HomeMy WebLinkAboutPS 2017-05-15 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Public Safety Committee
O Thomas McLeod, Chair
O Joe Duffie
O De'Sean Quinn
AGENDA
MONDAY, MAY 15, 2017 — 5:30 PM
HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM
(At east entrance of City Hall)
Distribution:
Recommended Action
T. McLeod
Mayor Ekberg
J. Duffle
D. Cline
D. Quinn
C. O'Flaherty
D. Robertson
L. Humphrey
Item
Recommended Action
Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. Public Safety Plan facilities final siting criteria.
a. Forward to 5/22 C.O.W.
Pg.i
Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
for consensus.
b. Public Safety Plan local hiring and Disadvantaged
b. Forward to 5/22 C.O.W.
Pg.9
Business Enterprise (DBE) pilot policy.
for consensus.
Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
c. Discussion on Public Safety Plan sustainability goals.
c. Forward to 6/12 C.O.W.
Pg.19
Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations
for consensus.
Manager
d. Public Safety Plan: Discussion on location of
d. Committee discussion.
Pg.85
Fire Station 51.
Laurel Humphrey, Council Analyst
e. 2017 1st Quarter Police Department Report.
e. Information only.
Pg.91
Mike Uilla, Police Chief
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, June 5, 2017
SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 - 433 -1800 (TukwilaCityClerk @TukwilaWA.gov) for assistance.
of Tukwila
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .. ........... . -- -- ----
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
TO: Public Safety Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
CC* Mayor Ekberg
DATE: May 12, 2017
SUBJECT: Public Safety Plan Facilities Final Siting Criteria
ISSIE
Staff is seeking consensus from the Committee: and Council on the final siting criteria matrix
associated with the Public Safety Plan build'ings program.
.13ACKGROUND1
11,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is asking for the Committee's consensus on the final siting criteria matrix and forward this
to the May 22, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting for consensus.
ATTACHMENTS
Final Siting Criteria Matrix
Site Selection Criteria, v.6
Public Safety Plan Facilities
Justice Center Criteria
10- May -17
Red Indicates Essential Component
N
_0
a
V)
EVALUATION CRITERIA - JUSTICE CENTER
Site Alternatives
- Justtce
Center
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
T N
C �
0
a� N
O N N
Q
o Q E
E W
=
X N
W
L O
LL 0)
M
1. City Operational Requirements - Must Have
Illustration
a. Pollee Requirements
Only
L Parcel accommodates building footprint, space
requirements, environmental conditions
ii. Secure parking for 80 PD vehicles
iii. Secure parking for PD equipment
iv. Secure parking for evidence vehicles (optional)
v. Outdoor training area
vi. EOC Requirement: microwave communications equip
vii. EOC Requirement: seismic, flood plain
viii. EOC Req: fuel storage for emergency generator
ix. Multiple access points, min 2 streets
x. Proximity of high frequency transit
b. Court'Requirerrients
L Parcel accommodates building footprint & requirements
ii. Public parking needs: 150 spaces
iii. Secure parking for staff /judge: 15 spaces
iv. Community /meeting room for 50, flex configuration
v. High Frequency Transit - scored above
above
above
above
above
above
above
above
above
above
Subtotal out of possible 28:
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2. City Policy Requirements /Guidance
a. Benefit to Public Safety
b. Commitment to Customer Service
c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer Service
d. Containing Development Costs
- Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities
e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses
f. Importance of Location
g. Significance of Flexibility
h. Opportunity to catalyze private developments
i. Opportunities for future expansion
j. Location of utilities and infrastructure
k. Ongoing operating expenses
I. Opportunities for innovation
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3. Public Desires
i. Expandability to accommodate future needs
ii. Security for the public and the staff
iii. Nearby transit access
iv. Opportunity to enhance a neighborhood
v. Cost of the overall facility
vi. Sustainability /environmental concerns
vii. Accessibility to Tukwila Community Center
vii. Conference rooms available to the public
viii. Close to roadways, city buildings, businesses
ix. Far from residential areas
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TotalScorej
13
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
0
4. Site Details
a. Existing Building?
YES
b. Parcel Size
120,000
c. Building size
45,000
d. Parking capacity - public
175
e. Parking capacity - secure
20
f. Walking distance to transit (feet)
675
g. Transit frequency (every xx minutes)
15
5. Costs
a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in total
b. Purchase Price
$5,699,000
c. Due Diligence
d. Site Modifications
e. Building Modifications
f. New Construction
Total Costs
$5,699,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Legend: Requirements
NO
Acceptable
Optimal
Policy /Public
I� Unfavorable
4 -6 Neutral
7 -9 Favorable
3
0
Site Selection Criteria, v.6
Public Safety Plan Facilities
Fire Station Criteria
10- May -17
Red Indicates Essential Component
N
N
Q
W
(n
EVALUATION CRITERIA - FIRE STATIONS
Site Alternatives,-
Fire Stations
Station 52
Station 54
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
W
O P
r N
L Q' G
M
y E X
W
W U N
L O
LL M
M
1. City Operational Requirements - Must Have
Illustration
a. Location within Response Time Polygon
Only
b. Parcel Size, Environmental Conditions
c. Parking Needs
d. Multiple Entry Points
e. Site meets same standards required for an EOC
f. Neighborhood Considerations
g. Location of utilities and infrastructure
h. Ongoing operating expenses
Subtotal out of possible 16:
9
0
0
0
0
0
2. City Policy Requirements /Guidance
a. Benefit to Public Safety
b. Commitment to Customer Service
c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer Service
d. Containing Development Costs
- Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities
e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses
f. Importance of Location
g. Significance of Flexibility
h. Opportunities for innovation
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
3. Public Desires
a. Include meeting rooms available to community
b. Make fire stations easier to find
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
TotalScorej
9
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
4. Site Details
a. Parcel Size
43,560
b. Building size
12,500
c. Parking capacity - public
15
d. Parking capacity - equipment
4
5. Costs
a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in total
b. Purchase Price
$1,500,000
c. Due Diligence
d. Site Modifications
e. Building Modifications
f. New Construction
Total Costs
$1,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Legend: Requirements
NO
Acceptable
Optimal
Policy /Public
����e���� Unfavorable
4 -6 Neutral
7 -9 Favorable
5
A
Site Selection Criteria, v.6
Public Safety Plan Facilities
Public Works Facility Criteria
10- May -17
Red Indicates Essential Component
N
N
Q
W
(n
EVALUATION CRITERIA - PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
Site Alternatives
- Public
Works Facility "
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
� v
O Q
Ln
G N v
0-
L a E
H E X
(B W
X N
W
L O
LLL M
M
1. City Operational Requirements - Must Have
Illustration
a. Parcel accommodates building footprint, space
requirements, environmental conditions
Only
b. Location
c. Reserve power, fuel storage
d. Expansion capability
e. Location of utilities and infrastructure
f. Ongoing operating expenses
g. Site meets same standards required for an E
h. Adequate Parking
Subtotal out of possible 14:
8
0
0
0
0
0
2. City Policy Requirements /Guidance
a. Benefit to Public Safety
b. Commitment to Customer Service
c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer Service
d. Containing Development Costs
- Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities
e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses
f. Importance of Location
g. Significance of Flexibility
h. Opportunities for innovation
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
3. Public Desires
i. Expandability to accommodate future needs
ii. Sustainability /environmental concerns
iii. Opportunity to enhance a neighborhood
iv. Central location
v. Access to new public spaces
vi. Facilities sharing a site
vii. Consider proximity to schools for training oppys
Subtotal:
0
1 0
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
TotalScorej
8
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
4. Site Details
a. Parcel Size
225,000
b. Building size
n/a
c. Parking capacity - public
27
d. Parking capacity - equipment
13
5. Costs
a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in total
b. Purchase Price
$2,600,000
c. Due Diligence
d. Site Modifications
e. Building Modifications
f. New Construction
Total Costs
$2,600,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Legend: Requirements
NO
Acceptable
Optimal
Policy /Public
I� Unfavorable
4 -6 Neutral
7 -9 Favorable
7
Rl
I
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
SlI;BJECT- Public Safety Plan
Local hiring and disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE) participation
Pilot Policy Proposals
ISSUE
The Administration and Council share a goal of inclusive hiring as a part of implementing the
City's Public Safety Plan.
BACKGROUND
Local hiring and disadvantaged business enterprise participation goals were discussed at the
March 201h Public Safety Committee and the March 2711 Community Development &
Neighborhoods Committee. The overarching theme from both committees was support for tools
to encourage local hiring/apprenticeships and DBE participation without compromising
affordability and timeliness. Formal labor agreements are very cumbersome and time
consuming even for large agencies on large projects. Staff analysis has shown that
implementing a formal agreement would require dedicated City staff to oversee, monitor and
audit such a program. There is no funding in the Public Safety Plan or the City's General Fund
for such a position,
Staff has developed several pilot policy proposals that wi�ll achieve the same goal by requiring
The burden of tracking and reporting of local hires and DBEs will rest with the construction
contractor and construction management team. No additional city staff will be required for these
proposals.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would like to include pilot specifications in our upcoming Public Safety Plan construction
contracts, based on the attached pilot policy proposa�s. These specifications will require the
Public Safety Plan construction contractors to give priority preference to local area hiring and
DBE subcontractors and achieve a set percentage goal based on good faith efforts. These
proposals would apply to the construction contracts for Fire Stations 51, 52, 54, the Justice
Center and the new Public Works Shops.
The Committee is being asked to provide feedback • the attached proposed pilot policies,
which will be forwarded to the May 22, 2017 Committee of the Whole for consensus.
Attaclhrrients� Local Hiring Proposed Pilot Poficy
DBE Proposed Pilot Policy,
NJ
923ME32EL=
Section I - Purpose.
The purpose of this policy is to create a framework that encourages contractors who receive City public
works contracts to hire residents of the Tukwila Area, As a pilot project, all Public Safety Plan construction
contracts shall contain provisions pursuant to which the contractor promises to make a good faith effort to
hire qualified individuals who are residents of the Tukwila Area in sufficient numbers so that no less than
15% of the contractor's total construction work force, including any subcontractor work force, measured in
labor work hours, is comprised of Tukwila Area residents, If the GCCM delivery method is chosen instead
of traditional bidding, the good faith effort certification will be adjusted to reflect corresponding
milestones. Any GCCM selection process will include local hiring.
Section 2 - Definitions
Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall govern the construction of this article'.
(a) Contractor. Any person or entity, which, pursuant to a written agreement or purchase order,
provides labor or materials on public works projects for the City.
(b) Days. Calendar days unless otherwise specified,
(c) Qualified Individual. A person who is specially traineid, skilled, and experienced in the work, trade,
or craft specified in the portion of the public work of improvement to be performed or who is enrolled in a
certified state or federally approved apprenticeship program in the applicable trade or who is a journey
person in his or her applicable trade.
(d) Tukwila Area. Zip code areas within the City of Tukwila limits and zip code areas within 10 miles of the
center of Tukwila (1-40511-5 Interchange) as shown on Attachment A "Tukwila Area Zip Codes".
(e) Construction Project, A City of Tukwila Public Safety Plan construction project valued at over
$1,000,000, awarded by contract.
(f) Resident of the Tukwila Area. An individual who is domiciled within the boundaries of the Tukwila
Area immediately preceding the date of the bid advertisement by the City and who can verify his or her
domicile upon request of the contractor or City by producing documentation such as rent/lease
agreement, telephone and utility bills or payment bills, a valid Washington State driver's license or
identification card, and/or any other similar, reliable evidence that verifies that the individual is domiciled
within the Tukwila Area.
M
(9) Subcontractor, Any person or entity, which, pursuant to an agreement or purchase order with a
City contractor or another subcontractor, participates in the provision of labor or materials for construction
projects for the City,
Section 3. Exceptions
The provisions of this article shall not apply under the following circumstances:
(a) Whenever a state or federal law or regulation applicable to a particular contract prohibits the
provision of a local hire requirement� or
(b) Whenever the City, in accordance with the requirements of this Code or state law, determines
that the contract is necessary to respond to an emergency which endangers the public health, safety, or
welfare.
(c) Whenever the City determines that a suitable pool of persons providing specialized skills does not
exist locally for a specific public works project.
Whenever an exception is imposed, the basis of the exception shall be included in the staff report to the
City Council.
Section 4. Requirements for Contractors Submitting Bids
(a) A contractor who is submitting a formal bid to the City for a construction project must promise to
make a good-faith effort to hire qualified individuals who are residents of the Tukwila Area in sufficient
numbers so that no less than fifteen percent (15%) of the contractor's total construction work force,
including any subcontractor work force, measured in labor work hours, is comprised of Tukwd,a Area
residents.
(b) A "good-faith" effort means the contractor will take the following or similar actions to recruit and
maintain Tukwila Area residents as part of the construction workforce.
1. Contact local recruitment sources to identify qualified individuals who are Tukwila Area residents;
2, Advertise for qualified Tukwila Area residents in trade papers and newspapers of general
circulation in the Area, unless time limits imposed by City do not permit such advertising;
3. If portions of the work are to be performed by subcontractors, identify qualified subcontractors
whose workforce includes Tukwila Area residents;
4. Host a job fair for prospective local applica�nts;
5. Outreach to the Tukwila and Highline School Districts with informational flyers to go home with
students advertising open positions and job fairs; and
5. Develop a written plan to recruit Tukwila Area residents as part • the construction workforce.
(c) Every bidder must complete and sign under penalty of perjury a Certification of Good-faith Effort to
Hire Tukwila Area Residents, on the form provided in the City's bid package, and submit said Certification
with the sealed bid no later than the date and time of the bid opening. Bidder shall attach to the Certificate
documentary evidence supporting bidder's promise to meet or make a ♦ood-faith effort to meet the local
hiring goal.
11
(d) Contractor shall include in every subcontract relating to the project the requirement that the
subcontractor promises to make a good faith effort to hire qualified individuals who are residents of the
Tukwila Area, Contractor shall be responsible for subcontractor's compliance under this article,
(e) Prior to submitting bids, bidders shall ensure that all subcontractors listed in their bids are not
disqualified or debarred.
(f) Contractors who have been disqualified or debarred may not submit bids during the period of
dis.*ivalification. An�j bid received from a bidder who is arrentlt
Aia�#ualified will be returned to the bidder
unopened.
Section 5. Requirements for Prospective Subcontractors
(a) Any subcontractor for work, laborers • materialmen relating to a project subject to this article will be
required, in his
• her contract with the prime contractor, to make a good-faith effort to hire qualified
�ndividuals who are residents of the Tukwila Area.
(b) A "good-faith effort" means the subcontractor will take actions such as those required of contractors to
recruit and maintain Tukwila Area residents as part of subcontractor's workforce. Subcontractor shall
maintain documentary evidence of such actions.
gn I III I I I
11 1 � I i � I WIN I
lm�
Section 6. Non-responsive Bids
The City may declare a bid to be non-responsive under the provisions of this article for good cause
including, but not limited to, the following circumstances:
(a) If a bidder fails to complete and sign under penalty of perjury the Certification of Good-Faith Effort to
Hire Tukwila Area residents and to submit said Certification with his or her sealed bid no later than the
MM
VIIGOTIU14CM kmk
tr any other disqualification action,
Section 7. Required Documentation
During the performance of the contract, the contractor shall keep an accurate record on a standardized
form showing the name, place of residence, trade classification, hours employed, proof of qualified
individual status, per them wages and benefits of each person employed by the contractor on the specific
public works project, including full-time, part-time, permanent and temporary employees, Contractor shall
require all subcontractors on the project to maintain records of the same information for subcontractor's
12
WT1076
City, upon request, within five working days.
