennis Conte, Facilities Maintenance Supervisor, Community Services
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Fire & Emergency
Services
Jeff Dosch, Security & Emergency Management, Valley Medical Center
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 32 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-8
Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fire & Emergency
Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
Robin Robertson, Risk Manager, Human Resources &Risk Management
Mary Roy, Admin Sec I, Finance & Information Services
Ray Sled, Water Maintenance Manager, Public Works
Preeti Shridhar, Communications Director Administrative, Judicial and Legal
Services
Ron Straka, Surface Water Engineer, Public Works
Planning Meeting #4 (April 2, 2009)
Kelley Balcomb-Bartok, Communications Specialist, Executive
Todd Black, Capital Projects Coordinator, Community Services
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
Suzanne Dale-Estey, Economic Development Director, Community & Economic
Development
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Steve Lee, Surface Water Supervisor, Public Works
Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fire & Emergency
Services
George McBride, Information Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
Linda Parks, Fiscal Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Public Meeting #1 (April 9, 2009)
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Fire & Emergency
Services
Victor Eskenazi
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Jennifer Henning
Katie McClincy, Commander, Police
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Inter, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
Gary Palmer
King Parker, Renton City Council Member
Don Perkins
Peter Renner, Facilities Director, Community Services
Dallin Slaugh
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 33 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-9
Ron Straka, Utility Engineering Supervisor, Community Services
Planning Meeting #5 (May 7, 2009)
Kelley Balcomb-Bartok, Communications Specialist, Executive
Mark Baldridge, Facilities Technician, Community Services/Facilities
Jeff Dosch, Security & Emergency Management, Valley Medical Center
Floyd Eldridge, Commander, Police
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist, Fire & Emergency Services
Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fire & Emergency
Services
George McBride, Information Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Joan Montegary, Assistant to the Chief, Fire & Emergency Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
Preeti Shridhar, Communications Director, Executive
Marty Wine, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, Executive
Planning Meeting #6 (June 4, 2009)
Mark Baldridge, Facilities Technician, Community Services
Jan Conklin, Development Services Representative, Community & Economic
Development
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Fire & Emergency
Services
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist, Fire & Emergency Services
George McBride, Information Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Coordinator, Community & Economic
Development
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Mark Peterson, Deputy Fire Chief, Fire & Emergency Services
Mary Roy, Administrative Secretary, Finance & Information Services
Ray Sled, Water Manager, Public Works
Preeti Shridhar, Communications Director, Executive
Planning Meeting #7 (July 2, 2009)
Dennis Conte, Facilities Supervisor, Community Services
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 34 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-10
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Fire & Emergency
Services
Jeff Dosch, Security & Emergency Management, Valley Medical Center
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Abdoul Gafour, Utility Engineering Supervisor, Public Works
Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist, Fire & Emergency Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
Ray Sled, Water Manager, Public Works
Pauletta Sulky, Risk Analyst, Human Resources & Risk Management
Planning Meeting #8 (August 4, 2009)
Dennis Conte, Facilities Supervisor, Community Services
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
Suzanne Dale-Estey, Economic Development Director, Community & Economic
Development
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Fire & Emergency
Services
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Abdoul Gafour, Utility Engineering Supervisor, Public Works
Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist, Executive Department
Peter Hahn, Deputy Administrator, Public Works
Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fire & Emergency
Services
George McBride, Information Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
Linda Parks, Fiscal Services Director, Finance & Information Services
David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Tim Troxel, Deputy Chief, Police
Ray Sled, Water Manager, Public Works
Pauletta Sulky, Risk Analyst, Human Resources & Risk Management
Clark Wilcox, Commander, Police
Greg Zimmerman, Administrator, Public Works
Planning Meeting #9 (February 4, 2010)
Kelly Carey, Administrative Secretary, Fire & Emergency Services
Dennis Conte, Facilities Supervisor, Community Services
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
Suzanne Dale-Estey, Economic Development Director, Community & Economic
Development
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 35 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 3-11
Sonja Mejlaender, Community Relations Specialist, Community Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Colleen Shannon, System Technician, Human Resources & Risk Management
Ray Sled, Water Manager, Public Works
Public Meeting #2: Presentation and discussion of Public Review Draft Hazard
Mitigation Plan. (March 16, 2010)
Dennis Conte, Facilities Supervisor, Community Services
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
Roy Gunsolus, Fire Battalion Chief/Safety Officer, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
Ray Sled, Water Maintenance Manager, Public Works
Ron Straka, Engineering Supervisor, Public Works
Chip Vincent, Director, Community & Economic Development
Dennis Wood
Planning Meeting #10 (April 1, 2010)
Craig Burnell, Plan Reviewer, Community & Economic Development
Kelly Carey, Administrative Secretary, Fire & Emergency Services
Suzanne Dale-Estey, Economic Development Director, Community & Economic
Development
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Abdoul Gafour, Utility Engineering Supervisor, Public Works
Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist, Executive Department
Gina Jarvis, Fiscal Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fire & Emergency
Services
Sonja Mejlaender, Community Relations Specialist, Community Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency
Services
Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney
Preeti Shridhar, Communications Director, Executive
Ray Sled, Water Manager, Public Works
Tim Troxel, Deputy Chief, Police
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 36 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-1 April 2012
4.0 MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS, OBJECTIVES and ACTION ITEMS
4.1 Overview
The overall purpose of Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce the impacts of
future natural or human-caused disasters on Renton. By reducing the vulnerability to
disasters and enhancing the capability of the City and its citizens to respond effectively
to, and recover quickly from, future disasters Renton will become more disaster
resistant and disaster resilient,
Completely eliminating the risk of future disasters in Renton is neither technologically
possible nor economically feasible. However, substantially reducing the negative
impacts of future disasters is achievable with the adoption of this Plan and ongoing
implementation of risk reducing Action Items.
Incorporating risk reduction strategies and Action Items into Renton’s existing programs
and decision making processes will facilitate moving Renton toward a safer and more
disaster resistant future. This Plan provides the framework and guidance for both short
and long-term proactive steps that can be taken to:
• protect life safety,
• reduce property damage,
• minimize economic losses and disruption and
• shorten the recovery period from future disasters.
In addition, Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan is intended to meet FEMA’s (Federal
Emergency Management Agency) mitigation planning requirements so that Renton
remains eligible for pre and post-disaster mitigation funding from FEMA.
This Plan is based on a four-step framework that is designed to help focus attention and
action on successful mitigation strategies: Mission Statement, Goals, Objectives and
Action Items.
• Mission Statement. The Mission Statement defines the purpose and primary
function of the Plan. The Mission Statement is an action-oriented summary that
answers the question “Why develop a hazard mitigation plan?”
• Goals. Goals identify priorities and specify how Renton intends to work toward
reducing the risks from natural and human-caused hazards. The Goals represent the
guiding principles toward which the community’s efforts are directed. Goals provide
focus for the more specific issues, recommendations and actions addressed in
Objectives and Action Items.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 37 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-2 April 2012
• Objectives. Each Goal has Objectives which specify the directions, methods,
processes or steps necessary to accomplish the Plan’s Goals. Objectives lead directly
to specific Action Items.
• Action Items. Action Items are specific well-defined activities or projects that work
to reduce risk. The Action Items represent the steps necessary to achieve the
Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives.
4.2 Mission Statement
The mission of Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan is to:
Proactively facilitate and support community-wide policies, practices and
programs that make Renton more disaster resistant and disaster resilient.
This Plan documents Renton’s commitment to promote sound public policies designed
to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property and the
environment from natural hazards by increasing public awareness, identifying resources
for risk assessment, risk reduction, and loss reduction and identifying specific activities
to help make Renton more disaster resistant and disaster resilient.
4.3 Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives
Mitigation plan goals and objectives guide the direction of future policies and activities
aimed at reducing risk and preventing loss from disaster events. The goals and
objectives listed here serve as guideposts and checklists as the City, other agencies,
businesses and individuals begin implementing mitigation Action Items within Renton.
Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan goals and objectives are based broadly on and are
consistent with the goals established by the State of Washington’s Hazard Mitigation
Plan. However, the specific priorities, emphasis and language are Renton’s. These goals
were developed with extensive input and priority setting by Renton’s Mitigation Plan
Steering Committee (the Emergency Management Group) and the other stakeholders
and citizens of Renton.
Goal 1: Reduce the Threat to Life Safety
Objectives:
A. Enhance life safety by minimizing the potential for deaths and injuries in future
disaster events.
B. Enhance life safety by improving public awareness of earthquakes and other
natural hazards posing life safety risk to the Renton community.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 38 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-3 April 2012
Goal 2: Reduce the Threats to Renton Buildings, Facilities and Infrastructure
Objectives:
A. Identify buildings and infrastructure at high risk from one or more hazards.
B. Conduct risk assessments for critical buildings, facilities and infrastructure at
high risk to determine cost effective mitigation actions to eliminate or reduce
risk.
C. Implement mitigation measures for buildings, facilities and infrastructure which
pose an unacceptable level of risk.
D. Ensure that new buildings and infrastructure in Renton are adequately designed
and located to minimize damages in future disaster events.
Goal 3: Enhance Emergency Response Capability, Emergency Planning and Post-
Disaster Recovery
Objectives:
A. Ensure that critical facilities and critical infrastructure are capable of
withstanding disaster events with minimal damages and loss of function.
B. Enhance emergency planning to facilitate effective response and recovery from
future disaster events.
C. Increase collaboration and coordination between Renton, nearby communities,
utilities, businesses and citizens to ensure the availability of adequate emergency
and essential services for the Renton community during and after disaster
events.
Goal 4: Vigorously Seek Funding Sources for Mitigation Actions
Objectives:
A. Prioritize and fund Action Items with the specific objective of maximizing
mitigation, response and recovery resources.
B. Explore both public (local, state and federal) funding and private sources for
mitigation actions.
Goal 5: Increase Public Awareness of Natural Hazards and Enhance Education and
Outreach Efforts
Objectives:
A. Develop and implement education and outreach programs to increase public
awareness of the risks from natural hazards
B. Provide information on resources, tools, partnership opportunities and funding
resource sources to assist the community in implementing mitigation activities.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 39 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-4 April 2012
C. Strengthen communication and coordinate participation among and within
public agencies, non-profit organizations, business, industry and the public to
encourage and facilitate mitigation actions.
Goal 6: Incorporate Mitigation Planning into Natural Resource Management and
Land Use Planning
Objectives:
A. Protect the aquifer supplying Renton’s potable water and environmentally
sensitive areas within Renton.
B. Balance natural resource management, land use planning and natural hazard
mitigation to protect life, property and the environment.
C. Preserve, rehabilitate and enhance natural systems to both improve habitats and
serve natural hazard mitigation functions.
4.4 Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Action Items
The Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives for Renton are achieved via
implementation of specific mitigation Action Items. Action Items may include
refinement of policies, data collection to better characterize hazards or risks, education,
outreach or partnership-building activities, as well as specific engineering or
construction measures to reduce risk from one or more hazards to specific buildings,
facilities or infrastructure within the Renton community.
Many of the high priority Action Items focus on facilities which are critical or essential
for Renton. Critical facilities are facilities necessary for emergency response and
recovery activities, especially public safety facilities and hospitals. Essential utility
services such as electric power, water and wastewater are also extremely important to
communities, especially after a disaster. Such utilities are often characterized as
“lifeline” utilities because they are so important to a community for life safety (e.g.,
services to hospitals) and for the economic recovery after a disaster. Although not
included, additional infrastructure important to the City, region and nation are also
present in Renton, including the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
Critical facilities identified by Renton are shown below in Table 4.1
Action items identified and prioritized during the development of the Renton Hazard
Mitigation Plan are summarized in Table 4.2. Individual action items may address a
single hazard (such as floods, or earthquakes) or they may address two or more hazards
concurrently. The first group of action items is for multi-hazard items that address more
than one hazard, followed by groups of action items for each of the hazards considered
in this plan, as addressed in more detail in Chapters 6 to 13. Prioritization, funding and
inclusion of action items in City planning are addressed in Chapter 5.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 40 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-5 April 2012
Table 4.1
Critical Buildings and Infrastructure for Renton
Infrastructure and Capital
Facilities
Source/Type of Facility
City of Renton Water System • 10 Wells
• 1 Spring
• 12 Booster Pump Stations
• 9 Reservoirs
• 9 Metered Connections to Outside Sources
• 2 Water Treatment Facilities
• 290 Miles of Water Main
City of Renton Wastewater
System
• 23 Lift Stations
• 4,219 Manholes
• 180 Miles of Sewer Main
City of Renton Surface Water
Utility
• 2 Pump Stations
• 225 Miles of Storm Sewer Main
• 83 Water Quality and Detention Facilities
• 1.25 Miles of Levees and Floodwalls
Seattle Public Utilities • 5 Water Transmission Mains
King County Wastewater
Treatment
• 7 Sewer Interceptors (trunk lines)
• 1 Treatment Plant
Public Safety • 1 Police Facility, including jail services and facilities
Fire Facilities • Station 11 - 211 Mill Ave. S. 98057
• Station 12 - 1209 Kirkland Ave. NE 98056
• Station 13 - 18002 108th Ave. SE 98055
• Station 14 - 1900 Lind Ave. SW 98057
• Station 16 - 12923 156th Ave. SE 98059
• Station 17 - 14810 SE Petrovitsky Rd. 98058
• Fire District 25 – King County Station, serving the east
portion of the City
City of Renton Facilities FACILITIES
• Renton City Hall: 1055 S. Grady Way - 262,884sq.ft.
• Old City Hall: 200 Mill Ave. S - 51,000sq.ft.
• Renton Community Center: 1715 Maple Valley Hwy.
(Potential Shelter) 36,000sq.ft.
• Renton Senior Activity Center: 211 Burnett Ave. N.,
(Potential Shelter) 22,150sq.ft.
• Carco Theatre: 1717 Maple Valley Hwy., (Potential Shelter)
11,090sq.ft.
• Highlands Neighborhood Center: 800 Edmonds Ave. NE,
(Potential Shelter) 11,960sq.ft.
• North Highlands Neighborhood Center: 3000 NE 16th St.
(Potential Shelter) 4,430sq.ft.
• Tiffany Park Neighborhood Center: 1902 Lake Youngs Way
SE, (Potential Shelter) 1600sq.ft.
• Spirit of Washington Events Center: 233 Burnett Ave. S.
(Potential Shelter) 11,780sq.ft.
• Main Library: 100 Mill Ave. S. - 22,400sq.ft.
• Highlands Library: 2902 NE 12th St. - 6,580sq.ft.
• Facilities Shop: 107 Williams Ave. N. - 3,850sq.ft.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 41 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-6 April 2012
• Park Maintenance Shops: 100 Bronson Way N. - 3,850sq.ft.,
and 105 Williams Ave. N. - 7,500sq.ft.
• Public Works City Shops Bldg. A,B,C,D,& F: 3555 NE 2nd St. -
52,400sq.ft.
• Boathouse: 1060 N. Riverside Dr. - 8,900sq.ft.
• City Center Parking Garage: 655 S. 2nd St. - 179,243sq.ft.
• Renton Historical Museum: 235 Mill Ave. S - 5,300sq.ft.
• Maplewood Golf Course/ Clubhouse/Driving Range: 4040
Maple Valley Hwy., (Potential for Shelter with open
Spaces) 27,000sq.ft.
PARKS/OPEN SPACES WITH RESTROOM FACILITY
• Cedar River Park: 1703 Maple Valley Hwy. – 450sq.ft.
• Cedar River Trail/Park: Riverside Drive & 6th St.
• Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park: 1201 Lake Washington
Blvd. N., (Open Spaces and Picnic Structures)
• Henry Moses Aquatic Center: 1719 Maple Valley Hwy. -
6,320sq.ft.
• Cedar River Park: 1703 Maple Valley Hwy.
• Jones Park: Wells Avenue S. & the Cedar River
• Kennydale Beach Park: Lake Washington Blvd. and N. 36th
St.
• Kennydale Lions Park: 2428 Aberdeen Ave. NE
• Kiwanis Park: 815 Union Ave. NE
• Liberty Park: 1101 Bronson Way N.
• Maplewood Park: 3400 SE 6th St.
• Heritage Park: 233 Union Ave. NE
• Philip Arnold Park: 720 Jones Ave. S
• Riverview Park: 2901 Maple Valley Hwy.
• Talbot Hill Reservoir Park: 701 S. 19th St.
• Thomas Teasdale Park: 601 S. 23rd St.
• Windsor Hills Park: 432 Windsor Way NE
• NARCO Property: 1500 S. Houser Way (18 acres,
undeveloped)
• Edlund Property: 17611 103rd Ave. SE (15 acres,
undeveloped)
Utilities: Electricity • Bonneville Power Administration
o 5 Transmission Circuits
• Puget Power
o Talbot Hill Station, High Capacity Lines
Utilities: Natural Gas • Puget Sound Energy
o SWARR Station & Gate Station
o Network of high pressure mains and distribution lines
Utilities Fuel Product
Pipelines
• Olympic Pipeline
o Central monitoring station at 2319 Lind Ave. SW
o Petroleum enters and leaves Renton via 2 pipelines
Hospitals • Valley Medical Center (169 beds), includes an emergency
room
Schools • 36 schools and related facilities
Airport • Renton Municipal Airport
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 42 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-7 April 2012
Table 4.2
Master Action Items Table
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Establish a formal role for the Renton All Hazard
Mitigation Planning Committee (Emergency
Management Group) to develop a sustainable
process to encourage, implement, monitor, and
evaluate citywide mitigation actions.
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee - Emergency
Management (EM) Group
Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Identify and pursue funding opportunities to
implement mitigation actions. City staff Ongoing X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#3
Develop public and private sector partnerships to
foster hazard mitigation activities.
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee - EM Group Ongoing X X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#4
Develop detailed inventories of at-risk buildings and
infrastructure and prioritize mitigation actions.
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee - EM Group 1-2 Years X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
Long-Term
#1
Develop education programs aimed at mitigating the
risk posed by hazards.
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee - EM Group Ongoing X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(EMPG,
HMGP)
Long-Term
#2
Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning
and regulatory documents and programs.
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Committee - EM Group Ongoing X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#3
Integrate hazard, vulnerability and risk Mitigation
Plan findings into enhanced Emergency Operations
planning.
EM Group Ongoing X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(EMPG,
HMGP)
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
4
3
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-8 April 2012
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Flood Mitigation Action Items: Within FEMA-Mapped Floodplains
Short-Term
#1
Complete an inventory of structures, critical facilities
and important transportation or utility system
components within mapped floodplains, including
elevation data and structure/facility information.
Community Services (for City
facilities), Public Works 1-2 Years X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#1
Identify and implement cost-effective mitigation
measures for high risk structures, with the highest
priority for critical facilities, transportation and utility
components.
Community Services (for City
facilities), Public Works Ongoing X X
Local
Funds,
Capital
Funds,
Grant
Funds
Long-Term
#2
Identify and implement measures and policies to
increase Renton's Community Rating System score to
reduce flood insurance rates.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#3
Continue to be a member of the National Flood
Insurance Program to enable property owners in
Renton to purchase flood insurance from FEMA and
allow the City to receive flood disaster funding to
repair damages due to flooding following a federally
declared disaster.
Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#4
Continue to require new construction of structures in
the floodplain to be constructed in accordance with
FEMA standards and the National Flood Insurance
Program requirements, including requiring
compensatory floodplain storage for filling of the
floodplain.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
4
4
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-9 April 2012
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Long-Term
#5
Implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measures
identified in the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion
regarding FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program
as required by FEMA.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#6
Continue to enforce, maintain and update the
Renton Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program requirements.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#7
Continue to perform maintenance dredging,
maintenance of floodwalls and levees associated
with the Army Corps of Engineers Cedar River
Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X
Local
Funds,
USACE
Long-Term
#8
Continue to implement the Surface Water Utility
programs related to flood hazard management,
which include the Capital Improvement Program,
engineering program, maintenance and operations
program, public education and customer service
programs.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#9
Adopt storm water design standards equivalent to
the Ecology 2005 Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington to better control the
quantity and quality of storm water runoff from new
construction and redevelopment projects and meet
the requirement of the Phase II National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#10
Integrate flood hazard reduction with other
objectives related to water quality protection,
habitat protection and habitat restoration efforts
including complying with the Clean Water Act NPDES
Phase II permit, the Endangered Species Act and the
regional salmon recovery efforts.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
4
5
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-10 April 2012
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Long-Term
#11
Continue to be consistent with the King County Flood
Hazard Reduction Plan.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#12
Continue to participate in the King County Flood
Warning System and the King County Flood Control
Zone District.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#13
Continue to be a member of the FEMA Community
Rating System that enables property owners to
obtain flood insurance at a reduced rate.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#14
Re-evaluate future land use and zoning designations
in FEMA mapped 100-year floodplain areas.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Flood Mitigation Action Items: Outside of FEMA-Mapped Floodplains
Short-Term
#1
Complete an inventory of structures, critical facilities
and important transportation or utility system
components in locations with a history of severe or
repetitive flooding.
Community Services (for City
facilities), Public Works 1-2 Years X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Evaluate and improve notification, evacuation and
response planning for areas within the potential
inundation area for failure of the Hanson Dam.
Fire & Emergency Services, Police,
Public Works 1-Year X X X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#1
For locations with repetitive flooding and significant
damages or road closures, determine and implement
mitigation measures such as upsizing culverts or
storm water drainage capacity.
Public Works, Community Services Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
4
6
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-11 April 2012
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
an
d
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
R es
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Dam Safety Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Maintain copies of high resolution maps of dam
failure inundation areas and update emergency
response plan, including public notification and
evacuation routes.
Fire & Emergency Services, Police,
Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Research seismic vulnerability assessments for
Howard Hanson Dam and Chester Morse Dam and
lobby dam owners to make seismic improvements as
necessary.
Fire & Emergency Services Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
an
d
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Winter Storms Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Enhance tree trimming efforts especially for
transmission lines and trunk distribution lines.
PSE, Community Services
(secondary support) Ongoing X X X PSE, Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Encourage property owners to trim trees near
service drops to individual customers.
PSE, Community Services
(secondary support) Ongoing X X X X PSE, Local
Funds
Long-Term
#1
Ensure that all critical City facilities in Renton have
sufficient backup power and emergency operations
plans to deal with power outages.
Community Services 5 Years X X X PSE, Local
Funds
Long-Term
#2
Consider upgrading lines and poles to improve
wind/ice loading, undergrounding critical lines, and
adding interconnect switches to allow alternative
feed paths and disconnect switches to minimize
outage areas.
PSE, Community Services
(secondary support) 5 Years X X X PSE, Local
Funds
Long-Term
#3
Encourage new developments to include
underground power lines.
Community and Economic
Development ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
4
7
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-12 April 2012
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Earthquake Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Evaluate the seismic vulnerability of critical city-
owned buildings, utilities and infrastructure and
establish priorities to retrofit or replace vulnerable
facilities to ensure adequate seismic performance of
critical facilities.
Community Services 1-2 Years X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(EMPG,
HMGP)
Short-Term
#2
Conduct a sidewalk survey of residential, commercial
and industrial buildings in Renton using FEMA's
Rapid Visual Screening to identify especially
vulnerable buildings, raise awareness and encourage
mitigation actions.
Community and Economic
Development 1-2 Years X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(EMPG,
HMGP)
Short-Term
#3
Disseminate FEMA pamphlets to educate
homeowners about structural and non-structural
retrofitting of vulnerable homes and encourage
retrofit.
Community and Economic
Development 1-2 Years X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#1
Ensure that all critical City facilities in Renton have
sufficient backup power and emergency operations
plans to deal with power outages.
Community Services 5 years X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(EMPG,
HMGP,
SHSP,
UASI)
Long-Term
#2
Obtain funding and retrofit important public facilities
with significant seismic vulnerabilities. Community Services 10 years X X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(HMGP)
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
4
8
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-13 April 2012
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Landslide Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Complete the inventory of locations where buildings
or infrastructure are subject to landslides.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works 1-2 Years X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#1
Consider landslide mitigation actions for slides
seriously threatening buildings or infrastructure. Public Works 5 Years X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#2
Limit future development in high landslide potential
areas.
Community and Economic
Development Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Volcanic Hazards Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Update public emergency notification procedures for
ash fall events. Fire & Emergency Services 1-2 Years X X X X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Update emergency response planning for ash fall
events.
Community Services, Fire &
Emergency Services, Police, Public
Works
1-2 Years X X X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#3
Evaluate capability of water treatment plant to deal
with high turbidity from ash falls and upgrade
treatment facilities and emergency response plans to
deal with ash falls.
Public Works, METRO 1-2 Years X X X X METRO
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
4
9
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-14 April 2012
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Coal Mine Hazard Mitigation Action Items
Long-Term
#1
Require geological or geotechnical engineering
studies before permitting new construction in
identified coal mine hazard areas.
Community and Economic
Development Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
ra
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Hazmat Incident Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Ensure that first responders have readily available
site-specific knowledge of hazardous chemical
inventories in Renton.
Fire & Emergency Services 1 year X X X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Enhance emergency planning, emergency response
training and equipment to address hazardous
materials incidents.
Fire & Emergency Services, Police,
Public Works Ongoing X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(SHSP,
UASI)
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
5
0
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-15 April 2012
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Terrorism Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Enhance emergency planning, emergency response
training and equipment to address potential
incidents of terrorism.
Fire & Emergency Services, Police Ongoing X X X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(SHSP,
UASI)
Long-Term
#1
Upgrade physical security detection and response
capability for critical facilities, including water
system.
Community Services, Police Ongoing X X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(SHSP,
UASI)
Long-Term
#2
Evaluate and implement hardening measures for
highly vulnerable critical facilities. Police, Community Services 5 - 10
Years X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#3
Identify and establish secure surveillance cameras
and monitoring at all critical infrastructure.
Police, Community Services, Public
Works 5 Years X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(SHSP,
UASI)
Long-Term
#4
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and
Explosives (CBRNE) Detection and security
devices/elements integrated at critical city
infrastructure.
Police, Community Services 5 Years X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(SHSP,
UASI)
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
5
1
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-1 April 2012
5.0 PLAN ADOPTION, MAINTENANCE and IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Overview
For a hazard mitigation plan to be effective, it has to be implemented gradually
over time as resources become available, continually evaluated and periodically
updated. Only through developing a system which routinely incorporates logical
thinking about hazards and cost-effective mitigation into ongoing public and
private-sector decision making will the mitigation action items in this document be
accomplished effectively. The following sections depict how Renton has adopted
and will implement and maintain the vitality of Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan.
5.2 Plan Adoption
Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted by Renton’s City Council on
….TBD……, making this the effective date of the plan. A copy of the resolution is
attached in Appendix 4.
After adoption by City Council, FEMA approval will be sought. FEMA approval
means that Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan meets national standards and that
the City will continue to be eligible for hazard mitigation funding from FEMA’s
mitigation grant programs.
Renton has the necessary human resources to ensure this Plan continues to be an
active planning document. City staff have been active in the preparation of the
plan, and have gained an understanding of the process and the desire to integrate
the plan into Renton’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Through this
linkage, the plan will be kept active and be an ongoing working document.
Recent major high-profile disasters and the growing understanding of the threats
posed to Renton from various national and anthropogenic hazards, have kept the
interest in hazard mitigation planning and implementation alive at the City Council
and city staff levels, among private sector entities and among the citizens of
Renton.
5.3 Implementation
Coordinating Body
The Renton Emergency Management Group, led by the Emergency Management
Director, will coordinate the implementation of the plan and be responsible for
periodically monitoring, evaluating and updating the plan. The City will continue
to provide staffing to accomplish this. Consistent staffing allows for well-organized
meetings and will ensure that the right people are involved. The existing active
interest in mitigation and emergency planning that exists within Renton will help
to ensure the successful implementation of the plan.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 52 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-2 April 2012
Integration of the Hazard Mitigation Plan into Ongoing Programs, Policies
and Practices
The mission statement, objectives, goals and action items outlined in this Plan
provide a strong framework and guidance for the identified mitigation priorities
for Renton. However, the Plan is a guidance document, not a regulatory
document. Implementation of the objectives, goals and action items can only be
accomplished by fully integrating this guidance into ongoing city-wide programs,
policies and practices.
The City of Renton relies on comprehensive land use planning, capital
improvements planning, and building codes to guide and control development in
the City. After the City officially adopts the Hazard Mitigation Plan, these existing
mechanisms will, as appropriate, include and integrate mitigation strategies
identified in the Plan.
After adoption of the Plan, the City will address hazards in the comprehensive
plans and land use regulations. Specifically, one of the goals in this Plan is to
protect life and property from natural disasters and human-caused hazards. The
Community and Economic Development Department will review the City’s
comprehensive plans and land use policies, analyze any plan amendments, and
provide technical assistance in implementing these requirements.
The capital improvement planning that occurs in the future will also contribute to
the goals in Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. When projects are being planned
mitigation measures will be considered and prioritized as part of the project based
on the cost benefit analysis and available funding. The Community and Economic
Development Department will work with capital improvement planners to secure
high-hazard areas for low risk uses.
Within six months of the effective date of the Mitigation Plan, the mitigation
activities listed in Chapter 4 will be incorporated into the process of existing
planning mechanisms. Incorporation of hazard mitigation actions has been
addressed with and agreed to by the administrators of each department. In
addition, the Emergency Management Director is the Fire & Emergency Services
representative at all City planning meetings. The Emergency Management Group
will be the mechanism for communication between individual departments and
Emergency Management and have the responsibility to include hazard mitigation
actions in planning and budgeting for their departments.
When hazard mitigation grant opportunities become available they will be
brought to the Emergency Management Group so that the hazard mitigation
actions remaining can be evaluated and prioritized. The Emergency Management
Group has identified standing criteria to rank the mitigation activities including:
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 53 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-3 April 2012
life safety, likelihood of occurrence, benefit/cost analysis, regional impact, public
vs. private property, duration, achievability, cumulative risk and size of impact.
These criteria will be used to rank and prioritize all hazard mitigation actions that
have not been funded. These priorities will be brought back to the department by
group members to continue to bring their importance to the forefront.
Cost Effectiveness of Mitigation Projects
As Renton and other entities, public or private, within the City consider whether
or not to undertake specific mitigation projects or evaluate how to decide
between competing mitigation projects, they must answer questions that don’t
always have obvious answers, such as:
What is the nature of the hazard problem?
How frequent and how severe are hazard events?
Do we want to undertake mitigation measures?
What mitigation measures are feasible, appropriate and affordable?
How do we prioritize between competing mitigation projects?
Are our mitigation projects likely to be eligible for FEMA funding?
Renton recognizes that benefit-cost analysis is a powerful tool that can help
communities provide solid, defensible answers to these difficult questions.
Benefit-cost analysis is required for all FEMA-funded mitigation projects, under
both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation programs. Benefit-cost analysis
provides a sound basis for evaluating and prioritizing possible mitigation projects
for any natural hazard. Renton will use benefit-cost analysis and related economic
tools, such as cost-effectiveness evaluation, to the extent practicable in
prioritizing and implementing mitigation actions. See Appendix 2 at the end of this
Plan for details on the benefit-cost analysis process.
STAPLE/E Approach
Renton will also use the STAPLE/E to help evaluate potential mitigation actions.
Using STAPLE/E criteria, mitigation activities can be evaluated quickly in a
systematic fashion based on Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal,
Economic and Environmental (STAPLE/E) considerations. The STAPLE/E approach
is helpful for doing a quick analysis of mitigation projects. Most projects that seek
federal funding and others often require more detailed benefit/cost analyses.
The following are suggestions for how to examine each aspect of the STAPLE/E
Approach.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 54 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-4 April 2012
Social: Community and Economic Development and Community Services staff,
local non-profit organizations or local planning groups can help answer these
questions.
• Is the proposed action socially acceptable to the community?
• Are there equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of the
community is treated unfairly? (Or one segment more favorably?)
• Will the action cause social disruption?
Technical: Public Works, Community Services, and Community and Economic
Development Staff, Police, and Fire & Emergency Services staff can help answer
these questions.
• Will the proposed action work?
• Will it create more problems than it solves?
• Does it solve a problem or only a symptom?
• Is it the most useful action in light of other goals?
Administrative: Elected officials can help answer these questions.
• Is the action implementable?
• Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort?
• Is there sufficient funding, staff and technical support available?
• Are there ongoing administrative requirements that need to be met?
Political: City Council members and planning officials can help answer these
questions.
• Is the action politically acceptable?
• Is there public support both to implement and to maintain the project?
Legal: Include legal counsel, land use planners and risk managers in this
discussion.
• Who is authorized to implement the proposed action?
• Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity?
• Are there legal side effects? Could the activity be construed as a taking?
• Is the proposed action allowed by the comprehensive plan, or must the
comprehensive plan be amended to allow the proposed action?
• Will the City be liable for action or lack of action?
• Will the activity be challenged?
Economic: Community and Economic Development and Finance and Information
Services Department staff, civil engineers, building officials, and the County
Assessment and Taxation office can help answer these questions.
• What are the costs and benefits of this action?
• Do the benefits exceed the costs?
• Are initial, maintenance and administrative costs taken into account?
• Has funding been secured for the proposed action? If not, what are the
potential funding sources (public, non-profit, and private)?
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 55 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-5 April 2012
• How will this action affect the fiscal capability of the City?
• What burden will this action place on the tax base or economy?
• What are the budget and revenue effects of this activity?
• Does the action contribute to other goals, such as capital improvements or
economic development?
• What benefits will the action provide? (This can include dollar amount of
damages prevented, number of homes protected, credit under the CRS,
potential for funding under the HMGP or the FMA program, etc.)
Environmental: Public Works and Community and Economic Development staff,
environmental groups, land use planners, engineering, and natural resource
managers can help answer these questions.
• How will the action impact the environment?
• Will the action need environmental regulatory approvals?
• Will it meet local and state regulatory requirements?
• Are endangered or threatened species likely to be affected?
5.4 Plan Maintenance
Periodic Monitoring, Evaluation and Updating
The City of Renton has developed a process for regularly reviewing and updating
the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Emergency Management Group will serve as the
Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee and members will be responsible for
overseeing the progress of the mitigation actions in the Plan. The Emergency
Management Group is led by the Emergency Management Director and composed
of representatives from all City Departments and two external agencies.
The Emergency Management Group will review and evaluate the plan for progress
each year. During the annual review the Emergency Management Group will
update information in the Plan, remove outdated items and completed actions, as
well as recognize the success of the community in implementation of action items.
Annual revisions of the Plan will be summarized for the Public Safety Committee
of the City Council for formal acknowledgement as part of the Plan’s maintenance
and implementation program.
A full review of Renton’s Hazard Mitigation Plan will be conducted every five
years. The Emergency Management Group will have lead responsibility for the
formal updates of the plan. Renton chose this cycle and process in order to
provide a sufficient time horizon for mitigation actions to take effect and show
results.
During the full review every five years the Emergency Management Group will
determine if:
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 56 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-6 April 2012
• The goals and objectives address current and expected conditions.
• The nature or magnitude of risks has changed.
• The current resources are appropriate for implementing the plan.
• There are implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal or
coordination issues with other agencies.
• The outcomes have occurred as expected.
• The agencies and other partners have participated as proposed.
The Emergency Management Group will then review the results of the Plan
assessment, identify corrective actions, and recommend to the Emergency
Management Director what actions are necessary to bring the Plan back into
conformance with the stated goals and objectives. Emergency Management
Group members will then update and make changes to the plan before submitting
it to City Council and the State Hazard Mitigation Program Manager.
As documented in Chapter 3, this plan is a complete re-write of the first hazard
mitigation plan adopted in 2003. Changes to the first plan were too extensive to
document analysis and alterations on a section by section basis. Any future
revisions of the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation plan will include documentation
and/or a matrix that identifies which portions were reviewed, analyzed and
revised as a part of the of the update process. Section 5.5 details progress on goals
and action items specified in the 2003 plan. Future revisions will include similar
detail on the progress made on goals and action items in this plan.
Continued Public Involvement and Participation
Implementation of the mitigation actions identified in the Plan must engage the
community. The participation that led to the Plan was the result of existing
community networks, and these networks will continue to participate as the
community-wide mitigation activities identified in the plan are implemented.
Some projects can be done at the volunteer level while others will require
technical expertise. The stakeholders in the planning process will become project
partners, as needed, on specific items.
The City of Renton is committed to involving the public directly in the continual
reshaping and updating of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Emergency
Management Group members are responsible for oversight of the plan. Since
members of external agencies and the public are not significantly represented on
the Emergency Management Group, an additional committee will be implemented
in 2012, one which actively engages residents, businesses, and other stakeholders.
This committee will address integrating prevention and mitigation into the City’s
relevant activities, and will provide ongoing advice and input to the Emergency
Management Group regarding the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 57 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-7 April 2012
Copies of the plan will be catalogued and kept on hand at the King County Library
System . The existence and location of these copies will be publicized on the City
web site. Contained in the plan is the address and phone number of City staff
responsible for keeping track of public comments on the plan.
In addition, copies of the plan and any proposed changes will be posted on the
City website. This site will also contain an email address and phone number to
which people can direct their comments or concerns. The City will further
publicize the Plan availability on the City web site through various sources
including: the Renton Reporter (newspaper), Channel 21 (Renton cable station),
neighborhood association newsletters, Renton School District, Piazza Renton
(downtown business association) and Renton Chamber of Commerce. Citizen
comment and interest will be solicited and directed to the Emergency
Management Group via the Emergency Management Director.
At the discretion of the City, a public meeting may be held after each review of the
plan by the Emergency Management Group. When the plan is revised every five
years the City will hold at least two public meetings. The first meeting held when
the plan is opened for revision and the last meeting will be held following the
revision for final review prior to revision. These meetings will provide the public a
forum for which they can express concerns, opinions or ideas about the plan. The
Fire & Emergency Services Department will publicize and host this meeting, and
any updates will be posted on the City web-site allowing for additional public
input.
5.5 Update from 2003 Plan
Considerable progress has been made in addressing the goals and action items
from the 2003 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Detailed below are the goals and action
items in that plan and the progress made.
Goal 1 – To protect aquifers used by the City and the City water supply system
from contamination by hazardous materials and other hazard effects
Actions:
a. Continue to implement and maintain the Aquifer Protection Plan
b. Continue Risk Assessment Methodology for Water Systems Process;
implement measures as appropriate
The Aquifer Protection Plan and the Risk Assessment Methodology for Water
Systems Process have been implemented and maintained since 2003. Their
implementation and maintenance are ongoing.
Goal 2 – Minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific
areas
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 58 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-8 April 2012
Actions:
a. Continue to enforce, maintain and update Renton Critical Areas
Regulations, development regulations, and Surface Water Management
Design Standards;
These regulations have been enforced, maintained and updated since 2003.
This work is ongoing.
b. Continue to perform maintenance dredging, when needed, and
maintenance of the levees and floodwalls associated with the Army Corps
of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction project;
This maintenance has been performed since 2003. This work is ongoing.
c. Develop criteria for and conduct hazard-susceptibility assessments of
business and public facilities (baseline and changed conditions);
An assessment has been completed for the City and was utilized in the
development of this plan. Going forward these assessments will be updated
when conditions change.
d. Enhance and continue drainage system maintenance;
Drainage system enhancement and maintenance has been performed since
2003. This work is ongoing.
e. Avoid/reduce instances of non-underground extensions of utility lines
which may create debris dams during floods;
As much as possible instances of non-underground extensions of utility lines
have been avoided and/or reduced since 2003. This work is ongoing.
f. Evaluate and reconcile competing goals and practices regarding habitat
protection and flood mitigation;
This work is ongoing.
g. Maintain and enhance the City of Renton Flood Hazard Reduction Plan;
The City of Renton did not develop an independent Flood Hazard Reduction
Plan. Instead the City is following the King County Flood Hazard Reduction
Plan and is assisting in its maintenance.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 59 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-9 April 2012
h. Continue to participate with King County in the King County Flood Warning
System and the Green River Flood Control Zone District Administration.
Participation has occurred since 2003 and will continue. Significant
additional coordination has occurred in 2009 and 2010 as a result of the
increased risk of potential flooding on the Green River due to damage at the
Howard Hanson Dam.
Goal 3 – Minimize damage due to natural hazards
Actions:
a. Conduct hazard-susceptibility assessments of business and public facilities
Assessments have been completed. Assessments will continue as facilities
change or are developed.
b. Identify, assess, and maintain critical transportation routes within the City;
This work was completed in 2009 with the development of the Evacuation
Annex to the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan for Renton.
Ongoing transportation analysis is occurring through the City’s participation
in the Regional Catastrophic Planning Team which is exploring
transportation/lifelines in the Greater Puget Sound Area. The routes will be
reassessed when the plan is updated.
c. Develop objective criteria and conduct seismic preparedness and retro-fit
of critical public and private facilities;
Progress has been made on this since 2003. Most recently Fire Station 11 was
retro-fitted to Zone 4 compliance. A detail of current seismic preparedness of
critical facilities is provided in Chapter 8 – Earthquakes.
d. Re-enforce utility infrastructure and connections;
Progress has been made since 2003. This work is ongoing.
e. Implement slope stabilization measures in steep/unstable areas;
Progress has been made since 2003. This work is ongoing.
f. Use HAZUS Loss Estimation tool kit to identify and assess vulnerabilities to
earthquake damage.
This was completed. The HAZUS report is available in Appendix 3.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 60 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-10 April 2012
Goal 4 – To minimize impacts on critical habitats and wetlands from natural or man-made
disasters
Actions:
a. Assess vulnerability of critical habitat and wetland areas to disaster
damage;
b. Assess capacity for critical habitat and wetland areas to serve as mitigation
buffers for floods;
c. Incorporate habitat and wetland mitigation enhancements into drainage
maintenance program;
d. Evaluate and reconcile competing goals and practices regarding habitat
protection and flood mitigation.
Progress has been made on these since 2003. This work is ongoing.
Goal 5 – Minimize the impact of technological or man-made disasters on the City
(e.g., hazardous materials incidents, terrorist attack, civil disturbance,
etc.)
Actions:
a. Robust systems
• Retro-fit critical facilities for blast-resistance and resistance to forced
entry;
• Protect utility lifelines (water, power, communications, etc.) by
concealing, burying, or encasing;
• Develop backup control center capabilities;
b. Security/Safety
• Incorporate vehicle barriers such as walls, fences, ponds/basins,
plantings, sculptures into site planning and design; design grounds and
parking facilities for natural surveillance;
• Ensure adequate site lighting;
• Locate critical assets (people, activities, systems) away from entrances,
vehicle circulation and parking, and loading and maintenance areas;
• Separate high-risk and low-risk activities; separate high-risk activities
from public areas;
• Install public and employee screening systems and closed-circuit
television (CCTV) security systems.
c. System Redundancy
• Implement separate emergency and normal power systems; ensure
that backup power systems are periodically tested under load;
• Ensure provision of primary and backup fuel supplies; provide secure
storage;
• Install exterior connection for emergency power;
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 61 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-11 April 2012
• Enhance communications and information management capabilities:
o Update the telecommunications capabilities of City government
offices.
o Create redundant/backup capability for landline telephone system.
o Develop off-site backup of information technology systems.
d. Enhanced Emergency Response
• Maintain access (ingress and egress) for emergency responders,
including large fire apparatus, and for resident evacuation;
• Develop and maintain comprehensive emergency response and
recovery plans;
• Conduct regular evacuation and security drills;
• Regularly evaluate emergency equipment readiness/adequacy;
• Develop backup control center capabilities;
Progress has been made on these since 2003. This work is ongoing.
Goal 6 – Enhance the City’s capability for gathering, organizing, and displaying
spatial data regarding hazards, vulnerabilities, critical facilities, and vital
statistics.
Actions:
a. Maintain comprehensive hazard maps;
b. Create critical facilities database information for use in future mitigation
strategies.
c. Obtain and integrate HAZUS Loss Estimation tool and ArcView GIS with
existing City GIS geospatial programs.
These have all been completed. The information continues to be updated with
new studies and technology.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 62 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-1
6.0 FLOOD HAZARDS
The City of Renton is subject to flooding from several flood sources, including:
1) over bank flooding from the Cedar River, Green River, Springbrook Creek, May
Creek and their tributaries,
2) local storm water drainage flooding, and
3) floods from dam failures.
Major flooding events in Renton generally result from large late fall or winter storms
with a combination of intense rainfall, leaves clogging inlets and exacerbated by snow-
melt runoff. Larger rivers whose drainage basins include higher elevations experience
flooding in late winter to spring, due to large contributions from snowmelt. Flood
events often result in simultaneous flooding on all rivers and streams in an affected
area. Based on previous history we can reasonably expect flooding to at least some
degree every year. However, because of differences in drainage areas, slopes and other
watershed characteristics, the severity of flooding in any given rainfall event often
varies significantly from stream to stream and basin to basin. This chapter uses FEMA
Flood Insurance Studies combined with historical data to provide estimates of flood
events within as well as outside of mapped floodplains.
6.1 Historical Floods in Renton
Flooding has occurred in the Renton area throughout the recorded history of the
area. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study for King County, including the City of
Renton, dated April 19, 2005 has a brief history of major historical floods in the
area.
Cedar River
Flooding along the Cedar River is of special concern to Renton. As noted in the
Flood Insurance Study, significant flooding along the Cedar River has occurred
every 5 to 10 years when the discharge exceeds about 4,000 cfs (cubic feet per
second). The flood of record on the Cedar River, which was somewhat greater
than a 100-year event, occurred in November 1990 with a peak discharge of
10,600 cfs.
More recent major flood events on the Cedar River occurred in 1990, 1995, 1996,
2006 and 2009. The last four flood events were Presidentially-declared disaster
events. The 1990 flood caused about eight million dollars in damages to the
Renton Airport, Boeing facilities and Cedar River Park. The 1995 and 1996 floods
also impacted the Renton Airport, the old Renton City Hall (200 Mill Ave. S),
Renton Community Center, Carco Theatre, Renton Senior Activity Center, the
Cedar River Trail Park and the Boeing Plant. The 2009 flood caused over four
million dollars worth of damage to the Cedar River Trail system, the Elliot
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 63 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-2
Spawning Channel and associated infrastructure. The eastern half of the
Maplewood Golf Course and portions of the City’s Ron Regis Park are located
within the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain. The typical golf course damage
from flood events (both 2006 and 2009) have been caused by the Cedar
overflowing the channel and depositing heavy amounts of sediment across holes
number 5 and 7 necessitating golf course closure and loss of revenue. The 2009
flood event engulfed the entire four holes located on the east side of the river (#4
- #7), and a river formed through the golf course exiting onto the Cedar River Trail.
This flood water caused significant washouts and buckling of the trail (approx. 150
yards) and undermined the fill material that supports Highway 169’s westbound
approach to the bridge over the Cedar River, causing the support panels and
bridge ramp fill to slump and fail. The westbound lane crossing the bridge of
Highway 169 and the Cedar River Trail was closed for approximately 9 weeks until
repaired by WSDOT.
Green River
Historically, the lower Green River Valley from Auburn to Renton has been
inundated by large floods, such as those that occurred in 1933, 1951 and 1959.
However, the potential for major floods has been largely mitigated by
construction of the Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River. The storage capacity
of the dam allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to limit flows to no more than
12,000 cubic foot per second (cfs), as measured at the Auburn gauge, to prevent
flooding. Per the Flood Insurance Study, the Howard Hanson Dam provides
approximately a 500-year to 600-year level of protection against overbank
flooding from the Green River. There are levees located on the lower Green River
within the Cities of Auburn, Kent, Tukwila and areas of unincorporated King
County. These levees protect the valley floor from flooding up to Green River
flows of 12,000 cfs. Other than the Tukwila levee that protects commercial and
industrial areas in Tukwila on the left bank, the Green River levees are not FEMA
certified. The King County Flood Control Zone District is responsible for the
maintenance, repair and improvement of the Green River levee system. Renton
has no Green River levees within its jurisdiction, but flooding could occur in
Renton if a levee failed on the right bank (east side) of the Green River between
river miles 11 and 26.
Although the Howard Hanson Dam ordinarily provides a good level of flood
protection, damages sustained in the flooding of January 2009 resulted in a
significant reduction in the flood control capabilities of the dam. Due to the
damage, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)reduced the storage capacity in
the reservoir upstream of the dam. Without a fully functional dam, the
USACEmight have been forced to release water from the dam in excess of 12,000
cfs at the Auburn gauge. This could have resulted in levee overtopping, breaching
and flooding in the Green River Valley including Renton. In the fall of 2011 the
USACE announced that the dam had been repaired and the valley had been
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 64 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-3
returned to its original 1 in 140 risk of flooding. Unrelated to the dam repair issue,
in the unlikelyevent of a failure of the Howard Hanson Dam very severe flooding
could occur along the Green River. The worst case scenario for flooding is
indicated by the inundation map for failure of the Howard Hanson Dam.
Other Flood Sources
The FEMA-mapped floodplains for Renton include areas along Springbrook Creek
and May Creek, as well as their tributaries and the tributaries of the Green and
Cedar River. These areas have also experienced frequent flooding in the past.
6.2 Flood Hazards and Flood Risk: Within Mapped Floodplains
6.2.1 Overview
Flood prone areas of Renton include the FEMA-mapped floodplains the Cedar
River, Green River, Springbrook Creek, May Creek and their tributaries. The FEMA
floodplain maps delineate the 100-year floodplain boundaries. (The 100-year flood
is the flood with a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.)
Detailed floodplain boundaries are shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Figure 6.1 shows the current FEMA approved mapped floodplains developed in
1995. Renton’s floodplains are currently being reconfigured by FEMA to match
current floodplain information. Figure 6.2 shows the proposed FEMA floodplain
map currently under review. When the floodplains are finalized these maps will be
updated with the official floodplains. Figure 6.2 should not be used for flood
insurance rating until it is approved.
For Renton, the FEMA floodplain maps include the following types of areas:
1. AE: Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding with detailed flood hazard data
including base flood elevations (the elevation of the 100-year flood).
2. A: Unnumbered A-Zones, within 100-year flood plain, but without detailed
flood hazard data (no base flood elevations).
3. X: Areas outside the 1% annual chance floodplain, areas of 1% annual chance
of flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1% annual
chance stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1
square mile, or areas protected from the 1% annual chance flood by levees.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 65 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-4
Figure 6.1 Current FEMA-Mapped Floodplains in Renton
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 66 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-5
Figure 6.2 Proposed FEMA-Mapped Floodplains in Renton
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 67 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-6
The FEMA Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Renton
include a large number of acronyms. A good summary of the terms used in flood
hazard mapping is available on the FEMA website at:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/floodplain/nfip_sg_appendix_d.pdf
6.2.2 Flood Hazard Data
For mapped floodplain areas, the flood hazard data included in the Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) allowed quantitative calculation of the frequency and
severity of flooding for any property within the floodplain.
Table 6.1
Flood Hazard Data
Cedar River: Renton USGS Gauge
Vicinity of the Bronson Way North Bridge (RM 1.6) NAVD 88 Datum
Flood Frequency
(years)
Discharge
(cfs)
Elevation
(feet)
10 5,940 34
50 9,860 36
100 12,000 38
500 18,400 40
The stream discharge data shown above for the Cedar River is from the April 2006
Flood Insurance Mapping Study of the Cedar River (Lake Washington to Renton
City Limits) for the City of Renton. Stream discharge refers to the volume of water
flowing down the river and is typically measured in cfs.
The flood elevation data is from the Cedar River – Main Channel Flood Profile
Figure 2 of the Flood Insurance Study. Flood elevation data varies with location
along the reach of the river and thus separate flood elevation data points must be
read from the graph at each location along the river. The data shown above is for
approximately 1.6 miles above the mouth of the Cedar River immediately
downstream of the Bronson Way N Bridge over the Cedar River at USGS gauge site
number 12119000.
Quantitative flood hazard data is very important for mitigation planning purposes
because it allows for quantitative determination of the frequency and severity
(i.e., depth) of flooding for any building or other facility (e.g., road or water
treatment plant) for which elevation data exist. Such quantitative flood hazard
data also facilitates detailed economic analysis (benefit-cost analysis) of mitigation
projects to reduce the level of flood risk for a particular building or facility.
For a given neighborhood, the level of flood risk varies dramatically with the first
floor elevation of each house. If the building’s first floor elevation is below the
100-year flood elevation, the building could experience flooding above the first
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 68 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-7
floor more frequently. However, a building with a first floor elevation above the
100-year flood elevation has a less than 1% chance of being flooded in any given
year.
6.2.3 Caveats for the Renton Flood Insurance Study
The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Renton is quite recent (2006). Over time, flood
hazards may change because of increasing development upstream, changes in
stream channels, improvements (or degradation) of flood protection measures
over time and so on. Simply because an FIS is old does not mean that it is
outdated or inaccurate. However, the older a study is, the more likely it is that
channel or watershed conditions have changed over time.
Another caveat is that flood studies are inevitably less than perfect, due to
incomplete data and modeling uncertainties. Thus, in some cases, mapped
floodplain boundaries may underestimate or overestimate the actual level of
flood risk at a given location.
6.2.4 Interpreting Flood Hazard Data for Mapped Floodplains
The level of flood hazard, or the frequency and severity of flooding, is not
determined simply by whether the footprint of a given structure is or is not within
the 100-year floodplain. A common error is to assume that structures within the
100-year floodplain are at risk of flooding while structures outside of the 100-year
floodplain are not. This simplistic view is simply not true. Some importance
guidance for interpreting flood hazards is given below.
A. Being in the 100-year floodplain does not mean that floods happen
once every 100 years. A 100-year flood simply means that the
probability of a flood at the 100-year level or greater has a 1% chance
of happening in any given year.
B. Within or near the 100-year floodplain, the key determinant of flood
hazard for a building or other facility is the relationship of the elevation
of the structure or facility to the flood elevations for various flood
events. Thus, for example, homes with first floor elevations below or
near the 10-year flood elevation have drastically higher levels of flood
hazard than other homes with first floor elevations near the 50-year,
100-year, or higher elevations.
C. Flooding happens outside of the mapped 100-year floodplain.
a. The 100-year flood is by no means the worst flood possible. Floods
greater than the 100-year flood will affect many areas outside of
the mapped 100-year floodplain.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 69 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-8
b. Areas protected by levees may flood if the levees fail.
c. Many flood prone areas flood because of local storm water
drainage conditions (see Section 6.3 below) and have nothing to do
with the 100-year floodplain boundaries.
6.3 Flood Hazards and Flood Risk: Outside of Mapped Floodplains
This section applies to the portions of Renton that are outside of FEMA-mapped
floodplains.
Many areas of the United States outside of mapped floodplains are subject to
repetitive, damaging floods from local storm water drainage. Nationwide, more
than 25% of flood damage occurs outside of FEMA-mapped floodplains.
In most cities, storm water drainage systems are designed to handle small to
moderate size rainfall events. Older Storm water systems were designed to handle
10-year flood events, and are rarely designed to handle greater amounts of
rainfall. The current design standards require storm water drainage systems to be
designed for a 25-year event with consideration for how the system functions
during a 100-year event, but flooding could still occur during flood events greater
than a 25-year event. New development and other land use changes result in
increased runoff that could cause the capacity of existing storm drainage systems
to be exceeded and result in flooding.
For local rainfall events that exceed the collection and conveyance capacities of
the storm water drainage system, some level of flooding occurs. In many cases,
local storm water drainage systems are designed to allow minor street flooding to
carry off storm waters that exceed the capacity of the system. In larger rainfall
events, flooding may extend beyond streets to include yards. In major rainfall
events, local flooding can flood buildings. In extreme cases, local storm water
drainage flooding can result in several feet of water in buildings, with
correspondingly high damage levels.
Other portions of Renton outside of the mapped floodplains are also at relatively
high risk from over bank flooding from streams too small to be mapped by FEMA.
The following is a list of some of the flooding locations due to insufficient storm
drainage system conveyance capacity:
• NE Fifth Place and Edmonds Avenue NE
• Lake Avenue S. and Rainier Avenue S.
• Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 41st Street - Springbrook Creek Culvert
• N Eighth Street and Garden Avenue N.
• May Creek Culvert Removal at NE 31st Street
• Hardie Avenue SW Railroad Underpass
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 70 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-9
• Monroe Avenue NE and NE Fourth Street
• SW 43rd Street and Lind Avenue SW
• Rainier Avenue S. Railroad Underpass
• East Valley Road between SW 27th Street and SW 41st Street
• NE 43rd Street and Lincoln Avenue NE
6.4 Dam Failure Flooding
The Chester Morse Masonry Dam on the Cedar River could inundate residential,
commercial and industrial areas of Renton should it fail. Likewise, failure of the
Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River would inundate commercial, industrial
and residential areas as well as roads and byways. There are almost no residential
areas in the Green River Valley that would be affected by a failure of the Howard
Hanson Dam.
2009 damages to Howard Hanson Dam heightened concerns regarding dam
safety. Although the damages at Howard Hanson Dam have since been repaired
and the dam has been returned to full operating capacity for flood control,
considerable proactive measures were taken in 2009 and 2010, including:
developing and improving inundations maps and evacuation routes, as well as
notifying the public of the increased risk and encouraging them to secure flood
insurance coverage. The City partnered with neighboring cities and the county to
ensure a coordinated message and response in the event of failure. These dam
mitigation action items are included in Table 6.3 Flood Mitigation Action Items at
the end of this chapter.
6.5 Inventory Exposed to Flood Hazards in Renton
6.5.1 Flood Prone Inventory
The total area of floodplain in Renton is approximately 1,125 acres. There is 7.5%
of the City within the floodplain based upon the current effective FEMA floodplain
maps. The total number of parcels in the current FEMA effective floodplain is 574
which includes 534 structures with a total assessed value of $1,274,871,700
including $728,598,400 in improvement value. FEMA is in the process of updating
the floodplain maps for King County including Renton. This update will
significantly increase the amount of area within the FEMA floodplain in Renton in
the Green River Valley area. This is due to the fact that FEMA does not recognize
the Green River levee system as providing 100-year flood level protection, since
the levees are not certified levees.
Figure 6.3 shows Renton’s critical facilities overlaid with areas at risk for flooding.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 71 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-10
Figure 6.3 Critical Facilities Overlaid with Flood Hazards
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 72 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-11
The critical facilities in the mapped floodplain are comprised of:
• Fire Station 14,
• the sewer lift station,
• 4 water production wells,
• 10 water monitoring wells and
• 8 water utility structures.
The floodplain is crossed by high pressure gas lines, sewer lines and the Olympic
pipeline. Roadways in the Renton portion of the Green River Valley, including Lind
Avenue SW, Oakesdale Avenue SW, SW 41st Street, SW 43rd Street and East Valley
Road, would be impacted by flooding.
In the event of Cedar River flooding the critical facilities impacted would be the
Maplewood Golf Course and the multiple City owned trails and facilities along the
river. The following bridges would be subject to damages and road blockages:
Houser, Bronson, Williams, Wells and Logan Avenue.
