environmental services customer satisfaction survey report...

Report prepared by:

2955 Valmont Rd., Suite 300 • Boulder, Colorado 80301

t: 303-444-7863 • f: 303-444-1145 • www.n-r-c.com

Environmental Services Customer Satisfaction Survey

Report of Results March 2017

Environmental Services Customer Satisfaction Survey 2017

Report of Results

Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1

Survey Background ......................................................................................................................... 4

Natural Environment ............................................................................................................... 7

Solid Waste ............................................................................................................................ 11

Wastewater ........................................................................................................................... 15

Surface Water ........................................................................................................................ 19

Familiarity with EnviroChallenger, EnviroHouse, and Environmental Services Booths ........ 23

Information Source ................................................................................................................ 27

Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses .......................................................................... 29

Appendix B: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Survey Questions .......................................... 46

Appendix C: Selected Survey Responses by Respondent Subgroups ........................................... 47

Appendix D: Survey Methodology ................................................................................................ 52

Appendix E: Interview Script ......................................................................................................... 62


Report of Results | 1

Executive Summary

About the Survey The City of Tacoma’s Department of Environmental Services protects and restores natural resources, keeping the city clean, safe and livable through garbage and recycling pickup, wastewater treatment, household hazardous waste disposal, providing protection from stormwater pollution and much more. Environmental Services periodically measures resident opinion about the services it provides to measure the level of satisfaction and public awareness. The results of the 2017 survey, the fifth conducted, will be used to guide programming and outreach for Environmental Services.

Telephone interviewing of randomly selected customers of Environmental Services was conducted from January 19 through January 29, 2017. A total of 400 telephone interviews were completed; the response rate was 18 percent.

Survey respondents rated most of the services and facilities provided and maintained by Tacoma Environmental Services favorably.

There were 26 services or community characteristics evaluated by residents. Average ratings ranged from 58 points to 78 points on the 100-point scale, where 0=poor, 33=fair, 67=good and 100=excellent.

Of the 26 services and facilities assessed, 24 ratings remained stable from 2014 to 2017. The rating for the Make a Splash grant program decreased from 2014 to 2017 while the rating for the quality of the overall natural environment increased between the two administrations.

Ratings for 11 of the services evaluated could be compared to a national benchmark (an average of ratings from communities across the nation). Of these 11, five were higher than the national average, two were similar, and four were lower.

Above the national average Similar to the national average Below the national average

Yard waste collection services Your overall impression of Solid Waste

employee Solid waste employee knowledge of the topic

about which you contacted them Solid waste employee courtesy to you or

others Solid waste employee responsiveness to your

concern or question

Recycling collection services Street sweeping

Overall natural environment in the City of Tacoma

Garbage collection services Storm drain maintenance Overall services such as wastewater

treatment, maintenance and operation of pipes and pump stations, etc.

A majority of Tacoma households participated in activities that positively impacted the natural environment and generally thought these activities effectively protected the environment.

Eight in 10 residents said that members of their household at least sometimes recycled paper, cans, plastic, yard waste and glass. About nine in 10 used non-toxic cleaning products and buy products with less packaging. These participation rates were similar to those reported in 2014. About three-quarters of respondents stated that they composted food and/or yard waste at least



sometimes. A new question on the 2017 survey asked if respondents participated in the City’s curbside food waste recycling program; 54 percent of respondents indicated that they did. The main barrier for non-participants was a lack of knowledge about the program’s existence.

When asked how effective or ineffective they thought these activities were at protecting the environment, eight in 10 respondents felt that most activities were at least somewhat effective, but only 59 percent felt that washing their car on the lawn was effective.

Fewer residents in 2017 compared to 2014 were familiar with TAGRO, though similar proportions reported using TAGRO products.

About six in 10 respondents had heard of TAGRO (which is short for “Tacoma Grow,” the City of Tacoma’s award-winning, environmentally friendly landscaping mixes made from wastewater biosolids); a decrease from 2017 to 2014. About one-third of all respondents had used TAGRO, which was similar to 2014. Those who were familiar with the TAGRO program gave it an average rating of 80 on a 100-point scale, similar to 2014.

Those who had heard of TAGRO were also asked if they knew about TAGRO’s partnership with community gardens; only about three in 10 who had heard of TAGRO knew about the partnership. This was lower than reported in 2014.