Section B. Forms Submitted Under Penalty of Perjury.
All forms required under this article shall be attested to as true as to the information set forth therein and
shall be submitted under penalty of perjury.
Section 9. Disqualification.
If the City finds that a contractor to whom a City contract for public works has been awarded, or a
s*�,otabrae4i-4stet 1e-1gCr#4
provisions • Section 4(b) during the performance of the contract, the City may disqualify the contractor
and/or subcontractor from bidding or being listed in any bid on any City contract for public works fo
pe i•d o o om da o q o o r a
rf ne (1) year fr the te f the City's disualificatin fr a pe ri od • f three (3) years. The City
Tukwila will keep a current list of all disqualified contractors and subcontractors on file. I
13
14
The purpose of this policy is to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of City of
Tukwila construction contracts and to create a level playing field on which firms owned and controlled
by individuals who are determined to be socially and economically disadvantaged can fairly compete. All
City of Tukwila Public Safety Plan construction contracts subject to formal bidding requirements shall
contain specifications pursuant to which the contractor certifies that they will make a good faith effort
to achieve the contractual DBE goal. If the GCCIVI delivery method is chosen instead of traditional
bidding, the good faith effort certification will be adjusted to reflect corresponding milestones, Any
GCCIVI selection process will include DBE participation,
ricuon rojec I ", -d,777,mr
$1,000,000, awarded • contract.
b "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise" or "DBE" as defined and certified by the Washington State Office
of Minority and Women's and Business Enterprises.
c. "DBE Joint Venture" means an association of a DBE firm and 1 or more other firm(s) to carry out a
single business enterprise for profit for which purpose they combine their property, capital, efforts, skills
and knowledge, and in which the DBE is responsible for a distinct, clearly defined portion of the work of
the contract and whose share in the capital contribution, control, management, risks, and profits of the
joint venture are commensurate with its ownership interest.
d. "Good Faith Effort" means efforts to achieve a DBE goal or other requirement of this policy which, by
their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, can reasonably be expected to fulfill the
program requirement. Detailed examples of good faith, efforts will be included in contract provisions.
a. The Contractor will solicit Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation through reasonable
and available means, meet the specified contract DBE goal, and show a good faith effort to obtain DBE
participation,
b. The Contractor, subrecipient • subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color,
national origin, • sex in the performance • any contract.
c. The requirements • this policy shall be physically included in contract and subcontract documents,
d. By signing a contract proposal, the Bidder will be certifying that the DBE goal as stated in the bid
documents proposal will be met by obtaining cornmitments from eligible DBEs or that the Bidder will
provide acceptable evidence of good faith effort to meet the commiitment.
Section 4. Contractor's Responsibilities.
The Contractor Must satisfy the following requirements:
15
a. immediately after bid award of the contract, the Contractor shall submit a letter specifying details for
each DBE he/she intends to use to satisfy the DBE goal or a good faith effort to explain why the goal
could not be reached.
c. A Contractor who cannot meet the contract goal, in whole or in part, shall make adequate good faith
efforts, to obtain DBE participation. A "good faith" effort means the contractor will take the following or
similar actions to recruit and maintain DBEs as part of the construction workforce:
1) Contact local DBE sources to identify qualified DBE firms;
2) Advertise for qualified DBEs in trade papers and newspapers of general circulation in the Area,
unless time limits imposed by City do not permit such advertising;
3) Host a job fair for prospective DBE participants- 0 and
4) Develop a written plan to attract DBEs as part of the construction workforce.
f. The Contractor shall not terminate for convenience a DBE subcontractor named in the bid documents.
Prior to terminating or removing a DBE subcontractor named in the bid documents, the Contractor must
have a written consent from the City of Tukwila,
g. The Contractor shall also make a good faith effort to replace a DBE subcontractor that is unable to
perform successfully with another DBE, to the extent needed to meet the contract goal.
Section 7. Records and Reports.
a. The Contractor shall submit monthly reports, after work begins, on DBE payments to meet the DBE
goal and for DBE or HUB race-neutral participation. Report payments made to non-DBE HUBS. The
monthly report is to be sent to the Area Engineer. These reports will be due within 15 days after the end
of a calendar month. These reports will be required until all DBE subcontracting or material supply
activity is completed.
b. DBE subcontractors and/or material suppliers should be identified on the monthly report by Vendor
Number, name, and the amount of actual payment made to each during the monthly period. Negative
reports are required when no activity has occurred in a monthly period.
c. All such records must be retained for a period of 3 years following completion of the contract work,
3-Rd r*J
Department or the DOT. Provide copies of subcontracts or agreements and other documentation upon
request.
W1119COM 1111111111pli W11 12 1 -0 MOM
of this Special Provision, must be submitted with the "DBE Final Report."
16
IN
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL, MEMORANDU U
FROM:
Rachel Bianchi
CC:
Mayor Ekberg
DATE.,
May 10, 2017
SUBJECT:
Public Safety Plan Sustainability Goals
ISSUE
Staff is seeking direction from the Committee on sustainability goals, associated with the Public
Safety Plan buildings program,
BACKGROUND
As the City continues to implement the Public Safety Plan, it is important that staff has direction
from the City Council as to its thoughts and priorities around sustainability. Weinstein A+U, the
architectural and engineering firm hired to design the fire stations has prepared the attached
me.mo, that provides an overview of various sustainability options, including an overview of third-
party certification options.
The Public Safety Bond planning did not include funding for such certification, which alone can
cost upwards of $100,000 to receive the designation. Certification cost does not take into
account hard costs that could be associated with achieving a certain certification as well.
Overall budget implications will be an important part of whatever final strategy is laid out
regarding the City's sustainability goals for public safety facilities,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff seeks the Committee's thoughts on potential sustainability strategies, goals and general
guidelines to consider as the programming process for the fire stations moves forward. Staff
would collect the Committee's comments and share them with the full council at an upcoming
Council of the Whole meeting to solicit consensus from the entire council.
ATTACHMENTS
Weinstein A+U Memo dated May 9, 2017
Weinstein A+U Presentation
Re'silient Cities Summit Report (for background)
Roadmap to Green Government Buildings (available online)
We,
20
EVALUATING THIRD PARTY GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION FOR TUKWILA FIRE STATIONS
MAY 9, 2017
Submitted by Weinstein A +U in collaboration with O'Brien and Company
Introduction
According to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, published in 2015, the City of Tukwila desires to be a
community that prioritizes livability for its residents and responsible environmental stewardship for
the benefit of future generations. In the execution of the Public Safety Program, the City now has a
unique opportunity to embody those priorities in a set of buildings that will continue to serve Tukwila
for the next 50 years or more. The design team for the new Tukwila Fire Stations, led by architecture
firm Weinstein A +U, is delighted to assist the City in crafting new buildings that embody the culture of
the City, in addition to optimizing the operations of the Tukwila Fire Department.
The design team recognizes that the City already has many critical goals directly related to
sustainability, such as low building operating costs, the use of materials that will continue to perform
and be attractive for the lifespan of the buildings, and promoting the health of the city's waterways. By
choosing to fund high - performance buildings, not only will Tukwila support a healthier environment
for all and save money over the life of the buildings, but it will also provide resilient, restorative
facilities for its first - responders. A building that operates with minimal energy input will have an
enhanced ability to function in the event of a natural disaster or fuel shortage, running much longer
than a conventional building when forced to use a back -up generator. Buildings that incorporate
quality daylighting strategies and high indoor air quality standards have been demonstrated to
improve both the physical and mental health of their occupants, increasing worker productivity and
reducing the number of sick days taken by employees. Lastly, cities that are growing at a rate such as
Tukwila's have an opportunity to influence the quality of that growth by setting a good example with
their public facilities. High - performance public buildings can be advertised as saving tax - payers
money in the long term, but they can also further educate constituents about the varied benefits of
sustainable design, inspiring consumers — and by extension, private developers — to value sustainable
strategies in all types of construction.
Given the many benefits of choosing to pursue high sustainability goals for new public buildings, the
purpose of this memo is to help the Tukwila City Council understand how Green Building Certification
could help achieve those goals on their new fire stations, as well as adding further value to these
projects.
Why consider third party certification?
Third party certification of a project's green building features provides three main benefits:
accountability, public recognition, and better building performance. Accountability means that
an owner can use third party certification to hold the design and construction team to established
standards, and receive verification that those standards were met by an impartial outside entity. This
leads to a transparency and comparability that allows public owners to communicate to constituents
and stakeholders that they are providing a building of a certain standard, which can be compared to
projects provided by other public entities using the same certification system.
The most direct value for owners from using a third -party certification is driving better building
performance. Many certification programs are comprehensive, requiring projects to address multiple
environmental issues to a certain level in order to earn certification. This acts as a driver for owners
2200 Wei gri^Yn Avel'liae 5uiLe 301, Serq'LLI rte, WA 1>8121
21
and project teams to identify ways to improve all aspects of environmental sustainability addressed in
a certification program. Third party certification also provides an additional, impartial metric for
evaluating individual strategies for a project, allowing teams to determine which strategies will best
achieve a given performance threshold within a project budget.
Alternatives to third -party certification
Third -party certification has an additional cost to the project and can sometimes require projects to
implement strategies that are not the best fit. There are other tools an owner can use to achieve the
accountability and building performance that third -party certifications provide. These tools can also
be used in conjunction with a third -party certification to assure a successful certification; however,
they do not provide the same ability to promote a project's achievements, or to understand how the
project is performing compared to similar projects.
Some examples of these tools are:
• Contracting methods: Integrated Project Delivery, Design /Build with performance guarantee
• Decision - making tools: Life -Cycle Cost Analysis and Energy Benchmarking
• Verification tools: Monitoring -based commissioning, building envelope commissioning,
Energy Star Portfolio Manager
Regional Precedents
Since third -party certifications for green building began to show up in the market in the late 1990s,
many government entities of all sizes have looked to these outside resources to help set consistent,
impartial standards for achieving environmental, climate, and performance goals for the assets they
build and manage. According to the US Green Building Council's Public Policy Library, there are
currently 215 government policies in the US requiring some sort of green building certification for
public buildings (searched 0510312017). These stretch from the federal level to small and large cities
and are in the East, South, Midwest, Southwest, and Western parts of the country. The following
section highlights some of those policies relevant to the Pacific Northwest region.
Federal, State, and Local Municipal Certification Requirements
Federal Executive Order 13423, adopted in 2007, requires federal agencies to meet high - performance
and sustainable building goals. Those goals have been translated into federal guidelines by the
General Services Administration, who has endorsed both LEED and a version of Green Globes as tools
for agencies to prove compliance with the guidelines.
Since 2005, Washington State has required that all major facility projects of public agencies receiving
funding in a state capital budget, or projects financed through a financing contract, be designed,
constructed, and certified to at least the LEED Silver standard. RCW 39.35.040 also requires these
projects to conduct a life -cycle cost analysis to evaluate energy efficiency options.
King County's 2013 update to the Green Building and Sustainable Development Ordinance requires all
eligible new construction projects to strive for LEED Platinum certification or, for non LEED - eligible
projects, the highest level of certification available on an internal sustainable infrastructure scorecard
or other approved third -party certification. Other approved programs include Built Green, Evergreen
Sustainable Development Standard, Salmon Safe, and Living Building Challenge.
City of Seattle's Sustainable Buildings and Sites Policy for municipal facilities requires new
construction and major renovations 5,000 square feet or greater to meet LEED Gold, as well as key
2200 Wei gri^Yn Avel'liae 5uiLe 301, Serq'LLI rte, WA 1>8121
22
performance requirements for energy and water efficiency, waste diversion, and bicycle facilities.
Seattle also has several private- sector incentive programs in place that provide fast track permitting,
additional FAR, and additional height.
The cities of Kirkland, Shoreline, Lynnwood, Bothell, Newcastle, and Redmond all have private- sector
incentive programs for green building (fast -track permitting is the most common), but no policy
requirements for municipal buildings. Issaquah has Resolution 2004 -11, which requires LEED Silver or
Built -green 4 -star. Non - applicable building types must refer to those systems for applicable green
building practices but do not have to pursue certification.
Certification Status for Fire Stations Locally and Nationally
LEED is by far the most common certification program used by agencies and municipalities for fire
stations and related facilities. There are over 300 LEED certified fire facilities internationally and
another 300 registered. Seventeen of the certified projects are in Washington, primarily in Seattle.
Olympia, Vancouver, and Issaquah also have certified fire stations. Green Globes has a handful of
certified fire stations across the US, none in Washington. Overall Green Globes has certified 53
buildings in Washington of all types, many owned by federal agencies.
Example projects
Seattle Fire Station 20, completed in 2014, is the highest rated LEED Platinum Fire Station certified.
It is 9,400 sf with space for two apparatus and features a solar PV array, green stormwater
infrastructure, durable low- maintenance materials, and high- efficiency glazing for daylight, sound
control, and energy efficiency. In 2016 it earned the F.I.E.R.O. Honor and Seattle Design Excellence
Awards.
• City of Eagan Public Safety Center in Minnesota was the first Green Globes certified fire station in
2011. The 38,000 sf building combined two previous fire stations into one centralized location
and also serves as a training center and dorm for volunteer fire fighters. It features a ground
source heat pump, daylighting and LED lights, and recycled materials.
• City of Olympia Fire Station 4 was also completed in 2011 and earned LEED Gold. It is 13,370 sf,
including some administrative space, and features aggressive insulation, heat exchangers, and a
highly efficient HVAC system along with functional daylighting design. This project won the
National Fire Chief Station Style First Place award.
Certification options
When evaluating use of a third -party certification program, it is important to consider that there are a
variety of options, including the most common system, Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) by the US Green Building Council. Some address green building across multiple
categories and some focus on one aspect of sustainability that may align best with an owner's goals.
Comprehensive Environmental Sustainability Certifications
LEED
• Most widely recognized and accepted program; used by most municipal, county, and state
policies for green building.
• Estimated $85,000 to $125,000 in administrative costs and certification fees per building.
Some efficiencies for projects designed and built at the same time by the same teams.
2200 Wei gri^Yn Avel'liae 5uiLe 301, Serq'LLI rte, WA 1>8121
23
• The latest version, LEED v4, has a number of new credits that can drive better building
performance, such as those for integrative process, whole building life -cycle assessment,
green stormwater infrastructure, and advanced commissioning.
• LEED certification for similar buildings are likely to be one level lower in Version 4 than it
would have been in the previous version, e.g. LEED v3 Gold building = LEED v4 Silver building
Green Globes
• Criteria substantially similar to LEED, except no prerequisites and includes the ability to
determine which credit categories are applicable.
• Uses surveys and on -site verification to ease documentation requirements. Access to verifier
via phone and e-mail during design.