6.5.2 Flood Insurance Data
FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maintains a nationwide database
of flood insurance policies and repetitive loss properties. The City of Renton has
no properties on FEMA’s national repetitive loss or severe repetitive loss lists.
FEMA records indicate three paid claims in Renton since 1978, for a total of
$21,175.
The City of Renton has participated in FEMA’s Community Rating System since
1992 and currently holds a class 6 rating. There are currently 613 flood insurance
policies in Renton, 71 of which are written for properties in the current floodplain.
The total premium paid in Renton is $497,927, with an average premium of $783.
The average premium would be approximately $1,100 without Renton’s class 6
CRS rating. The City’s Class 6 rating is due to the adoption of floodplain
development regulations that exceed the minimum NFIP standards, such as
elevating structures to be 1-foot above the base flood elevation and requiring
compensatory flood storage for filling in the floodplain. The City also gets credits
for other programs that reduce flood risks and control runoff that are managed
through the Surface Water Utility and other departments. The other programs
include the Surface Water Utility storm system maintenance program, public
education and outreach; floodplain mapping and critical area mapping; and open
space acquisition of areas within the floodplain.
NFIP insured properties are often given high priority for flood mitigation actions
such as elevation or acquisitions (which are always voluntary and at the owner’s
discretion).
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 73 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-12
Table 6.2 below details further NFIP information.
Table 6.2
NFIP Information for Renton
Regular Entry
Date
Current Map
Date
Last CAV Date Total Policies in
Force
Total Insurance in
Force
5/5/1981 5/16/1995 4/7/2010 613 $202,060,800
6.5.3 Flood Damage Estimates
To quantify the level of flood hazard for properties in the FEMA floodplain, it is
necessary to determine the elevations of these structures. Only by determining
the first floor elevation of each of these flood prone structures can the level of
flood hazard be calculated accurately. Acquiring such elevation data is
recommended as a high priority. Similarly, acquiring elevation data for additional
structures within the 500-year flood plain as well as in other flood-prone areas
outside of mapped floodplains would greatly increase the accuracy of hazard,
inventory and vulnerability assessments.
The most accurate structure elevations (first floor elevations) are those
determined accurately by surveying. Flood insurance certificates generally include
survey elevation data. Absent survey data useful estimates of elevations for
structures can generally be made by reference to elevations of nearby structures
or public infrastructure with surveyed elevation data.
In addition to elevation data, quantifying the level of risk faced by these structures
requires basic data about each structure, including square footage, number of
stories, with or without basement, and information on the type and function of
the structure.
As noted above, some areas of Renton outside of the mapped floodplains are also
subject to relatively high levels of flood risk. To quantify the level of flood risk
posed by these areas, historical data should be compiled to determine frequency
and severity of flooding. Severity of flooding can include estimates of past
damages, if available, and/or simple narratives reporting whether the flooding in a
given area is limited to street flooding, and/or affects yards or buildings as well.
In 1995, prior to the construction of the Lower Cedar River Section 205 Flood
Hazard Reduction project that included dredging and construction of levees and
floodwalls along the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River, the Corps of Engineers
conducted a study of the public and private buildings, infrastructure and economic
impacts to business that would be affected from a 100 year flood event on the
Cedar River. Based upon the 1995 channel conditions and in 1995 dollars,
approximately $8 million in annual damages could have resulted under the
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 74 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-13
“without project” condition. Most of the damages would result on the Renton
Municipal Airport and the Boeing 737 Renton Plant site.
FEMA’s HAZUS regional loss estimation software was used to assess the likely
damages in Renton from a Cedar River 100 year flood event. Summary results
from the HAZUS report are shown below in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3
Scenario Flood Impacts on Renton
Return Period 100
Damages & Other Losses $24.39 million
Sheltering 473 people
Debris Generated 2,261 tons
Scenario Flood
The HAZUS report is available in Appendix 3.
6.6 Common Flood Mitigation Projects
Potential mitigation projects to reduce the potential for future flood losses cover a
wide range of possibilities. For any of the mapped flood sources, it would be
theoretically possible to reduce future flood losses by improving existing levees or
flood walls and/or by adding new levees or floodwalls. Flood losses could also, in
principle, be reduced by adding additional upstream storage (dams or detention
basins). In practice, however, such projects are often very expensive and have a
host of environmental and other regulatory hurdles.
For areas of Renton subject to flooding from storm water drainage, various
improvements to water drainage systems may be desirable. Typical improvements
include upgrades to the size of drainage ditches or storm water drainage pipes as
well as upgrades to pumping capacity (for pumped portions of drainage systems)
or construction of local detention ponds. Making storm system improvements to
reduce flooding and adopting new surface water design standards to better
control the flow of runoff from new development, re-development and
construction sites will help prevent existing flooding problems from getting worse,
avoid new flooding and protect the water quality and habitat in the City.
For critical facilities at low elevations with high flood risk, construction of berms
(raised barriers) or floodwalls to protect the facilities may be desirable. For
residential, commercial or public facilities at high flood risk, elevation of structures
is a mitigation action. For structures at very high flood risk acquisition and
demolition are potential mitigation options. Elevation and acquisition (especially)
are expensive mitigation options that are generally not cost-effective unless the
levels of flood hazard and flood risk are rather high. These mitigation options are
most attractive for structures deep in the flood plain (i.e., with first floors below
the 10-, or 20-, or 30-year flood elevations). For structures outside of mapped
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 75 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-14
floodplains, elevation or acquisition would likely be cost-effective only for
structures with a strong history of major, repetitive flood losses.
For structures near the fringe of the 100-year flood plain, near the 100-year flood
level, or with some history of repetitive flood losses, various small scale flood loss
reduction measures such as elevation of furnaces and utilities may be desirable.
The following table, Table 6.4 Flood Mitigation Items, includes flood mitigation
action items from the Master Action Items Table in Chapter 4.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 76 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-15
Table 6.4
Flood Mitigation Action Items
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
ss
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Flood Mitigation Action Items: Within FEMA-Mapped
Floodplains
Short-Term
#1
Complete an inventory of structures, critical facilities
and important transportation or utility system
components within mapped floodplains, including
elevation data and structure/facility information.
Community Services (for City
facilities), Public Works 1-2 Years X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#1
Identify and implement cost-effective mitigation
measures for high risk structures, with the highest
priority for critical facilities, transportation and utility
components.
Community Services (for City
facilities), Public Works Ongoing X X
Local
Funds,
Capital
Funds,
Grant
Funds
Long-Term
#2
Identify and implement measures and policies to
increase Renton's Community Rating System score to
reduce flood insurance rates.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#3
Continue to be a member of the National Flood
Insurance Program to enable property owners in
Renton to purchase flood insurance from FEMA and
allow the City to receive flood disaster funding to
repair damages due to flooding following a federally
declared disaster.
Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#4
Continue to require new construction of structures in
the floodplain to be constructed in accordance with
FEMA standards and the National Flood Insurance
Program requirements, including requiring
compensatory floodplain storage for filling of the
floodplain.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
7
7
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-16
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Long-Term
#5
Implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measures
identified in the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion
regarding FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program
as required by FEMA.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#6
Continue to enforce, maintain and update the
Renton Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline
Master Program requirements.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#7
Continue to perform maintenance dredging,
maintenance of floodwalls and levees associated
with the Army Corps of Engineers Cedar River
Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X
Local
Funds,
USACE
Long-Term
#8
Continue to implement the Surface Water Utility
programs related to flood hazard management,
which include the Capital Improvement Program,
engineering program, maintenance and operations
program, public education and customer service
programs.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#9
Adopt storm water design standards equivalent to
the Ecology 2005 Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington to better control the
quantity and quality of storm water runoff from new
construction and redevelopment projects and meet
the requirement of the Phase II National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#10
Integrate flood hazard reduction with other
objectives related to water quality protection,
habitat protection and habitat restoration efforts
including complying with the Clean Water Act NPDES
Phase II permit, the Endangered Species Act and the
regional salmon recovery efforts.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
7
8
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-17
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
hi
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Long-Term
#11
Continue to be consistent with the King County Flood
Hazard Reduction Plan.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#12
Continue to participate in the King County Flood
Warning System and the King County Flood Control
Zone District.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#13
Continue to be a member of the FEMA Community
Rating System that enables property owners to
obtain flood insurance at a reduced rate.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#14
Re-evaluate future land use and zoning designations
in FEMA mapped 100-year floodplain areas.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Flood Mitigation Action Items: Outside of FEMA-Mapped Floodplains
Short-Term
#1
Complete an inventory of structures, critical facilities
and important transportation or utility system
components in locations with a history of severe or
repetitive flooding.
Community Services (for City
facilities), Public Works 1-2 Years X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Evaluate and improve notification, evacuation and
response planning for areas within the potential
inundation area for failure of the Hanson Dam.
Fire & Emergency Services, Police,
Public Works 1-Year X X X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#1
For locations with repetitive flooding and significant
damages or road closures, determine and implement
mitigation measures such as upsizing culverts or
storm water drainage capacity.
Public Works, Community Services Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
7
9
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 6-18
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Dam Safety Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Maintain copies of high resolution maps of dam
failure inundation areas and update emergency
response plan, including public notification and
evacuation routes.
Fire & Emergency Services, Police,
Public Works Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Research seismic vulnerability assessments for
Howard Hanson Dam and Chester Morse Dam and
lobby dam owners to make seismic improvements as
necessary.
Fire & Emergency Services Ongoing X X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
8
0
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-1 April 2012
7.0 WINTER STORMS
7.1 Overview
Winter storms affecting Renton are generally characterized by a combination of
heavy rains and high winds throughout the City and surrounding areas, sometimes
with snowfall, especially at higher elevations. Heavy rains can result in localized or
widespread flooding, debris slides and landslides. High winds commonly result in
tree falls which primarily affect the electric power system, but may also affect
roads, buildings and vehicles. Winter storms may also result in significant ice
accumulation, which primarily affect the electric power system and
transportation. This chapter deals primarily with the rain, wind, snow and ice
effects of winter storms. (Larger scale flooding is addressed in Chapter 6.)
The frequency, severity and impacts of other severe weather events, including
severe thunderstorms, hail, lightning strikes and tornadoes are generally negligible
or minor for Renton, compared to winter storm effects. Thusly, these types of
events are not considered further.
Winter storms can affect the area directly with damages in Renton, or indirectly
through damage outside the City that affects transportation and/or utility services
(especially electric power). Historically, Renton has often been subject to both
direct and indirect impacts of winter storms.
The winter storms that affect Renton are typically large cyclonic low pressure
systems moving from the Pacific Ocean that usually affect large areas of
Washington and/or the whole Pacific Northwest. They are not typically local
events affecting small geographic areas in the City.
The three most recent major winter storm events affecting Renton occurred in
December 2008 – January 2009, December 2006 and December 1996 – January
1997.
The 1996-1997 winter storms started with two days of heavy snow and ice, with
over eight inches of snow. Large numbers of tree falls resulted in failures of power
lines and widespread outrages which affected over 120,000 Puget Sound Electric
customers. The second phase of the storm included heavy rain which, combined
with snow melt, resulted in widespread flooding on small streams and major
rivers, including the Cedar River. There were numerous landslides throughout the
Puget Sound area although none occurred in Renton.
The 2006 Windstorm resulted in numerous and prolonged power outages, felled
trees, blocked roads, downed power lines and damaged homes, necessitating the
setup of an emergency shelter for a number of Renton residents.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 81 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-2 April 2012
The December 2008 storm was characterized by several serial snowfall events.
Very little damaged occurred but high overtime and equipment costs were
incurred during snow removal. Some residents were snowbound and experienced
difficulty in getting their basic needs met.
7.2 Rain Hazard Data
Severe winter storms in Renton often include heavy rainfall. The potential impact
of heavy rainfall depends on both the total inches of rain and the intensity of
rainfall (inches per hour or inches per day). In the context of potential flooding,
“rainfall” also includes the rainfall equivalent from snow melt. Flash floods, which
are produced by episodes of intense heavy rains (usually six hours or less), or dam
breaks are rare in Renton (and western Washington) but do represent a potential
meteorological hazard.
Larger drainage basins like the Cedar or Green River typically have longer response
times. The total rainfall amounts (plus snow melt) over several days or more are
what determines the peak level of flooding along large rivers like these. Smaller
rivers and larger streams may reach flooding levels in several hours or up to a day
or two. Smaller, local drainage basins may reach peak flooding rainfall totals over
a period of an hour to a few hours.
Renton annual rainfall data are summarized in Table 7.1 below.
Table 7.1
Renton Rainfall Data
Location
Average Annual
Precipitation
(inches)
Lowest Annual
Precipitation
(inches)
Highest Annual
Precipitation
(inches)
Period of
Record
SEA-TAC 38.09 23.78 (1952) 55.14 (1950)1931-2006
www.wrcc.dri.eduWestern Regional Climate Center website:
Average annual rainfall amounts are moderately high in Renton, about 38 inches
per year. As shown above, there are also substantial variations in annual rainfall
from year to year.
The rainfall data shown in Table 7.1 gives a general overview of the potential for
winter storm flooding in Renton, but whether or not flooding occurs at specific
sites depends heavily on specific local rainfall totals during individual storms and
local drainage conditions. For example, 3" of rain in one area may cause no
damage at all, while 3" of rain in a nearby area may cause road washouts and
flooding of buildings.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 82 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-3 April 2012
For Renton, identification of specific sites subject to localized flooding during
winter storms is based on historical occurrences of repetitive flooding events
during past winter storm events. Most of these sites affect roads rather than
buildings.
A list of some of the most problematic sites for localized flooding in Renton
is given below:
1) 200 Mill Ave. S.: Old City Hall - 51,000sq.ft.
2) Renton Community Center: 1715 Maple Valley Hwy. (Potential Shelter)
36,000sq.ft.
3) Renton Senior Activity Center: 211 Burnett Ave. N., (Potential Shelter)
22,150sq.ft.
4) Carco Theatre: 1717 Maple Valley Hwy., (Potential Shelter) 11,090sq.ft.
5) Monroe Avenue NE and NE Second Street
6) NE Fourth Street Crossings
7) Lincoln Avenue NE Culvert
8) Rainier Avenue Pump Station
9) Puget Drive SE at Rolling Hills Avenue Culverts
7.3 Snow and Ice Hazard Data for Renton
Winter storms can also involve ice and snow in Renton. The most likely impact of
snow and ice events in Renton are road closures limiting access/egress to/from
some areas, especially higher elevations. Winter storms with heavy wet snow or
high winds and ice storms may also result in power outages from downed
transmission lines and/or poles.
Average annual snowfalls in Renton are generally low, shown below in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2
Snowfall Data for Renton (SEA-TAC Data)
Location
Average Annual
Snowfall
(inches)
Lowest Annual
Snowfall (inches)
Highest Annual
Snowfal (inches)
Period of
Record
SEA-TAC 11.80 0.00 (many years) 67.5 (1968-1969)1931-2006
www.wrcc.dri.eduWestern Regional Climate Center website:
Average snowfall in Renton is relatively low, only about 12 inches, with some
years experiencing no snowfall. However, the maximum annual snowfall in Renton
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 83 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-4 April 2012
was 67.5 inches in 1968-1969. In addition, snowfall was 63.6 inches in 1949-50,
with seven other years recording more than 20 inches.
In addition to snow events, Renton is also subject to ice storm and freezing rain
events. However, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) database shows only
one freezing rain event for King County between 1950 and 2006.
Website addresses for NCDC and the state and county storm event databases are:
• www.ncdc.noaa.gov and
• http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms.
Probabilistic ice storm data showing ice thicknesses with return periods from 50
years to 400 years are given in a recent American Lifelines Alliance report:
Extreme Ice Thicknesses from Freezing Rain (2004). The 50-year return ice
thickness map shows about 0.25 inches for Renton. The 400-year ice thicknesses
for Renton are about 0.5 inches. Using ice thickness scaling relationships, ice
thicknesses for 25-year and 10-year ice storms in Renton would be about 0.185
inches and about 0.125 inches, respectively.
For Renton, ice thicknesses in a 50-year or more severe event are high enough to
cause widespread significant damage, especially to trees and utility lines, with the
possibility for widespread power outages. Smaller events would likely result in
minor damages to trees and utility lines with localized power outages.
7.4 Wind Hazard Data
Wind speeds associated with winter storms vary depending on meteorological
conditions, but also vary spatially depending on local topography. For Renton,
given the limited topographic relief, the wind hazard levels are relatively uniform
across the City.
The design wind speed for construction of new buildings in the greater Seattle
area is based on a three second gust of 85 miles per hour, the 50-year return
period wind speed. Typically, three second gusts are roughly 30% higher than the
sustained wind speed.
Using the scaling algorithm used for building design, probabilistic wind hazards for
Renton are shown below in Figure 7.1.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 84 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-5 April 2012
Figure 7.1
Probabilistic Wind Hazard Data for Renton
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
1 10 100 1000 10000
Return Period (years)
3-
S
e
c
o
n
d
G
u
s
t
(
m
p
h
)
7.5 Winter Storm Risk Assessment
Winter rain, snow, ice and wind storms may affect both infrastructure and
buildings. Localized flooding from winter storms commonly affect the
transportation system, especially roads. Severe winter storms may result in
numerous road closures due either to washouts or the depth of water on road
surfaces. Such localized flooding may also affect buildings in the flooded areas.
The most common effect of snow and ice storms are disruption of transportation.
However, more severe events may results in tree falls and damages to above
ground utility lines, with the possibility of widespread power outages.
Wind impacts from winter storms arise primarily from tree falls, which may affect
vehicles and buildings, but whose primary impact is often on utility and power
lines. Wind damages may result in widespread downing of trees or tree limbs with
resulting widespread downing of utility lines. Such tree-fall induced power
outages primarily affect the local electric distribution system, because
transmission system cables are generally less prone to tree fall damage because of
design and tree-trimming maintenance.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 85 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-6 April 2012
Table 7.3
Probable Impacts of Winter Storms on Renton1
Inventory Probable Impacts
Portion of Renton Affected
Entire City may be affected by road closures or loss of electric
power; otherwise direct damages to buildings and infrastructure are
likely to be localized and relatively minor
Buildings Isolated minor damage from tree falls, wind or heavy snow loads; a
few buildings may be affected by localized flood damage
Streets Road closures due to tree falls and flooding; limited impact because
of short detour routes within communities
Roads to/from Renton
Potential closures of some roads and major highways due to snow,
localized flooding and tree falls. Road closures from landslides or
debris flow also likely near Renton.
Electric Power
Loss of electric power may be localized or widespread due to tree
falls on local distribution lines or very widespread if transmission
lines fail.
Other Utilities Generally minor or no impacts on other utilities from winter storms,
except for possible effects of loss of electric power
Casualties Potential for casualties (deaths and injuries) from tree falls or contact
with downed power lines or from traffic accidents.
1 These winter storm impacts include localized flooding and the effects of wind, snow and
ice.
For more quantitative risk assessment of localized flooding and wind damages
arising from winter storms, the best approach is to systematically gather data on
sites where damages occurred repetitively due to localized flooding or wind
damages. By documenting (and mapping using GIS) the sites of repetitive damage
events, along with the type and cost of damages and losses, the most seriously
impacted sites can be clearly identified. Repetitive loss sites with significant
damages would be likely candidates for future mitigation actions.
Based on the location and historical information available, Renton has the
potential to experience a winter storm every year. Records of the impact and
places of repetitive damage have not been kept by the City of Renton to allow for
GIS mapping and further assessment. The development of the Office of
Emergency Management and incorporation of hazard mitigation planning into City
planning will allow for advanced recordkeeping and advanced estimates of winter
storm risks in the next edition of this plan.
7.6 Mitigation of Winter Storm Impacts
Potential mitigation projects for winter storms may address any of the aspects of
such storms, including rain, flood, winds, snow and/or ice.
For winter storm flooding, the mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 6 (Floods)
for flooding due to local storm water drainage systems are exactly the mitigation
measures for the flood aspects of winter storms. Common mitigation projects
include: upgrading storm water drainage systems, construction of detention
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 86 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-7 April 2012
basins and structure-specific mitigation measures (acquisition, elevation and
flood-proofing) for flood-prone buildings. For roads subject to frequent winter
storm flooding, possible mitigation actions include elevation of the road surface
and improved local drainage. For utilities subject to frequent winter storm
flooding, possible mitigation actions include improved local drainage and
elevation or relocation of the vulnerable utility elements to non-flood prone areas
nearby.
For wind effects of winter storms, the most common and effective mitigation
action is to increase tree trimming, because a high percentage of wind damage to
utilities, buildings, vehicles and people arises from tree falls. However, economic,
political and aesthetic realities place limits on tree trimming as a mitigation action.
Future wind storm damage in Renton could be almost eliminated by cutting down
all large trees along roads or in populated areas. Obviously, such an extreme
mitigation measure is neither practical nor desirable.
Effective tree trimming mitigation programs focus on limited areas where tree
falls have a high potential to result in major damages and economic losses. High
priority areas include:
1) Transmission lines providing electric power to the area.
2) Major trunk lines providing the backbone of the electric power distribution
system within the area.
3) Distribution lines for electric power to critical facilities in the area.
4) Specific circumstances where falling of large trees poses an obvious threat to
damage buildings and/or people or close major transportation arteries.
Mitigation measures for snow and ice are limited, although tree trimming efforts,
discussed above under wind, also reduce the impact of snow and ice on trees,
roads, and utility lines. For the most part, dealing with snow and ice storms are
dependent on proper planning, response and recovery actions.
The following table, Table 7.4 Winter Storm Mitigation Action Items, contains
winter storm mitigation action items from the Master Action Item Table in
Chapter 4.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 87 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-8 April 2012
Table 7.4
Winter Storm Mitigation Action Items
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
en
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Winter Storms Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Enhance tree trimming efforts especially for
transmission lines and trunk distribution lines.
PSE, Community Services
(secondary support) Ongoing X X X
PSE,
Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Encourage property owners to trim trees near
service drops to individual customers.
PSE, Community Services
(secondary support) Ongoing X X X X
PSE,
Local
Funds
Long-Term
#1
Ensure that all critical City facilities in Renton have
sufficient backup power and emergency operations
plans to deal with power outages.
Community Services 5 Years X X X
PSE,
Local
Funds
Long-Term#2
Consider upgrading lines and poles to improve
wind/ice loading, undergrounding critical lines, and
adding interconnect switches to allow alternative
feed paths and disconnect switches to minimize
outage areas.
PSE, Community Services
(secondary support) 5 Years X X X
PSE,
Local
Funds
Long-Term
#3
Encourage new developments to include
underground power lines.
Community and Economic
Development ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
8
8
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-1
8.0 EARTHQUAKES
The greater Seattle area, including Renton, is one of the most seismically active areas in
the United States. The area is subject to large earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction
Zone and on several nearby crustal fault systems. The greater Seattle area has
experienced three significant earthquakes in the past 60 years:
• 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, Magnitude 6.8, 1 death, 407 injuries, about $2 billion
in damages.
• 1965 South Puget Sound Earthquake, Magnitude 6.5, 6 deaths, about $100 million
in damages (2006 dollars).
• 1949 South Puget Sound Earthquake, Magnitude 7.1, 8 deaths, about $300 million
in damages (2006 dollars).
Although the above earthquakes caused significant damages, more damaging
earthquakes are possible on the Cascadia Subduction Zone with magnitudes up to 9.0 as
well as on the Seattle Fault which passes directly through highly developed areas.
Before reviewing the levels of seismic hazard and seismic risk in Renton, we first present a
brief earthquake “primer” that reviews some basic earthquake concepts and terms.
8.1 Earthquake Primer
An earthquake is located by its epicenter - the location on the earth’s surface
directly above the point of origin of the earthquake. Ground shaking may not
necessarily be stronger at the epicenter, depending on the geology of the area
and the nature of the waves generated by the seismic rupture.
The magnitude (M) describes the relative size of the earthquake. In the popular
press, an earthquake is still sometimes described in terms of its magnitude on the
Richter scale. Scientists no longer rely on that scale, which does not adequately
define all aspects of earthquake magnitude, but rather quantify it using several
different magnitude measures. The details of those different measures are beyond
the scope of this discussion and will be referred to simply as magnitude.
It is important to recognize that the magnitude scales are not linear, but rather
logarithmic. A M8 earthquake is not twice as powerful as a M4, but rather
thousands of times more powerful. A M7 earthquake releases about 30 times
more energy that a M6, while a M8 releases about 30 times more energy than a
M7 and so on. Thus, M8 earthquakes may release thousands of times more energy
as do moderate earthquakes in the M5 or M6 range.
The public often assumes that the larger the magnitude of an earthquake, the
“worse” the earthquake. Thus, the “big one” is the M8 or M9 earthquake and
smaller earthquakes (M6 or M7) are not. This is true only in very general terms.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 89 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-2
Larger magnitude earthquakes do affect larger geographic areas, with much more
widespread damage than smaller magnitude earthquakes. However, for a given
site, the magnitude of an earthquake is not a good measure of the severity of the
earthquake at that site. The intensity of ground shaking at the site is a better
measure and is dependent upon the magnitude of the earthquake, the depth of
the earthquake, and geological factors at the location of the observer.
Earthquakes at or below M5 are not likely to cause significant widespread
damage. Earthquakes between about M5 and M6 are likely to cause some damage
at the point of greatest intensity, with the extent of damage typically being
relatively minor. Earthquakes of about M6.5 or greater can cause major damage
(e.g., Nisqually), with damage usually concentrated fairly near the epicenter.
Larger earthquakes of M7+ can cause damage over increasingly wider geographic
areas with the potential for very high levels of damage near the epicenter. Great
earthquakes with M8+ can cause major damage over wide geographic areas. For
example, a M8+ on the Cascadia Subduction Zone could affect the entire Pacific
Northwest from British Columbia, through Washington and Oregon, and as far
south as Northern California.
The intensity of ground shaking varies not only as a function of magnitude and
distance but also is affected by soil types. Soft soils may amplify ground motions
and increase the level of damage. Thus, for any given earthquake there will be
contours of varying intensity of ground shaking. The intensity will generally
decrease with distance from the earthquake, but often in an irregular pattern,
reflecting soil conditions (amplification) and possible directionality in the
dispersion of earthquake energy.
There are many measures of the severity or intensity of earthquake ground
motions. A very old, but still sometimes used, scale is the Modified Mercalli
Intensity scale (MMI) a descriptive, qualitative scale that relates severity of ground
motions to types of damage experienced. MMIs range from I to XII.
More useful, modern intensity scales use terms that can be physically measured
with seismometers, such as the acceleration, velocity or displacement
(movement) of the ground. The most common physical measure, and the one
used in the Renton Mitigation Plan, is Peak Ground Acceleration or PGA. PGA is a
measure of the intensity of shaking, relative to the acceleration of gravity (g). For
example, 1.0 g PGA in an earthquake (an extremely strong ground motion) means
that objects accelerate sideways at the same rate as if they had been dropped
from the ceiling. 10% g PGA means that the ground acceleration is 10% that of
gravity and so on.
Damage levels experienced in an earthquake vary with the intensity of ground
shaking and with the seismic capacity of structures. Ground motions of only 1% or
2% g are widely felt by people; hanging plants and lamps swing strongly, but
damage levels, if any, are minimal. Ground motions below about 10% g usually
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 90 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-3
cause only slight damage. Ground motions between about 10% g and 30% g may
cause minor to moderate damage in well-designed buildings, with higher levels of
damage in poorly designed buildings. At this level of ground shaking only
unusually poorly designed buildings would be subject to potential collapse.
Ground motions above 30% g may cause significant damage in well-designed
buildings and very high levels of damage (including collapse) in poorly designed
buildings. Ground motions above about 50% g may cause high levels of damage in
most buildings, even those designed to resist seismic forces.
8.2 Seismic Hazards for Renton
Earthquakes in Washington State, and throughout the world, occur predominantly
because of plate tectonics - the relative movement of plates of oceanic and
continental rocks that make up the rocky surface of the earth. Earthquakes can
also occur because of volcanic activity and other geologic processes.
The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a geologically complex area off the Pacific
Northwest coast from Northern California to British Columbia. In simple terms,
several pieces of oceanic crust (the Juan de Fuca Plate, Gorda Plate and other
smaller pieces) are being subducted (pushed under) the crust of North America.
This subduction process is responsible for most of the earthquakes in the Pacific
Northwest as well as for creating the volcanoes in the Cascades.
There are three source regions for earthquakes that can affect the Renton area:
1) “interface” earthquakes on the boundary between the subducting oceanic
plates and the North American plate,
2) “intraslab” or “intraplate” earthquakes within the subducting oceanic
plates, and
3) “crustal” earthquakes within the North American Plate.
The “interface” earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone may have
magnitudes of 8 or greater, with probable average recurrence intervals of 500 to
800 years. The last major earthquake in this source region occurred January 26,
1700, with an estimated magnitude of 9.0, based on current interpretations of
Japanese tsunami records. Such earthquakes are the great Cascadia Subduction
Zone earthquake events that have received attention in the popular press. These
earthquakes occur offshore from the Pacific Ocean coastline. Ground shaking from
such earthquakes would be very strong near the coast and strong ground shaking
would be felt throughout the greater Seattle area, including Renton.
The “intraslab” earthquakes, which are also called “intraplate” earthquakes, occur
within the subducting oceanic plate. These earthquakes may have magnitudes up
to about 7.5, with probable recurrence intervals of about 500 to 1000 years
(recurrence intervals are poorly determined by current geologic data). These
earthquakes occur quite deep in the earth, about 20 to 30 miles below the surface
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 91 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-4
with epicenters that would likely range from near the Pacific Ocean coast to about
50 or 60 miles inland. The Nisqually earthquake was the most recent earthquake
of this type.
“Crustal” earthquakes within the North American plate are possible on faults that
are mapped as active or potentially active as well as on unmapped (unknown)
faults. The major crustal faults, mapped by the United States Geological Society,
near Renton are shown below.
Figure 8.1
Crustal Seattle Faults in the Greater Area1
1 Scenario for a Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake on the Seattle Fault (2005)
The nearest crustal faults to Renton are the Seattle Fault Zone (SFZ) and the
Tacoma Fault Zone (TFZ) shown on previous page. The SFZ, which runs from
Seattle through Mercer Island to Bellevue, poses the greatest threat to Renton.
The scenario earthquake study referenced above documents the expected levels
of damages and casualties for a M6.7 earthquake on the Seattle Fault. The impacts
for this earthquake scenario include more than 1,600 deaths, 24,000 injuries and
$40 billion in damages. This earthquake would result in damages that greatly
exceed that of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake.
According to the peer-reviewed evidence that forms the basis of the 2008 version
of the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps used below, there is a 14% chance that
in the next 50 years, the entire length of the Cascadia Subduction Zone (Cape
Mendocino to Vancouver Island) will rupture in a magnitude 9 earthquake. Figures
8.2 and 8.3 show the contours of seismic ground motions (in PGA as a percentage
of “g” the acceleration of gravity) with a 10% and 2% chance of being exceeded in
a 50-year time period, respectively. The values shown on the map are for rock
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 92 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-5
sites; ground motions for soil sites will typically be higher.
Figure 8.2
USGS 2008 Seismic Hazard Data
(PGA, %g, with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50
years)
Figure 8.3
USGS 2008 Seismic Hazard Data
(PAG, %g, with a 2% chance of exceedance in
50 years)
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 93 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-6
Work done since 2008 suggests that instead of one magnitude 9 earthquake,
somewhat shorter segments of the subduction zone could rupture in magnitude 8-
8.7 earthquakes. This idea will be considered more thoroughly by the USGS in the
next version of the Hazard Maps, which are updated every 6 years.
For Renton, the 10% and 2% in 50 year PGA values are approximately 30% g and
60% g, respectively. These levels of ground shaking are roughly three to six times
higher than those experienced during the Nisqually earthquake. At these high
levels of shaking, damages in Renton would be tremendously higher than those
experienced in the Nisqually earthquake. Overall, the level of seismic hazard is
very high for Renton.
8.3 Other Aspects of Seismic Hazards in Renton
Most of the damage in earthquakes occurs due to ground shaking affects on
buildings and infrastructure. However, there are several other aspects of
earthquakes that can result in high levels of damage in localized sites: liquefaction,
landslides, dam failures and tsunamis.
8.3.1 Liquefaction, Settlement, Lateral Spreading, Amplification
Liquefaction is a process where loose, wet sediments lose strength during an
earthquake and behave similarly to a liquid. Once a soil liquefies, it will tend to
settle and/or spread laterally. With even very slight slopes, liquefied soils tend to
move sideways downhill (lateral spreading). Settling or lateral spreading can cause
major damage to buildings and to buried infrastructure such as pipes.
Figure 8.4 on the following page shows areas in Renton where soil conditions
suggest high probabilities of liquefaction, settlement, lateral spreading and/or
amplification of earthquake ground motions. These areas of greater earthquake
risk largely follow the main river and stream drainage channels; as these are areas
with loose, wet sediments. Liquefaction does not occur in all areas or in all
earthquakes. However, in larger earthquakes with strong ground shaking for a
long duration shaking, liquefaction is likely in these areas. Settlements of a few
inches or more and lateral spreads of a few inches to several feet are possible.
Even a few inches of settlement or lateral spreading is likely to cause significant to
major damage to affected buildings or infrastructure.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 94 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-7
Figure 8.4
Areas in Renton with Increased Earthquake Risk due to Soil Conditions
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 95 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-8
Figure 8.5 on the following page shows areas of high liquefaction risk overlaid with
critical facilities. The following critical facilities are in areas considered to have
moderate to high risk for liquefaction:
• Fire Stations 11 and 14
• Sartori Education Center
• Renton High School
• St. Anthony’s School
• King County Metro Sewer Treatment Plant
• 7 Water Utility Production Wells
• 99 Water Monitoring Wells
In addition to these, the following critical facilities are in areas of low to moderate
risk of liquefaction: Kennydale Elementary School and one Water Utility
Production Well.
8.3.2 Landslides
Earthquakes can also induce landslides, especially if an earthquake occurs during
the rainy season and soils are saturated with water. The areas prone to
earthquake-induced landslides are largely the same as those areas prone to
landslides in general. Areas of steep slopes with loose rock or soils are most prone
to earthquake-induced landslides. In the Nisqually Quake in 2001, a large landslide
on the Jones Road area temporarily blocked the Cedar River. Because of rapid
reporting by a resident volunteer and the swift action of Public Works staff,
flooding was narrowly averted. This slide also destroyed one single family
residence.
Figure 9.5 in Chapter 9 (Landslides) shows areas of Renton subject to earthquake-
induced (and other) landslides. See Chapter 9 for further discussion of landslides.
8.3.3 Dam Failures
Earthquakes can also cause dam failures in several ways. The most common mode
of earthquake-induced dam failure is slumping or settlement of earth-fill dams
where the fill has not been properly compacted. If the slumping occurs when the
dam is full, then overtopping of the dam with rapid erosion leading to dam failure
is possible. Dam failure is also possible if strong ground motions heavily damage
concrete dams. In a few cases, earthquake induced landslides into reservoirs have
caused dam failures. The Chester Morse Masonry Dam on the Cedar River and the
Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River could potentially be affected by an
earthquake.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 96 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-9
Figure 8.5
Liquefaction Hazards Overlaid with Critical Facilities
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 97 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-10
8.3.4 Tsunamis and Seiches
Tsunamis, which are often incorrectly referred to as “tidal waves,” result from
earthquakes which cause a sudden rise or fall of part of the ocean floor. Such
movements may produce tsunami waves, which have nothing to do with the
ordinary ocean tides. In the open ocean, far from land, in deep water, tsunami
waves may be only a few inches high and thus be virtually undetectable, except by
special monitoring instruments. These waves travel across the ocean at speeds of
several hundred miles per hour. When such waves reach shallow water near the
coastline, they slow down and increase in height.
Tsunamis affecting the Washington coast can be produced from very distant
earthquakes off the coast of Alaska or elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean. For such
tsunamis, the warning time for the Washington coast would be at least several
hours. However, interface earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone can also
produce tsunamis and the warning times would be very short (only a few
minutes). Because of this extremely short warning time, emergency planning and
public education is essential before such an event occurs. Since the City is not
located on the coast it would not be affected directly by tsunamis on the
Washington coast. A tsunami affecting Puget Sound would have little effect on
Lake Washington through the channel connecting the sound and the lake.
A more significant earthquake related phenomenon is “seiches”: waves from
sloshing of inland bodies of waters such as lakes, reservoirs or rivers. In some
cases, seiches have caused damages to shorefront structures and to dams. Areas
of Renton near Lake Washington are subject to damage from seiches in the lake.
The Seattle Office of Emergency Management website notes that a seiche in Lake
Washington from the 1964 Alaska earthquake damaged boats in Lake Washington
and that an 1891 earthquake near Port Angeles caused an eight-foot seiche in the
lake. Boats, dock facilities and near-shore structures are at some risk from seiches.
8.4 Risk Assessment for Scenario Earthquakes
Earthquake damage in Renton from the three significant earthquakes in the
greater Seattle area in the past 60 years has been minor. The low level of damage
in Renton in these earthquakes reflects the locations and magnitudes of the
earthquakes. In any future earthquakes that are larger (i.e., Cascadia Subduction
Zone earthquakes) or closer to Renton (i.e., earthquakes on the Seattle Fault) will
result in damages in Renton far greater than we’ve seen before.
Renton sustained minor damages restricted to masonry structures during the
Nisqually Quake including: City Hall, Carco Theatre, Fire Stations 11 and 16, Public
Works Shops and the Main Library experiencing damages on the exterior
walkways, foundation, interior stacks and suspended ceiling.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 98 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-11
FEMA’s HAZUS regional loss estimation software was used to assess the likely
damages in Renton from a crustal earthquake along the Seattle Fault.
Summary results from HAZUS are shown below in Table 8.1. The Hazus report is
available in Appendix 3.
Table 8.1
Scenario Earthquake Impacts on Renton
Parameter Seattle Fault
Magnitude 6.7
Latitude 47.59
Longitude 122.19
Damages $1,414.90 million
Other Losses $370.88 million
Injuries 769
Deaths 45
Scenario Earthquake
The probable impacts of major earthquakes on Renton vary with the magnitude
and location of the earthquake. However, the following paragraphs summarize
the likely impacts on Renton. For any major earthquake, the levels of damage will
likely be greater in the soft soil, high-hazard areas shown Figure 8.4 compared to
the rest of the City.
Buildings
The vulnerability of buildings depends on the structural system and the extent to
which seismic design was incorporated into the building. Regardless of structural
type, buildings with soft first stories, building on steep slopes and/or in areas
subject to soil failures or landslide generally have higher damage levels. Table 8.2
below is the seismic inventory for the City of Renton buildings. It details year of
construction and code compliance.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 99 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-12
Table 8.2
City of Renton Public and Operational Facilities Seismic Inventory
Facility Year of Construction Code Compliance
City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
1988
Retrofitted in 1998
Zone 4 Compliant
Fire Station 11
211 Mill Ave. S.
1979
Completed in 2010
Zone 4 Compliant
Fire Station 12
1209 Kirkland Ave. NE
2004 Zone 4 Compliant
Fire Station 13
18002 108th Ave. SE
2007 Zone 4 Compliant
Fire Station 14
1900 Lind Ave. SW
1996 Zone 3 Compliant
Fire Station 16
12923 156th Ave. SE
1974 NA
Fire Station 17
14810 SE Petrovisky Rd.
1970 NA
Historical Museum
235 Mill Ave. S.
1939 NA
Renton Community Center
1715 Maple Valley Hwy.
1989 Zone 3 Compliant
Highlands Neighborhood
Center
800 Edmonds Ave. NE
2000 Zone 4 Compliant
North Highlands
Neighborhood Center
3000 NE 16th St.
1942 NA
Main Library
100 Mill Ave. S.
1967 NA
Highlands Library
2902 NE 12th St.
1973 NA
Old City Hall
200 Mill Ave. S.
1968 NA
The Facilities Division recognizes the need to upgrade all city facilities to meet the current code
requirements. The Community Services Department will attempt to complete this by contracting
engineering services to do a seismic survey and recommendation on one site every three years,
provided the budget has been appropriated. The department will also seek grants to meet these
goals.
Most wood frame buildings perform relatively well in earthquakes. Damages to
wood frame buildings will be concentrated in the most vulnerable types, including
older buildings with sill plates not bolted to the foundation or with cripple wall
foundations.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 100 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-13
Other building types likely to experience higher levels of damage include:
• Unreinforced or lightly reinforced masonry buildings,
• Older pre-cast, tilt-up and concrete frame buildings and
• Concrete and steel frame buildings with unreinforced masonry infill walls.
Infrastructure
Utility and transportation infrastructure is also subject to major damage and loss
of service in earthquakes, including:
• Water and wastewater systems – damage to treatment plants and pipe breaks
(especially in soft soil areas). Service outages may be widespread and occur for
a long duration.
• Natural gas systems – pipe breaks (especially in soft soil areas) but typically
fewer than for water or wastewater systems. Service outages may be
widespread and for a long duration.
• Electric power – damage to substation equipment is common. Service outages
may be widespread but typically for a shorter duration than other utility
systems.
• Bridges – damage to older bridges, especially multi-span bridges, may be
extensive with disruption of surface transportation routes.
• Dams, especially older dams designed to lower seismic standards, are subject
to damage or even complete failure in earthquakes. The worst case scenario
includes inundation of downstream areas.
8.5 Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Projects: General Examples
There are a wide variety of possible hazard mitigation projects for earthquakes.
The most common projects include: structural retrofit of buildings, non-structural
bracing and anchoring of equipment and contents, and strengthening of utility
systems, bridges, dams and other infrastructure components.
The seismic hazard (frequency and severity of earthquakes) is high in Renton.
However, the risk (potential for damages and casualties) is not uniformly
distributed throughout Renton. It is instead concentrated in the most vulnerable
buildings and infrastructure.
Structural retrofit of buildings should not focus on typical buildings but rather on
buildings that are most vulnerable to seismic damage. Priorities should include
buildings on soft soil sites, subject to amplification of ground motion and/or
liquefaction, along with critical service facilities such as hospitals, fire and police
stations, emergency shelters and schools.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 101 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-14
Non-structural bracing of equipment and contents is often the most cost-effective
type of seismic mitigation project. Inexpensive bracing and anchoring may protect
expensive and/or critical equipment such as medical diagnostic equipment in
hospitals, computers, and communication equipment for police and fire services
and so on. For utilities, bracing of control equipment, pumps, generators, battery
racks and other critical components can be powerfully effective in reducing the
impact of earthquakes on system performance. Such measures should almost
always be undertaken before considering large-scale structural mitigation
projects.
The strategy for strengthening bridges and other infrastructure follows the same
principles as discussed above for buildings. The targets for mitigation should not
be typical infrastructure but rather specific infrastructure elements that have
been identified as being highly vulnerable and/or are critical links in the lifeline
system. For example, vulnerable overpasses on major highways would have a
much higher priority than overpasses on lightly traveled rural routes.
Earthquake mitigation action items from the Master Mitigation Action Items Table
in Chapter 4 are shown below in Table 8.2 Earthquake Mitigation Action Items.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 102 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 8-15
Table 8.2
Earthquake Mitigation Action Items
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
an
d
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Earthquake Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Evaluate the seismic vulnerability of critical city-
owned buildings, utilities and infrastructure and
establish priorities to retrofit or replace vulnerable
facilities to ensure adequate seismic performance of
critical facilities.
Community Services 1-2 Years X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(EMPG,
HMGP)
Short-Term
#2
Conduct a sidewalk survey of residential, commercial
and industrial buildings in Renton using FEMA's
Rapid Visual Screening to identify especially
vulnerable buildings, raise awareness and encourage
mitigation actions.
Community and Economic
Development 1-2 Years X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(EMPG,
HMGP)
Short-Term
#3
Disseminate FEMA pamphlets to educate
homeowners about structural and non-structural
retrofitting of vulnerable homes and encourage
retrofit.
Community and Economic
Development 1-2 Years X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#1
Ensure that all critical City facilities in Renton have
sufficient backup power and emergency operations
plans to deal with power outages.
Community Services 5 years X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(EMPG,
HMGP,
SHSP,
UASI)
Long-Term
#2
Obtain funding and retrofit important public facilities
with significant seismic vulnerabilities. Community Services 10 years X X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(HMGP)
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
1
0
3
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-1 April 2012
9.0 LANDSLIDES AND DEBRIS FLOWS
9.1 Landslide Overview and Definitions
The term “landslide” refers to a variety of slope instabilities that result in the
downward and outward movement of slope-forming materials, including rocks,
soils and artificial fill. Four types of landslides are distinguished based on the types
of materials involved and the mode of movement. These four types of landslides
are detailed below and illustrated in Figures 9.1 to 9.4.
Rockfalls are abrupt movements of masses of geologic materials (rocks
and soils) that become detached from steep slopes or cliffs. Movement
occurs by free-fall, bouncing and rolling. Falls are strongly influenced by
gravity, weathering, undercutting or erosion.
Rotational Slides are those in which the rupture surface is curved
concavely upwards and the slide movement is rotational about an axis
parallel to the slope. Rotational slides usually have a steep scarp at the
upslope end and a bulging “toe” of the slide material at the bottom.
Roads constructed by cut and fill along the side of a slope are prone to
slumping on the fill side of the road. Rotational slides may creep slowly
or move large distances suddenly.
Translational Slides are those in which the moving material slides
along a more or less flat surface. Translational slides occur on surfaces
of weaknesses, such as faults and bedding planes or at the contact
between firm rock and overlying loose soils. Translational slides may
creep slowly or move large distances suddenly.
Debris Flows (mudflows) are movements in which loose soils, rocks
and organic matter combine with entrained water to form slurries that
flow rapidly downslope.
All of these types of landslides may cause road blockages by dumping debris on
road surfaces or road damages if the road surface itself slides. Utility lines and
pipes are prone to breakage in slide areas. Buildings impacted by slides may suffer
minor damage from small settlements or be completely destroyed by large ground
displacements or burial in slide debris. Landslides may result in casualties
depending on the location, amount and speed of the slide.
There are three main factors that determine susceptibility (potential) for
landslides: slope, soil/rock characteristics and water content.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 104 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-2 April 2012
Figures 9.1 to 9.4
Major Types of Landslides
Figure 9.1 Rockfall Figure 9.2 Rotational Landslide
Figure 9.3 Translational Landslide
Figure 9.4 Debris Flow
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 105 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-3 April 2012
Steeper slopes are more prone to all types of landslides. Loose, weak rock or soil is
more prone to landslides than is more competent rock or dense, firm soils. Finally,
water saturated soils or rock with a high water table are much more prone to
landslides because the water decreases the shear strength of the soil and
increases the probability of sliding.
As noted above, the water content of soils/rock is a major factor in determining
the likelihood of sliding. Most landslides happen during rainy months, when soils
are saturated with water. However, landslides may happen at any time of the
year.
In addition to landslides triggered by a combination of slope stability and water
content, landslides may also be triggered by earthquakes. Areas prone to
seismically triggered landslides are the same as those prone to ordinary (i.e., non-
seismic) landslides. As with ordinary landslides, seismically triggered landslides are
more likely when soils are saturated with water.
Human activity such as road cuts or removal of vegetation may also increase the
potential for landslides at affected locations.
9.2 Landslide Hazard Assessment for Renton
Specific areas with landslide risk include hill slopes along the Cedar River and
Maple Valley Highway in eastern Renton; along the Benson Hills and South Puget
Drive in south Renton, and along the southeastern banks of Lake Washington in
Eastern Renton. There is also a small area of very high landslide risk along Rainier
Drive N. in the vicinity of NW 7th Street.
Most of the landslide hazard areas with the highest risk in Renton are located in
undeveloped areas along the Cedar River. Slides in these areas may result in
temporary dams with subsequent flooding that may affect developed areas
nearby. One such slide event with subsequent flooding occurred along the Cedar
River in east Renton as a results of the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake.
Areas with high landslide potential within Renton are shown in Figure 9.5. The
mapped landslide hazard areas include all slopes of 15o or higher. Figures 9.6 and
9.7 show critical facilities overlaid with areas at risk for landslides or erosion
respectively.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 106 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-4 April 2012
Figure 9.5
Landslide Hazard Areas in Renton
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 107 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-5 April 2012
Figure 9.6
Areas at Risk of Landslide Overlaid with Critical Facilities
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 108 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-6 April 2012
Figure 9.7
Areas at Risk of Erosion Overlaid with Critical Facilities
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 109 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-7 April 2012
In mapping landslide hazards the following criteria were used.
• Very High – All locations of mass wasting and landslide deposits as well as
two previous landslides on public record.
• High – Areas with a slope greater than 40% and areas with slopes between
15 and 40% where the surface soils are underlain by low permeability
geologic units.
• Moderate – Areas with slopes between 15 and 40% where the surface soils
are underlain by permeable geologic units.
• Unclassified – Areas that have not been surveyed.
The total square mileage of all levels of landslide hazard is 3.37, which is .14% of
Renton’s total square mileage. There are 10 structures in very high risk areas,
1,387 structures in the high risk areas, 2,253 structures in moderate risk areas,
and 319 structures in areas of unclassified risk. There are no streets in the very
high risk areas, 18.05 miles of street in the high risk areas, 19.70 miles of street in
the moderate risk areas, and 2.45 miles of street in areas of unclassified risk.
There are no critical facilities in the very high risk areas. There are seven Renton
water system facilities in the high risk areas and three in the moderate risk areas.
The Seattle water line, sewer line, Olympic Pipeline and high pressure gas line all
cross through the high and moderate risk areas.
In mapping erosion risk the following criteria were used.
• Hazard – All surface soils on slopes steeper than 15 %.
There is one Renton water system facility in the erosion hazard areas. The Seattle
water line, sewer line, Olympic Pipeline and high pressure gas line all cross
through the erosion risk areas.
9.3 Landslide Risk Assessment for Renton
Winter storms with intense rainfalls are the most common trigger for landslides in
Renton. Major storms with intense rainfall can result in numerous landslides in
slide-prone areas.
It is difficult to make quantitative predictions of future landslides damages which
depend on the:
1) extent of landslide susceptible areas,
2) inventory of buildings and infrastructure in landslide susceptible areas,
3) severity of winter storm event (inches of rainfall in 24 hours),
4) percentage of landslide susceptible areas that will move and the range of
movements (displacements) likely and
5) vulnerability (amount of damage for various ranges of movement).
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 110 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-8 April 2012
For Renton, however, the most likely impacts of landslides are damages to
buildings, roads and utilities. Severe landslides may also result in injuries or
deaths. Small landslides are likely to affect one building or small number of
buildings and/or a single road location. Larger landslides may affect numerous
buildings and/or roads.
In addition to direct landslide damages within Renton, the City is also subject to
the economic impacts of road closures (e.g., Interstate 5) or utility outages from
landslides outside of City limits.
9.4 Mitigation of Landslide Risk
Mitigation of landslide risks is often quite expensive. Slope stability can be
improved by drainage to reduce pore water pressure, construction of appropriate
retaining walls or other types of geotechnical remediation. In some cases,
buildings can be hardened to reduce damages. An alternative mitigation strategy
for already built buildings or infrastructure with high potential for landslide losses
is to relocate the facilities outside of known slide areas.
Mitigation of landslide risk can also be accomplished by effective land use
planning to minimize development and the location of critical utility lines in slide-
prone areas. Generally, such land use planning requires rather detailed
geotechnical mapping of slide potential so that high hazard areas can be
demarcated without unnecessarily including other areas of low slide potential.
The impacts of slide damage on road systems can also be partially addressed by
identifying areas of high slide potential or of repetitive past slide damages so that
alternative routes for emergency response can be pre-determined.
The following table, Table 9.1 Landslide Mitigation Action Items, includes landslide
mitigation action items from the Master Action Items Table in Chapter 4.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 111 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-9 April 2012
Table 9.1
Landslide Mitigation Action Items
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Landslide Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Complete the inventory of locations where buildings
or infrastructure are subject to landslides.
Community and Economic
Development, Public Works 1-2 Years X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#1
Consider landslide mitigation actions for slides
seriously threatening buildings or infrastructure. Public Works 5 Years X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#2
Limit future development in high landslide potential
areas.
Community and Economic
Development Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
1
1
2
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 10-1
10.0 VOLCANIC HAZARDS
10.1 Overview
The Cascades, which run from British Columbia through Washington and Oregon into
northern California, contain more than a dozen major volcanoes and hundreds of
smaller volcanic features. In the past 200 years, seven of the Cascade volcanoes in the
United States have erupted: Mt. Baker, Glacier Peak, Mt. Rainier, Mt. St. Helens, Mt.
Hood, Mt. Shasta, and Mt. Lassen. During this time period, the most active volcano in
the Cascades has been Mt. St. Helens with about 14 major eruptions and many smaller
eruptions.
Many other volcanoes are deemed active or potentially active. The Smithsonian
Institution’s Global Volcanism Project lists 20 active volcanoes in Oregon and 7 in
Washington. The 7 active volcanoes in Washington are listed below in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1
Active Volcanoes in Washington
Volcano Type Last Eruption
Mt. Baker Stratovolcano 1880
Glacier Peak Stratovolcano 1700 + 100
Mt. Rainier Stratovolcano 1825 (?)
Mt. Adams Stratovolcano 950 AD (?)
Mount St. Helens Stratovolcano 1980 - 2008
West Crater Volcanic Field 5760 BC (?)
Indian Heaven Shield Volcanoes
6250 + 100 BC
A great deal of general background information on volcanoes in the Cascades and on
volcanoes in general, is available on several websites as detailed below in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2
Volcano Websites
Institution Website
United States Geological Survey
(USGS) - general site www.usgs.gov
USGS Cascades Volcano
Observatory http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov
Smithsonian Institution (Global
Volcanism Project)www.volcano.si.edu
Washington State Department of
Natural Resources (see: Geology
and Earth Resources Division)
www.dnr.wa.gov
The numerous volcanoes of the Cascades differ markedly in their geological
characteristics. The largest volcanoes are generally what geologists call composite or
stratovolcanoes. These volcanoes may be active for tens of thousands of years to
hundreds of thousands of years. In some cases, these large volcanoes may have
explosive eruptions such as Mt. St. Helens in 1980, or Crater Lake in Oregon about
6,850 years ago. A more common type of volcano, with more regular activity, is what
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 113 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 10-2
geologists call mafic volcanoes. This type of volcano is typically active for much shorter
time periods, up to a few hundred years, and generally forms small craters or cones.
Mafic volcanoes are not subject to large explosive events.
10.2 Volcanic Hazard Types
In this area, awareness of the potential for volcanic eruptions was greatly increased by
the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. In this eruption, which killed 57 people,
lateral blast effects covered 230 square miles and reached 17 miles northwest of the
crater. Pyroclastic flows covered six square miles and reached five miles north of the
crater while landslides covered 23 square miles. Ash accumulations were about 10
inches at 10 miles downwind, 1 inch at 60 miles downwind and ½ inch at 300 miles
downwind. Lahars (mudflows) affected the north and south forks of the Toutle River,
the Green River and ultimately the Columbia River as far as 70 miles from the volcano.
Damage and reconstruction costs exceeded $1 billion.
Volcanic eruptions often involve several distinct types of hazards to people and
property. Major volcanic hazards include: lava flows, blast effects, pyroclastic flows,
ash flows, lahars and landslides or debris flows. Some of these hazards (e.g., lava
flows) only affect areas very near the volcano. Other hazards may affect areas 10 or 20
miles away from the volcano, while ash falls may affect areas several miles downwind
of the eruption site.
Lava flows are eruptions of molten rock. Lava flows for the major Cascades
volcanoes tend to be thick and viscous, forming cones and thus typically
affecting areas only very near the eruption vent. However, flows from the
smaller mafic volcanoes may be less viscous flows that spread out over
wider areas. Lava flows destroy everything in their path.
Blast effects may occur with violent eruptions. Most volcanic blasts are
largely upwards. However, the Mt. St. Helens blast was lateral, with
impacts 17 miles from the volcano. Similar or larger blast zones are
possible in future eruptions of any of the major Cascades volcanoes.
Pyroclastic flows are high-speed avalanches of hot ash, rock fragments
and gases. Pyroclastic flows can be as hot as 1500 oF and move downslope
at 100 to 150 miles per hour. Pyroclastic flows are extremely deadly for
anyone caught in their path.
Ash falls result when explosive eruptions blast rock fragments into the air.
Such blasts may include tephra (solid and molten rock fragments). The
largest rock fragments (sometimes called “bombs”) generally fall within
two miles of the eruption vent. Smaller ash fragments (less than 0.1”)
typically rise into the area forming a huge eruption column. In very large
eruptions, ash falls may total many feet in depth near the vent and extend
for hundreds or even thousands of miles downwind.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 114 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 10-3
Lahars or mudflows are common during eruptions of volcanoes with heavy
loading of ice and snow. These flows of mud, rock and water can rush
down channels at 20 to 40 miles an hour and can extend for more than 50
miles. For some volcanoes, lahars are a major hazard because highly
populated areas are built on lahar flows from previous eruptions.
Landslides or debris flows are the rapid downslope movement of rocky
material, snow and/or ice. Volcano landslides can range from small
movements of loose debris to massive collapses of the entire summit or
sides of a volcano. Landslides on volcanic slopes may be triggered by
eruptions or by earthquakes or simply by heavy rainfall.
10.3 Volcanic Hazards for Renton
Several of the active volcanoes in Washington are located relatively near Renton,
including Mt. Rainier and Mt. St. Helens. Approximate distances from Renton to four
relatively nearby volcanoes are shown below in Table 10.3.
Table 10.3
Distances from Renton
Volcano Distance
(miles)
Mt. Rainier 48
Mt. St. Helens 89
Mt. Baker 93
Mt. Adams 94
Glacier Peak 68
Among these relatively nearby volcanoes, Mt. St. Helens is the most active. Mt.
Rainier, Mt. Baker and Glacier Peak are definitely active and Mt. Adams is potentially
active.
Renton is approximately 48 miles from Mt. Rainier and about 68 to 94 miles from the
other relatively nearby volcanoes.
The USGS analysis of Volcano Hazards from Mt. Rainier, Washington, was published in
1998 (Open-File Report 98-428). As shown in Figure 10.1, the proximal hazard area is
the area subject to the most intense volcanic hazards including lava flows, tephra
flows, pyroclastic flows, landslides and debris flows and lahars. Fortunately, this high
risk area is predominantly within the national park boundary with very low
population. Lahars are the primary volcanic hazard which extends into populated
areas downslope from Mt. Rainier. The area at risk from lahars extends as least as far
as Tacoma and Auburn.
Renton is outside the geographic areas at high risk from lahars from Mt. Rainier.
However, as shown in Figure 10.2, Renton may be at some risk from extremely large
lahars in the Green River Valley. If so, the return period for such events is likely several
thousand years or longer.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 115 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 10-4
Figure 10.1
Mt. Rainier Volcanic Hazards Map
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 116 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 10-5
Figure 10-2
Mt. Rainier Lahar Map
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 117 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 10-6
For Renton, the most significant volcanic risk is ash fall. In addition to effects from Mt.