Half of residents believed water in storm drains flowed to a treatment plant rather than directly into the nearest body of water without treatment and few participated in sustainable “low-impact” stormwater management practices.

Those participating in the survey were asked where, to the best of their knowledge, they thought water went once it entered storm drains. Half believed it ran into the nearest body of water without treatment and half thought it went to a treatment plant. This was similar to what had been observed in 2009 and 2014.

Responses were mixed regarding respondents’ level of familiarity with a variety of sustainable “low impact” stormwater management practices. At least half of residents were familiar with planting trees, rain barrels and using native plant landscaping, and just under half were familiar with rain gardens and permeable pavements or pavers. Compared to 2014, fewer respondents in 2017 were familiar with rain barrels and more respondents were familiar with permeable pavement or pavers. One-third or fewer reported having installed any of the various low-impact stormwater treatments.

As in 2014, the 2017 results indicated that few residents were familiar with programs that provide education to residents about environmental issues.

Tacoma’s Environmental Services uses a variety of methods to reach out to residents and provide education. About eight in 10 of those interviewed were not at all familiar with the EnviroChallenger program that teaches free environmental lessons to Tacoma students.

Just over one-third of respondents had heard of EnviroHouse (a permanent model home showcasing green building and natural landscape ideas, materials and techniques to create a healthy home and planet, which also highlights yard and home products for the public at the Tacoma Recovery and Transfer Center. Of those respondents, 23 percent had heard of



EnviroHouse but had not visited and 13 percent had visited. Among those who had visited EnviroHouse, about four in 10 had been influenced to purchase a product they had seen there.

Environmental Services also staffs a booth at a number of community events. Overall, half or less of respondents had attended Zoolights, a Rainiers Baseball Game, the Tacoma Home and Garden Show and the Sustainability Expo. Of those who had attended, less than two in 10 said that they had visited the Environmental Services booth. Respondents were most likely to visit the Environmental Services booth at other community events like outdoor concerts, fairs or festivals (18 percent had attended these events and visited the booth) and were least likely to have attended and visited the booth at the Sustainability Expo (5 percent). Visits to the Environmental Services booth at the various events were similar from 2014 to 2017.



Survey Background

Survey Purpose The City of Tacoma’s Department of Environmental Services protects and restores natural resources, keeping the city clean, safe and livable through garbage and recycling pickup, wastewater treatment, household hazardous waste disposal, providing protection from stormwater pollution and much more.

To ensure services are both recognized and appreciated by the public, Environmental Services periodically measures resident opinion about their work.

In 2016, the City of Tacoma contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to develop and conduct its fifth iteration of the Customer Satisfaction Survey. The survey measured residential satisfaction, awareness and the perception of the services provided by the City’s Environmental Services as well as residents’ behaviors and attitudes related to activities that impact the environment. The results of the survey, summarized in this report, will be used to guide programming and outreach for Environmental Services.

Survey Methods Telephone interviewing of randomly selected resident households from the Environmental Services customer list was conducted from January 19 through January 29, 2017. A total of 400 telephone interviews were completed; the response rate was 18 percent. This is a good response rate for a telephone survey. Typically, response rates are between10 and 22 percent for a telephone survey of this nature.

Survey results were weighted so that respondent age, gender and housing tenure (rent versus own) were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire adult population in Tacoma. More information about the survey methodology can be found in Appendix D: Survey Methodology.

How the Results Are Reported Precision of Estimates

It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus-or-minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents (400). For comparisons among subgroups, the margin of error rises to approximately plus-or-minus 10 percent for sample sizes of 100.

“Percent Positive”

For the most part, the “percent positive” and average ratings are presented in the body of the report. The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (e.g., “excellent” and “good”, “very effective” and “somewhat effective”). The calculation of average ratings are described in the section below titled Putting Evaluations onto a 100-point Scale.



Putting Evaluations onto a 100-point Scale

Although responses to many of the evaluative or frequency questions were made on a four-point scale with one representing the best rating and four the worst, the scales had different labels (e.g., "excellent," "very effective"). To make comparisons across survey years (as some response scales changed slightly in 2009 from those used in 2002 and 2005), many of the results in this summary are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. If everyone reported "excellent," then the result would be 100 on the 0-100 scale. If the average rating for quality of the natural environment were right in the middle of the scale (between "fair" and “good”), then the result would be 50. The new scale can be thought of like the thermometer used to represent total giving to United Way. The higher the thermometer reading, the closer to the goal of 100 – in this case, the most positive response possible. The 95 percent confidence interval around a score on the 0-100 scale based on all respondents typically will be no greater than plus or minus three points on the 100-point scale.