• Estimated $60,000 - $80,000 in administration, verification, and certification fees.
Living Building Challenge (LBC), LBC Petal, or Net Zero Certification
• All features of the program are required for LBC certification, and the features from three of six
categories are required for Petal certification. Net Zero certification is available for buildings
that produce 105% of the energy they use on an annual basis.
• Requirements are high, e.g. net zero energy or net zero water, which results in a high
performing building.
• Performance verified after one year of continuous operations.
• $15,000 - $25,000 in certification fees. Additional administrative costs could exceed LEED
costs.
Certifications Specific to an Environmental Attribute
Salmon Safe
• Unique local program focused on regional issues of storm water management, water quality,
habitat, and landscape management.
• Requires recertification every five years to maintain recognition. Requirements customized in
agreement between certifier and organization receiving certification. On -site verification.
• Fees variable and grants sometimes available. Less cost than LEED and Green Globes.
Energy Star
• National, federal benchmarking program for building energy and water efficiency.
• Based on one year of performance data, verified by an engineer.
• No certification fees. Costs for verification negotiated with verifier.
WELL Building Standard
• New standard focused on health and wellbeing. Developed and run by for - profit "B"
corporation with support from the US Green Building Council (also manages LEED) and
International Living Future Institute (also manages LBC).
• Compatible with LEED and LBC, with a segment of overlapping requirements.
• $25,000 in certifications fees. Administrative costs still unknown.
2200 Wei gri^Yn Ave 'We 5uiLe 301, Serq'LLI rte, WA 1>8121
24
Recommendations
Since the values of the City of Tukwila and the functional needs of the Tukwila Fire Department are
both supported by the construction of high - performance fire stations, the design team strongly
suggests that the City incorporate sustainability goals into it's Public Safety Program. The intensity of
those goals and the decision how (or if) to certify those buildings will be largely determined by the
available funding.
In order to meet those goals, regardless of whether a third -party certification system is used:
• Set specific measurable objectives for building performance and develop owner's project
requirements (OPR) early in the design phase.
• Establish a fair method of verifying results to hold the project team accountable for achieving the
project goals and requirements.
• Engage commissioning professionals for both building systems and building envelope
commissioning. Consider ongoing, monitoring -based commissioning.
• Use Energy Star Portfolio Manager to benchmark and track building performance. Consider
Energy Star building certification.
In considering whether to use a third -party certification system:
• Understand how your project goals and desired sustainability strategies align with what the
system measures. Projects that follow the steps above and craft a strong approach to green
building often are very easy to certify, requiring limited adjustments or additions to what was
already planned.
• Articulate what makes a certification valuable to this project so it is clear what the process should
achieve — additional accountability, tools for public recognition and reporting, a higher level of
building performance, etc.
• Decide as early as possible if you will proceed with a certification to allow the project team to
integrate the standards in the system into the design from the beginning. This minimizes possible
additional costs for redesigning and backtracking to collect information.
Timeline
While it is most efficient for a design team to have established sustainability goals to work with when
going into the programming phase for a new building, we understand that the City of Tukwila's
priorities for it's new fire stations are still evolving. Before moving forward into the schematic design
phase of the first station in August 2017, the programmatic needs and desires of both the fire
department and city will need to be reconciled with the budgets that have been established for all
three stations. Given that there is likely to be some modification of either budget or building scope
that comes out of that reconciliation process, we recommend adding a desired level of sustainability
performance to that decision matrix.
In order to facilitate those decisions, the design team will strive to organize our final building
programs and subsequent cost analysis into a set of options that will help the City choose which level
of spending best aligns with it's highest priorities. For the City's part, it will be crucial to understand
and finalize their priorities in the coming weeks so that a final decision on scope and budget can be
made efficiently during the budget reconciliation period, which is currently scheduled for July 2017.
2200 We�,gri^Yn Ave 'We 5uiLe 301, Serq'LLI rte, VVA 1>8121
25
26
Awareness
Education
Indoor
ne onmenta
Qu I
Innovation
Design
Location
Linkages
Busters
Sims
Materials
Resources
Energy
Atmosphere
N
v
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
ARCH _ -EC S URB - DESIGNERS
EVERETT MUNI IPAL COURT, DLR GR
BOTHELL CITY HALL, MILLER HULL, LEED GOLD
r
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
E T E I -_
ARCH_ ECTS ± URBAN DESIGNERS
U I L D I N G S KENMORE CITY HALL, 2010, LEED v2 GOLD
Irsosrail
an. mow im PIE IMS,11.111
r]i
2*"""�- gin ► „'y
l
N
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
E TEI
ARCH_ ECTS + URBAN `2 Drs G ERS
U I L D I N G S SEATTLE FIRE STATION 6, 2013, LEED v3 GOLD
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
E TEI
ARCH_ ECTS + URBAN `2 Drs G ERS
UILDINGS GRAND COULEE DAM FIRE STATION, 2017, LEED v4 SILVER (PROJECTED)
. 3
�rt
W
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
E TEI
ARCH_ ECTS + URBAN `2 Drs G ERS
COMPONENTS BUILDING ORIENTATION + DAYLIGHTING
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
E TEI
ARCH_ ECTS + URBAN `2 DES G ERS
COMPONENTS BUILDING ORIENTATION + DAYLIGHTING
1 Solar Shades Modulate the direct sunlight entering the space
Interior Light Shelves Reflect sunlight onto the ceiling for additional illumination
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 201 7
/E NSTEINA-."
ARCHITECTS + -URBAN DESIGNERS
COMPONENTS EFFICIENT ENVELOPE
1 Thermal Breaks and Air Barriers Minimize leakage of cold through the envelope /1
2 High Performance Insulation and Glazing Maintain desired interior temperatures,
regardless of weather outside
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 201 7
/E NSTEINA-."
ARCHITECTS + URBAN DESIGNERS
COMPONENTS EFFICIENT MECHANICAL + ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
Geothermal Syste ir
!1,
(q.oLv-h:tail.s
Radiant Flom
Heat Recovery System
Vacancy Sensor
W
Cn
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
E TEI
ARCH_ ECTS + URBAN `2 DES G ERS
COMPONENTS LOW -FLOW PLUMBING FIXTURES
H
X1010- _. -mil T1 ' .g....o,. r • .. ,.....,, ._ __
• 0... `-- -
1
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
E TEI
ARCHITECTS + URBAN `2 DES G ERS
COMPONENTS RECYCLED MATERIALS
tear- y
rYs
1 Material Salvage A fallen tree is transformed into a dynamic sculpture that will
grace the project's interior /12 Material Recycling Any existing structures on site will
be sorted into component parts and recycled or disposed of in a responsible way
W
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
E NSTEINA-
111111.111W-7z.,_
ARCHITECTS ± URBAN DESIGNERS
COMPONENTS NATIVE + DROUGHT-TOLERANT SITE VEGETATION
Green Roof
n P' ter
Native. Drought-Tolerant Plant,,
Mouitiatn Hvrnok14
TN4,4 mt.{ h!•,i;ar !a
So Jai
Gdui:
AEIN
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 201 7
/E NSTEINA-."
ARCHITECTS 'URBAN DESIGNERS
COMPONENTS ON -SITE RENEWABLES
solar
twin coil
cylinder
1 Solar Hot Water Reduces energy costs by pre- heating domestic hot water
2 Photo - voltaic Panels Reduce building dependance on the energy grid and provide a
visual message to the community about sustainability
W
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
E TEI
ARCH_ ECTS + URBAN `2 DES G ERS
DUCATION EXTERIOR SIGNAGE / INSTALLATIONS
Lowailemplat Oar.
ishipitimara *gist Oa the
.6atvril laa4lFtEal.h*I J s
rWir..n tait*lammatintet
lasiscapeteaseriab ihat ax+a
fowler um Ise e0vhfilmieot:,
proftortuottiveutii «saft asii .
Rlit?i tm and raduail
the 9sap3ct t into ha* oit
Uraaea euipAini:esuwraC
.istrw:Nai
ao au xat ae pota ids
said for aiin*
asl�ilRle =lass
aides
kalif kcal a1i�e
mimewm. •
.•r.: r... ���dww sn.,a
APED AREAS
1 Exterior Signage Allows the general public to identify and appreciate sustainable
strategies without entering the building /12 Educational Art Installations that vary
with site or building conditions, or give information about the building's mission or
performance can provide ways for people to interact with the building from the outside
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
/E NSTEINA-
ARCHITECTS ± URBAN DESIGNERS
DUCATION INTERIOR SIGNAGE
1 Interior Signage Gives the opportunity for deeper learning about building systems for visitors and
daily occupants /12 Digital Displays Provide real -time data on the performance of the building... and
the chance to foster some healthy competition between battalions over who can conserve the most
energy on their shift
TCC Public Safety Subcommittee Meeting
May 15, 2017
E TEI -
ARCHITECTS ± URBAN DESIGNERS
42
mm
ICI° llllllluuiuuuul uuolllluuuuui
IkAj
My 88d8[C8Od reCiROC8 8XD8r�sf00 across Hie U S gaHh8[8d in AnnpO' Cd0rad0 for Hie
R���U8 U�����
- "����n��"�~nm o
COMMUNITIES
"'FOR AMEMCA
The Resilient Communities for America Campaign ixa national effort tn mobilize hundreds ofU.S. local elected
officials to overcome our nation's extreme weather, nnn0y, and economic challenges through enhanced community
resilience. The campaign promotes local leadership on resilience, providing local governments that join the
campaign with critical resources to help them achieve their goals. The centerpiece of the campaign is the Resilient
Communities for America Agreement, a document that hundreds of local elected officials have signed to formalize
their commitment and showcase their leadership.
For more information, vixitwww.Ron|iontAmoricuur
��
���"
SKANSKAwww.skanska.com
45
4
M.
The National League of Cities (NLC) is the nation's leading advocacy organization devoted to strengthening and
promoting cities as centers of opportunity, leadership and governance. Through its membership and partnerships
with state municipal leagues, NLC serves as a resource and advocate for more than 19,000 cities and towns and
more than 218 million Americans.
NLC's Center for City Solutions and Applied Research provides research and analysis on key topics and trends
important to cities, creative solutions to improve the quality of life in onmmunitinx, inspiration and ideas for local
officials to use in tackling tough issues and opportunities for city leaders tnconnect with pnnm, share mpnhnnonx
and |nam about innovative approaches in cities.
The Urban Land Institute 0L isa non-profit education and research institute supported by its members. Its mission
istnprovide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide.
Established in 1936, the Institute has more than 36,000 members worldwide representing all aspects of land use
and development disciplines. It is through member involvement and information resources that ULI has been able to
set standards of excellence in development practice.
The UU Center for Sustainabi|Uty is dedicated tn creating healthy, resilient, and high -performance communities
around the world. Through the work ofUL|'sQmnnphnt Center for Building Performance and Urban Resilience
Program, the Center advances knowledge and catalyzes adoption of transformative market practices and policies
that lead to improved energy performance and portfolio resilience while reducing risks due to a changing climate.
The U.S.Green Building Council (USGBC) is committed toaprosperous and sustainable future through cost-
efficient and energy-saving Umnn buildings. USQ8C works toward its mission of market transformation through
its LEED Umnn building pmUmm, robust educational nffnhnUx.a nationwide network of chapters and affiliates, the
annual Greenbuild International Conference & Expo, the Center for Green Schools and advocacy supporting public
policy that encourages and enables green buildings and communities. For more information explore the Green
Building Information Gateway (GBIG) and connect on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
usgbc.mg
2015 RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT
SPOPJSORS
� I� IANK YOLJ � 0 I II 2015 RES k-.kE�,]N I U � kE SI-JMW SPD�SORS
P I ATI M
THE OF RESILIENCE
SUSTAINABLE CONCRETE,ORG
r
;P 1, m
,1110~
Awwww", ConstetLation-
I:r)rj r1/11co
...... . . ..... m"A"",
, M
Ttz LJ S' I'
fiw
I-A N D
I wCW IW I M
;!MMM Mt. �,L Mi!ll
1, io
l III ORGAM/AflON
NOR
INTERNATIONAL
CODE COUNCIE
2015 RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT
�j
WA
A(Dkn ow II ecig ii'fle iii ts
We are grateful for the leadership of our nation's mayors and local government leaders, and for this opportunity to
elevate their outstanding work. We would like to extend a special thank-you to Mayor Ralph Becker and Mayor
Frank Cownie for their outstanding leadership on these issues, and for motivating this group of NGOs, businesses
and city leaders from across the U.S. to convene on this important topic.
In addition, the following staff contributed extensively to the program and report.
Ml
T&|ADfContents
SUMMITOVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... .........10
Introduction
List of Attendees
Session Recap
City Needs and Next Steps
KEY DISCUSSION THEMES 22
Regional Coordination
Environmental Protection
City Preparedness, City Response
Social Cohesion
Value Creation
Global Leadership
RESILIENCE RESOURCES FOR CITIES 34
Cover photo credits: F|ico Creative Commons, 2016.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
we
TRANSFORMNG OTY RDUENCE
THROUGH MA GEC AND DATA ANALYTKS
To accomplish resiliency, governments require properly planned
infrastructure and programs to quickly assess irnpacts caused by major
events. With the mobile imaging and rernote sensing technologies of
TrirnblO') Unmanned Aircraft Syster-r-rs (UAS), governr-nents can quickly
accomplish change or damage assessmmAs to prioritize planning and
response efforts from macro to mkro scale. The'frirnble UX5 UAS provides
rapid images for mapping and analysis. Coupled with Tr i rnble eCognitiorOl
software, city staff can import, fuse, interpret, and analyze data from the
UX5 as well as other sources to achieve a greater understanding of their
environments. Combining powerful imoges and analytics improves accuracy
in taxation, aids effective transportation and infrastructure design, and
prornotes healthier environments m�or(-.a in balance with nature—
all resulting in greater city resilience.
r%" -- I.- T".-Ul- ---. 4U- -H.- -4 -.-
50
.............
FB0TH|NGSARE GTHANAGROUPOF1 AYORSGAII lEREO together to collaboratively take on
a challenge. The U.S. Green Building Council and the National League of Cities are not the first to facilitate such
a meeting, but the May 2O15 Resilient Cities Summit was a fantastic event, and an important milestone inthe
emergence of community resilience as a central challenge for 2111 century cities.
Traveling the country today, it is not hard to find glowing examples of local government leadership nnclimate
mitigation, disaster preparedness, hazard adaptation and sustainability. These and other efforts are now finding a
new brand axpart of what makes a community stronger, more sustainable and more resilient. Part of our challenge
ixtn find a new language tncommunicate the critical risks and rewards of resilience. Another part of our challenge
is to help share the innovative local solutions broadly and to connect city needs with those organizations and
programs that can help.
As community resilience emerges as a field of professional study, community leaders are among the first to take
nWUon. Almadyxmi|immnhambmmmnanmmmntia|part of federal grant-making and regulation ao well aoarisk
management priority for American businesses, compelling local governments to sharpen their focus on how their
existing and future projects can best incorporate resilience thinking and action. In just a few short years, the subject
has rapidly begun weaving into multiple fields, including emergency response, municipal planning, economic
development engineering, environmental policy and public health, among others. Cities must adapt to this emerging
context and adopt a new language to meet public interest and investor priority.