Rainier, ash falls from volcanic activity at Mt. St. Helens or any of the other active
volcanoes could also affect Renton. Depending on the volume of volcanic ash ejected
by an eruption and on prevailing wind directions at the time of eruption, various
thicknesses of ash falls may affect Renton. The impacts of ash falls on Renton include:
a) Clean-up and ash removal from roofs, gutters, sidewalks, roads and
vehicles.
b) Clogging of filters on vehicle engines, furnaces, heat pumps, air
conditioners and other engines and mechanical equipment, with
possible damage to the engines or equipment.
c) Possible respiratory problems for at-risk population such as elderly,
young children or others with respiratory problems.
d) Possible impacts on public water supplies drawn from surface waters,
including degradation of water quality (high turbidity) and increased
maintenance requirements at water treatment plants.
e) Possible electric power outages from ash-induced short circuits in
distribution lines, transmission lines and substations.
f) Possible disruptions of air traffic from the Renton Airport, Sea-Tac
Airport and/or other airports in the Pacific Northwest region.
The extent of volcanic hazards for most of Renton appears limited to the possibility of
ash from a Mt. St. Helens’ eruption. Ash falls would likely be very minor with an inch
or less of ash likely. In the 1980 Mt. St. Helens’ eruption, Renton received less than 1”
of ash. Even minor amounts of ash fall can result in the significant impacts noted
above.
The following maps show probabilistic data on ash fall in Washington, taking into
account all of the active volcanoes (USGS Open File Report 9-437, Plate 1, 1999).
Interpolating between the map contours of Figure 10.3, the annual probability of 1
centimeter (about 0.4 inch) or more of volcanic ash is about 1/2000 Renton. In other
words, the return period for such ash falls in Renton is about 2,000 years.
Interpolating between the map contours of Figure 10.4, the annual probability of 10
centimeters (about 4 inches) or more of volcanic ash is about 1/4500 in Renton. So,
the return period for such ash falls in Renton is about 4,500 years.
The low probabilities of significant ash falls (i.e., long return periods) arise because ash
falls in Renton require volcanic eruptions producing ash and wind directions that
deposit ash westward from the volcanoes.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 118 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 10-7
Figure 10.3
Annual Probability of 1 Centimeter (about 0.4 inch) or More of Volcanic Ash
Figure 10.4
Annual Probability of 10 Centimeters (about 4 inches) or More of Volcanic Ash
(same scale as Figure 10.1 above)
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 119 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 10-8
10.4 Mitigation of Volcanic Hazards
Mitigation of volcanic hazards is predominantly in the areas of monitoring volcanic
activity, warnings, evacuation and emergency response. There are few practical
physical measures to mitigate the direct impacts of volcanic activity.
The USGS actively monitors volcanic activity in the Cascades via networks of seismic
sensors (which can detect earthquakes related to magma movements) as well as very
accurate ground surface measurements. The USGS also has a volcanic warning system
with several levels of alert as a potential eruption becomes more likely and more
imminent.
For the Cascades, the USGS volcano warning system has three levels. Level One
(Volcanic Unrest) means anomalous conditions that could be indicative of an eventual
volcanic eruption. Level Two (Volcanic Advisory) means that processes are underway
that have a significant likelihood of culminating in hazardous volcanic activity, but the
evidence does not indicate that a life- or property-threatening event is imminent.
Level Three (Volcano Alert) means that monitoring or evaluation indicate that
precursory events have escalated to the point where a volcanic event with attendant
volcanologic or hydrologic hazards threatening to life and property appears imminent
or is underway.
For most of Renton, which is located well outside of any of the likely direct hazard
zones for any Cascades volcanic events, mitigation for volcanic activity is a low
priority. In the event of a minor ash flow, public warnings directing people (especially
those with respiratory problems) to remain indoors and cleanup are likely the only
responses necessary for most volcanic effects impacting Renton. In addition, water
treatment plants should be evaluated to ensure that they can handle possible high
turbidity events from volcanic ash falls into water supplies.
The following table, Table 10.4, includes the volcanic hazards mitigation action items
from the Master Action Items Table in Chapter 4.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 120 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 10-9
Table 10.4
Volcanic Hazards Mitigation Action Items
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Volcanic Hazards Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Update public emergency notification procedures for
ash fall events. Fire & Emergency Services 1-2 Years X X X X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Update emergency response planning for ash fall
events.
Community Services, Fire &
Emergency Services, Police, Public
Works
1-2 Years X X X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#3
Evaluate capability of water treatment plant to deal
with high turbidity from ash falls and upgrade
treatment facilities and emergency response plans to
deal with ash falls.
Public Works, METRO 1-2 Years X X X X METRO
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
1
2
1
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 11-1
11.0 COAL MINE HAZARDS
11.1 Overview
Coal mining was an important industry in Renton from the 1870s when Renton Coal
Company was organized through the 1930s. Most of the large coal mining operations
were closed in the late 1930s or soon thereafter. Small scale coal mining operations
continued into the 1960s.
There are no active coal mines in Renton. There are four mapped abandoned coal mines
and smaller unmapped mines may also exist. Historical coal mining areas in Renton are
shown in Figure 11.1. Most of the coal mining areas, and all of the high hazard areas, are
located in the vicinity of South Puget Drive, Renton Hill south of Cedar River Park and
east of Benson Drive. There has been significant residential development above or
nearby these coal mining areas and abandoned mines.
11.2 Coal Mine Hazards
When mines in or near developed areas were closed, mine openings were typically
plugged with whatever materials were readily available including: mine waste, land
clearing debris and car bodies. Rarely, if ever, were the coal mines properly sealed with
engineered plugs prior to the 1950s. Given the timing of the closures, nearly all
openings to abandoned coal mines in the Renton area should be considered improperly
sealed.
Abandoned underground coal mines pose four main hazards: subsidence, collapse,
release of gases and release of water.
• Areas above mine workings are subject to gradual subsidence (movement of surface
as it shifts downward), with potential damages to buildings, roads and utility
systems. Subsidence can occur for all underground mines, whether the workings are
deep (>200 feet) or shallow (<200 feet).
• Sudden localized collapses can occur, especially for shallow mine workings. Collapses
may result in major damages as well as injuries or deaths.
• Underground coal mines often release methane and/or carbon dioxide.
o Methane is a colorless, odorless and lighter than air gas that rises through the
ground or through tunnels and shafts. Methane can accumulate in enclosed
spaces and result in fires or explosions if ignited.
o Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless heavier than air gas which descends
downward through mines and may exit from downward sloping tunnels.
Accumulation of carbon dioxide in enclosed spaces may result in asphyxiation.
• For mines that have filled with ground water, failure of plugs may result in
unexpected and sudden outbursts of water in unanticipated locations. Collapses or
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 122 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 11-2
sudden outbursts of water pose life safety risks as well as threats to buildings and
infrastructure.
Failures of abandoned coal mines may occur at any time of year under any conditions.
However, failures are more likely during periods of heavy rainfall as slope stability may
be diminished. Mine failures may also be triggered by landslides or earthquakes.
11.3 Coal Mine Hazards: Risk Assessment
Overall the risk from abandoned coal mines is fairly low. As discussed in the last section,
there is potential for damages and possible life safety impacts from subsidence,
collapse, releases of gases or releases of water. Any such events would most likely be
localized and affect a small geographic area. Larger events affecting several or more
buildings are also possible.
Figure 11.1 shows the mapped coal mine hazards area in Renton. Coal mine hazards
may also exist in other areas of Renton because the identification and mapping of
abandoned coal mines is incomplete.
The definitions of moderate and high coal mine hazard areas are as follows:
• Moderate hazard. Areas where mine workings are deeper than 200 feet (steeply
dipping coal seams) or deeper than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings
(gently dipping seams). These areas may be subject to subsidence.
• High hazard. Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed openings and areas
underlain by mine workings shallower than 200 feet (steeply dipping seams) or
shallower than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings (gently dipping
seams). These areas may be subject subsidence and collapse.
The total square mileage of coal mine hazards in Renton is 1.61, or .07% of the City’s
total square mileage. There are 175 structures in high risk areas, 1,809 structures in
moderate risk areas and 161 structures in unclassified areas. There are .84 miles of
street in high risk areas, 18.99 miles in moderate risk areas and 1.07 miles in areas of
unclassified risk.
Figure 11.2 shows an overlay of the mapped coal mine hazard areas with critical
buildings and infrastructure. The mapped coal mine hazard areas include two water
reservoirs as well as Nelson Middles School and Spring Glen Elementary. The hazard
areas are crossed by the Olympic Pipeline, Seattle water line, and high pressure gas
lines. There are no recorded coal mine failure events for Renton.
11.4 Mitigation Action Items
Mitigation action items for coal mine hazards are summarized below in Table 11.1 Coal
Mine Hazards Mitigation Action Items.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 123 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 11-3
Figure 11.1
Coal Mine Hazard Areas in Renton
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 124 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 11-4
Figure 11.2
Overlay of Critical Facilities with Coal Mine Hazards Areas
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 125 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 11-5
Table 11.1
Coal Mine Hazards Mitigation Action Items
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
Us
e
Coal Mine Hazard Mitigation Action Items
Long-Term
#1
Require geological or geotechnical engineering
studies before permitting new construction in
identified coal mine hazard areas.
Community and Economic
Development Ongoing X X X X Local
Funds
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
1
2
6
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-1
12.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
12.1 Introduction
For mitigation planning, hazardous materials may be defined simply as any
materials that may have negative impacts on human health. Exposure to these
materials may result in injury, sickness or death. The impacts of hazardous
materials may be short-term with negative effects immediately, in seconds,
minutes or hours or they may be long-term with negative effects starting in days,
weeks, or in some cases years after exposure.
Hazardous materials vary widely in their toxicity to humans. Some hazardous
materials are highly toxic and even brief exposures to small amounts may be
dangerous or fatal. Other hazardous materials are much less toxic and negative
effects may occur only after exposure to large amounts over long time periods.
The technical term “toxic,” which is widely used to describe hazardous materials is
simply a synonym for the more common terms “poison” or “poisonous.”
Hazardous chemicals are widely used in heavy industry, manufacturing,
agriculture, mining, the oil and gas industry, forestry, transportation, medical
facilities, and commercial, public and residential buildings. There are literally
hundreds of thousands of chemicals that may be hazardous to human health to
some extent. A typical single family home may contain dozens of potentially
hazardous materials including: fuels, paints, solvents, cleaning chemicals,
pesticides, herbicides, medicines and others.
For mitigation planning purposes, small quantities of slightly or moderately
hazardous materials being used by end users are rarely the focus of interest.
Rather, interest is focused primarily on larger quantities of hazardous materials in
industrial use and on hazardous materials being transported, where the potential
for accidental spills is high. Situations involving extremely hazardous materials or
large quantities of hazardous materials in locations where accidents may result in
significant public health risk are of special concern.
The toxicity of particular hazardous materials is an important measure of the
potential impact of hazardous materials on affected communities for mitigation
planning purposes. Other characteristics of hazardous materials, especially the
quantity of material and the ease of dispersal, may be as important as, or more
important than, toxicity in governing the level of potential threat to a community.
For example, a small quantity of a very toxic solid hazardous material in a research
laboratory poses a much smaller level of risk than a large quantity of a less toxic
gaseous material in an industrial site upwind from a populated area.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 127 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-2
The severity of any hazardous material release incident for an affected community
depends on several factors:
a) the toxicity of the hazardous material,
b) the quantity of the hazardous material released,
c) the dispersal characteristics of the hazardous material,
d) the local conditions such as wind direction and topography, and
e) the efficacy of response and recovery actions.
12.2 Effects of Hazardous Materials on Humans
There are three principal modes of human exposure to hazardous materials:
1. inhalation of gaseous or particulate materials via the respiratory
(breathing) process,
2. ingestion of hazardous materials via contaminated food or water and
3. direct contact with skin or eyes.
Exposure to hazardous materials can result in a wide range of negative health
effects on humans. Hazardous materials are generally classified by their health
effects. The most common classes of hazardous materials are summarized below.
Flammable materials are substances where fire is the primary threat, although
explosions and chemical effects listed below may also occur. Common
examples include gasoline, diesel fuel, and propane.
Explosives are materials where explosion is the primary threat, although fires
and chemical effects listed below may also occur. Common examples include
dynamite and other explosives used in construction or demolition.
Irritants are substances that cause inflammation or chemical burns of the
eyes, nose, throat, lungs, skin or other tissues of the body in which they come
in contact. Examples of irritants are strong acids such as sulfuric or nitric acid.
Asphyxiants are substances that interfere with breathing. Chemical
asphyxiants are substances that prevent the body from using oxygen or
otherwise interfere with the breathing process. Common examples are carbon
monoxide and cyanides. Simple asphyxiants cause injury or death by displacing
the oxygen necessary for life. For example, Nitrogen is a normally harmless gas
that constitutes about 78% of the atmosphere. However, nitrogen release in a
confined space may result in asphyxiation by displacing oxygen.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 128 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-3
Anesthetics and Narcotics are substances which act on the body by depressing
the central nervous system. Symptoms include drowsiness, weakness, fatigue
and loss of coordination, which may lead to unconsciousness, paralysis of the
respiratory system and death. Examples include hydrocarbon and organic
compounds.
Hazardous materials may also have a wide variety of more specialized impacts on
human health. Other types of toxic effects are briefly summarized in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1
Other Types of Hazardous Materials
Type of Hazardous
Material
Effects on Humans
Hepatotoxin Liver damage
Nephrotoxin Kidney damage
Neurotoxin Neurological (nerve) damage
Carcinogen May result in cancer
Mutagen May produce changes in the genetic material of cells
Teratogen May have adverse affects on sperm, ova or fetal tissue
Radioactive materials May result directly in radiation sickness at high exposure
levels or act as carcinogen, mutagen or teratogen
Infectious substances Biological materials such as bacteria or viruses that may
cause illness or death
Much of the information above was summarized from Chapter Six of the
Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures1. The first few chapters of this
handbook contain a concise summary of many of the technical aspects of
hazardous materials. These chapters may be useful to readers seeking a more
technical introduction to the nomenclature and science of hazardous materials.
12.3 Classification System and Emergency Response Protocols
A standardized system is used to classify and identify hazardous materials. The
Emergency Response Guidebook (A Guidebook for First Responders During the
Initial Phase of a Dangerous Goods/Hazardous Material Incident2) is an extremely
useful reference book that outlines the classification system, provides
standardized first response protocols and detailed reference sheets for the most
common classes of hazardous materials.
Hazardous material releases are predominantly accidental results of traffic
accidents, equipment failures or human errors. In rare cases, hazardous material
releases may result from deliberate actions of sabotage or terrorism.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 129 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-4
First responders for hazardous material incidents are generally public safety
personnel (police or fire). The standard protocols for first responders are briefly
summarized below, as garnered from the Emergency Response Guidebook.
The primary guidance for first responders is to:
a) resist rushing in,
b) approach the incident site from upwind, uphill or upstream, and
c) stay clear of all spills, vapors, fumes and smoke.
Upon approaching the incident site, a three-step procedure is recommended:
1. Investigate – from a safe distance try to determine if there is a leak, smoke,
visible fumes or vapors, which direction the wind is blowing, if there are
victims or potential victims, and if those victims can be rescued without
entering the atmosphere.
2. Identify the material – from a safe distance, with binoculars or by a
representative, obtain the name of the material, or the four-digit ID
number from a placard or orange panel.
3. Isolate – using the DOT Emergency Response Guidebook guideline for the
product, create a safe zone around the incident area to keep the public,
non-responders and non-equipped personnel a safe distance away from
the hazard.
Identification of hazardous materials can be accomplished by finding:
a) the four-digit ID number on a placard or orange panel,
b) the four-digit ID number on a shipping document or package, or
c) the name of the material on a placard, shipping document or package.
Once identified by ID number or name material specific information can be
located using the ID number or name index. The procedures and precautions
outlined in the guide for the identified class of material are then carefully
followed. For each class of material, the guides have critical information on
potential hazards, suggested evacuation distances for small and large spills and
recommended emergency response actions to include first aid. For further
technical details see the Emergency Response Guidebook.
The emergency response to hazardous material incidents typically involves first
responders (local fire departments) and then specialized emergency response
teams if the severity of the incident warrants such a response.
First responders are generally public safety staff trained in basic procedures for
the initial response to hazardous materials incidents. The responsibilities of first
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 130 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-5
responders include securing the incident scene and making a preliminary
assessment of the potential severity of the incident and the level of threat, if any,
to persons in and near the hazardous materials incident area. Emergency response
teams are specialized teams, composed primarily of public safety staff, with
higher-level training and more specialized equipment for dealing with hazardous
materials incidents.
Response planning for hazardous materials incidents is often characterized by a
three level response classification. The distinction between Levels I, II, and III
depends on:
a) class of hazardous material,
b) size of container,
c) fire/explosion potential,
d) leak severity and container integrity, and
e) threats to life safety.
Level I Responses are those incidents readily controlled or stabilized by
first responders. The HazMat Emergency Response Team personnel
may provide technical assistance via telephone or on-site assistance,
but full response by an Emergency Response Team is not required.
Level II Responses are those incidents that require response from a
HazMat Emergency Response Team for control or stabilization of the
spill. Depending on the event the response level may be 2-4 personnel,
or even a small response team of 6-8 personnel for identification of the
material and guidance on appropriate response actions.
Level III Responses are those incidents that require special resources,
including one or more full Emergency Response Teams and possibly
other outside agencies for support.
12.4 Statutory and Regulatory Context
Hazardous Materials – General Provisions are covered in Chapter 27 of the
International Fire Code. Additional restrictions and requirements for particular
classes of hazardous materials are referenced in additional chapters.
The manufacture, storage, use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous
materials are subject to a myriad of federal, state, and local regulations. In the
context of mitigation planning and emergency response, we focus on reporting
requirements for chemicals subject to mandatory risk management planning and
extremely hazardous substances subject to additional reporting and planning
requirements.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 131 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-6
Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments was designed to prevent
accidental releases of hazardous substances. The rule establishes a list of
chemicals and threshold quantities that identify facilities subject to subsequent
accident prevention regulations. The listed substances have the greatest potential
to pose the greatest hazard to public health and the environment in the event of
an accidental release.
Hazardous materials may be released to the environment during manufacturing
and other ongoing processes or accidentally. Certain types of businesses are
required to report such releases annually for a specified list of chemicals. There
are additional reporting and planning requirements for materials deemed to be
extremely hazardous.
12.5 Fixed Site Hazardous Materials Locations in Renton
There are over 15 facilities within City limits that have significant hazardous
chemical quantities. These facilities store, transport or use these chemical in a
variety of methods. Any release of these products could trigger a significant
response. A major release could activate the EOC, trigger evacuations and
sheltering plans, and involve more than one department or jurisdiction.
12.6 Hazardous Materials Transport: Truck Shipments, Rail Shipments and Pipelines
Hazardous materials may be transported once or many times during their “life
cycle” of raw materials, manufacturing, incorporation in other products, wholesale
and retail trade, use, waste disposal and recycling. The transport of hazardous
materials may be local, across a state, across the country or internationally.
Shipment of hazardous materials by truck within or near Renton includes
shipments on Interstates 5 and 405, along with shipments on local streets.
The main rail line between Portland and Seattle passes through Tukwila, just west
of Renton. Current average daily train counts are 60 trains per day on the segment
between Auburn and Seattle. Many of these trains contain shipments of
hazardous materials.
There are three types of major fuel pipeline systems in or near Renton.
1) The Williams high pressure natural gas transmission line which runs from
British Columbia, through Washington and Oregon to California.
2) The natural gas distribution systems run by utilities in most cities.
3) The BP/Olympic liquid fuels pipeline that carries most of the gasoline and fuels
used in the region, including jet fuel for Sea-Tac Airport.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 132 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-7
The Williams gas transmission line runs north-south through Issaquah and Renton.
The BP/Olympic liquid fuels pipeline runs directly through Renton. Renton also has
a natural gas distribution system and pumping station within the City operated by
Puget Sound Energy (PSE). PSE also operates a large underground 1.5 million
gallon propane-only storage facility.
The natural gas pipeline systems of local gas utilities, including the Renton system,
almost always follow road and street patterns because of established utility rights
of way and the need to connect with each building served. For areas served by
natural gas, the local street network is essentially identical to the natural gas
distribution pipe network.
The propane storage facility lies in a valley in close proximity to apartments,
homes, office buildings, major power lines and a major transportation corridor. A
significant release could easily reach the I-405 area as well as the commercial
district near Talbot and Grady. The release of even one 40,000 gallon tank is
significant, and there are 36 in-service tanks present. A catastrophic release could
liberate many tanks resulting in a huge dispersal area.
Overall, the safety record of natural gas pipelines is good with relatively few
significant accidents. Natural gas is not toxic (i.e., not poisonous) but it can be an
asphyxiant if it displaces oxygen in an enclosed space. Natural gas burns readily
when ignited, but only when gas concentrations are between 4% and 15% in air. In
its pure state natural gas is both colorless and odorless. The strong odor normally
associated with natural gas is an odorant called mercaptan, deliberately
introduced at low concentrations to serve as a warning of the presence of natural
gas. Mercaptan is generally added to natural gas at the local distribution level by
local gas utilities.
Fires and/or explosions from natural gas leaks in pipelines are rare. In part, the
rarity of fires and/or explosions is due to the fact that natural gas is about one-
third less dense than ordinary air. Leaking natural gas does not accumulate near
the ground or “pond” in low-lying areas (as heavier gases such as liquefied
propane gas or gasoline fumes may do). Instead, leaking natural gas rises rapidly
and is dissipated by dilution in the atmosphere. The fires and/or explosions that
do occur from natural gas leaks are generally in buildings where the confined
space allows leaking gas to accumulate until ignited.
Pipeline breaks due to natural causes may occur due to landslides or earthquakes.
Earthquake induced pipe breaks for natural gas transmission lines are most likely
to occur in areas of soft soils subject to liquefaction and/or lateral spreading which
cause significant pipe displacements. The most likely locations for such breaks
during an earthquake are on slopes of soft ground near where pipelines cross
rivers or streams.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 133 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-8
Smaller pipelines are frequently damaged by digging without calling for a locator
to where the pipeline location. Most breaks of this type occur in local distribution
lines. Pipeline breaks can also be caused by deliberate acts of sabotage or
terrorism. Although pipelines are not symbolic targets with political, historical and
cultural significance, they are potential targets for terrorist actions. Major pipeline
breaks could disrupt gas service over wide areas and result in significant economic
impacts.
Natural gas utilities and local emergency responders are generally well prepared
to deal with natural gas breaks, because such incidents occur relatively frequently
with well-standardized response procedures. Evacuations for natural gas pipeline
ruptures are generally limited to the immediate area of the break.
12.7 Summary and Mitigation Strategies
12.7.1 Planning and Response
Effective mitigation planning and emergency response planning can help reduce
the number or frequency of hazardous materials incidents as well as reduce the
severity of incidents that occur. In combination, these benefits can significantly
reduce the negative impacts of hazardous materials incidents on affected
communities. The general principles of mitigation planning, emergency response
planning (and training) are well standardized and practiced by King County and the
City of Renton.
Perhaps the single most critical factor in enhancing both mitigation planning and
emergency response planning is specific inventory awareness for major hazardous
materials sites within each jurisdiction. Specific inventory awareness means
detailed knowledge of the types, quantities and locations of all sites in a
jurisdiction with significant quantities of hazardous materials. What constitutes a
significant quantity varies depending on the toxicity of the material, the dispersal
characteristics and the nature and population of nearby areas likely to be affected.
The complexity and overload of information for hazardous materials is
compounded by numerous labeling, placarding and classification systems, with
countless cross references to guide numbers, material safety reports and so on.
Because of this vast amount of complex information, effective mitigation planning
and emergency response planning must occur before an incident occurs, not after.
During an incident, the most effective response is impossible to achieve if
emergency personnel are thumbing through databases trying to figure out what
hazardous materials are at a given location and what the appropriate response
precautions and protocols are for the specific materials involved.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 134 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-9
Specific inventory awareness means that for every site with hazardous materials
of sufficient toxicity, dispersal characteristics and quantities to pose a significant
life safety risk to on-site employees and nearby residents must be identified in
advance. Ideally, Renton should have specific inventory awareness of every
significant fixed site in its jurisdiction. Similarly, each jurisdiction should have
specific inventory awareness of the most toxic, most common, large volume
shipments of hazardous materials within and throughout the jurisdiction. For each
hazardous material deemed to pose a significant life safety threat, the necessary
chemical data, response protocols, initial isolation distances, protection distances
for small and large spills, and all other data necessary for safe and effective
response should be compiled and readily available before incidents occur.
12.7.2 Mitigation Measures
Specific inventory awareness is one cornerstone of reducing the potential for
negative impacts from hazardous materials incidents by helping to optimize
emergency and response planning. The other cornerstone is pro-active mitigation
actions to reduce the number and severity of hazardous materials incidents. A
dedicated staff position within the Fire & Emergency Services Department is
responsible for the inspection of facilities that store, handle, transport,
manufacture or use hazardous materials for compliance with International Fire
Code requirements, and to serve as a technical advisor at hazardous material
incidents.
The most common mitigation measures for reducing the potential of damaging
hazardous materials incidents are briefly summarized below.
12.7.2.1 Physical Safety Measures
The tanks, storage containers and transfer systems (valves, pipes etc.) for
hazardous materials are frequently subject to damage in earthquakes, with a
correspondingly high potential for accidental releases. Proper seismic design,
bracing and anchoring of storage systems for hazardous materials can greatly
reduce the potential of accidental releases during earthquakes. Bracing and
anchoring measures for storage containers and transfer systems (e.g., piping) are
often relatively inexpensive, with a large improvement in seismic performance.
For small quantities of materials stored in bottles or jugs on shelving, bracing
shelving and restraining containers so that they do not fall in earthquakes are
particularly important.
Over time the storage containers and other material handling elements for
hazardous materials may change many times. In some cases, later modifications
may not be designed to the same seismic standards as the original installation or
later modifications may compromise the seismic stability of the original
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 135 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-10
installation. Therefore, periodic review and inspections of seismic design, bracing
and anchoring are highly recommended for all hazardous material facilities.
For facilities located in mapped flood plains or other areas subject to floodwaters
there are two important physical safety measures. First, any containers subject to
floating should be properly restrained. In many floods, improperly restrained
tanks break free and float downstream, with high potential for negative impacts
including fires and accidental releases of hazardous materials. Second, special
precautions should be taken with water-reactive materials. Such materials should
never be stored in low-elevation areas subject to flooding or in locations subject
to water from storm water drainage or plumbing failures in a facility.
12.7.2.2 Standard Operating Procedures
Standard operating procedures for storing, transporting and handling hazardous
materials should be strictly enforced at all facilities. Appropriate training for all
staff, with review courses and appropriate protective gear is essential for safety.
Rigorous inspection and enforcement of hazardous materials regulations (federal,
state and local) are an important part of the overall process of ensuring safety.
12.7.2.3 Mitigation and Emergency Response Planning
Effective pre-event mitigation planning and emergency response planning can
help reduce the severity of hazardous material incidents. From the mitigation
planning perspective, specific inventory awareness of the types and quantities of
hazardous materials present at each facility is particularly important. Local fire
departments and other responders should be thoroughly familiar with the specific
inventory at each facility containing hazardous materials and with the appropriate
response protocols for each hazardous material. First responders and emergency
response teams must both have the full range of protective gear and equipment
necessary for their respective roles in responding to hazardous materials
incidents.
Emergency response planning should include thorough training in all aspects of
hazardous materials response, including appropriate response protocols
(procedures, protective gear and equipment). Frequent refresher training and
frequent exercises (both tabletop and full field exercises) are essential for safe and
effective emergency response. Training exercise should include both first
responders and emergency response teams, to help ensure appropriate
coordination of efforts during actual hazardous materials incidents.
The following table, Table 12.2, contains hazardous materials mitigation action
items from the Master Action Items Table in Chapter 4.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 136 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-11
Table 12.2
Hazardous Materials Mitigation Action Items
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Hazmat Incident Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Ensure that first responders have readily available
site-specific knowledge of hazardous chemical
inventories in Renton.
Fire & Emergency Services 1 year X X X Local
Funds
Short-Term
#2
Enhance emergency planning, emergency response
training and equipment to address hazardous
materials incidents.
Fire & Emergency Services, Police,
Public Works Ongoing X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(SHSP,
UASI)
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
1
3
7
o
f
4
4
9
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 12-12
References
1. Handbook of Chemical Analysis Procedures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Transportation, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1988.
2. 2008 Emergency Response Guidebook (A Guidebook for First Responders During the Initial
Phase of a Dangerous Goods/Hazardous Material Incident), developed jointly by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Transport Canada, and the Secretariat of Transport and
Communications of Mexico, 2008.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 138 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 13-1 April 2012
13.0 TERRORISM
13.1 Overview
For mitigation planning, terrorism is broadly inclusive of a wide range of deliberate
malevolent acts intended to damage buildings, infrastructure or to result in deaths and
injuries. The probability of international terrorist organizations targeting Renton, is not
zero, but is low. Renton is certainly subject to deliberate malevolent acts from many
sources including vandals, mentally disturbed individuals, domestic terrorist groups (e.g.,
eco-terrorists), disgruntled residents and past or present employees.
The range of possible malevolent actions includes vandalism, arson, explosions and armed
attacks as well as the use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials.
Chemical attacks include deliberate release of on-site chemicals as well as deliberate
dispersal of transported hazardous materials. Biological attacks include deliberate
dispersal of biologically active materials (e.g., anthrax) capable of causing sickness or
death. Radiological attacks include deliberate dispersal of radioactive materials, via dirty
bombs (conventional explosives laced with radioactive materials) or other methods.
Nuclear attacks include explosion of nuclear devices and the radioactive fallout from such
explosions.
The range of possible malevolent actions also includes cyber-terrorism or deliberate
disruption/damage of computer systems and data. Especially for utility systems, cyber-
terrorism can also result in loss of service due to disruption/damage to automated
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems widely used by utilities.
13.2 Threat Spectrum
For purposes of mitigation planning we will consider three sources of terrorist
(malevolent) actions: outsiders, insiders and hackers. In each case we consider three
levels of attack. The levels reflect the number of individuals involved, the level of technical
knowledge or expertise and the level of equipment or tools available. This threat
spectrum is summarized below in Table 13.1.
In Table 13.1, outsiders refers to anyone who is not an employee of the facility under
potential terrorist attack. Outsiders could be vandals, disturbed individuals or members of
domestic or international organized groups. For Renton, the most likely terrorist or
malevolent acts are minor vandalism or actions by disturbed individuals. Deliberate
terrorist actions are most likely from domestic groups, including eco-terrorists and are
unlikely to be from international organizations.
In Table 13.1, insiders refers to anyone who is an employee of the target under potential
attack. Acts of vandalism, theft and other relatively minor actions are common. Larger
scale malevolent acts are less common but still occur with some frequency. Such acts
include larger scale damage, arson, explosives and contamination of water supplies.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 139 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 13-2 April 2012
In Table 13.1, computer hackers refers to individuals or groups using remote access to
explore, vandalize or destroy websites, computer databases and such. For utility systems,
hackers can also impact SCADA systems and may affect system operations directly.
Table 13.1
Threat Spectrum for Terrorist Actions
Adversary Number of
Adversaries Level of Knowledge Equipment
Tools Weapons Objectives
Outsider: high level 1 to small group
Extensive knowledge of
security systems,
facilities and modes of
attack
hand tools,
power tools,
vehicles
handguns or automatic
weapons, incendiary devices,
explosives, contaminants
Extensive damage to critical
facilities, widespread
damage or casualties
Outsider: medium level 1 to 3
Limited knowledge of
security systems,
facilities and modes of
attack
hand tools,
power tools,
vehicle
handguns, incendiary devices,
explosives, contaminants Damage or casualties
Outsider: low level 1 or 2
Minimal knowledge of
security systems,
facilities and modes of
attack
hand tools None Vandalism, damage or
casualties
Insider: high level 1
Extensive knowledge of
security systems,
facilities, operations,
policies and procedures
On site tools,
chemicals,
equipment,
vehicles
handguns or automatic
weapons, incendiary devices,
explosives, contaminants
Damage or casualties
Insider: medium level 1
Moderate knowledge of
security systems,
facilities, operations,
policies and procedures
On site tools,
chemicals,
equipment,
vehicles
handguns, incendiary devices,
explosives, contaminants Damage or casualties
Insider: low level 1
Limited knowledge of
security systems,
facilities, operations,
policies and procedures
On site tools,
chemicals,
equipment,
vehicles
handgun or none Vandalism, damage or
casualties
Hacker: high level 1 to small group
Full knowledge of IT
infrastructure, security
systems, SCADA
systems
Sophisticated
hacker tools
and methods
N/A
Destruction of data and
systems, business
operations
Hacker: medium level 1 or 2
Moderate knowledge of
IT infrastructure, security
systems, SCADA
systems
Moderately
sophisticated
hacker tools
and methods
N/A
Denial of servcie or
disruption of some business
services
Hacker: low level 1
Limited knowledge of IT
infrastructure, security
systems, SCADA
systems
N/A N/A
Minor cyber-vandalism to
non-critical business areas
The probable impacts of terrorist events on the City of Renton are summarized below in
Table 13.2. For Renton, the most likely terrorist events are very small scale events
(vandalism or minor damage events by insiders, local outsiders or computer hacking
events) rather than major terrorist actions by outsiders.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 140 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 13-3 April 2012
Table 13.2
Probable Impacts of Terrorist Incidents on the City of Renton
Inventory Probable Impacts
Portion of Renton affected Localized impacts for minor incidents, large portions or the entire City for
extremely unlikely major incidents.
Buildings Localized impacts to a single building or a few nearby buildings, except
for extremely unlikely major incidents.
Streets within Renton Some incidents may include temporary street closures.
Roads to/from Renton Some incidents may include temporary road closures.
Electric power Some incidents may include temporary loss of electric power in localized
parts of Renton or for the entire City.
Other Utilities
Some incidents may include temporary loss of utilities in localized parts of
Renton or for the entire City. Major damage to water or wastewater
treatment plant could result in full or partial loss of service for extended
time periods.
Casualties Major events may result in significant casualties (deaths and injuries).
13.3 Mitigation Actions
Evaluation of the threat of terrorist or other malevolent actions generally includes several
steps:
1) determine critical facilities and other risk targets,
2) identify the specific adverse consequences to be avoided,
3) review the likelihood of malevolent actions,
4) evaluate existing countermeasures and
5) implement a prioritized risk reduction plan.
Critical facilities in Renton include key elements of the water system, electric power
substations, other facilities with hazardous materials (cf. Chapter 12) and important public
facilities such as police and fire stations.
Important non-municipal facilities include the Boeing facilities and the major regional
wastewater, natural gas and liquid fuels lines which pass through or near Renton.
The most likely adverse consequences are vandalism and minor destructive actions by
outsiders, insiders or hackers. The evaluation of existing countermeasures should include:
1) Physical security measures - fencing, locks and key control, structural integrity of
critical assets, detection capabilities such as intrusion detection systems, alarms,
operational alarms for utility systems and general security/access.
2) Cyber security measures - protection measures for business/operational computer
systems and SCADA systems, fire walls, security policies and protocols, vendor
access, system diagnostics, etc.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 141 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 13-4 April 2012
3) Security procedures and policies - personnel security, physical security, key and
badge control, system control and operational data, chemical and other vendor
deliveries, and security and emergency response training, exercises and drills.
For Renton, vigilance and modest upgrades to existing physical security, cyber security
and security procedures and policies are probably all that are reasonably required.
The potential impacts of terrorism or other malevolent deliberate actions in Renton can
also be mitigated by improving emergency planning and emergency response capabilities.
For some types of events, such as fires or explosions, the emergency response actions are
self-evident and emergency responders are well trained for dealing with such situations.
Other types of actions such as release of radiological materials, bioterrorism, or
contamination of water or food supplies may not be immediately recognized. For such
types of actions, close cooperation with public health officials and awareness of the
possibility of deliberate actions are important. Such situations also commonly require
specialized expertise and equipment to detect and identify the radiological, biological or
chemical materials used in an attack. Emergency response plans should be updated and
expanded, as necessary, to include protocols for public notifications and information
about appropriate public responses such as shelter in place or evacuation.
The following table, Table 13.3 Terrorism Mitigation Action Items, contains terrorism
mitigation action items from the Master Action Items Table in Chapter 4.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 142 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan 13-5 April 2012
Table 13.3
Terrorism Mitigation Action Items
Hazard Action Item Coordinating Organizations Timeline
Plan Goals Addressed
Funding
Source
Pu
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Li
f
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
an
d
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
a
n
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Na
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Terrorism Mitigation Action Items
Short-Term
#1
Enhance emergency planning, emergency response
training and equipment to address potential
incidents of terrorism.
Fire & Emergency Services, Police Ongoing X X X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(SHSP,
UASI)
Long-Term
#1
Upgrade physical security detection and response
capability for critical facilities, including water
system.
Community Services, Police Ongoing X X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(SHSP,
UASI)
Long-Term
#2
Evaluate and implement hardening measures for
highly vulnerable critical facilities. Police, Community Services 5 - 10
Years X X X X Local
Funds
Long-Term
#3
Identify and establish secure surveillance cameras
and monitoring at all critical infrastructure.
Police, Community Services, Public
Works 5 Years X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(SHSP,
UASI)
Long-Term
#4
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and
Explosives (CBRNE) Detection and security
devices/elements integrated at critical city
infrastructure.
Police, Community Services 5 Years X X X
Local
Funds,
Grant
Funds
(SHSP,
UASI)
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
1
4
3
o
f
4
4
9
APPENDIX 1
SYNOPSIS OF FEMA GRANT
PROGRAMS
April 2, 2012
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 144 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 A1-1
FEMA FUNDING POSSIBILITIES FOR RENTON
Overview
For public entities, such as the City of Renton, FEMA funding possibilities fall into two
main categories:
• The post-disaster Public Assistance Program which covers not less than 75% of
eligible emergency response and restoration (repair) costs for public entities who
suffer damages in a presidentially-declared disaster. The Public Assistance
Program also may fund mitigation projects for facilities damaged in the declared
event.
• Mitigation grant programs (either pre-disaster or post-disaster) which typically
cover up to 75% of mitigation costs.
FEMA Public Assistance Program
The objective of FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program is to provide assistance to
State, Tribal and local governments, and certain types of private nonprofit organizations,
so that communities can quickly respond to and recover from major disasters or
emergencies.
Through the PA Program, FEMA provides supplemental Federal disaster grant assistance
for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the repair, replacement or
restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and the facilities of certain
private non-profit (PNP) organizations. The PA Program also encourages protection of
these damaged facilities from future events by providing assistance for hazard mitigation
measures during the recovery process.
For Renton, PA assistance would be available only for future presidentially-declared
disaster events which resulted in damage to Renton facilities. Further details of FEMA’s
PA programs are available at:
http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/index.shtm
FEMA Mitigation Funding Sources
FEMA has several mitigation grant programs which provide federal funds to supplement
local funds for specified types of mitigation activities. The FEMA grant programs typically
provide 75% funding with a 25% local match required. In very limited cases, FEMA grant
programs may provide 90% or 100% funding.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 145 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 A1-2
The five primary FEMA mitigation grant programs are summarized below:
Grant Program Frequency
Hazard
Mitigation
Planning
Risk
Assessments
Mitigation
Projects Hazards
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Post-Disaster YES YES YES ALL
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Annual YES NO YES ALL
Flood Mitigation Assistance Annual YES NO YES Flood
Repetitive Flood Claims Program Annual NO NO YES Flood
Severe Repetitive Loss Program Annual NO NO YES Flood
These FEMA grant programs have specific eligibility requirements and application
deadlines. All of these grant programs have specific requirements including definitions of
ineligible projects which are excluded from the grant programs. All mitigation projects
(but not planning projects or risk assessments) must be cost-effective, which means that
a benefit-cost analysis using FEMA software and following FEMA guidance must
demonstrate a benefit-cost ratio >1.0.
These grant programs are not entitlement programs, but rather are competitive grant
programs which require strict adherence to the eligibility and application requirements
and robust documentation. Robust documentation is especially critical for the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation grant program which is nationally competitive.
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is initiated within a given state only after a
Presidential Declaration of Disaster; thus, there is no fixed schedule. A given state may
have several declarations in a given year or go several years without any declarations.
Specific application deadlines are established for HMGP funds generated by each disaster
declaration.
The other four mitigation grant programs are annual programs with specific deadlines,
which vary from year to year. For FY 2009 grants, the application deadline for all four
programs was December 19, 2008. For FY 2010 and later years, deadlines are subject to
change, but would likely be similar to the FY 2009 deadline. Please note that, these
applications are reviewed and ranked by Washington State Emergency Management staff
before they go to FEMA for review. Washington State deadlines are typically about six
weeks before the FEMA deadlines.
The three flood-only grant programs – Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Repetitive
Flood Claims (RFC) and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) – are narrowly defined grant
programs which apply only to properties insured under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). Renton would be eligible for these grants only for properties with NFIP
coverage. For the RFC and SRL programs Renton would be eligible only if the properties
also meet repetitive loss requirements.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 146 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 A1-3
The most likely FEMA funding sources for seismic mitigation projects are the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, as well as the Public
Assistance Program if Renton suffers damage in a future presidentially-declared disaster
event.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
The HMGP is a post-disaster grant program. Funds are generated following a
Presidential Disaster Declaration for a given state, with the amount of funding
being a percentage of total FEMA spending for various other FEMA programs.
FEMA regulations allow HMGP funds to be spent on any mitigation project in the
state, for any hazard, regardless of whether or not an applicant was located in a
declared county for a specific presidentially-declared disaster. Historically,
Washington State Emergency Management has often given priority to the
declared counties and to the hazard (e.g., winter storms) that resulted in the
presidential declaration. However, mitigation projects outside of the declared
counties and for other hazards have also been considered.
HMGP funds are limited to a given state and are competitive only within each
state. Each state manages the HMGP process, including setting state priorities
and selection of projects for funding. FEMA reviews applications only to ensure
that selected projects meet all of FEMA’s eligibility requirements. HMGP is the
most flexible grant program - grants are possible for any natural hazard and may
include hazard mitigation planning and risk assessments as well as physical
mitigation projects. States have wide latitude in setting priorities and may restrict
grant eligibility to specific counties to which the disaster declaration applies
and/or to specific hazards or types of mitigation activities. Washington State
Emergency Management has great influence over HMGP grants within
Washington, subject to the requirement that all grants meet FEMA’s minimum
eligibility requirements. The amount of HMGP funding in a given disaster can
range from less than $100,000 to more than $1 billion for large disasters (e.g.,
Hurricane Katrina).
For Washington, declared disasters are relatively common, often with one or
more declarations in a given year for winter storms, floods or other disasters. The
total amount of HMGP mitigation funds available for mitigation projects (absent a
major hurricane or earthquake) will vary from year to year and disaster event to
disaster event. HMGP mitigation grants do not have pre-set maximums on grant
sizes.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 147 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 A1-4
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program is a broad program which
includes mitigation projects for any natural hazard as well as mitigation planning
grants for the development of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. PDM is a nationally-
competitive annual program. The annual amount of grant funds available has
ranged from approximately $50 million to $250 million. The congressional
appropriation for FY 2009 is about $100 million, although congressional earmarks
have pre-allocated some of the available funds. Funding levels in future years will
depend on congressional appropriations.
PDM grants cover 75% of the costs of mitigation projects up to a maximum federal
share of $3,000,000 per project.
Flood Mitigation Grant Programs
The three flood-only mitigation grant programs have annual appropriations
specific to each state. As noted above, these programs are applicable only to NFIP
insured properties; and for the RFC and SRL programs, only to properties which
also meet the repetitive flood loss criteria.
Each of these programs has their specific guidance, outlined in the Hazard
Mitigation Assistance unified guidance discussed below. However, the overall
grant requirements are similar to those for the HMGP discussed above.
The likelihood of getting a Flood Mitigation Assistance grant in Renton appears
modest. There may be a few homes or other buildings at sufficient flood risk to
have elevation or acquisition projects potentially eligible for FEMA grant funding.
Absent any properties on FEMA’s national repetitive loss list, Renton would not be
eligible for either of FEMA’s repetitive flood loss grant programs.
Mitigation Grant Guidance and Requirements
Detailed program guidance and the specific requirements for each of the five
grant programs discussed above are posted on the FEMA website
(www.fema.gov). The guidance and requirements for the four annual grant
programs have recently been combined into a uniform hazard mitigation guide
(Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program Guidance, June 19, 2008). New uniform
hazard mitigation guidance is expected in mid-2009.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 148 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2012 A1-5
Mitigation Project Grant Applications
All of FEMA’s mitigation grant programs are competitive, either within a given
state or nationally. Successful grant applications must be complete, robust and
very well documented. The key elements for successful mitigation project grant
applications include:
• The benefits of the project are carefully documented using FEMA benefit-
cost software, with all inputs meticulously meeting FEMA’s guidance and
expectations. A benefit-cost analysis that meets FEMA’s requirements is
often the most critical step in determining a mitigation project’s eligibility
and competitiveness for FEMA grants.
• Project locations within high hazard areas.
• For utility mitigation projects, the majority of benefits often accrue from
reductions in the calculated economic impacts (using FEMA standard
methodologies) of the loss of utility services.
• Project facilities which have major vulnerabilities which pose substantial
risk of damages, economic impacts and (especially for seismic projects)
deaths or injuries.
• Mitigation project scope and budget are well documented.
A further eligibility requirement for mitigation project grants is that the local
applicant must have a FEMA approved local hazard mitigation plan. Renton will
continue to be eligible to apply for FEMA mitigation grants, once FEMA approves
this updated Plan.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 149 of 449
APPENDIX 2
PRINCIPLES OF BENEFIT-COST
ANALYSIS
April 2, 2012
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 150 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan A2-1 April 2012
Benefit-cost analysis is the tool that provides answers to a central question for hazard
mitigation projects: “Is it worth it?” If hazard mitigation projects were free, individuals
and communities would undertake mitigation with robust enthusiasm and the risks from
hazards would soon be greatly reduced. Unfortunately, mitigation is not free, but often
rather expensive. For a given situation, it must be determined if the investment in
mitigation is justified? Is the owner (public or private) better off economically to accept
the risk or invest now in mitigation to reduce future damages? Benefit-cost analysis can
help a community answer these difficult questions.
In the complicated real world of mitigation projects, there are many factors which
determine whether or not a mitigation project is worth doing or which of two or more
mitigation projects should have the highest priority. Consider a town which has two flood
prone neighborhoods and each neighborhood desires a mitigation project. The two
neighborhoods have different numbers and values of houses as well as different
frequencies and severity of flooding. The first neighborhood proposes storm water
drainage improvements at a cost of $3.0 million. The second neighborhood wants to
elevate houses at a cost of $3.0 million. Which of these projects should be completed?
Both? One or the Other? Neither? Which project should be completed first if there is
only funding for one? Are there alternative mitigation projects which are more sensible
or more cost-effective than the proposed projects?
In determining whether or not a given mitigation project is worth doing, the level of risk
exposure without mitigation is critical. Whether or not the project is worth doing
depends on the level of risk before mitigation and on the effectiveness of the project in
reducing that risk. For example, if the before mitigation risk is low (a subdivision street
has a few inches of water on the street every couple of years, or a soccer field in a city
park floods every five years or so) the answer is different than if the before mitigation risk
is high (100 or more houses are expected to have flooding above the first floor every 10
years, or a critical facility is expected to be shut down because of flood damages every
five years).
All well-designed mitigation projects reduce risk, but just because a mitigation project
reduces risk does not make it a good project. A $1,000,000 project that avoids an average
of $100 per year in flood damages is not worth doing, while the same project that avoids
an average of $200,000 per year in flood damages is worth doing.
The principles of benefit-cost analysis are briefly summarized here. The benefits of a
hazard mitigation project are the reduction in future damages and losses. To conduct
benefit-cost analysis of a specific mitigation project the risk of damages and losses must
be evaluated twice: before mitigation and after mitigation. The difference between the
two are the benefits.
The benefits of a hazard mitigation project are the future damages and losses avoided
because a mitigation action was implemented.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 151 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan A2-2 April 2012
Because the benefits of a hazard mitigation project accrue in the future, it is impossible to
know exactly what they will be. We do not know when future floods or other natural
hazards will occur or how severe they will be. We do know, however, the probability of
future floods or other natural hazards (if we have appropriate hazard data). The benefits
of mitigation projects must be evaluated probabilistically and expressed as the difference
between annualized damages before and after mitigation.
To illustrate the principles of benefit-cost analysis, we consider a hypothetical single
family home in the town of Acorn, located on the banks of Squirrel Creek. The home is a
one story building; about 1500 square feet on a post foundation, with a replacement
value of $60/square foot (total $90,000). We have flood hazard data for Squirrel Creek
(stream discharge and flood elevation data) as well as elevation data for the first floor of
the house. We can use these figures to calculate the annual probability of flooding in
one-foot increments, as shown below.
Table A2.1
Damages Before Mitigation
Flood Depth
(feet)
Annual Probability
of Flooding
Scenario Damages and
Losses Per Flood Event
Annualized Flood
Damages and Losses
0
0.2050
$6,400
$1,312
1
0.1234
$14,300
$1,765
2
0.0867
$24,500
$2,124
3
0.0223
$28,900
$673
4
0.0098
$32,100
$315
5
0.0036
$36,300
$123
Total Expected Annual (Annualized) Damages and Losses
$6,312
Flood depths shown above in Table A2.1 are in one foot increments of water depth above
the lowest floor elevation. Thus, a “three" foot flood means all floods between two and a
half feet and three and a half feet of water depth above the floor. We note that a “zero"
foot flood has, on average, damages because this flood depth means water plus or minus
six inches of the floor. Even if the flood level is a few inches below the first floor, there
may be damage to flooring and other building elements because of wicking of water.
The scenario (per flood event) damages and losses include expected damages to the
building, content and displacement costs if occupants have to move to temporary
quarters while flood damage is repaired.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 152 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan A2-3 April 2012
The annualized (expected annual) damages and losses are calculated as the product of
the flood probability times the scenario damages. For example, a four foot flood has
slightly less than a 1% chance per year of occurring. If it does occur, we expect about
$32,100 in damages and losses. Four foot floods are therefore expected to cause an
average of about $315 per year in flood damages. Note that the smaller floods, which
cause less damage per flood event, actually cause higher average annual damages
because the probability of smaller floods is so much higher. By combining this data we
are able to determine that the house is expected to average approximately $6,312 per
year in flood damages. This expected annual or “annualized” damage estimate does not
mean that the house has this much damage every year. Rather, in most years there will
be no floods, but over time the cumulative damages and losses from a mix of relatively
frequent smaller floods and less frequent larger floods is calculated to average $6,312 per
year.
Now, let us consider the owner deems this expense as unacceptable and explores
mitigation alternatives to reduce the risk by elevating the house four feet. Table A2.2
below shows the estimated damages after raising the house four feet.
Table A2.2
Damages After Mitigation
Flood Depth
(feet)
Annual Probability
of Flooding
Scenario Damages and
Losses Per Flood Event
Annualized Flood
Damages and Losses
0
0.2050
$0
$0
1
0.1234
$0
$0
2
0.0867
$0
$0
3
0.0223
$0
$0
4
0.0098
$6,400
$63
5
0.0036
$14,300
$49
Total Expected Annual (Annualized) Damages and Losses
$112
By elevating the house four feet, the owner has reduced his expected annual or annualized
damages from $6,312 to $112 (98% reduction) and greatly reduced the probability or
frequency of flooding affecting his house. The annualized benefits are the difference in the
annualized damages and losses before and after mitigation or $6,312 - $112 = $6,200.
Is this mitigation project worth doing? Common sense says yes, because the flood risk
appears high and the annualized damages before mitigation are high ($6,312). To answer
this question more quantitatively, we complete our benefit-cost analysis of this project. One
key factor is the cost of mitigation. A mitigation project that is worth doing at one cost may
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 153 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan A2-4 April 2012
not be worth doing at a higher cost. Let’s assume that the elevation costs $20,000. This
$20,000 cost occurs once, up front, in the year that the elevation project is completed.
The benefits, however, accrue statistically over the lifetime of the mitigation project.
Following FEMA convention, we assume that a residential mitigation project has a useful
lifetime of 30 years. We then compare the present value of the anticipated stream of
benefits over 30 years in the future to the up-front out-of-pocket cost of the mitigation
project. Money (benefits) received in the future has less value than money received
today because of the time value of money. The time value of money is taken into account
with a present value calculation. Simply multiplying the annual benefits times the lifetime
would ignore the time value of money and give an incorrect, spurious result.
A present value calculation depends on the lifetime of the mitigation project and on what
is known as the discount rate. The discount rate may be viewed simply as the interest
rate you might earn on the cost of the project if you didn’t spend the money on the
mitigation project. Let’s assume this mitigation project is to be funded by FEMA, which
uses a 7% discount rate to evaluate hazard mitigation projects. With a 30-year lifetime
and a 7% discount rate, the “present value coefficient” is 12.41. That is, each $1.00 per
year in benefits over the lifetime of the project (30 years) is worth $12.41 now. The
benefit-cost results are detailed in Table A2.3.
Table A2.3
Benefit-Cost Results
Annualized Benefits
$6,200
Present Value Coefficient
12.41
Net Present Value of Future Benefits
$76,942
Mitigation Project Cost
$20,000
Benefit-Cost Ratio
3.85
These results indicate a benefit-cost ratio of 3.85. In FEMA’s terms the mitigation project
is cost-effective and eligible for FEMA funding.
The above discussion of benefit-cost analysis of a flood hazard mitigation project is
intended to illustrate the basic concepts. Very similar principles apply to mitigation
projects for earthquakes or any other natural hazards. For tornado and earthquake
mitigation projects, one of the major benefits is life safety. For the purposes of benefit-
cost analysis, the statistical values for deaths and injuries must be included in the benefit-
cost analysis. The current FEMA statistical value for human life is $5.8 million. Given this
high value, many tornado shelter mitigation projects and many seismic mitigation
projects are deemed cost-effective and eligible for FEMA hazard mitigation grant funding.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 154 of 449
City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan A2-5 April 2012
The role of benefit-cost analysis in prioritizing and implementing mitigation projects in
Renton is addressed in Chapter 5 (Plan Adoption, Maintenance and Implementation).
Although benefit-cost analysis is a powerful tool for helping to evaluate and prioritize
mitigation projects, and a requirement for all FEMA hazard mitigation grants, benefit-cost
analysis should not be considered the sole determinant for mitigation actions. In some
cases, the potential for negative effects from a particular natural hazard may simply be
deemed unacceptable, such as the potential for deaths and injuries, and mitigation may
be undertaken without benefit-cost analysis.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 155 of 449
APPENDIX 3
HAZUS REPORTS
Earthquake – Seattle Fault
Flood – Cedar River (100 year)
April 2, 2012
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 156 of 449
HAZUS-MH: Earthquake Event Report
Region Name:
Earthquake Scenario:
Print Date:
Disclaimer:
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using HAZUS loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique.
Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic
losses following a specific earthquake. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory, geotechnical, and observed ground
motion data.
RentonEQ
Run 1 Seattle Fault Mercer Epi
April 03, 2009
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user’s study region.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 157 of 449
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building and Lifeline Inventory 4
3
Building Inventory
Critical Facility Inventory
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Earthquake Scenario Parameters 6
Direct Earthquake Damage 7
Buildings Damage
Critical Facilities Damage
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Induced Earthquake Damage 11
Fire Following Earthquake
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Casualties
Economic Loss
12
Building Losses
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
Long-term Indirect Economic Impacts
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
13
Page 2 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 158 of 449
HAZUS is a regional earthquake loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of HAZUS is to provide a methodology and software
application to develop earthquake losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state
and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from earthquakes and to prepare for emergency response
and recovery.
The earthquake loss estimates provided in this report was based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the following
state(s):
General Description of the Region
Washington
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region.
The geographical size of the region is 114.11 square miles and contains 41 census tracts. There are over 78 thousand
households in the region and has a total population of 199,627 people (2000 Census Bureau data). The distribution of
population by State and County is provided in Appendix B.
There are an estimated 60 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of
16,252 (millions of dollars). Approximately 97.00 % of the buildings (and 77.00% of the building value) are associated with
residential housing.
The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be 3,843 and 815 (millions of
dollars) , respectively.
Page 3 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 159 of 449
HAZUS estimates that there are 60 thousand buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of
16,252 (millions of dollars) . Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by State and County.
Building and Lifeline Inventory
Building Inventory
In terms of building construction types found in the region, wood frame construction makes up 90% of the building inventory.
The remaining percentage is distributed between the other general building types.
Critical Facility Inventory
HAZUS breaks critical facilities into two (2) groups: essential facilities and high potential loss (HPL) facilities. Essential
facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. High
potential loss facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites.
For essential facilities, there are 1 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 204 beds. There are 80 schools, 2 fire
stations, 5 police stations and 0 emergency operation facilities. With respect to HPL facilities, there are 6 dams identified
within the region. Of these, 2 of the dams are classified as ‘high hazard’. The inventory also includes 112 hazardous
material sites, 0 military installations and 0 nuclear power plants.
Within HAZUS, the lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems. There are seven (7)
transportation systems that include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry and airports. There are six (6) utility
systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude & refined oil, electric power and communications. The
lifeline inventory data are provided in Tables 2 and 3.
The total value of the lifeline inventory is over 4,658.00 (millions of dollars). This inventory includes over 176 kilometers of
highways, 121 bridges, 3,254 kilometers of pipes.
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory
Page 4 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 160 of 449
Table 2: Transportation System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # locations/
# Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Bridges 121 2,930.80 Highway
Segments 40 774.90
Tunnels 1 0.90
3,706.60 Subtotal
Bridges 1 0.10 Railways
Facilities 3 7.20
Segments 29 52.80
Tunnels 0 0.00
60.10 Subtotal
Bridges 0 0.00 Light Rail
Facilities 0 0.00
Segments 0 0.00
Tunnels 0 0.00
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Bus
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 0 0.00 Ferry
0.00 Subtotal
Facilities 1 2.20 Port
2.20 Subtotal
Facilities 1 6.00 Airport
Runways 2 68.40
74.40 Subtotal
Total 3,843.30
Page 5 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 161 of 449
Table 3: Utility System Lifeline Inventory
System Component # Locations /
Segments
Replacement value
(millions of dollars)
Potable Water Distribution Lines 32.50 NA
Facilities 109.90 3
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 142.40
Waste Water Distribution Lines 19.50 NA
Facilities 219.80 3
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 239.30
Natural Gas Distribution Lines 13.00 NA
Facilities 1.20 1
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 14.20
Oil Systems Facilities 0.00 0
Pipelines 0.00 0
Subtotal 0.00
Electrical Power Facilities 484.00 4
Subtotal 484.00
Communication Facilities 0.90 8
Subtotal 0.90
Total 880.80
Page 6 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 162 of 449
Earthquake Scenario
HAZUS uses the following set of information to define the earthquake parameters used for the earthquake loss estimate
provided in this report.
