Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Planning Team Meeting Summary DRAFT
February 28th 2013, 9:00 AM – 12:30 PM
Location: WASPC HQ
3060 Willamette Dr. NE #200; Lacey WA, 98516
Attendees
Planning Team Members: Paula Akerlund, Eric Dickson, Bruce Kuennen, Mary Sue Linville, John Mortenson,
Rob Van Slyke, Marina Tanay.
OSPI Staff: Robert Dengel, Tom Kuehn, Cindy Orr.
Consultant: Sandra Davis, Ken Goettel.
Preliminary Survey Results, Sandra Davis
ECO Resource Group
The public survey for the PDM project started in December and has received high participation thus far. The
survey:
 Was sent out in a press release to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) List Serve as
well as Planning Partner school districts.
 Accomplishes public outreach and determines what responders think about risk.
 Scheduled to close April 1st, but that deadline can be extended. Initially extend to June 1st.
Some preliminary results from the survey thus far, include:
 More than 80 percent of the respondents are school district staff.
 Eighty percent of respondents identified life safety as the biggest concern.
 Earthquakes and severe storms were the hazards of concern most identified.
 Reducing the number of deaths and injuries was the most important goal identified, 62 percent.
 Broader participation by other key stakeholders is desired.
The Planning Team recommended sending the survey to the ESDs, WAMOA, WASBO, PTA groups, EMD,
WSEMA, county emergency managers, etc. to help push it out and generate greater participation. These groups
could post the survey on their website or send emails to their membership. It was also suggested the survey be
resent to the school districts with a request that the survey be posted on their websites.
Action Item: OSPI staff and the consultant will send the survey to more groups to generate a broader pool of
survey respondents.
The Planning Team discussed their thoughts regarding what the highest mitigation priority measure might be
for $5 million. Considerations included:
 Education and training, drills, and an all hazards approach to disaster preparedness; practicing safety;
and evacuation routes were the most common answers.
 A need to have drills on a regular basis to be effective.
 Seismic retrofits.
 Historic buildings.
 Building evacuation routes (e.g. a bridge across creek).
 Mitigation projects focused on the highest risk buildings.
From his experience Kenneth Goettel noted, the highest priority for safety and saving lives is having evacuation
routes for tsunami, lahar and wildfires, where the evacuation route distances are physically measured and the
Page 1 of 4
DRAFT: Subject to change over time
schools undertake robust practice drills. Perhaps the biggest priority is schools in tsunami zones without the
ability to reach high ground. Next are building seismic retrofits for buildings that are likely to collapse.
Review Statewide Risk Assessment and HAZUS Analyses
Kenneth Goettel, Goettel &Associates Inc.
A PowerPoint Presentation was given by Kenneth Goettel. Discussion Included:
 Reliability of reported campus elevations.
 Elevations can be reported in the Inventory and Condition of Schools system (ICOS).
 The importance of inspectors at construction sites to ensure the building design and specifications are
followed.
 Bathymetry definition = measurement of water depth at various places in a body of water.
 Probabilities of manmade events can be estimated but is outside the purview of this project.
 The number of campuses in ICOS will need to be updated at the district level.
Implementation of Goals and Objectives
Review revised Goals and Objectives – Kenneth Goettel, Goettel &Associates Inc.
Brainstorm implementation actions - Sandra Davis, ECO Resource Group
A PowerPoint Presentation was given by Goettel. Discussion and action items included:
 All schools within mapped hazard zones or near hazard zones for tsunamis, lahars, WUI fires and any
other natural or human cause hazard would benefit from developing evacuation plans.
 An evacuation planning template is in the beginning stages at OSPI.
 FEMA grant funding:
o Disaster declarations.
o Local applicants must have an approved hazard mitigation plan in order to be eligible for FEMA
funding.
o Counties may have priorities other than school districts when applying to FEMA for grants.
o Possible availability of grant writers through ESDs.
 A question was raised about whether OSPI or another entity could obtain 100 percent funding for
mitigation projects. A couple of ideas were offered:
o Check with the ESDs that have grant writers to see if they can assist.
o School districts can issue bonds, such as was done in Kodiak, AK.
o FEMA mitigation grants are typically for 75 percent of total mitigation project costs.
Action Item: The Planning Team should send ideas for additional action items to Robert Dengel–even if they
only have draft language.
Action Item: The Planning Team is to send review comments on the draft chapters of the OSPI K-12 Facilities
Mitigation Plan to Robert Dengel by Monday, March 18th. The types of comments that are most helpful are
those that 1) help to make the document more understandable, 2) identify things that are missing, and/or 3)
point out things it would be good to include. Please read through a public/stakeholder lenses.
Planning Partner Toolkit and Preliminary Training Plan
Kenneth Goettel, Goettel &Associates Inc. and Sandra Davis, ECO Resource Group
Robert–Grant letters have been sent to the Planning Partners so they can hire consultants to collect facility
information. OSPI will follow up with the Certified Consultants to sharpen their skill sets. The goal is to have
facility information from participating schools in two or three months.
Page 2 of 4
DRAFT: Subject to change over time
Discussion Included: Districts will input the data with the assistance of their consultant.
A map was distributed showing the location of the Planning Partners. One Planning Partner, Deer Park,
dropped out due to a lack of identified natural hazards. Three additional districts have indicated they may also
withdraw.
Components of the toolkit included in the PDM grant:
 Letter of Intent to link/participate in the regional plan.
 Planning partner expectations package.
 Risk assessment data package.
 Catalog of mitigation alternatives broken down by hazard of concern.
 Copy of the regional plan goals/objectives.
 A jurisdictional annex template.
 Instructions on how to complete the jurisdictional annex template.
 Sample public information surveys.
 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Mitigation Grant eligibility criteria.
 A catalog of federal grant programs that can fund hazard mitigation initiatives.
 A copy of the plan maintenance criteria.
 Sample resolution adopting the regional plan, and
 Prescribed process for submitting linked plan to Washington State Emergency Management Division
and FEMA for review/approval.
A draft of the toolkit will go to the Planning Team members for review and input prior to trainings being
provided to the Planning Partners. Training will be in the form of workshops and a webinar.
Based on the location of the Planning Partners, it is anticipated training will take place in:
 Wenatchee.
 Everett.
 Thurston County.
 Kelso or further south.
 A webinar will be held for those who cannot attend at specific locations.
Discussion included:
 Tukwila was suggested as a potential location for one of the trainings, particularly if the training on the
eastside doesn’t occur.
 Whether or not the three eastside districts will be replaced if they decide to drop out of the program.
 It was suggested the process for developing a stand-alone district hazard mitigation plan or annex be
broken down into monthly tasks to may make it easier for the districts to navigate.
Action Item: Mary Sue Linville will send a list of possible meeting locations for the Tukwila area.
Action Item: OSPI will send a copy of the draft toolkit to the Planning Team when it is ready (~April).
Review Milestones, Next Meeting Date, and Conduct Meeting Wrap-up
Sandra Davis, ECO Resource Group
The next meeting of the Planning Team will be in the late May/June time period.
Consensus: Planning Team members will be available to participate through the summer.
Page 3 of 4
DRAFT: Subject to change over time
Action Item: Team members will send feedback on their availability to Robert for the last week of May and
first week of June.
The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Page 4 of 4
DRAFT: Subject to change over time