Convening is the easy part. Thanks to the 2O15Summit, city leaders have begun unpacking this new language and
landscape, and developing connections with business, philanthropic and non-profit perspectives. It isalong mad
ahead, requiring both a continual focus nn elevating the importance ofa resilience agenda and also an ongoing
commitment to collective learning.
This document seeks tn capture the spirit and passion of the ideas that were shared over the course of the two days
of the 2O15 Resilient Cities Summit. While there is much work left tn do, wm will bn most effective if the private,
public and civic sectors tackle these challenges together
Whether you participated in the Summit, are concerned about these issues inyomrnwnonmmunitymhav
expertise tn share nn this topic, wmlook forward tn working with you nn our common journey towards amore
resilient America.
Clarence Anthony
Executive Director
National League ofCities
Roger Platt
Senior Vice President,
Strategic Planning
Green Business
Certification, Inc.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
52
IN � ROD LE) � ON
InI0�'�II1(���
�(I�' °�OO1 i1r(I�)rll
In May of 2015, the National League of Cities (NLC) and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) partnered to host
Ol,i�.� ur
1,1Ol
�llr(I(I�1[
the first Resilient Cities Summit. The Summit was hosted at the Aspen Institute in Aspen, Colorado, which provided a
fitting venue for the discussion. The surrounding community is well -known as a resort destination, but even here the
ol l.;li;1 ' 0 '
impacts of changing weather patterns are being felt as the ski season shortens, causing ripple effects throughout
J)
the tourism -based economy. Communities in the region also face varied and growing threats that include wildfire,
flash flooding,
and a spike in the presence of the emerald ash borer, a non - native insect.
For some, the idea of fostering resilience is not new. Hurricane Katrina, in 2005, is considered by many to mark
the birth of `resilience' as both a term and call to action in the urban context. The event marked a shift in federal
priorities that had previously been focused on preparing for and mitigating terrorist threats and other manmade
hazards, and emphasized that natural disasters still pose the greatest threat to the majority of Americans. It also
underscored the inadequacies of a "response- only" approach to such extreme natural events. That same year, the
National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) published a widely cited report that documented how every $1 spent on
disaster mitigation saves an average of $4 in averted recovery and rebuilding costs.' An ounce of prevention really
was worth a pound of cure.
Since that time, a significant amount of progress has been made. Within the federal government, two presidential
policy directives have been issued regarding resilience and preparedness (PPD 8 and 21), the Office of Sustainable
Communities within the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been renamed the Office of Economic
Resilience, and the recovery package passed by Congress in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy was significantly
influenced by a desire to build back better.23 Professionals in environmental, risk management, urban development,
and homeland security fields have increasingly worked together to recognize and pursue mutual goals.
However, even as practitioners point to these achievements, resilience is still not widely understood among
local government officials or the public. Concepts embedded in resilience —and related terms like mitigation,
preparedness, and adaptation —are not quick to explain and do not make for rousing applause lines on the
campaign trail. Additionally, success stories have predominantly originated from large cities or from areas that have
recently experienced disaster. Smaller cities, cities with fewer resources, and cities with different hazards can feel
that resilience efforts amount to little more than an unfunded luxury.
Risks to the economic and environmental assets — whether in coastal cities like New Orleans and New York or small
mountain towns like Aspen —was one of the many themes that was explored at the Summit, transcending city
location and size.
As the figures on this page clearly demonstrate, both the frequency and severity of disasters has dramatically
increased in recent decades. There is growing certainty that climate change will exacerbate many of these hazards,
but even without these effects it is clear that communities in the United States are poorly prepared to respond and
recover from the disaster events they face today. It is these risks, and others like it, that professionals who work in
community resilience seek to reduce.
With this backdrop, the 2015 Resilient Cities Summit sought to achieve two main objectives: to share knowledge,
foster greater connections and to set these and other local leaders up for more clearly and confidently tackling
resilience in the future.
10
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
52
14
12
6
4
2
0
1980 1985 1"o 1"s 2000 2005
Year
Federal Disaster Declarations, 1957-2014
yeas
rats p�
. . ... . .......... . ......
........................................................................
.............
2002
............
. .... . ... . . ....
2008 . . .... . ........
.. .... ... .... . ..........
2014
e 5S7 100 15rr 260
Billion-Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters, 1980 - 2013
Cmii �
Em
0 majof Masker
Dedarafions
0 Emergency
NcWafions
Q, Fire
Mainagement
AssAwance
DedaraOons
180
160
140
100
60
40
20
a
This report seeks to capture some of the most inspiring and insightful pieces of the conversation that took place, and
to link those ideas with additional resources and case studies from across the country.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
III!,,, dmil lioill flin Mdloil�d
0cmIlIc rtjld Aillio""pholic
AdIIIIIII""imiloll (NO/"A)
domoll""imin"', flin ""Ing co""i
of di usini"" 1x1 d co""i of lJ S
dk 1n "" "', imckod III hoill
Ilhiloil rtdj(l'sind rtjld coll""(111IIII
I index �tdj(l'sind 1](11111hol"',
Addliloimlly' Ih0 "', co(II]i flan H� 11
1](11111hol xl dl;" r 1 i"" iNd oxcood
$1 hilholl cull ymti �
11
'I In Hc""C�tich Rt""!"" lol
I )! r 1 i Ho""IIIIII]GII 1 In lJ S
I )III-ahmili of Hm""Ing ttjld
'IlIkIl I )nVolopiIIIII]i di""phy"',
flin Icimt""n ol Indoml dk"rtRi
dcdtirdloil"" lixx Mhh 9014
53
Cmmd VmohorAnnVuU111",
Cliy ol A'spoll, CO
Nhyo8sNHfill
F loll] 101N yN Clmmkild,
0111oCmmdlinmN/hNDma,
N1 CCaNarDlmdo8mok"',
Kilnmuinc3aKI �tmCliy,Ui�A
NhyoF�doA8odmcKclldl�tjl
Ngli(dn3anlorI �tlhlal,
N/lIkobmniuk
12
||�T/��8TT�KJ[l����
L|�J� \J| ��| | L|�LJLL�J
(`�� [�
.|^1L n L Ln�aWA
.L� ".�
Mayor Matthew Appelbaum, City of Boulder, Colorado
Commissioner Jules Bailey, Multnomah County, Oregon
Mayor Bruce 8unnoU. City of Mercer Island, Washington
Mayor Ralph Becker, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mayor Frank Qownie.Des Moines, Iowa
Laurel Creech, Director ofSustainabi|ity Office of the Mayor, Nashville, Tennessee
Mayor Brad Hill, Town ofEdUnwnnd. New Mexico
Mayor Pro Tom GorryHomh. City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Mayor Matthew Larson, City ofSnoVua|min.Washington
Mayor Cindy Lerner, Village of Pinecrest, Florida
Coumci|mombor Ann Mullins, City of Aspen, Colorado
Mayor Jeri Muoio.City of West Palm Beach, Florida
Oounoi|mombor Pam O'Oonnor, City of Santa Monica, California
Pubioh0oUini. Chief Resilience Officer, City and County of San Fmnoixon. California
Mayor Shawn Reilly, City of Waukesha, Wisconsin
Mayor Steve 8kudmn.City of Aspen, Colorado
Mayor Mark Stndo|u.City of Little Rock, Arkansas
Mayor Peter 8widornhi.HastinUx'nn'Hudxon. New York City
Qounoi|mombor Matt Zone, City of Cleveland, Ohio
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
||ST0 �'8TTE�KJ[l��S
Sam Adams, Director, Climate InitiativnWnrldRnsourcmInxtitute
Julie 8uffenburge[ Chainnan, Concrete Joint Sustoinabi|UtyInitiative
Kevin Bush, Senior Analyst, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Ryan Oo|kor, Presidential Advisor, National Institute ofBuilding Soinnonx
Joan Card, Senior Policy Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John Coster, Green Business Officer, SkanxkaUSA
Jud Daley, Director, Climate-Smart Cities, The Trust for Public Land
Warren Edmmrds, Executive Director, Community and Regional Resilience Institute
Angie Fyfo, Director, Resource Efficiency and Renewable Energy, |CLB Local Governments for Sustoinabi|ity USA
RiohGonu|xoz. Market Manager, Trimble
Jeremy Gregory, Executive Director, Concrete Sustainability Hub, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jason Hudho, Program Manager, Commercial Buildings |ntnUm1inn. U.S. Department ofEnergy
Michael Lonnioh. Senior Partner, Meridian Institute
YuLondu Lockett, Executive Director, Federal & State, Constellation
Jamie Mandel, Principal, Snowmaxx. Rocky Mountain Institute
Martha Jane Murray, Program Manager, Clinton Foundation
James Newcomb, Managing Director, Boulder, Rocky Mountain Institute
Ashley Por|. Climate Action Manager, City of Aspen, Colorado
Roger Platt, Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning, Green Business Certification, Inc.
Stephanie Rico, Senior Vice President, Environmental Affairs, Wells Fargo
Joanne Rodriguez, Director, Sustainable and Strategic Initiatives, Tremco, Inc.
Brendan Shane, Regional Director, North America, C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group
Dan Slone, Partner, MoQuimWnndxLLP
Erika Smith, Vice President, Ecosystem and Strategic Alliances, Snom1a
Hi|uriVurnudom. Executive Director, STAR Communities
Walker Wells, Vice President of Programs, Global Green
Justin Wiley, Vice President, Government Relations, International Code Council
Alex Wilson, President, Resilient Design Institute
Brenda Wolfe, Industry ManaUnr,Eoh
Roy Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, FIMA/FEMA
I �usoi I I ��ti i k(I
U 3 Dlll-aI I I/aNW I Ian B
AloxYWlmn
I �mUaNI )C!""!ynNN li I, d (I
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015 13
14
||ST0 �'-8TTE�KJ[l��S
U 8 GREEN BU|LO|NGCOUNC|L.WlONALLEAGUEOFQ0EQAND
URBAN LAND |NQTRlTEATENOEEQ
Joe Horgort Associate, Sponsorship, U.S. Green Building Council
Kate Hurst, Vice President, U.S. Green Building Council
Sarene Marshall, Executive Director, Center for Sustainability, Urban Land Institute
Cooper Martin, Program Director, Sustainable Cities Institute, National League ofCities
Tom Martin, Senior Associate, Strategic Communications, National League of Cities
8mndonMoEnounoy. Director, Urban Resilience, Urban Land Institute
Jessica Pinhston.Event Manager, U.S. Green Building Council
Brooks Rainwater, Director, Center Director, National League ofCities
Lindsay Roffo.Artist. |nkFactory
Jommy8igmon. Director, Technical Pn|ioy, U.S. Qmnn Building Council
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
sulml%iT avERViEV�
S E S S 0 N R E: C A P
f HM
& `E ORS, A M[) G� iOG1F ': IA1 :'1 :N11 I !S, A M[) lW i10V )�i ]
[) A UNil D1i1ilD1lflUNlTY �O VA:i JA FIACII �1 Hffl
ill HAVING OlNifi DiTil WNSATI)VIII
To guide the discussion between elected officials, non-profit experts and private sector practitioners, the Summit was
organized into six facilitated sessions:
1. The Complexity of Resilience
2. Resilience as a Leadership Opportunity
3. Lessons in City Resilience
4. Making the Next Resilience Investment
5. Transforming Conversation into Action
6. The Global Implications of U.S. City Leadership
Ripput 40NK ""' ( '[1 "
ARW 011- Dil 11AP1140NA,
H"U'114 G I 4H�',Z �
NO AtIt ABOVI t'"k T04U]
tOMMUNIT11 "i"MON"'i" WiF Aft S"a?
Pop,
—I, I N_4___
(Avi"el WOW
VATA AWL
T v P-11 Ass
f'r r, P PWA
lini 'rA
e> tA
INp Le W tv,(
PON T
VNI FOR
04i(vv 10 — \ I I ft,�'WtN&
WM f'Ji'viiia 4-M it, NOT 11i ABOVI
(04 IN f WINCIVIM
W�'u ks !U WOWS
2015 Resilient Obis
MACE N,
A YLPW FPKL
it r?
WAY WE' OA I)o W6
–ITAty, Ago T I %
K WWI
c""-
Ackv_f
\/hyol \/hilhow I �tl soil
Dy ol S'lloq(1�tl11llll' WA
A gimphic �tlll""i mpillind vl""(I�t
loin"', ol flin dl�tlopn
APOPT
P'
14 � 11' IEW
FA I N Vtif (NNI 47)
jj, tok
TIAW 1POW014a'�
P V'jNr
APNER
-imp
0
t4PAC,T
Pvcsinw DRAMA
__ .... . ..... .
Bw
0WW
ROPE
"I
$ttAUM(-Y U
MMWOON
oJ AVAKAWN
90tNtY
/" 6t
WIN
00
WILE r
etc.
U mmit mat 1 3-5
Y
Asp-en, ( Vn
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015 15
MA
16
Introductory speaker: Jason Hartk .PmUmmManaUer,Commmoia|8uiNinUx|nteUm1km.
U.S. Department of Energy
City leaders and Summit participants dove deep into challenges facing Ufi cities ax they begin tntackle
resilience. The group quickly identified how terms are often misunderstood (nitiU,tinn. adaptation, resilience
and sustainability) and cited examples of how state and federal government programs can stand in the way of
progress if not carefully aligned and coordinated. Some expressed concerns that resilience might be, at best,
''nNwinninnmwbntt|nx^and.atwmmt.divnrtinUnnn0yawayfmmoritioa|effortxtnaddmxxmxourcnuxn
and drive efficiencies. While some efforts are successfully weaving resilience thinking into policy, programs
and funding in order to better ensure that money and effort is not expended twice to overcome the same
oha||nnUn, participants agreed that clear, consistent and actionable measurement of resilience outcomes is still
emerging. A central finding concluded that city leaders will be most successful at earning buy-in if a new, more
compelling language ixadoptnd--nnnthat focuses nn local context, optimism and nnUaUnmnnt—andthat
|nvnmUnxbottom'up ideas with top-down implementation.
jjles�llence as a leadel�slh�p oppoI tun�ty
Introductory npouhon [Major Qnnnm|. Retired] Warren Edwardx, Director, Community and
Regional Resilience Institute
City leaders agreed that, ax politicians, there isa limit tnhow far elected officials can Uonn resilience planning
and action without the support of their electorate. Again, the language of resilience surfaced axacentral
theme. V in isolation, communities can be overwhelmed with myriad, seemingly disconnected risks. Resilience
can provide a useful lens for connecting many efforts in a more coherent narrative. Unfortunately, far too often
there are examples of lessons observed, but not learned. Several pointed out the importance of leveraging
diversity to imagine and implement better solutions. City representatives agreed that leadership includes
identifying the challenge, communicating it effectively to garner critical buyin.oritioaUy leveraging the power of
the private sector, leading through government and individual mmmp|nx, setting things in motion for short- and
long-term outcomes and measuring and communicating progress and ongoing needs. Successful municipalities
will focus nn services that the public expects government tn deliver, harness more and better data and create
tools tn put itto use in agile ways.
