WSSPC Awards in Excellence 1997

Award Recipients

Awarded Category: Excellence in Outreach to Business/Government

Fax Number 503-731-4066
 

1.	How long has this program been operational?
	September 1995 to September 30, 1996. The Task Force continued to meet after Sept. 30, 1996, to prepare draft legislation to be introduced in January 1997.
2.	What are the major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or issue(s) was it designed to address?
	The 13-member Seismic Rehabilitation Task Force was created by the 1995 Oregon Legislature in response to concerns about the seismic strength of Oregon's buildings, since Western Oregon had been upgraded from a Seismic Zone 2b to a 3 in 1993. Its charge was to study the issue of dangerous buildings and recommend a mitigation strategy for Oregon by Sept. 30, 1996. Although the recent code change upgraded the standards for new buildings, Oregon's existing buildings were obviously built before geologists fully understood Oregon's seismic setting and that the west coast was "due" for a major subduction zone earthquake. Concern also grew after earthquakes in 1993 that damaged buildings in Klamath Falls and the Scotts Mills/Mollala area -- including the State Capitol. Although 14 bills were introduced in the 1995 Legislature to address concerns about earthquake preparedness, legislators did not feel prepared with enough information to make informed decisions. So, they created the Task Force through Senate Bill 1057 to study the need to strengthen buildings against earthquake damage. Working with the State Geologist, the Governor appointed 13 members representing various publics -- property owners, state and local governments including building code officials, engineers, geologists, finance and insurance industries and the general public.
3.	Describe the specific activities and operations of the program.
	The Task Force conducted 27 meetings (including "town hall" sessions *in Portland, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Newport and Salem) to research earthquake dangers and receive public input on the issue. Invited speakers included 14 experts in earthquakes, emergency preparedness, building and structural engineering. They reviewed reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, various California agencies, state geology departments, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, cities of Portland and Seattle, and the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. The public was invited to all meetings, with testimony taken from numerous Oregonians and used in drafting the Task Force Report The draft report was issued in May to receive further input. The final report, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings in Oregon, was delivered to Gov. John Kitzhaber during a ceremony on Sept. 30, 1997 and is included in this awards nomination. In brief, the report stated that Oregon was not prepared for a major earthquake and documented the need to "adopt a long-term goal that would achieve rehabilitation of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, those considered to be the most dangerous." This, along with several other recommendations including incentives for building owners, became the foundation for Senate Bill 2139 introduced in the 1997 Oregon Legislature. Although this legislation failed, it continued to strengthen the "seismic awareness path" that began with the 1993 code change and 1995 legislation.
4.	Does this program take a new and creative approach or method? If yes, please describe.
	Yes, this was a new approach in that for the first time, a comprehensive effort was made by a cross-section of Oregonians including special interest groups to gather information about Oregon's seismic setting and propose an action plan to strengthen buildings, emphasizing the urgency of reinforcing URMs and essential or hazardous buildings such as police stations and hospitals. Their challenge was especially high because Oregon - being a relatively "new" earthquake state -- had little if any statewide policies, direction, or coordination regarding seismic issues. For instance, the state has no authority to require upgrades of existing buildings even if they are determined to be unsafe. Realizing they were conducting "grassroots" and "groundbreaking" work, this Task Force met about 30 times over the year, with excellent attendance by members from throughout Oregon! Views were diverse, obviously, because of the tremendous cost involved in strengthening existing buildings and the special interests represented by finance, government, business, science and the general public. They debated questions such as "should mandatory building upgrades be required? Who should pay the cost -the public, or building owners? What incentives should be offered to offset the costs?" The final recommendations were arrived at through consensus -- a major accomplishment, considering the diversity of the group. They wanted to balance the need for public safety with reasonable costs and timelines that building owners and the public would support. This consensus added momentum to the earthquake preparedness issue, and resulted in several news reports and editorials when the final report was released.
5.	What were the program’s start-up costs and source(s) of funding?
	The creation of the Task Force did not include a budget -- all the costs of organizing meetings, travel and arrangements were absorbed by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Task Force members volunteered their time. The final report was produced by DOGAMI, with printing donated by the City of Portland and PacifiCorp.
6.	How many employees (full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this program?
	DOGAMI contributed a .5 FTE for administrative support, in addition to a writer and editor team to produce the final report the last three months of the year-long project. A DOGAMI geologist also served on the Task Force.
7.	To the best of your knowledge, did this program originate in your state?
	Are you aware of similar programs in other states?
	Yes, it originated in Oregon, by governor appointment following passage of Senate Bill 1057. To our knowledge, few if any other states have taken this comprehensive an approach to recommending seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. A chapter in the Task Force Report, "Time Frames Elsewhere" address this comparison.
8.	Has the program been fully implemented?
	Yes -- the Task Force Report resulted in proposed legislation, House Bill 2139. Although the bill was assigned to a legislative Ways and Means Committee, it did not receive a hearing. The 1997 Oregon Legislature spent a majority of its work debating a major property tax limitation measure and school funding issues.
	If No, what actions remain to be taken?
9.	Is there evidence that the program has been effective in achieving its stated purpose(s)? Briefly summarize evaluations (pro and con) of how well the program has addressed the defined problem(s) or issue(s).
	Judging from media coverage and other public response, the Task Force Report has raised the level of awareness for the need to strengthen buildings. The report itself, which fulfills the stated purpose of the project, is extremely comprehensive and represents a consensus view of business, government and the general public. (Pro): Although implementing legislation failed to pass, SB 2139 spawned new partnerships for DOGAMI. The outreach section of this agency will continue its efforts through a new "Seismic Rehabilitation Cadre" involving representatives from hospital and business associations, and others who will help craft a major public education campaign about the need for seismic strengthening of existing buildings. (Con): While the recommendations to strengthen public buildings were designed to be reasonable and conservative in cost and timeframe, the need to first educate legislators and citizens on earthquake risks became evident. More public understanding and support must occur before recommendations can be implemented, especially those involving major expense to taxpayers and building owners.
10.	How has the program changed since its inception? What limitations or obstacles might other states expect to encounter if they attempt to adopt this program?
	The Task Force began with 13 diverse representatives, each seeking information. By the end of the year, the group reflected 13 well-informed "ambassadors" for seismic rehabilitation, each well-versed in addressing the urgent need for Oregon to strengthen its buildings. In adopting this program elsewhere, states obviously need to recognize and work within the political climate of elected officials, business and the general public before recommending costly upgrades to existing buildings - especially when earthquakes pose a remote possibility. A public education program is crucial to building support for changes that come with major pricetags -- and, this type of public awareness, according to some public opinion experts, grows gradually over a several-year period.
11.	Additional comments:
	While we haven't named the members of the Task Force (they are listed in the attached report), we would like to point out the contributions of its chairman, Paul Lorenzini, senior vice president at PacifiCorp., whose leadership and moderation skills helped this diverse group reach consensus. Although the report did not result in passage of state legislation this year, it will contribute to future efforts to protect Oregonians from the catastrophic losses in life and property we expect from Subduction Zone earthquakes.