Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUtilities 2011-06-28 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET Distribution: G. Labanara City of Tukwila D. Quinn A. Le D. Robertson Utilities Committee K. Hougardy S. Kerslake Clerk File Copy A. Ekberg 2 Extra Mayor De'Sean Quinn, Chair SLancaster erton e -mail cover to: S. Hunstock ♦O Dennis Robertson K. Huns C. O'Flaherty, A. Le D. Almberg Dideon, B. Giberson ♦i♦ Kathy Hougardy B. Saxton, S. Norris, F. Iriarte M. Hart, S. Kirby R. Tischmak AGENDA TUESDAY, JUNE 28 2011 Time: 5:00 PM Place: Conference Room #1 Item Recommended Action Page 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a. 2010/2011 Small Drainage Program a. Forward to 7/11/11 C.O.W. Pg. 1 Bid Award and 7/18/11 Regular Meeting b. Howard Hanson Dam Flood Response b. Forward to 7/11/11 C.O.W. Pg. 5 Tukwila Levee Repairs Maintenance and 7/18/11 Regular Meeting Consultant Recommendation and Agreement c. NPDES 2011 Stormwater Community Survey c. For Information Only Pg. 25 3. ANNOUNCEMENT(S) 4. MISCELLANEOUS Future Agendas: Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 x Y City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton UTILITIES COMMITTEE FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Directory 01 DATE: June 24, 2011 SUBJECT: 2010/2011 Small Drainaqe Proqram Project No. 91041201 BID AWARD ISSUE Award the bid for construction of the 2010/2011 Small Drainage Program. BACKGROUND The Small Drainage Program constructs drainage projects throughout the City that are too large for City staff to complete, but are smaller than a typical capital improvement project. The projects originate from citizen complaints and from the maintenance staff and are compiled on the Small Drainage Project List. Each year the projects are prioritized based on need, expense, permitting requirements, and length of time on the list. The highest priority projects are designed and constructed. This year's construction includes projects that were scheduled for construction in 2010 but were delayed due to permitting issues, as well as projects from the Private Storm System Adoption Rehabilitation Program (Sites 1 5). The 2010/2011 Small Drainage Program will provide drainage improvements at nine locations listed on page 2 of this memo. ANALYSIS The project was advertised for bids on June 8 and 15, 2011. Four bids were received and opened on June 22, 2011. The bids were checked and tabulated. Green River Construction, Inc. is the low bidder with a bid of $788,005.50. The engineer's base bid estimate was $854,330.00. Green River Construction successfully constructed the 2009 Small Drainage Project. BUDGET AND BID SUMMARY (All amounts include sales tax.) Bid Results Estimate Budqet Bid Amount $788,005.50 $854,330.00 SDP (2011) Budget (pg. 144) $971,000.00 Private Storm Budget (pg. 145) 373,000.00 Contingency (15 118,200.83 128,149.50 0.00 Total $906.206.33 $982.479.50 $1.344.000.00 RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to award the construction of the 2010/2011 Small Drainage Program to Green River Construction, Inc. in the amount of $788,005.50 for consideration at the July 11, 2011 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent July 18, 2011 Regular Meeting. W: \PW Eng \PROJECTSW- DR Projects\91041201 (Small Drainage 2010- 2011) \Design \Design 2011 \Info Memo Bid Award 2010 -11 sb.doc 1 The 2010/11 Small Drainage Proaram includes: Site 1) Wells Trucking (S. 128 St West of East Marginal Way S) Replace existing failing pipe on private property that drains a public roadway. Site 2) Tukwila International Blvd. (south of SR 599) Replace existing failed 18" CMP with new pipe Site 3) East Marginal Way S (S 94 PI) Install a new catch basin to solve ponding issue Site 4) 44 Ave S (between S 122n and S 124 Install a drainage system Site 5) Evergreen Foods (T.I.B. and 13800 block) Reline and replace an existing failing pipe on private property that drains a public roadway. Site 6) S122 nd Street (between Duwamish River and 44 Ave S) Pipe relining Site 7) 40 Ave S (Southgate Creek) Pipe relining Site 8) Gilliam Creek Regional Detention Facility Control Structure Access Site9) Gilliam Creek at Andover Park E Trash rack Private Storm System Adoption Rehabilitation Program Project Attachments: Project Location Map Bid Tabulations 2 Q „n P 2010/2011 Site 3 Annual Neighborhood Drainage Program t 9� "n try s ,4 T 3 "Yrl ,99 m I 1111h St f Site 6 Site 2, Ne Site 4 W F E Site 1 Not to Scale Site 7 Site 5 I s,aa 1 14 I -11 \F ;hs Site 8 s, Site 9 wa I t )L LP i z ao, s,00;ns; m ,u Date. June 21, 2011 m., 3 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010/2011 Small Drainage Program Certified Old Tabulation June 22, 2011 Bidder No Bidder No 3 KPG B CeOln d Bid Tabula Engineer's Eatimabe R.L. Alla Company Green River Conatrudon, Inc. Laser Underground & Earthworks, Inc.. Road Construe Ion Northwest Section Unit Total No. No. Rem Quantity Unit Coat Cost Unit Total ' Cost Cost Unit Total ' Cost Cost Unit Total Cost • Cost Unit . Total Coat . Cost �• ROADWAY 15 1.04 Minor Chan•e 1 FA $15000 $ 15 000 - - 000,00 515000.00 $15,000.00 $15000.00 1 1.09 Mobilization 1 LS $65,000 $ 85000 380,000.00 580,000,00 544,000,00 044,000.00 895,000.00 $95,000.00 583,400.00 383,400,00 2 1 -07 Tem••ra Water Pollution /Erosion Control 1 LS 020 000 $ 20000 55000.00 $5000.00 $12,500.00 $12 500.00 515,000.00 ' $15 000.00 $18,700.00 - $16700.00 3 1 -09 Resolution of Utili CorRds 1 FA 520 000 $ 20000 $2000000 .20 000.00 $20 000.00 $20,000.00 020 000.00 $20 000.00 $20,000.00 $20 000.00 r • - '+' , ' 555 5 50 000 39 000.00 fe 000.00 525 00000 525 000.00 520 000.00 $20,000.00 $04 000.00 $04,000.00 5 2•02 Clearin• and Grubbin• 1 LS 315000 $ 15,000 540 000.00 540,000.00 $14000.00 $14000,00 $15,000.00 515000.00 $37 200.00 $37200.00 8 2 -02 Pavement Removal • 520 SY $10 5 5200 00,00 03 120.00 $5.00 52,800.00 $30.00 515,800.05 512.00 06,240,00 7 2-02 Removal of Concrete Extruded Curb 20 LF $10 $ 200 $1.00 $20.00 $300 $00.00 $50.00 $1,000.00 $5.00 $100.00 8 2.03 Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Incl. Haul 75 CY 530 $ 2250 510,00 $750.00 $1000 $1200.00 $35.00 $2625.00 532.00 $2400.00 9 2 -03 Gravel Borrow Indudin• Haul 600 TN $20 0 12 000 510.00 $8 000.00 920.50 $12 300.00 $22.00 $13 200.00 $20.50 $12 300.00 10 2 -05 Contaminated Soil Excavaton Ind. Haul 500 TN $180 $ 90 000 $20.00 $10,000.00 ' $71.00 $35,500.00 $150.00 $75,000.00 $25.00 $12,500.00 11 209 Controlled Density Fiit 20 CY 0110 $ 2,200 $50,00 01,000.00 $104.00 $2,080.00 $200.00 $4,000.00 $140.00 $2,800.00 12 4 -04 Crushed Sudacinr T•• Course 595 TN $30 $ 17850 $20.00 $11900.05 $20.50 $12 197.50 $25.00 $14875.00 $38.00 $22810.00 250 5280.05 085 800.00 $155.00 $30 425.00 5150.00 535 250.00 $162.00 538 07000 14 5.04 HMA Thickened Edge dQ 720 IF $5 $ 1 800 $2.00 5840.00 � $3.00 $980.00 I $10.00 $3,200.00 $2.75 $680.00 15 8•04 Cement Concrete Extruded Curb 20 -LF $20 5 400 $5.00 5100.00 57.00 $140.00 $50.00 - $1,000.00 $34.00 $880.00 $4,800.00 $720.00 16 5-20 Traffic Loop Replacement Complete 1 LS 55,500 0 5.500 55,000.00 $10.00 05,000.00 5160.00 58000,00 $50.00 18000.00 $800.00 $5,000.00 $200.00 $5,000.00 $3 200.00 $4,800.00 t $45.00 RAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES -'... . . 520 $ 320 17 7 -05 Stone Drain Marker 16 EA 18 8 -22 Replace Exist . Channelizabon 1 LS $2500 $ 2500 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3500.00 $3 500.00 $5000.00 55000,00 $3400.00 53400.00 ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT • - . ' . 19 7 -15 - emovean• - e•lace ' Ater ervlce onnec on • $800 40,05 $900.00 $4,500.00 .1500.00 $ 500,0 - 1500.00 • 50'. "' 050.,, $1' 250.00' . 53100.001 $742.50 20 8-01 To•soil/Flne Com•ost 70 CY 540 $ . 2800 520.00 01400.00 038.00 52,660.00 $50.00 $3500.00 545.00 21 8-01 Hydroseed 165 57 $3 $ 495 $2.00 $330.00 $8.00 51320.00 $10.00 $7650.00 $4.50 22 8-01 Erosion Control Blanket 380 SY $8 $ 3,040 $4.00 $1,520.00 $5.00 51,900.00 $10.00 $3,800.00 05.50 52,090.00 23 8 -01 PSIPE Ater CinnatumMne Ma•le 1 Gal. Cont. 110 EA $10 $ 1 100 01000 11 100.00 512.95 51,424.50 $50.00 $5,500.00 $11.50 01 285.00 ,J1L12.l•'u'N ^n'DLL- •lialt. 99. 110 EA $10 $ 1,100 $10,00 01,100.00 $11.95 $1,314.50 I $50.00 $50.00 55500.00 $5,500.00 $11.50 011.50 $1 265,00 $1,285.00 25 8-01 PSIPE RUbus Parvifolie/Ihlmbleseny, l Gal. Cont 28 8 -01 PSIPE Symphodcsrpus AWUS/Snowbeny, 1 Gel. Cont. 110 EA $10 $ 1100 510.00 $1,100.00 $11,95 $1,314.50 $50.00 $5,500.00 $11.50 $1,265.00 27 8-02 Properly Restoration I FA $12 000 $ 10,000 $10 000.00 510,000.00p $10,000.00 $10,000,00 510,000.00 510,000.00 510,000.00 510,000.00 28 8-12 Remove and Replace Chainlink Fence 25 LF 530 $ 750 $50.00 $1,250.00 $26.00 $650.00 $50.00 01,250.00 $32.00 5800.00 29 849 Remove and Replace Mailbox 3 EA $500 5 1,500 $400.00 51,200.00 M. $125.00 $375.00 $500.90 $1,500.00 5465.00 01,395.00 STORM 30 DRAINAGE 2.09 . • . ' , ... ..... • .,- .... Shorn • .. I 31 2.12 Construction Geotextile for Separation 255 SY $5 000 $ 1,325 52.00 5530.00 $125.00 333 125.00 000.00 510.00 115,000,00 $2,650.00 $3200.00 $3.70 $3,200.00 $880.50 32 6.03 Trash Rack and Access for Control Structure, Complete i LS $55,000 $ 55,000 190 000.00 $50,000.00 $35,810.00 $39 810.00 550,000.00 $50,000.00 $42,800.00 $42,800.00 33 6-03 Trash Rack for Inlet Pi •: •ale 1 LS $25000 $ 25000 $19000.00 $19,050.00 512000.00 512000,00 $20000.00 $20000.00 $5925.00 $9525.00 34 7 -04 Storm Drain Pipe, 12" Ductile Iron 1,070 LF $70 $ 74 500 $40.00 $42 800.00 $58.00 $62 080,00 390.00 $90.00 $130.00 098,300.00 924,750.00 $8,450.00 $80.50 597.25 $125.00 566 135.00 026,743.75 $8,125.00 35 7-04 Storm Drain Pipe, 18" PVC 275 LF 575 $ 20 8, $50.00 513,750.00 565.00 $17 875.00 38 7 -04 Storm Drain Pipe, 18" HDPE 65 LF 5100 $ 8 5004 $70.00 $4,550.00 $98.00 $B 370.00 37 7 -04 Storm Drain Pipe, 24" HDPE 125 IF $150 $ 18,750 $100.00 $12,500.00 $109.00 513,825.00 $150.00 $18,750.00 $160.00 $20,000.00 38 7 -04 Storm Drain Pipe, 24" HDPE Bend W/ Vent 1 EA $500 5 000 $3 000.00 $3 000.00 $1,200.00 $15.00 $1,200.00 $6,375.00 $3,000.00 $30.00 - $3,000.00 $12,750.00 , $800.00 $10.00 1 $800.00 $4,250.00 39 7 -04 Remove/Abandon Existing Storm Drain Pipe 425 LF 515 S 0,375 $3.00 51,275.00 40 7-05 Conned to Existing Drainage Structure 4 EA $1,000 $ 4,000 8900,00 13,800,00 $1,500.00 $8 000,00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $725.00 52,90000 1 41 7 -05 Cetch Basin T • e1- 13 FA 51000 $ 13000 $900.00 $11700.00 51100.00 $14300,00 $2.000.00 $20000.00 $1160.00 $15080.00 42 705 Catch Basin Type 2, 481n. Diam. 8 EA $4500 $ 27,000 $2,000.00 $12,000.00 $3,400.00 $20.40000 $4,000.00 $24,000.00 $3,850.00 ' $21,900.00 $5,350.00 43 7 -05 Catch Basin Type 2,_54 In. Diem. 1 EA 55,500 $ 5,500 $3,000.00 03,000.00 53,900.00 53600.00 1 $6,000.00 58,000.00 05,350,00 44 7 -05 Overflow Debris Cage, 48 fn. Diem. 1 EA $800 $ 600 $3 000.00 $3,000.00 52,200,00 $2,200.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $1,825.00 $1,025.00 45 7 -05 Construct Outfall 1 LS $2,500 $ 2,500 530 000.00 $30,000.00 58,500.00 $8,500.00' 515,000.00 615,000.00 $2,400.00 02,40000 48 7 -05 Trench Bluff Pillow, Complete 1 LS 54000 5 4,000' $25 000.00 825,000,00 58,800.00 08,800.00 518,000,00 618,000,00 $16,300.00 $16,300.00 485 7 -05 Exist! • Dram a.e Structure Modifications, Site 1 Com•lele 1 LS $e 000 5 8 000 560 000.00 $80 000.00 56150.00 Se 150.00 l 510.000.00 $10,000.00 $1 000.00 51 000.00 47 7-06 Pothole Exlstin• Utilities - 5 FA $300 $ 1500 $100.00 $500.00 $850.00 $4,250.00 51000.00 05000.00 5550.00 02750.00' 48 7 -10 Rehabilitate 36" CMP Pipe, Site 5 1 LS $40,000 $ 40,000 $100,000,00 $100,000.00 $47318.00 $47,318.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $44,450.00 $44,450.00 49 7 -10 Rehabilitate 38" CMP Pi•= Site 6 1 LS $80000 4 80000 $100000.00 $100000,00 $123,952.00 $123952,00 - 135000.00 5135000.00 5123 00.00 $123100.00 50 7 -10 Rehabilitate 3W CMP PI • ., Site 7 1. LS $35 000 5 35 000 $80 000.00 580 000.00 $53 730.00 553 730,00 570 000.00 $70 000.00 $52 425.00 $52 425.00 51 7 -10 Remove PI•8 Obstruction 1 FA $5 000 $ 5 000 $5 000.00 $5 000.00 55 000.00 $5 000,00 $5 000.00 $5 000.00 $5 000.00 $5 000.00 52 7 -20 Tem • •re Water B pass S 'tern 1 LS $15 000 $ 15 000 55 000.00 $5 000.00 $8 900.00 58 900.00 $25 000.00 $26 000.00 58,000.00 $8 000.00 53 8.01 High Visibility Fence 200 180 LF TN $5 $100 $ 1000 3 18 000 59.00 575.00 $1,800,00 $12 00� 0.00 $4.00 $40.25 $800.00 $7 720.00 $5.00 535.00 $1,000.00 24 800.00 $3.40 581,00 $880.00 $8 700.00 54 B -15 Quarry Spells 6 Light Loose Rip Rap for Channel Protection TOTAL CALCULATED WO 5 854,330 BID • BID PROPOSAL FORM 940,196.00 788,006.50 1,082,600.00 913,166.76 TOTAL DIFFERENCE n $ 940,195.00 $ 788,006.50 $ 1,082,600.00 $ 913,186,76 CeOln d Bid Tabula City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Utilities Committee FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director DATE: June 24, 2011 SUBJECT: Howard Hanson Dam Flood Response /Tukwila Levee Repairs Maintenance Project No. 10901301 Consultant Recommendation Agreement ISSUE Approve KBA, Inc. for design and construction management services for the Howard Hanson Dam Flood Response project. BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila, King County, Kent, and Auburn installed temporary flood protection measures in 2009 in response to the damage sustained and subsequent reduced flood protection from the Howard Hanson Dam. These temporary measures included Supersacks placed along the Tukwila 205 levee and Hesco barriers placed along West Valley Highway. The Army Corps of Engineers has notified the affected jurisdictions that they expect to announce this Fall that all repairs have been completed to the Howard Hanson Dam and that the dam is operating at full protection level. DISCUSSION After notification by the Corps of Engineers that the dam is fully functional, Valley Cities have agreed to determine as a group when the temporary flood measures will be removed. Given the Corps level of confidence that the current repair work will be completed this Fall and no further work is required, the cities and King County have agreed that the temporary measures can be removed following the flood season in 2012. Each jurisdiction will be responsible for the removal and restoration within their own jurisdiction. The installation of the Supersacks and Hesco barriers required traffic modifications to West Valley Highway, grading work on public and private property, and caused damage to the Tukwila 205 Levee. Therefore, along with removal of the temporary measures, restoration and repair work will also be needed, including full restoration of the Green River Trail. To design and manage this construction project, the current Consultant Roster was reviewed and three firms were short- listed. The firms were: KBA Inc., PACE Engineers, and CH2M Hill. The Summary of Qualifications was evaluated for each firm and KBA, Inc. was selected as the firm that best met requirements. KBA, Inc. has worked with the City in deploying the temporary measures and is currently working with the City on the Southcenter Parkway Extension project. BUDGET SUMMARY Contract Budget Design /Construction Management 298,000.00 400,000.00 Construction 1,600,000.00 Total 298.000.00 2.000.000.00 RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to approve a Design and Construction Management Agreement with KBA, Inc. in the amount of $298,000.00 for the Tukwila Levee Repairs and Maintenance Project and consider this item at the July 11, 2011 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent July 18, 2011 Regular Meeting. Attachments: Consultant Agreement Consultant Selection Sheet Pg 81 2011 -2016 CIP Sheet WAPW Eng \PROJECTS\A- DR Projects \10901301 (Tukwila Levee Repair and Maintenance) \Design\INFORMATION MEMO Design and Construction.doc 5 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Tukwila, Washington, herein -after referred to as "the City and _KBA. Inc. hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant in consideration of the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified. 1. Project Designation. The Consultant is retained by the City to perform design and construction management services in connection with the project titled Tukwila Levee Repair and Maintenance Proiect. 2. Scope of Services. The Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, including the provision of all labor, materials, equipment and supplies. 3. Time for Performance. Work under this contract shall commence upon the giving of written notice by the City to the Consultant to proceed. The Consultant shall perform all services and provide all work product required pursuant to this Agreement within 550 calendar days from the date written notice is given to proceed, unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City. 4. Payment. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work and for services rendered under this Agreement as follows: A. Payment for the work provided by the Consultant shall be made as provided on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, provided that the total amount of payment to the Consultant shall not exceed $298.000.00 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the City. B. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City once per month during the progress of the work for partial payment for that portion of the project completed to date. Such vouchers will be checked by the City and, upon approval thereof, payment shall be made to the Consultant in the amount approved. C. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the total contract price earned will be made promptly upon its ascertainment and verification by the City after the completion of the work under this Agreement and its acceptance by the City. D. Payment is provided in this section shall be full compensation for work performed, services rendered, and for all materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. E. The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City and state for a period of three (3) years after final payments. Copies shall be made available upon request. 1 6 5. Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, drawings, specifications and other materials produced by the Consultant in connection with the services rendered under this Agreement "Documents shall be the property of the City whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible copies, of drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in connection with the Consultant's endeavors. The Consultant shall not be responsible for any modifications to the Documents made by the City, nor for any use of the said Documents by the City on any project other than the project specified in this Agreement. 6. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall, in performing the services contemplated by this Agreement, faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations, applicable to the services to be rendered under this Agreement. 7. Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, including attorney's fees, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by any negligent act, omission or failure of the Consultant, its officers, agents and employees, in performing the work required by this Agreement. With respect to the performance of this Agreement and as to claims against the City, its officers, agents and employees, the Consultant expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees, and agrees that the obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for in this paragraph extends to any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the Consultant. This waiver is mutually negotiated by the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to any damage resulting from the sole negligence of the City, its agents and employees. To the extent any of the damages referenced by this paragraph were caused by or resulted from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents or employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless is valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Consultant, its officers, agents and employees. 8. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in force throughout the duration of this contract comprehensive general liability insurance, with a minimum coverage of $500,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; and $500,000 per occurrence/ aggregate for property damage, and professional liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and annual aggregate. Said general liability policy shall name the City of Tukwila as an additional named insured. In case of cancellation and nonrenewal of any of the required insurance coverage, the Consultant shall, within two business days of their receipt of such notice of cancellation, forward same to the City. Certificates of coverage as required by this section shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. 9. Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant is an inde- pendent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing 2 7 in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. Neither the Consultant nor any employee of the Consultant shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or for contributing to the state industrial insurance program, otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the Consultant, or any employee of the Consultant. 10. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, creed, age, sex or the presence of any physical or sensory handicap in the selection and retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies. 12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. 13. Non Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 14. Termination. A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice to the Consultant. B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses. 15. Attorneys Fees and Costs. In the event either party shall bring suit against the other to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such suit shall be entitled to recover its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in such suit from the losing party. 3 8 16. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address: City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Kristen A. Bettv. PE KBA. Inc. 11000 Main Street Bellevue. WA. 98004 17. Integrated Agreement. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both the City and the Consultant. DATED this day of 2011. CITY OF TUKWILA CONSULTANT By. Mayor Printed Kristen A. Betty, PE Title: President Attest /Authenticated: Approved as to Form: City Clerk Office of the City Attorney 4 9 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES for Tukwila Levee Repair and Maintenance Project Contract No. KBA, Inc. (Consultant) and their Subconsultant, KPG, Inc. (Subconsultant) will provide services to the City of Tukwila (City) for the Project known as Tukwila Levee Repair and Maintenance Project. As detailed in the following Scope of Services: The Consultant will provide services during the design, bidding, construction, and project closeout stages of the Project. This will include assessment of existing conditions, determination of needs for any site restoration, preparation of necessary traffic control and channelization plans, coordination with WSDOT, railroad, and other stakeholders. The Subconsultant will provide design and permitting coordination and preparation services, prepare the bid package, and provide survey and other support. Project Description: This project is the removal of the protective measures installed in 2009 on top of the Green River levee and around Tukwila's Central Business District, together with some levee repair and site restoration. Major items of work include: Removal of Super Sacks and Hesco Barriers, located near City Maintenance Facility (approximately 300 LF of Hesco Barrier) and surround the Central Business District (CBD) Removal of Concrete Barrier on West Valley Highway Rechannelization along West Valley Highway and removal of signs placed during the initial 2009 installation Re- paving of the paved portions of the existing trail General restoration as required to restore approximate existing conditions Levee repair and cleanup, at the direction of the Corps of Engineers I. DETAILED TASK DESCRIPTION CONSULTANT (KBA) A. Project Management 1. Day -to -day project management: liaison and coordinate with City on a regular basis to discuss Project issues and status. Decide on best modes and frequency of communication with the City and Subconsultants, and use them. 2. Manage Team, comprised of Consultant's staff and Subconsultants. Organize and layout work for Team. 3. Review monthly expenditures and Team scope activities. Prepare and submit to City, invoices and progress report describing services performed. Prepare and submit reporting required by funding source(s), if any. Deliverables Monthly invoices and progress reports B. Design Phase Services 1. Participate in a field review with the Subconsultant and the City to determine the current condition of the site and levee system, and assist in defining the scope and magnitude of the levee restoration, including the type of temporary structures to be removed, underlying levee surfacing, and general restoration needs. SAProjedslContacts\ CheN\ TUkwila -046- TuKvilaleveeCleamp\ Drafts$ Negctiat onRemrdsl6ah.u,eD.R,\ExhA- Scope -KBA- (FINAL)- 20110608.do 1 of 11 10 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 2. Advise the Subconsultant on challenging constructability issues, to aid in their development of Bid Documents. 3. Assist the City and the Subconsultant in the application and coordination with any necessary permitting agencies and governing bodies. This is intended to include review of correspondence to the US Army Corps of Engineers, King County Flood Control District, WSDOT, and Union Pacific Railroad. 4. Prepare property use agreements for approval by the City. Meet with affected property owners to work toward gaining access to allow the removal of the protective measures. 5. Constructability Reviews. Participate in constructability reviews of Subconsultant's documents and design at the following milestones: a. 30% Stage Review. Review the 30% Plans and Preliminary Engineer's Estimate. i. Review at this stage will be for areas of cost saving opportunities, Constructability, operability, and general clarity. ii. One review cycle. Meet with City and /or Designer (Subconsultant) staff to present and discuss comments. Submit letter report or meeting notes detailing limits of the review, in the time and budget available, and highlighting key areas of concern. b. 90% Stage Review. L Review the 90% Plans, Contract Provisions, and Engineer's Estimate for such things as: (a) Areas of cost saving opportunities (b) Constructability and operability (c) General clarity (d) Consistency among standard specifications, amendments, and special provisions /bid items (e) Completeness and adequacy of bidding and contracting documents /forms (f) Special Provisions for non standard items (g) Pay items for construction elements ii. One review cycle. Meet with City and /or Designer (Subconsultant) staff to present and discuss comments. Prepare and submit Constructability Review Comments spreadsheet, along with red -line markup of the documents. Deliverables Property use agreements 30% stage letter report 90% stage Constructability Review Comments spreadsheet, and red -line markups C. Bid Phase Services 1. Assist Subconsultant with answering questions during the bidding period. Bidder Review. Based on the bid tabulation prepared by the Subconsultant, review the bid results on the project for irregularities. Review low bidder for responsibility and responsiveness. Deliverables Bid and Bidder evaluations and checklists D. Preconstruction Services 1. Prepare a Construction Management Plan (CM Plan) for the project. The CM Plan will be developed based on the Consultant's boilerplate document and modified to adapt to and include City practices and funding agency requirements, including forms to be used on the project. Submit to City for review and comment and finalize based on those comments. The CM Plan will cover at least the following: S1ProjectslConlraoskClimhTukwila1BP11-046- Tukwi C ea nuplDraf lsBNegotiationRecoNs9n- house0raftslExhA -Scope -KBA- (FINAL)- 2�110608.rlocx 2 of 11 11 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 a. Communication and coordination between the CM Team, Designer (Subconsultant), City and other stakeholders b. Project procedures and forms c. Document control system 2. Organize and lead preconstruction conference. a. Prepare and distribute notices b. Prepare agenda c. Conduct the meeting d. Prepare and distribute meeting notes to attendees and affected agencies 3. Provide one set of preconstruction photographs and video. Deliverables Construction Management Plan, draft and final Preconstruction Conference Notice, Agenda, and Notes Preconstruction photos, digital files on CD /DVD or video file on DVD E. Construction Services Contract Administration 1. Liaison with the City, Construction Contractor, Designer (Subconsultant), appropriate agencies, property owners, and utilities. 2. Provide the City with brief monthly construction progress reports, highlighting progress and advising of issues which are likely to impact cost, schedule, or quality /scope. 3. Schedule Review. a. Review Construction Contractor's schedules for compliance with Contract Documents. b. Monitor the Construction Contractor's conformance to schedule and require revised schedules when needed. Advise City of schedule changes. 4. Progress Meetings. Lead regular (usually weekly) progress meetings with the Construction Contractor, including City pre- briefing, and preparing weekly meeting agenda and meeting notes, and distributing copies to attendees. Track outstanding issues on a weekly basis. 5. Update CM Plan as needed to reflect changes in policy and /or procedure that occur during the Project, and orient CM Team to the changes. 6. Manage Submittal Process. Track and review, or cause to be reviewed by other appropriate party, work plans, shop drawings, samples, test reports, and other data submitted by the Construction Contractor, for general conformance to the Contract Documents. 7. Manage RFI (Request for Information) process. Track and review /evaluate, or cause to be reviewed evaluated by other appropriate party, RFIs. Manage responses to RFIs. 8. Change Management. Evaluate entitlement, and prepare scope, impact, and independent estimate for change orders. Facilitate resolution of change orders. 9. Monthly Pay Requests. Prepare monthly requests for payment and /or review payment requests submitted by the Construction Contractor. Review with City and Construction Contractor, and recommend approval, as appropriate. 10. Evaluate Construction Contractor's Schedule of Values for lump sum items. Review the Contract Price allocations and verify that such allocations are made in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 11. Assist the City in the investigation of malfunctions or failures during construction. 12. Public Information. Provide information for City to prepare media communications and public notices on Project status. Provide information for City's inclusion into a Project website and /or newsletters, if requested. S:1 ProjedslConl2ctslCtienllTukwila\ BP 46- TukwilaLeveeCleanupl Dratls& NegotiaBonRecordslln house0raflslExhA- Scope -KBA- (FINAL)- 20110608.docx 3 of 11 12 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 13. Record Drawings. Review not less than monthly, the Construction Contractor's redline set of contract plans. Maintain a CM Team set of conformed drawings tracking plan changes, location of discovered anomalies, and other items, as encountered by the CM team. Use these markups to check the progress of the Contractor prepared Record Drawings. 14. Document Control. Establish and maintain document filing and tracking systems, following City guidelines and meeting funding agency requirements. Collect, organize, and prepare documentation on the Project. 15. Project Closeout. Prepare Certificates of Substantial (including punch list), Physical, and Final Completion. Prepare final pay estimate. 16. Final Records. Compile and convey final project records, transferring to the City for archiving at final acceptance of the Project. Records will consist of hard copy originals. Deliverables Monthly Construction Progress Reports Schedule review comments Meeting agendas and notes Submittal log RFllog Change Order(s) Progress pay requests Certificates of Completion and punch list(s) Final records hard copy F. Construction Services Field 1. Observe the technical conduct of the construction, including providing day -to -day contact with the Construction Contractor, City, utilities, and other stakeholders, and monitor for adherence to the Contract Documents. The Consultant's personnel will act in accordance with Sections 1 -05.1 and 1 -05.2 of the Standard Specifications. 2. Observe material, workmanship, and construction areas for compliance with the Contract Documents and applicable codes, and notify Construction Contractor of noncompliance. Advise the City of any non conforming work observed during site visits. 3. Prepare daily construction reports, recording the Construction Contractors' operations as actually observed by the Consultant; includes quantities of work placed that day, Contractor's equipment and crews, and other pertinent information. 4. Interpret Contract Documents, in coordination with Designer (Subconsultant). 5. Decide questions which may arise as to the quality and acceptability of material furnished, work performed, and rate of progress of work performed by the Construction Contractor. 6. Establish communications with adjacent property owners. Respond to questions from property owners and the general public. 7. Coordinate with permit holders on the Project to monitor compliance with approved permits, if applicable. 8. Prepare field records and documents to help assure the Project is administered in accordance with City requirements. 9. Attend and actively participate in regular on -site meetings. 10. Take periodic digital photographs during the course of construction. Photographs to be labeled and organized as detailed in the CM Plan. S' \Projecls\Contmcts \Client\ Tukwilat BP11-0 46- Tu krvilaLev eCleanup�D rafls8NegotialionRecordsVn houseDraflslExhA -Snipe- KBA- (FINAL).20110608.docx 4 of 11 13 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 11. Punch List. Upon substantial completion of work and coordinate with the City and affected agencies to prepare a 'punch list' of items to be completed or corrected. Coordinate final inspection with those agencies. 12. Testing. Conduct or cause to be conducted, materials and laboratory tests. Coordinate the work of the Field Representative (s) and testing laboratories in the observation and testing of materials used in the construction; document and evaluate results of testing; and inform City and Construction Contractor of deficiencies. Deliverables Daily Construction Reports with project photos submitted on a weekly basis Punch List, Certificate of Substantial Completion Test reports 11. DETAILED TASK DESCRIPTION SUBCONSULTANT (KPG) A. Base Mapping 1. Prepare base maps for the length of the project, approximately 8,800 linear feet, in addition to approximately 300 LF of Hesco Barrier installed near the City maintenance facility. Base maps will be based on available City aerial data with the supplemental information listed in items 2-4 below incorporated. 2. Raw GPS survey data points obtained prior to the installation of temporary measures in 2009 will be processed and overlaid on aerial mapping to provide an approximate baseline for reference and payment purposes along the levees. 3. Perform field reviews with the Consultant and City to identify the type of temporary structures to be removed, underlying levee surfacing, and general restoration needs for incorporation into the base map. 4. Prepare survey of existing channelization and pavement edge of West Valley Highway within the limits of the area requiring WSDOT channelization plan approval. Deliverables Base maps will be included as part of the final bid documents Field notes and photographs will be made available to the City KBA as requested B. Community Outreach 1. Assist the City with public outreach to affected stakeholders, as directed by the City. This work may include preparation of sign layout, communication with stakeholders, and other tasks as assigned. 