�essons in dly res�llence
Introductory speaker: Hi|miVamadom. Executive Director, STAR Communities
Every community represented at the Summit had a story tn tell about resilience challenges they had experienced
m are facing. City leaders spoke of their disaster experiences ax opportunities tn understand strengths and
weaknesses, and acknowledged that the inertia of complacency can bndifficult to overcome when planning
for future disruptions. While often expensive and challenging to deploy, experts and city leaders agreed that
many of the technical solutions for more resilient communities (e.g. redundancies in transport, power and water
systems; stronger flood and seismic protections; policy instruments and infrastructure to maintain a thriving
economy, etoJ are fairly well known. Much more difficult, however, ixhow to design and nurture resilience within
the social fabric of the community so that neighbors are more effective first responders, serving as distributed
social infrastructure that can support disaster preparedness and response. Participants pointed out that the non-
governmental n0anioatinn(INQO)onmmunityonuNbnbnttnrmnrdinatndtoxupportthnxnnutcnmnxanda|xotn
help cities cultivate more participatory resilience decision-making. Again, a theme of careful measurement and
communications emerged, ao did aword of caution to ensure that data bn interpreted and acted upon with an
additional, and sometimes under-appreciated layer of practical, common sense.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
�Vlak�ngtjhe ner[res�llence invest00ent
Introductory speakers: Martha Jane Murray, Program Manager, Clinton Climate Initiative and
Alex Wilson, President, Resilient Design Institute
After provocative introductory presentations about lessons learned from past resilience investments, Summit
participants broke into groups tn discuss thixtopioinUmaterdetoiiOnonmonnwmnd.xnvem|thnmnx
emerged. Because of its multi-disciplinary nature, city leaders have found it much more effective to weave in
resilience thinking and action into all municipally developed or funded projects rather than creating stand-alone
resilience projects. That said, participants acknowledged that the biggest weaknesses must bnaddressed,
recognizing that communities will likely only put up with so much intervention for the sake of preparedness.
Many are making their next resilience investment now, but they are not without cost. Those that can bncreative
inuxinUxuxtainab|nMnanoinUandxupportmnohanixmx--nxpnoia||y|nvnmUinUthnprinatnxnctn+—wi||bn
mostxuoonxsfu|.''VVhi|nit'xtouUhtnbnnnthnb|nndinUndUn.^nnnpartioipantnotnd.''itiximportanttnbn
ahead of the curve." Participants added that rating systems and measurement tools, which are beginning to
more directly address resilience, can help guide and assess these investments.
conversaton into acton
Introductory speaker: Walker Wells, Vice President of Programs, Global Green USA
To date, much of the resilience work � the �S. has been in direct response to disasters and alot of talk about
how to plan, prepare, organize, onmmunicatnandimp|nmmntmomeffeotivmly.Thdox4mmmunity|nadnmmiU
need a supportive constituency which, in their experience, is not sustainable using language that emphasizes a
crisis. Recognizing that government may not always bn nimble enough toact at the needed pace inamoment of
crisis, community leaders are turning to the private sector Some have set up local NQOxto focus nncommunity
resilience, with local government support. Others are partnering with the existing NQO community and exploring
ways of critically enabling their aid in times of crisis. Others highlighted the deep-rooted interest of the business
onmmunity--a dnxpnoia||ythnma|nstatexnoto+—inthnstmngthandxo|wmoyofoitinx.PartidpallomUomted
the importance of integration of municipal departments and perspectives for optimal success, and again revisited
the topic of communicating the need for resilience investments, especially using lifecycle thinking. Some
emphasized tobn ambitious in resilience planning because philanthropy will respond favorably. 'A plan can bn
muohmomimpoAontthanmonny^nnnpartioipantnotnd.''bnoauxnmonnywithnop|anixmonnywastnd.^
]l"lie global l00pllcato0s0f US dly leadertjh�p
Introductory speaker: Roger Platt, Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning, Green Business Certification, Inc.
The final segment of the Summit dialogue challenged participants to think about their local contexts and work and
how it could both contribute to and learn from global resilience efforts. In many ways, the group noted, there has bee
a faulty premise that national governments will be able to solve these problems. Of course, there is a role for national
governments, but municipalities, the private sector, NGOs and individuals are also deeply important in the equation.
More than ever, the U.N.climate talks are open to looking at non-national actors and local governments have so much
to offer A potential outcome of collaborations like the Summit ix the ability to collaborate and put ideas into action
at scale and to test performance. Importantly, communities cannot get to resilience with just a few discrete activities
—it's a far more holistic undertaking that requires time and long-term buy-in. Whereas most resilience actions to
date have been inspired by tragedy or adversity, communities (and the world) have much to gain if resilience can be
framed as an uplifting opportunity that is good for business, community cohesion, growth and prosperity. A wide array
of local, regional, national and international actors stand ready to help and to learn from local government leadership.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
NhyorSI lavi I RN I I Y
CliyWMmko""Im.W
NhorJail N/uolo
CliyWWnsiF�tm8C�tdh.I I
17
I�
I �i �o0u
h'Oh|'Ohh`M�h�
(1, 88D-U]01UM
.Durul�-)J
F--
I J1h�DM
Cliyol Vol col I"hild,VIIA
18
•8
Across the Summit sessions and discussions, several key themes emerged. The next section, Key Discussion
Themes, provides more thorough analysis of these topics, and provides examples of how the leaders are pursuing
resilience in their communities. Taken together, they offer an outline of issues and activities that other cities can
replicate as they strengthen their communities and reduce risk.
What is Resilience?
Iionri 1' "hi1 SoiI!o11 VlCo
I Iimsictnifl (,Il CI, kiek, o I I �t
vely di""w""rior7
(Akso pichlindt d lCH, Hlook;',
liui7viuini IVI C �tlld d Collin,
V111ko I.C" "l7lck, Vol dl u'7
117 dii(do),
ways of expressing and applying resilience in their communities.
Whether or not a city faces a federally declared disaster, they frequently deal with
disruptions or stressors. Problems in schools, businesses and infrastructure are
visible, and nearly everyone agreed that relating to these day -try -day issues is the
key to move resilience from an abstract concept to a common concern.
Many in the group also agreed that resilience is about not just responding, but
bouncing back better. Doing this requires that a community find projects or
programs that offer multiple cry - benefits in economic, environmental, and social
terms. These three sectors make up the triple bottom lime —also known as "profit,
planet and people."
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
sulml%� .......... I ov� IV
'
�l�8�[l��VT�T���
��| | | |�LLLJ�J ��|�LJ |�L/�| �J� L| �J
O|�CU��ON�P�OTEOTO�H�CO�LEAOER��O��NEEOTO3EA8B10 4OORESS RBQL|ENCE|N11 BR
In summing up what they learned from the nwmt, xnvnm| participants referenced the usefulness of resilience as
a frame for understanding nnvinmmnNo|, economic and social vulnerabilities and interdependencies. In other
wmNx, resilience can be an attitude nr lens that ix addressed while planning and evaluating pn|ioinx, pmUmmx
and projects in a city. While some cities have dedicated staff focused on rnxi|innon, others were relieved tofind
that resilience may not necessarily need its own plan or to be treated as something entirely new. That said,
measurement tools that can help cities understand where they are now, and what progress they are making,
would be useful. In particular, data and case studies tn help prove the business case for investments in xmi|innon
measures would drive more action.
As several cities conveyed their own experiences and case examples ofboth resilience challenges and approaches,
it was clear that success would rest nn the strong involvement of many stakeholders. Or, ax one participant put it.
"Whose job is a city's resilience? Everyone's." Local government should provide leadership, vision, and local context,
and serve as a catalyst for bringing key participants together But ultimately, the entire community would need to be
NUT EVWYDNE�
14A ACtegA
IV
rpmt out
CA NAAKATilff, SO 0
69,0MV 400D
VC A
AV* PAPVY
10 W UP- 39 5T AIW
copmap
KOO —
Ays*Nuailgmoiwmvk',(I�t
�� / U��� ^�
FEET –
wm V 7�8�
,�'- ie WA INN x�
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
19
TO
TNEM
F/ CAN
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
19
TO
TNEM
N/hyol I dorSwidmnN
20
brought in—fmmphvatebuxinmmtovn|untenm.taUh'baxndUnmpxandoiviomUanizations—tnmpmxnn diverse
interests, and draw on a diversity of skills and perspectives.
Given the breadth of experts assembled at the Summit, representing different sectors and specialties, one key
conclusion of the group was that "there are alot of government programs, NQO projects, philanthropic activities, and
private sector initiatives." Yet, given how many questions participants asked about where and how tn find help, it
wao|narthat thnxnxmourcnx^amnotyetwmU'umrdinated.andamnotaxaccnxxib|nnrwmU'knmwntooitinxand
oUty|nadnmaxmiUhtbndnximb|n.^OnnoUty|nadnrputaMnnpointnnthnohaUnnUn:^|t'sa|mmstimpmmib|ntnknnp
track of the various federal programs that cities can take advantage Ni^ Several city leaders expressed interest in
anddnximhxa^o|nahnUhouxn^ofxortshnrxmi|innonmxurcnx.VVhi|nonAoin|ynotonmpmhnnxivn.thnmmntUtsnlf
and the resources provided in this report (snn: Resilience Resources for Cities, page 34)attempt to make some
progress at illuminating places cities can turn for help.
For future activities, participants revealed avariety of ideas about event formats and locales that would be useful
—ranging from regional gatherings (where cities might face similar climatological challenges and policy/social
onntexts).to activities organized more around city size mspecific types of resilience issues. There was amidempmad
sense that smaller group discussions would foster particularly useful mmhanUnx, including the ability to dig into real-
world xmmminx.andmNmx them with some of the particular expertise assembled.
Regardless of the format, it waoleathaMmcity leaders and experts found value in the opportunity tn learn from
one another, exchange ideas and identify opportunities for support. In that respect, the Summit lived up to its goals,
in keeping with the Aspen Institute mission, to "foster enlightened leadership through open-minded dialogue."
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
SUMMIT ovEPVIENI
"learn more about the trends and
innovations around resilience; to
see how city leaders were talking
about it."
"hear opinions from a great
diversity of cities and
partner NGOs and companies."
"gain and share knowledge
on practical applications and
planning affecting buildings."
a d e e Illji zr,,,Ai Ve ii iii i lo 11'i e c IUm II II e ng e s
and s ¢,'t>> III I,dJ ii 0ns „„ ,,,,,,, ,,i'n° , a y I[l) e
III iil Ill(,e iirn iil nriiil case
¢,'t>> °i ow diu srrster,
was I miii dllled.......... lll,imillli 11ie good
and 11ie Ill) dm''
uuff«oruim ¢,'t>n several e1riectiiVe
aIllri lllri ii za r» tl e s ill a r» ii fly r».onne r l and
asIII(,,, I'to w Ullllte°se coiI,dld [�w
Illri iir °oiirn° zle d IIb)y 1lll°,0 iirn °,ii . ¢,'t>>f Illjiaiir°lneir
t>>iu „ganiizati oiu� s and buimiuiiiiesses.�,
"that, as a Mayor, II should II w° s be thinking about how 's decisions will
affect the City's ability r lack of ability) to respond to isasters.
"this is an integrated issue that will require integrated resources. [We will nee
step out of the silos and leverage non-traditional knowledge am resources. 93
"new insight into seeing all we do through a resiliency Ilens.93
96c cllllcnt contacts, and a new sense of challengefor leaders.”
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015 21
63
CmmuUinmN/hNhim
clunhild, 0H
22
��
.......... I ..........
&R[]@ONU\| COO[}[l|WOKJ
ONEOFTHECB8TRALTHE�E�ANOCHALBNG8STH��THE�U���CONTNUEOTORE|NF�RCE�THffl
RE0L|ENCE AL|NNfflURE
Whether due to the size and scope of natural events like Superxtorm Sandy m because of the regional nature of
transportation, energy and other infrastructure, the physical and economic health of one community depends nnhow
resources are managed and decisions are made by dozens of communities nearby ao well ao the cooperation ofstate
and federal governments.
At the Summit, participants agreed that regional, intergovernmental cooperation is common sense not just for resilience,
but for good government in general. Still, discussion revealed that barriers to coordinating on resilience are unique and
often surprising. For instance, in Washington State, there was no intrastate mutual aid agreement in place until 2O11.
This meant that a city or county experiencing a disaster could not ask its nearest neighbors for assistance, but would
have to wait for aid to be provided from the state. Sharing costs or revenues between governments is at the heart of
many of these disagreements.
One proposal that could start to change that in currently being pursued is the Cleveland metro area. Councilman Matt
Zone, from Cleveland's 15th Ward, described their ongoing effort to establish the Regional Prosperity Initiative (RP0 a
potential agreement among the local governments in a 16-county region of northeastern Ohio.
According tn Dr. Tom Bier of Cleveland State University, the idea for the RPI came from Mayor William Cuoin of Hudson,
Ohio. After a major business left a neighboring community, Dr. Bier says, some of Hudson's residents also relocated.
Mayor Currin was struck by the degree to which communities depended on one another to succeed in a global
economy. Hn reasoned that if one community landed a major company then it would benefit the whole region and
wanted governments to work collaboratively to toward that goal.
Th promote this cooperation, the primary feature of thnRPI involves sharing tax revenues between governments. Under
the proposal, when a municipality grows its own income tax base above acertain threshold, a portion is collected and
shared with neighbors. By directly sharing the benefits and losses of business development, the arrangement would
help the region compete more effectively.
The idea isn't entirely unprecedented. A similar regional compact in the Minneapolis/Saint Paul region, known ao
the Twin Cities Fiscal Disparities PmUmm/. pools and redistributes portions of property taxes from participating
municipalities. In the Twin Cities, it is estimated that revenue sharing has reduced overall property tax inequality by2O
percent'. Models, using historical revenue data, suggest that similar results could be expected through the Cleveland
ama'xRP|. Most importantly, it is not a simple matter of the wealthier communities subsidizing the rest. The contributors
and recipients within the model shift quite frequently. Dr. Bier even helped organize a group of Cleveland area
lawmakers to travel to Minnesota to hear first-hand about the success of the program from local officials.
Unfortunately, the primary obstacle to implementation inOhio has nothing todowith the local governments. Instead,
legislation enabling the transfer payments between cities must bnapproved at the state level where it has taken xnvem|
years to develop interest and support. |n spite of the impasse, Dr. Bier and others are encouraged that interest among
local government officials persists. "After a while it could get disheartening that the state hasn't allowed this," he says,
"but when the mayor of Cleveland sends his top advisors it shows that local officials are committed. We have now
dnvn|npnddmft|nUix|atinnwithxponxomfmmbothpartinxandwn'mnptimistioaboutthnnmxtxnxxinn.^
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
\hyoI I'io Icm (.harry IioI`�tk
I oil Colhil"", CO
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015 23
65
NhoSiv Sk�ikn
Anpon.00
24
.......... I ..........
'
��O�U |�KJ���|��`��U|��/�KJK��KJT8| �����T���T|/�KJ
|\L��|L|L|���L |�J. L|�V||\\J|�|V|L|�|��L | |\\J�L��| |\J|�
���OFH�N��HAN Nffl,O1Y O��NGEO�O A'[ OUTRBQl lfl�]AH��S �O00ll
|NFRA�lUCTURE
Will the power stay on? Will the roads bn passable? Will the Mnndwab stay strong? These are no doubt first-tier
resilience challenges in need of careful focus and attention.