Scenario Name
Latitude of Epicenter
Earthquake Magnitude
Depth (Km)
Attenuation Function
Type of Earthquake
Fault Name
Historical Epicenter ID #
Longitude of Epicenter
Probabilistic Return Period
Rupture Length (Km)
Rupture Orientation (degrees)
Run 1 Seattle Fault Mercer Epi
Arbitrary
NA
25.59
90.00
WUS Shallow Crustal Event - Extensional
10.00
6.70
47.59
-122.19
NA
NA
Page 7 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 163 of 449
Building Damage
HAZUS estimates that about 10,921 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 18.00 % of the total number
of buildings in the region. There are an estimated 366 buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. The definition of the
‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the HAZUS technical manual. Table 4 below summaries the expected
damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 5 summaries the expected damage by general building
type.
Building Damage
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
None Slight
Count (%)Count
Moderate Extensive
(%)Count
Complete
(%)Count Count (%)(%)
Agriculture 18 12 0.40 0.29 0.11 0.06 0.06 1 4 10
Commercial 524 334 15.93 12.03 4.37 1.68 1.77 58 185 394
Education 15 10 0.47 0.35 0.12 0.05 0.05 2 5 11
Government 20 13 0.45 0.42 0.16 0.07 0.07 2 7 14
Industrial 144 85 3.54 2.98 1.14 0.43 0.49 13 46 103
Other Residential 1,496 1,339 40.40 47.72 16.28 6.74 5.06 148 732 1,469
Religion 28 19 0.71 0.57 0.20 0.09 0.09 3 9 18
Single Family 27,334 18,043 38.10 35.64 77.62 90.88 92.41 140 547 7,002
Total 29,580 19,854 9,021 1,535 366
Table 5: Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Design Levels)
Extensive
Count
Complete
(%)Count(%)Count
Moderate
(%)Count
Slight
(%)Count
None
(%)
Wood 27,832 18508 7,051 497 142 94.09 93.22 78.16 32.35 38.69
Steel 189 129 185 81 20 0.64 0.65 2.05 5.31 5.49
Concrete 160 122 132 66 14 0.54 0.61 1.46 4.30 3.83
Precast 154 87 119 62 18 0.52 0.44 1.32 4.03 4.89
RM 792 317 364 149 19 2.68 1.59 4.03 9.69 5.10
URM 29 34 53 42 33 0.10 0.17 0.59 2.76 8.94
MH 424 658 1,117 638 121 1.43 3.31 12.39 41.56 33.06
Total
*Note:
RM Reinforced Masonry
URM Unreinforced Masonry
Manufactured HousingMH
29,580 19,854 9,021 1,535 366
Page 8 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 164 of 449
Essential Facility Damage
Before the earthquake, the region had 204 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model
estimates that only 109 hospital beds (54.00%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by
the earthquake. After one week, 85.00% of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, 99.00% will be operational.
Table 6: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Total
Damage > 50%
At Least Moderate
# Facilities
Complete
Damage > 50%
Classification With Functionality
> 50% on day 1
Hospitals 1 0 0 1
Schools 80 0 0 50
EOCs 0 0 0 0
PoliceStations 5 0 0 2
FireStations 2 0 0 2
Page 9 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 165 of 449
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage
Table 7 provides damage estimates for the transportation system.
Table 7: Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems
Number of Locations
Locations/ With at Least
After Day 7After Day 1
With Functionality > 50 %
Damage
With CompleteSystem Component
Mod. DamageSegments
Highway Segments 40 0 0 40 40
Bridges 121 25 0 96 117
Tunnels 1 0 0 1 1
Railways Segments 29 0 0 29 29
Bridges 1 0 0 1 1
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 3 0 0 3 3
Light Rail Segments 0 0 0 0 0
Bridges 0 0 0 0 0
Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0
Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Bus Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Ferry Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Port Facilities 1 0 0 1 1
Airport Facilities 1 0 0 1 1
Runways 2 0 0 2 2
Tables 8-10 provide information on the damage to the utility lifeline systems. Table 8 provides damage to the utility system
facilities. Table 9 provides estimates on the number of leaks and breaks by the pipelines of the utility systems. For electric
power and potable water, HAZUS performs a simplified system performance analysis. Table 10 provides a summary of the
system performance information.
Note: Roadway segments, railroad tracks and light rail tracks are assumed to be damaged by ground failure only. If ground
failure maps are not provided, damage estimates to these components will not be computed.
Page 10 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 166 of 449
Table 8 : Expected Utility System Facility Damage
With at Least with Functionality > 50 %
After Day 7After Day 1
With Complete
Damage
System
# of Locations
Moderate Damage
Total #
Potable Water 3 0 0 3 3
Waste Water 3 1 0 0 3
Natural Gas 1 0 0 0 1
Oil Systems 0 0 0 0 0
Electrical Power 4 1 0 1 4
Communication 8 6 0 8 8
Table 9 : Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific)
System
Breaks
Number of
Leaks
Number of
Length (kms)
Total Pipelines
Potable Water 1,627 474 118
Waste Water 976 375 94
Natural Gas 651 400 100
Oil 0 0 0
Potable Water
Electric Power
Total # of
Households At Day 3 At Day 7
At Day 30
Number of Households without Service
Table 10: Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance
At Day 90
78,482 20,160 4,715 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
At Day 1
Page 11 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 167 of 449
Fire Following Earthquake
Fires often occur after an earthquake. Because of the number of fires and the lack of water to fight the fires, they can often
burn out of control. HAZUS uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the number of ignitions and the amount of
burnt area. For this scenario, the model estimates that there will be 10 ignitions that will burn about 0.11 sq. mi 0.10 % of
the region’s total area.) The model also estimates that the fires will displace about 249 people and burn about 18 (millions
of dollars) of building value.
Debris Generation
HAZUS estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the earthquake. The model breaks the debris into two
general categories: a) Brick/Wood and b) Reinforced Concrete/Steel. This distinction is made because of the different types
of material handling equipment required to handle the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 0.00 million tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Brick/Wood comprises
0.00% of the total, with the remainder being Reinforced Concrete/Steel. If the debris tonnage is converted to an estimated
number of truckloads, it will require 0 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the earthquake.
Induced Earthquake Damage
Page 12 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 168 of 449
Shelter Requirement
HAZUS estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the earthquake and
the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 1,656
households to be displaced due to the earthquake. Of these, 374 people (out of a total population of 199,627) will seek
temporary shelter in public shelters.
Casualties
HAZUS estimates the number of people that will be injured and killed by the earthquake. The casualties are broken down
into four (4) severity levels that describe the extent of the injuries. The levels are described as follows;
· Severity Level 1: Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed.
· Severity Level 2: Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening
· Severity Level 3: Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not
promptly treated.
· Severity Level 4: Victims are killed by the earthquake.
The casualty estimates are provided for three (3) times of day: 2:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These times represent the
periods of the day that different sectors of the community are at their peak occupancy loads. The 2:00 AM estimate
considers that the residential occupancy load is maximum, the 2:00 PM estimate considers that the educational, commercial
and industrial sector loads are maximum and 5:00 PM represents peak commute time.
Table 11 provides a summary of the casualties estimated for this earthquake
Social Impact
Page 13 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 169 of 449
Table 11: Casualty Estimates
Level 4Level 3Level 2Level 1
9Commercial 2 0 12 AM
0Commuting 0 0 0
0Educational 0 0 0
5Hotels 1 0 0
8Industrial 2 0 1
123Other-Residential 26 3 6
118Single Family 15 1 1
263 47 5 9Total
531Commercial 137 21 422 PM
0Commuting 0 1 0
97Educational 25 4 7
1Hotels 0 0 0
62Industrial 15 2 4
23Other-Residential 5 1 1
21Single Family 3 0 0
735 186 29 55Total
382Commercial 99 15 305 PM
22Commuting 27 48 9
13Educational 3 1 1
1Hotels 0 0 0
39Industrial 9 1 3
46Other-Residential 10 1 2
45Single Family 6 0 1
548 155 66 45Total
Page 14 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 170 of 449
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the earthquake is 1,785.78 (millions of dollars), which includes building and lifeline
related losses based on the region's available inventory. The following three sections provide more detailed information
about these losses.
Building-Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct
building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The
business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained
during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced
from their homes because of the earthquake.
The total building-related losses were 1,414.90 (millions of dollars); 15 % of the estimated losses were related to the
business interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over
54 % of the total loss. Table 12 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
Table 12: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialOther
Residential
Area Single
Family
Category
Income Loses
Wage 0.00 66.28 3.07 2.78 77.88 5.76
Capital-Related 0.00 58.30 1.83 0.67 63.24 2.44
Rental 10.70 35.56 1.20 1.22 69.09 20.41
Relocation 1.23 2.11 0.10 0.38 4.35 0.52
11.94 Subtotal 29.13 162.24 6.20 5.05 214.56
Capital Stock Loses
Structural 65.83 79.88 11.13 4.85 188.67 26.98
Non_Structural 330.04 180.63 34.19 13.56 700.20 141.78
Content 118.14 99.98 32.51 13.48 300.47 36.37
Inventory 0.00 3.90 6.91 0.19 11.00 0.00
514.01 Subtotal 205.12 364.39 84.74 32.08 1,200.34
Total 525.95 234.25 526.63 90.94 37.13 1,414.90
Page 15 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 171 of 449
Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses
For the transportation and utility lifeline systems, HAZUS computes the direct repair cost for each component only. There
are no losses computed by HAZUS for business interruption due to lifeline outages. Tables 13 & 14 provide a detailed
breakdown in the expected lifeline losses.
HAZUS estimates the long-term economic impacts to the region for 15 years after the earthquake. The model quantifies this
information in terms of income and employment changes within the region. Table 15 presents the results of the region for
the given earthquake.
Table 13: Transportation System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
System Loss Ratio (%)Economic LossInventory ValueComponent
Highway Segments 774.90 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 2,930.79 $254.67 8.69
Tunnels 0.89 $0.03 2.91
3706.60 Subtotal 254.70
Railways Segments 52.84 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.09 $0.00 1.28
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Facilities 7.19 $1.61 22.35
60.10 Subtotal 1.60
Light Rail Segments 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00
Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Bus Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Ferry Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00
0.00 Subtotal 0.00
Port Facilities 2.25 $0.62 27.70
2.20 Subtotal 0.60
Airport Facilities 6.00 $1.59 26.58
Runways 68.38 $0.00 0.00
74.40 Subtotal 1.60
3843.30 Total 258.50
Page 16 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 172 of 449
Table 14: Utility System Economic Losses
(Millions of dollars)
Component Inventory Value Economic LossSystem Loss Ratio (%)
Potable Water 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
109.90 Facilities 11.97$13.15
32.50 Distribution Lines 6.55$2.13
142.44 Subtotal $15.28
Waste Water 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
219.80 Facilities 14.92$32.79
19.50 Distribution Lines 8.63$1.69
239.31 Subtotal $34.48
Natural Gas 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
1.20 Facilities 14.16$0.17
13.00 Distribution Lines 13.84$1.80
14.22 Subtotal $1.97
Oil Systems 0.00 Pipelines 0.00$0.00
0.00 Facilities 0.00$0.00
0.00 Subtotal $0.00
Electrical Power 484.00 Facilities 12.49$60.45
484.00 Subtotal $60.45
Communication 0.90 Facilities 20.05$0.18
0.88 Subtotal $0.18
Total 880.84 $112.36
Page 17 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 173 of 449
Table 15. Indirect Economic Impact with outside aid
(Employment as # of people and Income in millions of $)
LOSS Total %
First Year
Employment Impact 516 0.51
Income Impact (9)-0.17
Second Year
Employment Impact 189 0.19
Income Impact (32)-0.60
Third Year
Employment Impact 5 0.00
Income Impact (42)-0.79
Fourth Year
Employment Impact 0 0.00
Income Impact (42)-0.80
Fifth Year
Employment Impact 0 0.00
Income Impact (42)-0.80
Years 6 to 15
Employment Impact 0 0.00
Income Impact (42)-0.80
Page 18 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 174 of 449
King,WA
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Page 19 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 175 of 449
TotalNon-ResidentialResidential
Building Value (millions of dollars)
PopulationCounty NameState
Washington
King 199,627 12,567 3,685 16,252
199,627 12,567 3,685 16,252
Total State
Total Region 199,627 12,567 3,685 16,252
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
Page 20 of 20Earthquake Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 176 of 449
HAZUS-MH: Flood Event Report
Region Name:
Flood Scenario:
Print Date: Friday, April 03, 2009
Renton FLD Cedar
Cedar River
Disclaimer:
Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user's study region.
The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using HAZUS loss estimation methodology software
which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique.
Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic
losses following a specific Flood. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory data and flood hazard information.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 177 of 449
Table of Contents
Section Page #
General Description of the Region
Building Inventory 4
3
General Building Stock
Essential Facility Inventory
Flood Scenario Parameters 5
Building Damage 6
General Building Stock
Essential Facilities Damage
Induced Flood Damage 8
Debris Generation
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
Economic Loss
8
Building-Related Losses
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
9
10
11
Page 2 of 11Flood Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 178 of 449
General Description of the Region
HAZUS is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). The primary purpose of
HAZUS is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi-hazard losses at a regional
scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and
stimulate efforts to reduce risks from multi-hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery.
The flood loss estimates provided in this report were based on a region that included 1 county(ies) from the
following state(s):
Washington-
Note:
Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region.
The geographical size of the region is 114 square miles and contains 2,698 census blocks. There are over 86
thousand households in the region and has a total population of 222,338 people (2000 Census Bureau data). The
distribution of population by State and County for the study region is provided in Appendix B.
There are an estimated 74,785 buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents)
of 17,915 million dollars (2006 dollars). Approximately 91.79% of the buildings (and 78.76% of the building
value) are associated with residential housing.
Page 3 of 11Flood Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 179 of 449
General Building Stock
Building Inventory
HAZUS estimates that there are 74,785 buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement
value of 17,915 million (2006 dollars). Table 1 and Table 2 present the relative distribution of the value with
respect to the general occupancies by Study Region and Study Case respectively. Appendix B provides a
general distribution of the building value by State and County.
Occupancy Exposure ($1000)Percent of Total
Table 1
Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the Study Region
14,109,886Residential 78.8%
Commercial 2,923,593 16.3%
Industrial 677,070 3.8%
Agricultural 20,003 0.1%
Religion 100,346 0.6%
Government 12,771 0.1%
Education 71,442 0.4%
Total 17,915,111 100.00%
Occupancy Exposure ($1000)Percent of Total
Table 2
Building Exposure by Occupancy Type for the Study Case
331,870Residential 84.5%
Commercial 52,422 13.3%
Industrial 3,659 0.9%
Agricultural 329 0.1%
Religion 2,844 0.7%
Government 0 0.0%
Education 1,777 0.5%
Total 392,901 100.00%
Essential Facility Inventory
For essential facilities, there are 1 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 204 beds. There are 83
schools, 2 fire stations, 5 police stations and no emergency operation centers.
Page 4 of 11Flood Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 180 of 449
Flood Scenario Parameters
HAZUS used the following set of information to define the flood parameters for the flood loss estimate provided in
this report.
Scenario Name:
Return Period Analyzed:
Analysis Options Analyzed:
Cedar River
Study Region Name:Renton FLD Cedar
100
0
Page 5 of 11Flood Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 181 of 449
Building Damage
General Building Stock Damage
HAZUS estimates that about 121 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 41% of the total
number of buildings in the study case. There are an estimated 8 buildings that will be completely destroyed.
The definition of the ‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the HAZUS Flood technical manual.
Table 3 below summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4
summarizes the expected damage by general building type.
Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy
1-10 41-5031-4021-3011-20
Occupancy (%)Count Count (%)
Count (%) Count (%) Count (%)
Substantially
Count (%)
Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Commercial 0 2 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Government 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential 0 14 69 12 16 8 0.00 11.76 57.98 10.08 13.45 6.72
Total 0 16 69 12 16 8
Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type
Building
Type
1-10 41-5031-4021-3011-20
(%)Count Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%)
Substantially
Count (%)
Concrete 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ManufHousing 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Masonry 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Steel 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wood 0 14 69 12 16 0 0.00 12.61 62.16 10.81 14.41 0.00
Page 6 of 11Flood Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 182 of 449
Before the flood analyzed in this study case, the region had 0 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the
study case flood event, the model estimates that 0 hospital beds are available in the region.
Essential Facility Damage
Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities
Classification Loss of Use
# Facilities
At Least
Substantial
At Least
ModerateTotal
2Fire Stations 0 0 0
1Hospitals 0 0 0
5Police Stations 0 0 0
83Schools 0 0 0
If this report displays all zeros or is blank, two possibilities can explain this.
(1) None of your facilities were flooded. This can be checked by mapping the inventory data on the depth grid.
(2) The analysis was not run. This can be tested by checking the run box on the Analysis Menu and seeing if a message box
asks you to replace the existing results.
Page 7 of 11Flood Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 183 of 449
Induced Flood Damage
Debris Generation
HAZUS estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the flood. The model breaks debris into three
general categories: 1) Finishes (dry wall, insulation, etc.), 2) Structural (wood, brick, etc.) and 3) Foundations
(concrete slab, concrete block, rebar, etc.). This distinction is made because of the different types of material
handling equipment required to handle the debris.
The model estimates that a total of 2,261 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Finishes
comprises 76% of the total, Structure comprises 10% of the total. If the debris tonnage is converted into an
estimated number of truckloads, it will require 90 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated
by the flood.
Social Impact
Shelter Requirements
HAZUS estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the
flood and the associated potential evacuation. HAZUS also estimates those displaced people that will require
accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 228 households will be displaced due to
the flood. Displacement includes households evacuated from within or very near to the inundated area. Of
these, 473 people (out of a total population of 222,338) will seek temporary shelter in public shelters.
Page 8 of 11Flood Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 184 of 449
Economic Loss
The total economic loss estimated for the flood is 24.39 million dollars, which represents 6.21 % of the total
replacement value of the study case buildings.
Building-Related Losses
The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The
direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its
contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business
because of the damage sustained during the flood. Business interruption losses also include the temporary
living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the flood.
17.03 17.03 17.03
17.03
The total building-related losses were 24.24 million dollars. 1% of the estimated losses were related to the
business interruption of the region. The residential occupancies made up 69.85% of the total loss. Table 6
below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage.
Table 6: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates
(Millions of dollars)
Total OthersIndustrialCommercialResidentialAreaCategory
Building Loss
Building 10.17 1.33 0.18 0.05 11.72
Content 6.83 4.55 0.26 0.75 12.38
Inventory 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.14
Subtotal 16.99 5.95 0.48 0.81 24.24
Business Interruption
Income 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.04
Relocation 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04
Rental Income 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
Wage 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06
Subtotal 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.15
ALL Total 17.03 6.03 0.48 0.84 24.39
Page 9 of 11Flood Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 185 of 449
Appendix A: County Listing for the Region
Washington
-King
Page 10 of 11Flood Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 186 of 449
Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data
ResidentialPopulation
Building Value (thousands of dollars)
Non-Residential Total
Washington
14,109,886King 222,338 3,805,225 17,915,111
Total 222,338 14,109,886 3,805,225 17,915,111
Total Study Region 222,338 14,109,886 3,805,225 17,915,111
Page 11 of 11Flood Event Summary Report4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 187 of 449
APPENDIX 4
PLANNING AND PUBLIC MEETING
RECORDS
April 2, 2012
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 188 of 449
A4-1
Appendix 4 Contents
Planning Meeting 1 (11/6/2008) Records A4-2
Meeting Minutes
Planning Meeting 4 (4/2/2009) Records A4-8
Meeting Minutes
Public Meeting 1 (4/9/2009) Records A4-13
Website Calendar Announcement
Renton Reporter Announcement
Sign-in Sheet
Planning Meeting 5 (5/7/09) Records A4-16
Meeting Minutes
Sign-in Sheet
Planning Meeting 6 (6/4/09) Records A4-25
Meeting Minutes
Sign-in Sheet
Planning Meeting 7 (7/2/09) Records A4-35
Meeting Minutes
Sign-in Sheet
Planning Meeting 8 (8/6/09) Records A4-44
Meeting Minutes
Sign-in Sheet
Planning Meeting 9 (2/4/10) Records A4-54
Meeting Minutes
Public Meeting 2 (3/16/10) Records A4-59
Listing for Renton Reporter Announcement
Website Calendar Announcement
Sign-in Sheet
Planning Meeting 10 (4/1/10) Records A4-62
Meeting Minutes
Sign-in Sheet
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 189 of 449
Emergency Management Group Meeting
Minutes from November 6, 2008
Present:
Kelley Balcomb-Bartok, Administrative, Judicial & Legal Services/Communications Specialist
Dennis Conte, Community Services/Facilities Supervisor
Jeff Dosch, Valley Medical Center/Security Manager
Abdoul Gafour, Public Works/Water Utility Supervisor
Jim Henriksen, Public Health/Emergency Prep
Kayren Kittrick, CED/Engineering Supervisor
Mindi Mattson, Fire & Emergency Services/Emergency Management Coordinator
Norma McQuiller, Community & Economic Development/Neighborhood Program Coordinator
Rachel Myers, Fire & Emergency Services/Emergency Management Intern
Deborah Needham, Fire & Emergency Services/Emergency Management Director
Linda Parks, Finance & Information Services/Director
Robin Robertson, Human Resources & Risk Management/Risk Manager
Karl Rufener, Fire & Emergency Services/Fire Battalion Chief/Safety Officer
Mike Stenhouse, Public Works/Maintenance Services/Director
Clark Wilcox, Police/Patrol Services
Next Meeting:
Thursday December 4, at 0900 at City Hall, 7th Floor Conferencing Center.
Assignments:
All Departments – Complete Exercise Planning Team Worksheet and Return to Director Deb
Needham ASAP. Assign an Exercise Planning Team Member available to meet regularly.
All Exercise Planning Team Members – Assist in selecting weekly team meeting time.
Abdul Gafour - Contact Metro Treatment and invite them to participate in Flood Exercise 2/26/09.
Contact Ron Straka about the Black River Pump Station to determine what impacts we should expect
in the event of a flood.
Kelley Bartok Balcomb – Contact Regional PIO to address having region-wide
messaging/communication at the Flood Exercise.
Deb Needham – Investigate having an EAS message go out as a part of the Flood Exercise. Contact
Exercise Planning Team Members to identify regular meeting day/time. Hold a meeting to
determine how a city-wide ICS structure will best be accomplished. Get a copy of REPA’s Safe Water
class PowerPoint to provide to all city employees.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 190 of 449
Key Decisions/Discussions:
1. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan loose ends (EM Director Needham)
a. Medical Reserve Corps is not in the plan yet under ESF 8, it will be added when
completely set up
b. We will be revising the plan on a more regular, paced schedule. Next year focus will be
Long Term Community Recovery, Communications & Warning, Mass Care, and Damage
Assessment. By starting on a few ESFs next year, we won’t end up with the same crunch
again in four years.
c. Still need to get agreements with other agencies listed in our plan.
d. Some organizations are working on stock language for all Cities to use in their plans and,
in the future, this would allow us to use their language without the need for their
individual review.
e. The Plan is now before council – if there are any requests for more information,
clarification, Director Needham will contact you.
2. Hazard Mitigation Plan on the Radar (Needham)
a. Due simultaneously as the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan but does not
affect as many Departments. If you have a mitigation piece and aren’t listed/included,
contact Director Needham.
b. There is funding available for Mitigation Projects i.e. Station 11 seismic upgrades. If
there are any other mitigation projects – any that the City could benefit from - please
speak to/submit these to Director Needham.
3. Valley Medical Exercise (Dosch)
a. Valley Medical Center is coordinating with 21 hospitals to do a large Pandemic Influenza
exercise - November 13, 14, 15, 17,18.
b. On the 13th will be a Communications Exercise - our EOC email will be pinged
c. On the 14th VMC will test Supply and Access for things like medicine and respirators.
Renton Police need to be aware of this as there will be a WA State Patrol escorted semi
truck in the area.
d. On the 15th they will be doing Ham Radio and other radio communications testing.
4. Citywide Exercise Planning (All)
a. Introductions (around the room) for non-City participants
b. Exercise Planning Process Overview
i. Need to comply with Federal Guidelines for exercise planning – rigid structure
and paperwork. Needham carries the bulk of this responsibility but needs
support.
ii. Need to develop exercise objectives that are written as SMART objectives:
specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-specific.
iii. Handout – Exercise Planning Team – Please draft for your Department what
you’d like to get out of this exercise and indicate your level of play.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 191 of 449
iv. Need to create a planning team – want to identify this for each department and
set up weekly time to meet (may not meet weekly, but want hold on calendars).
v. The next exercise will be a flood exercise that may help focus attention on the .
Green River Levees. The levee repairs that are planned as a result of the FEMA
decertifications aren’t predicted to be complete for 10 years. Even though it is a
flood exercose we can add other aspects.
vi. Council Members will be involved in this exercise and look at policy decisions in
the recovery phase.
vii. Decided on February 26th, 8 am to noon as the exercise time for field play.
viii. In March, April, and May there will be follow-up tabletop exercises for council to
participate in recovery stage decisions.
c. Exercise Series/Structure Suggestions and Discussion
i. Full Scale – all departments involved to some degree. The exercise will take
place over about a 4 hour period.
ii. Fire Station 14 is in the flood zone and will be affected.
iii. Valley Medical - Communications Piece - Test influx of patients in Valley Com
and how SR-167 flooding will affect how supplies get to us (95% come that way)
iv. Fire – Evacuation elements, building of ICS structure to handle team, water
rescue elements on lake Washington (pretend it is river) which will be a Zone3
water exercise – King County Sheriff Department wants to play along
v. Consider using Red Cross Mobile Feeding Unit and/or the Soup Ladies for rehab
or mass feeing– this is something they would want to be involved in, to train
volunteers and cycle food products. Departments should keep the Red Cross
Mobile Feeding Unit in mind for any drill, exercise or emergency events you
have.
vi. Should Metro Treatment be involved? It would be good to see if they would like
to participate it could help identify needed improvements that could be grant
funded – Abdul Gafour will contact them and invite them to participate.
vii. Should we consider drinking water safety and other environmental issues in the
exercise to include – waste water; flooding of septic systems and sewage back-
ups; and supporting mass care - ensuring sanitation, feeding. Primarily Health
Department would like to play in the recovery phase. Also think about Public
Information and risk communication. There is a lot of intersection in the
recovery phase – tabletop exercises with council will include this.
viii. Public Information/Messaging – consider coordinating public messaging
information regionally. Kelley Bartok Balcomb will investigate further by
addressing/bringing up at the next Regional PIO meeting.
ix. King County Sheriff Department and departments in the City of Tukwila are
committed to participating in the exercise.
x. Is it possible to issue an EAS message? If this is the month we are scheduled to
test, definitely. If not, we can attempt to broker a trade. Deb Needham will
investigate further and attempt to schedule.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 192 of 449
xi. The Community Notification System will not be ready by the time of this
exercise, but it will highlight areas of concern and demonstrate need for
purchase if it has not been purchased by the time of the exercise.
xii. Satellite phones are still an issue – there are only 10 minutes out of an hour
where they might work but we are not able to open up our network to know
with certainty which 10 minutes will work. We do have a great amateur radio
notification system. A secure repeater will be available during the exercise.
xiii. Will flood impact our communication systems / servers? With everything in the
SW under water – at 167 height and lower – only Station 14 will be affected. It
is likely that comms will still be up. It will impact Valley Medical Center parking.
xiv. Black River Pump station? Abdul Gafour will check with Ron Straka to
determine what impacts we would expect to have in the event of a flood.
xv. Tukwila – their levee was not decertified, so flood maps don’t take into account
the potential for levee failure. Since any levee may break if subject to the
appropriate stresses, we need a scenario for each potential levee failure and
impacts, perhaps a simple elevation map.
xvi. What about Station 11? This exercise considers Green River flooding and even
in a worst case scenario Station 11 is in the clear until/unless the Cedar River
floods.
xvii. CED – Recovery phase decisions will include heavy involvement of CED
xviii. Police – will participate, but asked about grant funding. None is currently
available.
xix. ICS needs to be a part of the exercise and be practiced by all of us jointly as a
City. Public Works would be the IC with the Operations Section handling
life/safety issues within appropriate branches. It is far easier to have one
agency in charge and staff it in such a way that important functions get
accomplished. AJLS would staff the public information function, whether in the
EOC or in the field. We need to predetermine what incident command structure
will look like for a flood and who is in charge. Action Item: have a discussion to
figure out how ICS will work city-wide and predetermine an incident command
structure.
xx. Supply chain will be affected, need to do continuity planning.
xxi. CERT will have limited involvement – this is not the best exercise to include
them. Shelter Operations could be up and running instead. We are also looking
at developing a volunteer mobilization center – something that coordinates
volunteers who are showing up and want to help in event of disaster/etc (will
try to have it ready in time.)
xxii. Residential evacuation – focus on SW and businesses (not residential) – consider
chemicals/gas petroleum in factories in flood zone. Storage tanks, pipeline –
fuel impacts / Other Hazmat Facilities. Identify sites that have these materials
and preplan what to do, including making an effort to secure in initial warnings
xxiii. Washington State Department of Ecology has a role in hazmat mgmt functions.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 193 of 449
xxiv. Be sure to complete Exercise Planning Team handout. This will be reviewed in
the exercise planning team and allow us to focus scenarios for departments
(Tukwila, and any other jurisdictions, will do a parallel exercise and will come to
some of the planning meetings to discuss big items.)
xxv. Give thought to recovery lessons for City Council.
xxvi. Be thinking about Agency Department Participation
1. What level of participation for your agency/dept?
2. Time commitment the day of the major exercise?
3. Number of possible players from your agency/dept?
4. Desired activities for your staff?
xxvii. Agency/Department Objectives
1. What measurable objectives do you want to see included?
2. What objectives do we share for the overall exercise?
d. Exercise Date-Setting
i. Need to have time for ‘hotwashes’ directly following event. Then have one
formal exercise debrief for summary of findings/lessons learned.
ii. Thursday Feb 26th 0800 – need to have contingency plan for possible
cancellation.
iii. Tabletop exercises will continue through May ‘09
e. Exercise Planning Team Meeting Schedule
i. Who will be your planning team rep? Make sure to think about this and include
on your planning handout.
ii. What is their availability for meeting Nov-Feb? Want recurring meeting time.
Wed Morn or Thurs Afternoons are the only times that are open for current
attendees on a regular basis. Action Item: Deb Needham will ask people
yes/no on certain dates.
iii. Flood maps are available in PDF firnat. Action Item: Deb will email to
everyone. Please use good judgment in how you speak about flood risk in
Renton so that we are not alarmist. All levees are subject to failure under some
unknown level of stress, but it is not certain that they will fail, or even highly
likely. We still need to prepare, though, and that is our focus.
iv. Need to do a round of EOC training before exercise. There is a Shelter training
this weekend. Action Item: Deb Needham will send out information on weekly
trainings that will not require overtime. Consider having staff attend the
Renton Emergency Preparedness Academy (REPA) this Winter Quarter. Classes
will include: the Police Citizen’s Academy, Interacting with Emergency
Responders, safe water for emergencies (this would be good to have as a
PowerPoint for all city employees), Amateur Radio License Class, Introduction
to Animal Rescue and a CPR Saturday on Feb 28, 2009.
f. Announcements? None. Thanks for coming!
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 194 of 449
Important Dates:
Fire & Emergency Services FireBall – December 6, 2008, at 1830
Flood Exercise – February 26, 2009, at 0800
CPR Saturday – February 28, 2009.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 195 of 449
Emergency Management Group Meeting
Minutes from April 2, 2009
Present:
Kelley Balcomb-Bartok, Communications Specialist, AJS
Todd Black, Capital Projects Coordinator, Community Services
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
Suzanne Dale-Estey, Economic Development Director, Community and Economic Development
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Steve Lee, Surface Water Supervisor, Public Works
Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fire & Emergency Services
George McBride, Information Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency Services
Linda Parks, Fiscal Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Next Meeting:
0900 on May 7th, 7th Floor Conferencing Center.
Important Dates
April 20, 2009 - City Council Tabletop Exercise II – Green River Flooding
May 12, 2009 - Continuity of Operations Planning Class – offered through REPA
May 18, 2009 – City Council Tabletop Exercise III – Green River Flooding
June 6, 2009 - ATC 20/21 Training – offered through REPA
June 13-14, 2009 - Shelter Operations Training – offered through REPA
Assignments:
1. All Departments – If you have any injects or items you want highlighted on short-term
recovery at the next City Council Tabletop please contact M. Mattson.
2. All Departments – Review your stockpile of supplies to use in the event of an
emergency for all of the members of your department. Identify what you have and
what you need, and report this to D. Needham.
Key Decisions/Discussions:
D. Needham chaired the meeting.
1. Disaster Recovery Projects
Handouts: City of Renton Project List, Preliminary Damages Assessment Summary
Report.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 196 of 449
Emergency Management Group – April 2, 2009 Minutes
Page 2 of 5
These two handouts should contain the same information. If you see any discrepancies
please notify D. Needham.
We’ve already had a few meetings with FEMA and believe we’ve arrived at the final list
of applicable damages. We are claiming 4.8 million in damages and are eligible for
receiving 75% back, or 3.75 million, making it worth the effort.
We reviewed the Project List one project at a time. Project managers gave a summary of
their project(s) and filled in the grey areas or identified a contact who could. Project 6,
from the Airport, is a big project but no Letter of Intent for a mitigation project was
submitted. Project 11 and 13 are also big projects. In regards to project 11, the next
flood could have a large impact. Project 13 is a project to repair a spawning channel that
was decimated by the flood and overtopped the permeable levee built in 2001. It is no
longer a channel anymore and no spawning occurs. This may impact our dredging rights
and increase flood risks. Projects 14-16 are in regards to the Cedar River Trail.
If any projects are complete we can collect funds once this paperwork is submitted.
2. Mitigation Project Proposals Discussion and Recommendations
We’ve been working on collecting the data necessary for our existing Hazard Mitigation
Plan. Letters of Intent for mitigation projects are due to the state no later than May 1, 5
pm. The basic process for this is: a mitigation grant is proposed, then letters of intent are
sent, the state then reviews all the submittals and then determines the level of support.
Once this determination has been made, the full applications are prepared and are due in
September. Limits are 1.5 million per project. Each City can have up to two projects.
There is a matching requirement of 25%, which can include a soft match. We need to
ensure we have the matching funds to complete the project and maintain funding.
We currently have two proposals for mitigation projects. The first one is T. Black’s
project for Community Services with a projected cost of $3 million. We expect the total
to go down as we know more and have more exact information. This is a project to
improve the Cedar River Trail’s gabions (wire baskets with rocks in them). The damage
they sustained in recent floods reduced their effectiveness for erosion control and river
bank protection. Part of this project is going to be completed by the Army Corps of
Engineers, for the lower portion of the trail. We should take this part out of the proposal
before going to FEMA. This project will replace the gabions, at a minimum, with the
same thing or a new thing. We are currently evaluating what to use, including logs or
core logs (fabric encased materials where things can grow inside). More study is needed
to determine the best course of action.
The other project is S. Lee’s Public Works/Water project currently projected to cost an
estimated $1.5 million. The Elliot Levee was originally designed for 3000 CFS, but we
have had events each year that overtop this amount. So, even if we build it back to
current specs it will continue to be damaged. We are currently doing a study to
determine the best course of action, including looking at setting back the levee to the golf
course fence. This would mean we wouldn’t have to maintain the channel but would still
get the benefits of the habitat. This would also protect the golf course from damage that
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 197 of 449
Emergency Management Group – April 2, 2009 Minutes
Page 3 of 5
is ineligible for FEMA reimbursement. The match required for this project would be
$375,000. We do have a means to get this through the King County Flood Control
District. It would come in small increments and would achieve the matching amount in
approximately three to four years.
We have three weeks to refine and pin this down. Please ensure you have support from
your department in regards to the match and the City’s level of support.
3. Hazard Mitigation Plan and Grant Eligibility Updates
We have to have a current hazard mitigation plan in place to be eligible for Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program funding. The plan is currently being revised by a consultant
the Community Services department retained. This year’s plan won’t be the most
complete plan but will improve upon last year’s plan and will increase the level of detail.
The guidelines, for the plan and grant, include a requirement for public outreach. We are
meeting these outreach requirements with a public meeting scheduled for April 9. We
are posting a notice about this meeting in the paper, and have done a press release. The
purpose of the meeting is to gather input on what is a value to the community. We will
explain the hazards to them, using a hazard map on display, and then we will garner their
priorities. Names of possible department representatives were provided to attend the
meeting and provide information to the public.
For the meeting agenda, we are thinking about doing a quick introduction and then allow
for questions. Do any attendees with more experience with public meetings have any
suggestions? S. Dale-Estey suggested having a sidebar on this or contacting others in her
department who could assist.
4. Council Tabletop Exercise Review
We recently had our first of three table top exercises, using the Howard Hanson Dam
scenario, with city council. No other cities have engaged their councils in this way but
have asked for copies of our tabletop exercise. The handout Executive Roles in Disaster
Response and Recovery was given to Council as reference in the tabletop exercise. It
specifies their roles and responsibilities. The tabletop exercise gives them an environment
where they can explore these issues and learn before they need to make decisions in a real
emergency. Each council member had subject matter experts to refer to when they needed
to. All Administrators had advance review of the exercise and injects at mayor’s staff.
Each Administrator ensured the injects and department specific information was accurate.
Throughout the exercise, we ensured the mayor’s authority was clear in the event of an
emergency. Council respected this, allowing us to move swiftly when necessary.
The first tabletop focused on response issues. The short-term recovery table top is
scheduled for April 20 (to begin not later than 6pm). We’d like to get S. Dale Estey’s
expertise for the short-term recovery table top exercise. Following this one will be the
long-term recovery table top. Chip Vincent and Norma McQuiller would be good
resources for this exercise.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 198 of 449
Emergency Management Group – April 2, 2009 Minutes
Page 4 of 5
During the first exercise the City council asked for an update on the stockpiling of
supplies for our employees. Remember, this is the responsibility of each department to
manage. We may ask you to update us on this project so that we can give them an
accurate representation of where the City is at in acquiring the necessary supplies.
During the exercise we also looked at shelter operations and considered what it would be
like to provide a shelter for our neighbors. Council responded well to this idea and
discussed providing shelter and determining how we would pay for this. We also
discussed flood fighting and the different costs of infrastructure and the costs to save it.
The final thing covered in the exercise was, what will the City do if there are no funds
and we can’t cover the costs of things like payroll? Council began to look at this, which
included discussion of a rainy day fund. This work will be a good starting point for the
next exercise. Overall the first exercise was a success. Council members are still talking
about it very positively.
Please feel free to provide any input/injects for Council that you’d like them to wrestle
with. It is important to remember to keep this at the policy level. Even if you don’t have
the wording for the inject and/or only have a concept for what you’d like them to look at,
please contact M. Mattson so that it can be worked in.
5. Howard Hanson Dam Information Updates
We recently attended the large overall planning meeting regarding the Howard Hanson
Dam concerns. Seattle is participating in planning although they will be minimally
impacted by the flood. D. Needham is leading the Notification and Warning Unit and
developing the Standard Operation Guidelines and Information Resource for that group.
A coordinated NOAA weather radio campaign is planned. We are also proposing an ‘opt
in/opt out’ for the new community notification system we are getting. We would like to
allow businesses, via the web, to update us on what phone lines to use in the event of
emergency. This is not only important for the businesses, but is important for the City of
Renton because we have a limited number of free calls on the notification system. In the
event of an emergency the remainder of the cost for the calls is partly reimbursable by
FEMA, but we need to be aware that there is a cost.
The planning group is trying to identify locations for mega-shelters for displaced Kent
and Auburn residents. Rachel Myers is working on contacting hotels to learn their
occupancy levels so that we can project evacuation plans. S. Dale-Estey pointed out that
there could be some issues with this because it is protected corporate information, and
suggested talking later about this. M. Mattson is working on the evacuation plan.
The good news is that the Army Corps of Engineers are comfortable raising the Dam’s
pool level slightly, allowing us to increase the storage capacity. The bad news is that a
second depression has been identified. They still think the dam will hold and projections
are better than they were. CED is doing an informational mailing to businesses and
property owners and are working on developing a business mailing list. Since we are
spending hours working on developing this list it would be great to have a GIS system
available to help, but we’re not there yet.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 199 of 449
Emergency Management Group – April 2, 2009 Minutes
Page 5 of 5
6. Project Accounting
Justifying expenses for the EMPG grant can be difficult for our department because we
have the smallest emergency management staff in the region. In addition, we don’t have
a blanket cost share that other emergency management departments have that allows for
billing and recapturing costs for computers, facilities, printing, etc. Since we can’t bill
for this, we’ve billed for employee’s time spent working on emergency
management/hazard mitigation planning, meetings, etc (not for disaster events). Most
people included in this have been figured for 1 or 2 hours a week for a year or 5% of their
time, while some like Terry Vickers, Cyndie Parks, and Gary Harsh have been figured at
½ of their time due to their line of work that fits emergency management definitions. G.
McBride stated that he can provide a breakout of emergency management’s costs for IS
for the 2010 grant application.
Last year we got $85,000 and are hoping to get approximately $110,000 this year. Since
we started getting this grant, we’ve nearly tripled what we’ve gotten previously. The
grant essentially pays for M. Mattson’s position. When funding arrives it can be used for
anything that supports emergency management, such as funding for police overtime for
emergency management exercises and training. Be thinking about what you could use
for your staff or the City as a whole.
Since there is staff member time attributed to emergency management and this grant we
need to start tracking this time using project accounting. We have 22 people city-wide
who need to start accounting for this time if they have not been doing it already. A
project number is being created and when it is available it will be sent out to the
applicable people. Please start tracking your time as soon as your receive this
information.
7. Announcements/Good of the Order
The REPA class schedule for Spring 09 has been published. Several classes have already
proved to be very popular. Please take a look at the classes and spread the word.
Minutes taken and submitted by: Kelly Carey, Admin Sec I, Fire & Emergency Services
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 200 of 449
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 201 of 449
City to hold public meeting on Hazard Mitigation Plan - Renton Reporter
http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/ren/news/42338677.html[05/23/2011 17:26:11]
Home News Blogs Sports Entertainment Business Lifestyles Community Opinion About Us
Jobs Autos Homes Rentals Foreclosures Classifieds Coupons Special Sections Legal Notices Buy Photo Reprints Contests
City to hold public meeting onHazard Mitigation Plan
Apr 02 2009
The City of Renton will host a public meeting on
Thursday, April 9, so that citizens can review the
current Hazard Mitigation Plan and local maps.
The meeting is 6-8 p.m. in the City Council
chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall,
1055 S. Grady Way.
The plan identifies hazards that could affect
residents, businesses, visitors and infrastructure
within the City of Renton and identifies potential
mitigation projects that could help protect the city
from future disasters.
Public input is sought for the revision of this plan. For further
information, contact Deborah Needham, Emergency Management
Director at 425-430-7027.
MONDAY, 05/23/2011
0 COMMENTS EMAIL LETTER PRINT FOLLOW SHARE
RELATED STORIES
Renton Reporter
Renton Planning Commission to hold
public hearing Wednesday on Sunset
redevelopment
Renton City Council to hold public
hearing on Comcast franchise Monday
South King County
City of Covington plans public meeting
for comprehensive plan amendments
YarrowBay and Covington reach
agreement on traffic mitigation and
Maple Hills development to close out
2010
Panel to hold forum on flood mitigation
for area rivers
Groups urged to come together, carefully
mitigate river system | Hildreth
City to hold 2 flood preparedness
meetings
Renton Reporter onFacebook
382 people like Renton Reporter.381
people like Renton Reporter.
Confirm
Theice Deedee
Like You like
Reporte
Page · In
You like
Page · In
Facebook social plugin
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
2
0
2
o
f
4
4
9
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 203 of 449
Emergency Management Group Meeting
Minutes from May 7, 2009
Present:
Kelley Balcomb-Bartok, Communications Specialist, Administrative, Judicial & Legal Services
Mark Baldridge, Facilities Technician, Community Services/Facilities
Jeff Dosch, Security/Emergency Management, Valley Medical Center
Floyd Eldridge, Commander, Police
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist, Fire & Emergency Services
Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fire & Emergency Services
George McBride, Information Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Joan Montegary, Assistant to the Chief, Fire & Emergency Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency Services
Preeti Shridhar, Communications Director, Administrative, Judicial & Legal Services
Marty Wine, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, Administrative, Judicial & Legal Services
Next Meeting:
0900 on June 4th, 7th Floor Conferencing Center.
Important Dates
May 12, 2009 - Continuity of Operations Workshop - EOC
May 18, 2009 – Next City Council Tabletop Exercise
June 6, 2009 - ATC 20/21 Training – offered through REPA
June 13-14, 2009 - Shelter Operations Training – offered through REPA
Assignments:
1. All Departments – Please assess your disaster preparedness supplies for all members
of your department and report your findings to D. Needham by May 15.
2. All Departments – If you have any injects or items you want highlighted on long-term
recovery at the next City Council Tabletop please contact M. Mattson prior to May 15.
3. Police – Is there a member of your department willing to assist the multiagency
Howard Hanson Dam planning by serving as a Deputy, a back-up role, on the
Evacuation Branch? If so, please speak to D. Needham.
4. All Departments – If you’d like to have Fire & Emergency Services order pandemic
flu or disaster supplies in bulk for your department, speak to R. Myers.
5. All Departments – If you have any emergency management related events that a
member of your department needs funding to attend, speak to D. Needham.
D. Needham chaired the meeting.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 204 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 2 of 7
Key Decisions/Discussions:
1. “Business Not As Usual” – Video presentation on preparing for a pandemic flu
The video we watched is available online at:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthServices/health/preparedness/pandemicflu/video.aspx
Discussion occurred following the video. J. Dosch from Valley Medical mentioned that
he is living it right now with the H1N1 “swine flu” virus. They are already seeing lower
levels of service and supply delivery. D. Needham noted that we already had continuity
planning on the work plan for this year. There is a plan in place for the Fire &
Emergency Services Department, but we do not have one for the entire City.
2. Continuity Planning Overview – R. Robertson
There will be a workshop on May 12th to discuss and begin our business continuity
planning. R. Robertson has had experience with this and is here to share her expertise.
She has written business continuity plans before and has been a consultant. She’s here to
provide information on what has worked for her previously and how to make this type of
planning easier.
This can be a simple process. It may seem like it is overwhelming and difficult, but it can
be accomplished with teams. It is an ongoing process.
Definitions of business continuity planning or a business continuity plan are as follows:
processes and procedures an organization puts in place to ensure that essential functions
can continue during and after a disaster; set of documents, instructions, and procedures
which enable a business to respond to accidents, disasters, emergencies and/or threats
without impacting key parts of business; and/or the logistical part of a disaster recovery
plan. The purpose of the plan is to answer the questions of how you are going to get to
the point that you are up and running in the immediate, and how you get to a full
recovery point.
A good way to start the planning process is to perform a Risk Assessment/Analysis. R.
Robertson likes to start this at the smallest level – at your desk – and then meet as a group
to look at the departmental level and then the organizational level. The focus of the
assessment/analysis is the key functions and priorities of your business. You can
combine the individual and departmental plans to create the organizational plan. The
goal is to minimize chaos and focus on the steps necessary to achieve recovery.
A business continuity plan is a living document that will need to be changed and
improved regularly. The continuity section of the plan addresses the: who, what, where,
when, why and how of a disaster process. The recovery section involves an analysis of
business processes and continuity needs. Disaster recovery describes how the
organization will recover from the effects of a disaster.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 205 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 3 of 7
It is important to have members of your department walk around and do an asset
inventory. A major inventory to include key information on each item inventoried
including the vendor contact information. Major inventory, meaning the items that are
expensive to replace, take a long time to replace or you cannot run your day to day
business without them. The handout marked “#1” and titled Asset Recovery is an
example of an inventory form. D. Needham wondered if there is a way to tie into IS’s
inventory system and have them give each department a list or report on their items, so
we aren’t redoing their work.
Next you need to identify the top critical functions you want to maintain. Critical
functions are those functions that must be recovered before any others. You’ll need to
make up a list and share the information with stakeholders. The list can be changed as
needed. Once you have defined your critical business function you will need to complete
a disaster business functions action plan. An example of this type of plan is provided in
the handout marked ‘Form #2’. This piece makes up the bulk of your plan as it details
every step necessary to recover each of the critical business functions step by step. For
each business function you will need to identify a primary contact, support contact,
immediate actions, mitigation actions and recovery actions. It should serve as a guide for
the team after a disaster has occurred. Begin with the 10-15 critical functions you
identified and then build on the plan as you become more comfortable with the process.
The steps should be written so that a volunteer could follow them.
You must have a recovery plan for every continuity plan. You will need to create a
process restoration priority, and identify the restoration priorities for every business
function identified. Manual workaround processes also need to be documented step by
step.
Once you’ve completed all these pieces you’re ready to combine them and write your
plan. When your plan is completed you need to test it and evaluate it. This should be
done at least annually. Procedures used to test the plan should be documented.
We are having a business continuity planning workshop on May 12 at the EOC. If you’re
attending and have laptops, please bring them. We’ll start looking at our own files and
begin to work on things. This workshop will be a kick-start to the planning process.
There will be forms available that we can be used city-wide.
If you need more information, examples of forms, etc, please feel free to speak to R.
Robertson.
Please remember that this process can be overwhelming but it is doable and achievable.
Creating this plan is a high priority and we need to achieve completion as soon as
possible
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 206 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 4 of 7
3. Disaster Updates
a. Flu
There are currently 23-29 confirmed cases – and the number is growing. 99% of
the cases identified as probable H1N1 are being confirmed as H1N1. There could
be additional cases because they are not testing or tracking people until their
symptoms warrant it. There could be several people with minor symptoms who
may have H1N1. While Public Health is doing updates three times a week, they
are currently ramping down now that the information is out to the public. They
are stepping back and will monitor the situation. This disease is still considered a
pandemic because it will be global, but at this time we don’t know what level of
impact it will have.
Personal Protective Equipment and Supplies – R. Myers
Members of the Fire & Emergency Services Department recently met and
discussed what personal protective equipment the department should be providing
for members. When Swine Flu was announced this group began thinking about
other departments and discussed how to support them. One way could be
assisting with bulk supply purchases. Fire & Emergency Services can order
masks, gloves, etc, and bill your budget. They can also assist with rotating items
that you may not use often so that they don’t expire prior to being used. If you’re
interested in ordering supplies they just need a contact from your department to
work with.
The decision for the type and amount of supplies is done at the department level,
with each department making decisions for their members. This allows you to
determine the level of need based upon what services you provide, level of
contact with the public, number of members, etc.
The Fire & Emergency Services Department hasn’t started a discussion on
food/water supplies, but R. Meyers is willing to look into this further as well as
provide information on what they currently have and use.
The next tabletop for council on May 18 is regarding our current level of
preparedness. We need to know where your department is in regards to food,
water and emergency supplies for each member. Please email D. Needham by
May 15 to let her know what you have and what you need. Administrators are
responsible for ensuring that all employees have supplies, even if they are
directed to bring them themselves.
There should be some actions to follow up with Administrators to ensure they are
aware that they need to assess their food/water supplies and address pandemic flu
supplies immediately. Maybe the Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator
can do this at the next Mayor’s staff meeting.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 207 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 5 of 7
b. Howard Hanson Dam – P. Shridhar
We recently did a mailing to all the businesses in the valley to alert them of the
Howard Hanson Dam concerns and the different scenarios that could occur. We
informed them of the current multiagency work happening, and the different
resources available to them. Kudos to L. Garvich for her assistance with the
mailing.
The collaborative website kingcounty.gov/flood plans includes a calendar of
events and additional information. Each City has information on their site. On
May 11 there will be a public meeting regarding the Dam on the Kent campus.
We are trying to ensure there is consistency in our messaging and information.
We hope to have sufficient time between now and the next major weather event to
allow for planning and response preparation.
The US Army Corps of Engineers’ Seattle Branch received funding from the
stimulus package for the Howard Hanson Dam repairs. They received a total of
$26 million, but we are unsure how much of this is for the Dam’s right abutment.
The multiagency planning groups are looking for a member of one of the Police
Departments to be a deputy in the evacuation branch, a back-up role. We have
people from the City of Renton in various places, but they could use one of our
Police Commanders or the like to step-up. It would not be a heavy role, with a lot
of meetings, etc. Please contact D. Needham if someone is willing to assist.
c. Flood and Snowstorm Recovery
If you have any projects that aren’t being approved, speak to D. Needham. She is
willing to work with you to fight for the project. Our projects with FEMA are
currently being adjusted. We will be getting less than expected, but will still be
getting $3 million. If the money from FEMA is returned within the same year,
the money goes back to the department rather than the general fund.
d. Project Accounting
We need to begin tracking and accounting any time that is for disaster work and
recovery. Handouts detailing the different project codes that should be used were
passed out. Anytime disaster work is being done, please use the project codes for
your time even if an event you’re working on hasn’t been ‘declared’ a disaster
yet. This will help us put a placeholder on these funds and attribute it to the
appropriate disaster after the fact. After the disaster is declared we may assign a
specific code or provide additional levels to differentiate between design, supplies
and labor. We will keep you posted as these codes are defined.
All work for the flu has a disaster project code. Even though it hasn’t been
identified as a disaster, we need to track these funds in the event that it is declared
and we would be eligible for retroactive pay. It can be difficult to do the project
accounting, but will help us get funds.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 208 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 6 of 7
EMPG personnel are people who have 5% or more of their time attributed to
Emergency Management. A handout with a list of the EMPG personnel was
provided. These people need to use project accounting to track the amount of
their salary that is related to emergency management. For example, Terry Vickers
and Cindie Parks’ time are both at a 50% due to their job descriptions and duties.
Gary Harsh’s time is also at 50% because of his HazMat work. L. Garvich is at
30%, P. Shridhar is at 10% and K. Carey is at 5%. Please start tracking your time
now. If it isn’t feasible to track your time on an hourly basis, consider doing a set
amount of hours each pay period to z09200, f247. If it isn’t possible for you to
track your time, please notify us. If you’re unsure which code to use, please code
emergency management work using the general code/other project code.
If everyone tracks their time and enters their hours under the project codes we will
be able to respond to an auditor’s request for proof of hours worked. This will
also help us track the cost of emergency management for the City overall. We
might even be able to utilize this information to argue for an increase on
individual budgets for emergency management time/work. Building a history
now, will help us make a case for more support later.
e. Related Mitigation Projects
We had two projects related to the recent floods. One of these projects, the one
from Community Services, seems like it will be turned down. The project from
Public Works seems like it will be approved.
4. Current Projects
a. Hazard Mitigation Plan Status
We recently learned that we don’t have to have the Hazard Mitigation Plan
completed by May 1, because FEMA changed when the plan had to be complete.
The consultant we hired has prepared a plan and D. Needham is currently
reviewing it with other members of Fire & Emergency Services Department. The
consultant will be doing some additional work and the plan will be completed in-
time for the new FEMA deadline.
b. Council Tabletop Exercise Review
The council members are really enjoying participating in the table top exercises
and are learning what their roles and responsibilities are during a disaster and the
recovery phases. The next table top will be May 18. One question was posed at
that should be brought up at the next table top – given the flood concerns should
we pose a moratorium on building in the valley?
c. EOC Computer Upgrade
The old laptops in the EOC have been replaced with new desktop computers.
There is still some work for IS to do, like update the profiles and favorites on each
computer so that they are all the same.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 209 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 7 of 7
d. Renton Emergency Preparedness Academy
Renton Technical College’s Community Education Budget has been cut
drastically. This is the part of the college that we’ve been partnering with to put
on the academy. We have had some exciting classes including water safety and
self defense that have received a great response. If Renton Technical College can
no longer host the academy we will find somewhere else, because is a great
program that needs to be maintained. Fellow cities have even expressed an
interest in doing something similar in their communities.
5. Announcements/Good of the Order
J. Dosch - There will be a Bomb Threat exercise at Valley Medical at approximately 9
a.m. on June 23. It will only be a 4 hour exercise, but it might be good for members
of the Fire & Emergency Services Department or Police to be present and observe.
He will add a representative from these two groups to his email list. The next
planning meeting is May 27 where they will confirm the time-line, and define when
would be a good time for people to come and observe. Tim Troxel was
recommended as a good person to add to the list.
D. Needham – Great news! We were approved for all the funds we requested in the
EMPG grant. We were able to defend our proposal based on the level of work
members of the City are doing. We are even getting more than Bellevue. Due to this
influx of funding, it is possible that when there are things like the Valley Medical
Bomb Threat Drill the cost for staff to attend could possibly be billed to her budget.
She’ll need specific quantifiable amounts to do the billing, but if it is a learning
experience related to Emergency Management in some way, and she has the funds,
she wants to support it. If there is something like this coming up for your department
please speak to D. Needham to discuss possible funding.
Next meeting is June but may be a working meeting.
Minutes taken and submitted by: Kelly Carey, Admin Sec I, Fire & Emergency Services
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 210 of 449
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 211 of 449
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 212 of 449
Emergency Management Group Meeting
Minutes from June 4, 2009
Present:
Mark Baldridge, Facilities Technician, Community Services/Facilities
Jan Conklin, Development Services Representative, Community & Economic Development
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Fire & Emergency Services
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist, Fire & Emergency Services
George McBride, Information Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Coordinator, Community & Economic Development
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency Services
David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Mark Peterson, Deputy Fire Chief, Fire & Emergency Services
Mary Roy, Administrative Secretary, Finance & Information Services
Ray Sled, Water Manager, Public Works
Preeti Shridhar, Communications Director, Administrative, Judicial & Legal Services
Next Meeting:
0900 on July 2nd, 7th Floor Conferencing Center.
Important Dates
June 6, 2009 - ATC 20/21 Training – offered through REPA
June 13-14, 2009 - Shelter Operations Training – offered through REPA
June 15, 2009 – FEMA Disaster Costs Submittals DUE
June 18, 2009 – Hazard Mitigation Plan Review in Writing DUE
June 20, 2009 – Bomb Drill – Valley Medical Center
July 1, 2009 – Continuity Planning Forms DUE
Assignments:
1. All Departments – Please review the Hazard Mitigation Plan and put your additions or
corrections in writing by June 18, 2009 and provide to D. Needham. Please pay close
attention to tables, highlighted areas, and pages described on page 7-8 of these
minutes. Files are located at Q:\Emergency Management\PLANS AND
PROCEDURES\Hazard Mitigation Plan\DRAFT REVISION
2. All Departments – If you have any remaining disaster costs for FEMA, please submit
to D. Needham prior to June 15, 2009
3. All Departments – Please nominate at least two appropriate members in your
department to serve on the City’s Incident Management Team.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 213 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 2 of 8
4. All Departments – Complete initial Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP)
worksheets by July 1, 2009. Worksheets for each department are located at
Q:\Emergency Management\PLANS AND PROCEDURES\RENTON COOP\Draft
5. All Departments – If you have any emergency management related training that a
member of your department needs funding to attend, speak to D. Needham.