2. License to Construct (LTC) authorizations from adjacent property owners will be obtained by Consultant. In support of Consultant's efforts to obtain License to Construct (LTC) authorizations from adjacent property owners, attend one -on -one meetings as requested with affected property owners along the corridor to discuss the project, private property restoration, access issues or other concerns. (Estimate 6 meetings.) Deliverables Open house meeting graphics. Notes from any one -on -one meetings C. Permitting and Agency Coordination Provide coordination for permits and /or approvals from the following agencies: SiRrojects\ Conl2cls\ ClientlTukwila18P11 -046- TukwilaLeveeCleanup\ DraftsB Negatati onRemrdsNn- houseDraffslExhA .Scope- KBAjFINAL)- 20110608.d— 5 of 11 14 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 1. Citv of Tukwila. Prepare a SEPA checklist documenting the scope of temporary measure removal within the project limits. 2. Washinaton State Department of Transportation WSDOT). Coordinate with WSDOT for channelization plan approval along West Valley Highway and identify future ownership of WSDOT provided barrier. This work is anticipated to include: Prepare preliminary channelization plan and attend one coordination meeting with WSDOT to review the preliminary plan and identify specific traffic control concerns that need to be included. Update Channelization Plans to incorporate WSDOT comments and concerns and provide specification language to address traffic control needs. Coordination to identify future ownership WSDOT point of delivery or disposal by Contractor) of WSDOT- provided zipper barrier that was installed with the temporary levee measures in 2009. 3. US Armv Corps of Enaineers (USACE) Kina Countv Flood District. The 2009 temporary levee protection measures were installed in coordination with the USACE and King County Flood District. The City continues to coordinate with the both agencies on their removal. It is anticipated that no formal permit or environmental documentation will be required by either agency, but that the following coordination will be required prior to construction: Review and comment on notification letters prepared by the City to both agencies. Attend up to three (3) coordination meetings during project design with the USACE and /or King County Flood District to identify elements for inclusion in project plans and specifications. Coordination to identify future ownership (point of delivery or disposal by Contractor) of USACE provided super sacks that were installed with the temporary levee measures in 2009. 4. Washinaton Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Provide coordination with WDFW to obtain a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) as follows: Attend one meeting with WDFW to review the project scope and identify any necessary mitigation needs that will need to be incorporated into the project design. Prepare a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) and submit to WDFW for approval. Provide necessary coordination to obtain the HPA. 5. Washinaton Department of Ecoloav (WDOE). Prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to WDOE in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit. Prepare Project Specifications requiring the Contractor to transfer and implement the permit requirements. 6. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Prepare a permit application for work in vicinity of UPRR facilities and incorporate permit requirements into the Project Specifications. Deliverables File copies of all permit applications File copies of any meeting notes or correspondence with agencies D. Prepare Plans, Specifications, and Estimates 1. Review available 2009 construction record drawings and permit approvals and perform a detailed site walk with members of the original Consultant construction team and City staff. s:\ Projects\ CanlractslClienllTukwila1BP11-046 TukwilaLeveeCleanup\ DrafMNego \In- houseDraftslExhA- scope-KBA- (FINAL)- 20110608.docx 6 of 11 15 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 The purpose of the site walk is to identify existing conditions and site restoration needs, including but not limited to the following: Asphalt pavement damage and repair limits Concrete pavement damage and repair limits Areas of root intrusion for removal and barrier installation Access limitations and staging Potential waste sites Private property concerns Areas requiring additional survey or investigations 2. Prepare Draft 30% Plans on aerial base maps that incorporate the results of the site walk and preliminary feedback from the resource agencies identified in Task II.C. The 30% Plans will include plan view depictions of all anticipated project elements for removal and restoration. Plans will be distributed to the City and Consultant for review and comment. 3. Incorporate City Consultant comments on the 30% Plans. The updated 30% Plans will be used as the basis of final design, permit and agency coordination, and for use by the City Consultant in obtaining LTC authorizations. 4. Prepare 90% Plans (estimate 35 sheets) for review and approval by the Consultant and the City. Plans shall be based on the `centerline' established in Task ILA as a means of reference, but not as a surveyed centerline. City standard details and WSDOT standard plans will be supplemented with project specific details as required. Plan information will include: Cover Sheet Overall site plans showing: (200+ scale) Access and Staging criteria Limits of construction Permit coordination items Aerial Plan Sheets showing: (40 scale) Limits of Super Sack Removal Limits of Hesco Unit Removal Limits of Traffic Barrier Removal Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Paving limits of existing trail Restoration notes Channelization plans and details Erosion Control notes and details Restoration typical sections and details 5. Prepare 30% (outline of pay items only) and 90% specifications for review and approval by Consultant and the City. Specifications shall be based on 2010 WSDOT APWA standard specifications, as amended, using contract boilerplate and general special provisions provided by the City. 6. Calculate quantities and prepare a construction cost estimate in support of the 30% and 90% plans and specifications. 7. Incorporate City and Consultant comments on the 90% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate and finalize for bid advertisement on bxwa.com. Deliverables 5 copies 11x17 Draft 30% Plans (to City, Consultant) 5 copies 30% Estimate and pay item outline (to City, Consultant) 10 copies 11x17 Final 30% Plans (to City, Consultant, Task 4 agencies) 10 copies 11x17 90% Plans (to City, Consultant, Task 4 agencies) S: �Pt ojec ts�ContmctskClientlTukwilaOPt 1-0 46- TukwilaLeveeCleanup\ Drat ls& NegotiationRewrdsUn- houseDraris\ExhA -Scope -KBA- (FINAL) 20110608 docx 7 of 11 16 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 10 copies 90% Specifications (to City, Consultant, Task 4 agencies) 20 copies 11x17 Final Plans for Bid and Construction 20 copies 11x17 Final Specifications for Bid an Construction Engineer's Estimate at 30 90 and Bid Document Upload of Bid Documents to BXWA.com Digital file copy of final Bid Documents in .pdf format E. Bid and Construction Services 1. Assist Consultant and the City during the bid period by responding to bidder inquiries, attendance at a pre -bid meeting (if required), preparation of addenda, and preparation of the certified bid tabulation. 2. Provide pre- construction support to Consultant and the City, including general coordination and attendance at the preconstruction meeting. 3. Provide on -call engineering and /or survey support to Consultant and the City during construction. These services may include: Response to RFIs Submittal Reviews Field reviews for verification of restoration needs following removals Plan preparation for field changes Attendance at weekly construction meetings as requested Survey verification or other services as requested Deliverables Preparation and upload of addenda Certified Bid Tabulation Construction documentation as required Ill. ASSUMPTIONS A. Budget 1. Weekly construction progress meetings will not last more than one hour each. 2. Staffing levels are anticipated in accordance with the attached budget estimate. A certain amount of overtime has been figured into the budget to use, if needed, during peak construction activities. Supplemental assistance may be needed depending upon Construction Contractor's activities (number of crews and shifts). 3. The majority of the work is anticipated to be performed during daytime hours. Some of the operation along West Valley Highway may be performed at night. A 15 percent premium for labor will be applied to all hours that Consultant employees work between 7 pm and 7 am. 4. The level of effort in accomplishing the scope items is limited to the pre- approved budget. Consultant will not exceed the approved budget without prior approval by the City. Consultant services are budgeted based on a 60- working day construction contract, plus time allotted for project setup and closeout, all completed in 2011. Should further services be required, or should the construction contract run longer than this time period, the City and Consultant will negotiate a supplement to this Agreement. 5. The Consultant can utilize existing field office space for the Southcenter Parkway Extension, assuming that the physical work occurs during the summer of 2011 at no additional cost to the City. Should the work be delayed beyond the schedule of the Southcenter Parkway Extension Project, The City may provide field office space, or the Consultant can provide a construction office. Should the Consultant provide a separate field office (other than the Southcenter Parkway Extension field office), it will be considered Additional Services. 5: 1ProjectslContracls \C6entlTukwila1BPI 1 -046- TukwilaL. Drafts &NegotiatlonRecordslin house0 raftslExhA- Scope-KBA- (FINAL)- 20110608.docx 8 of 11 17 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 6. The budget allocations shown on Exhibit B are itemized to aid in project tracking purposes only. The budget may be transferred between tasks or people, or between labor and expenses, provided the total contracted amount is not exceeded without prior written authorization. 7. The budget assumes that Consultant's standard forms, logs, and processes will be used. The file structure and Inspector's Daily Reports will copy the current format being used on the Southcenter Parkway Extension Project. Any customization to meet specialized City requirements will be Additional Services. B. Items and Services City will provide: 1. Meeting arrangements and facilities for pre -bid and preconstruction meetings. 2. Aerial photography. 3. Any available plans and permits from the original 2009 installation. 4. SEPA processing, postings, and determination. 5. Subconsultant will serve as authorized agent to the City on permit applications; however, all permits will be signed by the City of Tukwila. 6. Review and written comments on all design submittals. C. Scope 1. Neither specialized engineering studies (structural, geotechnical, traffic), nor reconstruction of the permanent levees or work requiring specialty geotechnical or structural review and analysis are anticipated or included in this scope of services. 2. Environmental documentation or permits beyond what is described are not anticipated or included in this scope of services. 3. No pre -bid meeting is anticipated as part of this project. 4. Constructability Review of design documents will be for constructability, for general conformance with the design concept, and for contradictions and inconsistencies between the various parts of the design documents. This review will not include review of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities, dimensions, weights, gauges, or fabrication processes; and will not include quantity takeoffs. 5. Consultant will provide observation services for the days /hours that their Inspector(s) personnel is /are on -site. The Inspector(s) will not be able to observe or report construction activities or collect documentation during the time they are not on -site. 6. The Consultant's monitoring of the Construction Contractor's activities is to ascertain whether or not they are performing the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; in case of noncompliance, Consultant will reject non conforming work, and pursue the other remedies in the interests of the City, as detailed in the Contract Documents. The Consultant cannot guarantee the Construction Contractor's performance, and it is understood that Consultant shall assume no responsibility for: proper construction means, methods, techniques; project site safety, safety precautions or programs; or for the failure of any other entity to perform its work in accordance with laws, contracts, regulations, or City's expectations. 7. Definitions and Roles. The use of the term "inspect" in relation to Consultant's services is synonymous with "construction observation, and reference to the "Inspector" role is synonymous with "Field Representative" and means: performing on -site observations of the progress and quality of the Work and determining, in general, if the Work is being performed in conformance with the Contract Documents; and notifying the City if Work does not conform to the Contract Documents or requires special inspection or testing. SSProjeclsl ContmclslClientlTukwila Tu k eeCleanupl DratlsB Ne go tiationRecordslln- houseDmhslExhA -Scope -KBA- (FINAL)- 20110608.docx 9 of 11 18 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 8. Because of the prior use of the Project site, there is a possibility of the presence of toxic or hazardous materials. Consultant shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of toxic or hazardous materials, or for exposure of persons to toxic or hazardous materials, in any form at the Project site, including but not limited to asbestos, asbestos products, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) or other toxic substances. If the Consultant suspects the presence of hazardous materials, they will notify the City immediately for resolution. 9. Review of Shop Drawings and other Construction Contractor submittals is not intended as an approval of the submittals if they deviate from the Contract Documents or contain errors, omissions and inconsistencies, nor is it intended to relieve the Construction Contractor of their full responsibility for Contract performance, nor is the review intended to ensure or guarantee lack of inconsistencies, errors, and /or omissions between the submittals and the Contract requirements. This review will not include review of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities, dimensions, weights, or gauges, fabrication processes, construction means or methods, or coordination of the work with other trades, all of which are the sole responsibility of the Construction Contractor. Review of a specific item will not indicate that the Consultant has reviewed the entire assembly of which the item is a component. 10. Any opinions of probable construction cost provided by the Consultant will be on the basis of experience and professional judgment. However, since Consultant has no control over competitive bidding or market conditions, the Consultant cannot and does not warrant that bids or ultimate construction costs will not vary from these opinions of probable construction costs. 11. Development of construction schedules and /or sequencing, and /or reviewing and commenting on Contractors' schedules, is for the purpose of estimating number of days to complete a project, and for identifying potential schedule and coordination challenges and determining compliance with the construction contract. It is not a guarantee that a Construction Contractor will complete the project in that sequence or timeline, as means and methods are the responsibility of the Construction Contractor. 12. Consultant is not responsible for any costs, claims, or judgments arising from or in any way connected with errors, omissions, conflicts or ambiguities in the Contract Documents prepared by others. The Consultant does not have responsibility for the professional quality or technical adequacy or accuracy of the design plans or specifications, nor for their timely completion by others. IV. OPTIONAL SERVICES All services not detailed above, are considered Optional Services, which, along with any other Additional Services requested by the City, will be performed only when a mutually negotiated Supplement to this Agreement is executed, specifying scope of services and budget. Potential Optional Services include: A. Permit acquisition B. Environmental documentation C. Additional surveying D. Geotechnical review E. Structural review F. Public Involvement support 1. Additional public outreach 2. Coordinate media releases and traffic advisory updates 3. Develop and maintain Project website, updating project progress monthly S. 1ProjeclslConlaclslC6enllTukwila1BP11 -046 TukwilaLeveeCleanuplDraf ls& NegolialionRecordslln- houseDralslExhA -Scope KBA {FINAL)20110608.docx 10 of 11 19 KBA, Inc. June 8, 2011 4. Provide periodic notification newsletters to affected property owners on upcoming work, and include contact numbers G. Provide administrative and support services during construction which are not included in the above scope of services, which may include: 1. Investigations, meetings, and negotiations with the Construction Contractor involving claims and legal complaints, or a significant amount of defective or rejected work. A "significant amount" would be an item that might represent more than 2.5 percent of the total contract bid amount. 2. Additional work resulting from delinquency or insolvency of the Construction Contractor; or as a result of damage to the construction Project caused by fire, flood, earthquake or other acts of God, all exclusive of additional work resulting from litigation. 3. Additional work resulting from strikes, walkouts, or other acts of trade or labor unions or work required to resolve disputes or goals involving minorities. Additional work resulting from significant delays or acceleration of the work by the Construction Contractor. 