At the Summit, city leaders and experts also frequently spoke abouhowMmhnalthandvitaUty of their local
communities depends nna thriving natural environment that, in turn, provides resilience risks and opportunities.
For example, Aspen Mayor Steve Skadron and Council Member Ann Mullins highlighted how deeply dependent their
ski-town community is on xnowpaok resulting from |mm| climate and hydm|nUy. Nationwide, the outdoor recreation
economy ixa$O5O billion industry that supports more than O million jobs and generates $4O billion in state and
local tax revenue.9 Among other things, the outdoor recreation economy requires the beaches to be clean, the rivers
to be healthy, the mountains to be snow-covered in the winter and the deer and fowl to be plenty in season.
Left tn its own devices, nature has away of taking care of these systems by itself. But ax cities grow (as they should
and must).xo can the impacts of cities nn nature and natural systems. TodayAmnhoa'sair,|andxandwatemand
thnwiN|ifethatdnpnndnnthnmamundnrUvmnndouxpmxumhnmdnvn|npmnntofaUkinds--rbmn.xuburban
and rural—among a variety of other stresses.
The decline ofAmerica's wonderful natural places—both big and small—poses a threat tn much more than the
tourism industry. Agriculture, too, relies on healthy soils, pollinators and water cycles that are under increasing
stress. Destabilized American agriculture is a threat to rural economies and livelihoods and to the affordability and
availability of the nation's food supply. Nature also provides an important escape and respite, enjoyed by millions of
Americans and tourists year after year.
It is possible tha the largest area of potential risks and costs of the deterioration of America's air, water and soils is
public health. Santa Monica Councilmember Pam O'Connor spoke of rising temperatures in the Los Angeles River
basin due to climate change, urban heat island effect, and the challenges even their coastal community faces with
air pollution. The U.S. EPA predicts that American families will gain up to four dollars in health benefits for every
dollar invested in soot and smog reduction efforts through the Clean Power Plan, a new effort to significantly reduce
carbon dioxide pollution from the nation's power plants. The full range of public health benefits from the Clean Power
Plan are expected to total $34-$54 billion.10
Of course, cities and city residents directly benefit from cleaner air and water, and also from healthy natural systems
that can absorb storm impacts, mitigate flooding, keep summers cool, absorb pollution and serve as support
infrastructure for wildlife and recreation.
Recognizing its acute dependence nn climate and natural resources for a thriving economy, Aspen, CO, launched its
"Canary Initiative" in2OO7aoaonmpmhmmivnmwinmmnnta||eadnmhipnffnrthxthnRnahnUFnrkVaUnyandthn
region. Aspen and other high alpine mountain towns are among the first to witness the effects of climate change,
thus these "canaries in the mineshaft" are leading voices on climate impacts and what cities can do to slow or
reverse its effects."
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
N/hp Killph Hockol
S tli I Ako ch, lJ I
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015 25
r-YA
Cmmo"""lolimJdn",E�dlcy
26
.......... I ..........
'
|& C|TY C|TY ROSPOKJ���
THECOLO�S�L2OO5|�PACT�OFHURR�ANE�K�O�AANOR��ACRO��THE0UUFCOA��PROV0EOARUOE
AVWA{ N|NGTO OUR VULNERAB|LITYSOUNO|NGAlvilCALLTOC: �YRE&lL|ENCEANOHGHL|GRONGTHfl,
At the Summit, Laurel Creech, Chief Resiliency Off iomof Nashville, TN, talked about the devastating floods that
struck the Cumberland River Valley in May of 2010. Tennessee communities are still recovering from the 1.00Oyear
floods. Jason Hartke, Commercial Buildings Integration Program Manager at the U.S. Department of Energy 0OB.
reminded the group of the three 1OO'yemr floods that MaynFmnkCownin'xoity of Des Moines, Iowa endured within
a five year period. Mayor Peter Swidnmki also told of how Supnmtorm Sandy ravaged his town ofHmstinUx'nn'
Hudxon.NnwYnrk.juxtnorthofNnwYnrkCity.
Of course, natural hazards have always been pmxnnt—frnm wildfire to earthquakes and flooding and damaging
winds. |nan increasingly developed world, our communities may bnin the path of these recurring threats more
frequently and have more to lose. In addition, in a world with a changing climate, historical trends for frequency and
magnitude of many of these hazards are no longer accurate predictions of what's toonmn.`2
"When you discover you're inakole,^acity leader said,^the first rule is to stop digginU.^
At the core of city resilience is identifying what the risks are, designing to reduce these risks, setting up
infrastructure for rapid response and enabling the community to take part in leading their way through it. City
leaders were quick to point out that a resilient community is prepared for the eventual arrival of far more than
natural hazardx--n hnrnonnomio. social nr disruptions. The |nxx of major employer, the outbreak ofsocial
unrest or other events can wreak just as much if not more damage. Another participant added that a major risk
in Maine, for example, ix that warmer waters are expected to destabilize lobster pnpu|atinnx, aoritioa| base tothe
state's economy.
Cities are now researching their full spectrum ofvulnerabilities and developing related plans ofaction. Multnomah
County, Oregon, spent 2O14and2O15dmftinUao|imateaotinnpbm`,intendndtnbuiNa'o|imate'xmi|imnt'umnty
Summit participant Commissioner Jules Bailey chaired the effort. Many urban anchored counties are challenged by
the uneven spread of infrastructure redundancies, particularly given the disparities between rural and urban areas.
Hundreds of other communities are undertaking their own efforts to understand their weaknesses, prepare for the
wmnst.andhopnforthnbmst.Axnnnpartioipantputit.^YnumitiUatn.ynuadaptnrynuxuffncThoxnamthnthmn
available options!"
|n any of these scenarios, plans are helpful, but infrequently read, and measurement for measurement's sake may
not bnas helpful aswhat one city leader called "the common sense test." When it comes to community response
tn these disruptions m disasters, your neighbor, one participant added, is your best ally and most likely tnbnyour
first responder Whether a community is ready or not, the group agreed that the public expects mayors and local
government officials to have the answers to how to respond quickly, fairly, and effectively.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
I �d I! ck 01 n I I! I I!
chlot Ho""llicilco 01ficol
Stjl I mild""co, CA
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015 27
We,
Cmm61mmo1hor11�tm0'Cmmor
Voillm, CA
of
�DM n hU'|M h��h
�DM�h��'��
f�UDM��'�Dof�DV
28
.......... I ..........
'
R[��|| |E�KJC E�|S`S0 C|8| C0L��S|0KJ
All THESUMMl TANO|NTHENEWS 1 EOV\�o�:W:VUNll ill NCE^HASOR NBEEN ASATO�C,
No set of buildings, infrastructure and policies isa^onmmunUty^without the social fabric nf people. The field
of social work proposes a positive, people-oriented definition of the other word, ^xmi|innon.^ Resilience, social
workers say, ^nnonmpaxxnx not merely surviving; but in additinn, it includes both thriving and having benefited
from the stxmxornxpnhnnon.^`^
Itix within this framework that the importance ofaxtrnnUmmia|fabhobothomatedbyandhmmndwithinthnbuilt
environment can be identified. If cities can focus on what helps people and communities function in the face of
adversity, then there ix opportunity tn nurture and grow this capacity.
Fortunately, an emerging set of tools tn begin understanding this critical dimension already exists. The STAR
Community Rating System and EcoDistricts help community leaders identify capacity for growth in such areas as
civic engagement, civil & human rights and environmental justice; and equitable development, health & wellbeing,
and community idnntity",* The LEED for Neighborhood Development rating system provides quantifiable metrics
for built environment performance that help cities assess performance and guide smarter, greener, stronger
development. Fulfilling credits such ao 'Access tnQuality Transit' can ensure that community members have
transportation options in instances where disaster makes one mode of transportation infeasible. And the Access to
Public Space credit guides projects to provide community members with convenient and adequate spaces for social
interaction helping increase cohesion and social capital.
(f course, cities are leading the way. Santa Monica has developed a Well-Being Index (see xidnbar).
The presence of varied social capital is one measure of how resilient a given community can be. Social scientists
hmmidnntifindhmwmmia|capUo|playwam|ninonmmunUtyxmi|imme,xtatinUtha.^mmial capital ix the ability of
aonmmunUty to withstand disaster and rebuild both the infrastructure and the ties that are at the foundation of
anyonmmunity^«Socia|onhnxinnaUnwxpnnp|ntn|nvnmUnthnirxtrnngthxandhn|pthnironmmunUtymaintain
normal operations during strife. Indeed, this indicates that wealth within the built environment alone is not enough tn
produce resilience, and that the connections throughout the community play a vital role.
Simply by changing the way we measure wealth (as Santa Nonica'snew index proposes). there may be new ways of
understanding the strength ofa community's social fabric, and therefore the potential hxhmwxmi|imntaonmmunUty
can become. There ixa growing recognition that, "GDP ix not the best index. It only measures the richness ofa
[community], and does not tell you anything about how this richness is distributed. Which, in time of rising inequality,
might be a problem."18
(f course, a well-knit community alonnmiUmotxtopatsmnami.pmvnn a drought m keep the local mill from shutting
down. City leaders at the Summit and across the world know, however, that strong social ties and adistributed
network of relationships, xnnionx, and neighborly support help a great deal.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015 29
71
NhyoNhiUmwANpollm(m
DyW8ouNal,C0
30
.......... I ..........
'
|& \8\| U� CR[J\T|OKJ
|NTHEN��RAL�ORLO.�Y�l�SANO|N0N1OUALSTHffl AREHE�]l�'ANOSO�D0GAREVO� ABLETO
In the city context, communities with strong economies—where citizens have steady jobs, sufficient income, and the
abi|Utytnmmn.invmstandboonw+—ambntterab|ntnmmnmmnadvnmnnvnNo.Thnxnmaomandmiommmnomio
issues are always among the top concerns of city leaders and their constituents, and rightly so. Against these
baoio^pnokntbnnk^ixxunx.effortstnaddxmxx|ow+movinUthmats|iwnxna'|nvn|hxnnrpunctuatnd(butinfrnVunnt)
impacts from severe storms usually fall off the priority list. But addressing economic strength and resilience does not
need to come at the expense of being prepared in other ways for challenges to come, including natural disasters. In
fact, there are opportunities to do both simultaneously, and evidence of positive financial returns from strategies to
enhance resilience and xuxtainabi|ity is mounting.
These issues can bntackled from avariety of angles, asrevealed by many Summit participants who shared their
experiences. Aspen, CO—whose ski-based economy ix feeling the stress of reduced and highly unpredictable snow
levels—has launched an economic diversification strategy. Such diversification will help insulate the community both
against environmental shocks and economic ones.
|n other cases, the focus has been nn the savings possible through energy and resource reduction. Such
strategies can lead tnan immediate economic boost, by putting more disposable income in the hands nfcitizens
and businesses. Lower income residents, who often spend a disproportionate amount nn utilities and are most
vulnerable tnthe shocks of extreme weather, power outages and employment dixmptinnx, can especially benefit
from these investments.
The challenge ofaging infrastructure was highlighted ax something that creates numerous xmi|innon risks. While
failure of infrastructure under adverse conditions (e.g., storms, floods) is a typical concern, inadequate infrastructure
can undercut growth by being a deterrent to business investment. Rather than simply maintaining yesterday's
infraxtructum.futun+|nnkinU upgrades that address coming threats can simultaneously help protect acommunity
while attracting new investment.
Moving private sector money towards these ends is critical. Ultimately, success rests on making the case for how
investments in xmi|innon generate multiple benefits, including financial returns. On this front, progress is being
made. Ax one city leader put it: "We really started to have success with LEED when wm translated [the certification]
into operational savings and real estate va|un.^ Recognizing this nnnd, experts around the room cited additional
efforts to studyandVuantifymmnomiobnnefits--no|udinUthnpaybaokpnhndofxo|o/dnvn|npmnNo.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015 31
\ /<p IVlhikSiofol<<
111r Hock,Aiku7rus
73
Mayor Cindy Lerner
Pinecrest, Florida
M80�Dc���'DO
yyh�d '|
�d ffi
D Dr� oD|V
�0�DOc��D8
��� u8O0D0O
hl'DHU�D��
�d h'Oh8[ |uyd� d
32
.......... I ..........
'
��`y�|y��8| |[J\[l[����L�|��
|�J. \�L\J��L LU�UL|\�J| N|
Many of the anticipated effects are already observed in communities throughout the world. It is sometimes difficult
tn see how local government can make a significant difference in the face of such a massive challenge, but action
at the local level seems tobnan essential precursor to the action at higher levels of government. Cities and towns
are working tncreate increasingly accurate emissions invnNohnx, set ambitious reduction targets and adopt specific
plans tn achieve those reductions.
A recent analysis by ICLEI-USA and the World Wildlife Fund identified 116 communities, representing 14 percent
of the U.S. population that have set emissions reduction targets and are reporting progress through open data
p|affnrmx.m (f these communities, the report found that O2 had set targets "equal tnnr greater than the U.S. target
of2Otn28pnrcnntmdu(tinnbn|mw2OO5|nvn|xby2O25.^8ydnmonxtrainUmhatixpomxib|nat the local level,
cities are not only spurring healthy competition amongst one another, they are also beginning to influence reduction
targets at higher levels of government.
Mayor Cindy Lerner, ofPinncrnst,FLrecognized both of these benefits at the Summit when she discussed the
development of her own city's reduction plan. First, she noted that the Pinnomx plan is deliberately modeled after
the reduction plan from Seattle. Pinecrest ixa small village of 18.000 people and Mayor Lerner knew that the city
would have a very difficult time creating a plan from scratch. Although Seattle is a very different community with
very different targets, she believed that the city's plan offered a structure and process that could easily bnreplicated
by her staff. Second, there are relatively few small communities that have adopted climate reduction plans. When
states nr nations are considering policy, they must consider how it will be implemented in communities of any size.
Communities like Pinecrest, FL; Keene, NH; and Janesville, WI, are taking important steps to prove that smaller
communities can meet and exceed many of the targets currently being discussed by larger cities.
The most visible and important example of this effect in2O15is the preparation for the U.N.Framework Convention
nn Climate Change, known aoCOP'21.takinUp|aceinPah.AlthouUhthnaotualnnUoiatimmmiUbnhnNbntwmn
the nations of the world, it is expected that hundreds of mayors and other local government officials will also
descend on the event to showcase their success and urge negotiators to set a global target. Several mayors in
attendance at the Resilient Cities Summit have joined a delegation of U.S. mayors to the Paris talks, coordinated by
thnNLC.USQ8C.andNthnrpartnnm.*AxofthixwritinU.momthan4OOoitinxwmddwidnhmmonmmittndtntakn
action to reduce emissions by at least 2020 .22 W ithout these commitments and the tangible efforts cities are already
undertaking to achieve them, a national reduction target would be much less grounded and much less credible.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
32
.......... I ..........