“Don’t Know” Responses and Rounding

On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could give an answer of “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of results included in Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses and is noted in the body of this report if it is 20 percent or greater. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report, unless otherwise indicated. In other words, the majority of the tables and graphs in the body of the report display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.

When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100 percent, it is due to the customary practice of rounding percentages to the nearest whole number.

Comparing Survey Results over Time

Because this survey was the fifth in a series of satisfaction surveys, the 2017 results are presented along with past results when available. Differences between years can be considered “statistically significant” if they are five points or more on the 100-point scale and seven percentage points or more. Trend data for Tacoma represent important comparisons and should be examined for improvements or declines. However, it should be noted that changes in question wording and/or scale options from 2005 to 2009 could be at least partially responsible for changes in results between the two survey years, while survey questions changed less after 2009.

Comparing Survey Results to Other Communities

NRC maintains a database of comparative resident opinion comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 700 communities whose residents evaluated local government services. Communities in this database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. While some of these communities may have different characteristics than Tacoma, all are in the business of providing local government services to residents. The objective in every community is to provide services that are so timely, tailored and effective that residents conclude the services are of the highest quality.

In this report, benchmark comparisons have been provided when similar questions on the Tacoma Environmental Services survey are included in NRC’s database and there are at least five



jurisdictions in which the question was asked, though most questions are compared to more than five other communities across the country. Where comparisons are available, Tacoma results are noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar to” the benchmark. This evaluation of “above,” “below” or “similar to” comes from a statistical comparison of Tacoma’s rating to the benchmark. In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much lower” or “much higher”). These labels come from a statistical comparison of Tacoma’s rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered “similar” if it is within the margin of error; “higher” or “lower” if the difference between Tacoma’s rating and the benchmark is greater than the margin of error; and “much higher” or “much lower” if the difference between Tacoma’s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error. When data for questions on the survey are not available in the benchmark database, the items are excluded from the benchmark table. (For more information about the benchmarks, see Appendix D: Survey Methodology.)



Report of Results

Natural Environment Tacoma residents were asked general questions about the natural environment in the city and to provide information about their attitudes and behaviors regarding the area’s natural environment.

When asked to rate the quality of the overall natural environment in Tacoma, 65 percent gave an excellent or good rating. About six in 10 rated the job that the City of Tacoma’s government is doing to protect the environment as good or better. While fewer than 10 percent gave each a poor rating, at least one-third of residents gave a fair rating.

Figure 1: Overall Quality of Natural Environment in Tacoma, 2017

10%

10%

50%

55%

34%

31%

6%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

How would you rate the job that Tacoma CityGovernment is doing at protecting the environment?

How would you rate the quality of the overall naturalenvironment in the City of Tacoma?

Percent of respondents

Excellent Good Fair Poor



These ratings were converted to a 100-point scale, where zero is equal to poor and 100 is equal to excellent, for comparisons over time and to other jurisdictions in the nation. The average rating for the quality of the overall natural environment was 65 on the 100-point scale, about equivalent to good. Although this rating was much lower when compared to ratings given in other jurisdictions across the country (see Benchmark Comparisons in Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses), it was an increase from ratings given in 2014 (up from 60).

Respondents gave an average rating of 60 points to the job the City Government does at protecting the environment, which was similar to 2014.

Figure 2: Overall Quality of Natural Environment in Tacoma, 2002-2017

Note: the scales differed between surveys years. Starting in 2009, the scale was "excellent, good, fair, poor." In 2005 and 2002, the scale was "excellent, very good, satisfactory, only fair, poor."

53

57

53

57

55

58

57

60

60

65

0 20 40 60 80 100

How would you rate the job that Tacoma CityGovernment is doing at protecting the

environment?

How would you rate the quality of the overallnatural environment in the City of Tacoma?

Average rating (0=poor, 100=excellent)

2017

2014

2009

2005

2002



Interviewers asked those participating in the survey how often they engaged in various activities impacting the natural environment in the city. Nearly all respondents said that they at least sometimes use standard curbside recycling, recycle yard waste and use non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products, with at least two-thirds saying that they always do these activities. Respondents were less inclined to wash their car on their lawn (only 25 percent reported doing this at least sometimes), participate in caring for or restoring open, natural spaces in Tacoma (24 percent) or garden at a community garden (8 percent). Overall, in 2017 compared to 2014, respondents reported similar rates of participation in the various activities.