4. Assistance to legal, financial, or other consultants engaged by the City beyond the services previously described. 5. Additional services resulting from changes in scope or design of the Project due to circumstances beyond the Consultant's control. Changes include, but are not limited to: changes in size, complexity, the schedule, character of construction, or method of financing. H. Prepare additional copies of approved drawings, specifications, and other contract documents, either for bidding purposes, or as requested by the City. I. Drafting of Procedures, or Operations and Maintenance Manual(s). S% PrcjectslContmctslC (entlTukwilalBPt 1- 046- TukwilaLeeeCleanuplDraftsB NegotiationRecordslln- houseDraflslExhA- Scope-KBA4FINAL)- 20110608.docx 11 of 11 20 EXHIBIT B CONSULTANT FEE DETERMINATION SUMMARY SHEET (Cost Plus Multiplier) Project: Tukwila Levee Repair and Maintenance Project KBA RATES (Loaded) 2011 Classification Hours DSC Rates Est. Cost Totals Principal 138 x $192.00 26,496 Contract Specialist 60 x $102.00 6,120 Resident Engineer 180 x $115.00 20,700 Office Engineer Document Controls 124 x $80.00 9,920 Inspector 480 x $90.00 43,200 Project Support 8 x $99.00 792 Permit Specialist 48 x $135.00 6,480 TOTAL KBA LABOR 1,038 113,708 KBA REIMBURSABLES Vehicles 2,100 Mileage 150 Misc: Supplies, Postage, Courier 392 2,642 SUBCONSULTANT COSTS KPG Project Manager 123 $187.92 23,114 Project Engineer 312 $155.30 48,454 Engineer 308 $112.93 34,782 Technician 396 $91.76 36,337 Survey Crew 24 $139.94 3,359 Admin 115 $67.78 7,795 KPG Subtotal Labor 1,278 153,840 KPG Reimbursables 4,160 KPG TOTAL 158,000 Materials Testing (TBD) 15,000 Subconsultant Mark -up (5 8,650 TOTAL SUBCONSULTANT 181,650 MANAGEMENT RESERVE (0 GRAND TOTAL 298,000 The budget presented uses 2011 rates and assumes design /bid /construction will occur in 2011. Rates will adjust anually on January 1st should work continue beyond 2011, which may affect the stated budget. PREPARED BY: Mike Roberts 6/8/11 S:\ Projects \Contracts \Client \Tukwila \BPtt 046- TukwilaLeveeCleanup\ Drafts& NegotiationRecords\ In- houseDrafts \Ex- B- 20110608.xlsx Page 1 of 1 21 CONSULTANT SELECTION Tukwila Levee Repairs and Maintenance KBA PACE CH2MHill Project Management 1 1 1 WSDOT, Corps, and Levee Experience 1 2 2 Firm Experience General 1 1 1 Working with Tukwila Program Knowledge 1 1.5 1.5 Construction Management Experience with Tukwila 1 1.5 1 PS &E Experience with Tukwila 1 1 2 TOTALS 6 8 8.5 Score consultant 1 to 3, with 1 being highest and 3 being lowest. Lowest score is consultant ranked highest. 22 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2011 to 2016 PROJECT: Tukwila Levee Repairs Maintenance PROJECT NO. 10901301 DESCRIPTION: Remove temporary flood control measures and restore property along the levee. The US Army Corps of Engineers notified Valley cities that the Howard Hanson Dam sustained damage JUSTIFICATION: during the January 2009 flood event. Available flood storage was reduced resulting in potential increased release rates and possible flooding of the Green River Valley. STATUS: Temporary containment measures were installed in 2009 that included Hesco walls and Super sacks. MAINT. IMPACT: Increased flood patrol and maintenance inspection of the temporary measures. The US Army Corps of Engineers expects to restore full storage volume of the Howard Hanson Dam in COMMENT: 2011. Direction from the Corps to remove the temporary measures is expected in 2011. The trail will also need repair and overlay due to the damage from containment placement. FINANCIAL Through Estimated (in $000's) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 200 200 Land(R/W) 0 Const Mgmt 200 200 Construction 1,300 300 1,600 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 1,700 300 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigation Actual 0 Mitigation Expected 0 City Oper. Revenue 0 0 1,700 300 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 1,700 300 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 Project Location W w 2011 2016 Capital Improvement Program 81 23 24 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Utilities Committee. FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director DATE: June 24, 2011 SUBJECT: NPDES Proqram Project No. 93 -DR10 2011 Stormwater Community Phone Survey Results ISSUE Discuss results of the 2011 Stormwater Community Phone Survey. BACKGROUND The City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II general permit requires that the City measure its citizens understanding of the City's stormwater system. To meet this requirement, the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) conducted a survey by mail in late 2010. Continuing to meet this requirement, the City partnered with the City of Kent and conducted a Stormwater Community Survey by phone in May 2011. ANALYSIS Results are very similar to the results from the same survey conducted in fourteen other cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce and Lewis Counties from 2009 through 2011. Results show our public needs to be better informed regarding current levels of pollution in surface waters. Overall, Tukwila scored higher in comparison to the City of Kent and other parts of the region in which the survey was conducted. This survey identified priority issues for continuing the City's Public Education and Outreach component required by the City's SWMP. The City's portion in the June 2011 Tukwila Reporter covers some of the priority issues that need to be addressed. RECOMMENDATION Information only Attachment: Survey Stormwater Community Research W:1PW EngTROJECTSW-DR P93 -DR10 (NPDES Program)12011 Phone Survey Info Memo.doc 25 The Cities of Kent and Tukwila Stormwater Community Research Report April, 2011 Prepared by: Kenneth Klima, Senior Research Director Brandon Megrath, Research Analyst Hebert Research, Inc. 13629 NE Bel -Red Road Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 643 -1337 kklima cc,hebertresearch.com 26 The C'itie,� of Kent and Tukwila STORMWATER COMMUNITYRESEARCH REPORT April, 2011 Table of Contents ��R s t 1 11 EM Methodology 5 GeographicArea Surveyed 8 Explanation of Multivariate Analysis 9 Respondent 10 Highly Variable Assessment of Water Quality in the Environment 11 Areas of Greatest Educational Need 13 Priority 1 Issues: Less than 50% Correct Answers in the Region 14 Priority 2 Issues: From 50 -80% Correct Answers 17 Priority 3 Issues: Higher than 80% Correct Answers 22 Reporting an Illicit Discharge 25 Cityof Kent 26 Priority 1 Issues: 50% or Less Correct Answers 26 Priority 2 Issues: 50% 80% Correct Answers 28 Priority 3 Issues: Higher than 80% Correct Answers 31 Awareness of The Clean Water Project 32 Cityof Tukwila 33 Priority 1 Issues: 50% or Less Correct Answers 33 Priority 2 Issues: 50% 80% Correct Answers 35 Priority 3 Issues: Higher than 80% Correct Answers 37 Conclusions and Recommendations 39 Baseline Stormwater Survey Results for 16 Cities: Priority 1 Issues 41 27 Baseline Stormwater Survey Results for 16 Cities: Priority 2 Issues 42 Baseline Stormwater Survey Results for 16 Cities: Priority 3 Issues 43 THE CITY OF KENT STORMWATER COMMUNITY SURVEY 44 THE CITY OF TUKWILA STORMWATER COMMUNITY SURVEY 48 28 Goal Research Goal: The goal of this research is to measure the public's knowledge and practices regarding stormwater in the cities of Kent and Tukwila using a telephone survey. This research was completed at the request of the participating cities and may be used for stormwater planning and partial compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit compliance requirements in Washington State. Content Areas for the Survey: The "general public is defined as: achilts (18 sears of age wid older) echo speak English arld lire hi the cities of liew ai ?d Tukl1'ila. Tl?e sllbJects col'ei -ed iiicllyded: -*.-General impacts of stormwater flows into surface waters. ❖Knowledge of the benefit of pervious surfaces. Source control BMPs and environmental stewardship actions and opportunities in the areas of pet waste, vehicle maintenance, and landscaping. ❖BMPs for use and storage of automotive parts, hazardous cleaning supplies, carwash soaps and other hazardous materials. ❖Knowledge of what constitutes an illicit discharge and how to report it. ❖Yard care techniques relating to protecting stormwater quality and knowledge of what constitutes pollution in the yard. ❖BMPs for use and storage of pesticides and fertilizers. ❖BMPs for the disposal of carpet cleaning fluids. ❖BMPs for auto maintenance. 29 Methodology The survey was created for the general public for administration within each of the participating cities. Survey questions were developed by Hebert Research with input from each city. The survey consisted of 30 questions with 27 of them relating directly to knowledge about stormwater issues and practices respondents had adopted which protect the quality of stormwater. The remaining three questions dealt with an overall assessment of surface water quality, to whom illicit discharges should be reported and the age of the respondent. Sample The sample for Kent was determined through identifying Census Tracts from the US Census Bureau within Kent. Hebert Research then purchased a list of phone numbers of residents within the selected Census Tracts from a reputable vendor. A random sample of phone numbers was drawn from the selected Tracts by the vendor. A list containing over 1000 telephone numbers appearing in the telephone directory was purchased from a reputable commercial list company for Tukwila. The list company maintains a record of all telephone numbers appearing in all phone books in the United States cross referenced by zip code. Using the zip codes covering the study area, the list company drew a random sample of phone numbers. The random draw of these phone numbers assures proper proportionate sampling. High density areas have more phone numbers and, by randomly drawing from the list, the high and low density areas are properly proportioned. The resulting list for each city was loaded into Hebert Research's CATI (Computer -Aided Telephone Interviewing) system which randomly selects phone numbers as required during the interviewing process. Phone numbers were called up to five times at different times during the day and evening. This helped to assure that the survey is administered to both those who are easy to reach and those who are more difficult to contact. The following table represents the obtained, random sample for each of the participating cities: Sample Totals City Sample Size Bent 104 Tukwila 100 Total Sample 204 Research Controls Hebert Research applied a variety of controls to help ensure that the research and analysis reached the highest quality that can be provided. The primary research controls that were employed in this study included the following: 30 Interviewer Training All interviewers participated in a special training session for this study. During this training session, the questionnaire was read and a discussion was held regarding the objectives of the study, screening questions, skip patterns, and techniques for handling potential problems. Interviewers raised questions and provided their professional feedback regarding potential interviewing issues. All issues were resolved. Pre -test the Survey After the questionnaire was programmed in our CATI system, it was rigorously tested to assure all questions were asked and that data was accurately recorded. Thirty surveys were conducted during the pretest. The programming was deemed to be valid. Conduct Interviews Following a successful pretest of the questionnaire, telephone interviews were conducted using CD CATI software from Sawtooth Software, a recognized leader in computer -aided interviewing. Potential respondents were called on weekdays at various times throughout the afternoon and evening until 9:00 pm. An appointment and callback procedure was used when necessary to minimize refusals and allow respondents to complete the survey at a convenient time. Interviews were conducted in English. Monitoring Telephone interviews were regularly monitored by the data collection supervisor and were found to be properly conducted. Internal Peer Review Hebert Research uses an internal review process called "CERA" (create, edit, review, approve) which is similar to academic peer review to ensure that each study meets or exceeds rigorous quality control standards. Through this process, several analysts review the statistical findings and offer critical feedback designed to increase the utility of the research and produce a clear and insightful report. Incidence and Response Rates, Margin of Error A total of 204 surveys were completed with adults living within the zip codes of Kent and Tukwila. At the 95% confidence level, the maximum margin of error for a sample size of 104 respondents is f9.6% and for a sample size of 100 is ±9.8 For the entire sample of the two cities combined (204 respondents), the maximum margin of error is ±6.9 This margin of error means that if the two -city survey was repeated 100 times, the resulting percents for each question for the two cities combined would be within ±6.9% (the margin of error) in 95 out of 100 cases for each question. Over 1,000 phone numbers of residences in each city were called. Many of these calls went unanswered or went to voicemail. When a resident answered the phone and contact was made, we asked the respondent to participate in the survey. The hichleitce rate represents the percent of individuals we spoke to who were qualified to take the survey, meaning they spoke English and reported living within the city. The response rate represents the percent of qualified individuals we spoke to who agreed to participate and who completed an interview. Response 31 rates above 50.0% are higher compared to other community -wide surveys and serve to increase confidence in the survey's validity and reliability. Sampling Frame City Incidence Rate Response Rate Bent 55.(_)% 54.1% Tukwila 37.9% 53.6% ,Watisticul Weighting Statistical weighting is a technique that is commonly used in survey research to correct for sampling bias. During the process of data collection, demographic data from the U.S. Census was obtained to identify population parameters for the zip codes involved in the survey. Sample demographics specifically, age and gender —were compared with distributions in the population within each city. To compensate for potential sampling bias (e.g., interviewing a disproportionately high number of females), weights were calculated and applied to the survey sample for each city in order to ensure that gender and age distributions were represented in the proper proportion according to census statistics. After being weighted by age and gender, the samples for each city were then weighted by population to assure a proper proportionate representation across the two cities combined to determine the results for the Region (the area made up of the two cities combined). In the final weighting analysis, it was concluded that each sample was representative of the population for each city within the critical parameters of gender and age and for the region (region is defined for this report as the two cities combined) according to gender, age and population density. Use of Findings Hebert Research has made every effort to produce the highest quality research product within the agreed specifications, budget and schedule. The customer understands that Hebert Research uses those statistical techniques, which, in its opinion, are the most accurate possible. However, inherent in any statistical process is a possibility of error, which must be taken into account in evaluating the results. Statistical research can reveal information regarding community perceptions only as of the time of the sampling, within the parameters of the project, and within the margin of error inherent in the techniques used. Evaluations and interpretations of statistical research findings and decisions based on them are solely the responsibility of the customer and not Hebert Research. The conclusions, summaries and interpretations provided by Hebert Research are based strictly on the analysis of the data gathered, and are not to be construed as recommendations, therefore, Hebert Research neither warrants their viability nor assumes responsibility for the success or failure of any customer actions subsequently taken. 32 Geographic Area Surveyed The map below shows the geographic area covered by the zip codes of the two cities in the study (98030, 98031, 98032, and 98042 for Kent and 98168 for Tukwila). Shore WOO oar 1 F av,} S F� SE 1 �8 1 96 B t518 ght: hoop �'r J.., 1. e�, s rte+ NormantlV F'@ aTa S Des t VII r 3 8 038 LL Mel, eS II_` X8 00 31 98908 3~-rl, ae all II I Valley r r`- 99 j 50322 li v to 5E 2 4pt 9I4 blood v G .nJ VVoodmorA� r; 809'�� 4 1� Summ Beach s th 51 K,e`nt ngton r a h St 167 N! S H N G T O 1 90010 -F -�I, f King St on k 61wk Dw, n 9 n Valley_, rr "'''•SE 4th St 38 }I a high Point t `9"06 t the 99 P+Yexeea Walad 90 36 9 126 High9an 0 11 Bu loop Park P$,, 0 'BCO l Fa11ABt4e60 r n b _x,99'____ South sK h Park x 167 f$a9 or Beach 'Hoo 94tsr s `WhRe�'er{fer 106 St i, 98144 11 6th St Shorewood Plulk"' t ,599 S ay '_.III h..