'
��`y�|y��8| |[J\[l[����L�|��
|�J. \�L\J��L LU�UL|\�J| N|
Many of the anticipated effects are already observed in communities throughout the world. It is sometimes difficult
tn see how local government can make a significant difference in the face of such a massive challenge, but action
at the local level seems tobnan essential precursor to the action at higher levels of government. Cities and towns
are working tncreate increasingly accurate emissions invnNohnx, set ambitious reduction targets and adopt specific
plans tn achieve those reductions.
A recent analysis by ICLEI-USA and the World Wildlife Fund identified 116 communities, representing 14 percent
of the U.S. population that have set emissions reduction targets and are reporting progress through open data
p|affnrmx.m (f these communities, the report found that O2 had set targets "equal tnnr greater than the U.S. target
of2Otn28pnrcnntmdu(tinnbn|mw2OO5|nvn|xby2O25.^8ydnmonxtrainUmhatixpomxib|nat the local level,
cities are not only spurring healthy competition amongst one another, they are also beginning to influence reduction
targets at higher levels of government.
Mayor Cindy Lerner, ofPinncrnst,FLrecognized both of these benefits at the Summit when she discussed the
development of her own city's reduction plan. First, she noted that the Pinnomx plan is deliberately modeled after
the reduction plan from Seattle. Pinecrest ixa small village of 18.000 people and Mayor Lerner knew that the city
would have a very difficult time creating a plan from scratch. Although Seattle is a very different community with
very different targets, she believed that the city's plan offered a structure and process that could easily bnreplicated
by her staff. Second, there are relatively few small communities that have adopted climate reduction plans. When
states nr nations are considering policy, they must consider how it will be implemented in communities of any size.
Communities like Pinecrest, FL; Keene, NH; and Janesville, WI, are taking important steps to prove that smaller
communities can meet and exceed many of the targets currently being discussed by larger cities.
The most visible and important example of this effect in2O15is the preparation for the U.N.Framework Convention
nn Climate Change, known aoCOP'21.takinUp|aceinPah.AlthouUhthnaotualnnUoiatimmmiUbnhnNbntwmn
the nations of the world, it is expected that hundreds of mayors and other local government officials will also
descend on the event to showcase their success and urge negotiators to set a global target. Several mayors in
attendance at the Resilient Cities Summit have joined a delegation of U.S. mayors to the Paris talks, coordinated by
thnNLC.USQ8C.andNthnrpartnnm.*AxofthixwritinU.momthan4OOoitinxwmddwidnhmmonmmittndtntakn
action to reduce emissions by at least 2020 .22 W ithout these commitments and the tangible efforts cities are already
undertaking to achieve them, a national reduction target would be much less grounded and much less credible.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
\ /<p I milk Covvillo
Dy of I )ms IVoinor, IA
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015 33
75
34
0� C .......... I ..........
Pou� ................ .........
................ . ................. ....
��8TU��[l�[��lU���[�
| L�\| U| \LLJ | \L�\JU| \��L�
National Keagiae0f Cities
The Sustainable Cities Institute atNLC seeks to catalyze, inform and celebrate the xustoinabi|ity and resilience
related initiatives of local governments. Whether your city ix just getting started nr has an experienced history and
commitment to sustainability, the robust collections of city profiles, case studies, model policies and communication
tools found here will provide elected leaders, staff, and engaged stakeholders with a set of resources tn guide your
activities. Information ix available nn climate xmi|innon, as well ax related topics such as land uxn. energy policy,
water and local food systems.
More information about the Sustainable Cities Institute is available at8ustuinub|oQitionnstitutmmg
Urban I and lkiistiltiate.
ULI's Urban Resilience Program works to help communities prepare for increased climate risk in ways that allow
a quicker, safer return to normalcy after an event and enable them to thrive going forward. ULI relies heavily on
the experience of its members. ULI relies heavily on the experience of its members and through its nearly 36,000
mombom, it works toengage, idbnn and inspire positive change to the built environment. With generous support of
The KrnxUn Foundation, UL| is working around the country to:
^ Advise Communities /n Need. From Duluth, MIN.to Norfolk, VA, to Seattle, WA, expert panels ofour
members have counseled cities nn resilient development.
^ConductResearch andProduce Reports. From issue whitepapers on insurance to case studies on
resilient buildings, UUseeks to raise awareness and drive industry practice on the ground.
^ 8uwt Comv*ninym From large conferences tnintimate issue-specific forums, UU brings people together
from different disciplines and geographies to troubleshoot and learn from one another
^Support our District Council network. From Boston to San Francisco to Fort Lauderdale, local staff
and members innovate and carry out programming tailored to the needs of their regions.
More information about the UU's Urban Resilience Program can bn found atu|iurg/mn|ienoo
U . Green Biaildkiig Coi0indill.
The nexus between xustainabi|Utyand xmi|innon ix constantly mmhinU. Leading this movement is the U.S. Qmn
Building Council 0SQ8Q. with its 12.00O+ member organizations, 2OO.00O+omdmntia|nd professionals wnddwidn.
volunteer network throughout the world and the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design) green building
rating system. Through a growing suite of tools that apply xustoinabi|Uty principles tn save energy, water and money,
USQ8Canditsxistnrn0anioatinn.Qmnn8uxinnxxCnrtificatinn.|no.(G8C|)amoata|yzinUinvmstmnntinonmmunitinx
and infrastructure that are healthy, efficient and have a minimal impact nn the environment.
USQ8C works with government leaders atevery levntnxupportMmdnvelopmm¢adopnn.andimp|nmnntatkmof
policy and programs that support and advance greener buildings and communities. Through research, standards
development, education and advocacy, USGBC's work and networks are well positioned to help government play an
important role in enabling aUmnnnr, more resilient, equitable and prosperous future.
Learn more at usgbc.org/advocacy/priorities/resiliency
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
36
UNAL i�� ...... .... .... .... S' 0 U 1,� . ............
While certainly not comprehensive, the event itself and the resources provided in this report attempt tn make some
progress at illuminating places cities can turn for help.
Federal Agencies
Qualified Energy Conservation 8ondnThnU.S.Dnpartmnnt of Energy 0OB offers bonds (not grants) that enable
qualified state, tribal, and local government issuers tn borrow money atattractive rates to fund energy conservation
projects. Summit participants highlighted that many states are not maximizing use of these bonds. 0OB
Green Infrastructure for Climate Resiliency. This page hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) features tools and tips for managing MnndinU, preparing for drought, reducing urban heat islands, and lowering
building energy intnnxity--aU essential aspects of climate xmi|innoy. (EPA)
Smart Growth. This page features information that helps communities grow in ways that expand economic
opportunity while protecting human health and the environment. (EPA)
Community Planning and Capacity Building. This Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)resource
intends to support and build the recovery capacities and community planning resources of local, state and tribal
governments that are needed to effectively plan for, manaUn, and implement disaster recovery mctivitinx in |a0n.
unique nr catastrophic incidents. (FEMA)
hftpm0wvvvv.fmma.yumcummunity-planning-and-capacity-building
Whole Community. This agency resource outlines the principles ofa whole community approach to emergency
management, which highlights FEMAaxapart ofa much larger "collective emergency management team," including
government and non-government actors, faith based organizations, private citizens and mom. (FEMA)
hftp:0wvvw.fmma.yux/whuUo-community
Community Resilience Portal. The U.S.Department of Housing & Urban Development (HU0 hosts aresource
page dedicated to resilience that has information on resources on planning, implementation, natural hazards, and
much more. (HUD)
Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) Resource Library. The U.S. Department of Housing &Urban
Development hosts a resource library that includes tools, reports, fact sheets, and case studies developed bySCI
grantees, HUD, and its Capacity Building partners. (HUD)
High Performance and Integrated Design Resilience Program. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) site provides publications, software, and tools tnsupport the protection of the nation's physical infrastructure.
Its overall goal is to better prepare buildings and infrastructure to recover from manmade and natural disasters.
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
National Climate Assessment: Response Strategies. Explore actions to reduce emissions and adapt to
changing climate. Many of these actions can also improve public health, the economy, and quality of life. (U.S.Global
Change Research Program)
Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service. This outlines the building design standards and
construction criteria for the federal government and the nation's largest landlord—the U.S. General Services
Administratinn(GSA).Thnxn|nadinUpmoonxnut|inndnxiUnphi|mmphy;phnrityn|nmnNo|iknn#ioinnoyaccmmibi|ity
and life-cycle costing; and provide guidance for many other elements—from landscape and community design to
stmctum|, mechanical and xnourity--andthe relevant codes and standards. (GSA)
hftp:0wvvw.yma.yux/portaVoabmyury/21050
l4an.-profit Organizations
Resilient Cities Resource Library. The library contains over 1OO documents, pub|icatkmx.tomb.andxtrateUinxnn
adaptation and xmi|innon, with a focus nn urban areas. 8CLE
Climate-Smart Cities. The Trust for Public Land's Climate-Smart Cities initiative helps cities meet the climate
ohaUnnUnthnmUhonnxnwannanddnxiUn—fmmpnotmtinUwaterfnmtparkxandwet|andxtoomanUUmnnaUeyw
and water smart playgrounds. (Trust for Public Land)
hftpm0wvvvv.tp|.ury/mmmicos/cKimabm-smart-cities
Integrated Resilient Design Program. This program fosters innovate approaches to the design, construction, and
operation of buildings and infrastructures that are resilient to natural and manmade disasters. The program's page
highlights reports and other resources geared around xmi|inncy. (National Institute ofBuilding Sciences)
hftVm://www.nihm.ury/?pay*=imNp
Knowledge Center. Rocky Mountain Institute's 0RM0 Knowledge Center isa collection of over JO years of applied
research and collaboration with businesses, communities, individuals, and governments in the field of energy
efficiency and renewable nnn0y. 0RM0
Protecting our Capital: How climate adaptation in cities creates u resilient place for business. This report
focuses on the evolving role cities are playing in protecting citizens and the economy leads to greater resiliency for
business (CDP,Bloomberg Philanthropies, and C40
PREPValuoChain0imute Resilience. This guide has been developed by companies and organizations engaged
inthnPartnnmhiphxRemi|innonand6wimnmnNo|Pmpamdnmm(PREP)—api|otpartnnmhipfonnndtoaddmx the
risks and opportunities that climate change impacts pose to businesses and the communities nn which they depend.
(Oxfam America)
hftp://wvvw.uxfamammrica.ury/statio/ua4/xa|uechaincKimatmmmsHimnoe.pdf
RELi Resiliency Action List & Credit Catalog. A comprehensive listing of resilient design criteria with the latest
in proven integrative process for developing next generation communities, neighborhoods, buiNinUx, homes, and
infrastructure. (CJ Living Design Project)
hftp:8c3hxinydosiyn.ury/?pay*_id=51 10
Future Proofing Cities Toolkit.This tonlkit outlines six approaches tn increasing resilience capacity that planners
and designers can deploy to build more resilient cities. (Resilient City)
hftV://www.resHientcity.ury/sitm/ywd_onmiyapp|myath/ msmts/ dt/futu rep roof ny_oKims_tuoUkit—hy_
oraiy_app|myath_2012-03-0lmm.pdf
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
00
38
mm
S U
UNAL il"1111111111"O
'
Nan-profit Organizations
Preparing for Climate Change: & Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments. This doc mmnt
is intended to inform decision-making in all levels of government around preparing for climate change by
recommending a detailed, easy-to-understand process for preparedness based on familiar resources and tools.
(King County &|CLE|)
hftp:0osmmvvamhingtun.edu/dh/pd0mnuxmreta|yh574.pdf
City Resilience Index: City Resilience Framework. This framework provides a lens through which the complexity
of cities and the numerous factors that contribute to a city's resilience can be understood. It comprises 12 key
indicators that describe the fundamental attributes of a resilient city. (Rockefeller Foundation)
hftVm0www.mchefeUmrfuundationury/app/uploads/City-Rmsi|ienco-Frammmmrkl.pdf
Whole Building Design Guide: Secure / Safe Design Guidance: The WBDQisa web-based portal providing
government and industry practitioners with one-stop access to up-to-date information on awidn range of
building-related Uuidanon, criteria and technology from a 'whole buildings' perspective. (National Institute of
Building Sciences)
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
Private Sectur
Resilient Communities Portal. ESRI's Resilient Communities page offers guidance and helpful links resiliency
in areas such as food, transportation, infrastructure, economy, disasters, climate, public safety, and public health.
(ESRI)
hftp://www.esri.com/industries/government/resilient-communities
Road to Resilience. A helpful infographic that looks at how to reach a resilient outcome in decision making. (Rand
Corporation)
hftp://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/infographics/iGloo/IG114/IG114-road-to-resilience-1000.
png
Concrete: Results. More concrete is produced than any other material on Earth. Find a collection of innovative,
understandable and actionable research and results about concrete and sustainability. (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Concrete Sustainability Hub)
hftps://cshub.mit.edu/results
II iftennatil o iiiia I
A Toolkit for Local Governments. This website provides local government leaders with a generic framework for
disaster risk reduction. It points to good practices and tools that are already being applied for that purpose and offers
practical guidance creating a resilient city. (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction)
hftp://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/toolkit
Unlocking the Triple Dividend of Resilience. This policy note argues that investments in Disaster Risk
Management can reduce pre-disaster losses and unlock significant development potential in vulnerable areas by
generating a dividend even if no disasters strike for a long time. (Overseas Development Institute)
hftp://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9501.pdf
Resilience Resources. This page contains publications, tools, and multimedia products geared towards increasing
resiliency in the built environment. (Resilience Research Centre)
hftp://resilienceresearch.org/research/resources
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
39
R1
40
M.
S U
UNAL il"1111111111"O
'
Building Resilience: Integrating Climate and Disaster Risk into Development. This report presents the World
Bank's experience in climate and disaster resilient development, and contends that such development is essential to
eliminating extreme poverty and achieving shared prosperity by2OJO. (World Bank)
hftp://wvvw.vvoddhank.ury/oonbmnVdmm/Woddhan0/docummnt/SBN/Fu|LRmport_Bui|diny_Rmmi|imnco_
Academia
Cooling the Public Realm: Climate-Resilient Urban Design. This paper discusses the need for planning and
design practitioners to expand their scope to implement desired ecological outcomes across spatial scales that
onmphxn urban systems and physical networks. (University of Cambridge)
hftp://wvvw.umyhc.ury/reaoumes/cooUiny-puhUc-mma|m-cKimabm-mmsHimnt-urhan-dosiyn
Green Building and Climate Resilience: Understanding Impacts and Preparing for Changing Conditions.