Figure 3: Resident Behaviors, 2002-2017

Please tell me how often, if at all, you do each of the following. What about... Percent reporting at least sometimes. 2017 2014 2009 2005 2002

Recycle standard curbside recyclable items such as paper, cans and plastic 97% 99% 97% 95% 92%

Recycle yard waste 95% 92% 90% 95% 75%

Use non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products 93% 90% 94% 96% 89%

Buy products with less packaging 89% 92% 94% 90% 84%

Recycle glass 83% 85% NA NA NA

Compost food and/or yard waste 76% 77% 53% NA NA

Wash your car at a commercial car wash 72% 67% 72% NA NA

Dispose of household hazardous waste at the landfill drop-off site 71% 73% 77% NA NA

Leave grass clippings on your lawn using a regular or mulching lawn mower 65% 65% 61% 54% 46%

Wash your car on the lawn 25% 24% 34% 36% 27%

Participated in caring for or restoring open, natural spaces in Tacoma by being part of a work party or event, or by volunteering with groups such as MetroParks Chip-In!, Forterra, or Green Tacoma Partnership. 24% 22% NA NA NA

Garden at a community garden 8% 7% NA NA NA

Note: The scales differed between surveys years. Starting in 2009, the scale was "always, frequently, sometimes, never." In 2005 and 2002, the scale was "always, frequently, once in a while, never." Also note that “use non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products” was worded as “use environmentally friendly cleaning products” in 2005 and 2002. Paper, can, and plastic were asked separately in 2005 and 2009; an average of responses for these items was created for comparison by survey iteration.



When asked how effective or ineffective they thought various activities were at protecting the environment, a majority felt that the activities were “somewhat” or “very effective.” Recycling, planting trees, disposing of household hazardous waste at the Tacoma Recovery and Transfer Center and buying products with less packaging were deemed the most effective, with 97 percent considering these very or somewhat effective. About eight in 10 felt that washing their car at a commercial car and scooping and disposing of pet waste in the garbage was at least somewhat effective, while 59 percent said that washing their car on the lawn was very or somewhat effective.

Washing cars on the lawn and disposing of pet waste in the toilet or garbage were reported as “not at all effective” by at least one in five respondents (38 percent and 18 percent, respectively).

Perceptions of the effectiveness of doing each activity to protect the environment remained stable from 2014 to 2017 and across most years. However, scooping and disposing of pet waste in the garbage was more often perceived as effective in 2017 than 2002 and washing a car on the lawn was less often perceived as effective in 2017 than 2002.

Figure 4: Perceptions of Effectiveness of Resident Behaviors, 2002-2017

Now, please tell me how effective or ineffective you think each activity is at protecting the environment. What about... Percent reporting at least somewhat effective. 2017 2014 2009 2005 2002

Recycling common household items such as paper, cans, and plastic 99% 98% 98% 97% 98%

Recycling yard waste 97% 98% 97% 98% 93%

Recycling glass 97% 97% NA NA NA

Planting trees 97% 97% NA NA NA

Disposing of household hazardous waste at the Tacoma Recovery and Transfer Center, formerly landfill drop-off site 97 % 99 % 95 % NA NA

Buying products with less packaging 97 % 98 % 96 % 97 % 92 %

Using non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products 96% 95% 97% 99% 96%

Participating in caring for or restoring open, natural spaces in Tacoma by being part of a work party or by volunteering with groups such as MetroParks Chip-In!, Forterra, or Green Tacoma Partnership. 96% 97% NA NA NA

Composting food and/or yard waste 96% 94% 92% NA NA

Leaving grass clippings on your lawn using a regular or mulching lawn mower 90% 92% 90% 89% 85%

Washing your car at a commercial car wash 84% 82% 85% NA NA

Scooping and disposing of pet waste in the garbage 83% 87% 54% 65% 47%

Washing your car on the lawn 59% 62% 70% 77% 75%

Note: the scales differed between surveys years. In 2009 and 2014, the scale was "very effective, somewhat effective, not at all effective." In 2005 and 2002, the scale was "very effective, effective, somewhat effective, not really effective." Also note that “use non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products” was worded as “use environmentally friendly cleaning products” in 2005 and 2002. Paper, cans, plastic and glass were asked separately in previous years; therefore an average of responses for these items was created for comparison by survey iteration.