�.., y j 5 Tukwila Mon 805 .V e BU I 7 I y +V 160th5t„_'Y•I I r 90'_56 L 9$150 9ffi9 �i Sao L 176th St Puyet3ound 5 'Norma �ar� h 5eaTac 51s�17tct zs_, �„u��i+ E• 5 Seattle Tacoma. L 7rY nternatinnat Ill port S 1 1181 III fl 8 h St t 33 Explanation of Multivariate Analysis S O The data for the surveys were analyzed using the chi square statistic to examine differences between respondents on a regional basis according to age and gender. Responses for the knowledge questions were first categorized as being a correct response or an incorrect response. The incorrect response category was made up of wrong answers plus responses classified as "need more information," "don't know /refused," and "not applicable." Following classification, the chi square test was executed. For the questions dealing with the actions of the respondents, those who said the action did not apply to them were first eliminated from the data set. Following their removal, the categories were classified as being "correct" or "incorrect" with the "incorrect" classification consisting of the collapsed categories as described above. The statistical test was run using these two categories. Hypotheses were tested using the 0.05 level of sigllificailce as the criterion value for the chi square analysis. When differences between groups reached this value, the finding is reported along with its level of sigliificaiice which is stated as a p value (e.g., p 0.04). Chi square results that reach the 0.05 level of significance indicate there is at least a 19- out -of -20 likelihood that the finding is true. This is a generally accepted level of reliability for public surveys. In addition to measures of significance in which differences have been determined at the 0.05 level, a measurement of association is also reported. This measure shows the strength of association or dependency between the variables being tested such as the response to a question and gender. A measurement of 0 indicates there is no association between the two. It represents a null relationship. A measurement of 1 indicates perfect association or, to continue the example, gender is completely predictive of the response to the question. This measure of association is called Cramer's V. 34 Respondent Profile The following tables describe the demographic profile of the sample. As indicated in the methodology section, the sample was statistically weighted to match the populations of Kent and Tukwila by gender and age. The figures appearing in the table represent weighted values. Age Region Kent Tukwila 18-24 13.9% 14.4% 11.5% 25 34 22.2% 21.8% 24.2% 35 44 213% 212% 21.9% 45 54 19.4% 19.7% 18.1% 55 64 12.5% 12.1% 14.6% 6; or Older 10.6% 10.8% 9.6% Gender Region Kent Tukwila Male 50.4% ;0.5% 50.0% Female 49.6% 49.5% 50.0% 35 Highly Variable Assessment of Water Quality in the Environment Holt \ttlte f lit' '6 iii oP tttt IIN Cities Show Similar Overall Perception Regarding Surface Water Quality Respondents rated the quality of water in our rivers, wetlands and lakes and in Puget Sound on a 0 to "10" scale where "0" meant "extremely polluted" and "10" meant "extremely clean." Respondent ratings in Kent and Tukwila were similar in their assessment of the quality of surface water in our region with ratings of 6.29 for Kent and 5.82 for Tukwila. Figure 1. Respondent Rating of Vui face Water Quality by Area Rating of Surface Water Quality Region `dsc u�uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 6.02 Kent 6.29 Tukwila 00"W5.82 t 5.82 L 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4 For the region represented by the two cities, the average rating of 6.02 suggests the public sees these waters as being clean, but on a relatively low level. The shape of the curve (see Figure 2 below) suggests a classic normal distribution of scores which is shifted to the right, toward the high end of the scale. A classic normal distribution would result if: 1) the information available to the public provided a confusing picture of surface water as being both high and low in quality, or 2) respondents possessed little knowledge about water quality and guessed at an answer. The fact that residents rated the quality of water across the scale shows high variability in the public's perception of the quality of surface waters. The shift in average ratings from the middle toward the high end of the rating scale suggests the public, as a whole, views water quality as being generally clean but with some uncertainty. The similarity of the distribution of ratings to the normal curve suggests that the residents in each city are unclear about how clean the water is and that many respondents may have taken a guess at it. 36 Figure 2 Rating by General Public of the Quality of Water in the Environment (0 to 10 scale where "0" meant "extrenteb7 polluted" and "10" meant "extrentety clean.') Q2. Rate your perception of the overall quality of the water in our rivers, wetlands,_ and lakes and in Puget Sound. By "quality of water" I mean how free it is from pollution. 35% 30% 25% i r 20% Kent 15% �'t, Tukwila 5% t 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Public Needs a Better Awareness of the Problem The implication of this finding for education purposes is that the public needs to be more deeply informed regarding the current levels of pollution in rivers, wetlands and lakes and in Puget Sound. Using social marketing techniques, educational efforts should communicate: 1) the current nature, severity and negative effects of surface water pollution originating in stormwater, 2) the quality of stormwater that is desired and a vision of clean water in the future, 3) the many positive outcomes that will result from constrictive public action to preserve the quality of stormwater, and 4) the helpful practices individuals need to adopt to prevent polluting stormwater. The more real the public perceives the problems and the benefits and the more advertising employs effective social marketing techniques, the greater the impact and response will be. If cities can go beyond simple education and offer programs that help to overcome obstacles to change, the opportunity for success increases. For example, many people resist changing their behavior if it will cost them money. Programs that will eliminate or reduce the monetary cost will have a much higher chance of success. If, for example, the city can offer a program where citizens receive money- saving coupons for using a commercial car wash instead of washing their car on the street where soapy water enters the stormwater drainage system, the likelihood of changing the public's behavior in a desirable direction rises. 37 Areas of Greatest Educational Need Wk The two main purposes of this survey are to establish a baseline of the public's knowledge and practices regarding stormwater and to provide direction for each city's public education program to meet the requirements in the NPDES Phase 11 Permit in WA. The survey tested the public's knowledge and practices regarding 27 key issues and the resulting data provides baseline measures against which to assess future improvement as a result of each city's social marketing programming. The priorities for education resulting from this research are divided into three levels based on the percent of the respondents across the region who provided a correct answer —the lower the percent of correct answers given, the higher the priority for education. Priority 1: Less than 50% correct answers (Table 1) Priority 2: From 50 to 80% correct answers (Table 2) Priority 3: Over 80% correct answers (Table 3 In administering the questionnaire, respondents were presented with statements that were either true or false and were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement. Each of the statements in the tables appearing below include a letter indicating the correct answer for that statement, an A for "Agree" and a D for "Disagree." When the word "Adopt" appears, it means the statement deals with whether respondents have "adopted" the desirable behavior mentioned in the statement. The combination of "A Adopt," then, means the question deals with behavior and the desired response is "A" for "Agree" —which equates to the respondent saying that he or she engages in the desired behavior mentioned in the statement. Rant. for All issues in Tables 1, 2 and 3 are ordered by the city's rank for education. Education The rankin of issues for the Region is also shown with a color code as 1 shown in the "Rank for Education" table on the left. The top rank item for 2 education is colored bright green. Also a "1" appears underneath the ;1 1N, M11, percentage in the cell. The least important issue is a magenta color with 4 -9 I "27" appearing underneath the percentage of correct answers given by 10 -18 respondents. a 24 1 25` 26 27 38 Priority I Issues: Less than 50% Correct Answers in the Region Across the Region, less than 50% of the public gave the correct answer to seven issues (25.9% of the 27 issues tested, see Table 1). The seven lowest scoring issues for Kent and Tukwila were the same for the first five issues and varied by only one ranking position for two issues. Tukwila residents provided a higher percent of correct answers for every Priority 1 issue compared to Kent indicating a higher level of correct knowledge and awareness regarding these stormwater issues. Table 1. PHoritl7 I Issues for Public Education Ranked 417 Region Rank for Correct Responses by Area Education Question Region Kent Tukwila 15. The runoff from washing a car with 27'3% 24.5% 31.0% 1 biodegradable soap is safe in storrnwater drains. D 1 1 1 29. Bricks or pavers offer no advantage for o 2 reducing runoff over concrete or asphalt 35'3 �4 31,E /v 42.1 to pavement. D 2 2 2 5. Pollution in our rivers, wetlands and lakes and in Puget Sound is more the result of a F industrial dumping practices than individual human activity. D a, i,. ,i, 16 When I wash a motor vehicle at home' 38.5% ')2.')% 45.8% 4 the soapy water ends up in a ditch or on the street. D Adopt 4 4 4 3. Drains on city streets for stormvater are 4''y% 4().6% 46.5% connected to the same sanitan- sewer system used for treating human waste. D 6 21. Sediment or dirt in stormwater is natural 47.6% 41.6% 53.3% and not regarded as pollution. D 6 6 7 7 19. Grass clippings and leaves are not 47.8% 46.5% 50.0% regarded as harmful in stormvater. D 7 8 6 *Blue indicates a question dealing with behavior, what the respondent does. Percents uPPly 01111. to respondents who said the question applied to them. Table Note: All `Does not apple" responses to knowledge questions were added to the `Incorrect" response category since all knowledge questions apple to all respondents. This rile applies to all the tables in the report. 39 Kent Shows a Greater Need for Education As shown in Figure 3, residents of Kent, on average, gave a substantially lower percent of correct answers than Tukwila residents for Priority 1 issues, suggesting a stronger need for educational programming exists in Kent. Figure 3: Percent Correct Responses to PHoritI7 I I.ssrues ky Area Priority 1 Issues: Average Percent Correct Responses Region �S` �,��j h�'.9.8% Kent "35,5% Tukwila 44.6 34.0% 36.0% 38.0% 40.0% 42.0% 44.0% 46.0% Issues Involving Soap Show High Need for Education The residents in Kent and Tukwila show low awareness of correct practices involving soap. Issues involving soap have the greatest potential for demonstrating improved community knowledge as a result of educational programming. Educational programming should convey the following messages: Biodegradable soap is riot a safe addition to stornnvater drains acid slioulcl be kept from rumfing into the stor11111 drainage ivvtem. Alotor vehicles should be washed ire aii area where the soapv rum? f frill be absorbed by the growid or the i shoidd be taken to a commercial car wash. Soal?h water, hichiding biodegradable soap, should riot be allowed to flow into the street or into a Bran ?age ditch. Knowledge of Pollution Sources and the Stormwater Drainage System are Lacking Other low scoring issues for the cities dealt with how the stormwater drainage system works. Six out of ten respondents in the two cities (61.8 did not know that individual human activity, not industrial dumping, is the primary cause of pollution in rivers, wetlands, and lakes and in Puget Sound. Residents in both cities were similarly unaware that stormwater drains are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. 40 Knowledge of how rivers, wetlands, and lakes and the marine waters of Puget Sound become polluted by stormwater is an essential precursor to improving understanding, raising the desire to act responsibly, and bringing about behavioral change. Educational programming in both cities should convey the following messages: Thehrinaary caaase ofholhatiora ill stornawater raaraoff is hichi human activity, clot hichistrlal cluln1fi ?g. Success hi recluchig el ?1'lronniewal polllltloli a'epemlc ipoli e1 ?e'S particlj)atlol? hi hellfing to lraake a a4ffel'el ?Ce. The water ill stornaunater clrairas is riot coraraectecl to the saraitarl' seiner sl'steraa rlor is all Storlmrater treated to relnol'e pollartaws before being released hito the el ?Tirol nel ?t. Therejore, the quality of Stormwater going hito the drahiage S1'Steln is ichat a the level of j)olhttiora ill surface water. Actions to Prevent Polluting Stormwater Need Emphasis Responses to questions regarding pavers, sediment, and grass clippings also revealed relatively low levels of informed awareness in the community and indicated a need for public education. Nearly two out of three respondents in the combined cities (64.7 were not aware that bricks and pavers offer an advantage in reducing storm water runoff Less than half of the respondents across the two cities combined knew that sediment, grass clippings and leaves constituted pollution. The following messages should be conveyed: Bricks or parer s help to r edarce the rolarlrae of stor lmrater r arrioff alga', therefore, help to reduce storlaawaterl)ollrrtiora hi the erarirownerat. SecIimew is j)o1httiora aml shoiticl bel)rererated front entering the storlaawater clrahiage system. Grass clij)Ifings avid leaves ila storran Vater are regarclecl as j)olhatiora avid shoaalcl be kept Out of the storna11 clrahiage ,system. Related Multivariate Analysis Findings 03.111e1? Shol1' Slgl ?rfrcawly higher airarel ?ess thali irolneli that the drahis ol? city Streets for Storlmrater are 1 ?ot col ?1 ?ected to the Salne Sal ?marl' Seirer b1'Steln used for treating humal? iraste (1) .001, C'ramer's V .29x). Gender Correct Incorrect Male 583% 41.7% Female 28.7% 713% 41 Priority 2 Issues: From 50 -80% Correct Answers �y`S l`. \9iy� I a Priority 2 Issues represent areas of knowledge or behavior where at least half of the public knows what is correct. Thirteen issues made this list (see Table 2 on the next page) which constitutes 48.1% of the 27 issues tested. While this more desirable level of public knowledge is a step in the right direction, more can and needs to be done to further raise the public's level of knowledge. These areas continue to represent genuine opportunities for reducing surface water pollution in stormwater runoff. Overall, the Priority 2 list shows a good deal of similarity in the rank of issues indicating that respondents in both cities are similarly informed regarding these stormwater subjects. However, the degree to which residents in Kent are informed about some issues did vary a good deal compared to Tukwila. Differences between cities in the percent of correct responses ranged from a low of 2.0% to a high of 15.0 For example, Kent residents appeared to be less aware than Tukwila residents that all water in a stormwater drain is not treated (44.1% correct answers for Kent, 59.1% correct for Tukwila). Two issues on the Priority 2 list should be included among the Priority 1 items as issues that are fundamental to generating increased responsible action in the public domain. The first issue is the fact that about half of the respondents in the Region were not aware that all water going into stormwater drains is not treated before being discharged into the environment. Correcting this lack of understanding can be a major step forward to expanded public recognition and alertness to actions that contribute to surface water pollution and to subsequent behavioral improvement. Awareness of the problem is the first necessary step on the road to behavioral change. The second issue on the Priority 2 list that should be elevated to Priority 1 is knowledge of the definition of an illicit discharge. About four out of ten respondents overall were not aware that anything in stormwater other than water is pollution. As a beginning point and a key precursor for positive action, knowing the definition of an illicit discharge will help individuals make better decisions regarding how to protect stormwater quality when facing new situations with a potential for creating pollution. For this issue, Kent residents appeared to be better informed than Tukwila residents (67.2% correct responses for Kent vs. 58.5% for Tukwila). 42 Table 2. Priority 2 Issues for Public Etlucatiou Rank for Question Correct Responses by Area Education Region Kent Tukwila 0. All water going into stormwater aramS on 8 the street is treated before being discharged 1.1% 44.1% J9.1% into the environment. D 8 7 9 9 4. Stormwater runoff is the leading cause of 59.3% 56.1% 60.7% pollution in rivers, wetlands and lakes. A 9 9 10 17. Washing a vehicle at a commercial car wash causes less pollution than washing a 60% 58.9% 62.5% 10 vehicle on the street using a biodegradable 10 10 12 soap. A 18. The best place to dispose of water from 60.7% 59.5% 64.0% 11 cleaning a Latex paint brush is in a sink inside, not outdoors. A 11 11 13 29. An illicit or umiak fid stormirater discharge is primarily defined as anything that 62.1% 67.2% 58.5% 12 enters a storm drain system that is not made up 12 13 8 entirely of stormwater. A 13 20. Chemical treatments to kill moss on roofs 64.3% 66.6% 61.5% pose little risk for polluting stormwater. D 13 12 11 10. Scrubbing oil and grease spots on outdoor concrete or asphalt with soap and hosing it off 69.3% 73.3% 67.2% 14 is a good way to prevent polluting stormwater 14 18 14 runoff. D 7. Hard surfaces such as roads and driveways 71.1% 69.9% 71.9% 15 are not significant sources of pollution in stormwater. D 1 J 1 J 1 J 16 27. Carpet shampoo wastewater can be safely 73.0% 69.2% 77.4% added to a stormwater drain. D 16 14 16 17 23. Using a mulching lawnmower reduces the 74.7% *9 °In 78.0% need to fertilize a lawn. A 17'9 17 12. All of my family's auto or truck parts with 76.7% o o 18 oil or grease on them are stored under a roof or 72.2 /oJ``o cover. A Adopt 18 17 22. The downspouts at my house convey the 71.1% 19 water to an area where it is absorbed by the 16 ground. A Adopt 9. The best way to clean up spilled oil on the driveway is to fully absorb it using kitty 20 or paper towels and deposit this waste in a garbage can. A Blue indicates U question dealing with ll'hat the respondent Goes. Percents apj?) I onll' to respondents ll'ho Said the question applied to them. 43 Related Multivariate Analysis Findings 06. Women showed siglai fwantly less awareness than mere that all water going into stornnvater drahis is not treated bgbre being clischarged hit0 the eiwiromnent (p .003, Cralner's V— .206). Gender Correct Incorrect Male 612% 40.6% Female 40.7% 59.4% 017.111er1 were signifwantly more a vare than women that washing a c at a c•ommel•c•ial c•al• wash creates less pO11IItiorl than washing a c on the street with biodegradable soap (p 027, Cramer 's V .133). Gender Correct Incorrect Male 67.6% 32.4% Female 52.5% 47.5% 027.111e1? sholl'ed slgl ?rf real ?tll' highel' ctll'areneSS c01??pared t011'Ol ??el? tl?at ca1'pet shal??p00 ii cannotsafely be added to a storlrlii drain (p .033, Cralner's V .130). Gender Correct Incorrect Male 79.6% 20.4% Female 66.3% 33.7% 029.111er1 were signifwantly more a vare than women that ail illicit or irnJrna fill stornnvater discharge is primarily defined as anything that enters a sto171111 drain system/ that is clot made rip entirely of storlr water (p 004, O'alner 's V—. 