This report summarizes the most recent research on the likely impacts of climate change at various scales: mUimm|,
neighborhood, and site nrbuilding. (University of Michigan &USQ8Q
hftV:0www.umyhc.ury/resuumes/ynmn-hui|diny-and-cKimatm-resHience-undorstandiny-impacts-and-
pmmpariny-ohanyiny-oonditi
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
LPJDPJOI LS
I . T-he Multihaz and Mitigation Council at the National Institute of Building Sciences, 2005. "Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to
Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities. Volume 1-Findings, Cor7cluslon s and Recommendations."
htqus: / /c.yrncdri.ram/ sites /www. nibs .org /resource /iesmgr /MMC /Purr, volt.pdf
2. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's program office for Economic Resilience at
http:// portal. hud. gov /Pwdportal /HI.JD ?src= /progiaam _offices /ecoriamic_resilierice
3. Following Superstorm Sandy, rebuilding efforts focused on not just replacement but improvement. See, for example, "Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding
Strategy" at http://portal hud. gov/ Y7udiDortal/ cJocumerit9/ hi. iddoc ?id= hsrebi,iildingstiategy.pdf; and Governor CUOrre's urmmitments to Staten Island at
https: / /www.goverrior.riy.gov/ news /goverrior- cuamcr highlights- irivestmerit- 427 - million- aid- superstorm- sandy - recovery- sta[en- Island; and
Rek7i,iild by Design at htfp / /www.rebulldbydesigri.org/
4. National Centers for Environmental Information at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013. 'Billion- Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters,
1980-2013 " https' / /www ncdc.noaa gov /billions /time Series
5. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015. "Disaster Declarations by Year" http: / /www.fema.gov /cJisasters /grid /year. See also HUD, "The
Research Basis for Disaster Resilience" at ht[ps'.//www.huduser.gov/ portal / periodicals /em /winterl5 /highlight2.html
8. See Northeast Ohio's Regional Prosperity Initiative at http: / /www.neo- rpl.org/
7. Twin Cities Fiscal Disparities Program. Tax- Base Sharing in the Metro Area.
http: / /www.metraururicii .org /Cammuriities /Planriing /Local - Planning- Assistance /Fiscal- Disparities.aspx
3. Mor7tgorrery, Carleton. Ri,itgers University Press, 2011 "Regional Planning for a Sustainable America: How Creative Programs Are Promoting Prosperity
and Saving the Environment." http: / /www.regiorialplans. org /feats,ued- regional- plannirig- programs- and- issues/1%ix -base- sharing/
9. Outdoor Industry Association, 2013. "The Outdoor Recreation Economy 2012." https:/ /outdooriridi.istryofg/ieseaich- tools /oi,itdoor- recreatlori- economy/
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. "Fact Sheet: Clean Power Plan by the Numbers."
http : / /www.epa.gov /cleanpowerplan /fact- sheet - clean - power- plar7- r7umbers
11. See City of Aspen, Colorado Canary Initiative at http://aspenpitkin.eom /Living -in- the - Valley /Greer7- Initiatives /Canary- Initiative /About -I.Js/
12. University of Michigan and U.S. Green Building Council, 2011. "Green Building and Climate Resilience'. Understanding Impacts and Preparing for
Changing Conditions" htfp / /si,istainablllty.umich.edi,i /news• /u -m- urban - planning- program- i.isgbc- p'ovide- findings- ariticipated- climate- change
13. See Multnomah County, Oregon's 2015 Climate Action Plan at https './hmultco.us /si,istainabillty /201 5- clirnat& action -plan
14. Social Work Policy Institute, 2004. `Resiliency: Citations and Related Book References." http:// www. socialworkpolicy ofg/ieseareh /ieslllency.htrn[
15. See STAR Communities at Tiffs / /www. staruammunities.org/
I& See EcoDistricts at http://ecodistnots.org/
17. Aldrich, Daniel P. University of Chicago Press, 2012. "Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery."
http:// www.pi,ess.i.ichicago.eda /i,icp/ books /book /cliicago /C /bol3601684.htrnl
13. Guerrini, Federico. Forbes Tbch, 2015. "How do You Measure Wellbeing? Sane Monica Has an Answer"
http: / /www.forbes. rom /sites /federivaguen ir7i /201 G /04/27 /twitter- foi,usq u6are- enhance- sar7tSa- mar7ir,E�s- wellbeir7cJ- index✓
19. Ibid.
20. World Wildlife Fund and ICLEI, 2015. "Measuring Up 2015: How US Cities Are Accelerating Progress; Toward National Climate Goals"
http: //icleii.isa. org /wp- coritent /uploads/ 2015 /0& /Mpa si,u'ing- I.Jp_2015.pdf
21. See Resilient COMITIunities for America's Local Climate Leaders Circle at Tiffs / /www. resllientamerica .org /lpadersclrcle/
22. Launched by the Peruvian Presidency of COP20 /CMP10, alongside the Lima Paris Action Agenda In 2014, the Non -State Actor Zone for Climate Action
(NAZCA) SP7ewca ses commitments to action by companies, cities, subnational regions and investors to address climate change. See NAZCA at
http Wrllmateactlon. unficcc.int/
RESILIENT CITIES SUMMIT REPORT, 2015
41
M
City Of Tukwila
------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
TO: Public Safety Committee
FROM: Laurel Humphrey, Council Analyst
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: May 8, 2017
SUBJECT- Public Safety Plan — Location of Fire Station 61
ISSIE
The Public Safety Committee requested a document summarizing why the location for Station
51 has already been identified in the Public Safety Plan, pursuant to the 2009 Development
Agreement with Segale Properties, LLC.
DISCUSSION
The location for Station 51 has already been established to be the intersection of Soiuthcenter
Parkway and South 1801h Street, This is pursuant to a Development Agreement (and
subsequent amendments/addenda) that was signed in 2009 as part of the plan to annex and
develop the Tukwila South area. The land is subject to a deed restriction that only allows the
property to be used for a fire station, The property is also encumbered by a Puget Sound
Energy easement as a result of relocating a high pressure gas line.
The Committee requested a high-level summary that could be shared with the public to help
clarify any concerns or misconceptions about why the City plans to build Station 51 at this
location.
Also included for the Committee's reference is a memo from Chief Wittwer and Assistant Chief
Flores regarding the Fire Department Administration's position on this matter.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is seeking Committee feedback on the FAQ, and if it is satisfactory it will be posted on the
Public Safety Plan website and distributed to the full Council.
ATTACHMENTS
• Draft FAQ
• Fire Administration Memo dated April 21, 2017
W
r-YA
Public Safety Plan - Fire Station 51 Location
` star Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the location of Fire Station 51 already established in the Public Safety Plan?
In 2010, the City of Tukwila annexed approximately 259 acres of land bordered by S. 180th Street, the
Green River, S. 204th Street, and Orillia Road/1-5 for an area of future development to be known as
Tukwila South. To prepare for this annexation, the City entered into a 2009 Development Agreement
with Segale Properties, LLC to detail mutually agreed upon rules for land use and to plan for City services
and infrastructure for the new area of the city, To plan for future fire service, the Agreement provided that
Segale would donate up to three acres of land to the City for placement of a fire station, (Attachment 1,
Page 14)
Why will Fire Station 51 be located at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and South 180h
• Street?
This location was determined after detailed analysis that included a study performed by TCA, a national
leader in fire station location and design, as well as Tukwila Fire Department internal analysis. The site
riteni; *utli-ied op ggret--,,r,-re-rd-art& ed-tc -dc[dress-the
KrA
What was the site selection criteria outlined in the Development Agreement?
1) The ability to accommodate a 25,000 gsf building, parking and outdoor storage; 2) Level topography',
3)7�1 cimm�; 5�60 .r w 2&w--3G
onto an arterial street; and 7) located near South 180 but outside the shoreline environment.
(Attachment 1, Page 14)
A geotechnical study conducted in 2012 found that the site was suitable based upon subsurface
exploration, site observations, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, Additionally, the original S.
1781� Street was realigned at a lower, safer grade in 2013. (Attachment 2, Page 29, 31)
Does the City have the option to not locate Fire Station 51 at this site?
No, because there is a deed restriction on the property that means if it is not used to construct a station
it will revert
• its oirig, ina�l ownership, In addition, under a separate 2014 agreement, the City will collect
$• .75 million from Se�gale to finance, design, construct and operate a fire station, The money cannot 4-
used for any other purpose and there is a potential that the City would have to refund some portion of
that total. The City would also have to pay Puget Sound Energy $3.75 million to terminate an easement
related to the relocation of a high-pressure gas line that was moved as part of the street realignment.
(Attachment 2, Page 14)
Have the locations of Fire Stations 52 and 54 already been determined?
The City contracted with Facets C011SUlfing to analyze and recommend locations for Stations 52 and 54
based upon optimum fire service response times citywide. The report is scheduled to be delivered to
the City Council in June.
Where will the Fire Department Headquarters be located?
The City has not yet determined the location of the Department Headquarters.
M.
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayot
TO: Public Safety Committee
CC: Mayor Ekberg
FROM: Jay C. Wittwer, Fire Chief and Chris Flores, Assistant Fire Chief
DATE: April 21, 2017
SUBJECT: Location of Fire Station 61 per the Tukwila South Development Agreement
BACKGROUND
In 2009, the City of Tukwila entered into an agreement with Segale Properties, LLC with regard
to the Tukwila South Development. This memo is intended to serve as a recommendation and
analysis from the current Fire Department Administration on the location of Fire Station 51.
DISCUSSION
The current Tukwila Fire Department Administration has reviewed the documents developed by
TCA, the City's consultant, from 2009 and 2013, titled Headquarters Fire Station Location
Analysis. We further reviewed other City documents related to the Development Agreement
between the City of Tukwila and Segale Properties LLC relevant to the Tukwila South
Development.
Fire Administration concurs that the currently identified location for a relocated Fire Station 51 is
a well-suited location for a fire station. Furthermore, the Tukwila Fire Department Administration
concurs with the memorandum dated April 7, 2017, authored by Rachel Turpin, City Attorney,
and titled Tukwila South Fire Station Property, in its entirety.
The currently projected location for a relocated Station 51 was quickly dismissed in TCA's
November 30, 2009 Final Report, titled Headquarters Fire Station Location Analysis. The
reasons cited were that moving S 1781h was not in the CIP, would require extensive earthwork,
is not a flat site, is in a critical slide area, and would require, the moving of a large gas main.
However, all of this work was subsequently done by Segale Properties, LLC.
The site was then reevaluated by TCA in an amendment to the original document, dated March
25, 2013. Although ranked second in the amendment, it was deemed almost equally preferable
to the higher-ranking site studied. TCA specifically cited the geotechnical report prepared by
GeoEngineers, which showed that the soils at the proposed site on 1801h and Southcenter
Parkway are capable of bearing the load of the proposed fire station without shoring, bracing,
piling, or other extraordinary construction means or methods and containing no hazardous
structures. The most highly rated site would still require the installation of pilings and therefore
would have additional expenses and unknowns associated with construction.
The Tukwila Fire Department Administration met with former Fire Chief Nick Olivas to discuss
his perspective regarding the negotiations and site selection. His opinion was that the selected
site offered superior access to the primary response area, including the area to be developed,
Tukwila Valley, South.
we
-- - - • - 9rVIIAIWLMMnTfI#I
Page 2
Finally, in response to a question raised by Cou,ncilmember Kruller at the April 12, 2017,
Committee of the Whole, there is no requirement that the Fire Department Headquarters be
located at Station 51 in Tukwila Valley South, The location of Headquarters has not been
determined at this time.
INA!U* MI
I
L081
Tukwila Police Department
Public Safety Committee
Quarterly Information Brief
1St Quarter, 2017
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS
LJ Staffing
• New Valley SWAT Training Coordinator
• Officer Tiemann Graduated
•'• New Records Specialist
❑ Recognition
• PD Employee Appreciation Banquet
❖ Employees Of The Quarter
❖ Volunteer Appreciation Event
+ Life Saving Awards
+ 2016 American Legion Award
❖ NW Regional Postal Award
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS
UCommunity Outreach
❖ Bulldog Academy Began 2/9/17
❖CPT Continues With Weekly IRC Presentations
❖ School Lunch Participation
❖ Foster Career Fair
❖ Coffee With A Cop
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS
USignificant Operations & Events
❖ Detective Sturgill and K9 Apollo
❖ Major Investigations
❖ Patrol Operations
❖ Leadership Challenge Trainings
❖ SPRINT Initiative
•The Defender Initiative 7t" Annual Conference on
Public Defense
❖ International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP)
group
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER CRIME STATISTICS
3000
2500
2000
1500
u
1000
500
Case Reports
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
First Quarter
2005 -2017
First Quarter
Average
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER CRIME STATISTICS
Calls for Service
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Calls for Service
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
First Quarter
2005 -2017
First Quarter
Average 2005-
2016
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER CRIME STATISTICS
45
40
35
30
w 25
O 20
15
10
Robbery
N 00
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
N N N N
m o
o
0 0 0
N N N
N
N
m
N
I
N
N
l0
0
N
N
N
First Quarter
2005 -2017
First Quarter
Average
2017 CRIME STATISTICS
14
12
10
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
Robbery Offenses
2017 Compared to Previous Years
i,--,—,—\-----, z..---=\\ -k ,------_---- ,_,„_,:_,,%-_,-. --,;=,„
4
2
Ls:, co - Q
o LL 2 Q 2
c
co
V
O
O • N ,—i N
Z 0 O LL
NI
C
co
Range Since 2005
2016 -2017
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER CRIME STATISTICS
30
25
20
Aggravated Assault
First Quarter
� _ _ _ 2005 -2017
10
Lf) VD N CO Ol 0 r-I (N1 CO LT) VD N
0 0 0 0 0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
First Quarter
Average
O
2017 CRIME STATISTICS
14
12
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
Aggravated Assault Offenses
2017 Compared to Previous Years
10
4
L } L
tD Q v N N - co
o L- L 2 Q 2 - Q Ln 0 z D O LL
Range Since 2005
2016 -2017
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER CRIME STATISTICS
Burglary 1st and 2nd Degree
u�
O O
O O
0 0 0
N N O O O O O
First Quarter
2005 -2017
First Quarter
Average
O
m2017 CRIME STATISTICS
25
20
15
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
Commercial Burglary Offenses
2017 Compared to Previous Years
10
Range Since 2005
2016 -2017
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER CRIME STATISTICS
Residential Burglary
Lr) up
N W
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
N N N N
m o
o
0 0 0
N N N
N
N
m
N
N
0
N
l0
0
N
N
N
First Quarter
2005 -2017
msss es, First Quarter
Average
O
2017 CRIME STATISTICS
30
25
20
15
10
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
Residential Burglary Offenses
2017 Compared to Previous Years
a cc 3
2
a0 a
N
0
> U ^ D
O N rl N
Z 0 O I1
c0
Range Since 2005
2016 -2017
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER CRIME STATISTICS
Auto Theft
l0
0 0
0 0
N N
N
0
0
N
m 0
0 r1
0 0
N N
-1 N
0 0
N N
m
0
N
0 0
N N
l0
0
N
N
0
N
First Quarter
2005 -2017
First Quarter
Average
O
2017 CRIME STATISTICS
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
Auto Theft Offenses
2017 Compared to Previous Years
Range Since 2005
2016 -2017
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
1St QUARTER CRIME STATISTICS
400
350
300
250
v
a=i 200
100
50
Theft from Vehicle
LT) VD N CO al 0 r-I (N CO in to N
0 0 0 0 0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
First Quarter
2005 -2017
First Quarter
Average
O
0 2017 CRIME STATISTICS
140
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
Theft from Vehicle Offenses
2017 Compared to Previous Years
20
L L } L
tD N a- ) co
o LL 2 Q 2 - Q cn 0 ▪ z D O LL
Range Since 2005
—2016 -2017
Public Safety Quarterly Information Brief
Questions?
110