D. Needham chaired the meeting.
Key Decisions/Discussions:
1. Howard Hanson Dam/Flooding Planning Update (D. Needham)
They have filled the depressions in the dam and are in the process of slowly raising the
pool level to determine the full extent of the dam’s capabilities. The good news is that
we gained a little flood buffering capability. The bad news is that the cause for the
depressions is still unknown and could be a result of a structural problem in the right
abutment. So, an increased flood risk is still present for the next 2 to 6 years.
We have updated flood maps for Renton. Different versions show what would happen at
different flood levels. In several versions, Renton will be adversely affected with at least
a foot of water over I-405. 13,900 cubic foot per second would result in minimal effects;
but it is a very unlikely scenario, unless we have a really dry flood season. The flood
scenarios that demonstrate 17,600 or 19,500 cubic feet per second (cfs)or less of water
are most likely. At the low end, these scenarios project that the valley area of Renton will
have one foot of water in parts, and at the high end (19,500) some areas will have 3-4 feet
of water or more. This won’t affect roads that much, and Fire Station 14 is okay for these
two scenarios. At the 25,000 cfs flow, however, most of the valley is under a significant
amount of water.
Chief Daniels asked how quickly the water would come and how much warning would be
possible. Auburn is very close, so depending on the intensity of the rain and the release,
we could have water on our hands in a very short period of time, as in a matter of a few
hours. What is more likely is that the water will come at a slower pace and take days to
reach full levels.
We are working on developing our notification and warning systems to ensure there is as
much lead time as possible. The US Army Corps of Engineers, National Weather
Service, and King County Flood Warning Center are all currently working on their
prediction technology.
2. Incident Management Team (DC Peterson)
When we were aware of the impending storm in December 2008, we prepared for the
event by putting together an incident command post. We had different departments, like
Public Works, Fire & Emergency Services, Police, etc. sit down together to develop an
incident action plan for the next operational period (12 hours). This worked out well as
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 214 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 3 of 8
we ensured we weren’t duplicating efforts and improved our efficiencies. Using this
successful experience as a model, we’d like to establish an Incident Management Team
so that if there is another event, we can have a team ready to meet, develop a plan, and
run an incident. We would use an Incident Management Team for all types of major
events from a water main break or an earthquake. We could also do this for public events
like Renton River Days and the 4th of July. The person/department in charge during any
incident would depend on the type of event. When a person is the incident commander
they need to be able to delegate and stay abreast of the situation. The ICS command and
general staff positions need people who are ready, experienced and trained, so that we are
able to support an incident over time and multiple operational periods.
Initially we need two members from each department who would be willing to be a part
of the Incident Management Team. They need to be available to take the training
necessary, as well as be ready to work on the team when an incident occurs. If we have
people designated for the necessary roles we will be better prepared to respond. The
Incident Command department will be in charge of the Incident Management Team and
focus their staff in Operations and others will take on support (primarily
planning/logistics/finance/PIO) roles.
Time commitment would be attending an in-depth ICS training that would ideally be a
week long to cover Command and General staff training, and eventually for the specific
position being trained for (Planning Section Chief, for instance). After that, the time
commitment would be minimal. There would be exercises/practice, but they would be
scheduled based on people’s availability. Whoever is identified for these roles would
need to be able to be available during an event. Since it is a week of training we will
have people specialize in different chief sections/roles. If we could accomplish the
training prior to flood season (November) we’ll be in a good place. We will balance
people’s skills and interests with the City’s needs. We are looking at eventually training
40 to 50 people city wide across the departments. The majority of these people will be
from the Fire & Emergency Services, Public Works, Police, and Community Services
departments. Representatives from the Finance department would probably be sent for
training offsite, instead of bringing an instructor here. We would like to accomplish this
by October before flood season begins in November.
Discussion: Time commitment is an issue, how do we balance this training with all the
different efforts we are working on for emergency management? It might help to
consider this as an investment in the City’s future, rather than a time commitment. We
could consider doing the training in pieces and have a one or two day training prior to the
flood season – what you absolutely need to know – and then build on it later. If we are
bringing the instructor in, we can tailor the training to Renton’s needs.
3. Regional Shelter Task Force
Dennis Conte and Sonja Mejlaender were unable to come today, so we will discuss what
we can without them. Recreation has taken the lead on providing this for the City of
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 215 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 4 of 8
Renton. Facilities are going to provide back-up support (open doors, provide tables and
chairs, etc).
The King County Region 6 Shelter Table handout provides information on what the
region has planned for sheltering. We are currently looking at combining efforts with
neighboring cities depending on sheltering needs, to ensure we have enough staffing and
Red Cross volunteers. At this point in time, we currently do not have enough people to
run one largeshelter at the staffing levels recommended by Red Cross for one entire 24
hour period. We are building up what we can do, but the region-wide plan may be a good
solution. According to the Red Cross 32, staff are needed to run a shelter based on the
different duties and tasks involved.
We only have a few mega shelter sites in the region and none are located in Renton.
There is a zone dormitory shelter in south King county, if we only have a few people in
need of shelter. If we have as many as 90 citizens in need of a shelter, we would
probably set up a dormitory shelter here in Renton. When thinking about an incident, we
need to think about the homeless and provide shelters or alternate locations if they aren’t
able to go to existing shelters. We also need to be aware of citizens who require a medical
needs shelter. Public health will provide that type of shelter, but we need to triage shelter
clients and direct the medical needs elsewhere. We should also be sure to evaluate the
situation and determine what level of sheltering is needed. What if food is all that
citizens need? We can offer a location to get free meals and have people return home
afterwards. This would be easier to do, and require less staff. The sheltering and mass
care decision tree handout helps with decision making. What do we do if we have a
small amount of people? Should we provide a shelter or give out hotel certificates? It
also addresses what to do with animals and could be very helpful.
We need to have a representative from Renton on the regional task force looking at
sheltering for the region. Please contact D. Needham if you or someone from your
department is interested.
4. H1N1 Flu Update (D. Needham)
The H1N1 flu is definitely out there and there are more cases than you realize. It is
extremely prevalent. If staff are symptomatic they should be sent home. We need to
prevent the spread of this highly infectious disease. There have been some people who
have died due to this flu, but they had pre-existing conditions. What we are concerned
about is the potential for this flu to mutate later in the actual flu season and become more
dangerous.
Tamiflu, an anti-viral, does not cure it, but stops the virus from replicating so the flu
doesn’t get much worse than it already is. If someone has a mild H1N1 and they aren’t
susceptible to developing a bad case, they aren’t given Tamiflu. If they have strong
symptoms, or they are vulnerable, they are given Tamiflu. They are trying to conserve
the Tamiflu to ensure we have enough of it and that it doesn’t become ineffective.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 216 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 5 of 8
If you need a poster/sign to encourage hand washing ask D. Needham. Remember to
cough or sneeze into your elbow or into a tissue, and then throw the tissue away.
5. Continuity Planning Check-In (All)
We had the continuity planning training last month where each department was tasked
with completing the worksheets for their workgroup by July 1. The forms are located on
the “Q” drive. D. Needham will send out a link to the group today, and then a deadline
reminder before they are due. A check-in with each department was done to determine
where people were at in the process:
Fire & Emergency Services – Haven’t done much since the workshop, but will.
AJS - Communications may need to do special planning beyond their department’s
borders.
Legal – New department, but working on it.
Finance – They are currently working on it and the meeting rep will remind those
working on the project of the July 1 deadline.
IS – G. McBride is certain that Young Yoon has finished this task.
Public Works – They have started working on this. They had a staff meeting regarding
the forms and each manager is working on their own section.
Community Services – Representative is not sure where they are at.
Police – Floyd Eldridge attended the training and K. Curry hasn’t had the chance to
connect with him, but will attempt to do so within the next few days.
CED - Has started the forms, most of the work done so far was done at the training, but
they are still working on it.
6. CodeRED Service (D. Needham)
The necessary paperwork is in process. Legal noted that the service has an automatic
renewal clause we will need to keep abreast of, because we will need to go through the
council approval process for the renewal as the price will go up to $25,000 in the next
year. Once the paperwork is done, we will have little to do on our end, as far as setting
up the system is concerned. We have arranged to get the E911 King County database for
free. We will most likely have a temporary employee come in for a short time to clean
up this list for our use. This money was already budgeted. We can use the published
phone number database legally for non-emergency messages – think about this option for
your departments if you may find a good use for it and can pay for the minutes used.
CodeRED is a hosted website service. We will provide a link from our home page.
Legally, we will only be able to use the King County E911 database for a true
emergency. CodeRED will have an opt-in and opt-out option. People will be able to go
to our website and add their cell phones and/or identify that their phone is TTY. If
someone opts in, they will be added to both databases. Business or other systems with
PBX lines can opt out to ensure we don’t overload their systems or aren’t calling phones
that shouldn’t be called. Ensuring we aren’t making unnecessary calls is fiscally
important, because while we are allotted a certain amount of minutes we have to pay for
any additional minutes over our limit.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 217 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 6 of 8
The question was raised regarding letting people who do not live in the City opt-in.
There are some issues with this, including concerns about the costs to call everyone. The
City of Auburn is limiting who can be on their list – if they don’t live in the city, they
will be put on the list only if it is a life safety issue, like a family member they care for
lives in the city. Since there are other public notification means that people outside of the
City will have access to, including the media and the Emergency Alert System, not
everyone with an interest needs to be on the list. CodeREDwill not be a method that is
used often and/or used alone. It will be, however, an excellent system for notifying
neighborhoods/areas if there is a police lock down or a hazmat. Either way, it will be a
difficult balancing act to determine who should be on the list. Cell phones are replacing
landlines more and more and used more often.
D. Needham will be working on a written procedure for emergency notification. Once
CodeRED contract is signed we are approximately 30 days from putting the code on the
website. The CodeRED plan comes with five username/passwords. The cost is
$150/each for additional username/passwords. We need to discuss and determine who
needs to have access.
The question was raised whether Valley Comm will administer a shared notification
system for the region. It would be great if Valley Comm would do this like Norcomm
and Clark County does, but Valley Comm has no interest in doing this and have not
responded positively to requests in the past. Each city in the area has had to get their own
system, but fortunately most are choosing the same one. This will allow us to tie our
databases together for incidents that cross lines/boundaries.
7. Communications Staffing Update (P. Shridhar)
P. Shridhar was able to get a grant for a new VISTA/Americorps volunteer in her section.
She had to leave the meeting early, so she will talk about this next month.
8. EM/Disaster Cost Recovery Efforts (D. Needham)
The deadline for wrapping up the costs, bids and paperwork for FEMA is June 15, 2009.
They are being very particular about submittals right now and very good documentation
is needed to ensure funding. Community Services has had to work hard to get their
claims approved and FEMA is questioning some costs. Paperwork needs to be put in
AND points have to be argued with FEMA before June 15 or it could result in
reimbursement delays.
Please be sure to do project accounting if applicable. We need to support our increase in
funding by documenting the work we are doing. Remember that EMPG funding is
available for emergency management related training. For example, there is a bomb
exercise at Valley Medical on June 20, 2009. If there are employees who’d like to
participate and need to be funded, speak to D. Needham. She will not be able to pay for
this event outright, but could pay the department back when the funds become available.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 218 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 7 of 8
9. Hazard Mitigation Plan Draft Overview (All)
(The documents can be found at Q:\Emergency Management\PLANS AND
PROCEDURES\Hazard Mitigation Plan\DRAFT REVISION)
A consultant hired by Community Services has been working on updating the Hazard
Mitigation Plan. D. Needham and R. Meyers have gone through the draft and made
changes/additions. At this point we need representatives from each department to review
the draft, paying close attention to the highlighted sections, and notify D. Needham of
their edits/answers. Both the new plan and the old plan are being provided because there
are points where you need to reference the old plan. Please let us know if you see errors
as you go through this. The entire plan needs to be completed by the end of the month,
so we need feedback in writing within the next two weeks. A review of highlighted
sections during the meeting identified:
Page 2-1: Map needs to be changed – need to secure map from GIS
Pages 2-4, 2-5, 2-6: Need more information from CED
Chapter 3: This chapter is currently filler, D. Needham needs to write it, so it can be
skipped when reviewing for now.
Page 4-3: Need everyone to look at the goals and answer the question - Do we want
to commit to these?
Pages 4-4, 4-5: Look at the information and make sure it is accurate – Public
Works/Facilities need to look especially hard at this section. Need to be able
to discuss these by the next meeting.
Page 6-1: Need brief descriptions/narrative for Community Services and
Transportation should include discussion of road/damages on 169.
Page 6-3: We may not be able to provide the flood inundation map due to legal issues.
Page 6-7: Could really use Public Works help with a list that includes all areas of
concern to include: street flooding, localized flooding, wetlands that spill
over, etc.
Page 6-8: We need Ron Straka to provide some data here on flood plain inventory,
critical facilities and transportation. We also need data on insurance coverage
in the city, D. Needham will check with Ron Straka on this.
Page 6-9: Ron Straka needs to look at this and add his input.
Page 6-12: Need ALL Departments to look at the table and make sure that everyone is
okay with what is listed. We need to be very careful to look at what we are
committing to and ensuring we can provide it.
Page 7-3: We need more information regarding responses to storm water flooding from
Ron Straka and R. Sled.
Page 7-8: We need to review and revise the table and prioritize it for the City of Renton.
Public Works, Community Services and CED have pieces.
Chapter 8: This chapter is on earthquakes. D. Needham searched through four or more
binders that were at least four inches thick on the Nisqually earthquake. After
looking through these we still cannot locate a synopsis of the damage to the
City of Renton from the Nisqually or earlier earthquakes. Does anyone know
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 219 of 449
Emergency Management Group – May 7, 2009 Minutes
Page 8 of 8
where we can find this information? One suggestion was the Renton
Reporter. Another was to use the county-wide data we do have and
extrapolate the City’s costs. R. Sled stated that he had a book with some of
this information for the State of Washington, and will get it to D. Needham.
Page 8-13: Evaluating short term solutions like strapping computer monitors or desktops
down and better fastening of servers. Facilities isn’t equipped to handle this
task. It makes sense that IS would do this for computers/etc. It is a huge cost
savings if we protect our expensive equipment. Facilities will need to work
on ensuring large pieces of furniture are secured so that they will not fall over.
We need to check with IS to determine what timeline is feasible for strapping
down computer equipment and how much of their budget is available for this
project. We may have some funding from EMPG for this, but really hope we
can count on departments to cover these costs.
Page 9-2: Need to correct graphic.
Page 9-5: Should take out consultant’s notes. Map may need further review.
Page 12-5: Need to speak to DC Flora to cite the fire code for hazardous materials.
Page 12-7: Change wording regarding cause of pipeline break to “a common cause”
rather than “the most common cause”.
Chapter 13: Need to hear overall feedback from IS and Police on this chapter.
Page 13-5: Need more action items.
Everyone should look at every table to determine your department’s commitments
Feedback in written form is needed within 2 weeks - June 18th. Need to do final
review at July meeting.
Minutes taken and submitted by: Kelly Carey, Admin Sec I, Fire & Emergency Services
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 220 of 449
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
2
2
1
o
f
4
4
9
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
2
2
2
o
f
4
4
9
Emergency Management Group Meeting
Minutes from July 2, 2009
Present:
Dennis Conte, Facilities Supervisor, Community Services/Facilities
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Fire & Emergency Services
Jeff Dosch, Security/Emergency Management, Valley Medical Center
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Abdoul Gafour, Utility Engineering Supervisor, Public Works
Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist, Fire & Emergency Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency Services
Ray Sled, Water Manager, Public Works
Pauletta Sulky, Risk Analyst, Human Resources & Risk Management
Next Meeting:
0900 on August 6, 2009, 7th Floor Conferencing Center.
Important Dates
July 9, 2009 – Red River Flood Team Seminar, RSVP at ecc.kc@kingcounty.gov
Assignments:
1. All Departments – Please review the Hazard Mitigation Plan and put your additions or
corrections in writing by July 15, 2009 and provide to D. Needham. Please pay close
attention to tasks and agenda items and the items noted on page 4-6 of these minutes.
Files are located at Q:\Emergency Management\PLANS AND PROCEDURES\Hazard
Mitigation Plan\DRAFT REVISION
2. All Departments – Ensure all Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP) worksheets
are completed, edited, printed out and ready to be compiled at the August 6 meeting.
Worksheets for each department are located at Q:\Emergency Management\PLANS AND
PROCEDURES\RENTON COOP\Draft
3. All Departments – Please review the Evacuation Plan.
4. All Departments – If you have a member of your department who would like to work
on the CodeRED rollout and/or needs access to the system, please contact D. Needham.
5. All Departments – If you have any classes that would be good for the Renton
Emergency Preparedness Academy, please contact D. Needham.
D. Needham chaired the meeting.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 223 of 449
Emergency Management Group – July 2, 2009 Minutes
Page 2 of 7
Key Decisions/Discussions:
1. Current Threat Updates (D. Needham)
a. Howard Hanson Dam
The US Army Corps of Engineers has issued another press release notifying the
community that issues with the right abutment remain, and they had to lower water
levels at the Dam. We now have similar flood pool restrictions we had in January.
The boundaries for the flood plain remains unchanged, but the statistical likelihood of
flooding is higher than when flood pool restrictions are not in place. There is a
briefing scheduled for next week between the US Army Corps and community
leaders to include Chief Daniels and D. Needham.
Green River Flood Response – When planning for this we need to talk about
communications. Valley Comm no longer has a VHF license, so they can’t patch
anymore. We will need to figure out how to do the patching ourselves and other
forms of communications. We will discuss this at the August meeting.
b. H1N1
The virus is still out there and people are still getting sick. We have had one death
related to the disease in King County. It is being rated a phase 6 pandemic, the
highest rating possible. Our concern is for the fall, and any issues we will face if it
mutates to become more deadly. Flu season generally begins in October/November.
In late September/October we should get the message out to our employees that the
disease is still out there and remind departments of sick employee policies to ensure
that people don’t come in if they are a risk for spreading the disease. Given the
timing for other things and events, it might be best to start looking at this issue in
August. Right now healthcare professionals are gearing up to ensure we have the
appropriate medications and are ready for the high number of cases expected.
2. Renton Emergency Preparedness Academy (REPA) changes (D. Needham)
We had a change in the location for the Academy because Renton Technical College had
to drop their community education programs. We are working with Community Services
to host REPA classes and are currently working on class descriptions. If you have a
class related to emergencies, disasters, etc, that might be good, please speak with D.
Needham.
We have offered a lot of different classes including interacting with emergency
responders and water safety. We have had great successes with these classes. R. Myers
shared a story where the emergency responder course proved useful to a citizen who
attended. It would be great to have a discussion/class on utility emergencies and/or what
to do if there is an interesting incident a citizen wants to watch. It would be good to put
some of the class information on Channel 21. We are considering taping some REPA
classes and developing informational videos from them for the website and channel 21,
helping us really reach out to the Public.
3. Communications Staffing Update
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 224 of 449
Emergency Management Group – July 2, 2009 Minutes
Page 3 of 7
Postponed - Preeti Shridhar was not available to attend the meeting.
4. September Outreach Efforts (D. Needham)
a. Ready in Renton
This is Renton’s version of National Preparedness Month. This year we will be
focusing on communications. We will be encouraging citizens to have an out of area
contact or some communication plan in place.
b. CodeRED rollout to public
We are currently working on getting CodeRED set up now. We have determined that
the Police Command Duty Officers, the Fire & Emergency Services Duty Chief, the
Emergency Management Duty Officer, the Mayor’s Office and the Public Works
Managers all need to have access to this system. If there is anyone else who needs
access, please speak with D. Needham.
We will be able to use the published numbers for sending out messages, but there is a
cost for making phone calls in excess of the allotted 75,000 minutes/year. The system
can be useful, but we need to be mindful of the costs. The good news is that in the
event of the emergency and disaster declaration, we can be refunded the cost of the
minutes, at 75% of cost.
We will be doing a press release and public roll-out of CodeRED once it is ready.
When this occurs we will have talking points for staff. The opt-in program will be
available on the web in September. We want businesses to opt-out the majority of
their phone numbers and identify only a few key numbers. This will ensure we don’t
tie up ours lines or theirs.
For cost division, triggers for use, non-emergency announcements, etc. we will need
to develop SOPs and will borrow from other cities to create these. If you have
anyone you would like to help participate in this or would be interested, please
speak to D. Needham.
c. NICHE rollout
We are currently working out the details and locations for this program. We have
CERT members signed up with the City of Renton ready to assist and help. They,
along with other community members, are working on identifying good locations in
their neighborhoods for a NICHE – centralized location in neighborhoods where
emergency information will be posted. CERTs will receive the information and post
it at these locations during an emergency. We are working on mapping all the people
with amateur radio licenses, so that we can effectively work with them to do low tech
communications.
d. Business outreach
We are considering having a luncheon with businesses to get information regarding
flood risks out to the business community. Suzanne Dale-Estey pointed out that most
of the businesses in the valley are not Chamber members, so we are considering
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 225 of 449
Emergency Management Group – July 2, 2009 Minutes
Page 4 of 7
doing a lunch at City Hall or another location. This project is in the works for
September.
5. Evacuation Template (D. Needham)
This handout is our recently completed evacuation plan on the preferred template for
King County. It was completed by Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management
Coordinator, and your input is needed. We would like to add Community Services as a
support agency – Community Services accepted this role.
Page 9: Who has the authority to order an evacuation? We do not currently have an
ordinance that defines this in Renton. One suggestion would be to have the people
authorized to activate the EOC able to activate an evacuation.
If an ordinance is drafted to address this, it will need to clearly define the difference
between an evacuation and a temporary move. For instance on page 8, the ordinance
should define what level of evacuation is covered. We will also need to work on defining
a procedure for activating an evacuation and put a structure in place for each of the types
of evacuations. The ordinance would be for large scale evacuations only. There is a
tabletop exercise scheduled for the Green River Valley cities on Sept. 9, 2009.
Please take a look at the draft and let D. Needham know of any comments, etc. The
plan is also available on the Q drive. If you make changes to the document, please use
track changes.
6. Hazard Mitigation Plan Draft Overview (ALL)
(These documents can be found at Q:\Emergency Management\PLANS AND
PROCEDURES\Hazard Mitigation Plan\DRAFT REVISION)
D. Needham received comments from most departments. She has yet to hear back from
Community and Economic Development (CED), and since they do not have a
representative at the meeting, D. Needham will follow up with them.
Public Works added all facilities and open spaces in table 4-1 and they added damages
from the 2000 flood on page 1 of chapter 6.
At this point, we still need a brief synopsis of the damage, including cost, to the golf
course. Can Public Works contact transportation and get more information on the
damage to the highway? D. Conte offered to add the description in. The one he just got
addresses the road slightly. The original estimate was a few million but the actual cost
was way less. D. Needham will chase down the final costs for the damage. D. Conte
will continue to go through the rest of the chapters.
Page 6-7: Storm water – We need to identify the roads and other areas that flood, that
aren’t mapped in the flood plain. D. Needham imagines that Public Works and Facilities
would have good idea of these areas. If these areas are listed in the plan we can put in for
funding to improve them. A. Gafour agreed to contact Ron Straka about this.
This document is supposed to be updated every 5 years at the least. We are currently
overdue for an update, but we will have it ready in time for upcoming grants. D.
Needham recommended that we schedule review/updating of the plan on a four year
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 226 of 449
Emergency Management Group – July 2, 2009 Minutes
Page 5 of 7
schedule so that we have two years between each type of plan revisions. This year we
had to do 2 plan revisions at once and it was a lot of work.
We have Steve Lee’s proposal for hazard mitigation coming up. We need to have it
finalized, and through FEMA and the state before September. Given FEMA and state
time frames, and having to go through council to get this approved, we need to have an
updated plan submitted to Council for adoption as soon as possible.
Page 6-8: We need someone who is an expert in flood issues to fill in the shaded areas.
A. Gafour will contact Ron Straka about this one as well.
Page 6-9: D. Needham hasn’t heard back from Ron Straka on this one.
For all departments – please look at all the chapters and make sure you’re okay with
the designated tasks.
Page 7-3: We need to put the input on flood areas here as well.
Page 7-8: Project List – We need to have a discussion about what the priorities are, make
sure they are accurate and put them in the proper order. D. Needham will work with
CED to ensure we have their input here.
Page 8-6: Landslides – Emergency Management received conflicting information that
that the slide in the Jones Rd area was due to heavy rains and not the Nisqually. The
earthquake was confirmed as the cause. All that needs to be added to this section are the
damage figures. Chief Flora reported that a home was destroyed.
Non structural seismic fastenings: Facilities is not able to do this project. It would be
best if Information Services can build this into their budget and do it as part of the costs
of doing business.
D. Conte mentioned that he has a table of seismic information that identifies what year
buildings were built and to what version of the code. He agreed to look at chapter 8 and
determine where it should be included.
Page 8-10: Need anecdotal information on the damages from the Nisqually
earthquake. Please insert what you know, and D. Needham will clean it up before the
draft is final. For example we’ve heard that 1 in 10 chimneys were damaged and two
reservoirs were damaged. For buildings like Carco, City Hall, etc., give a full sentence
on what was damaged.
Page 9-2: Consultant will fix the numbers on this page.
Page 9-3: Need definitions of high or moderate areas on the map. CED probably has
all of that information.
Page 9-8: Need CED to look at this, as it talks about limiting development.
Page 11-2: GIS piece
Page 12-5: Do we have a fire code reference we can quote that specifies what applies to
hazardous materials? Chief Flora will look into this.
Page 12-7: We might want to ask Carolyn Boatsman, to make sure we are saying it
right.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 227 of 449
Emergency Management Group – July 2, 2009 Minutes
Page 6 of 7
Page 13-5: These are our action items. We are considering adding two or three more
items, but are concerned about the availability of funding.
We recently had an offer from David Holcomb from the Department of Homeland
Security to evaluate our facilities and areas, and provide information on our
security/terrorism risks for free. Are we interested in having this done? Given that there
was interest, D. Needham agreed to set up a meeting with D. Holcomb, and a
representative from Facilities and Police.
We need to have one more public meeting to get required citizen input on the
process/plan. D. Needham will set a date and send it out.
D. Needham is also working on developing an introduction to the plan - a one page
essay summarizing threats and events citizens might face.
ALL DEPARTMENTS – Please get edits to D. Needham within 10 days
7. Continuity Planning progress– ALL (20 min)
(worksheet folders found at Q:\Emergency Management\PLANS AND
PROCEDURES\RENTON COOP\Draft)
How is ever yone doing on the continuity plan worksheets? At some point a
representative from each department will need to tie everything together in a summary
overview that includes identifying how much square feet is needed for everyone to do
their mission critical functions.
Legal - Done
Communications – Still working on these. This is a fairly new group, but
working on the plans has really opened people’s eyes.
Police – Not sure. Commander Curry will check with Floyd Eldridge who was
assigned to the task and ask him to touch base with D. Needham.
Facilities/Community Services – Will check on progress and report back.
Public Works – Some pieces are complete like utility billing, but other parts are
still in progress.
HR/RM – Working on it, nearly done.
Fire & Emergency Services – Majority of forms are complete. Need to compile,
edit and consolidate.
The worksheet deadline was yesterday. When we come together next month we need to
finish and polish the plan.
We will take an hour at the next meeting to discuss the information and how to make it
useable and useful. Please print your own copy for reference at the next meeting. Police
suggested inviting F. Eldridge to the next meeting. The compiling work is huge, so we
may need to hire a consultant to help pull this all together.
8. Announcements/Good of the Order
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 228 of 449
Emergency Management Group – July 2, 2009 Minutes
Page 7 of 7
• There is a Red River flooding team training on July 9. The training might be of
interest to HR, Fire & Emergency Services, and Public Works. If you are interested
be aware that an RSVP is required. Talk to D. Needham if you need more
information.
• If you would like assistance with purchasing preparedness supplies, and flu
preparedness supplies, let R. Myers know about it and she can pick out and order
supplies at a cost saving.
• Based on our experience with two recent fires, it might be prudent to change water
hydrant coloring to differentiate high vs. low pressure water.
• The Valley Medical Bomb Threat Drill was cancelled due to H1N1 issues.
Minutes taken and submitted by: Kelly Carey, Admin Sec I, Fire & Emergency Services
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 229 of 449
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 230 of 449
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 231 of 449
Emergency Management Group Meeting
Minutes from August 06, 2009
Present:
Dennis Conte, Facilities Supervisor, Community Services/Facilities
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
Suzanne Dale‐Estey, Economic Development Director, Community & Economic Development
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Fire & Emergency Services
Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Abdoul Gafour, Utility Engineering Supervisor, Public Works
Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist, Executive Department
Peter Hahn, Deputy Administrator, Public Works
Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fire & Emergency Services
George McBride, Information Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency Services
Linda Parks, Fiscal Services Director, Finance & Information Services
David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Tim Troxel, Deputy Chief, Police
Ray Sled, Water Manager, Public Works
Pauletta Sulky, Risk Analyst, Human Resources & Risk Management
Clark Wilcox, Commander, Police
Greg Zimmerman, Administrator, Public Works
Next Meeting:
0900 on September 3, 2009, 7th Floor Conferencing Center.
Important Dates
August 21, 2009 ‐ Continuity of Operations Planning FINAL DUE DATE
September 1, 2009 ‐ CodeRED Rollout
September 9, 2009 ‐ Evacuation Annex Table Top
October 5, 2009 ‐ Committee of the Whole Presentation
Assignments:
1. All Departments – Ensure all Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP) worksheets are
completed and ready to be compiled by August 21.
Worksheets for each department are located at Q:\Emergency Management\PLANS
AND PROCEDURES\RENTON COOP\Draft
2. All Departments – NIMS training needs to be completed by September 30.
3. All Departments – Please read and become familiar with the Evacuation Plan.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 232 of 449
Emergency Management Group – August 6, 2009 Minutes
Page 2 of 8
4. All Departments – If you have a member of your department who would like to work
on the CodeRED policies, please contact D. Needham.
5. SIDEBAR – D. Needham, S. Dale‐Estey, L. Garvich ‐ Determine what type of business
community outreach we would like to do in response to the Green River flood threat,
to include discussion of joining ShoWare event.
6. SIDEBAR – Chief Daniels, D. Needham, P. Sulky – Further discuss possibility of HR/Risk
Management developing City‐wide policies and procedures that deal with the
potential of a pandemic to include health screenings and exclusion policies.
D. Needham chaired the meeting.
Key Decisions/Discussions:
1. Green River Flood Risk Update and Issues – (D. Needham & G. Zimmerman)
There is currently a lot of outreach and events going on in different cities in regards to
potential Green River flooding, with the main push being in September. Preeti Shridhar is
coordinating with them and will keep us informed. A major concern in the event of a flood
event is the potential for sewage back‐up in Renton. The sewer system could become
surcharged or overloaded, causing sewer manholes to pop off and release sewage into the
valley. Residents wouldn’t be able to use their toilets. This should only happen in a worst
case scenario flooding event.
Public Works will be having a large internal meeting to brainstorm regarding this issue and
generate a task force. We are going to look at the different flood scenarios the Army Corps
of Engineers have provided, including the worst one with 5 or 6 feet of water at our feet,
and evaluate city vulnerabilities including: lifeline roads; protection of key properties;
operations of utilities including sewers; waterlines, we have no pumping systems in the
valley and will need to consider contamination; acquisition of resources and the level of
assistance we will provide to private companies. We will need to develop a good blend of
service to private and public entities. We will also look at potential road closures,
barricades and investigate any mutual aid agreements we should create with neighboring
cities that won’t be under water. If we have a huge flood we would probably have to shut
down the sewage plant meaning part of South Seattle will not have sewage service either.
What do we do if sewage is released? What will be our policy for providing assistance to
other cities in trouble? What facilities do we need to protect? Bob Hansen is on our
engineering staff and has been through similar flooding in Snohomish valley. We are
encouraging private businesses to have their own engineers come take a look and advise
them on what to do. Following this first internal meeting Public Works will be looking to the
other departments for more information and to exchange ideas. We will need to make a
presentation on our plan to the Committee of the Whole on October 5.
Since Public Works is talking to businesses, it is important that we think about all of the
types of business outreach the City’s doing. With all of the stuff going on in the community,
we want ours to be a coordinated message. We need to be talking now about what we will
do in September. L. Garvich addressed the possibility doing a hosted lunch at Renton
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 233 of 449
Emergency Management Group – August 6, 2009 Minutes
Page 3 of 8
Technical College with a small reservation fee, offer it as an opportunity for businesses and
residents to come and get information. S. Dale‐Estey suggested that we have a sidebar to
talk about all the different options. We should consider joining the event at the ShoWare
Center and make it a regional event. The ShoWare Center may attract interest in and of
itself, and joining the event shows the solidarity of the different cities working together to
address the flood risk.
In regards to sheltering, our region has decided to use a regional sheltering model. This is
the best method to ensure we have sufficient staffing – most cities don’t have enough for
one shelter. They are currently determining the best location for a Regional Medical Needs
Shelter. The one they thought they had identified has fallen through. They asked if the
region could use our community center (RCC), but since it is on the Cedar River it may not
be a good location. If we do offer RCC it will potentially decrease City revenues for rentals.
The good news is that under the terms of the Regional Disaster Plan we can charge a rental
fee for the facility that other cities will have to pay. The other cities can get reimbursed or
King County can get reimbursed for the rental fee(s). In the end, there would be no loss of
income for the City and we might even earn a small amount of revenue. We do have two
other neighborhood facilities in the highlands, but they are not big enough for a shelter of
this type. King County Public Health defined RCC as suitable – and is in fact the only facility
identified as suitable in our City. They are also looking elsewhere to avoid the sewer impact
area. We should be able to bill the requesting agency/jurisdiction for all related costs
(including staff OT) and then they can get reimbursed by FEMA at 75%.
We are currently looking at different ways to protect Station 14 with water barriers and/or
covering openings and relying on the walls to hold back flood waters. An evaluation of the
construction of the building and the different costs associated with protecting the building
will be done by Facilities. Barriers would cost between 45 and 75K.
The Army Corps of Engineers are spending 8.8 million to slow the seepage, but they will not
be able to test the flood pool over the winter. Any water coming in will go out. The dam is
currently only at 1/3 capacity. This year is going to be a tenuous year. They will test the
Dam next summer, which means we will probably be better protected for the following
flood season. To fully fix the dam will take years and hundreds of millions dollars, and will
require assistance from the federal government. In addition to spending 8.8 million on
seepage they are doing repairs on five different levees. There was a rumor that Kent was
raising levees and how that might cause water to go to other cities, but they are trying to
improve it and at this point aren’t expecting to displace water.
2. CodeRED Policies and Procedures Development (D. Needham)
The official rollout date is September 1, but we are up and running now. We had a training
on how to use the program yesterday. A handout that specifies who is authorized to use
the program was passed out. We need to add D. Pargas to the list under Emergency
Management. CodeRED can be used even if online access isn’t available. It will most likely
be used in conjunction with other warnings rather than alone. We need to develop policies
and procedures that define the triggers for when and how we will use it.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 234 of 449
Emergency Management Group – August 6, 2009 Minutes
Page 4 of 8
What are the situations or triggers for CodeRED use in emergency situations? Discussion
included the following:
Water Main Breaks – is that a life safety issue?
Road Closures/Snow – depends on how widespread.
Sinkhole ‐ may want to notify the neighborhood.
A non‐emergency use could be notification of land action use in areas ‐ allowing
us to use less paper, and be more efficient – we will need to clarify if
applicable/appropriate.
Levy failure, pre‐identify the group using GIS, and be ready in the event that it
breaks. Have a pending alert, all have to do is send it. Probably use this and a
media release. This will help ensure that we contact as many people as possible.
Another non emergency use would be Water Shut‐offs; we might even charge
the expense of the notification to the person.
Police lockdowns or evacuations would be good use for system.
Missing person announcements – children/elderly – still believed to be in the
neighborhood.
Notify public of con artist collecting utility bills? One factor to consider is how
widespread the issue is, if it is widespread, we would probably use different
forms of notification like a media release.
CodeRED has reports we can access that identify who was actually contacted, if it was an
answering machine, etc. The system can work with cell phones as well. We can even use a
comma delimited list and import it directly into the system without data entry. One of the
challenges will be getting the addresses with these reports. We currently cannot access
this, but are looking into why we cannot and how to gain access.
It is important for us to define how we are going to use the system and that what is listed
on the website is how the system will be used.
Since CodeRED has a limited number of minutes, we will need to evaluate how to pay the
costs for going beyond the limit. If we expand to non‐emergency use, departments will
have to budget for it. We can include the cost of minutes in the cost of projects/events
where notification is needed.
We need to recognize that it is unusual to get 100% connect rates leaving us to pick up the
odds and ends. We may have issues with notifying apartment complexes. Will never get
everybody, but will help contact those gaps. System has a slight issue with providing
messages in multiple languages: we can use another language but need a translator, etc and
may not have time in emergency event.
Who should have the authority to issue a CodeRED announcement? D. Needham
recommends tying the authority to those who have authority to activate the EOC. Do we
need the Mayor’s blessing, a department head’s blessing or what? When we need it, it will
be a time‐sensitive issue. Who should have the authority? Can we get in trouble? If we use
the e911 list when it isn’t an emergency we could be fined/penalized, but otherwise no
trouble, except for the cost.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 235 of 449
Emergency Management Group – August 6, 2009 Minutes
Page 5 of 8
The group suggested it should be Administrators and up. Each department would set the
policy for who they want to empower to be a delegate, so authorized parties would be an
administrator or designee. There will still need to be a formal City Policy.
What about notification – are we telling the Mayor or City Council or Emergency
Management when this is done? Administrators could tell them? There is an all‐call
feature where we can identify people to be called every time a message is sent out. For
example, Emergency Management is already set to receive a notice every time so they will
know what is going out. The City policy we develop needs to govern the finance end of
things as well. We have 75,000 minutes total. If we go over 75,000, we can only purchase
minutes in 10,000 increments. We could start with 25,000 per department and then
reconcile at the end of the year or divide the 75,000 for emergency use only between those
groups that send emergent messages like Police, Fire & Emergency Services, Emergency
Management and Public Works. We could require all departments sending out non‐
emergency messages to budget/pay for them. They will need to build in their use, but if at
the end of the year we don’t have any cost, i.e., we don’t go over the minutes, we’ll work it
out between departments. The ‘year’ for the 75,000 minutes is June to June. By March we
need to determine if we want to continue with the contract and at what level, it is currently
set up to auto renew.
We can do free text messages and email notifications to your own staff using the system.
Don’t rely on it for emergency communications, because it could be backlogged and/or
people may not get them, but there are pertinent uses. Individual department users can
work on setting up groups for their staff.
When thinking about the different types of messages you’ll send out, there is an advantage
to doing shorter messages. The shortest a message can be is 30 seconds.
3. Personnel Policies in a Pandemic – (P. Sulky & D. Needham)
Given the impending swine flu pandemic we need to consider different pandemic related
policies for the City. The CDC recommends having policies that address health screening of
employees, restricted travel, evacuating employees, employee exclusion and sick policies
among other things. HR/Risk Management has reviewed this and is unsure that this is a
policy development or revision issue. There is concern that required health screening might
violate HIPPA laws. Chief Daniels noted that doing a health screening is legal and we have
EMTs who could do this. A shift/crew could be assigned to perform this duty. Is there an
issue with sending someone home? If it becomes necessary we should have a check in
process for when people come into the building. If other jurisdictions do this and we don’t,
it would be a problem. When we do, we will have to tie it to a pandemic event and a
mayor’s proclamation.
Chief Daniels and D. Needham stressed that this is an HR policy issue. We need policies that
define what we would do if there were a pandemic event. For example, what exactly
switches on extra precautions, and what are the precautions we’ll be taking? Does the CDC
have a template for these policies and procedures? Since everyone is going to be doing the
same thing is a policy needed? HR/Risk Management, again, is not sure this is a policy
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 236 of 449
Emergency Management Group – August 6, 2009 Minutes
Page 6 of 8
development or revision. They aren’t comfortable dictating what is going to happen. There
would need to be guidelines after it has happened but it isn’t a policy HR/Risk Management
would do in advance.
Chief Daniels and D. Needham disagreed, stating that we need to know what the policy will
be in advance. If we are sent home, when and how will we be allowed to return? Are we
going to remove doctor note requirements, especially if they can’t get one in a pandemic?
Right now it is not a deadly strain so we do not need tents and screening now, but the
potential is there. What is the threshold? We will need to tie into public health standards
for the threshold. What about sick leave? An exclusion policy comes into play.
HR/Risk Management feels there will be guidelines developed by outside agencies but that
a City Policy isn’t needed. Others feel like we are putting our head in the sand if we don’t
develop something to deal with this and leave it up to individual departments. We can
remind supervisors to monitor employees now, but this doesn’t help if we need to exclude
people. On a philosophical level are we going to do something? Flu season is coming soon.
We need to start talking about it now so that any new policies are in place in time. It was
recommended that Fire & Emergency Services and HR/Risk Management have a sidebar
on this issue. This work will need to be done along with Unions. P. Sulky will pull related
policies and provide them to Fire & Emergency Services. They will then meet with Robin
Robertson in HR/Risk Management. If we don’t do anything internal we won’t be able to do
anything external. If other people do it and we don’t, we will be in trouble. Need to have
these policies in place, even if we don’t use them. It would be good to have these policies
tied to an emergency proclamation from the Mayor. We may want to get Legal involved
when creating these policies.
4. Incident Management Team/NIMS Training – (D. Needham)
We held a meeting a week and a half ago on Incident Management Team development. We
are putting together a team and will have an intense NIMS training for these members. We
have some opportunities for upcoming NIMS 300 or 400 trainings. If you have not signed
up there is one for 400 the dates left at this time are August 31/Sept 1st. There are more
date openings for NIMS 300. D. Needham will send out reminders about the trainings,
particularly those that can be taken online. Please let D. Needham know if there is anyone
who can’t take it online. Last call for NIMS compliance is September 30. If anyone is going
to act as an Incident Commander they need NIMS 400. If they are going to be Command &
General Staff they need NIMS 300. All people taking the week‐long intensive trainings in
Planning or Logistics need to have taken everything including NIMS 300 and 400.
Supervisors need to have NIMS 100, 700 and 200 if they will have a field emergency
response role. All emergency responders need NIMS 100 and 700. NIMS 800 is really only
needed by those who will deal with the Feds directly, but will confirm.
5. Communications update – (L. Garvich)
As of July 1st, AJLS became the Executive Department and has a newly formed
Communications division with 7 people. The hope for this change is to streamline and
increase the efficiency of communications for the City. By bringing graphic design and
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 237 of 449
Emergency Management Group – August 6, 2009 Minutes
Page 7 of 8
community outreach together we should be able to provide a greater resource to the City.
The division will be providing support for Ready in Renton in September and the Howard
Hanson Dam issue. They will also play a key role in the EOC when it is activated.
6. Evacuation Annex Finalization – (M. Mattson)
M. Mattson has completed the Evacuation Annex based on all comments. By the end of
Friday it will be final. If you have any edits, let her know ASAP. Last month we talked about
adding Community Services as a support agency, this was confirmed at the meeting. The
great news is that we now have a plan in place. King County provided an evacuation
template with questions leading us through the process. It has been vetted throughout the
City and is a good plan. The last thing to do is add the appendixes. King County is going to
be putting on a table top exercise to explore the plan. We will have our own table top
exercise, to explore our plan and see if it works, in the morning of September 9. Everyone
participating should familiarize themselves with their plan, show up and be ready to play.
Please send good representation to the tabletop so they can help identify how we want
things to be done and highlight any issues.
Currently Fire & Emergency Services and Police are listed jointly for evacuation. We would
like to make Police primary, and Fire & Emergency Services a support, because the Police
handle the actual movement of people. Public Works will help support them with the
movement, and Community Services will support them by designating where people will go.
The recommendation is that Fire & Emergency Services or Public Works can designate the
need for an evacuation and Police will be the incident commander for the actual
evacuation. Is this okay with Police? Whoever designates this will need to provide them
with comprehensive information so that they can lead the evacuation properly. Need to
know soon, because the plan is due now.
7. Hazard Mitigation Plan Finalization ‐ (D. Needham)
(Documents found at Q:\Emergency Management\PLANS AND PROCEDURES\Hazard
Mitigation Plan\DRAFT REVISION)
This is the last call for any changes to the Hazard Mitigation Plan. D. Needham will have to
chase CED down for a couple things. Please look at the Action Plan handout. If there is a
project that you would like to get extra funding for through Hazard Mitigation, you should
add it to this list ASAP. Changes can be made to the draft directly. The ‘Drop Dead Date’
for the plan is next Wednesday, August 12.
8. Continuity Planning Next Steps – (D. Needham)
(Worksheet folders found at Q:\Emergency Management\PLANS AND
PROCEDURES\RENTON COOP\Draft)
D. Needham has reviewed the work that has been done. Police didn’t have as much as we
thought, Public Works had more than we thought but needs to consolidate, Executive/AJLS
needs more, Fire & Emergency Services needs to consolidate some, Finance/IS still has
sections to complete, HR/Risk Management did a good job, CED has a lot to do and Legal is
done. D. Needham will be contacting individual departments and let them know what
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 238 of 449
Emergency Management Group – August 6, 2009 Minutes
Page 8 of 8
needs to be done. Some have a little polish work and others have a bit more to do. Each
Department should go back to their folders and ensure that it is done, particularly in the
event of a pandemic. We need to identify how much space is needed for mission critical
functions. Don’t worry about identifying alternate locations. Facilities will look at the
square footage needs and determine what should be done. Everyone needs to complete
the facilities worksheet. Be creative about what your mission critical functions are and how
you will meet them. Alter regular plans like work schedules of 8/5 working from home,
calling in, etc.
The plan needs to be complete enough to make sense to someone outside of your
Department. At that point a consultant may be our best choice to help us tie it together
and compile what all the departments will be doing.
Our deadline has already passed. We need to complete this ASAP. It should be in place
before pandemic or flooding occurs, with enough time for a consultant to pull it together
into a final format. Please make sure your plans are ready for an outside look, and are the
final draft, by August 21.
Minutes taken and submitted by: Kelly Carey, Admin Sec I, Fire & Emergency Services
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 239 of 449
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
2
4
0
o
f
4
4
9
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
2
4
1
o
f
4
4
9
Emergency Management Group Meeting
Minutes from February 4, 2010
Present:
Kelly Carey, Administrative Secretary, Fire & Emergency Services
Dennis Conte, Facilities Supervisor, Community Services
Kent Curry, Commander, Police
Suzanne Dale-Estey, Economic Development Director, Community & Economic Development
Sonja Mejlaender, Community Relations Specialist, Community Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency Services
David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal, Fire & Emergency Services
Colleen Shannon, System Technician, Human Resources & Risk Management
Ray Sled, Water Manager, Public Works
Important Dates:
0900 on March 4, 2010, Next EM Group Meeting, 7th Floor Conferencing Center
0800 on April 6-7, 2010, Partners in Preparedness Conference, GTCTC
Assignments:
All Departments:
a. Please take a final look at the Hazard Mitigation Plan and notify K.
Carey of the coordinating organizations in the Action Items.
b. Please notify K. Carey who will be the representative at the public
meeting for the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
c. Please review indirect costs requests for grants (section 5 of the
minutes) and provide to Director Needham ASAP.
d. Please update the disaster assignments list for your department
and provide to Director Needham ASAP.
e. Please review the Gets Card list and notify Director Needham of
critical positions that need the card (and those that don’t).
f. Please review the 2010 work plan and notify Director Needham to
add or remove any projects.
g. Update EOC callout - determine one or two contact numbers that
are always answered. Provide to Director Needham ASAP.
h. Please be sure to track any time working on Emergency
Management using EM coding in ITS or Telestaff.
i. Notify Director Needham if members are interested in attending the
Partners in Preparedness Conference for free.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 242 of 449
Emergency Management Group – February 4, 2010 Minutes
2
Director Needham chaired the meeting.
Key Decisions/Discussions
1. Green River Update – S. Dale-Estey
• Community and Economic Development has been working with the Communications
Division to create a mass communication plan in regards to Green River Flooding.
o We were getting inundated with calls and experienced issues with
misinformation and/or how facts were presented, so we have tried to get
organized internally.
o We were meeting every two weeks to touch base and share information.
Coordinating City interfaces with businesses allowed us to act quickly and
effectively when any red flags came up.
Vivienne Lietz at extension 6582 was/is the funnel for business contacts
and is maintaining a list of contacts to review at the meetings.
o We offered a forum for brokers in the community to hear our perspective on the
facts.
o We have been using an email list and have created a lot of redundant systems to
communicate with businesses in the valley as well as the property owners.
o It is an ongoing challenge. Please continue to share information!
• Fundraising – is now job #1 – so we can arrange permanent fixes to the Dam and
levy system that meet FEMA standards. Improving our currently poor floodplain
rating will increase interest in coming to Renton.
o We are coordinating with neighboring cities to determine what needs to happen
to fix this issue. The current quote for a permanent fix is 540 million.
o If every city submits the same request it should help us get what is needed.
o S. Dale-Estey and the Mayor are going to Washington D.C. to discuss this issue.
• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers design process is usually six years long. This will
not work for both dam and levies. They are attempting to expedite the design
process as well as evaluate alternative analyses.
• This year’s remaining flood threat is low, but next year will be a big concern.
2. 2010 Work Plan Finalization
• The 2010 Work Plan handout summarizes the results of last month’s meeting – The
names listed are the leads for the projects.
• Please skim through and see where your department falls. If there is anything we
need to take off the table or add, please let Director Needham know.
• Disaster assignments – We’ve received HR/RM, Community Services and Police’s
assignments. We still need them from the other departments.
o K. Carey will send out a template to help with the disaster assignments listing. If
you need individual assistance with this, please contact Director Needham.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 243 of 449
Emergency Management Group – February 4, 2010 Minutes
3
o The positions identified on this should only be those who do not have a critical
position during a disaster job (not response-level positions).
• Notice the Community Risk Reduction Community listed at the end of the plan.
o This is a Fire & Emergency Services committee that works on reducing risks
through prevention (think Renton Heart Month) but there is no public input.
o Since all of the departments perform prevention work, this committee could be
developed further to include all Departments and public input. The vision would
be for this group to be like the EM group but with the public perspective on how
to reduce risks in the community.
• ESF 14 – CED is the lead, but we need to identify a representative. If this isn’t the
year to do it, let us know.
3. School Emergency Planning – R. Myers
• The Emergency Management Institute offers a course on Multi-Hazard Planning for
schools.
o We’d like teams from each school in the Renton School District to attend during
June, July or August.
o We’d like to get internal commitments and identify back-ups before approaching
the schools. We need reps from Fire, Police & Emergency Management.
o R. Myers has a form she can send out to those people who should attend.
o Costs – (In addition to week of time from employees attending)
Travel is reimbursed but departments would have to front the money.
Departments would have to pay for the meal ticket - $91/week.
o Relationship with schools is improving – they have agreed to support the NICHE
program – but the emergency planning relationship is very weak.
Issue is not necessarily that they aren’t doing planning, but that they aren’t
coordinating with City to ensure good response.
We need to gather copies of the emergency plans for our schools – so that
we know what they expect from us and what we can expect from them.
o Private school (Renton Christian, St. Anthony’s) connections are good. Similarly
preschool training and communication is good.
4. Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Trying to put a wrap on this plan, but we need ALL departments to review the
action items and update with coordinating organizations. How much time is
needed to address the action items? The group agreed to two weeks – Feb 18, 2010.
• We also need everyone to take a final look at the plan to address the consultant’s
notes and ensure everything is the way it should be.
o We need CED to look at inserts and update with requested information.
o Want everyone to think about projects that should be included – be creative -
we can put things in the plan that we may never accomplish, but we might be
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 244 of 449
Emergency Management Group – February 4, 2010 Minutes
4
able to do in the future. The projects would improve the plans’ approval rating
as well as the likelihood of getting those projects accomplished.
• Please mark the hard copy, send to K. Carey and we’ll compile.
• We also need one more public meeting prior to completing the plan and sending it
to the state.
o Please provide K. Carey with names of the representative(s) from each
department who will come to public meeting to answer questions.
o The meeting would most like start with an open house from 6:00-6:30 p.m. and
then 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. for questions.
o P. Shridhar wondered if this could be combined with a City Council Meeting.
Director Needham is going to investigate this idea further.
• Peter Renner is applying for a grant and the plan has to be in the place in order to
receive the grant. (Good motivation to get it done quickly).
5. Grant Update and Information Needs
• We’ve received a slight ‘blow’ in regards to EMPG eligibility guidelines.
o Previously we could count any salary time spent on Emergency Management as
long as the annual amount was 5% or more.
o The state has changed the requirement so that we can only count those people
who are within Director Needham’s chain of command.
o To make up the ‘difference’ we need to determine all of Emergency
Management’s indirect costs including:
Facility costs – annual cost per person in Emergency Management
IS costs – computer, phones, pagers, support, etc.
Finance / HR/RM – cost to support Emergency Management Employees
Please contact Director Needham with these costs as well as any others she
could include.
6. Disaster Reimbursements – K. Carey
• K. Carey has been working on Disaster Reimbursements from FEMA.
• Since October she has processed over $250,000 in funds for the City.
• If you are working on one of the FEMA projects and/or have questions about
Disaster Reimbursements, please speak to her.
7. Target Capability List Priorities
• Passed out a list distributed yesterday by Homeland Security. Please look at the
green highlighted items and help us identify which, from our local perspective, are
our highest priorities: (in no particular order)
o Discussion identified the following priorities
25 – City Evacuation & Shelter in Place
33 – Mass Care
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 245 of 449
Emergency Management Group – February 4, 2010 Minutes
5
37 – Economic & Community Recovery
36 – Restoration of Lifelines
17 – Volunteer Management and Donations
2 – Communications
10 – Critical Infrastructure Protection
o We may be able to create a project that addresses one of these priorities if
someone is willing to pilot it and it has regional effect. Please consider this, and
the list, and contact Director Needham if you have a project or suggestions.
8. Gets Card
• The list of current Gets Card holders was passed out. Please read the fact sheet.
• We need to review the list and identify who should and shouldn’t have a card.
o Who is critical? Please review and get back to Director Needham.
9. Announcements/Good of the Order
• Partners in Preparedness Conference – let Director Needham know who attended
last year so we can bill and pay for it.
o If members of your department want to attend this year’s conference,
Emergency Management should be able to cover the cost – please let Director
Needham know who would like to attend.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 246 of 449
For publication in the Renton Reporter not later than 3/12/2010
CITY OF RENTON
CITIZEN INPUT MEETING
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The city administration will be hosting a public meeting on March 16th, 6:00-8:00 pm in the 7th Floor
Conferencing Center, Room #726 on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton. The
city has been working on a revision of the Hazard Mitigation Plan over the past year. The plan and local
maps will be available for review. The plan identifies hazards that could affect residents, businesses,
visitors, and infrastructure within the City of Renton and identifies potential mitigation projects that
could help protect the City from future disasters. Public input is sought for the finalization of this plan.
For further information, please contact Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director at 425-
430-7027 or view the plan at rentonwa.gov.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 247 of 449
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 248 of 449
4
a
.
‐
R
e
n
t
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
P
a
g
e
2
4
9
o
f
4
4
9
Emergency Management Group Meeting
Minutes from April 1, 2010
Present:
Craig Burnell, Plan Review, Community & Economic Development
Kelly Carey, Administrative Secretary, Fire & Emergency Services
Suzanne Dale-Estey, Economic Development Director, Community & Economic Development
Bill Flora, Deputy Chief, Fire & Emergency Services
Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Supervisor, Public Works
Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist, Executive
Gina Jarvis, Fiscal Services Director, Finance & Information Services
Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Coordinator, Fire & Emergency Services
Sonja Mejlaender, Community Relations Specialist, Community Services
Rachel Myers, Emergency Management Intern, Fire & Emergency Services
Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Director, Fire & Emergency Services
Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney
Preeti Shridhar, Communications Director, Executive
Ray Sled, Water Manager, Public Works
Tim Troxel, Deputy Chief, Police
Important Dates:
0800 on April 6-7, 2010, Partners in Preparedness Conference, GTCTC
0900 on May 6, 2010, Next EM Group Meeting, 7th Floor Conferencing Center
0800 on October 6-7, 2010, SOUNDSHAKE 2010 – SAVE THE DATE!
Assignments:
All Departments:
a. The Continuity of Operations Plan is due May 12, 2010
a. Please submit updates to the following items for your Department
ASAP to K. Carey:
i. Disaster assignments, NIMS training, GETS Card list and the
EOC callout list
b. Please begin gathering expense data for Green River flood planning
and protection measures.
c. Please determine which staff will participate in SoundShake at the
EOC and save the dates – October 6 and 7. If you have injects for
SoundShake contact M. Mattson.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 250 of 449
Emergency Management Group – April 1, 2010 Minutes
2
CED, CS, HR & Fire:
• Please coordinate to determine the primary department for ESF 23.
PW & Parks:
• Please identify who can work on the Debris Management plan and
notify Director Needham.
Director Needham chaired the meeting.
Key Decisions/Discussions
1. Green River Update
• US Army Corps of Engineers are starting to refill the reservoir and test capacity.
• This year will be a “neutral” winter historically known for greater flooding.
o The grout curtain has been installed and there are plans to expand the curtain,
which will take approx. 1 yr. The permanent repair work will take 5 years.
o Flood risk will decrease back to previous levels when project is complete.
• Levees are still a concern.
a. Restricted Access Authorization Pass
• Local emergency managers have created a draft and are meeting with the State
next week to present it to them.
• The pass will be in color, difficult to forge and will have an expiration date.
• A safety caution/disclaimer will be included.
• Emergency managers will provide passes only to critical infrastructure providers
or others with a public safety mission in the area.
o The committee recommended that a specific person be named on the pass
and that passes be limited.
o Some companies with Hazardous Materials may need emergency mitigation
assistance.
• Once public safety hazards are mitigated, access will be allowed for all impacted
businesses/residents. They will not need a special pass. They will only need their
ID and proof that they have legitimate business in the blocked off area.
b. Debris Management Planning Status Check
• Parks accepted responsibility for doing the Debris Management Plan but has not
had time to work on it.
• In the absence of another plan, Public Works had begun developing their own.
• We had a consultant offer to assist Parks with this for free, but the offer ended
April 1- did Community Services or Public Works connect and/or contact the
consultant for assistance? No.