200). Gender Correct Incorrect Male 71.8% 28.2% Female 52.5% 47.5% 44 Cities Vary in Correct Knowledge about Priority 2 Issues Figure 4 compares the percent of correct responses given by citizens in each city for all Priority 2 issues. Respondents living in Tukwila showed a higher percent of correct responses across Priority 2 issues (70.0 than did respondents living in Kent (66.0 Figure 4: Percent Correct Responses to PHoritI7 2 I.ssrues ky Area Priority 2 Issues: Average Percent Correct Responses Region 67.5% r�r(rrr r r r r e V Kent 00" 66.0% Tukwila 70.0% 64.0% 65.0% 66.0% 67.0 68.0% 69.0 70.0% 71.0% 72.0% Educational Messages Are Needed for These Issues In order of importance, the following messages should be included in educational programming on a regional basis: All water going into storrllivater drains is not treated before being discharged into the el ?Tirol nel ?t. Stormvater rimoff is the leading caltse qfl)olhttiorl ill rimers, wetlarlds arld lakes. Therefore, to reduce el ?Tirol ?bier ?tal po111ltio1 the challen to the colrll ??ullitl' is to hell) keep stormirater rwiq� fpollrrtiori flee. Washing a 1 at a commercial car wash c•ailses lessl)olhttiorl than washing a 1 at holne with biodegradable soap. The best place to clear? pallet brushes is 11l a shik that Bran ?s hito the sal ?Mary seller sl'stcnz, `lot outdoors. Al? illicit or wilaii fld discharge is al ?I'thin that ew a storm draiii sl that is 1 ?ot made ill) elitlrely of storlriwater. The residue from chemical treatments that kill moss is a soitrc•e ofl)olhttioii. Al)l)lving soap to oil wed grease spots oil outdoor coiicrete or asphalt wed rhising it off with a hose is riot a good method forl)rotec•tirig storrili1rater rimoff. Hard site faces are sigliific•aiit c•oritribittors tol)olhttiorl ill stornnvater ritrioff. Herne, it is itilportal ?t to keel) hard s111 faces cleari usin acceptable cleanin techiiiq les aml where l)ossible, c•om inil)el site faces tol)el site faces. C'all)et shaml)oo wastell c•ailsesl)olhttioii to the eiwirorinieiit acid should riot be disposed of ire a stormirater draiii. 45 A mulching lal9'1 ?lraol9wer reduces the wed for using fertilizer wid heave, represews a valuable method for elimiraatirag er• polllltiora ill stor•11111 Store auto or truckparts with oil or grease oli them wider a roof or• corer. Direct dow`aspollts to areas ora land where the rllraoff will be absorbed br the grollrad to avoid the water el ?tering the stor nivater systelra. C i p oil wid grease spots oli outdoor cowrete or asphalt with soap wid absorb the residue using kitty litter or paper towels which should theca be disposed of ill the garbage care. 46 Priority 3 Issues: Higher than 80% Correct Answers The remaining seven issues (25.9% of the 27 issues tested) deal with specific practices respondents reported engaging in. High uniformity in rank and percent of correct answers given by residents in the two cities can be seen in Table 3 below, indicating that residents in the two cities are quite similar in how they deal with these issues in their lives. While respondents indicated in high percentages that they engage in these positive behaviors, a question can be raised whether this is actually the case or whether respondents are simply providing the recognized, and socially acceptable correct answer. What this data indicates is that at least respondents are quite aware of the proper actions to take if not actually practicing them. Since a high percentage of respondents say they are already practicing these desirable behaviors, dollars spent to further raise public awareness and promote behavioral change in these areas will have a rather small target market— namely, the 4% to 20% of the population in the Region who are not currently engaging in these desirable behaviors. Because the number of people is so small, the ability to raise the percent of correct responses in these areas will be much more difficult to achieve and document compared to Priority 1 and Priority 2 issues. Table 3. PHorith 3 Issues for Public Ethicutiou Rani: for Question Correct Responses by Area Education Region Kent Tukwila 21 13. My household recycles all used motor oil. A 8Oo °Io' 811.3% Adopt 2 2.1 18 M OT 22 11. If my_ car or truck is dripping oil, I make sure 2 the leaf: is fixed within three weeks, A Adopt 23 8. When I am outside with my pet, I always pick 91.8 41 up my pet's waste. A Adopt 23," 26 2 26. In the past 12 months, I may have used more 90.9% 9� 24 fertilizer or applied it more frequently than the g% .2 /o label directions require. D Adopt �4 25 25. In the past 12 months, I may have applied a 91.1% 92.0% 91.1% 2, higher dose of insecticide or weed killer around 25 25 24 my house than the directions say to use. D Adopt 26 14. My family stores all containers holding oil o 92.0% 91.0% 93.2% antifreeze under a roof or cover. A Adopt 1 26 7 4 26 24. My household stores all yard fertilizers and 95.9% 94.5% 98.2% 27 pesticides inside a building or in a covered area out of the rain. A Adopt 27 27 27 Blue in(licates U question (lealing Irith 11'11Ut the resj?on(Ient (/()CS. Percents ajy?) l' onll' to resj?on(ICnts ll'ho sai(I the question ulyVic(I to them. 47 On average, respondents living in Kent and Tukwila showed a similar level of high compliance with Priority 3 behaviors which are friendly to stormwater. Figure S: Percent Correct Responses to Priority 3 Issues by Area Priority 3 Issues: Average; Percent Correct Responses Region WWWWW"" �a r `x�rliu� #f e�srla: #Y e?�srtww Kent 90.10% �raFx�s�ltcg��t1 f�l1`�id�dlk�r� 3� }r ��t 3� }r Tukwila ������dG���i j�d���fi�� A 0 It "t Plj�fp�i� Ij�i'�i Ij�i'�i Ij�i'�i'��' 89.'0% 86.0% 87.0% 88.0 89.0% 90.0 91.0% 92.0% Practices Because of their already high awareness, one may assume that minimal social marketing needs to be done in these areas. Given the potential for negatively impacting stormwater which these items represent, however, it remains advisable to continue educating the public on these issues but at a lower level of emphasis compared to Priority 1 and 2 issues. The messages to be communicated are: Recycle ifsecl motor oil. Fix auto or truck oil leaks within three weeks. Pick iq)l)et waste wheii oittsicle. Apply f rtilizer at reconnnemled rates. Ahhly insecticides or weed killer at r•ecominei0ccl rates .S'tol'e col ?tall ?ers holdin oil or ai ?tlfl'eeze wider a rogf or col .S'tol'e all l'arcl f rtili'er wid pesticides hiside a building or hi a col area out of the r'alii. 48 Related Multivariate Analysis Findings 021.111era were sigraificaratly more likely thara women to report that them store all of their household's fertilizers wid pesticides ire a building or covered area (p .038, Cralner U .160). Gender Correct Incorrect Male 98.9% 1.1% Female 92.5% 7.5% All Issues: Overall Percent Correct Responses is Very Uniform Figure 6 shows the average percent of correct responses for all questions for Kent and Tukwila. The average number of correct responses for the two cities combined was 66.0 The difference overall between the two cities in the number of correct responses was only 42 Overall, Tukwila residents provided a higher percent of correct responses and appeared slightly more knowledgeable about the broad spectrum of stormwater issues tested in this research. Figure 6: Percent Correct Responses Across All Questions by Area Percent Correct of all Responses Region f f f 'f° f f f� 66.0% riz t Kent 1>>�Ecn ff`a' {si; 64.3 Yo 1ui;��gq't�W'i�l�d Tukwila 68.5% 62.0% 63.0% 64.0% 66.0 66.0 67.0 6$.0% 69.0% 70.0°% 49 Reporting an Illicit Discharge To report an illicit discharge, respondents would call a variety of agencies with only 19.0% of Kent residents and 24.0% of Tukwila residents calling their City Public Works Department, the correct choice. If paint thinner in the stormwater system is regarded as a genuine emergency and 911 is included as a correct choice, then 35.6% of Kent respondents and 383% of Tukwila residents would have provided a correct answer. The fact that more than six out of ten respondents said they needed more information or would call an inappropriate agency such as the Department of Ecology, it is apparent that a good deal of public education is needed if illicit discharges are to be reported to the proper agency in the future. The following graph presents the responses by individual city. Figure 7. Reporting an Illicit Discharge Q30. If you witnessed someone pouring a gallon of used paint thinner into a stormwater- drain, which agencywould you call first to report it? 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 The Washington Department of Ecology r The police department I The city Public Works Department 0 Region 911 11 Tukwila Kent Need more information I I I would not report it i a Don't Know /Refused The actual percent of responses given by respondents in each city appears in Table 4 below. Table 4. Percent Reporting an Illicit Discharge to an Agency by City and Region Agency Region Kent Tukwila The Washington Department of Ecology I 28.6% I 25.0% I 32.1% The Police Department 7.0% 5.7% 7.7% The Citv_ Public Works Department 21.4% 19.0 24.0% 911 14.5% 16.6% 143% Need more information I 20.4% I 23.9% I 16.1% I N-,-ould not Report it 2.8 2.7% 23% Don't Knov Refiised I 3.1% I 3.9% I 1.7% 50 City of Kent Priority 1 Issues: 50% or Less Correct Answers w. Knowledge and Practices All Priority 1 questions for the City of Kent are shown in Table 5 below. These issues represent the areas which need the most attention. In order of importance, the following messages should be included in educational programming: Biodegradable soap is clot a safe addition to stornnvater drains aml shollld be kept front ewerin the Storinivater drahiage Svsteln. The priniarw cause of polhttiorl ill stornllvater r 1moffs is hiclivichial human activity, clot h ichistrlal dlnn1fi Success hi recluch el ?vlronniew polllltloii depemld llpoii everiviie 'S particrpatioii hi hellfing to slake a dlffel'el ?Ce. Bricks or pavers help to r•echice the volnnie of storniwater runoff arld therefore, help to reduce Stormirater polllltloii hi the eiivlrwilneiit. Wash vole car ire are area iche1e the soapy rlrrioff���ill be absorbed by the growid or take 11011/* car to a commercial car ivash. Soalnv ivater shollld clot be allowed to flow into the street or into a drainage ditch. The ivater hi Stormirater drahis 1S iiot col ?1 iected to the Saliitary Seiver sv.steln iior 1S all stornnvater treated to remove polhltarlts before being released into the eiivirorinieiit. Therefore, the quality of Stormirater goi hito the d1 all ?age Svsteln is ichat deternihies the level ofpolhrtioii ire slnface ivater. Sedinierlt is polhltioii arid shollld be prevented front entering the storniwater drainage systeln. All ivater goin hito StorJnivater drahis 1S not treated before bein discharged ilito the el ivlrollniel it. Grass clippings arid leaves ill stor11111 are regarded as polhltioii arid shollld be kept out of the Stormirater drahiage Svsteln. 51 Table 5. Priority I Issues for Public Education Rank for Education Question Correct Responses 1 1-5. The runoff from washing a car with 24.5% biodegradable soap is safe in storrnwater drains. D 1 28. Bricks or pavers offer no advantage for o 2 reducing runoff over concrete or asphalt pavement. 31.2 D 2 5. Pollution in our rivers, wetlands and lakes and in M Puget Sound is more the result of industrial r dumping practices than individual human activity. D 16. When I wash a motor vehicle at home, the 4 4 soapy water ends up in a ditch or on the street. D Adopt 4 3. Drains on city streets for storrnwater are 440.6% 5 connected to the same sanitary- sewer system used for treating human waste. D 6 21. Sediment or dirt in stormwater is natural and 41.6% not regarded as pollution. D 6 6. All water going into storrnivater drains on the 44. 1% 7 street is treated before being discharged into the environment. D 7 8 19. Grass clippings and leaves are not regarded as 46 5 harmful in storrnivater. D 8 *Blue zriclzcates a questimi dealing witli tinlzcit the resporulerit sloes. Percents apply ortly to resporulerits tinlzo Said the questimi applied to dierii Related Multivariate Analysis Findings for Kent 03.111eri were significantly more snare than women that drains on c•itt' str•eety are not c•owlec•tecl to sailitari' saver si',st('nis (1) .001, Cramer',s V Gender Correct Incorrect Male 57.5% 423% Female 23.5% 76.5% 06. Women showed sigiii fic•awlh less awareness than meri that all water going into stornnvater drains is riot treated before being dis(•hargecl into the ein (1) .00 1, Cramer's I .?85). Gender Correct Incorrect Male 57.7% 423% Female 29.4% 70.6% 52 City of Kent Priority 2 Issues: 50% 80% Correct Answers MEN INS A k Knowledge and Practices All Priority 2 questions for the City of Kent are shown in Table 6 below. Although not as important as Priority 1 messages, Priority 2 areas retain importance in their ability to significantly reduce water pollution. In order of importance, the following messages should be included in educational programming: .S'torllnivater rwiOff is the leadin cause Of po1111tiOii ill rivers, ivedwi wi lakes. There ,fore, to rechic•e eill'il oiiiiieiital polllitioii, the challenge to the (•o11111111llitl' is to hell) keel) stornnvater riirloffl)olliitioii flee. Washin a vehicle at a commercial car ivash causes less po1111tiOii thaii ivashin a vehicle at home with biodegradable soap. The best place to c•leail pahit brushes is ill a silik that dlrahls hito the sallitarl' selver systeln, iiot outdoors. The resichie front chemical treatnlews that kill moss is a source ofpolliltioll. Ali illicit or wilal4fld discharge is al ?I'thin that ew a storm draiii systenl that is llot made ill) of ewirell' stor1111vater. C'all)et shampoo lvastelVater c•allses polhlti011 to the ein nTew Gild should Plot be disposed of hi a stormirater draiii. Hard slit faces are slglTlflCalTt cOlTtriblitors tOl)olllit101T ill stO1'1111vatel' rlirloff Helice, it is importaw to keel) hard slit faces c•leali lisilig acceptable c•leaWng techi iques wid ichere possible, com impervious su faces to pervious su faces. Dilectdovlispolrts to areas oil lardlchele the rlrlioffl��ill be absorbed by the gro1111d to avoid the ivater entering the stor11119'ater NVNtena. Store auto or truckparts ivith oil or grease oil theln wider a roof or cover. Applying soap to oil gild grease .spots oil outdoor c•om -rete or asphalt gild rilzsilig it off ivith a hose is riot a good Inethod for protecting stornlivater i•1111Off. A mulchin laivii mover reduces the iieed fOr Usin fel'tili'er wid het ?ce, represew a valuable method elinliiiatiiig tili.:er l)olllitiori ill stor1111vater. Oeaii irp oil wid grease spots oil outdoor coiicrete or asphalt ivith soap wid absorb the residue lisilig kitty litter or paper towels lvhic•h should then be disposed of ill the garbage call. 53 Table 6. Priority 2 Issues for Public Education Rank for Education Question Correct Responses 9 Stonmvater runoff is the leading cause of 56.1% pollution in rivers, wetlands and lakes. A 9 17. Washing a vehicle at a commercial car wash 58 10 causes less pollution than washing a vehicle on the street using a biodegradable soap. A 111 19. The best place to dispose of water from 11 clearing a Latex paint brush is in a sink inside, not outdoors. A 11 12 20. Chemical treatments to kill moss on roofs pose 66.6% little risk for polluting stonmvater. D 12 29. An illicit or uldaii ful stormm titer discharge is primarily defined as anything that enters a storm 67.2% 13 drain system that is not made up entirely- of 13 stonmvater. A 14 27. Carpet shampoo wastewater can be safely 69.� added to a stornnwater drain. D 1=4 7. Hard surfaces such as roads and driveways are 69.9% 15S not significant sources of pollution in stonnwater. D 1i 22. The downspouts at my house convey the water 71.1 16 to an area where it is absorbed by the ground. A Adopt 16 12 All of my family's auto or truck parts with oil 72.2% 17 or grease on them are stored under a roof or cover. A Adopt 17 10. Scrubbing oil and grease spots on outdoor concrete or asphalt with soap and hosing it off is a 73.3% 18 good way to prevent polluting stonmvater runoff. 