Solid Waste Survey respondents were asked a series of questions related to solid waste services (i.e., garbage and recycling services) provided by the City of Tacoma. Overall solid waste services were considered excellent by 43 percent of respondents, with an additional 39 percent rating them as good. Recycling, yard waste collection services and Call-2-Haul were rated as excellent by at least five in 10 respondents, with about one-third giving a rating of good to each. Garbage collection services were considered excellent by 45 percent of respondents, with about one-quarter considering them fair or poor. The blight clean-up program was rated as excellent by 28 percent of respondents and as good by 39 percent.

Figure 5: Quality of Solid Waste Services in Tacoma, 2017

How would you rate each of the following solid waste services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about . . .

43%

28%

45%

53%

51%

52%

39%

39%

31%

29%

32%

34%

13%

23%

17%

15%

12%

11%

4%

9%

7%

3%

5%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall solid waste collectionservices

Blight cleanup program

Garbage collection services

Call-2-Haul

Recycling collection services

Yard waste collection services


Excellent Good Fair Poor



Compared to 2014, ratings given in 2017 were similar. When compared to national ratings, garbage collection received ratings lower than national averages. Recycling collection services were rated similar to the national benchmarks and yard waste collection services received ratings that were higher than the nation (see Benchmark Comparisons in Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses).

Figure 6: Quality of Solid Waste Services in Tacoma, 2002-2017

How would you rate each of the following solid waste services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about . . .

75

75

85

85

76

67

81

80

83

75

63

72

80

78

74

62

71

76

77

78

0 20 40 60 80 100

Overall solid waste services

Blight cleanup program

Garbage collection services

Recycling collection services

Call-2-Haul

Yard waste collection services


2017

2014

2009

2005

2002



About half of respondents (54 percent) reported participating in the curbside food waste recycling program. Those who did not participate were asked why. The most common reasons for not participating were not knowing about the program, already composting their own food waste, not having the time to do it and not having a yard or yard waste (see Table 11 in Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses).

Figure 7: Participation in Curbside Food Waste Recycling Program, 2017

Residents were asked about their perceptions of the city of Tacoma’s Recovery and Transfer Center. Ratings were fairly positive, with every aspect rated above a 70 on the 100-point scale, or between good and excellent. These ratings were similar to those observed in 2014.

Figure 8: Quality of Tacoma's Recovery and Transfer Center, 2005-2017

Please rate the quality of each portion of the City of Tacoma’s Recovery and Transfer Center, formerly known as the Tacoma Landfill located off of Center Street. What about the…

54%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Does your household participate in theCity's curbside food waste recycling

program?

Percent of respondents who participate

72

85

76

75

72

77

77

74

77

73

74

76

81

72

73

74

74

75

77

78

0 20 40 60 80 100

Goodwill donation station

Yard waste unloading area

Garbage unloading area

ScaleHouse

Household hazardous wastefacility

Interactions with employees

Recycling Center


2017

2014

2009

2005



Just over half (55 percent) of those participating in the survey had contact with an employee of Solid Waste in the previous year (see Table 14 in Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses). These respondents were asked about their impression of the customer service provided by the employees with whom they had been in contact. Overall, ratings of the customer service provided by the employees were favorable, with each aspect of their interaction receiving at least 80 points on the 100-point scale. All employee ratings were higher than national averages, while the rating for overall impression of the employee was much higher (see Benchmark Comparisons in Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses).

Figure 9: Ratings of Solid Waste Employees, 2014-2017

Can you tell me what your impression was of the customer service provided by Solid Waste employees in your most recent contact? What about . . .

Only asked of those who had had contact with an employee in the past year.

83

83

84

86

83

84

85

86

20 40 60 80 100

Your overall impression

Their responsiveness to your concern orquestion

Their courtesy to you or others

Their knowledge of the topic about which youcontacted them


2017

2014



Wastewater Residents interviewed for the Tacoma Environmental Services survey were asked about their experiences with wastewater services provided by the City of Tacoma.