• We need Public Works and Community Services to work together on this. Please
let Director Needham know who are the best people to assign.
• There is a very easy-to-use regional template available for this plan so that we
just have to fill in the narrative blanks.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 251 of 449
Emergency Management Group – April 1, 2010 Minutes
3
2. Blue Cascades Exercise
• Flu/Flood Tabletop Exercise that included businesses, local, state and federal
government, King County Public Health, Dept of Homeland Security, DSHS, etc.
• It was useful for businesses that hadn’t done the flu/flood planning in advance.
• Pointed out that there is not enough bandwidth for everyone, especially when you
count children, to telecommute.
3. Regional Catastrophic Planning
a. Regional Long Term Care Mutual Aid Plan
• Tabletop Exercise for long term care facilities. The point was to encourage them
to develop mutual aid plans in the event of an emergency. Liability issues,
transportation issues, appropriate resources, etc were discussed.
• Care providers were encouraged to be creative and develop solutions if/when
current plans aren’t available.
• Renton’s long term care facilities were not present. King County Public Health is
going to follow up with them, we will assist as needed.
b. Regional Volunteer Management Issues
• Workshop reviewed the current volunteer management plans local jurisdictions
have and determined that most don’t have them.
• Renton, however, is prepared to register emergency workers for our own use.
• Workshop also addressed how to connect resources – connect people with
needs with those who are willing to help without liability concerns. We don’t
have the staff to create a volunteer reception center and do the connections.
• They are currently looking for a private partner to assist with this need. If
anyone has an idea or suggestion please notify M. Mattson.
4. Hazard Mitigation Plan Finalized
• Special thanks to Kelly Carey for doing the wrap-up and pulling the plan together.
• It will be sent to the State of Washington Emergency Management Division and
FEMA for review. It will also be sent to the City Council via memo. Council approval
will be sought after the State and FEMA review.
• If you have edits send them in TODAY. We must send in as soon as possible to
ensure hazard mitigation grant eligibility.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 252 of 449
Emergency Management Group – April 1, 2010 Minutes
4
5. Seismic Building Codes/Lessons from Chile
• Discussed an OpEd Article in the NY Times regarding seismic building codes in Chile.
• Chile had 9.5M earthquake recently. Since they are in a subduction zone like us, we
have the potential for the same size quake here.
• If we were struck with a quake of this magnitude we would be greatly impacted.
• Generally our codes are strict, but we have a lower seismic code than California.
• Is frequency the best way to determine seismic codes? Of course, we need to
balance this with costs for development with stronger codes.
• Building codes here could be strengthened, but aren’t for this group to discuss.
• Are there some talking points we could prepare for calls of this nature?
• Director Needham will meet with C. Burnell and Neil Watts to create talking points,
and defer calls to them when expert information is needed.
6. SoundShake Workshop Discussion
a. Building Officials Workshop Tying into Renton Damage Assessment Planning
• Larger jurisdictions like Seattle and King County have developed lists of people
qualified to provide rapid building assessments for a fee.
o We need a roster like this for our jurisdiction.
• ATC 20 is a course that trains people to perform this assessment. City employees
from Facilities, Fire Inspection and Building have taken this.
o We should compile a list of who has taken the training to determine if more
trained City staff members are needed.
• An emergency proclamation is needed prior to doing assessments to ensure the
people doing the work are indemnified.
• There are several businesses that cannot open until they have been assessed.
We need to make sure we have sufficient support to help these reopen.
• We also need to set up mutual aid relationships with other jurisdictions, like
Eastern Washington, in the event that we have a huge disaster.
• Non-emergency services agencies are not as tied into mutual aid arrangement
like emergency services agencies.
o Renton is signatory to the Regional Disaster Plan that includes a legal
payment agreement between King County agencies, but if it was a county-
wide disaster, we would need larger agreements to reach outside of the
area.
• Currently we have three departments listed as joint primaries: CED, Community
Services and Fire. We need one clear lead to take on primary responsibility for
this ESF to organize planning meetings. Consider Risk Management as the
organizer and have the other three as supporters actually doing the work?
• Need to develop a way for people to report in from the field, to include P/W and
CS, and we could have massive information if they provide the input.
• Using Engines and Aid Cars to do damage assessment is not the best use of our
materials and resources.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 253 of 449
Emergency Management Group – April 1, 2010 Minutes
5
o We have a large number of people assigned to do Damage Assessment, but
there are concerns about using personal vehicles, personal versus city
insurance, traffic congestion, identification - more brainstorming is needed.
o Public Works trucks all have radios and they will assess bridges immediately,
in addition to documenting fires and other damage. They could send all
information to City Shops and that information could be relayed to the EOC.
o King County Office of Emergency Management is currently working on an
internet application that would allow people to click on general categories to
indicate the type of damage and then GPS tag it. Our IS department is
currently working with them.
• Revisit next month. Really need to tackle this now in preparation for the 2012
review of the entire plan.
b. Long-Term Housing Workshop Tying into Renton ESF 6/Mass Care Planning
• Plan to limit shelter use to two weeks, if need extends beyond that, we will need
to look at providing temporary housing.
• Currently need to identify shelters and temporary housing in Renton, even with
planning there will definitely be gaps - especially with a big disaster.
7. Exercise Participation Decisions
a. Dam Sector Exercise
• There will be a Green River tabletop exercise around the same time as
SoundShake. Due to the timing, we are unsure if we will be able to participate.
b. Green River Integrated Emergency Management Course (IEMC)
• Planned for 2011. Similar to Emmetsburg, being brought to us.
c. SoundShake 2010
• King County is putting this together and is currently putting on workshops. They
provided little notice, but we are participating as best we can.
• Two day exercise with an EOC focus, Oct. 6 and 7, running 12 hours each day.
o Main focus will be EOC operations, to include shift changes. The handout
includes King County objectives for the exercise – we can add to them
o Let M. Mattson know if you have things you’d like to add.
• More EOC training will be scheduled prior to the exercise. We currently only
have enough people to fully staff one operational period.
• Need to identify additional staff to get the training and able to rotate through.
• We are still trying to set up a Logistics Chief training this year – is there a time
that is best for people? We are not having much luck finding a free trainer.
• Please review your lists and identify if there are any others you can add to the
EOC list and who could participate October 6 and 7 – hold these dates.
8. Community Risk Reduction Committee Reorganization
• Postponed until next month.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 254 of 449
Emergency Management Group – April 1, 2010 Minutes
6
9. Assignments Check-in
• Continuity of Operations Plan is due May 12th
• Still have not received disaster assignments, GETS Card, EOC Contact updates from
several Departments – please send them in. We will send out a specific list shortly.
10. RCPT Grant
• We can provide a match for this regional grant by looking at Green River planning
work that has crossover applications to the RCPT project list. Please review the list
and document any hours and expenses.
11. Announcements/Good of the Order
• None.
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 255 of 449
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 256 of 449
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 257 of 449
APPENDIX 5
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
TBD
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 258 of 449
CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.3680
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.
WHEREAS,Section 322,Mitigation Planning,of the Robert T.Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act,enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
(DMA)(P.L.106-390)provides new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning;and
WHEREAS,the Disaster Mitigation Act establishes the requirement for state and local
government mitigation planning as a condition of disaster assistance;and
WHEREAS,the Mayor and City Council recognize that mitigation planning,along with
other emergency preparedness actions,provides a significant opportunity to reduce the City's
disaster losses;and
WHEREAS,the City has developed the City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan and is
committed to ful:filling the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in the Plan;
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON,DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.
SECTION II.
The above findings are true and correct in all respects.
The City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan is adopted by the City
and all responsible departments are authorized to execute their responsibilities in implementing
this Plan.
1
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 259 of 449
4a. ‐ Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 260 of 449
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Bid Opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG-12-021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden
Ave. Widening)
Meeting:
Regular Council - 02 Apr 2012
Exhibits:
Staff Recommendation
Bid Tabulation Sheet (11 bids)
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
City Clerk
Staff Contact:
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502
Recommended Action:
Council concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 1,968,690.65 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ 2,600,000 City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Engineer's Estimate: $2,103,612.17
In accordance with Council procedure bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following three
criteria: There was more than one bid, there were no irregularities with the low bid, and the low
bid was within the total project budget. Therefore, staff recommends awarding the contract to the low
bidder, ICON Materials, in the amount of $1,968,690,65.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Award the contract to the low bidder, ICON Materials, in the amount of $1,968,690.65.
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 261 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 262 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 263 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 264 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 265 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 266 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 267 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 268 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 269 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 270 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 271 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 272 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 273 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 274 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 275 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 276 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 277 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 278 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 279 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 280 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 281 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 282 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 283 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 284 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 285 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 286 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 287 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 288 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 289 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 290 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 291 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 292 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 293 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 294 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 295 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 296 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 297 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 298 of 449
7c. ‐ City Clerk reports bid opening on 3/20/2012 for CAG‐12‐021, S.
Lake Washington Roadway Improvements (Garden Ave. Widening) Page 299 of 449
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Ordinance to Restrict Location of Downtown
Library Improvements via the citizen's Initiative
Process
Meeting:
Regular Council - 02 Apr 2012
Exhibits:
3/28/2012 Message & Status from King County
Elections;
Petition page sample to show the ordinance
(complete petition on file in City Clerk's office);
KC Elections letter & Certificate of Sufficiency
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
City Clerk
Staff Contact:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk, x6502
Recommended Action:
As determined
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
On February 7, 2012, an initiative petition consisting of 397 signature pages was filed by Stuart Avery,
401 Grandey Way NE, Renton, 98057. As required by law, the petition was submitted to King County
Elections within three days for determination of sufficiency. A notice of insufficiency of the petition
was received from King County Elections on March 2nd, and the petitioning party was notified. Within
the ten days allowed by law, the petitioning parties filed an amended petition consisting of 28
additional signature pages. Those were forwarded to King County Elections for determination of
sufficiency. On March 28, 2012, the City Clerk was notified via email by King County Elections that the
petition has been determined to be sufficient and that the City Clerk will receive a letter and
the Certificate of Sufficiency within the next few days.
The petition ordinance, if enacted, would restrict any downtown library improvements to the existing
location at 100 Mill Avenue S, unless otherwise authorized by a simple majority of the voters.
State and case law limit the types of legislation subject to the initiative and referendum process. If the
current initiative ordinance is deemed to be within the scope of direct legislation by the people through
the exercise of initiative power, then by law the City Council must take action within 20 days of
Council's receipt of the Certificate of Sufficiency (by April 22) by either passing the proposed ordinance
without alteration, or by submitting the measure to a vote of the people by special election to occur
within not less than 45 days, or by general election, if there is one within 90 days.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
7d. ‐ City Clerk reports 3/28/2012 notice of Library Initiative Petition
signature sufficiency from King County Elections and submits for Page 300 of 449
7d. ‐ City Clerk reports 3/28/2012 notice of Library Initiative Petition
signature sufficiency from King County Elections and submits for Page 301 of 449
7d. ‐ City Clerk reports 3/28/2012 notice of Library Initiative Petition
signature sufficiency from King County Elections and submits for Page 302 of 449
7d. ‐ City Clerk reports 3/28/2012 notice of Library Initiative Petition
signature sufficiency from King County Elections and submits for Page 303 of 449
7d. ‐ City Clerk reports 3/28/2012 notice of Library Initiative Petition
signature sufficiency from King County Elections and submits for Page 304 of 449
7d. ‐ City Clerk reports 3/28/2012 notice of Library Initiative Petition
signature sufficiency from King County Elections and submits for Page 305 of 449
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Library Initiative
Meeting:
Regular Council - 02 Apr 2012
Exhibits:
3-28-2012 Memorandum from Jay Covington
3-27-2012 Letter from King County Library System
Director Bill Ptacek
3-27-2012 Letter from K&L Gates Attorney Charles
Royce
3-05-2012 Memorandum from City Attorney Larry
Warren
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Executive
Staff Contact:
Jay Covington
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 0 Transfer Amendment: $0
Amount Budgeted: $ 0 Revenue Generated: $0
Total Project Budget: $ 0 City Share Total Project: $ 0
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
In February, 2012, the City received an initiative petition requiring that “any library improvements for a downtown library
must occur at the existing library location, and not at any other location unless the alternative proposed location for a
downtown library is approved by a simple majority vote of Renton voters.” The petition signatures were submitted to the
King County Department of elections for validation.
In February of 2010, Renton voters approved the annexation to the King County Library System (KCLS). A condition of that
annexation included the construction by Renton of “replacement facilities for both the Main and Highlands Libraries on
other properties within the City . . .” Subsequent to the annexation, the City completed site selection analyses for both the
Highlands and downtown locations. In March of 2011 the City purchased the property known as the “Big 5” site as the
location for the new downtown library, and in May of 2011 issued $18 million in bonds to finance the construction of both
libraries. In July of 2011, the City and KCLS entered into a new agreement, which obligated the city to fund the site
acquisition, design, construction and other related costs for both new library facilities, at the Big 5 site downtown and the
Sunset Blvd site in the Highlands. Design contracts have been approved and work is currently underway at both sites.
The current agreement with KCLS requires the City to construct the new downtown (and highlands library) “consistent with
or superior in form, function and quality” to other recently constructed KCLS libraries. Stopping work on the downtown site,
and/or redirecting City resources to renovate the existing Cedar River building as the designated new downtown library
would put the City in breach of contract with KCLS. Settling the contract dispute would likely result in millions of dollars in
additional costs to the City.
In a March 5, 2012 memorandum to the Mayor and City Council, the City Attorney opined that the library initiative would
require an unconstitutional impairment of the contract with KCLS, and an improper collateral attack on the February 2010
annexation election. He also indicated that the initiative would be in improper infringement on the City’s budget authority,
and that it improperly tries to direct administrative actions. His memo identified several other reasons the initiative was
not valid or proper.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Administration recommends that the City continue its present course of action in constructing both the downtown and
Highlands libraries, and that the City Council decline to place the library initiative on the ballot.
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 306 of 449
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:March 28, 2012
TO:Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Jay Covington, CAO
SUBJECT:Library Initiative
ISSUE:
Should the City Council place the Library Initiative on the ballot?
RECOMMENDATION:
Decline to place the Library Initiative on the ballot.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The King County Department of Records and Elections has notified the City that the
Library Initiative has obtained sufficient valid signatures. The Council must now decide if
the issue should be put on the ballot.
Before the successful election where the majority voted for the City to join the King
County Library System (KCLS), it was necessary to obtain the approval of KCLS. As a
precondition of that approval, the City Council adopted an interlocal agreement (ILA)
with KCLS, CAG-09-136, dated July 13, 2009. That ILA required certain significant actions
be taken by the City, including in section 5 of the ILA “replacement facilities for both the
Main and Highlands Libraries on other properties within the City…” Based on that
promise by the City, KCLS agreed to allow the issue to go to the ballot, where it passed.
The Library Initiative would require the City to repudiate a key provision of the ILA,
which was a material part of the vote to join KCLS. As opined by the City Attorney in his
March 5, 2012, opinion to the Mayor and Council, the Library Initiative would require an
unconstitutional impairment of the contract with KCLS and an improper collateral attack
on that election.
In September 2010, subsequent to the annexation vote, KCLS, with input from the
community, completed a Library Service Area Analysis to analyze and recommend the
most optimal distribution of library services within the greater Renton area, now that
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 307 of 449
Rich Zwicker, Council President
Member of Renton City Council
Page 2 of 3
March 28, 2012
Renton was part of the King County Library System. That analysis reviewed costs,
revenues, population trends and forecasts, demographics, transportation, and other
considerations. Based on those key trends and conclusions, KCLS proposed the
following recommendations for the Downtown Library:
-A facility of up to 20,000 square feet with a civic presence in the downtown core
-Be oriented toward public transportation and transit
-Correspond to the economic development goals of the City of Renton
-Provide information resources and increased space for computers, meeting
rooms and other programmable spaces
To meet the conditions and goals of the interlocal agreement and service analysis, the
City conducted an analysis of several potential downtown sites. In March 2011, the full
Council approved the purchase of the Big 5 site for the new library facility.
Subsequently by ILA CAG-11-130, dated July 11, 2011, with KCLS, the City agreed in
section 3a to “two new City of Renton library facilities consistent with or superior in
form, function and quality of (sic) other recently constructed libraries…” in the KCLS
system. After running the current Cedar River library site for some time, KCLS has
informed the City that the Cedar River library can never be brought to the functionality
or quality of other recently constructed KCLS libraries, and would not meet the goals of
the 2010 Library Service Area Analysis. The Library Initiative would again require the
City to unconstitutionally impair the second ILA with KCLS.
KCLS has also expressed concern about the precedent of a City violating the agreement
upon which KCLS agreed to allow the City to annex to KCLS. KCLS is currently reviewing
the annexation to its system by another city and is negotiating a contract with that city
setting the terms upon which KCLS will agree to allow the annexation to proceed. KCLS
is very concerned about the integrity of that process if there is a precedent of a city
repudiating its agreement after election to join KCLS.
Before settling on the new Downtown site, there was an analysis done about the cost of
redeveloping the Cedar River Library or building a new library. The study showed that a
new library building would be cost effective, and would provide the best flexibility
toward meeting future library service needs for the community. Also redeveloping the
Cedar River Library would require renting an interim facility and moving the library,
assuming a suitable site could be found during renovation.
While cost estimates are rough, the Administration believes that renovating the Cedar
River Library building with its higher costs and temporary relocation requirements, and
considering the acquisition costs and architectural costs already invested in the Big 5
site, could result in the Cedar River Library costing millions more than developing the Big
5 site (see accompanying letter from KCLS). To meet our contractual obligations to KCLS,
this would require City Council to identify a funding source to meet the revenue
shortfall.
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 308 of 449
Rich Zwicker, Council President
Member of Renton City Council
Page 3 of 3
March 28, 2012
Another concern is that the Council, by taking this action, would be allowing its
budgeting authority to be infringed upon by the Library Initiative, which is an improper
use of the initiative process.
Finally, the City Attorney’s opinion of March 5, 2012, sets forth several additional
reasons why the Library Initiative is improper including that the initiative is really an
untimely referendum and that it improperly tries to interfere with the Administration in
executing policy adopted by Council to build a new downtown library and acquire the
necessary property.
It is worth restating in this staff report that—in addition to the two new library
facilities—the City has always intended to keep the building over the Cedar River in
public ownership and accessible to the public. Since September 2011, the Liberty Park
Library Steering Committee has been developing recommendations for the City Council
to consider. The committee has completed its work and is scheduled to present its
findings and recommendations to the City Council next month.
CONCLUSION:
Beginning with the annexation vote in February 2010, the City Council and
Administration have taken a number of actions that have contractually committed the
City to complete a downtown library at the Big 5 site. We acknowledge the public
sentiment regarding the current location of the library over the river, and the time and
effort taken to submit signatures for the initiative. But suspending or reversing previous
City decisions and actions would place the City at considerable legal and financial risk,
and would not meet the goals and objectives of the analyses done to determine the best
way to provide library services now and into the future for the City of Renton.
Therefore, the Administration recommends that the City continue its present course of
action. The City Council should decline to place the Library Initiative on the ballot.
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 309 of 449
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 310 of 449
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 311 of 449
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 312 of 449
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 313 of 449
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 314 of 449
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 315 of 449
7e. ‐ Executive Department submits the Administration's
recommendation that the City continue its present course of action in Page 316 of 449
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment
Ordinance
Meeting:
Regular Council - 02 Apr 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
Ordinance
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Administrative Services
Staff Contact:
Iwen Wang, Administrator
Recommended Action:
Council concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $37,139,384
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $9,807,537
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
This annual carry forward budget adjustment would:
1) Recognize $9.8 million in grants and donation revenues that we expect to receive in 2012;
2) Adjust 2012 appropriation by $37.1 million to continue and/or modify existing project funding;
3) Incorporate positions previously approved by the City Council; and
4) Authorize a 2-year limited term Deputy City Clerk position for public records management and
fulfillment function to be funded through budget savings from a vacant position in the police
department.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the proposed 2012 Carry Forward Budget Adjustment.
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 317 of 449
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:March 26, 2012
TO:Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Iwen Wang, Administrator
SUBJECT:2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Ordinance
ISSUE
Should the 2012 Budget be amended to incorporate carry forward items as detailed below?
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the ordinance amending the 2012 portion of the 2011/2012 Biennial Budget.
OVERVIEW
At the end of 2011, the overall fund balance was $32.1 million higher than budgeted. $26.5
million of this amount is capital or special project balances; the remaining $5.6 million consists
of $2.3 million in retiree and employee medical funds, $1.3 million in combined Utility
operations, and $2 million in the General Fund. Most of this balance, together with $9.8 million
in grants, donations, and other resources expected for 2012, makes up the $37.1 million
proposed amendment to the 2012 budget, as discussed in further detail below. This leaves a
net increase of $4.8 million in unallocated fund balances, of which $1.8 million are reserved for
LEOFF 1 medical and Fireman’s pension; $2.6 million in Utilities; and $441k in General
Governmental Funds.
General Governmental Adjustments:
The General Governmental operations ended 2011 with $2 million in positive fund balance, the
net of $2.5 million in expenditure savings, and a revenue shortfall of $530k. The proposed
budget amendment includes $362k in grants and donation revenues that we expect to receive
in 2012, and $1.9 million in expenditure appropriations as highlighted below. The adjustments
will add $441k to the projected General Fund balance and will Keep it at $10.3 million level, or
roughly 10% of the budgeted expenditure, the mid-point between the minimum 8% and the
targeted 12% as prescribed by the City’s Financial Management Policy.
The $1.9 million expenditure appropriation adjustments include the following commitments:
1.$203k carry forward for two Limited Term Construction Inspectors for the Rainier Ave
Project.
2.$192k to partially fund the estimated banking service gap for 2012 (full gap is estimated
at $267k). We may need to make another adjustment later this year to fully fund this
obligation.
3.$533k for Police seizure fund and youth self-sustaining programs.
4.$600k for anticipated SCORE jail assessment due to revenue likely falling short of budget
projections.
5.$268k to contribute to the replacement of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire.
$204k is funded by a transfer from the Insurance Fund (502) and $64k is from the
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 318 of 449
Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 2 of 3
March 26, 2012
Department’s 2011 budget savings. The total acquisition cost is $407k and was
previously approved by the City Council.
6.$94k for King Conservation District Knotweed Grant and Neighborhood Grant Program.
7.$30k for VHF radio re-banding due to FCC/Sprint settlement of the use of 800 MHz
spectrum for the emergency communications.
8.$22k for increased costs for the ORCA Business Passport for the Commute Trip
Reduction Program.
Other Funds:
Combined, all other City funds will require a carry forward appropriation of $35.3 million in
capital projects as highlighted below:
1.Hotel/Motel Tax Fund (110): $177k, including $175k for the Chamber’s acquisition of the
Train Depot for the Visitors Center.
2.Municipal CIP Fund (316): $5.2 million, including carry forward projects previously
approved by the City Council, transfer of the $970k West Hill Community Project Grant
from General Fund to the CIP fund, and a $50k increase for security cameras in the city
center area.
3.Transportation CIP Fund (317): $8.5 million, primarily for Rainier Avenue, SW 27th Street,
NE 3rd/4th Street and Garden Avenue improvement projects.
4.New Library Development Fund (336): Carry forward $11.2 million, for a budget of $19.2
million, the amount remaining at the end of 2011 for the development of Downtown
and Highlands libraries.
5.Airport Operating and CIP Fund (402 & 422): $59k in utilities ($19k) related to the 2012
increases to Water, Wastewater, and Surface Water rates not previously budgeted for
2012, and Major Maintenance of an additional $40k for the January snow event de-icing.
Fund balance will be the revenue source.
6.Solid Waste Utility Fund (403): $31k for King County Solid Waste WRR Grant ($5.5k) and
$25k for the Clean Community Initiative. Fund balance will be the revenue source.
7.Golf Course Operating and CIP Fund (404 & 424): $100k reduction, which includes $50k
in operating contribution to CIP and corresponding $50k for Building and Course
Maintenance.
8.Utility Systems: $6 million total; add $5.5 million in capital projects, $167k for operating
projects and $372k increase for expenditures related to residential plat Stormwater
Facility Maintenance Program, which include two Maintenance Service Workers III, two
Part-Time Non-Regular Staff, Professional Services, and Capital Equipment ((1) Slope
Mower, (1), Mower Trailer, (1) Dewatering Pumps, and (1) One-Ton Flat Bed Truck).
9.Equipment Rental Fund (501): $833k for equipment planned but not yet acquired during
2011, and for capital equipment related to the residential Stormwater Facility
Maintenance Program.
10.Insurance Fund (502): $204k transfer to General Fund (Fire) to help contribute to the
purchase of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus.
11.Information Services Fund (503): carryover $1.6 million to continue projects in progress.
12.Facilities Internal Service Fund (504): $10k for Fire Station #12 Emergency Operations
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 319 of 449
Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 3 of 3
March 26, 2012
Center remodel, which is funded by the Emergency Management Performance Grant
(Federal) from the US Department of Homeland Security.
Additional to Authorized Positions:
In addition to the typical carry forward budget items, this budget adjustment will add the
following FTE’s to the index of positions:
1.0.5 FTE Records Management Specialist to existing 0.5 FTE to make position 1.0 FTE as
approved by Council on February 13, 2012.
2.Two Maintenance Service Workers III, and two Part-Time non-regular staff for
residential plat Stormwater Facility Maintenance Program, approved by Council on
November 14, 2011.
3.One FTE Limited Term (2 yrs) Deputy City Clerk position focused on Records
Management/Public Records Request Fulfillment funded with budget savings from one
vacant police officer position in the Police Department, with no impact to General Fund
budget.
CONCLUSION
The 2012 carry forward budget amendments will move projects not yet completed into 2011 for
continuation and add some new items to the adopted 2011/2012 budget as identified above.
More details can be found in the “2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail” attachment.
Staff recommends Council approve the proposed adjustments.
Attachments: Budget Amendment Ordinance, Exhibit A, and Exhibit B
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 320 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
GENERAL FUND (Fund 0XX)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 9,092,976 1,964,575 11,057,551
REVENUES 101,591,685
CED 2011 4 Culture Sustained Support Arts 8,500
CED 2012 4 Culture Sustained Support Arts 8,500
CED Reimbursement for 2.0 FTE Construction Inspectors (Rainier Ave Project)202,985
Police 2011 Edward Bryne Memorial JAG Award 36,752
Police Target Zero Task Force Teams 10,838
Police Target Zero Mobilization ‐ DUI 7,000
Police Target Zero Mobilization ‐ Seat Belts 1,000
Police 2009 Edward Byrne Memorial JAG Grant ‐ DV 18,509
Police 2011 Registered Sex & Kidnapping Offenders Cost Reimbursement Agreem 26,765
Fire Heart Month ‐ Renton Community Foundation 4,500
Fire Transfer In from Risk Management 204,000
Fire Assistance to Firefighters (SAFER) Grant (264,129)
Fire 2011 EMPG Grant 35,064
CS Landowner Collaboration for Knotweed Control KCD grant 89,254
CS Special Events‐4th of July (30,000)
CS Special Events‐Sponsorship 2,000
Total Revenue Adjustment 101,591,685 361,538 101,953,223
EXPENDITURES 100,468,787
Court Court Audio System Upgrade ‐ Transfer to IT 8,000
AS Projected 2012 City‐Wide Bank Fees 192,000
CED Dangerous Structure Abatement Fund 50,000
CED 2011 KC 4 Culture Sustained Support Award 8,500
CED 2012 KC 4 Culture Sustained Support Award 8,500
CED Arts Grants Program 1,677
CED 2.0 FTE Construction Inspectors (Rainier Ave Project)202,985
Police 2011 Edward Bryne Memorial JAG Award 36,752
Police 2012 Federal Seizure Fund Carry Forward 188,054
Police 2012 State Seizure Fund carry forward 334,626
Police 2012 Police Youth Program carry forward 10,571
Police 2009 Edward Byrne Memorial JAG Grant ‐ DV 2,465
Police Transfer Budget for 1.0 FTE Limited Term Deputy City Clerk (104,216)
Police Updated Assessment for SCORE Jail Services 600,000
Fire Heart Month ‐ Renton Community Foundation 4,500
Fire Self‐Contained Breathing Apparatus 268,000
Fire Assistance to Firefighters (SAFER) Grant (264,129)
Fire 2011 EMPG Grant 35,064
AS Add 0.5 FTE Records Management Specialist (to existing 0.5 FTE) to City C ‐
AS Limited Term (2yrs) 1.0 FTE Deputy City Clerk for Records Management/P 104,216
CS Cold Weather Shelter 10,000
CS Human Services‐Housing Repair Assistance Program 16,926
CS Bleacher Repair Project ‐
CS Special Events‐4th of July (2,000)
CS Neighborhood Grant Program 4,590
CS Coulon Park parking lot striping 11,266
CS Special Events‐Sponsorship 2,000
CS Senior Center Fitness Room Attendant/Supplies 13,058
CS Landowner Collaboration for Knotweed Control KCD grant 89,254
PW VHF Radio Upgrade 30,000
PW ORCA Business Passport Program costs increase 22,430
Total Expenditure Adjustment 100,468,787 1,885,089 102,353,876
Ending Fund Balance 10,215,874 441,024 10,656,898
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 321 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (Fund 102)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 171,720 (12,746) 158,974
REVENUES 630,000
PW Arterial Street Fuel Tax (27,000)
PW Investment Interest (3,000)
Total Revenue Adjustment 630,000 (30,000) 600,000
EXPENDITURES 630,000
PW Overlay Program Transfer to Fund 317 (30,000)
Total Expenditure Adjustment 630,000 (30,000) 600,000
Ending Fund Balance 171,720 (12,746) 158,974
LEASED FACILITIES FUND (Fund 108)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 893,197 (404,697) 488,500
REVENUES 971,049
CS Duplicate budgeting of 200 Mill Bldg Restroom / ADA Improvements Proje (127,000)
Total Revenue Adjustment 971,049 (127,000) 844,049
EXPENDITURES 876,232
CS Duplicate budgeting of 200 Mill Bldg Restroom / ADA Improvements Proje (127,000)
Total Expenditure Adjustment 876,232 (127,000) 749,232
Ending Fund Balance 988,014 (404,697) 583,317
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX (Fund 110)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 7,950 235,606 243,556
REVENUES 265,000
Total Revenue Adjustment 265,000 ‐ 265,000
EXPENDITURES 265,000
CED Renton Chamber of Commerce Property Acquisition 175,000
CED 2011 invoices paid in 2012 2,050
Total Expenditure Adjustment 265,000 177,050 442,050
Ending Fund Balance 7,950 58,556 66,506
PATH & TRAIL FUEL TAX (Fund 118)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 3,299 15 3,314
REVENUES ‐
Total Revenue Adjustment ‐ ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES ‐
Total Expenditure Adjustment ‐ ‐ ‐
Ending Fund Balance 3,299 15 3,314
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 322 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
ONE PERCENT FOR ARTS (Fund 125)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 100,573 21,113 121,686
REVENUES 15,000
CED Transfer In from Transportation Capital Investment Project Fund 15,000
CED Transfer In from South Lake Washington Infrastructure Project 2,000
CED 1% for Arts‐Fire Station #11 813
Total Revenue Adjustment 15,000 17,813 32,813
EXPENDITURES 50,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 50,000 ‐ 50,000
Ending Fund Balance 65,573 38,926 104,499
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS (Fund 127)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 35,057 150,911 185,968
REVENUES 85,000
Total Revenue Adjustment 85,000 ‐ 85,000
EXPENDITURES 85,674
Exec Consulting Fees related to Franchise Negotiations 50,000
Exec Carry Forward Capital Balance 100,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 85,674 150,000 235,674
Ending Fund Balance 34,383 911 35,294
SPRINGBROOK WETLANDS BANK (Fund 135)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 660,524 3,032 663,556
REVENUES ‐
Total Revenue Adjustment ‐ ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES ‐
Total Expenditure Adjustment ‐ ‐ ‐
Ending Fund Balance 660,524 3,032 663,556
IMPACT MITIGATION FUNDS (Fund 303, 304, 305)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 2,936,110 688,801 3,624,911
REVENUES 310,000
PW Mitigation Fees (20,000)
PW Sidewalk Mitigation/Fee In Lieu Of (20,000)
PW Investment Interest (10,000)
Total Revenue Adjustment 310,000 (50,000) 260,000
EXPENDITURES 936,926
CS Accessible Playground‐Trsfr from 303 400,000
PW Transfer Out To 317 ‐ Walkway Pgm (50,000)
PW Transfer Out To 317 ‐ NE 3rd/NE 4Th (176,656)
PW Transfer Out To 317 ‐ Rainier Ave (3,344)
PW Transfer Out To 317 ‐ Garden Ave 220,000
PW Transfer Out To 317 ‐ Lake WA Blvd: Park to Coulon 60,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 936,926 450,000 1,386,926
Ending Fund Balance 2,309,184 188,801 2,497,985
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 323 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
MUNICIPAL CIP FUND (Fund 316)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 426,356 3,319,190 3,745,546
REVENUES 760,000
CED West Hill Community Project‐KCDOT grant 970,750
CS Bleacher Repair Project ‐
CS Accessible Playground‐Trsfr from 303 400,000
CS Accessible Playground 350,000
CS RCC Transfer Switch Installation ‐ Federal Grant from
US Dept Homeland Security 158,000
CS Community Forestry Assistance Grant 10,000
CS Edward Byrne Memorial JAG Grant 11,307
CS PSCAA Clean Cities Grant‐ARRA 32,231
CS May Creek/Hawks Landing Acquisition‐Public Works Board Grant 235,721
Total Revenue Adjustment 760,000 2,168,009 2,928,009
EXPENDITURES 1,170,000
CED Highlands Subarea Long Range Plan 660,151
CED South Lk Washington Long Range Plan 13,000
CED West Hill Community Project‐KCDOT grant 970,750
CS RCC Transfer Switch Installation 158,000
CS Bleacher Repair Project 6,866
CS 2011 Urban & Community Forestry Grant ‐ North Renton Neighborhood T 10,000
CS Public Works Shops Upgrade 118,000
CS Henry Moses Aquatic Center 57,443
CS Disaster Repairs 200,000
CS Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion 280,000
CS Pathway Sidewalk Patio Boardwalk Repairs 10,000
CS Grant Matching 100,000
CS Tree Maintenance 32,881
CS Urban Forestry Program 85,996
CS May Creek/Hawks Landing Acquisition 198,162
CS Parks Mm ‐ Light System Upgrades 296,761
CS Parks MM ‐ Boundary, Topographic & Site Survey 20,000
CS Parks Mm ‐ Structural Reviews & Repairs 495,239
CS KC Proposition 2 Cap Exp Levy Fund 626,727
CS Ballfield Renovation Program 4,998
CS Accessible Playground 750,000
CS Parking Lot and Drive Repairs 10,000
CS Benson Hill Urban Forestry 195
CS Parks MM‐Playgrounds, Kiosks, and Interpretive Signage 12,000
CS 1% for Arts‐Fire Station #11 813
CS City Wide Security Systems Upgrades 50,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 1,170,000 5,167,982 6,337,982
Ending Fund Balance 16,356 319,217 335,573
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 324 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
TRANSPORTATION CIP FUND (Fund 317)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 235,581 3,186,638 3,422,219
REVENUES 21,418,181
PW Lake WA Blvd: Park to Coulon ‐ Federal 74,000
PW Rainier Ave S ‐ Federal/State Grants &
Intergovernmental Agreements (1,522,520)
PW Rainier Ave S ‐ Franchise Agreements (PSE,
Centurylink, and Comcast)1,511,531
PW SW 27th St ‐ Federal/State Grants &
Intergovernmental Agreements 2,447,425
PW NE 3rd/4th Street ‐ TIB 817,141
PW S Lake WA Roadway (Garden Ave N) ‐ TIB 1,755,500
PW NE 31st Street Culvert repair ‐ Federal/State Grants 118,954
PW Highlands to Landing ‐ Fed STP 117,727
PW TDM Program ‐ WSDOT (2,364)
PW Rainier Ave S ‐ Transfer from Mitigation (3,344)
PW NE 3rd/4th Street ‐ Transfer from Mitigation (176,656)
PW S Lake WA Roadway (Garden Ave N) ‐ Transfer from Mitigation 220,000
PW Lake WA Blvd: Park to Coulon ‐ Transfer from Mitigation 60,000
PW Walkway Pgm ‐ Transf In Frm Mitig Fund 305 (50,000)
PW Overlay Program Transfer from Fund 102 (30,000)
Total Revenue Adjustment 21,418,181 5,337,394 26,755,575
EXPENDITURES 21,603,852
PW Street Overlay ‐ Construction 160,400
PW Rainier Ave 237,148
PW Sw 27th St/ Strander 2,702,220
PW NE 3rd/4th Street 1,405,700
PW Garden Ave 2,524,400
PW NE 31st Street Culvert Repair 130,000
PW Highlands to Landing ‐ Preliminary Eng. 229,252
PW Walkway Program (80,000)
PW Sidewalk Rehabilitation 150,000
PW Bridge Inspection 145,000
PW Roadway Safety and Guardrail Prog ‐ Preliminary Eng 45,000
PW Traffic Safety 80,000
PW Intelligent Transportation Systems ‐ Construction 70,000
PW Transit Program ‐ Planning 4,000
PW Transportation Demand Management ‐ Planning (13,000)
PW Bicycle Route Dev Prog ‐ Planning 5,000
PW Barrier Free ‐ Construction 35,000
PW Project Development ‐ Planning 40,000
PW Arterial Circulation ‐ Planning 10,000
PW Transp Concurrency ‐ Planning (20,000)
PW Environmental Mon. ‐ Construction Services (20,000)
PW WSDOT Coordination ‐ Planning (10,000)
PW GIS Needs Assessment ‐ Planning 45,000
PW 1% for Arts ‐ Transfer out to Fund 125 15,000
PW Lake WA Blvd 74,000
PW Sunset/Duvall Intersection ‐ Post Const 40,000
PW Duvall Ave NE ‐ Construction 10,000
PW Monterrey Ave Wall Replacement ‐ Construction 8,000
PW King County Mitigation Reserve 500,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 21,603,852 8,532,120 30,135,972
Ending Fund Balance 49,910 (8,088) 41,822
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 325 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON CIP FUND (Fund 318)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 522 52,270 52,792
REVENUES ‐
Total Revenue Adjustment ‐ ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES ‐
PW South Lake Washington Infrastructure Project 50,024
PW Transfer Out to 1% for Arts Program 2,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment ‐ 52,024 52,024
Ending Fund Balance 522 246 768
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY FUND (Fund 326)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 3,787 126,759 130,546
REVENUES ‐
Total Revenue Adjustment ‐ ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES ‐
CED Housing Opportunity Grants 125,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment ‐ 125,000 125,000
Ending Fund Balance 3,787 1,759 5,546
NEW LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (Fund 336)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 8,000,000 11,196,447 19,196,447
REVENUES ‐
Total Revenue Adjustment ‐ ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES 8,000,000
CS New Libraries Development Balance 11,196,447
Total Expenditure Adjustment 8,000,000 11,196,447 19,196,447
Ending Fund Balance ‐ ‐ ‐
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 326 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
AIRPORT FUND (Fund 402/422)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 2,464,061 (379,351) 2,084,710
REVENUES 5,137,171
PW Transfer Airport Revenue to CIP (563,018)
PW Taxiway Bravo Rehabilitation and Numbering Project Grant 64,602
PW Airport Sustainability Grant 96,596
PW Taxiway Bravo Rehab Proj Grant Phase 2 Design 150,000
PW Transfer Airport Revenue from Operating 563,018
Total Revenue Adjustment 5,137,171 311,198 5,448,369
EXPENDITURES 6,055,049
PW Airport Operations ‐ Water Utilities 2,000
PW Airport Operations ‐ Sewer Utilities 200
PW Airport Operations ‐Surface Water Utilities 16,734
PW Airport CIP, Airport Sustainability Program 93,622
PW Airport CIP, Air side/Land Side Separation 20,000
PW Airport CIP, Maintenance Dredging & Shoreline Mitigation 74,689
PW Airport CIP, Airport Office Rehab 170,410
PW Airport CIP, Major Facility Maintenance 40,000
PW Airport CIP, Surface Water System Rehab 85,000
PW Airport CIP, Taxiway Bravo Rehab & Renumbering 240,242
PW Airport CIP, Renton Gateway Ctr Utilities 124,247
PW Airport CIP, Precision Approach 24,798
Total Expenditure Adjustment 6,055,049 891,942 6,946,991
Ending Fund Balance 1,546,183 (960,095) 586,088
SOLID WASTE UTILITY FUND (Fund 403)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 1,026,020 708,714 1,734,734
REVENUES 15,004,692
PW 2013‐2013 Waste Reduction & Recycling Program,
King Cnty (WRR Grant)5,547
PW 2011 KC Local Hazardous Waste Management
Program Grant (LHWMP)11,572
Total Revenue Adjustment 15,004,692 17,119 15,021,811
EXPENDITURES 14,972,362
PW KC Solid Wast Div Waste Reduction and Recycling 5,547
PW Supplies ‐ Clean Community 5,000
PW Dump Site Cleaning ‐ Clean Community 5,000
PW Disposal Fees ‐ Clean Community 15,000
PW LHWMP Grant Program 11,572
Total Expenditure Adjustment 14,972,362 42,119 15,014,481
Ending Fund Balance 1,058,349 683,714 1,742,064
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 327 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
GOLF COURSE FUND (Fund 404/424)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 747,411 (131,923) 615,488
REVENUES 2,583,545
CS Adjust Golf Course Trsfr 404 to 424 (50,000)
Total Revenue Adjustment 2,583,545 (50,000) 2,533,545
EXPENDITURES 2,642,204
CS Adjust Golf Course Trsfr 404 to 424 (50,000)
CS Golf Course ‐ MM/Building Maintenance 85,000
CS Golf Course ‐ MM/Course Maintenance 10,000
CS Adjust Golf Course Major Maintenance (50,000)
Total Expenditure Adjustment 2,642,204 (5,000) 2,637,204
Ending Fund Balance 688,751 (176,923) 511,829
WATER UTILITY FUND (Fund 405/425)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 4,799,130 2,827,531 7,626,661
REVENUES 16,306,460
PW Lk WA Blvd/Hawk's Landing 169,215
Total Revenue Adjustment 16,306,460 169,215 16,475,675
EXPENDITURES 16,012,036
PW Water Maintenance ‐ Repair & Maintenance 27,847
PW Water CIP ‐ Pipe Oversizing Costs 50,000
PW Water CIP ‐ Water System Plan Update 100,000
PW Water CIP ‐ Water Conservation Implem 120,000
PW Water CIP ‐ Maplewood Equipment access & H2S Mitigation 130,000
PW Water CIP ‐ 196 Zone Reservoir & P.S. 20,000
PW Water CIP ‐ Renton Hawks Landing 10,000
PW Water CIP ‐ Emerg. Power to Pump Sta. 200,000
PW Water CIP ‐ Water Treatment Media 50,000
PW Water CIP ‐ Automatic Meter Reading Conv.555,000
PW Water CIP ‐ Transmission Main Replacement (700,000)
PW Water CIP ‐ Rainier Ave South Roadway & Utilities Improvements 1,200,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 16,012,036 1,762,847 17,774,883
Ending Fund Balance 5,093,554 1,233,899 6,327,453
WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND (Fund 406/416/426)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 1,197,558 1,089,603 2,287,161
REVENUES 22,407,961
Total Revenue Adjustment 22,407,961 ‐ 22,407,961
EXPENDITURES 21,590,192
PW WasteWater CIP ‐ Oversizing (400,000)
PW WasteWater CIP ‐ Stonegate LS Replacement 125,000
PW WasteWater CIP ‐ Westview LS Rehabilitation 75,000
PW WasteWater CIP ‐ President Park Sewer Repl Ph II 200,000
PW WasteWater CIP ‐ Lk WA Beach L.S. Repl 30,000
PW WasteWater CIP ‐ Cascade Interceptor Rehab 30,000
PW WasteWater CIP ‐ Liberty LS Installation 400,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 21,590,192 460,000 22,050,192
Ending Fund Balance 2,015,327 629,603 2,644,930
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 328 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
SURFACEWATER UTILITY FUND (Fund 407/427)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 1,930,857 2,279,742 4,210,599
REVENUES 8,969,223
PW WA Dept of Ecology 168,340
PW Wetland Mitigation Bank Project ‐ WSDOT 14,015
PW Lower Cedar River Sediment Mgmt Plan ‐KCFCD 125,000
PW Green River Watershed Ecosystem Project ‐KCCD 21,000
PW Lake Ave S / Rainier Ave SIP‐KCFCD 121,006
PW Elliot Spawning Channel 2006 Flood FEMA 777,837
PW Elliot Spawning Channel WA Military Dept 22,640
PW Lk WA Blvd/Hawk's Landing SIP‐PWB 234,214
PW Sunset Area Community Plan SIP‐Dept of Ecology 69,234
Total Revenue Adjustment 8,969,223 1,553,286 10,522,509
EXPENDITURES 8,468,409
PW Surface Water Operating ‐ Office/Operating Supplies NPDES 11,968
PW Surface Water Operating ‐ Small Tools / Minor Equipment 121,000
PW Surface Water Operating ‐ Training & School ‐ NPDES/MNTC 6,000
PW 2 MSWIII ‐ Residential Plat Stormwater Management
Facility Maintenance Program 184,349
PW
2 Part Time Non‐Reg Staff ‐ Residential Plat
Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance
Program
12,000
PW
Operating Rentals & Leases ‐ Residential Plat
Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance
Program
31,400
PW
Dump Fees/Transfer Station Fees ‐ Residential Plat
Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance
Program
14,151
PW Repairs & Maintenance ‐ Residential Plat Stormwater
Management Facility Maintenance Program 19,100
PW
(1) Slope Mower, (1), Mower Trailer, (1) Dewatering
Pumps, and (1) One‐Ton Flat Bed Truck for Residential
Plat Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance
Program
111,000
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Surface Water Utility System Plan 53,000
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Small Drainage Projects Program 110,057
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Madsen Creek Sedimentation Basin Cleaning 50,000
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Maplewood Golf Course Sedimentation Basin cleaning 60,000
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Wetland Mitigation Bank Project 50,000
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Green River Watershed Forum Ecosystem Restoration 20,000
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Lake Ave S / Rainier Ave S Storm System Replacement 1,278,633
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Storm System Field Mapping ‐ NPDES Permit 510,000
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Elliot Spawning Channel 2006 Flood FEMA Repair 954,540
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Lk WA Blvd ‐ Hawks Landing Storm System Improvem 113,770
PW Surface Water CIP ‐ Sunset Area Community Plan Storm Improvement Pro 100,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 8,468,409 3,810,968 12,279,377
Ending Fund Balance 2,431,671 22,060 2,453,731
UTILITY BOND/RATE STABLIZATION FUND (Fund 461/471/481)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 15,773 72 15,845
REVENUES ‐
Total Revenue Adjustment ‐ ‐ ‐
EXPENDITURES ‐
Total Expenditure Adjustment ‐ ‐ ‐
Ending Fund Balance 15,773 72 15,845
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 329 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (Fund 501)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 3,831,097 943,279 4,774,376
REVENUES 3,079,893
PW Transfer In for 4 Equipment Purchases ‐ Residential Plat Stormwater Mana 111,000
Total Revenue Adjustment 3,079,893 111,000 3,190,893
EXPENDITURES 3,145,756
PW Equipment Rental ‐ Boom Truck 137,587
PW Equipment Rental ‐ Trailer for Concrete Saw‐Street
Maint (Pool 25)6,773
PW Equipment Rental ‐ TV Van (2) 220,977
PW Equipment Rental ‐ Vactor‐Wastewater Mntc (E107)350,000
PW Equipment Rental ‐ Mezzanine Upgrades 7,034
PW
(1) Slope Mower, (1), Mower Trailer, (1) Dewatering
Pumps, and (1) One‐Ton Flat Bed Truck for
Stormwater
111,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 3,145,756 833,371 3,979,127
Ending Fund Balance 3,765,234 220,908 3,986,142
INSURANCE FUND (Fund 502)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 6,850,343 (229,906) 6,620,437
REVENUES 3,187,593
Total Revenue Adjustment 3,187,593 ‐ 3,187,593
EXPENDITURES 2,930,079
HR Transfer Out to Fire ‐ SCBA 204,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 2,930,079 204,000 3,134,079
Ending Fund Balance 7,107,857 (433,906) 6,673,951
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 330 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND (Fund 503)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 434,909 1,746,834 2,181,743
REVENUES 4,118,173
AS Court Audio System Upgrade 8,000
Total Revenue Adjustment 4,118,173 8,000 4,126,173
EXPENDITURES 4,409,226
AS Court Audio System Upgrade 8,000
AS New World Systems 80,000
AS Financial Software Refresh 7,300
AS Upgd A/V Equipment Court Rm2 3,500
AS Energov/Permitting System 183,079
AS Enterprise Maintenance Task Management 23,900
AS Enterprise GIS (Startup Budget)248,509
AS Ecms: Record Mgmt System 28,550
AS Misc Software/Interface 10,000
AS It Microsoft Ea Lic. 2011/2012 ($90K/Yr)89,800
AS Replace E‐Mail Archive System 25,000
AS Fire Asset Management 15,000
AS Mobile Computing 10,000
AS Cad Upgd Interface (GIS,GPS,FDM) 25,000
AS Handheld Apps Devices (KCEMS/REG)12,000
AS FS13/14 Conference Rm Upgds 3,500
AS Performance Module 35,000
AS New World Systems 11,737
AS Police Telestaff 564
AS Police Valley Com Cad Project 40,000
AS Message Switch Refresh 10,000
AS Police In‐Car Video 6,269
AS New World Systems Modules 15,000
AS Leaps For FTO Training 10,000
AS Springbrook 9,980
AS Computer Replacement 36,289
AS Two Factor Authentication‐Public Safety 10,000
AS Ups Systems ‐ Upgrade Batteries 3,164
AS Newcastle Fiber Conduit 20,000
AS Fire Station 16 Rewire 16,808
AS Fiber Optic Network Golf Course 14,247
AS Server Vulnerability Test/Detect System 10,000
AS New Tape B/U ‐ Sw/Drives 35,000
AS Upgd 10/100 Switches 1Gb‐PoE To VoIP 8,145
AS Outside Plant Networks‐ Conduit, Fiber 22,119
AS Replacement Servers Hd/Sw 17,000
AS Virtual Server Mgmt Systems 16,000
AS iSCI SAN‐NOC And FS12 30,000
AS iSCI SAN Ethernet Switch 10GB 10,000
AS Upgd/Replace Nortel Phone System 380,000
AS Wireless Network ‐ Hotspots Signals/Parks 10,000
Total Expenditure Adjustment 4,409,226 1,550,460 5,959,686
Ending Fund Balance 143,856 204,374 348,230
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 331 of 449
2012 Carry Forward Budget Amendment Detail
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND (Fund 504)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 228,458 71,780 300,238
REVENUES 4,324,987
CS FS 12 EOC remodel‐EMPG Grant 9,965
Total Revenue Adjustment 4,324,987 9,965 4,334,952
EXPENDITURES 4,379,434
CS FS 12 EOC remodel‐EMPG Grant 9,965
Total Expenditure Adjustment 4,379,434 9,965 4,389,399
Ending Fund Balance 174,011 71,780 245,791
COMMUNICATIONS FUND (Fund 505)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 66,409 74,711 141,120
REVENUES 974,307
Total Revenue Adjustment 974,307 ‐ 974,307
EXPENDITURES 991,015
Total Expenditure Adjustment 991,015 ‐ 991,015
Ending Fund Balance 49,701 74,711 124,412
EMPLOYEE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE FUND (Fund 512)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 6,605,256 528,740 7,133,996
REVENUES 12,014,224
Total Revenue Adjustment 12,014,224 ‐ 12,014,224
EXPENDITURES 11,996,739
Total Expenditure Adjustment 11,996,739 ‐ 11,996,739
Ending Fund Balance 6,622,741 528,740 7,151,481
RETIREE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE FUND (Fund 522)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 4,044,989 1,434,410 5,479,399
REVENUES 2,235,684
Total Revenue Adjustment 2,235,684 ‐ 2,235,684
EXPENDITURES 2,262,573
Total Expenditure Adjustment 2,262,573 ‐ 2,262,573
Ending Fund Balance 4,018,100 1,434,410 5,452,510
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (Fund 611)
Adjusted 2012 Adjustment Amended
Beginning Fund Balance 4,020,773 356,923 4,377,696
REVENUES 300,000
Total Revenue Adjustment 300,000 ‐ 300,000
EXPENDITURES 550,475
Total Expenditure Adjustment 550,475 ‐ 550,475
Ending Fund Balance 3,770,298 356,923 4,127,221
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 332 of 449
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 333 of 449
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 334 of 449
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 335 of 449
7f. ‐ Administrative Services Department requests approval of the 2012
carry‐forward ordinance in the amount of $37,139,384, which increases Page 336 of 449
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Lease with Rain City Catering
Meeting:
Regular Council - 02 Apr 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Lease
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community Services
Staff Contact:
Peter Renner, Ext. 6605
Recommended Action:
Council concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $$60,000
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Rain City Catering has operated the Renton Pavilion Event Center for most of a year under assignment
from the previous operator who ceased business. Customer satisfaction has been high and we
recommend a new five-year lease which will allow the operator to market his services in an effective
manner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Lease with Rain City Catering for the Renton Pavilion Event Center and authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Lease.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 337 of 449
COMMUNITY SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:February 17, 2012
TO:Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Peter Renner, Facilities Director, Ext. 6605
SUBJECT:Extended Lease with Rain City Catering for Operation of the
Renton Pavilion Event Center
Issue:
Should Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a new five-year lease with
Rain City Catering (Rain City) for operation of the Renton Pavilion Event
Center (Pavilion)?
Recommendation:
Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Lease.
Background:
In February of 2011, Council approved a one-year lease assignment with Rain City
Catering when the previous lessee, Spirit of Washington Inc., ceased operations at the
Pavilion.
There were a number of advantages for the assignment cited at the time:
·Rain City had already been contracted by Spirit of Washington for catering
duties at Pavilion events, with marked improvements observed in food quality,
presentation, and table service.
·Rain City Catering was leasing the nearby BNSF Renton Depot kitchen building for
its catering operations, which included providing game day food to the visiting
player’s locker room at Safeco Field. The proximity of this kitchen is a significant
benefit for events at the Pavilion.
·Rain City had also acquired all of the service items from Spirit of
Washington including tableware, serving vessels, and cookware, to continue to
cater events at the Pavilion and had entered into a Lease Agreement for the use
of the kitchen appliances.
·Rain City had great references, acceptable financials and enough business history
to insure successful operation of the Pavilion for the lease assignment term.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 338 of 449
Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 2 of 4
February 17, 2012
H:\Facilities\Facilities Director\Peter Renner\My Documents\Leasehold\Pavilion\Issue Paper Rain City 02 17 2012 2/17/2012
The intention of the Administration was to provide “bridge” services until a Request for
Proposals (RFP) could be developed and published. The timing for the RFP would
allow for continuation of events already on the Spirit of Washington schedule for 2011,
provide sufficient time for Rain City to demonstrate its capacity as the proprietor, and
facilitate a seamless transition to a new operator if one was chosen through the RFP
process.
Rain City has operated the Pavilion for most of a year, and these observations can be
made about their proprietorship:
·Comments about the food are uniformly positive and repeat customers have
been very pleased with the food and service improvements.
·Rain City has extended themselves into the community, supporting
the Farmer’s Market, the Return to Renton Car Show, the Spring and Fall
Festivals, and holding open houses for local business leaders. Important
connections to the community have been formed.
·Rain City retained the limited number of events that were previously
secured in 2010 by Spirit of Washington and added some of their own. We can
see that the slow economy has restrained business development to
some degree.
·Rain City persevered through several negative situations that might have
disconcerted another operator.
·Event centers operate to the future, most events being booked six months in
advance or more. Without an extended lease for the Pavilion, marketing
opportunities for future years have been necessarily limited. These include
bridal shows and publications, directory listings and so on.
·Complaints to the City liaison from Pavilion clients have been limited to periodic
slow communications and some pricing issues, not unlike similar complaints for
the previous operator during their tenure.
In the last couple of months, a significant new development now compels us to request
your support to extend a five-year lease to Rain City. As you know, the Greater Renton
Chamber of Commerce had been searching for a new home because the increased use
of the Renton Airport by the Boeing Company will affect the habitability of the
Chamber’s current office on the West side of Apron “B”. This building is leased from the
City.
After an extensive search, the Chamber determined that the Renton (BNSF) Depot,
previously occupied by the Spirit of Washington, would be an ideal location for a new
Chamber office. BNSF does not usually surplus property, but the Depot is an exception;
the property was listed a number of months ago.
The Chamber of Commerce secured financing, made an offer on the Depot that was
accepted, and the sale recently closed. The Chamber will be moving into the Depot this
spring.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 339 of 449
Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 3 of 4
February 17, 2012
H:\Facilities\Facilities Director\Peter Renner\My Documents\Leasehold\Pavilion\Issue Paper Rain City 02 17 2012 2/17/2012
It is important for the Chamber to reduce their exposure by subdividing the property
and selling the kitchen building at the Depot or at the very least, securing a long-term
reliable tenant for that space.
It is equally important for Rain City to have such a facility for their business, not only at
the Pavilion, but for their other catering jobs as well. The same financial institution that
worked with the Chamber has also working with Rain City. The security of a five-year
lease for the Pavilion is an essential part of the Chamber’s financial planning.
City staff met with Rain City to fathom what improvements in marketing, customer
services, decorating, and pricing Rain City would implement if a five-year lease were to
be granted. They are anxious to create a long-term relationship with the City as the
Pavilion operator and to move their ideas forward. It is noteworthy that Rain City has
significantly reduced their commitment to the Mariners organization, cutting back
events from 81 home games to 20 day games in 2012. The owner prefers to spend his
time developing his catering business at the Pavilion, seeing it as a better opportunity
for long-term prosperity.
You all can appreciate the triangular structure of partnerships built into this proposal; I
believe these to be healthy and worthwhile partnerships. At the same time, the
opportunities for civic development in the downtown corridor would benefit everyone.
The business points of the new lease are very similar to the previous lease with these
hi-lighted points:
·The rent portion of the lease is $1,000 per month. The shared percentage from
food sales and room and equipment rentals remains at 15% throughout the lease
term.
·The lease term is five years. After two years, there is a mutual termination
option with six months notice.
·The building maintenance requirement has been altered. Rain City would be
responsible for all monthly maintenance as they are now, but the City’s Facilities
Division would be responsible for the more complex annual maintenance
elements, as well as the water loop chemistry treatments. These total roughly
$7,000 per year.