18 D \1,4� 19 23. Using a mulching lawfinlotitier reduces the need gip, ��r ,rl%% to fertilize a lawn. A ht 9. The best way to clean up spilled oil on the 01" f M\�aa�� driveway is to fiilly absorb it using kitty litter or 20 y s ir v1 ,4 ,�4 v a»4 paper towels and deposit this waste m a garbage yp can. A *Blue indicates a clttestiort dealing with 11 the resportdertt does. Percents app 0111. to respondents who suit] the clttestiort applied to them 54 Related Multivariate Analysis Findings for Kent 010.111eri were significantly more cnvare than women that scrubbing oil acid grease spots oil outdoor concrete or asphalt with soap and hosing it off is not a good ival, to prevent polluting stoririwater runoff (p .006, Crairier's V—.272). Gender Correct Incorrect Male 84.9% 15.1% Female 60.8% 39.2% 023.111eri were sigriifwaiitly more cnvare than womeii that using a mulc-hing lalvnmolver reduces the need to fertili.:e a Jcnivi (p .005, C'ramer',s V .27x). Gender Correct Incorrect Male 86.8% 13.2% Female 62.7% 37.3% 029.111eri were significantly more cnvare than woirzeri that aii illicit or iirdMti fill stormwater discharge is primarily defined as anything that enters a sto171111 drain sy,steria that is riot made rip entirely of storir water (p .001, Crairier's V .341). Gender Correct Incorrect Male 83.0% 17.0% Female 51.0% 49.0% 55 City of Kent Priority 3 Issues: Higher than 80% Correct Answers Knowledge and Practices A high percentage of respondents in Dent gave the correct responses to seven questions regarding behaviors that are protective of stormwater. This suggests that high compliance with recommended actions is already taking place. Given the nature of the items tested, however, improvement in these practices is still desirable and should remain a goal. Education should communicate the following actions to the public: Recycle use(' motor oil. Fix auto or truck oil leaks lrithirr three lreeks. Aj)j)A at reeommeml'e(l rates. Store cowaillers hol(hllg oil or Cmtl fl•ee.:e it 0er Cl roof or coyer•. Aj)j)/ v irlseetieicl'es or lree(l killer at reeommeml'e(l rates. Pick 111)1)et lrciste lrherr oitt, iOe. Store all ar(l fertili.:ers cirl(l'I)estieicl'es itisicl'e ci builcl'itig or in ci eoyerecl area out of the raill. Table 7. Priority 3 Issues for Public Education Rank for Education Question Correct Responses 13. My household recycles all used motor oil. A 4 Q 21 Adopt 2, 22 11. If my car or truck is dripping oil. I make sure the leak is fixed within three weeks. A Adopt 22 26. In the past 12 months, I may have used more 23 fertilizer or applied it more frequently than the /O label directions require, D Adopt 24 14. My family stores all containers holding oil or antifreeze under a roof or coyer. A Adopt 2 25. In the past 12 months. I may have applied a 92.0% 2� higher dose of insecticide or weed killer around my 25 house than the directions say to use. D Adopt 26 8. When I am outside with my pet, I always pick up 9 my pet's waste. A Adopt 26 24. My household stores all yard fertilizers and 94.5% 27 pesticides inside a building or in a covered area out of the rain. A Adopt 27 Bhie 111C11cates U pestloll dealiii T ll'ltll 11'11Ut the respoilde11t does. Perce11ts apj?) l' o1111' to respoilde11ts 11'110 Said the pestioii applied to them 56 City of Kent Awareness of The Clean Water Project Only 28.6% of respondents in Kent agreed with the statement that the city is carrying out The (lead Water Project. Nearly all other respondents said they did not know or needed more information. The City of Kent is currently carrying out a program called The Clean Water Project. Aware 28.6% Not Aware 71.4% 57 City of Tukwila Priority 1 Issues: 50% or Less Correct Answers SAM NOW Knowledge and Practices All Priority 1 questions for the City of Tukwila are shown in Table 8 below. These issues represent the areas which need the most attention. In order of importance, the following messages should be included in educational programming: Biodegradable soap is riot a safe addition to stornnvater drains aml shollld be kept f on1 ewerin the Storinivater drahiage Svsteln. Bricks or pavers Delp to r•echice the vollmle of stormwater rimgff arld therefore, Delp to reduce Stormirater polllltiol? ni the emirO1 ?met ?t. 111e11'11 ??ar1' Ca1lSe Of pO1111t1O1? 11? StO1'1 ??l1'atel' 1'111 ?Offs is hiclivichlal humal? activity, 1 1ot irachrstrial damping. Success hi rechichig erlvirolnnerltal polhltiorl clepemis 1q)or1 everVO1 ?e 'S particrpatiol? ni helpn ?g to make a dlffel'eJ ?Ce. Wash vorn car ire are area iche1 e the soapy rrrrioff'���ill be absorbed by the grorrr�d or take von/* car to a commercial car ivash. Soalnv ivater should riot be allowed to flow into the street or into a drainage ditch. The ivater n? Stormirater drahis 1S 1 ?ot col ?1 ?ected to the Saliitary Seiver SVSteln 1 ?Or 1S all stornnvater treated to remove polhltarlts before being released into the eiivirownerlt. Therefore, the quality of Stormirater goi n ?tO the d1 a11 ?age Svsteln is ichat detern?n ?es the level ofpolhrtioli ire surface ivater. Grass clippings aml leaves i11 stor11111 are regarded as polhltiorl aml should be kept out Of the Stormirater Bran ?age Svsteln. 58 Table 8. Priority I Issues for Public Education Rank for Education Question Correct Responses 1 15. The runoff from washing a car with biodegradable soap is safe in storrnwater drains. D 1 29. Bricks or pavers offer no advantage for 42 1% 2 reducing runoff over concrete or asphalt pavement. D 2 Pollution in our rivers, wetlands and lakes and in Puget Sound is more the result of industrial a 3 dumping practices than individual human activity. `i D 16. When I wash a motor vehicle at home, the 45 4 soapy water ends up in a ditch or on the street. D 4 Adopt 3. Drains on city streets for storrnvater are 46.5% 5 connected to the same sanitan sewer system used for treating human waste. D 6 19. Grass clippings and leaves are not regarded as 50.0% harmful in storrmvater. D 6 *Blue indicates a giiestiort dealing with 11 the resPortdertt does. Percents aPPly 01111 to resPortdertts who suit] the giiestiort applied to them Related Multivariate Analysis Findings for Tukwila 03. Alm show Slgiilocal ?th, higher awareiieSS thaii womeii that the c1r'ahis oii cltt' Str'eetS for Stor'inwater are 1 ?ot col ?Iiected to the Saine Saliitary sewer svvein used for' treatin humaii waste (1) .016, C'r•atner• 's V Gender Correct Incorrect Male 58.0% 42.0% Female 34.0% 66.0% 59 City of Tukwila Priority 2 Issues: 50% 80% Correct Answers Knowledge and Practices All Priority 2 questions for the City of Tukwila are shown in Table 9 below. Although not as important as Priority 1 messages, Priority 2 areas retain importance in their ability to significantly reduce water pollution. In order of importance, the following messages should be included in educational programming: .S'edilnew is polllltiOii wi shoulcl be preview f oin ewerin the storlrnivater drail ?age systenl. Ali illicit or 11111alti fill discharge is ailvthing that eiltel•s a stol•m drain systeril that is clot 1 rlade irp Of ew irely stormirater. All 11'ater going into storrillnater clr•ahls is not treated before being discharged into the eiivirOmneiit. StO1'1r111'atel' 1'111 ?Off is the leadin cause Of polhltiOii ill rivers, ivetlam ai lakes. Therefore, to r•echic•e ein'il•oiiiiieiital polllitioii, the challenge to the coli1n11iilitl' is to help keep storlinvater rwiq� fpolhrtiori free. The resichie fi•olrl chemical treatInews that kill Irloss is a solace of'polhrtioil. Washing a vehicle at a commercial car leash c•allses less polhitiorl than ivashing a vehicle at holrle ivith biodegradable soap. The best place to c•leaii paint brushes is ill a sink that clrahls into the sanitary seiner• s1'stelll, Plot O11000rs. Applving soap to oil wid grease spots oil outdoor coiicrete or asphalt wid rhising it off tnith a hose is clot a good method for IvOtec•tirig storri111 r•imoff. Hard slit faces are sigliific•aiit c•orltl•iblitol•s to polhitiorl ill stornnnater rimgff. Herne, it is 11?1l)ortaw to keel) hard su faces cleaii usin acceptable cleaiiin techi aml ichere possible, com irnivI slit faces to pel'PZOIls slit faces. C'alpet shampoo tnastelVater c•allses polhitioii to the eiivirowneiit aml should riot be disposed of ire a storlinvater draiii. A mulching lcnniimower rediic•es the need for lisirig fertili.:er arld, heiic•e, represents a valuable 1 rlethod fOr eliliiiiiatii fei tili'ei polllltiOii ill storlinvater. 60 Table 9. Priority 2 Issues for Public Education Rank for Education Question Correct Responses 7 21. Sediment or dirt in storini ater is natural and 5 not regarded as pollution. D 7 29. An illicit or uld mrfid stormirater discharge is primarily defined as anything that enters a storm 58.5% 8 drain system that is not made up entirely of g stormvater. A 6. All eater going into stormvater drains on the 59.1% 9 street is treated before being discharged into the environment. D 9 s 10 4. Stormvater runoff is the leading cause of 60.7% pollution in rivers, wetlands and lakes. A 10 11 20. Chemical treatments to kill moss on roofs pose 61.5% little risk for polluting stornnwater. D 11 17. Washing a vehicle at a connnercial car wash x% 12 causes less pollution than washing a vehicle on the 6 12 street using a biodegradable soap. A 1 18. The best place to dispose of water from 64.0% 13 cleaning a Latex paint brash is in a sink inside, not outdoors. A 1 10. Scrnbbing oil and grease spots on outdoor concrete or asphalt with soap and hosing it off is a 672% 1 good way to prevent polluting stormvater runoff. 14 D 7. Hard surfaces such as roads and driveways are 71'9% 15 not significant sources of pollution in stonni ater. D 15 16 27. Carpet shampoo wastewater can be safely 77.4% added to a storini ater drain. D 16 17 23. Using a mulching lawmnower reduces the 78% need to fertilize a lawn. A 17 *Bhie indicates a question dealing with 11 11at the resPortdertt does. Percents app/l 0111. to resPortdertts who suit] the question applied to them 61 City of Tukwila Priority 3 Issues: Higher than 80% Correct Answers IN 11 Knowledge and Practices A high percent of respondents in Tukwila gave the correct responses to ten questions regarding behaviors that are protective of stormwater. This suggests that high compliance with recommended actions is already taking place. Given the nature of the items tested, however, improvement in these practices is still desirable and should remain a goal. Education should communicate the following actions to the public: Recycle used motor oil. Clean irp oil grad grease spots ora outdoor com -rete or asphalt With soap aml absorb the resichte using kitty litter or• paper• toirels ichich should them be disposed of ire the garbage cati. Store auto or truck parts irith oil or grease ora them wider a roof or comer. Pick i p all pet iraste icheii outside. Fix auto or truck oil leaks within three weeks. Directdoirrispoarts to areas ors landichere the rarrioff���ill be absorbed by the gro1111d to avoid the crater ei ?tern ?g the stormmwater systeita. Apphv insecticides or weed killer at recom memled rates. Apply fertilizer at recon nnemled rates. Store coratahiers holding oil or aratifree.:e cinder a roof or comer. Store all Yard fertilizers wed pesticides hiSide a building or hi a col'ered area out of the raiii. 62 Table 10. Priority 3 Issues for Public Education Rank for Education Question Correct Responses 18 13. My household recycles all used motor oil. A 80.3% Adopt 18 9. The best way to clean up spilled oil on the 19 driveway is to fiilly absorb it using kith litter or paper towels and deposit this waste in a garbage tr9 can. A 12. All of my family's auto or truck parts with oil e 20 or grease on them are stored under a roof or coy er A Adopt ZQ 21 8. When I am outside with my pet, I always pick up my pet's waste. A Adopt1 WX 22 11. If my car or truck is dripping oil, I make sure 4 the leak is fixed within three weeks. A Adopt 2� r, 7 r 22. The downspouts at my house convey the water ,t 23 to an area where it is absorbed by the ground A 23 Adopt 24 25. hi the past 12 months, I may have applied a 91.1% higher dose of insecticide or weed killer around my 4 house than the directions say to use. D Adopt 26. In the past 12 months, I may have used more 9 25S fertilizer or applied it more frequently than the label directions require. D Adopt 25 5 26 14. My family stores all containers holding oil o 93 2% antifreeze under a roof or cover. A Adopt 1 26 24. My household stores all yard fertilizers and 98.2% 27 pesticides inside a building or in a covered area out 27 of the rain. A Adopt Bhle iii(licates U giiestio11 CIealiiig Irith 11 the respolldelit does. Perce11ts apj?) l' olill' to respo11C1e11ts 11 Said the question applied to them 63 Conclusions and Recommendations It is clear that the residents living in Kent and Tukwila do not regard the water in our rivers, wetlands, and lakes, and in the marine waters of Puget Sound as "extremely clean" (meaning free from pollution) nor "extremely polluted." The distribution of opinions across the rating scale suggests the public tends to either think of these waters as being somewhat clean, or to be uncertain regarding the level of pollution due to receiving a mix of both positive and negative information. Effort is needed to more definitively educate the public as to the level of pollution in these waters which can serve as a motivation for change. The public in these two cities shows varying degrees of knowledge regarding key issues for controlling stormwater pollution. In many cases, respondents lacked awareness of basic information which substantiates the need for public education programming. Results for Priority 1 Issues also show a high level of similarity in the two cities in what citizens know and do not know. The results are also very similar to the results from the same survey conducted in fourteen other cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce and Lewis Counties from the summer of 2009 through the spring of 2011. Results show that the public needs to be better informed regarding current levels of pollution in surface waters. Awareness of the problem is the first step to motivating action. Educational programming should raise the public's consciousness by highlighting the detrimental nature of surface water pollution, the threats current levels pose and the negative or destructive outcomes that currently result. Second, programming should help to establish a common vision of pollution -free rivers, wetlands, and lakes and a healthier Puget Sound as the goal to be achieved. Third, the direct and indirect positive outcomes of maintaining pristine conditions in surface waters and in Puget Sound should be highlighted —these are all the good things that will result. Fourth, the means of achieving these outcomes—meaning the helpful practices individuals can implement —need to be presented through effective social marketing practices in a way that is interesting, immediately understandable, convincing, and memorable and is able to tap into the beliefs, values and emotional benefits that will motivate behavioral change. Social marketing programs that provide a practical means to help people overcome obstacles to change will likely be most successful in modifying behavior. Since Priority 1 Issues show the lowest correct knowledge in the Kent /Tukwila Region, these subject areas offer an opportunity where success in improving the public's knowledge and subsequent behavior can be most directly realized and documented. Educational messaging should communicate the following Priority 1 messages: Biodegradable soap is iiot a safe addition to stormirater drains wid should be kep ftoin riirailing into the stor11111 drainage, ivstenz. Bricks or pai Delp to reduce the i of storilalvater riiraoff arad therefore, Delp to rechice stormirater polliltioi? hi the em ?t. The prinaary cause ofpolhitiora ill stornzlvater riiraoff is hidiilchial human actii rant hichistrial clulnpn ?g. Success hi recluchig enil ?tal pollittioii depemld i poi? ei 's participatioi? hi helpn ?g to i ?crake a differ er ?Ce. 64 Wash your car in an area ichere the soapv runoff'���ill be absorbed by the ground or take hour car to a commercial car irash. Soaj?v irater• shoulcl riot be alloirecl to .floij, into the street or into a drainage ditch. The crater hi Stormirater Branis is not connected to the Sal ?marl' Seirer s1 nor is all stornnvater treated to renzoiv polhltants before being released into the e1wironnlent. There bre, the quality of Stormirater going hito the drall ?age Svsteln is ichat deternilies the level ofpolhrtion in sll face crater. Seclitneiit is pollittioii and should be preVented frorll entering the storlrllvater drainage si "stem. Grass clippings and leaves in stormirater are regarded as pollution and should be kept out of the stor11111 drainage system. Priority 1 issues should be communicated in repeated educational messaging. Social marketing seeks to produce behavioral change which means learning new ways of acting. Learning requires repetition (practice). Hence, important messages need to be repeated through different communication channels and at different times to effectively promote assimilation and bring about change over time. As mentioned previously, practical programs that help citizens to overcome obstacles to change or reduce the "cost' for citizens in changing their behavior (such as reducing the amount it costs citizens to use a commercial car wash) offer the greatest potential for bringing about positive results. The rank order of Priority 2 issues showed high similarity between the two cities, more so than for Priority 1 issues. Two issues appearing on the Priority 2 list should be included among the Priority 1 items because of their standing as knowledge that is fundamental to improving behavior: the understanding that all water going into stormwater drains is not treated before being discharged into the environment, and, second, the definition of an illicit discharge. Both concepts serve as precursors to increasing positive action. Messaging also needs to focus on establishing the concept that everyone is responsible for reducing pollution in surface waters. The public shows the highest level of correct knowledge regarding Priority 3 issues which primarily involved actual behaviors. At minimum, this finding demonstrates a wide public understanding of the right actions. At best, it indicates the public has adopted and is already widely practicing these desirable behaviors. Continued messaging is recommended regarding these issues, with less intensity than for Priority 1 and 2 Issues, to reinforce, maintain and extend positive action. 