·Rain City will replace equipment, mostly tables and chairs, as needed, which they
will own. Currently, the City has provided the tables and chairs, which are now
at the age and condition that some replacements are required. Ownership shall
be designated with inventory tags.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 340 of 449
Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
Page 4 of 4
February 17, 2012
H:\Facilities\Facilities Director\Peter Renner\My Documents\Leasehold\Pavilion\Issue Paper Rain City 02 17 2012 2/17/2012
Conclusion:
Granting a new five-year less to Rain City Catering provides an abundance of synergistic
advantages to downtown corridor development, preserves seamless operation of the
Renton Pavilion Event Center to its customers, and rewards the efforts Rain City Catering
has already made to improved Event Center operations.
cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Iwen Wang, Finance & IS Administrator
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Garmon Newsom, Assistant City Attorney
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 341 of 449
Renton Pavilion Event Center Lease
ARTICLE 1.BASIC TERMS
Article 1 contains the Basic Terms of this Lease between the Lessor and Lessee named below.
Other Articles, Sections, Subsections, and Paragraphs of the Lease referred to in this Article 1
explain and define the Basic Terms and are to be read in conjunction with the Basic Terms.
Section 1.1 Date of Lease:
January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2017
Section 1.2 Lessor and Lessee:
City of Renton (the “City”) (hereinafter “Lessor”)
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6500
Rain City Catering (hereinafter “Lessee”)
P.O. Box 4098
Renton, WA 98057
206-395-5126
1.2.1 Lessee’s Address at Time of Execution of Lease:
The same as above in Section 1.2.
1.2.2 Address of Property to be Leased by Lessee:
Renton Pavilion Event Center (hereinafter “Pavilion”)
233 Burnett Avenue South
Renton, WA 98057
Section 1.3 Exhibits incorporated by reference:
1.3.1 Exhibits A - D, attached hereto, are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
in this Lease.
Section 1.4 Property Legal Description:
1.4.1 The Pavilion, identified above in section 1.2.2 is the subject property of this
Lease and is described in Exhibit A, entitled “Legal Description.” The Pavilion
includes the land, the buildings and all other improvements located on the land
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 342 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 2
with the exceptions noted below. The Pavilion being leased to Lessee is further
described as:
1.4.1.1 The Pavilion, as depicted in Exhibit B, entitled “Project Site Plan,” includes
approximately 2,500 square feet of patio space located on the west end of the
Pavilion and approximately 860 square feet of patio space located on the east
end of the Pavilion.
1.4.1.2 Subject to the legal description included in Exhibit A, Legal Description,
the property being leased to Lessee does not include the parking lot or any other
exterior space on the north side of the Pavilion, the public sidewalk on the west
side of the building, the public sidewalk on the east sides of the building or the
Piazza Park or any other exterior space on the south side of the Pavilion.
Section 1.5 Characterization of Property:
1.5.1 Lessor has provided Lessee with a set of “as-built” architectural drawings, plus
the O & M documentation, for the Lessor’s Pavilion renovation completed in
2004.
1.5.2 Lessee acknowledges that the floor in the open hall of the Pavilion has load
rating design restrictions that limit the amount of weight that can be supported
by the floor as specified in Exhibit C, entitled “Floor Load Rating Specifications.”
1.5.3 For any vehicle and for any use that involves a load requirement that may be in
excess of the “stringerless” specifications in the attached Exhibit C, Floor Load
Rating Specifications, Lessee shall consult a structural engineer in advance to
determine whether the floor can safely handle the load and to secure written
documentation of the structural engineer’s determination, a copy of which
Lessee shall provide Lessor in advance of the specific use.
Section 1.6 Lease Term:
1.6.1.The term of this Lease shall be five (5) years, beginning on January 1, 2012 (the
“Commencement Date”), and ending on December 31, 2017, unless otherwise
terminated under the provisions of Subsections 1.6.2.
1.6.2 Lessee may, in its sole discretion and without any recourse by or compensation
to Lessor, terminate the Lease with six (6)-months notice to Lessor, so long as
such six (6)-months notice is on or after the two (2)-year anniversary of the
Commencement Date.
1.6.3 Lessee may reserve or rent space at the Pavilion to users during the lease period.
Section 1.7 Permitted Uses:
1.7.1 Lessee shall engage in the business of providing an event, banquet and meeting
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 343 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 3
facility, and shall on rent or lease for that purpose. See Article 5 for details.
Section 1.8 Vehicle Parking Spaces Allocated to Lessee:
1.8.1 Lessee shall be allowed unlimited use of two (2) parking spaces in the public
parking lot to the north of the Pavilion as established and marked by signage by
Lessor, for business-purposes only. Lessee shall also be provided with two (2)
City Center Parking Garage passes for its own use for business-purposes only.
Section 1.9 Base Rent and Other Charges Payable by Lessee:
1.9.1 Base Rent: Lessee shall promptly pay Lessor the monthly Base Rent of $1,000
(one thousand dollars) during the Lease Term. Base Rent shall be due no later
than the first of each month. Failure to do so shall constitute a material breach,
under Article 15 (Termination).
1.9.2 Revenue Sharing: In addition to the monthly Base Rent above, Lessee shall pay
monthly to Lessor the following amounts. Such amounts shall not include any
taxes paid by Lessee, gratuities or charges for on-site labor.
1.9.2.1 Catering – Lessor shall receive fifteen percent (15%) of the gross room
rental charges catering sales, and of Lessee’s net income after third-party
charges for food and beverage sales and charges for the following items if
provided by Lessee: Audio Visual systems, linens, flowers, tables, chairs,
flatware, china and the like.
1.9.2.2 Parking Garage – Fees collected for group parking at the City Center
Parking Garage shall be a direct one hundred percent (100%)
pass-through to the City. Lessor has provided Lessee with a current
parking rate chart which may be revised as the Lessor’s discretion in the
future.
1.9.3 Audit:
1.9.3.1 Lessee will keep and maintain or will cause to be kept and maintained
proper and accurate books, records and accounts reflecting all items of
revenue required to be reported to Lessor per this Section.
1.9.3.2 Lessor shall have the right, upon ten (10) calendar days advance written
notice to Lessee, to examine such books, records and accounts at the
local Renton office of Lessee or at Renton City Hall and to make copies or
extracts thereof as Lessor shall desire. In conducting such examination,
Lessor shall exercise its best efforts not to interfere with the normal
business operations of Lessee.
1.9.3.3 Lessor shall have the right to have an independent third-party auditor
inspect and audit such books, records and accounts of Lessee during
normal business hours, the cost of which shall be paid by Lessor. If the
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 344 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 4
third-party auditor’s report that Lessee has under-reported its lease
payments to Lessor, under the Revenue Sharing agreement in this Section
1.9.2, by more than 5%, then Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for the
reasonable cost of the third-party auditor’s audit and pay the City a 10%
penalty for each period of under-reporting by the Lessee, in addition to
the monies owed but under-reported.
Section 1.10 Exhibits and Other Attachments Which are Part of the Lease:
1.10.1 Exhibit “A” - Legal Description
Exhibit “B” - Project Site Plan
Exhibit “C” - Floor Load Rating Specifications
Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule
ARTICLE 2.LEASE TERM
Section 2.1 Lease of Property for Lease Term:
2.1.1 Lessor and Lessee agree that the Lessor will continue to lease the Pavilion to
Lessee for the Lease Term noted in Section 1.6. The beginning and the end of
the lease term shall be the dates specified in Section 1.6 unless changed
pursuant to a provision of this Lease.
ARTICLE 3.RENT PAYMENTS AND RESERVES FOR OPERATING EXPENSES
Section 3.1 Time and Manner of Payment:
3.1.1 On or before the twenty-eighth (28th) day of the second (2nd) month of the Lease
Term and each month thereafter, Lessee shall pay Lessor the Base Rent and the
Revenue Sharing amounts described in Subsection 1.9 for the prior calendar
month and the amount of the Leasehold Excise Tax described in Section 4.1. The
Base Rent and Revenue Sharing amounts shall be payable at Lessor’s address or
at such other place as Lessor may designate in writing. Together with such
payment, Lessee shall provide a detailed financial report that substantiates the
Revenue Sharing payment for the prior calendar month, including but not limited
to: (i) an itemized list of the actual event dates, users and applicable catering
sales and room rental charges and (ii) a running total of the number of events
that occurred to date during each twelve (12)-month period.
3.1.2 Upon termination of this Lease under Article 7 (Damage or Destruction), Article
8 (Condemnation), or any other termination not resulting from Lessee’s default,
and after Lessee has vacated the Pavilion in the manner required by this Lease,
Lessor shall refund or credit to Lessee (or Lessee’s successor) any advance rent
or other advance payments made by Lessee to Lessor.
3.1.3 In the event that Lessee files for bankruptcy, Lessor shall have priority over any
and all property that on or in the Pavilion and shall have a priority as a secured
creditor. Additionally, Lessee hereby agrees to give Lessor written notice of its
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 345 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 5
intent to file for bankruptcy at least 10 business days before filing in bankruptcy
court.
ARTICLE 4.OTHER CHARGES PAYABLE BY LESSEE
Section 4.1 Taxes:
4.1.1 Lessee shall be solely responsible for the payment of the Leasehold Excise Tax
(described below), Business & Occupation Tax and Sales Tax, as applicable.
4.1.2 So long as the Pavilion is owned by Lessor and is exempt from general real estate
taxes as a municipal corporation in accordance with RCW 84.36.010, Lessee shall
be solely obligated to pay the applicable Leasehold Excise Tax (a.k.a. “Rent Excise
Tax”) on the Base Rent and Revenue Sharing payment.
4.1.3 Lessee shall calculate and pay the applicable Leasehold Excise Tax Leasehold
monthly to Lessor during the Lease Term along with the rents described in
Section 3.1.1.
4.1.4 Within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days after the end of each calendar
year during the Lease Term or within such longer period of time as may be
reasonably necessary, Lessor shall furnish to Lessee a statement of the Leasehold
Excise Tax that Lessor was required to charge and collect from Lessee for the
preceding calendar year.
4.1.5 If the preceding calendar year’s required Leasehold Excise Tax charges exceed
the monthly payments made by Lessee, then Lessee shall pay Lessor the
deficiency within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the statement. If the
Leasehold Excise Tax payments made by Lessee exceed the required Leasehold
Excise Tax charges for the preceding calendar year, then, at Lessor’s option,
either Lessor shall pay Lessee the excess at the time Lessor furnishes the
statement to Lessee or Lessee shall be entitled to offset the excess against the
next installment(s) of rent.
4.1.6 At the end of the Lease Term, if Lessee is not in arrears for any payments, Lessor
shall pay Lessee the excess at the time Lessor furnishes the statement to Lessee.
Section 4.2 Utilities:
4.2.1 Lessor shall be responsible for providing utilities to the Pavilion. Lessee shall pay
for all water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and other utilities and services
used by Lessee on the Pavilion during the Lease Term.
4.2.2 Under no circumstances shall Lessee be responsible for any charges for water,
sewer, gas, electricity, heat, telephone, and other utilities and services, which are
not under the control of Lessee and for the use of providing services under this
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 346 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 6
contract as a meeting, banquet and event facility. Lessee shall not be
responsible for electrical costs for exterior area illumination of the areas of the
park and transit center. These fixtures shall be submetered or connected to
electrical sources that Lessor pays for, or the parties will determine through
calculation the average monthly cost associated with these fixtures, which shall
be credited to the Lessee on each monthly statement.
Section 4.3 Insurance Policies:
4.3.1 Liability Insurance. Lessee shall maintain throughout the duration of the Lease
Term a policy of commercial general liability insurance (sometimes known as
broad form comprehensive general liability insurance) insuring Lessee against
liability for bodily injury, property damage (including loss of use of property) and
personal injury or death arising out of the operation, use or occupancy of the
Pavilion. Said liability insurance policy shall specifically list “Liquor Liability
Included” as a provision.
4.3.2 Lessee shall name Lessor as an additional insured under such policy.
4.3.3 The initial amount of such insurance shall be no less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) per occurrence and no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000)
aggregate and shall be subject to periodic increase based upon inflation,
increased liability awards, recommendation of Lessor’s professional insurance
advisors and other relevant factors.
4.3.4 Lessee shall also maintain throughout the duration of the Lease Term a policy of
automobile liability insurance insuring Lessee against liability for bodily injury,
property damage and personal injury or death arising out of the operation or use
of a vehicle by Lessee’s employees, agents, contractors and invitees in
connection with the operation, use or occupancy of the Pavilion.
4.3.5 Lessee shall name Lessor as an additional insured under such policy to the extent
necessary to cover Lessor for automobile-related liability on, at or related to
Lessee’s Pavilion-related business.
4.3.6 The initial amount of such insurance shall be no less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) per occurrence.
4.3.7 The liability insurance obtained by Lessee under this Section 4.3 shall (i) be
primary and non-contributing; (ii) contain cross-liability endorsements; and (iii)
insure Lessor against Lessee’s performance under Section 5.6, if the matters
giving rise to the indemnity under Section 5.6 result from Lessee’s negligence.
4.3.8 The amount and coverage of such insurance shall not limit Lessee’s liability nor
relieve Lessee of any other obligation under this Lease.
4.3.9 Lessor may also obtain comprehensive public liability insurance in an amount
and with coverage determined by Lessor insuring Lessor against liability arising
out of ownership, operation, use or occupancy of the Pavilion.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 347 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 7
4.3.10 Lessor’s policy shall not be contributory and shall not provide primary insurance.
4.3.11 If Lessee requires any agent, contractor, user or invitee to secure or maintain
liability insurance related to alterations to or maintenance, operation, use or
occupancy of the Pavilion, Lessee shall require that such liability insurance
policies include Lessor as an additional insured consistent with this section.
4.3.12 Subject to the provisions above, Lessor accepts liability for the use of the Pavilion
restrooms for Piazza Events provided for in Subsection 5.4.1.
4.3.2 Property Insurance. During the Lease Term, Lessor shall maintain policies of
insurance to be paid for by Lessor covering loss of or damage to the Pavilion in
the full amount of its replacement value.
4.3.2.1 Such policy shall contain an inflation guard endorsement and shall
provide protection against all perils included within the classification of
fire, extended coverage, vandalism, malicious mischief, special extended
perils (all risk), sprinkler leakage and any other perils which Lessor deems
reasonably necessary. Lessor shall not obtain insurance for Lessee’s
fixtures or equipment or building improvements installed by Lessee on
the Pavilion.
4.3.2.2 Lessee shall maintain policies of insurance for Lessee’s fixtures or
equipment or building improvements installed by Lessee on the Pavilion.
4.3.2.3 Nothing in this section shall prevent Lessor from being able to recover for
damage to or the destruction of the Pavilion based on the negligence,
recklessness or fault of the Lessee or any of its agents, contractors,
volunteers, users or invitees.
4.3.3 General Insurance Provisions.
4.3.3.1 Any insurance which Lessee is required to maintain under this Lease shall
include a provision which requires the insurance carrier to give Lessor not
less than forty-five (45) calendar days written notice prior to any
cancellation or modification of such coverage.
4.3.3.2 If Lessee fails to deliver any policy, certificate or renewal to Lessor
required under this Lease within the prescribed time period or if any such
policy is canceled or modified during the Lease Term without Lessor’s
consent, that failure shall constitute a material breach subject to Article
15. Lessor may obtain such insurance, in which case Lessee shall
reimburse Lessor for the cost of such insurance within fifteen (15)
calendar days after receipt of a statement that indicates the cost of such
insurance.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 348 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 8
4.3.3.3 Lessee shall maintain all insurance required under this Lease with
companies rated A-XV or better in Best’s Insurance Guide, and which are
authorized to transact business in the State of Washington. If at any time
during the Lease Term, Lessee is unable to maintain the insurance
required under the Lease, Lessee shall nevertheless maintain insurance
coverage which is customary and commercially reasonable in the
insurance industry for Lessee’s type of business, as that coverage may
change from time to time. Lessor makes no representation as to the
adequacy of such insurance to protect Lessor’s or Lessee’s interest.
Therefore, Lessee shall obtain any such additional property or liability
insurance which Lessee deems necessary to protect Lessor and Lessee.
4.3.3.4 The parties hereby release and discharge each other from all claims,
losses and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered by
property insurance on or in connection with the Pavilion. This release
only applies to claim, losses or liabilities covered by insurance.
Section 4.4 Maintenance of Facility:
4.4.1 Lessee shall reimburse Lessor within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of a
statement for the cost of: (i) Lessor performing any maintenance to the Pavilion
for which Lessee is responsible and which Lessee approves in writing, and (ii)
Lessor performing any emergency maintenance to safeguard and preserve the
integrity of the Pavilion if Lessor is unable to reach Lessee in an emergency for
Lessee to perform the maintenance.
Section 4.5 Common Exterior Areas; Use, Maintenance and Costs:
4.5.1 For the purpose of this Section 4.5, Common Exterior Areas are defined as the
Piazza Park on the south side of the Pavilion Building and the public parking lot,
Renton Transit Center and City Center Parking Garage on the north side of the
Pavilion Building as identified in Exhibit B.
4.5.2 If Lessor encounters damage (beyond normal wear and tear) or extraordinary
trash in the Common Exterior Areas that are attributed to Lessee’s use of the
Premises or failure to maintain or clean, Lessor shall notify Lessee to allow Lessee
to perform the required maintenance or custodial services.
4.5.3 If Lessee fails to perform the required maintenance or custodial services, Lessee
shall reimburse Lessor within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of a
statement for the cost of performing such work so long as the damage or
extraordinary trash is related to the Lessee’s use of the Pavilion. Continued
failure to maintain or clean as required by this Lease shall constitute a material
breach of this Lease, subject to Article 15.
Section 4.6 Late Charges:
4.6.1 Lessee’s failure to promptly pay Base Rent, Revenue Sharing, parking revenue or
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 349 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 9
taxes may cause Lessor to incur unanticipated costs. The exact amount of such
costs may be impractical or difficult to ascertain.
4.6.2 Such costs may include, but are not limited to, processing and accounting
charges and late charges which may be imposed on Lessor by any ground lease,
mortgage or other encumbrance on the Pavilion.
4.6.3 Consequently, if Lessor does not receive any Base Rent, Revenue Sharing or
parking revenue payment within ten (10) calendar days after it becomes due,
Lessee shall pay Lessor a late charge equal to five percent (5%) of the overdue
amount for each month that it is overdue.
4.6.4 The parties agree that such late charge represents a fair and reasonable estimate
of the costs Lessor will incur by reason of such late payment.
4.6.5 Upon Lessee’s failure to make any payment due within 30 calendar days of the
due date, Lessor takes a secured creditor’s interest in Lessees equipment and
property in or on the Pavilion as of the due date.
4.6.6 A failure to make full payment within 45 calendar days of the due date shall
constitute a material breach of this Lease, subject to Article 15.
4.6.7 Three (3) consecutive late payments of monies due or six (6) late payments of
monies due during any twelve (12) month period shall be material breach of the
Lease, subject to Article 15.
Section 4.7 Interest on Past Due Obligations:
4.7.1 Any amount owed by Lessee to Lessor which is not paid when due shall bear
interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the due date of
such amount, however, interest shall not be payable on late charges to be paid
by Lessee under this Lease.
4.7.2 The payment of interest on such amounts shall not excuse or cure any default by
Lessee under this Lease.
4.7.3 If the interest rate specified in this Lease is higher than the rate then permitted
by law, the interest rate shall be decreased to the maximum legal interest rate
then permitted by law.
ARTICLE 5.USE OF PROPERTY
Section 5.1 Permitted Uses:
5.1.1 Lessee shall have exclusive control and access to the Pavilion, except as detailed
in this Lease. Lessee may use the Pavilion only for the Permitted Uses set forth
in Section 1.7 and subject to the floor load restrictions of Section 1.5.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 350 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 10
5.1.2 Lessee shall not allow smoking inside the building, and shall provide adequate
ashtrays in the patio areas outside to accommodate any smoking, which shall
only be permitted in accordance with the conditions of state law. Failure to
comply with this provision may constitute a material breach of this Lease.
5.1.3 Any animal show at the Pavilion must be approved by Lessor in writing prior to
the event. Incidental animal activities such as magic shows and service animals
such as guide dogs for the blind shall not require Lessor approval.
5.1.4 Lessee shall not allow the use of rice, confetti, birdseeds, flower petals and the
like outside the Pavilion. Bubbles shall be permitted outside.
5.1.5 Lessee shall not allow any obscene use of the Pavilion.
5.1.6 The maximum occupancy of the Pavilion shall be 655 people.
Section 5.2 Manner of Use:
5.2.1 Lessee shall professionally market, maintain and operate the Pavilion as a quality
meeting, banquet and event space.
5.2.2 Lessee shall not cause or permit the Pavilion to be used in any way that violates
any law, ordinance, or governmental regulation or order.
5.2.3 Lessee shall obtain and pay for all permits, other than a Certificate of Occupancy,
required for Lessee’s occupancy of the Pavilion and shall promptly take all
actions necessary to comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules,
regulations, orders and requirements regulating the use by Lessee of the
Pavilion, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements.
5.2.4 Subject to the provisions above, Lessee or Lessee’s users shall secure any
required liquor license, banquet license or food handling permit for Pavilion use.
Failure to comply with this provision of the Lease may constitute a material
breach.
5.2.5 Lessee shall not obstruct, cover or block Pavilion windows, including but not
limited to window coverings and moveable partitions, except as necessary during
events and meetings. Any such window coverings and moveable partitions shall
be immediately opened or removed on a daily basis after any event or meeting.
Section 5.3 Use of Piazza Park
5.3.1 Lessor shall provide Lessee with an annual schedule of City-Sponsored Events for
the Piazza Park. Although Lessor reserves the right to schedule City-Sponsored
Events at the Piazza Park at any time, if possible, Lessor will attempt to schedule
additional City-Sponsored Events on dates where there are no conflicting uses
scheduled at the Pavilion.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 351 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 11
5.3.2 Lessor acknowledges that users and invitees for events at the Pavilion Building
may occupy a portion of the Piazza Park for incidental use without the prior,
written consent of the Renton Park Board.
5.3.3 For the purpose of this provision, incidental use shall mean the ability to use or
congregate in a portion of the Piazza Park so long as:
5.3.3.1 City of Renton’s Park Rules and Regulations are maintained,
5.3.3.2 Food or non-alcoholic beverages are only served in the Piazza Park
to Lessee’s contracted customers,
5.3.3.3 Objects erected for Lessee’s events shall not impede or restrict
public access or use of the Piazza Park by others. For purposes of this subsection
“Objects” include, but not limited to, stanchions, barricades, stands, chairs,
tables, tents, fixtures or the like, and
5.3.3.4 The hours of use of the Piazza Park are dawn to dusk and Lessee
shall not permit Pavilion patron use of the Piazza Park outside of these hours.
5.3.4 In order for users or invitees of the Pavilion to occupy any portion of the Piazza
Park for any use other than specifically provided for above, Lessee or user of the
Pavilion must pay any applicable fee and secure the Renton Board of Park
Commissioners’ prior, written approval.
5.3.5 Lessee shall provide Pavilion users with a copy of City of Renton’s Park Rules and
Regulations. Lessee shall make Pavilion users and invitees aware of the City of
Renton’s restriction against the use of alcohol in the Piazza Park, and of the
restrictions related to use of the Piazza Park as described above. Failure to
comply with this provision may constitute a material breach of this Lease.
Section 5.4 City Use of Facility:
5.4.1 City-Sponsored Events:
5.4.1.1 Lessor shall have the right to schedule up to a maximum of twelve (12)
City-Sponsored Events per year at the Pavilion. The parties may agree to more.
5.4.1.2 For the purpose of this Subsection 5.4.1, City-Sponsored Events shall
refer to any event sponsored or co-sponsored by the City as submitted to Lessee
by the Office of the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee.
5.4.1.3 Responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property that occurs
in any way as a result of these City-Sponsored Events shall be apportioned based
on fault. These events shall be allowed on a space available basis by Lessee, and
subject to the restrictions of Subsection 5.4.4.
5.4.2 Lessee shall only be responsible for allowing access to the Pavilion, and providing
custodial services before, during and after the event.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 352 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 12
5.4.3 The Lessor shall pay Lessee the following for City-Sponsored Events unless the
parties specifically agree in writing to another amount:
Base Fee:$250
Hourly Attendance Fee:$35
Excessive Cleanup Surcharge:Reimbursement of Lessee’s actual costs.
5.4.3.1 These fees and charges shall not include services other than access to an
empty, clean Pavilion with a comfortable temperature and well-stocked
restrooms. Additional services such as catering shall be billed at Lessee’s
normal rates, and the exclusivity of Lessee’s right to provide such services
shall remain in affect during these City Sponsored Events. The room
rental revenue (but not the catering revenue) from these City-Sponsored
Events to Lessor shall not be subject to the Revenue Sharing provisions of
Subsection 1.9.2.
5.4.3.2 Lessee reserves the right to be the sole provider of catering at all
City-Sponsored Events at the Pavilion, as well as the right to waive that
provision, as long as Lessee does not owe any amounts past due or late
charges.
5.4.4 Scheduling of these City-Sponsored Events shall not fall within the following
times and dates unless otherwise approved by Lessee in writing:
Friday Evenings after 3:00pm
Saturdays
Sundays
Holidays
5.4.4.1 However, the exclusions in this Subsection 5.4.4 shall not apply during
the annual Renton River Days event and for the annual Holiday Tree
Lighting festivities.
5.4.5 Piazza Events:
5.4.5.1 Lessor may schedule a maximum of thirty-six (36) City-Sponsored Events
in the Piazza Park such as the Renton Farmers’ Market, the Cinema on the
Piazza summer movies, festivals and the like where Lessee shall provide
access to Pavilion restrooms (but not the entire building).
5.4.5.2 Lessor shall provide Lessee with at least sixty (60) calendar days advance
notice for such events. Lessee agrees to work with other potential users
of the Pavilion for the dates of such Piazza events to coordinate shared
use of the Pavilion restrooms, if possible. However, if Lessee has another
use scheduled for the Pavilion where shared use of the restrooms is not
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 353 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 13
possible for one (1) or more of the above Piazza events, Lessee shall
provide Lessor with at least fifteen (15) business days advanced notice, in
which case Lessee shall not provide access to the Pavilion restrooms and
Lessor or the Piazza event sponsor shall secure commercially available
portable toilets at its own expense, if desired.
5.4.5.3 If there is no other event scheduled or another event scheduled where
the Pavilion restrooms may be shared, Lessee shall make the restrooms at
the Pavilion available for $50.00 for each eight (8) hour period per event
for Farmers’ Market, Return to Renton Car Show & River Days vendors &
volunteers only. Said fee shall be paid by Lessor or the Piazza event
sponsor within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of invoice from Lessee.
Lessee shall be responsible for opening, monitoring, cleaning, restocking
and locking the Pavilion restrooms for each such event. Responsibility for
any injury or damage to persons or property that occurs in any way as a
result of the use of the Pavilion restrooms for such Piazza events shall be
apportioned by fault. The $50.00 payments for use of the Pavilion
restrooms described in this Subsection 5.4.2 shall not be subject to the
Revenue Sharing provisions of Subsection 1.9.3.
5.4.5.4 Lessee shall have and maintain control of keyed access and conditions of
use for restrooms during Piazza events.
5.4.5.5 If another event is scheduled during one (1) of the above-mentioned or
similar Piazza events, Lessee shall inform the Pavilion user for such date
of the Piazza event so that the user is aware in advance of potential
impacts from the Piazza event on the user’s event or meeting on the
Pavilion.
Section 5.5 Signs:
5.5.1 Lessee shall not place any interior or exterior signs on the Pavilion without
Lessor’s prior written consent.
Section 5.6 Indemnity:
5.6.1 Lessee’s Indemnification of Lessor:
5.6.1.1 Lessee, shall indemnify, defend and hold Lessor harmless from and
against any and all costs, claims, fees, losses or liability, or any portion
thereof, arising from: (a) Lessee’s use of the Pavilion; (b) the conduct of
Lessee’s business or anything else done or permitted by Lessee in or
about the Pavilion, including any contamination of the Pavilion property
or any other property resulting from the presence or use of Hazardous
Material caused or permitted by Lessee; (c) any breach or default in the
performance of Lessee’s Lease obligations; (d) any misrepresentation or
breach of warranty by Lessee; or (e) other acts or omissions of Lessee.
5.6.1.2 Lessee shall defend Lessor against any such cost, claim, fee, loss or
liability at Lessee’s expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to Lessor
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 354 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 14
or, at Lessor’s election, Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for any legal fees or
costs incurred by Lessor in connection with any such claim. As a material
part of the consideration to Lessor, Lessee assumes all risk of damage to
property or injury to persons in the Pavilion arising from any cause, and
Lessee hereby waives all claims in respect thereof against Lessor, except
for any claim arising out of Lessor’s sole negligence. As used in this
Section 5.6, the term “Lessee,” for purposes of triggering indemnification,
shall include Lessee, and Lessee’s officers, employees, agents,
contractors, volunteers and invitees.
5.6.1.3 This indemnification provision shall not be applicable to any sums
payable under RCW Title 51 and does not waive the protections of Title
51 RCW. The parties have freely negotiated this provision.
5.6.1.4 The provisions of this Subsection 5.6.1 shall survive the termination or
expiration of this Lease.
Subsection 5.6.2 Lessor’s Indemnification of Lessee:
5.6.2.1 Subsection 5.6.2 shall apply only to Lessor’s liability and responsibility for
(i) the City-Sponsored Events provided for in Subsection 5.4.1; and (ii) the
use of the Pavilion restrooms for Piazza events provided for in Subsection
5.4.2. Lessor shall provide no other indemnification for Lessee.
5.6.2.2 Subject to the above limitations, Lessor shall indemnify, defend and hold
Lessee harmless from and against any and all costs, claims, losses or
liability, or any portion thereof, arising from: (a) Lessor’s use of the
Pavilion, that materially harms Lessee; (b) the conduct of Lessor’s
business or anything else done or permitted by Lessor in or about the
Pavilion, including any contamination of the Pavilion or any other
property resulting from the presence or use of Hazardous Material
caused or knowingly permitted by Lessor, that materially harms the
Lessee; (c) any material breach, subject to Article 15, or default in the
performance of Lessor’s obligations under this Lease, that materially
harms Lessee; (d) any material misrepresentation or breach of warranty
by Lessor under this Lease, that materially harms Lessee; or (e) other acts
or omissions of Lessor, that materially harms Lessee. Subject to the
limitations above, Lessor shall defend Lessee against any such cost, claim,
loss or liability at Lessor’s expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to
Lessee or, at Lessee’s election, Lessor shall reimburse Lessee for any legal
fees or costs incurred by Lessee in connection with any such claim.
5.6.2.3 As a material part of the consideration to Lessee, Lessor assumes all risk
of damage to property or injury to persons in the Pavilion arising from the
negligence of the Lessor or its agents, and only as to that negligence
Lessor hereby waives all claims in respect thereof against Lessee, except
for any claim arising out of Lessee’s negligence. As used in this Section
5.6, the term “Lessor,” for purposes of triggering indemnification, shall
include Lessor’s elected officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors,
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 355 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 15
volunteers and invitees.
5.6.2.4 This indemnification provision shall not be applicable to any sums
payable under RCW Title 51 and does not waive the protections of Title
51 RCW. The parties have freely negotiated this provision.
5.6.2.5 The provisions of this Subsection 5.6.2 shall survive the termination or
expiration of this Lease.
Section 5.7 Lessor’s Access:
5.7.1 Lessor may access the main electrical room on the northeast side of the Pavilion
at any time and without notice for the purpose of using or maintaining the
electrical service, exterior lighting controls for the Piazza Park, and
communications/CCTV equipment. Lessor may also access the restrooms at the
Pavilion for Piazza events as provided for in Subsection 5.4.5.
5.7.2 Lessor or its agents may enter the Pavilion at all reasonable times to show the
Pavilion to potential buyers, investors, lessees or others as Lessor sees necessary.
Lessor shall give Lessee reasonable prior notice of such entry, except in the case
of emergency. Lessor may place customary “For Lease” signs on the Pavilion at
any time during the Lease. Lessee may take down the “For Lease” signs during
events, but shall replace them immediately afterwards.
Section 5.8 Quiet Possession:
5.8.1 If Lessee pays the Base Rent, Revenue Sharing, parking revenue and complies
with all other terms of this Lease, Lessee may occupy and enjoy the Pavilion for
the full Lease Term, subject to the provisions of this Lease. Subject to the
provisions above, Lessee acknowledges that the Pavilion is located adjacent to
the Piazza Park and the Renton Transit Center and that, as such, the use of the
Pavilion may be impacted by the day-to-day activities in the adjacent spaces or
City-sponsored or endorsed activities in the Piazza Park, including but not limited
to the Piazza events described in Subsection 5.4.
Section 5.9 Hazardous Material:
5.9.1 Lessor represents and warrants to Lessee that, to the best of Lessor’s knowledge,
there is no “Hazardous Material” (as defined below) on, in, or under the Pavilion
as of the Commencement Date except as otherwise disclosed to Lessee in writing
before the execution of this Lease. If there is any Hazardous Material on, in, or
under the Pavilion as of the Commencement Date, which has been or thereafter
becomes unlawfully released through no fault of Lessee, then Lessor shall
indemnify, defend and hold Lessee harmless from any and all claims, judgments,
damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities or losses including without limitation
sums paid in settlement of claims, attorneys’ fees, consultant fees and expert
fees, incurred or suffered by Lessee either during or after the Lease Term as the
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 356 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 16
result of such contamination.
5.9.2 Lessee shall not cause or permit any Hazardous Material to be brought upon,
kept, used in or about, or buried or disposed of on the Pavilion by Lessee, its
officers, agents, employees, contractors, volunteers or invitees, except after
written notice to the Lessor at least five (5) business days before such possession
or use on or near the Pavilion, and in strict compliance with all applicable
federal, state and local laws, regulations, codes and ordinances.
5.9.3 If Lessee breaches the obligations stated in the preceding sentence, then Lessee
shall indemnify, defend and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims,
judgments, damages, penalties, fines, fees, costs, liabilities or losses including,
without limitation, diminution in the value of the Pavilion, damages for the loss
or restriction on use of rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the
Pavilion, or elsewhere, damages arising from any adverse impact on marketing of
space at the Pavilion, damage related to any environmental contamination, and
sums paid in settlement of claims, attorneys’ fees, consultant fees and expert
fees incurred or suffered by Lessor either during or after the Lease Term. This
indemnification by the Lessee includes, without limitation, costs incurred in
connection with any investigation of site conditions or any clean-up, remedial
action under RCW 70.105D, removal or restoration work, whether or not
required by any federal, state or local governmental agency or political
subdivision, because of Hazardous Material present in or under the Pavilion, or in
its soil or its ground water. Lessee also agrees to grant Lessor the right to enter
the Pavilion for the purpose of conducting tests and monitoring for the purpose
of determining whether hazardous substances are present or have been released
on or in or below the Pavilion.
5.9.4 Lessee shall immediately notify Lessor in writing of any inquiry, investigation or
notice that Lessee may receive from any third-party regarding the actual or
suspected presence of Hazardous Material on the Pavilion, and forward any
related documents or materials to the City.
5.9.5 Without limiting the foregoing, if the presence of any Hazardous Material
brought upon, kept or used in or about the Pavilion by Lessee, its officers,
agents, employees, contractors, volunteers or invitees, results in any unlawful
release of Hazardous Material on, in or underneath the Pavilion or any other
property, Lessee shall promptly take all actions, at its sole expense, as are
necessary to return the Pavilion or any other property, to the condition existing
prior to the release of any such Hazardous Material; provided that Lessor’s
approval of such actions shall first be obtained, which approval may be withheld
at Lessor’s sole discretion.
5.9.6 As used herein, the term “Hazardous Material” means any hazardous,
dangerous, toxic or harmful substance, material or waste including biomedical
waste which is or becomes regulated by any local governmental authority, the
State of Washington or the United States Government due to its potential harm
to the health, safety or welfare of humans, animals or the environment.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 357 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 17
ARTICLE 6.CONDITION OF PROPERTY; MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS
Section 6.1 Existing Conditions:
6.1.1 Lessee accepts the Pavilion in its condition as of the execution of the Lease,
subject to all recorded matters, laws, ordinances, and governmental regulations
and orders. Lessee acknowledges that neither Lessor nor any agent of Lessor has
made any representation as to the condition of the Pavilion or the suitability of
the Pavilion for Lessee’s intended use. Lessee represents and warrants that
Lessee has made its own inspection of and inquiry regarding the condition of the
Pavilion and is not relying on any representations of Lessor or any Broker with
respect thereto. As the Lessee of the Pavilion before this current Lease is
executed, Lessee has not given Lessor notice of any existing condition to resolve.
Section 6.2 Exemption of Lessor from Liability:
6.2.1 Lessor shall not be liable for any damage or death or injury to the person,
business (or in any loss of income there from), goods, wares, merchandise or
other property of Lessee, Lessee’s officers, agents, employees, volunteers,
invitees, customers or any other person in or about the Pavilion, whether such
damages or injury is caused by or results from: (a) fire, steam, electricity, water,
gas, snow, rain, or volcanic activity; (b) the breakage, leakage, obstruction or
other defects of pipes, sprinklers, wires, appliances, plumbing, air condition or
lighting fixtures or any other cause; or (c) conditions arising in or about the
Pavilion or upon other portions of the Project, or from other sources or places.
6.2.2 Lessor shall not be liable for any such damage or injury even though the cause of
or the means of repairing such damage, death or injury are not accessible to
Lessee. The provisions of this Section 6.2 shall not, however, exempt Lessor
from liability for Lessor’s negligence or misconduct.
Section 6.3 Maintenance and Repairs:
6.3.1 Lessee shall have total responsibility for maintenance as described in Exhibit D,
Maintenance Schedule, routine repairs and custodial services for the Project.
6.3.2 Exhibit D details Lessee’s maintenance and custodial duties.
6.3.3 Lessee shall maintain records on the Pavilion that document Lessee’s
performance of preventative maintenance, inspections and service to the HVAC
and other building systems included in Exhibit D, Section II (Mechanical). Such
records shall be available for inspection by Lessor.
6.3.4 Lessor will conduct periodic inspections of the Pavilion and the above records
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 358 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 18
with ten (10) calendar days notice to assure compliance with the maintenance
and custodial requirements. Lessor reserves the right to perform emergency
maintenance services to safeguard and preserve the integrity of the Pavilion and
to perform maintenance, repairs or custodial services if Lessee fails to perform
them within thirty (30) calendar days of notice. Lessor will bill Lessee for
emergency or other services provided by Lessor and Lessee shall make payment
along with the rent described in Section 1.10. Lessee’s repeated failure to
maintain the Pavilion shall constitute a material breach, subject to Article 15.
6.3.5 Lessee is responsible for any processes, procedures, or construction activities
that require environmental review, permits, or similar approvals. Qualified
individuals, as approved by the Lessor, shall perform all maintenance, design or
construction work on the Pavilion.
6.3.6 Lessor shall be responsible for all exterior damage repair and maintenance of the
Pavilion Building, unless caused by Lessee’s use, or the Lessee’s agents,
employees, contractors, volunteers or invitees. Lessor shall assume
responsibility for all items of HVAC major maintenance identified in Exhibit D, or
related to such maintenance.
6.3.7 Lessor has provided Lessee at no charge with instruction regarding the operation
and maintenance of HVAC and other mechanical systems located in the Pavilion
Building and the use of the Maintenance Schedule included in Exhibit D. Lessor
shall be responsible for water treatments for the chiller loop and for the annual
boiler inspection and maintenance.
6.3.8 Subject to the provisions of Article 7, if Lessee properly performs the required
preventative maintenance, inspections and service included in Exhibit D, Section
II, Lessor shall be responsible for repairing failures to the following equipment,
systems or components on the Pavilion: structural components, HVAC, plumbing,
electrical distribution and electronic control systems. However, this provision
shall not apply to items that may need repair or replacement by Lessee due to
normal wear and tear during the Lease Term including, but not limited to, door
openers and closers, roll up door rollers, toilet flush values, restroom fans, light
bulbs and other consumable items.
Section 6.4 Alterations and Other Changes:
6.4.1 Lessee shall not make any alterations to the Pavilion or install interior or exterior
signage without Lessor’s prior written consent.
6.4.1.1 Lessee shall pay for any alterations approved by Lessor.
6.4.1.2 The term “Alterations” shall mean any addition, modification,
improvement or removal, other than the installation of carpet, shelves,
movable partitions, Lessee’s equipment, and trade fixtures which may be
performed without damaging existing improvements, fixtures, walls,
floors, or the structural integrity of the Pavilion, and Lessor’s consent
shall not be required for Lessee’s installation of those items. However,
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 359 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 19
Lessee agrees to coordinate any carpet installation in advance with Lessor
to insure that the carpet is installed in a manner that allows appropriate
service access to all HVAC service areas in the plenum.
6.4.1.3 Lessor may require Lessee to provide demolition and/or lien and
completion bonds in form and amount satisfactory to Lessor. Lessee shall
immediately remove any alterations, additions, or improvements
constructed in violation of this Section 6.4 upon Lessor’s written request.
6.4.1.4 All alterations shall be done in a good, code-compliant and workmen-like
manner, in conformity with all applicable laws and regulations, and by a
contractor approved by Lessor. Before commencement of any alteration,
Lessee shall provide Lessor with all plans, blueprints, and designs for
review. Upon completion of any such work, Lessee shall provide Lessor
with “as built” plans, copies of all construction contracts, and proof of
payment for all labor and materials. Lessee shall not be required to
remove or pay the cost of removal of any Alterations upon the
termination or expiration of the Lease for any reason.
6.4.1.5 All alternations shall become the property of Lessor upon termination or
expiration of the Lease.
6.4.2 Lessee shall pay when due all claims for labor and material furnished to the
Pavilion. Lessee shall give Lessor at least twenty (20) calendar days prior written
notice of the commencement of any work on the Pavilion, regardless of whether
Lessor’s consent to such work is required. Lessor may elect to record and post
notices of non-responsibility on the Pavilion. Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for
any legal fees or costs incurred by Lessor in connection with defending itself
against any claims for labor or material furnished to the Pavilion.
Section 6.5 Pavilion Condition Upon Termination of Lease
6.5.1 Upon the termination of the Lease, under Article 15, Lessee shall surrender the
Pavilion to Lessor, broom clean and in the same condition as received except for
ordinary wear and tear which Lessee was not otherwise obligated to remedy
under the provisions of this Lease. Holes in walls or floors shall not constitute
ordinary wear and tear. However, Lessee shall not be obligated to repair any
damage which Lessor is required to repair under Article 7.
6.5.2 All alterations shall become Lessor’s property upon the expiration or early
termination of the Lease, except that Lessee may remove any of Lessee’s
machinery or equipment which can be removed without material damage to the
Pavilion, provided that Lessee has paid Lessor all monies owed.
6.5.3 Lessee shall repair, at Lessee’s expense, any damage to the Pavilion caused by
the removal of any such machinery, specialty cabinets installed by Lessee,
computer, telephone or other communication or electronic equipment, or other
equipment.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 360 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 20
6.5.4 In no event shall Lessee remove any of the following materials or equipment
(agreed to be Lessor’s property) without Lessor’s prior written consent: any
power wiring or power panels; lighting or lighting fixtures, wall coverings;
drapes, blinds or other window coverings; carpets or other floor coverings;
heaters, air conditioners or any other heating or air conditioning equipment;
fencing or security gates or security systems; or other similar building operating
equipment and decorations.
6.5.5 Within thirty (30) calendar days after the expiration or early termination of this
Lease, Lessee shall remove from the Pavilion, at its sole expense, all equipment,
furnishings, and other personal property owned and placed in or on the Pavilion
by the Lessee unless otherwise provided for in the Lease. If Lessee fails to
removed such equipment, furnishings, and other personal property within the
time allowed, Lessor may, but need not, remove said personal property and hold
it for the owners thereof, or place the same in storage, all at the expense and
risk of the owners thereof, and Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for any expenses
incurred by Lessor in connection with such removal and storage. Lessor shall
have the right to sell such stored property, without notice to Lessee, after it has
been stored for a period of thirty (30) calendar days or more, the proceeds of
such sale to be applied first to the cost of sale, second to payment of any charges
for storage, and third to the payment of any other amounts which may then be
due from Lessee to Lessor, and the balance, if any, shall be considered forfeited
and deposited into the City’s general fund.
ARTICLE 7.DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION
Section 7.1 Partial Damage to Property:
7.1.1 Lessee shall notify Lessor in writing immediately upon the occurrence of any
damage to the Pavilion. If the Pavilion is only partially damaged, [i.e., less than
fifty percent (50%) of the Pavilion is not leasable as a result of such damage or
less than fifty percent (50%) of Lessee’s operations are materially impaired], and
if the proceeds received by Lessor from the insurance policies described in
Subsection 4.3 are sufficient to pay for the necessary repairs, this Lease shall
remain in effect and Lessor shall repair the damage as soon as reasonably
possible. Lessor may elect (but is not required) to repair any damage to Lessee’s
fixtures, equipment, or improvements, subject to an agreement that Lessee pay
for such repair. Lessee shall pay Lessor, if the damage was due to an act or
omission of Lessee, or Lessee’s employees, agents, contractors, volunteers or
invitees, the “deductible amount,” if any, under Lessor’s insurance policies.
7.1.2 If the insurance proceeds received by Lessor are not sufficient to pay the entire
cost of repair, or if the cause of the damage is not covered by the insurance
policies which Lessor maintains under Section 4.3, Lessor may elect to (i) repair
the damage, (ii) Lessor may chose to continue honor the this Lease and/or (iii)
Lessor may terminate this Lease as of the date the damage occurred.
7.1.2.1 Lessor shall notify Lessee within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of
notice of the damage whether Lessor elects to terminate the Lease.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 361 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 21
7.1.2.2 Lessee shall pay Lessor, if the damage was due to an act or omission of
Lessee, or Lessee’s employees, agents, contractors, volunteers or
invitees, the “deductible amount,” under Lessor’s insurance policies.
7.1.2.3 If Lessor elects to terminate the Lease, under Article 15, Lessee shall pay
the cost of such repairs, except that upon satisfactory completion of such
repairs, Lessor shall deliver to Lessee insurance proceeds to cover the
cost of Lessee’s repairs.
7.1.2.4 If the Lessor elects to not terminate the Lease, Lessee shall repair any
damage to the Pavilion.
7.1.3 If the damage to the Pavilion occurs during the last six (6) months of the Lease
Term and such damage will require more than thirty (30) calendar days to repair,
either Lessor or Lessee may elect to terminate this Lease as of the date the
damage occurred, regardless of the sufficiency of any insurance proceeds. The
party electing to terminate this Lease shall give written notification to the other
party of such election within thirty (30) calendar days after Lessee’s notice to
Lessor of the occurrence of the damage. This opportunity to terminate shall not
absolve Lessee of its responsibility to repair and/or indemnify Lessor for the
Lessee’s negligence or damage to Lessor’s property.
Section 7.2 Substantial or Total Destruction:
7.2.1 If the Pavilion is substantially or totally destroyed by any cause whatsoever (i.e.,
the damage to the Pavilion is greater than partial damage as described in Section
7.1, and regardless of whether Lessor receives any insurance proceeds, this Lease
shall terminate as of the date the destruction occurred). Subject to the
preceding sentence, if the Pavilion can be rebuilt within six (6) months after the
date of destruction, Lessor may elect to rebuild the Pavilion, and may chose to
have this Lease remain in effect. Lessor shall notify Lessee of such election
within thirty (30) calendar days after Lessee’s notice of the occurrence of total or
substantial destruction.
Section 7.3 Temporary Reduction of Rent:
7.3.1 If the Pavilion is destroyed or damaged and Lessor or Lessee repairs or restores
the Pavilion pursuant to the provisions of this Article 7, any rent payable during
the period of such damage repair and/or restoration shall be reduced according
to the degree, to which Lessee’s use of the Pavilion is impaired, unless the
damage was the result of Lessee’s negligence. Except for such possible reduction
in Base Rent, Lessee shall not be entitled to any compensation, reduction, or
reimbursement from Lessor as a result of any damage, destruction, repair, or
restoration of or to the Pavilion.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 362 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 22
Section 7.4 Destruction Waiver:
7.4.1 Lessee waives the protection of any statute, code or judicial decision which
grants a lessee the right to terminate a lease in the event of the substantial or
total destruction of the leased Pavilion. Lessee agrees that the provision of
Section 7.2 above shall govern the rights and obligations of Lessor and Lessee in
the event of any substantial or total destruction to the Pavilion.
ARTICLE 8.CONDEMNATION
8.1.1 If all or any portion of the Pavilion is taken under the power of eminent domain
or sold under the threat of that power (all of which are called “Condemnation”),
this Lease shall terminate as to the part taken or sold on the date the
condemning authority takes title or possession, whichever occurs first. If more
than twenty percent (20%) of the floor area of the building in which the Pavilion
is located, or which is located on the Pavilion, is taken, either Lessor or Lessee
may terminate this Lease as of the date the condemning authority takes title or
possession, by delivering written notice to the other within ten (10) days after
receipt of written notice of such taking (or in the absence of such notice, within
ten (10) days after the condemning authority takes title or possession).
8.1.2 If neither Lessor nor Lessee terminates this Lease under Article 15, this Lease
shall remain in effect as to the portion of the Pavilion not taken, except that the
Base Rent shall be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the Pavilion floor
area.
8.1.3 Any Condemnation Award or payment shall be distributed in the following order:
(a) first, to any mortgagee or beneficiary under a deed of trust encumbering the
Pavilion, the amount of its interest in the Pavilion; (b) second, to Lessee, only the
amount of any award specifically designated for loss of or damage to Lessee’s
trade fixtures or removable personal property; and (c) third, to Lessor, the
remainder of such award, whether as compensation for reduction in the value of
the leasehold, the taking of the fee, or otherwise.
8.1.4 If this Lease is not terminated, Lessor shall repair any damage to the Pavilion due
to Condemnation, except that Lessor shall not be obligated to repair any damage
for which Lessee has been reimbursed by the condemning authority.
8.1.5 If the severance damages received by Lessor are not sufficient to pay for such
repair, Lessor shall have the right to either terminate this Lease or make such
repair at Lessor’s expense.
ARTICLE 9.ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING
Section 9.1 Lessor’s Consent Required:
9.1.1 No portion of the Pavilion or of Lessee’s interest in this Lease may be acquired by
any other person or entity, whether by sale, assignment, mortgage, sublease,
transfer, operation of law, or act of Lessee (hereafter collectively referred to as a
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 363 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 23
“transfer”) without Lessor’s prior written consent. Lessor has the right to grant
or withhold its consent as provided in Section 9.3 below.
9.1.2 Any attempted transfer without Lessor’s prior written consent shall be void and
shall constitute a non-curable material breach subject to Article 15. If Lessee is a
partnership or limited liability company, any cumulative transfer of more than
twenty percent (20%) of the entity’s interests shall require Lessor’s consent.
9.1.3 If Lessee is a corporation, any change in the ownership of a controlling interest of
the voting stock of the corporation, cumulatively over the life of the Lease, shall
require Lessor’s consent.
Section 9.2 No Release of Lessee:
9.2.1 No transfer shall release Lessee or change Lessee’s primary liability to pay the
Base Rent, Revenue Sharing and to perform all other obligations of Lessee under
this Lease. Lessor’s acceptance of Base Rent or Revenue Sharing from any other
person is not a waiver of any provision of this Article 9. Consent to one transfer
is not consent to any subsequent transfer.
9.2.2 If Lessee’s transferee defaults under this Lease, Lessor may proceed directly
against Lessee without pursuing remedies against the transferee, or against both
the Lessee and its transferee. Lessor may consent to subsequent assignments or
modifications of this Lease by Lessee’s transferee, without notifying Lessee or
obtaining its consent, and without relieving Lessee of liability under this Lease.
Section 9.3 Lessor’s Consent:
9.3.1 Lessee’s request for consent to any transfer described in Section 9.1 shall set
forth in writing the details of the proposed transfer, including the name, business
and financial condition of the prospective transferee, financial details of the
proposed transfer (e.g., the term of and the rent and security deposit payable
under any proposed assignment or sublease), and any other information Lessor
deems relevant. Lessor shall have the right to withhold consent, or to grant
consent, based on the following factors: (i) the business of the proposed
assignee or sublessee and the proposed use of the Pavilion; (ii) the net worth
and financial reputation of the proposed assignee or sublessee; (iii) Lessee’s
compliance with all of its obligations under the Lease; and (iv) such other factors
as Lessor may reasonably deem relevant in its sole discretion.
ARTICLE 10.DEFAULT OR FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION
10.1.1 Lessee’s performance of each of Lessee’s obligations under this Lease is a
condition as well as a covenant. Lessee’s right to continue in possession of the
Pavilion is strictly conditioned upon such performance, including but not limited
to rent, revenue sharing, parking revenue and maintenance. Time is of the
essence in the performance of all covenants and conditions.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 364 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 24
Lessor may terminate the Lease, under Article 15, and take possession of the
Pavilion in the event that the Lessee shall have failed to perform any of the
covenants or conditions of the Lease, and such default or deficiency in
performance was not remedied by the Lessee within thirty (30) calendar days
after receiving notice in writing stating the nature of the default or deficiency
and the Lessor’s intention to terminate the Lease if not corrected.
10.1.3 Under such circumstances as noted in this article, the Lessee is still responsible
for any outstanding amounts, as well as penalties, and any other liabilities,
attorney’s fees, filing fees, costs and assessments.
10.1.4 The vacating or abandonment of the Pavilion shall constitute a default and a
material breach by Lessee.
10.1.5 The making by Lessee or any general assignment, or general arrangement for the
benefit of creditor, the appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession
of substantially all of Lessee’s assets located at the Pavilion or of Lessee’s interest
in the Pavilion, or the attachment, execution or other judicial seizure of
substantially all of Lessee’s assets located at the Pavilion or of Lessee’s interest in
the Pavilion shall constitute a default, and a material breach by Lessee.
ARTICLE 11.PROTECTION OF LENDERS
Section 11.1 Subordination:
11.1.1 Lessor shall have the right to subordinate this Lease to any ground lease, deed of
trust or mortgage encumbering the Pavilion, any advances made on the security
thereof and any renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements or
extensions thereof, whenever made or recorded. Lessee shall cooperate with
Lessor and any lender which is acquiring a security interest in the Pavilion or the
Lease.
11.1.2 Lessee shall execute such further documents and assurances as such lender may
require, provided that Lessee’s obligations under this Lease shall not be
increased in any material way (the performance of ministerial acts shall not be
deemed material), and Lessee shall not be deprived of its rights under this Lease.
Lessee’s right to quiet possession of the Pavilion during the Lease Term shall not
be disturbed if Lessee pays the Base Rent, Revenue Sharing and performs all of
Lessee’s obligations under this Lease and is not otherwise in default.
11.1.3 If any ground Lessor, beneficiary or mortgagee elects to have this Lease prior to
the lien of its ground lease, deed of trust or mortgage and gives written notice
thereof to Lessee, this Lease shall be deemed prior to such ground lease, deed of
trust or mortgage whether this Lease is dated prior or subsequent to the date of
said ground lease, deed of trust or mortgage or the date of recording thereof.
Section 11.2 Attornment:
11.2.1 If Lessor’s interest in the Pavilion is acquired by any ground Lessor, beneficiary
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 365 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 25
under a deed of trust, mortgagee, or purchaser at a foreclosure sale, Lessee shall
attorn to the transferee of or successor to Lessor’s interest in the Pavilion and
recognize such transferee or successor as Lessor under this Lease. Lessee waives
the protection of any statute or rule of law which gives or purports to give Lessee
any right to terminate this Lease or surrender possession of the Pavilion upon
the transfer of Lessor’s interest.
Section 11.3 Signing of Documents:
11.3.1 Lessee shall sign and deliver any instrument or documents required to evidence
any such attornment or subordination or agreement to do so.
11.3.2 If Lessee fails to do so within twenty (20) calendar days after written request,
Lessee hereby makes, constitutes and irrevocably appoints Lessor, or any
transferee or successor of Lessor, the attorney-in-fact of Lessee to execute and
deliver any such instrument or document.
Section 11.4 Estoppel Certificates:
11.4.1 Upon Lessor’s written request, Lessee shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to
Lessor a written statement certifying: (i) that none of the terms or provisions of
this Lease have been changed (or if they have been changed, stating how they
have been changed); (ii) that this Lease has not been canceled or terminated; (iii)
the last date of payment of the Base Rent and other charges and the time period
covered by such payment; (iv) that Lessor is not in default under this Lease (or, if
Lessor is claimed to be in default, stating why); and (v) such other
representations or information with respect to Lessee or the Lease as Lessor may
reasonably request or which any prospective purchaser, encumbrancer, or
interest-holder of the Pavilion may require.
11.4.2 Lessee shall deliver such statement to Lessor within twenty (20) calendar days
after Lessor’s request. Lessor may give any such statement by Lessee to any
prospective purchaser, encumbrancer, or interest-holder of the Pavilion. Such
person or persons may rely conclusively upon such statement as true and
correct.
11.4.3 If Lessee does not deliver such statement to Lessor within such twenty (20) day
period, Lessor, and any prospective purchaser, encumbrancer, or interest-holder
may conclusively presume and rely upon the following facts: (i) that the terms
and provisions of this Lease have not been changed except as otherwise
represented by Lessor; (ii) that this Lease has not been canceled or terminated
except as otherwise represented by Lessor: (iii) that not more than one month’s
Base Rent or other charges have been paid in advance; and (iv) that Lessor is not
in default under the lease. In such event, Lessee shall be estopped from denying
the truth of such facts.
ARTICLE 12.LEGAL COSTS
Section 12.1 Legal Proceedings:
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 366 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 26
12.1.1 If Lessee or Lessor shall be in material breach or default under this Lease, such
party (the “Defaulting Party”) shall reimburse the other party (the
“Nondefaulting Party”) upon demand for any costs or expenses that the
Nondefaulting Party incurs in connection with any material breach or default of
the Defaulting Party under this Lease, whether or not suit is commenced or
judgment entered. Such costs shall include legal fees and costs incurred for the
negotiation of a settlement, enforcement of rights or otherwise. Furthermore, if
any action for breach of or to enforce the provisions of this Lease is commenced,
the court in such action shall award to the party in whose favor a judgment is
entered, a reasonable sum as attorneys’ fees, filing fees and costs. The losing
party in such action shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs.
12.1.2 Lessee shall indemnify Lessor against and hold Lessor harmless from all costs,
fees, expenses, demands and liability Lessor may incur if Lessor becomes or is
made a party to any claim or action (a) instituted by Lessee against any
third-party, or by any third-party against Lessee, or by or against any person
holding any interest under or using the Pavilion by license of or agreement with
Lessee; (b) for foreclosure of any lien for labor or material furnished to or for
Lessee or such other person; (c) otherwise arising out of or resulting from any act
or transaction of Lessee or such other person; or (d) necessary to protect
Lessor’s interest under this Lease in a bankruptcy proceeding, or other
proceeding under Title 11 of the United States Code, as amended.
12.1.3 Lessee shall defend Lessor against any such claim or action at Lessee’s expense
with counsel reasonably acceptable to Lessor or, at Lessor’s election, Lessee shall
reimburse Lessor for any legal fees or costs Lessor incurs in any such claim or
action.
Section 12.2 Lessor’s Consent:
13.2.1 Lessee shall pay Lessor’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with
Lessee’s request for Lessor’s consent under Article 9 (Assignment and
Subletting), or in connection with any other act which Lessee proposes to do and
which requires Lessor’s consent.
ARTICLE 13.MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 13.1 Non-Discrimination:
13.1.1 Lessee promises, and it is a condition to the continuance of this Lease, that there
will be no discrimination against, or segregation of, any person or group of
persons on the basis of race, color, age, sex, sexual orientation, mental or
physical disability, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry in the leasing,
subleasing, transferring, occupancy, tenure or use of the Pavilion or any portion
thereof, unless exempted by applicable state or federal legislation or judicial or
quasi-judicial decisions. Discrimination shall be a material breach, subject to
Article 15.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 367 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 27
Section 13.2 Lessor’s Liability; Certain Duties:
13.2.1 As used in this Lease, the term “Lessor” means only the current owner or owners
of the fee title to the Pavilion or the leasehold estate under a ground lease of the
Pavilion at the time in question. Each Lessor is obligated to perform the
obligations of Lessor under this Lease only during the time such Lessor owns
such interest or title. Any Lessor who transfers its title or interest is relieved of
all liability with respect to the obligations of Lessor under this Lease to be
performed on or after the date of transfer. However, each Lessor shall deliver to
its transferee all funds that Lessee previously paid if such funds have not yet
been applied under the terms of this Lease.
13.2.2 Lessee shall give written notice of any failure by Lessor to perform any of its
obligations under this Lease to Lessor and to any ground Lessor, mortgagee or
beneficiary under any deed of trust encumbering the Pavilion whose name and
address have been furnished to Lessee in writing. Lessor shall not be in default
under this Lease unless Lessor (or such ground Lessor, mortgagee or beneficiary)
fails to cure such non-performance within thirty (30) days after receipt of
Lessee’s notice. However, if such non-performance reasonably requires more
than thirty (30) calendar days to cure, Lessor shall not be in default if such cure is
commenced within such thirty (30) calendar day period and thereafter is
diligently pursued to completion.
Section 13.3 Severability:
13.3.1 A determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that any provision of this
Lease or any part thereof is illegal or unenforceable shall not cancel or invalidate
the remainder of such provision of this Lease.
Section 13.4 Interpretation:
13.4.1 The captions of the Articles or Sections of this Lease are to assist the parties in
reading this Lease and are not a part of the terms or provisions of this Lease.
Whenever required by the context of this Lease, the singular shall include the
plural and the plural shall include the singular. The masculine, feminine and
neuter genders shall each include the other. In any provision relating to the
conduct, acts or omissions of Lessee, the term “Lessee” shall include Lessee’s
officers, agents, employees, contractors, volunteers, invitees, successors or
others using the Pavilion with Lessee’s expressed or implied permission. In any
provision relating to the conduct, acts or omissions of Lessor, the term “Lessor”
shall include Lessor’s elected officials, officers, agents, employees, contractors,
volunteers, invitees, successors or others using the Pavilion with Lessor’s
expressed or implied permission.
Section 13.5 Incorporation of Prior Agreements; Modifications:
13.5.1 This Lease is the only agreement between the parties pertaining to the lease of
the Pavilion and no other agreements are effective. All amendments to this
Lease must be in writing and signed by all parties. Any other attempted
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 368 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 28
amendment, unless in writing and signed by each party shall be void.
Section 13.6 Notices:
13.6.1 All notices required or permitted under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be
personally delivered or sent by certified mail, return-receipt requested, postage
prepaid. Notices to Lessee or Lessor shall be delivered to the address specified
in Section 1.2. All notices shall be effective upon delivery. Either party may
change its notice address by written notice to the other party.
Section 13.7 Waivers:
13.7.1 All waivers must be in writing and signed by the waiving party. Lessor’s failure to
enforce any provision of this Lease or its acceptance of rent or revenue sharing
shall not be a waiver and shall not prevent Lessor from enforcing that provision
or any other provision of this Lease in the future. No statement on a payment
check from Lessee or in a letter accompanying a payment check shall be binding
on Lessor. Lessor may, with or without notice to Lessee, negotiate such check
without being bound to the conditions of such statement.
Section 13.8 No Recordation:
13.8.1 Lessee shall not record this Lease without prior written consent from Lessor.
However, either Lessor or Lessee may require that a “Short Form” memorandum
of this Lease executed by both parties be recorded. The party requiring such
recording shall pay all transfer taxes and recording fees required to accomplish
recordation.
Section 13.9 Binding Effect; Choice of Law:
13.9.1 This Lease binds any party who legally acquires any rights or interest in this Lease
from Lessor or Lessee. However, Lessor shall have no obligation to Lessee’s
successor unless the rights or interest of Lessee’s successor are acquired in
accordance with the terms of this Lease. The laws of the State of Washington
shall govern this Lease.
Section 13.10 Entity Authority:
13.10.1 If Lessee is an entity other than an individual or partnership, each person signing
this Lease on behalf of Lessee represents and warrants that he or she has full
authority to do so and that this Lease binds the entity. Within thirty (30)
calendar days after this Lease is signed, Lessee shall deliver to Lessor a certified
copy of a resolution of Lessee’s Board of Directors or other governing body
authorizing the execution of this Lease or other evidence of such authority
reasonably acceptable to Lessor. If Lessee is a partnership, each person or entity
signing this Lease for Lessee represents and warrants that he, she or it is a
general partner of the partnership, that he, she or it has full authority to sign for
the partnership and that this Lease binds the partnership and all general partners
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 369 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 29
of the partnership. Lessee shall give written notice to Lessor of any general
partner’s withdrawal or addition. Within thirty (30) calendar days after this
Lease is signed, Lessee shall deliver to Lessor a copy of Lessee’s recorded
statement of partnership or certificate of limited partnership.
Section 13.11 Joint and Several Liability:
13.11.1 All parties signing this Lease as Lessee shall be jointly and severally liable for all
obligations of Lessee.
Section 13.12 Force Majeure:
13.12.1 If Lessor cannot perform any of its obligations due to events beyond Lessor’s
control, the time provided for performing such obligations shall be extended by a
period of time equal to the duration of such events beyond Lessor’s control.
Such events include, but are not limited to, Acts of God, war, civil commotion,
labor disputes, strikes, fire, earthquake, flood or other casualty, shortages of
labor or material, government regulation or restriction, volcanic eruption, and
weather conditions.
Section 13.13 Execution of Lease:
13.13.1 This Lease may be executed in counterparts and, when all counterpart
documents are executed, the counterparts shall constitute a single binding
instrument. Lessor’s delivery of this Lease to Lessee shall not be deemed to be
an offer to lease and shall not be binding upon either party until executed and
delivered by both parties.
Section 13.14 Survival:
13.14.1 All representations and warranties of Lessor and Lessee shall survive the
expiration or early termination of this Lease.
ARTICLE 14.BROKERS
14.1 Nothing contained in this Lease shall impose any obligation on Lessor to pay a
commission or fee to any party. Lessee represents and warrants to Lessor that it
has not engaged any broker, finder or other person who would be entitled to any
commission or fees for the negotiation, execution, or delivery of this Lease.
Lessee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Lessor against any loss, cost,
fee, liability or expense incurred by Lessor as a result of any claim asserted by
any such broker, finder or other person on the basis of any arrangements or
agreements made or alleged to have been made by or on behalf of Lessee. This
Article shall not apply to brokers with whom Lessor has an express written
brokerage agreement.
ARTICLE 15 TERMINATION
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 370 of 449
Pavilion Lease [Type text] 30
This Lease may be terminated by either party for a material breach that is
non-curable or that has not been cured upon notice in a reasonable time. A
material breach may be a breach that has not been identified as a material
breach in this Lease.
15.2 This Lease may be terminated for convenience if agreed to by both parties.
15.3 As a result of a default and/or material breach of the this Lease, Lessor may
terminate Lessee’s right to possess the Pavilion by any lawful means, in which
case this Lease shall terminate and Lessee shall immediately surrender possession
to the Lessor. If this circumstance arises, Lessor shall be entitled to recover all
damages, fees, costs, and expenses incurred by Lessor by reason of Lessee’s
default, and forfeit monies held or owed to Lessee by Lessor.
15.4 Lessor shall not be in default unless Lessor fails to reasonably perform the
requirements of this Lease, upon reasonable written notice by Lessee.
ARTICLE 16.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
16.1 Lessor and Lessee have signed this Lease on the dates specified adjacent to their
signatures below and have initialed all Exhibits and/or Riders which are attached
to or incorporated by reference into this Lease.
“LESSOR”“LESSEE”
City of Renton Rain City Catering
By _________________________By: __________________________
Denis Law, Mayor Kenneth Rogers, Principal
Date: ___________________, 2011 Date: ___________________, 2011
Attest:
By ___________________________
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Attest:
By ____________________________
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 371 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit A, Legal Description i
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 2, 3, 16, 17 and 18, Block 2, Motor Line Addition to Renton, according to the plat thereof
recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, Page 150, Records of King County, Washington.
All situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in
the City of Renton, King County, Washington.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 372 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit B – Project Site Plan xxxii
EXHIBIT “B”
PROJECT SITE PLAN
Pavilion Building Site Plan:
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 373 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit B – Project Site Plan xxxiii
Vicinity Map with the Pavilion Building and Common Exterior Areas (including the Piazza Park
on the south side of the Pavilion Building and the public parking lot, Renton Transit Center and
City Center Parking Garage on the north side of the Pavilion Building):
Pavilion Building Square Footage Data:
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 374 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit B – Project Site Plan xxxiv
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 375 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “C” – Floor Load Rating Specifications xxxv
EXHIBIT “C”
FLOOR LOAD RATING SPECIFICATIONS
The stringerless load ratings in the following InterfaceAR TecCrete Panel specifications sheet
apply to the Pavilion floor.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 376 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “C” – Floor Load Rating Specifications xxxvi
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 377 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule
EXHIBIT “D”
MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
Lessee shall provide all equipment and cleaning supplies, including, but not limited to: paper
products (toilet paper, seat covers, sanitary napkins/tampons, paper towels), sani-fresh soap,
air fresheners, and light bulbs. Lessee shall submit samples of all materials and supplies to the
City for approval before use.
I.CUSTODIAL
General Building Specifications
A.Daily Services (if building occupied):
1.Empty waste receptacles and dispose of waste daily and recycling 1-2 times per
week.
2.Replace liners.
3.Spot clean work surfaces for spillages and stains.
4.Arrange furniture in a neat and orderly manner.
5.Vacuum all carpeted areas and spot clean as needed.
6.Spot clean walls around light switches and doorframes.
7.Sweep and damp mop hard surface floors where applicable.
8.Clean entry area and entry area windows and doors.
B.Weekly Service
1.Dust window ledges and other horizontal surfaces within reach.
2.Dust and clean accessible surfaces. Use glass cleaner where applicable.
3.Change light bulbs as needed, (to be provided by contracted firm).
4.All telephones to be sanitized clean including public pay phone.
C.Monthly Services:
1.Vacuum heating and air return vents.
2.Detail vacuum corners and edges of carpeted areas.
3.Perform dusting of high and low ledges and surfaces.
4.Walls to be spot cleaned and dusted.
Restrooms Specifications
A.Daily Services (if building occupied or restrooms utilized)
1.Dust mop and sweep floor surface.
2.Damp mop floor surfaces with pH neutral disinfectant cleaner.
3.Empty and clean all waste containers, including sanitary napkin receptacles, and
replace liners.
4.Check and refill all dispensers; paper towels, toilet tissue, seat covers and hand soap.
(All paper products, hand soap and air fresheners furnished by Lessee.)
5.Clean and polish mirrors and dispensers.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 378 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule
6.Clean counters, washbasins and soap dispensers.
7.Clean and sanitize toilets, toilet seats and urinals.
8.Clean and polish chrome fixtures.
9.Clean walls around sinks, towel dispensers, urinals, partitions and doorframes.
10.Change light bulbs as needed.
11.Fill sanitary napkin/tampon dispensers.
B.Monthly Services
1.Wipe down walls not done daily.
2.Vacuum air vents.
3.Machine scrub floors.
4.Dust tops of partitions, mirrors and frames.
C.Annual Services (once per year)
1.Re-seal concrete floors, unless the floor is carpeted or the existing seal is deemed
adequate by Lessor.
Common Area Lobbies/Hallways Specifications
A.Daily Service (if building occupied)
1.Empty and reline waste receptacles (interior and exterior).
2.Spot clean entry door glass.
3.Sanitize and polish drinking fountain.
4.Vacuum carpeted areas in lobbies daily and spot clean as needed.
5.Police and dispose of litter and debris in entranceways.
6.Change light bulbs as needed, (to be supplied by Lessee).
B.Annual Service (once per year)
1.Extraction clean all carpeted areas.
2.Carpet-protector application to cleaned carpet.
3.Vinyl floors stripped and waxed.
II.MECHANICAL
See the following schedules.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 379 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule
TAG #EQUIPMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCESCHEDULE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
P-01 Hot Water Pump Heating Water Pump OP OP OP
P-02 Hot Water Pump Heating Water Pump OP OP OP
P-03 Pump Circulation Domestic Recirculation Pump OP OP OP
P-04 Chilled Water Pump Chilled Water Pump OP OP OP
P-05 Condenser Water Pump Condenser Water Pump OP OP OP
P-06 Pump Preheat Coil Pump OP OP OP
P-07 Pump Preheat Coil Pump OP OP OP
EXT-01 Expansion Tank Bladder Expansion Tank OP OP OP
EXT-03 Expansion Tank Bladder Expansion Tank OP OP OP
EXT-04 Expansion Tank Bladder Expansion Tank OP OP OP
EXT-05 Expansion Tank Bladder Expansion Tank OP OP OP
B-01 Boiler Gas Oil Condensing Fire Tube Boiler AN
DHWT-01 Water Heater Water Heater AN
HX-01 Heat Exchanger Plate Heat Exchanger AN
HX-02 Heat Exchanger Plate Heat Exchanger AN
TAG #EQUIPMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
7
g
.
‐
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
a
n
e
w
f
i
v
e
‐
y
e
a
r
l
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
$
1
,
0
0
0
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
w
i
t
h
R
a
i
n
C
i
t
y
P
a
g
e
3
8
0
o
f
4
4
9
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule xl
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECEF-01 Exhaust Fan Exhaust Fan OP OP OP EF-02 Exhaust Fan Exhaust Fan OP OP OP
EF-03 Exhaust Fan Exhaust Fan OP OP OP
EF-04 Exhaust Fan Exhaust Fan OP OP OP
EF-05 Exhaust Fan Exhaust Fan OP OP OP
UH-01 Heater Unit Heater AN
UH-02 Heater Unit Heater AN
UH-03 Heater Unit Heater AN
UH-04 Heater Unit Heater AN
UH-05 Heater Unit Heater AN
UH-06 Heater Unit Heater AN
UH-07 Heater Unit Heater OP OP OP
UH-08 Heater Unit Heater OP OP OP
EH-01 Heater Unit Heater OP OP
BB-01 Heater Unit Heater OP OP
PRC-01 Heating Coil Heating Coil OP OP
PRC-02 Heating Coil Heating Coil OP OP
CH-01 Chiller Chiller AN OP OP
CT-01 Cooling Tower Cooling Tower AN OP OP
TAG #EQUIPMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
7
g
.
‐
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
a
n
e
w
f
i
v
e
‐
y
e
a
r
l
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
$
1
,
0
0
0
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
w
i
t
h
R
a
i
n
C
i
t
y
P
a
g
e
3
8
1
o
f
4
4
9
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule xli
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECFB-01 VAV Box VAV Box Fan Powered OP OP OP FB-02 VAV Box VAV Box Fan Powered OP OP OP
FB-03 VAV Box VAV Box Fan Powered OP OP OP
FB-04 VAV Box VAV Box Fan Powered OP OP OP
FB-05 VAV Box VAV Box Fan Powered OP OP OP
FB-06 VAV Box VAV Box Fan Powered OP OP OP
FB-07 VAV Box VAV Box Fan Powered OP OP OP
FB-08 VAV Box VAV Box Fan Powered OP OP OP
FB-09 VAV Box VAV Box Fan Powered OP OP OP
AHU-01 Air Handler Air Handling Unit OP OP OP
AHU-02 Air Handler Air Handling Unit OP OP OP
SF-01-1 Supply Fan Supply Fan OP OP OP
RF-01-1 Return Fan Return Fan OP OP OP
SF-02-1 Supply Fan Supply Fan OP OP OP
RF-02-1 Return Fan Return Fan OP OP OP
ST-01 Strainer 0 AN
VFD-01 Variable Frequency Drive Variable Frequency Drive OP OP OP
VFD-02 Variable Frequency Drive Variable Frequency Drive OP OP OP
7
g
.
‐
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
a
n
e
w
f
i
v
e
‐
y
e
a
r
l
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
$
1
,
0
0
0
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
w
i
t
h
R
a
i
n
C
i
t
y
P
a
g
e
3
8
2
o
f
4
4
9
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule xlii
Preventative Maintenance Schedule - Key to Abbreviations
Abbreviations Full Description
MI Minor Inspection
AN Annual Inspection
OP Operational Inspection
FC Filter Change Only
CC Coil Cleaning
BC Belt Change
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 383 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule xliii
Chiller Scroll – Water Cooled
Minor Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List*
Site Visit Baseline
§Check for safe equipment access
§Isolate equipment & lock out
§Document work done during inspection
Operational Inspection
§Verify operation
§Document performance & deficiencies
Performance
§Record runtime and start counts
§Check and record evaporator pressure
§Check and record evaporator water temps.
§Check and record chilled water temps.
§Check and record condenser pressure
§Check and record condenser temperatures
Condition Monitoring
§Check for improper vibration
Safeties
§Check pressure switches for leaks
§Check pressure relief valves
Electrical
§Check for loose or burnt wiring
§Check all electrical connections
Controls
§Exercise controls where possible
§Check cabinets for debris
Drive Motors
§Check all hold down bolts
§Check motor fan
§Check end bells for dirt or debris
Drive Components
§Check sheaves for wear and alignment
§Check long coupling alignment
§Lube coupling as needed
§Check coupling for looseness or wear
§Check drive belt for wear
Evaporator
§Check for leaks
§Record pressures/temperatures
§Check expansion valve
Compressor
§Check and record oil pressure
§Check and record oil level
§Check for leaks
§Inspect siteglass for leaks
Lubrication
§Lube motor bearings as required
§Lube solid coupling as required
Housekeeping
§Wipe off excess lubricants
§Clean up work area
Optional Tasks
* Not all tasks are applicable to all equipment
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 384 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule xliv
Fan Supply
Minor Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List*
Site Visit Baseline
§Check for safe equipment access
§Isolate equipment & lock out
§Document work done during inspection
Operational Inspection
§Verify operation of unit
§Note any abnormal vibration or noise
Safeties
§Check for loose or burnt wiring
Controls
§Check all terminations in control panel
Drive Motor
§Check for dirt & debris around end bell
§Check motor cooling fan
§Check motor mounting fasteners
§Check bearings for wear and end play
§Check motor mounting bracket
Drive Components
§Check sheaves for wear
Fan
§Check for correct fan rotation during wind
down
§Check fan for obstructions or debris
§Check fan blades for cracks
§Check fan blades for dirt build-up
§Check fan to housing clearances
§Check rain guard
Lubrication
§Lubricate motor and fan bearing
General Maintenance
§Check for corrosion
Housekeeping
§Wipe off any excess lubricant
§Clean up work area
*Not all tasks are applicable to all equipment
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 385 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule xlv
Boiler Gas/Oil
Operational Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List*
Site Visit Baseline
§Check for safe equipment access
§Isolate equipment & lock out
§Document work done during inspection
Operational Overview
§Verify overall operation
§Check water level devices
§Check boiler pressure
§Check pressure relief valve
§Inspect sacrificial anode
§Perform blowdown
Electrical
§Check operating voltage
§Check Hi Temp/Hi Pressure cutout
§Check function of step controller
§Check fuses and their blocks
§Check wiring
§Take amperage readings
Plumbing
§Visually inspect for water leaks
§Visually inspect valves
§Clean feedwater strainers
§Check sightglasses
Gas
§Check for gas leaks
§Check flame quality and orifices
§Check ignition operation
§Check for soot
§Assure fuel shutoff
§Check gas pressure regulator
§Check induced draft operation
§Check blower static pressure
*Not all tasks are applicable to all equipment
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 386 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule xlvi
Water Heater Gas
Operational Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List
Site Visit Baseline
§Check for safe equipment access
§Isolate equipment & lock out
§Document work done during inspection
Operational Inspection
§Verify overall operation
Performance
§Drain several gallons from tank to remove
sediment
§Check water temperature
Safeties
§Check for loose or burnt wiring
§Check trip all trip points
Electrical
§Check electrical contacts for wear & pitting
§Check and tighten electrical connections
Burner
§Check ignition system
§Check burners
§Check flame quality
§Check for CO traces
§Check flue
Thermostat
§Check operation with amp meter
Pressure Relief Valve
§Check valve operation
§Check for leaks
§Check for corrosion
General Maintenance
§Check for water leaks
§Check for corrosion
Operational Tasks
§Check sacrificial anode
§Check pressure relief valve
*Not all tasks are applicable to all equipment
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 387 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule xlvii
Air Handler with Coils
Minor Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List*
Site Visit Baseline
§Check for safe equipment access
§Isolate equipment & lock out
§Document work done during inspection
Operational Overview
§Note current outside air temp and
weather conditions
§Verify overall operation
§Note any abnormal vibration or noise
Indoor Coils
§Note cleanliness of coil
§Check for refrigerant leaks
§Check for condensate pan and drain
§Check for water leaks
Controls
§Check all terminations in control panel
Economizer Section
§Check for dirt accumulation
Return Fan Section
§Inspect bearings for excessive wear and
end play
§Number and size of belts
§Inspect fan blade
§Verify proper operation of fans
§Lubricate fan and motor
Supply Fan Section
§Inspect bearings for excessive wear and
end play
§Number and size of belts
§Inspect fan blade
§Verify proper operation of fans
§Lubricate fan and motor
Exhaust Fan Section
§Inspect bearings for excessive wear and
end play
§Number and size of belts
§Inspect Fan blade
§Verify proper operating of fans
§Lubricate fan and motor
Filter Section
§Note filter condition
§Change filters per schedule
§Note condition of outside air
filters/screens
*Not all tasks are applicable to all equipment
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 388 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule/Tasks xlviii
Miscellaneous Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List
Six-Month Inspection and Preventative Maintenance
*Roll Up Doors
Annual Inspection and Preventative Maintenance
*Storefront and standard access doors, hardware and locking mechanisms
*Roof system
Annual Inspection
*Backflow prevention value
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 389 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule/Tasks xlix
Miscellaneous Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List
PAVILLION DESCRIPTION LOCATION MANUFACTURER/MODEL
EF-1 EXHAUST FAN WEST STORAGE ROOM GREENHECK/SE1-8-426-D-1
ANNUAL Check operation clean fan and housing
lubricate motor if required. Print states
wall mount.
EF-2 EXHAUST FAN WEST BATHROOM BCF-106-4
ANNUAL Check operation manual, states belt
driven check V Belt lubricate fan motor
1/4 Hp. Required, clean fan and
housing. Serves West washroom.
EF-3 EXHAUST FAN EAST BATHROOM BCF-106-4
ANNUAL Check operation manual, states belt
driven check V Belt lubricate fan motor
1/4 Hp. Required, clean fan and
housing. Serves East washroom.
EF-4 EXHAUST FAN EAST STORAGE ROOM GREENHECK/SE1-8-426-D-1
ANNUAL Check operation, clean fan and housing
lubricate motor if required. Print states
wall mount.
EF-5 EXHAUST FAN ELECTRICAL ROOM/
CHILLER GREENHECK/SE1-8-426-D-1
ANNUAL Check operation clean fan and housing
lubricate motor if required. Print states
wall mount.
UH-1 UNIT HEATER BOILER ROOM ENGINEERED AIR/ H2
ANNUAL Check coil clean if necessary make
visual inspection lubricate fan motor if
required.
UH-2 UNIT HEATER WEST STORAGE AREA ENGINEERED AIR/ H2
ANNUAL Check coil clean if necessary make
visual inspection lubricate fan motor if
required.
UH-3 UNIT HEATER EAST STORAGE AREA ENGINEERED AIR/ H3
ANNUAL Check coil clean if necessary make
visual inspection lubricate fan motor if
required.
UH-4 UNIT HEATER CHILLER ROOM ENGINEERED AIR/ H2
ANNUAL Check coil clean if necessary make
visual inspection lubricate fan motor if
required.
UH-5 UNIT HEATER MAIN AREA ENGINEERED AIR/ H7
ANNUAL Check coil clean if necessary make
visual inspection lubricate fan motor if
required.
UH-6 UNIT HEATER MAIN AREA ENGINEERED AIR/ H7
ANNUAL Check coil clean if necessary make
visual inspection lubricate fan motor if
required.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 390 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule/Tasks l
Miscellaneous Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List
UH-7 UNIT HEATER WEST FAN ROOM ENGINEERED AIR/ H11
4month Change air filters 2ea [20x20x1] and
2ea [16x20x1] on 4 month or required
by building usage to be determined.
ANNUAL Check coil clean if necessary make
visual inspection lubricate fan motor if
required.
UH-8 UNIT HEATER EAST FAN ROOM ENGINEERED AIR/ H11
4month Change air filters 2ea [20x20x1] and
2ea [16x20x1] on 4 month or required
by building usage to be determined.
ANNUAL Check coil clean if necessary make
visual inspection lubricate fan motor if
required.
FB-1 FAN BOX MAIN AREA NAILOR / D38SW
4month Change air filter [10x18x1] on 4 month
or required by building usage to be
determined.
ANNUAL Check operation clean as required
lubricate fan motor 2 locations, Fan
boxes 2,3,5,6,9, Installed upside down
no access to motor. Manual states no
lube, inspection shows oil ports on
motor.
FB-2 FAN BOX MAIN AREA NAILOR / D38SW
4month Change air filter [10x18x1] on 4 month
or required by building usage to be
determined.
ANNUAL Check operation clean as required
lubricate fan motor 2 locations, Fan
boxes 2,3,5,6,9, Installed upside down
no access to motor. Manual states no
lube, inspection shows oil ports on
motor.
FB-3 FAN BOX MAIN AREA NAILOR / D38SW
4month Change air filter [10x18x1] on 4 month
or required by building usage to be
determined.
ANNUAL Check operation clean as required
lubricate fan motor 2 locations, Fan
boxes 2,3,5,6,9, Installed upside down
no access to motor. Manual states no
lube, inspection shows oil ports on
motor.
FB-4 FAN BOX MAIN AREA NAILOR / D38SW
4month Change air filter [10x18x1] on 4 month
or required by building usage to be
determined.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 391 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule/Tasks li
Miscellaneous Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List
ANNUAL Check operation clean as required
lubricate fan motor 2 locations, Fan
boxes 2,3,5,6,9, Installed upside down
no access to motor. Manual states no
lube, inspection shows oil ports on
motor.
FB-5 FAN BOX MAIN AREA NAILOR / D38SW
4month Change air filter [10x18x1] on 4 month
or required by building usage to be
determined.
ANNUAL Check operation clean as required
lubricate fan motor 2 locations, Fan
boxes 2,3,5,6,9, Installed upside down
no access to motor. Manual states no
lube, inspection shows oil ports on
motor.
FB-6 FAN BOX MAIN AREA NAILOR / D38SW
4month Change air filter [10x18x1] on 4 month
or required by building usage to be
determined.
ANNUAL Check operation clean as required
lubricate fan motor 2 locations, Fan
boxes 2,3,5,6,9, Installed upside down
no access to motor. Manual states no
lube, inspection shows oil ports on
motor.
FB-7 FAN BOX MAIN AREA NAILOR / D38SW
4month Change air filter [10x18x1] on 4 month
or required by building usage to be
determined.
ANNUAL Check operation clean as required
lubricate fan motor 2 locations, Fan
boxes 2,3,5,6,9, Installed upside down
no access to motor. Manual states no
lube, inspection shows oil ports on
motor.
FB-8 FAN BOX MAIN AREA NAILOR / D38SW
4month Change air filter [10x18x1] on 4 month
or required by building usage to be
determined.
ANNUAL Check operation clean as required
lubricate fan motor 2 locations, Fan
boxes 2,3,5,6,9, Installed upside down
no access to motor. Manual states no
lube, inspection shows oil ports on
motor.
EH-1 ENTRANCE HEATER BACK ENTRANCE ENGINEERED AIR/ CUH2
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 392 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule/Tasks lii
Miscellaneous Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List
4month Inspect pumps for cleanliness, clean
exterior surface only, Remove dirt and
grease from motor on motor housing
Inspect for leaks seals or gaskets.
Clean strainers. Lubricate motor if
required.
P-3 DOMESTIC HOT WATER RECIRC BOILER ROOM TACO/ 5
4month Inspect pumps for cleanliness, clean
exterior surface only, remove dirt and
grease from motor on motor housing
Inspect for leaks seals or gaskets.
Clean strainers. Lubricate motor if
required.
P-4 WEST PREHEAT RECIRC WEST FAN ROOM TACO/ 112
4month Inspect pumps for cleanliness, clean
exterior surface only, remove dirt and
grease from motor on motor housing
Inspect for leaks seals or gaskets.
Clean strainers. Lubricate motor if
required.
P-5 EAST PREHEAT RECIRC EAST FAN ROOM TACO/ 112
4month Inspect pumps for cleanliness, clean
exterior surface only, remove dirt and
grease from motor on motor housing
Inspect for leaks seals or gaskets.
Clean strainers. Lubricate motor if
required.
B-1 BOILER/CONDENSING FIRE TUBE BOILER ROOM AERCO/KC-1000
6month See Maintenance Manual pages 7-1
to7-6,Inspect spark igniter, inspect
Flame Detector
ANNUAL See Maintenance Manual pages 7-1
to7-6 Replace Spark igniter Replace
Flame detector
DHWT-1 HOT WATER TANK/GAS FIRED BOILER ROOM A.O.SMITH/ FPSH-75
6month Lubricate blower motor every 6
months per maintenance manual.
ANNUAL See Maintenance Manual pages 14
&15 flush tank to help prevent
sediment inspect flueway for
cleanliness, clean as required
AHU-1 AIRHANDLER UNIT WEST FAN ROOM
4month Check Operation change all air filters ,
to include intake air filter , Lubricate
fan bearings and Motor if required,
Check v Belts and fan Check coil
surface clean as necessary See O&M
pages OM-5 to OM-13
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 393 of 449
Pavilion Lease Exhibit “D” – Maintenance Schedule/Tasks liii
Miscellaneous Inspection
Preventative Maintenance Task List
ANNUAL Check Operation change all air filters,
to include intake air filter, Lubricate fan
bearings and Motor if required, Check
v Belts and fan sleeves Check coil
surface and clean as necessary See
O&M pages OM-5 to OM-13 Check
Glycol freeze point on air intake coils.
AHU-2 AIRHANDLER UNIT EAST FAN ROOM
4month Check Operation change all air filters ,
to include intake air filter , Lubricate
fan bearings and Motor if required,
Check v Belts and fan Check coil
surface clean as necessary See O&M
pages OM-5 to OM-13
ANNUAL Check Operation change all air filters,
to include intake air filter, Lubricate fan
bearings and Motor if required, Check
v Belts and fan sleeves Check coil
surface and clean as necessary See
O&M pages OM-5 to OM-13 Check
Glycol freeze point on air intake coils.
CT-1 COOLING TOWER MEZZANINE LEVEL BALTIMORE AIR/VTL027-F
4month Check O&M maintenance Manuel
pages 6 threw 15 For full information.
Check float and strainer pan check
belts and lubricate fan and motor
bearings as required check sump
heater and heat tape. Verify that
chemical treatment is being done.
ANNUAL Check O&M maintenance Manuel
pages 6 threw 15 For full information.
Clean cooling tower , Check spray
nozzles, check float and strainer pan
install new filter over fan to clean
intake air, check belts and lubricate fan
and motor bearings check sump heater
and heat tape. ,
CH-1 MODULAR CHILLER CHILLER ROOM MULTISTACK/MS20C1H1W
3month Daily Log sheet is needed when chiller
is running copy in O&M Manuel, check
operation of mechanical equipment.
ANNUAL SEE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
MANUAL FOR MULTISTACK for
complete information needed. Check
Contactors and tighten all electrical
connections, CLEAN ALL STRAINERS,
check operation, auto blow down, and
check oil level while unit is running.
7g. ‐ Community Services Department recommends approval of a new
five‐year lease in the amount of $1,000 per month with Rain City Page 394 of 449
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Agreement for Construction Services with Puget
Sound Energy (PSE) for the Rainier Ave S (SR 167)
– S Grady Way to S 2nd St Project (TIP #3)
Meeting:
Regular Council - 26 Mar 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Agreement for Construction Services
2012-2017 TIP #3
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Derek Akesson, Project Manager, extension 7337
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $891,000 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $891,000 Revenue Generated: $$891,000
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The City’s construction contract for the Rainier Ave S (SR 167) – S Grady Way to S 2nd St Project (TIP #3)
includes relocation of existing Puget Sound Energy (PSE) facilities. The City’s contractor will install new
conduit and vaults for PSE. PSE will install new underground power lines, transformers and gas lines. Per
the Franchise Agreement, PSE will reimburse the City for the cost to relocate all PSE facilities located
within the street right-of-way (ROW) (prior to ROW acquisition). The Agreement for Construction
Services defines this reimbursement process for the work performed by the City’s contractor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement for Construction Services with Puget
Sound Energy for relocation of PSE facilities for the Rainier Ave S (SR 167) – S Grady Way to S 2nd St
Project (TIP #3).
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 395 of 449
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 396 of 449
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 397 of 449
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 398 of 449
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 399 of 449
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 400 of 449
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 401 of 449
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 402 of 449
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 403 of 449
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 404 of 449
7h. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of an
Agreement for Construction Services in the amount of $891,000 with Page 405 of 449
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Facility Relocation Agreement with Puget Sound
Energy (PSE) for the Rainier Ave S (SR 167) – S
Grady Way to S 2nd St Project (TIP #3)
Meeting:
Regular Council - 26 Mar 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Facility Relocation Agreement
2012-2017 TIP #3
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Derek Akesson, Project Manager, Extension 7337
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $186,000 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $17,103,571 Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ $42,804,841 City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The City’s construction contract for the Rainier Ave S (SR 167) – S Grady Way to S 2nd St Project (TIP #3)
includes relocation of existing Puget Sound Energy (PSE) facilities. The City’s contractor will install new
conduit and vaults for PSE. PSE will install new underground power lines, transformers and gas lines. For
those PSE facilities located within existing PSE easements (extinguished by the right-of-way acquisition
for the project), the City is required to reimburse PSE for relocation expenses, per the Franchise
Agreement. The Facility Relocation Agreement defines this reimbursement process for the work
performed by PSE work crews, at these specific locations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Facility Relocation Agreement with Puget Sound
Energy for relocation of PSE facilities for the Rainier Ave S (SR 167) – S Grady Way to S 2nd St Project
(TIP #3).
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 406 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 407 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 408 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 409 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 410 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 411 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 412 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 413 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 414 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 415 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 416 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 417 of 449
7i. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Facility
Relocation Agreement in the amount of $186,000 with Puget Sound Page 418 of 449
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Joint Utility Trench Construction Agreement with
CenturyLink for the Rainier Ave S (SR 167) - S
Grady Way to S 2nd Street Project (TIP ##)
Meeting:
Regular Council - 02 Apr 2012
Exhibits:
Joint Utility Trench Construction Agreement
2012-2017 TIP #3
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Derek Akesson, Project Manager (x7337)
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $357,000 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $357,000 Revenue Generated: $$357,000
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The City’s construction contract for the Rainier Avenue South (SR 167) – South Grady Way to South 2nd
Street Project (TIP #3) includes relocation of existing CenturyLink facilities. The City’s contractor will
install new conduit and vaults for CenturyLink and CenturyLink will install new underground
telecommunication lines.
CenturyLink will reimburse the City for the cost to relocate all of their facilities located within the street
right-of-way. The Joint Utility Trench Construction Agreement defines this reimbursement process for
the work performed by the City’s contractor.
Based on the unit prices in the bid awarded to Johansen Excavating, Inc., the cost of this work is
estimated to be $357,000. Per the agreement, CenturyLink will reimburse the City for all actual costs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Joint Utility Trench Construction Agreement with
CenturyLink for relocation of CenturyLink facilities for the Rainier Avenue South (SR 167) – South Grady
Way to South 2nd Street Project (TIP #3).
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 419 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 420 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 421 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 422 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 423 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 424 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 425 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 426 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 427 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 428 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 429 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 430 of 449
7j. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Joint
Utility Trench Construction Agreement in the amount of $357,000 with Page 431 of 449
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Amendment No. 2 to FY2011 Municipal
Stormwater Capacity Grant Agreement No.
G1100089 with the Washington State Department
of Ecology (CAG-10-129)
Meeting:
Regular Council - 26 Mar 2012
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Amendment No. 2 to Grant Agreement No.
G1100089
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Ron Straka, x7248
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $50,000 (2012/2013) Transfer Amendment: $NA
Amount Budgeted: $ NA Revenue Generated: $$50,000 (2012-2013)
Total Project Budget: $ NA City Share Total Project: $ NA
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The FY2011 Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant Agreement No. G1100089 with the Washington State
Department of Ecology was approved by Council on September 20, 2010, in the amount of $297,940, to
assist with the implementation requirements of the NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater permit. With
Amendment No. 2, the City of Renton is eligible to receive an additional $50,000 in non-matching grant
funding from the Department of Ecology for the FY2012 funding cycle. Surface water activities eligible
for this grant funding include the implementation of the illicit discharge, detection and elimination
program, municipal operations pollution prevention activities, flow control facilities inspections, public
education program, and a monitoring plan. The additional grant funds would be distributed into the
following NPDES permit budgets: $30,000 NPDES Storm System Mapping activities (427.475455) and
$20,000 Office/Operating Supplies – NPDES (407.000000.018.538.32.31.010). This grant does not
require the local government to match and is 100 percent funded by the Department of Ecology.
Amendment No. 2 also extends the grant expiration date from June 30, 2012 to June 30, 2013, and
revises Task 2 in the Scope of Work to clarify qualified equipment to include a special purpose truck to
be used solely for stormwater permit required activities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign Amendment No. 2 to FY2011 Municipal
Stormwater Capacity Grant Agreement No. G1100089. The amendments to the Surface Water Utility 407
and 427 fund revenue and expenditure budgets for the Ecology FY2012 Municipal Stormwater Capacity
Grant funding will be included in the City’s quarterly budget amendment ordinance, which is prepared
by the Finance Division.
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 to
CAG‐10‐129, grant agreement with the Washington State Department of
Page 432 of 449
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:March 15, 2012
TO:Rich Zwicker, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Ron Straka, Surface Water Engineering Supervisor, x7248
SUBJECT:Amendment No. 2 to FY2011 Municipal Stormwater Capacity
Grant Agreement No. G1100089 with the Washington State
Department of Ecology (CAG-10-129)
ISSUE:
Should the City of Renton agree to Amendment No. 2 to FY2011 Ecology Capacity Grant
Agreement No. G1100089 to increase the budget by $50,000 (in non-matching grant
funds), extend the expiration date of the grant agreement to June 30, 2013, and revise
Task 2 in the Scope of Work to assist with implementing the Phase II Municipal
Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign Amendment No. 2 to FY2011
Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant Agreement No. G1100089. The amendments to
the Surface Water Utility 407 and 427 fund revenue and expenditure budgets for the
Ecology FY2012 Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant funding will be included in the
City’s quarterly budget amendment ordinance, which is prepared by the Finance
Division.
BACKGROUND:
The $297,940 capacity grant agreement with the Department of Ecology was approved
by Council on September 20, 2010. The grant assists the Surface Water Utility and the
City to implement the requirements associated with the new Phase II Municipal
Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Surface water
activities eligible for this grant funding include the implementation of the illicit
discharge, detection and elimination program, municipal operations pollution
prevention activities, flow control facilities inspections, public education program, and a
monitoring plan.
Amendment No. 2 awards an additional $50,000 in grant funds (increasing the grant
total to $347,940) to the City of Renton under Ecology’s Municipal Stormwater Capacity
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 to
CAG‐10‐129, grant agreement with the Washington State Department of
Page 433 of 449
Mr. Rich Zwicker, Council President
Page 2 of 2
March 15, 2012
H:\File Sys\SWA - Surface Water Section Administration\SWA 30 - NPDES Programs\5000 Grants\FY2011 Muni SW
Capacity Grant\Amendment 2 - Additional $50k\Issue Paper - FY2011 Capacity Grant AMENDMENT 2.doc\EMtp
Grant project. The grant is provided from an $8.9 million appropriation by the
Legislature in the 2012-13 Operating Budget from the Local Toxic Control account. The
award of these additional funds was made possible by the appropriation of additional
funds through the state Legislature. This grant does not require the local government to
match and is 100 percent funded by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Amendment No. 2 also extends the grant expiration date from June 30, 2012 to
June 30, 2013, and revises Task 2 in the Scope of Work to clarify qualified equipment to
include a special purpose truck to be used solely for stormwater permit required
activities.
The additional $50,000 grant would fund intern support for NPDES program activities
including the private stormwater facility inspection program and stormwater mapping
activities, and small tools and supplies for NPDES program activities related to public
education and involvement activities. The grant funds would be distributed into the
following NPDES permit activity budgets: $30,000 NPDES Storm Mapping activities
(427.475455.018.595.38.63.000) and $20,000 Office/Operating Supplies – NPDES
(407.000000.018.538.32.31.010).
The amendments to the Surface Water Utility 407 and 427 fund revenue and
expenditure budgets for the Ecology FY2012 Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant
funding will be included in the City’s quarterly budget amendment ordinance, which is
prepared by the Finance Division.
CONCLUSION:
Amendment No. 2 to the non-matching grant with the Washington State Department of
Ecology, increasing the award by $50,000 to a total grant of $347,940, extending the
expiration date to June 30, 2013, and clarifying equipment cost reimbursement, would
assist the City in complying with the federal NPDES permit.
cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director
Edward Mulhern, Surface Water Utility Engineer
JoAnn Wykpisz, PW Principal Admin and Fin Analyst
File
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 to
CAG‐10‐129, grant agreement with the Washington State Department of
Page 434 of 449
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO GRANT AGREEMENT NO. G1100089
BETWEEN THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
AND
CITY OF RENTON
PURPOSE: To amend the above-referenced grant agreement between the Department of
Ecology [DEPARTMENT] and City of Renton [RECIPIENT] for the Municipal Stormwater
Capacity Grant Project. This amendment is needed to increase budget for Phase II community
NPDES Permit Activities by $50,000, extend the expiration date of the grant agreement, and
revise Task 2 in the Scope of Work.
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that the grant agreement is amended as follows:
PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. The general information shall be modified as follows:
a. The expiration date is extended from June 30, 2012 to June 30, 2013.
PART IV. PROJECT BUDGET
1. The project budget shall be modified as followed:
Current Budget Revised Budget
Element Cost Element Cost
Element No.
Task 1 – Project Administration/Management (limited to 10%
of total) $ 0 $ 0
Task 2 – Implementation and management of Stormwater
Program $ 228,706 $ 278,706
Task 3 – LID Planning and Design $ 69,234 $ 69,234
Project Totals $ 297,940 $ 347,940
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 to
CAG‐10‐129, grant agreement with the Washington State Department of
Page 435 of 449
City of Renton
Amendment to Grant Agreement G1100089
Page 2
PART V. SCOPE OF WORK
Task 2 – Implementation of Stormwater Planning and Management Needs
A. The RECIPIENT will address stormwater management needs that protect or restore water
quality. The RECIPIENT may conduct work related to implementation of activities
required by the municipal stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits.
The following will be deleted:
Equipment purchases that result directly in improved compliance with permit
requirements. Allowed costs for equipment purchases must be specific to
implementing a permit requirement (such as a vactor truck) rather than general use
(such as a general use pick-up truck). Qualified equipment purchases include but are
not limited to:
1. Illicit discharge testing equipment and materials;
2. Vactor truck or sweeper truck or MS4 maintenance activities;
3. Electronic devices dedicated to mapping of MS4 facilities and attributes;
4. Software dedicated to tracking permit implementation activities.
The following will be added:
Equipment purchases that result directly in improved compliance with permit
requirements. Allowed costs for equipment purchases must be specific to
implementing a permit requirement (such as a vactor truck) rather than general use
(such as a general use pick-up truck). Qualified equipment purchases include but are
not limited to:
1. Illicit discharge testing equipment and materials.
2. Vactor truck or sweeper truck or MS4 maintenance activities.
3. Electronic devices dedicated to mapping of MS4 facilities and attributes.
4. Software dedicated to tracking permit implementation activities.
5. Special purpose truck to be used solely for stormwater permit required activities.
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 to
CAG‐10‐129, grant agreement with the Washington State Department of
Page 436 of 449
City of Renton
Amendment to Grant Agreement G1100089
Page 3
FURTHER, this amendment shall be effective upon the date of signature by the Water Quality
Program Manager of the DEPARTMENT.
Except as expressly provided by this amendment, all other terms and conditions of the original
grant agreement and all amendments remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF: the parties have signed this amendment.
STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
KELLY SUSEWIND, P.E., P.G. DATE DENIS LAW DATE
WATER QUALITY PROGRAM MANAGER MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
7k. ‐ Utility Systems Division recommends approval of Amendment #2 to
CAG‐10‐129, grant agreement with the Washington State Department of
Page 437 of 449
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Final Pay Estimate CAG 10-087
Stonegate Lift Station Replacement
Contractor: Shoreline Construction Co.
Meeting:
Regular Council - 02 Apr 2012
Exhibits:
Final Pay Estimate
Notice Of Completion of Public Works Contract
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
John Hobson, x7279
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required:
$
$13,070.56 (Final Pay
Est.) Transfer Amendment: $NA
Amount Budgeted: $ $20,000 Revenue Generated: $NA
Total Project Budget: $ $1,600,000 (2011/2012)City Share Total Project: $ NA
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The project was awarded on September 27, 2010. Construction began on December 6, 2010, and was
completed on March 5, 2012. The original contract amount was $1,213,270.95 and the final amount is
$1,270,040.44, an increase of $56,769.49 or 5 percent. The increase in cost was due to conflicts with
unmarked buried utilities, additional materials and work to upgrade the City’s existing telemetry panel
to function with the new lift station, PSE required grounding of the site’s new chain link fence, and
additional onsite landscaping and irrigation. The final cost was below the original engineer’s estimate
and within the amount budgeted for the project.
The amount budgeted for the project was $1,600,000, which is enough to cover the construction,
engineering, and staff costs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the project, approve the final pay estimate, in the amount of $13,070.56, and release the
retainage in the amount of $57,992.72 after 60 days, subject to the receipt of all required
authorizations.
7l. ‐ Utilities Systems Division submits CAG‐10‐087, Stonegate Lift
Station Replacement project; and requests approval of the project, Page 438 of 449
Printed On: 03/20/2012 City of Renton Public W orks Department Page 1
Project:Stonegate Lift Station Replacement Contract Number:CAG-10-087
Contractor:Pay Estimate 13 (FINAL)Closing Date:03/02/2012
Item Description Unit Est.Unit Previous Previous This This Total Total
No.Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Schedule A
001.Mobilization (Not to Exceed 8% of Contract Total)Lump Sum 1 $20,000.00 0.80 $16,000.00 0.20 $4,000.00 1.00 $20,000.00
002.
Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)
Plan Lump Sum 1 $1,000.00 1.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $1,000.00
003.Traffic Control Lump Sum 1 $30,000.00 1.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $30,000.00
004.Construction Surveying and As-Builts Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $5,000.00
005.
Removal and Replacement of Unsuitable Foundation
Material Ton 100 $1.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
006.Gravel Borrow (as required)Ton 450 $1.00 1461.35 $1,461.35 $0.00 1461.35 $1,461.35
007.Washed Rock for Infiltration Trench Ton 50 $15.00 95.36 $1,430.40 $0.00 95.36 $1,430.40
008.Trench Shoring or Extra Excavation Class A and B Lump Sum 1 $22,000.00 1.00 $22,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $22,000.00
009.Crushed Surfacing Top Course (as required)Ton 150 $11.00 115.34 $1,268.74 $0.00 115.34 $1,268.74
010.Crushed Surfacing Base Course Ton 130 $11.00 171.50 $1,886.50 $0.00 171.50 $1,886.50
011.HMA Class 1/2" PG 64-22 Ton 200 $98.00 160.93 $15,771.14 $0.00 160.93 $15,771.14
012.Facility Coatings Lump Sum 1 $10,000.00 1.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $10,000.00
013.6-Inch Diam. PVC Storm Sewer Pipe Lineal Foot 55 $40.00 70.00 $2,800.00 $0.00 70.00 $2,800.00
014.8-Inch Diam. PVC Storm Sewer Pipe Lineal Foot 150 $45.00 150.00 $6,750.00 $0.00 150.00 $6,750.00
015.12-Inch Diam. PVC Storm Sewer Pipe Lineal Foot 25 $66.00 26.00 $1,716.00 $0.00 26.00 $1,716.00
016.Catch Basin Type 1 and 1P Each 2 $1,800.00 2.00 $3,600.00 $0.00 2.00 $3,600.00
017.Catch Basin Type 1 with Birdcage Each 1 $2,100.00 1.00 $2,100.00 $0.00 1.00 $2,100.00
018.Oil/Water Separator Each 1 $4,400.00 1.00 $4,400.00 $0.00 1.00 $4,400.00
019.48-Inch Diam. Sanitary Sewer Manhole Type I Each 1 $10,000.00 1.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $10,000.00
020.1-Inch Water Service Connection Each 1 $2,200.00 1.00 $2,200.00 $0.00 1.00 $2,200.00
021.8-Inch Diam. PVC Gravity Sewer Pipe Lineal Foot 50 $132.00 50.00 $6,600.00 $0.00 50.00 $6,600.00
022.12-Inch Diam. PVC Gravity Sewer Pipe Lineal Foot 85 $135.00 85.00 $11,475.00 $0.00 85.00 $11,475.00
023.12-Inch Diam. PVC C900 Gravity Sewer Pipe Lineal Foot 40 $168.00 40.00 $6,720.00 $0.00 40.00 $6,720.00
024.Televison Inspection Lineal Foot 355 $3.00 85.00 $255.00 $0.00 85.00 $255.00
025.8-Inch Diam. PVC C900 Sewer Force Main Lineal Foot 110 $75.00 110.00 $8,250.00 $0.00 110.00 $8,250.00
026.Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Controls Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $5,000.00
027.Landscaping Lump Sum 1 $13,000.00 1.00 $13,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $13,000.00
028.Top Soil Type C Cubic Yard 25 $25.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
7l. ‐ Utilities Systems Division submits CAG‐10‐087, Stonegate Lift
Station Replacement project; and requests approval of the project, Page 439 of 449
Printed On: 03/20/2012 City of Renton Public W orks Department Page 2
Project:Stonegate Lift Station Replacement Contract Number:CAG-10-087
Contractor:Pay Estimate 13 (FINAL)Closing Date:03/02/2012
Item Description Unit Est.Unit Previous Previous This This Total Total
No.Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
029.Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter Lineal Foot 90 $33.00 84.00 $2,772.00 $0.00 84.00 $2,772.00
030.Cement Concrete Driveway Entrance Square-Yard 20 $75.00 18.00 $1,350.00 $0.00 18.00 $1,350.00
031.Chain Link Fence Lineal Foot 255 $30.00 255.00 $7,650.00 $0.00 255.00 $7,650.00
032.Chain Link Gate Each 1 $1,400.00 1.00 $1,400.00 $0.00 1.00 $1,400.00
033.Cement Concrete Sidewalk Square-Yard 50 $40.00 47.00 $1,880.00 $0.00 47.00 $1,880.00
034.Quarry Spalls (as required)Ton 55 $25.00 268.13 $6,703.25 $0.00 268.13 $6,703.25
035.Pavement Marking Lump Sum 1 $1,300.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $1,300.00 1.00 $1,300.00
036.Gravity Block Wall Square-Foot 90 $30.00 90.00 $2,700.00 $0.00 90.00 $2,700.00
037.Bollard Each 4 $350.00 9.00 $3,150.00 $0.00 9.00 $3,150.00
038.Site Clearing and Grading Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $5,000.00
039.Lift Station Excavation and Backfill Lump Sum 1 $30,000.00 1.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $30,000.00
040.Lift Station Shoring and Trench Safety Systems Lump Sum 1 $25,000.00 1.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $25,000.00
041.Dewatering System Lump Sum 1 $40,000.00 1.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $40,000.00
042.144-Inch Diam. Precast Concrete Wet Well Lump Sum 1 $75,000.00 1.00 $75,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $75,000.00
043.Precast Concrete Overflow Storage Vault Lump Sum 1 $65,000.00 1.00 $65,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $65,000.00
044.Precast Concrete Flow Meter and Valve Vault Lump Sum 1 $135,000.00 1.00 $135,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $135,000.00
045.CMU Control Building with Screening Wall Lump Sum 1 $70,000.00 1.00 $70,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $70,000.00
046.Lift Station Piping Lump Sum 1 $22,000.00 1.00 $22,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $22,000.00
047.Lift Station Accessories Lump Sum 1 $18,000.00 1.00 $18,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $18,000.00
048.Control Building Plumbing, Including Roof Drains Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $5,000.00
049.Mechanical Work Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $5,000.00
050.Submersible Sewage Pumps and Motors Lump Sum 1 $115,000.00 1.00 $115,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $115,000.00
051.Electrical Work Lump Sum 1 $100,000.00 1.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $100,000.00
052.Instrument, Alarm, Telemetry and Control Work Lump Sum 1 $14,000.00 1.00 $14,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $14,000.00
053.Standby Generator Set Lump Sum 1 $130,000.00 1.00 $130,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $130,000.00
054.Testing and Startup Services Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $5,000.00
055.Imported Backfill Material Ton 1100 $1.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00
056.Existing Stonegate Lift Station Abandonment Lump Sum 1 $14,000.00 1.00 $14,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $14,000.00
057.Existing Summerwind Lift Station Abandonment Lump Sum 1 $14,000.00 1.00 $14,000.00 $0.00 1.00 $14,000.00
7l. ‐ Utilities Systems Division submits CAG‐10‐087, Stonegate Lift
Station Replacement project; and requests approval of the project, Page 440 of 449
Printed On: 03/20/2012 City of Renton Public W orks Department Page 3
Project:Stonegate Lift Station Replacement Contract Number:CAG-10-087
Contractor:Pay Estimate 13 (FINAL)Closing Date:03/02/2012
Item Description Unit Est.Unit Previous Previous This This Total Total
No.Quantity Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
058.C.O. #1 Lake Wash. Blvd. Sewer Emergency Repair Lump Sum 1 $9,001.80 1.00 $9,001.80 $0.00 1.00 $9,001.80
059.C.O. #2 Additional City-Requested Landscaping & Irrigation Lump Sum 1 $5,843.85 1.00 $5,843.85 $0.00 1.00 $5,843.85
060.C.O. #3 Unmarked Utility Conflicts Lump Sum 1 $8,272.84 1.00 $8,272.84 $0.00 1.00 $8,272.84
061.C.O. #3 Enlarge Emergency Generator Pad Lump Sum 1 $3,124.80 1.00 $3,124.80 $0.00 1.00 $3,124.80
062.C.O. #3 Repair Stonegate Neighborhood Power Cable Lump Sum 1 $572.47 1.00 $572.47 $0.00 1.00 $572.47
063.C.O. #3 Upgrade 5 Embedded Bollards to Removable Lump Sum 1 $1,952.09 1.00 $1,952.09 $0.00 1.00 $1,952.09
064.C.O. #3 Modify Wetwell Handrail Lump Sum 1 $261.36 1.00 $261.36 $0.00 1.00 $261.36
065.C.O. #3 Additional French Drain System Lump Sum 1 $162.18 1.00 $162.18 $0.00 1.00 $162.18
066.C.O. #3 Ground Chainlink Fence Lump Sum 1 $2,867.20 1.00 $2,867.20 $0.00 1.00 $2,867.20
067.C.O. #3 Add Hot Box and RPBA Lump Sum 1 $4,704.36 1.00 $4,704.36 $0.00 1.00 $4,704.36
068.C.O. #3 Increase Asphalt Walkway Width Lump Sum 1 $791.70 1.00 $791.70 $0.00 1.00 $791.70
069.C.O. #3 Additional Safety Chains & Grating Lump Sum 1 $2,814.55 1.00 $2,814.55 $0.00 1.00 $2,814.55
070.C.O. #3 Additional Rugid Panel Work Lump Sum 1 $2,259.12 1.00 $2,259.12 $0.00 1.00 $2,259.12
071.C.O. #4 Additional Electrical Work Lump Sum 1 $3,841.15 $0.00 1.00 $3,841.15 1.00 $3,841.15
072.C.O. #4 Flexible Coupling Upgrade Lump Sum 1 $2,795.43 $0.00 1.00 $2,795.43 1.00 $2,795.43
Subtotal Shedule A $1,147,917.70 $11,936.58 $1,159,854.28
9.5% Sales Tax on Schedules A $109,052.18 $1,133.98 $110,186.16
TT
Total $1,256,969.88 $13,070.56 $1,270,040.44
7l. ‐ Utilities Systems Division submits CAG‐10‐087, Stonegate Lift
Station Replacement project; and requests approval of the project, Page 441 of 449
7l. ‐ Utilities Systems Division submits CAG‐10‐087, Stonegate Lift
Station Replacement project; and requests approval of the project, Page 442 of 449
7l. ‐ Utilities Systems Division submits CAG‐10‐087, Stonegate Lift
Station Replacement project; and requests approval of the project, Page 443 of 449
9a. ‐ Adopting the Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan (See 4.a.)Page 444 of 449
9a. ‐ Adopting the Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan (See 4.a.)Page 445 of 449
9a. ‐ 2012 Carry‐Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.f.)Page 446 of 449
9a. ‐ 2012 Carry‐Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.f.)Page 447 of 449
9a. ‐ 2012 Carry‐Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.f.)Page 448 of 449
9a. ‐ 2012 Carry‐Forward Budget Amendment (See 7.f.)Page 449 of 449