65 Baseline Stormwater Survey Results for 16 Cities: Priority 1 Issues The following three tables present the percent correct answers for each of sixteen cities that have administered a baseline survey beginning in the summer of 2009. Priority rankings for education were determined by the overall percent of correct responses for all cities combined (labeled All Cities). Table 11. Priority 1 Issues (Under 50% Correct Responses) for Sixteen Northwest Washington Cities Question Rank for Education % Correct R sponses by Area All Cities Aberdeen Centralia Duvall Edmonds Enumclaw Kenmore Kent 2 3 4 15. The runoff from washing a car with biodegradable soap is safe in stormwater drains. D 6. When I soap w� Adoy pt h a motor vehicle at home,: up mad h or an the street 29.8% 1 23.8% 18.3% 30.4% 1 31.8% D 47.4% 6 28. Bricks or pavers offer no advantage fo reducing runoff over concrete or asphalt pavement. D 5. Pollution in our rivers, wetlands and lakes and in Puget Sound is more the result of industrial dumping practices than individual human activity. D 40.0% 4 41.2% 6 48.9% 7 40.4% 6 43.8% 5 32.4% 1 24.5% 1 42.4% 4 36.2% 1 32.3% 4 Lakewood Maple Valley 33.0% 4 19.5% Mercer Island 26.5% 1 5 21. Sediment or dirt in stormwater is natural and not regarded as pollution. D 42.7% 5 50.5% 8 38.0% 4 38.0% 4 52.6% 6 6 19. Grass clippings and leaves are not regarded as harmful in stoirnwater. D 46.6% 6 47.0% 5 40.2% 5 49.2% 8 43.3% 4 48.3% 8 46.3% 6 44.2% 4 46.3% 6 43.8% 5 50.7% 7 41.6% 6 46.5% 8 35.5% 5 50.7% 8 53.4% 9 7 3. Drains on city streets for stormwater are connected to the same sanitary sewer system used for treating human waste. D 46.7% 7 56.4% 10 55.1% 7 45.3% 5 40.6% 5 27.5% 1 38.4% 4 44.2% 5 49.1% 5 47.7% 4 Mill Creek Mountlake Terrace 24.9% 1 44.1% 6 21.4% 30.3% 4 41.3% 6 Mukilteo 22.8% 1 38.9% 4 Newcastle Tukwila Woodinville 31.0% 30.7% 1 19.2% 45.8% 4 39.2% 5 46.9% 7 49.2% 6 44.1% 45.9% 6 49.0% 7 57.5% 9 5 49.2% 7 40.5% 4 47.0% 8 41.6% 7 53.5% 6 53.9% 7 33.6% 4 53.3% 7 46.7% 50.0% 6 6 45.9% 46.5% 5 5 37.6% 5 36.0% 4 41.5% 6 50.9% 7 Baseline Stormwater Survey Results for 16 Cities: Priority 2 Issues Table 12. Priority 2 Issues (50% to 80% Correct Resnonsesl for Sixteen Northwest Washington Cities Rank for Education Question Correct Responses by Area All Cities Aberdeen Centralia Duvall Edmonds Enumclaw Kenmore Kent Lakewood Maple Valley Island Mill Creek Mountlake Terrace rr-ac Mukilteo Newcastle Tukwila Woodinville 4. Stormwater runoff is the leading 8 came of pollution in rivers, wetlands and 53.2% 49.2% 54.8% 39.8% 59.6% 52.3% 62.1% 56.1% 46.5% 57.1% 56.6% 50.6% 53.9% 59.5% 56.2% 60.7% 58.6% lakes. A 8 7 10 5 9 10 10 9 6 9 8 9 9 8 8 10 9 9 17. washmgausee %less pollution tt nsethan w,as}ang mg a car 8r p biodegradable soap. A 57..8% 44. /o 52..3% 52..3 %% 7218/0 51..7 %% 6211 °OA 58.99% 48 7A 55.8% 57.0 °O /o 10 64.2 ° ° /o 11 6 10% 10 612 ° ° /o 12 612 ° ° /o 12 538 8 6. All water going into stormwater 10 drains on the street is treated before 58.2% 56.1 %% 46.8% 59.6 %% 61.0 %% 56.2 %% 58.3 %% 44.1% 58.1% 59.4% 67.7% 50.0 %% 56.3 %% 67.2% 57.7 %% 59.1 %% 59.6% being discharged into the environment. 10 9 8 11 11 11 9 7 11 10 14 8 10 12 9 9 10 D 29. An illicit or unlawful stormwater discharge is primarily defined as 58.3% 66.9 %% 59.2% 66.4°A 60.8 %% 48.2 %% 57.0 %% 67.2% 66.8% 62.6% 60.1% 67.6 %% 37.6 %% 63.5% 58.4 %% 58.5 %% 59.7% 11 anything that enters a storm drain system that is not made up entirely of stormwater. A 11 13 12 16 10 7 8 13 12 11 11 13 5 9 10 8 11 18. The best place to dispose of water 63.2% 58.6 %% 63.2% 64.5°A 59.0 %% 60.4 %% 63.8 ° ° °A 59.5% 57.1% 68.5% 66.3% 62.8 %% 67.8 %% 68.7% 70.6 %% 64.0 %% 64.9% 12 from cleaning a Latex paint brush is in a sink inside, not outdoors. A 12 11 15 14 8 12 12 11 10 14 12 11 14 15 15 13 13 20. Chemical treatments to kill moss on 13 roofs pose little risk for polluting 65.0% 66.5% 60.9% 62.4°A 74.1% 60.5% 64.5 ° ° °A 66.6% 69.9% 63.6% 59.5% 70.4% 66.8% 68.2% 62.7% 61.5% 60.5% stormwater. D 13 12 13 12 15 13 13 12 14 12 10 15 13 13 11 11 12 14 27. Carpet shampoo wastewater can be 70.5% 72.6 °O /o 60.9% 63.9 ° ° /o 76.2 ° ° /o 76.9 ° ° /o 66.0 ° ° /o 69.2% 73.1% 77.9% 56.2% i9 70.6 ° ° /o 70.0 %% 77.4 %% 69.8% safely added to a stomnwater dram D 14 15 14 13 17 18 14 14 17 17 7 "°" 15 -,l : 13 16 14 7. Hard surfaces such as roads and 70.7% 74.6 %% 58.8% 59.0% 75.8 %% 69.5°A 69.9% 70.4% 67.3% 76.4% 72.7 ° °% 68.6% 70.4 %% 71.9 %% 71.9% 15 driveways are not significant sources of pollution in stormwater. D 15 17 11 10 16 15 15 15 13 17 17 6',.� 14 14 15 16 .: 10. Scmbbmg oil and grease spots on 16 n outdoor concrete or asphalt with soap 72.6% 74.9 %% 67.1% 65.4/ : �,. 71.9 °O °A 73.3% 71.1% 78.2% 76.7% 70.8 %% 73.5 %% 74.2% 74.9 %% 67.2 %% 71.8% and hosing it off is a good way to prevent polluting stormwater runoff. D 16 18 16 15 .,», -^ 16 18 16 18 18 16 16 16 18 14 15 22. Thedownspouts at my house com%eye ^; ° ° °A 17 - the water to an area where rt is absorbed by the ground A Adopt 73.5% 17 69.2°A 17 72.3% 13 71.1% 14 79.4 18 711% 16 $&49' - 77.6% 16 66.5% 13 65.4% 12 ���' 66.1% 11 72.9% 16 18 a 23. Using mulching lawnmower 75.1% 72.4 %% 76.7% < 6 a 75.7% ::. 69 8% 73.9% 73.9% 69.3 °O /o 75.2% 73.6 ° /a 78% 75� 9% reduces the need to fertilize a lawn. A 18 14 18 3 17 + 13 15 15 14 i:. 17 17 17 17 9. The best way to cleanup spilled oil o }.> M ' " "';I 19 the driveway is to fully absorb it an d 75.8% 70.1% 69.7% ll4l, 75.7% 75.0% 75.6% 81.0% 77.1% 78.8% kitty litter or paper towels and deposi ;;„, '" ";:a� 17 18 12 zw. 8 16 18 18 18 18 this waste in a garbage can A ' Baseline Stormwater Survey Results for 16 Cities: Priority 3 Issues MMtNeln Table 13. Priority 3 Issues Over 80% Correct Responses) for Sixteen Northwest Washington Cities Question Rank for Education % Correct Responses by Area All Cities Aberdeen Centralia Duvall Edmonds Enumclaw Kenmore Kent Lakewood Maple Valley Mercer Island Mill Creek Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo Newcastle Tukwila Woodinville 20 13. My household recycles all used motor oil A Adopt tr. 76.1% 16 75.0% 15 66.7% 17 80.3% 21 22 12. All of my family'. ala., or truck parts will oil or grease on them are gored under a roof o cover. A Adopt I I. H my car or truck is dnppmg oil. I mak sure the leak is fixed within three week_. Adopt :1 77.0% 18 76.5% 17 21 21 } 21 25 23 24 N ' \11.'11 '.1111 ■■111-,1,1.' «1111 1i pock up my pet s waste. A Adopt I ah ay 2?. In the past 12 months, I may have applied higher dose of insecticide or weed killer arouni my house than the directions by to use. 1 Adopt 21 25 21 21 25 89.7 °5 25 21 96.9% 25 21 21 25 26. In the past 12 months, I may have use 91.6 % more fertilizer or applied it more frequentl, 25 than the label directions require. D Adopt 90.9% 25 26 14. My family stores all containers holding o 94.1% or antifreeze under a roof or cover. A Adopt 26 2- 21 21 91.8 °o 25 93.1 °o 26 94.2 ° o 26 92.7% 25 21 I, 26 9).9 ° -o 26 96.3 °, 25 97.2 ° -b 26 98.4% 26 21 98.1;5 25 98.5° o 26 21 9 ).6 ° -0 26 93. 93.2° o 25 93.2 ° -0 26 27 24. My household Cores all yard fertilizers an pesticides inside a building or in a covered are: - out of the rain. A Adopt 95.9 ° 0 26 93.0° o 26 97.300 26 97.7 ° -0 26 THE CITY OF KENT STORMWATER COMMUNITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE MARCH, 2011 I3.4 Hello, my name is and I am calling on behalf of the City of Bent. [IF SPEAKING TO A CHILD] May I speak to someone who is at least 18 years of age? Thank you. [RE- INTRODUCE YOURSELF] Hello, my naive is and I ain calling on behalf of the City of Bent. We are asking citizens about an important environmental issue and eye vyould like to include your opinions. All your answers are strictly confidential and will not be connected to your name. S 1. [SCREENING QUESTION] Before we actually begin, I need to verify your city /county. What city /county do you live in? 1. Kent 2. Other Municipality [THANK AND POLITELY DICONTINUE] 3. Don't Know [THANK AND POLITELY DICONTINUE] 4. Refused [THANK AND POLITELY DICONTINUE] 1. What is your age? [RECORD NUMBER] 2. Great, thank you. My first question is about the water in our area. I'd like you to rate your perception of the overall quality of the water in our rivers, wetlands and lakes and in Puget Sound. By "quality of water" I mean how free it is from pollution. Rate it on a 0 to 10 scale where "0" means the water is "extremely polluted" and 10 means the water is "extremely clean." [RECORD NUMBER] [READ] Noll', 1 'iii goii ?g to read a iiiliiibei' of stateiilei ?ts to Vol.! i'egal'Clii ?g stoi'iiill'atei'. .S'oine of these stateineids inal' be true, tliel' all inal' be true or tliel' all inal' be false. Vol.! beliel'e that a stateineid is trile, please sal' "Agree. "If Vol.! beliel'e the stateinew is false, sal' "Disagree. If Volt are Plot certaiii about the stateineiit aml iieecl more igfortnatioii, Void caii aiisi Lei• frith "llee(I more igfortnatioii. "If the gilestiOtl Glow iiot apply to yoil of Vourfiamill', scil' Doesti'tApply. Here is the first oiie. Do Volt Agree, Disagree oi• iieecl tiloi•e iiifoi•tilatioii about the folloiriiig statement: 69 Responses for each: 1. Agree Disagree 3. Need more information 4. Uncertain, Don't Know 5. Refused 6. Doesn't Apply NOTE: Follolring each statemend, rori will see the correct aiiswer• iirdicated br arr "A" for• Agree or 'D for• Disagree. Wherr the wort/ "Adopt" appears, it nrearrs the statemend addresses ichether• or iiot the r•espomlew has "Adopted the correct behavior. 3. Drains on city streets for stormwater are connected to the same sanitary sewer system used for treating human waste. D 4. Stormwater runoff is the leading cause of pollution in rivers, wetlands and lakes. A 5. Pollution in our rivers, wetlands and lakes and in Puget Sound is more the result of industrial dumping practices than individual human activity. D 6. All water going into stormwater drains on the street is treated before being discharged into the environment. D [ROTATE Q7 -Q28] [NOTE: These questions will be asked in a random order to prevent sequencing bias.] [AFTER ASKING THE NEXT NINE QUESTIONS, SAY: You are doing really well. We are halfway through and I'll try to get through this as quickly as I can. Here's the next one, do you Agree, Disagree or Need More Information about this statement.] 7. Hard surfaces such as roads and driveways are not significant sources of pollution in stormwater. D 8. When I am outside with my pet, I always pick up my pet's waste. A Adopt 9. The best way to clean up spilled oil on the driveway is to fully absorb it using kitty litter or paper towels and deposit this waste in a garbage can. A 10. Scrubbing oil and grease spots on outdoor concrete or asphalt with soap and hosing it off is a good way to prevent polluting stormwater runoff. D 70 11. If my car or truck is dripping oil, I make sure the leak is fixed within three weeks. A Adopt 12. All of my family's auto or trick parts with oil or grease on them are stored under a roof or cover. A Adopt 13. My household recycles all used motor oil. A Adopt 14. My family stores all containers holding oil or antifreeze under a roof or cover. A Adopt 15. The runoff from washing a car with biodegradable soap is safe in stormwater drains. D 16. When I wash a motor vehicle at home, the soapy water ends up in a ditch or on the street. D Adopt 17. Washing a vehicle at a commercial car wash causes less pollution than washing a vehicle on the street using a biodegradable soap. A 18. The best place to dispose of water from cleaning a Latex paint brash is in a sink inside, not outdoors. A 19. Grass clippings and leaves are not regarded as harmful in stormwater. D 20. Chemical treatments to kill moss on roofs pose little risk for polluting stormwater. D 21. Sediment or dirt in stormwater is natural and not regarded as pollution. D 22. The downspouts at my house convey the water to an area where it is absorbed by the ground. A Adopt 23. Using a mulching lawnmower reduces the need to fertilize a lawn. A 24. My household stores all yard fertilizers and pesticides inside a building or in a covered area out of the rain. A Adopt 25. In the past 12 months, I may have applied a higher dose of insecticide or weed killer around my house than the directions say to use. D Adopt 26. In the past 12 months, I may have used more fertilizer or applied it more frequently than the label directions require. D Adopt 27. Carpet shampoo wastewater can be safely added to a stormwater drain. D 28. Bricks or pavers offer no advantage for reducing runoff over concrete or asphalt pavement. D 29. An illicit or 11111nti fill stor•nnvcrter• discharge is primarily defined as anything that enters a storm drain system that is not composed entirely of stormwater. A 71 29a. The City of Kent is currently carrying out a program called The C Water Prgject. A 30. If you witnessed someone pouring a gallon of used paint thinner into a stormwater drain, which agency would you call first to report it: [READ 1 -5] 1. The Washington Department of Ecology 2. The police department 3. The city Public Works Department A 4. 911 A (for the City of Kent) 5. Need more information 6. I would not report it 7. Don't Know /Refused 8. Other [SPECIFY] That concludes our survey. I want to thank you very much for your time and cooperation. You have been very helpful. Have a good day! POSTCODE GENDER: 1. MALE 2. FEMALE DATE: INTERVIEWER: 72 THE CITY OF TUKWILA STORMWATER COMMUNITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE APRIL, 2011 I3.4 Hello, my naive is and I ain calling on behalf of the City of Tukvdla. [IF SPEAKING TO A CHILD] May I speak to someone who is at least 18 years of age? Thank you. [RE- INTRODUCE YOURSELF] Hello, my naive is and I ain calling on behalf of the City of Tukvdla. We are asking citizens about an important environmental issue and eye vyould like to include your opinions. All your answers are strictly confidential and will not be connected to your name. S 1. [SCREENING QUESTION] Before we actually begin, I need to verify your city /county. What city /county do you live in? 1. Tukwila 2. Other Municipality [THANK AND POLITELY DICONTINUE] 3. Don't Know [THANK AND POLITELY DICONTINUE] 4. Refused [THANK AND POLITELY DICONTINUE] 1. What is your age? [RECORD NUMBER] 2. Great, thank you. My first question is about the water in our area. I'd like you to rate your perception of the overall quality of the water in our rivers, wetlands and lakes and in Puget Sound. By "quality of water" I mean how free it is from pollution. Rate it on a 0 to 10 scale where "0" means the water is "extremely polluted" and 10 means the water is "extremely clean." [RECORD NUMBER] [READ] Noll', 1 'iii goii ?g to read a iiiliiibei' of stateiilei ?ts to Vol.! i'egal'Clii ?g stoi'iiill'atei'. .S'oine of these stateineids inal' be true, tliel' all inal' be true or tliel' all inal' be false. If Vol.! beliel'e that a stateineid is trile, please sal' "Agree. "If Vol.! beliel'e the stateinew is false, sal' "Disagree. If Volt are Plot certaiii about the stateineiit aml iieecl more igfortnatioii, Void caii aiisi Lei• frith "llee(I more igfortnatioii. "If the gilestiOtl Glow iiot apply to yoil of Vourfiamill', scil' Doesti'tApply. Here is the first oiie. Do Volt Agree, Disagree oi• iieecl tiloi•e iiifoi•tilatioii about the folloiriiig statement: 73 Responses for each: 1. Agree Disagree 3. Need more information 4. Uncertain, Don't Know 5. Refused 6. Doesn't Apply NOTE: Follolring each statemend, Pori will see the correct aiiswer• h0icated br aii "A" for• Agree or 'D for• Disagree. Wheii the wort/ "Adopt" appears, it nrearrs the statemend addresses ichether• or iiot the r•espomlew has "Adopted the correct behavior. 3. Drains on city streets for stormwater are connected to the same sanitary sewer system used for treating human waste. D 4. Stormwater runoff is the leading cause of pollution in rivers, wetlands and lakes. A 5. Pollution in our rivers, wetlands and lakes and in Puget Sound is more the result of industrial dumping practices than individual human activity. D 6. All water going into stormwater drains on the street is treated before being discharged into the environment. D [ROTATE Q7 -Q28] [NOTE: These questions will be asked in a random order to prevent sequencing bias.] [AFTER ASKING THE NEXT NINE QUESTIONS, SAY: You are doing really well. We are halfway through and I'll try to get through this as quickly as I can. Here's the next one, do you Agree, Disagree or Need More Information about this statement.] 7. Hard surfaces such as roads and driveways are not significant sources of pollution in stormwater. D 8. When I am outside with my pet, I always pick up my pet's waste. A Adopt 9. The best way to clean up spilled oil on the driveway is to fully absorb it using kitty litter or paper towels and deposit this waste in a garbage can. A 74 10. Scrubbing oil and grease spots on outdoor concrete or asphalt with soap and hosing it off is a good way to prevent polluting stormwater runoff. D 11. If my car or trick is dripping oil, I make sure the leak is fixed within three weeks. A Adopt 12. All of my family's auto or trick parts with oil or grease on them are stored under a roof or cover. A Adopt 13. My household recycles all used motor oil. A Adopt 14. My family stores all containers holding oil or antifreeze under a roof or cover. A Adopt 15. The runoff from washing a car with biodegradable soap is safe in stormwater drains. D 16. When I wash a motor vehicle at home, the soapy water ends up in a ditch or on the street. D Adopt 17. Washing a vehicle at a commercial car wash causes less pollution than washing a vehicle on the street using a biodegradable soap. A 18. The best place to dispose of water from cleaning a Latex paint brash is in a sink inside, not outdoors. A 19. Grass clippings and leaves are not regarded as harmful in stormwater. D 20. Chemical treatments to kill moss on roofs pose little risk for polluting stormwater. D 21. Sediment or dirt in stormwater is natural and not regarded as pollution. D 22. The downspouts at my house convey the water to an area where it is absorbed by the ground. A Adopt 23. Using a mulching lawnmower reduces the need to fertilize a lawn. A 24. My household stores all yard fertilizers and pesticides inside a building or in a covered area out of the rain. A Adopt 25. In the past 12 months, I may have applied a higher dose of insecticide or weed killer around my house than the directions say to use. D Adopt 26. In the past 12 months, I may have used more fertilizer or applied it more frequently than the label directions require. D Adopt 27. Carpet shampoo wastewater can be safely added to a stormwater drain. D 75 28. Bricks or pavers offer no advantage for reducing runoff over concrete or asphalt pavement. D 29. An illicit or wilair t/ stormirater discharge is primarily defined as anything that enters a storm drain system that is not composed entirely of stormwater. A 30. If you witnessed someone pouring a gallon of used paint thinner into a stormwater drain, which agency would you call first to report it: [READ 1 -5] 1. The Washington Department of Ecology 2. The police department 3. The city Public Works Department A 4.911 5. Need more information 6. I would not report it 7. Don't Know /Refused 8. Other [SPECIFY] That concludes our survey. I want to thank you very much for your time and cooperation. You have been very helpful. Have a good day! POSTCODE GENDER: 1. MALE 2. FEMALE DATE: INTERVIEWER: 76