Overall wastewater services were given an average rating of 68 on the 100-point scale, equivalent to a rating of good. This was similar to what had been observed in 2009 and 2014. TAGRO soil products and services were rated slightly more positively, with an average rating of 74 on the 100-point scale, also similar to 2009 and 2014. The Sewer Conservation Loan Program was rated 62 on the 100-point scale; although this rating was similar to 2014, it has been steadily declining since 2002.

The rating for wastewater services overall in Tacoma was lower than ratings given in other jurisdictions across the nation (see Benchmark Comparisons in Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses).

Figure 10: Quality of Tacoma's Wastewater Programs, Products and Services, 2002-2017

How would you rate each of the following wastewater programs, products and services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about…

Note: The scales differed between surveys years. Starting in 2009, the scale was "excellent, good, fair, poor." In 2005, the scale used as “excellent, good, only fair, poor” and in 2002, the scale was "excellent, good, satisfactory, only fair, poor." Also note that “Sewer Conservation Loan Program” was worded as “Conservation Loan Program” in 2005 and 2002.

85

89

80

86

70

70

75

69

66

78

68

62

74

0 20 40 60 80 100

Overall services such as wastewater treatment,maintenance and operation of pipes and pump

stations, etc.

Sewer Conservation Loan Program

TAGRO (which is short for “Tacoma Grow”) soil products and services


2017

2014

2009

2005

2002



Residents were asked how often, if at all, they disposed of various items through the city’s wastewater system, either by flushing it down the toilet or by pouring it down the sink or other household drain. Overall, most residents reported that they never disposed of most items through the wastewater system. However, about half of respondents replied that they at least sometimes dispose of household cleaning products through the wastewater system. About one-quarter at least sometimes discarded cooking grease/oil down the drain or in the toilet and 18 percent discarded disposable wipes in the toilet. About 13 percent of respondents at least sometimes disposed of pet waste through the wastewater system.

Respondents were much less likely to dispose of motor oils, garden chemicals and pool water in household drains or toilets. Generally, similar proportions reported disposing of each of the items at least sometimes throughout the wastewater system in 2017 compared to 2014, although there was a 5 percent shift away from disposing of disposable wipes and a 6 percent shift from disposing of medications in 2017.

Figure 11: Summary of Frequency of Disposal through Tacoma's Wastewater System, 2009-2017

As I read some common materials, please tell me how often, if at all, you dispose of each item through the city's wastewater system, either by flushing it down the toilet or by pouring it down the sink or other household drain. What about . . .

1%

3%

3%

2%

19%

15%

18%

30%

48%

2%

4%

4%

5%

14%

10%

23%

29%

49%

1%

3%

3%

5%

8%

13%

18%

27%

48%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Motor oils or other automotive fluids

Garden chemicals

Pool water

Paint solvents

Medications

Pet waste

Disposable wipes

Cooking grease or oil

Household cleaning products

Percent of respondents disposing of each at least sometimes

201720142009



Survey participants were asked about their familiarity with and use of TAGRO (which is short for “Tacoma Grow,” the City of Tacoma’s award-winning, environmentally friendly landscaping mixes made from wastewater biosolids). About six in 10 respondents had heard of TAGRO, and of those familiar, over half (representing about one-third of all respondents) had used TAGRO (see Figure 12). While the familiarity with TAGRO declined from 2014 to 2017 (see Figure 13), the proportion of respondents who had used any TAGRO products stayed the same. In 2017, those who were familiar with the TAGRO program rated the quality of the program very favorably, with an average rating of 80 on a 100-point scale (see

Figure 14 on the next page), which was similar to 2014.

Figure 12: Familiarity With and Use of TAGRO, 2017

TAGRO is the City of Tacoma's landscaping mixes made from wastewater biosolids for landscaping, vegetable gardens and container gardening. They are available in bulk or by the bag. Before I described it, had you heard of TAGRO? Have you ever used any TAGRO products?

Figure 13: Familiarity With and Use of TAGRO, 2014-2017

Had NOT heard of

TAGRO, 41%

Used TAGRO, 55% (32% of all)

NOT used TAGRO, 45% (26% of all)

Heard of TAGRO, 59%

37%

69%

32%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Had USED TAGRO (percent of all respondents)

Had heard of TAGRO

Percent yes

2017

2014



Figure 14: Rating of the TAGRO program, 2014-2017

Those who had heard of TAGRO were also asked if they knew about TAGRO’s partnership with community gardens; about three in 10 of those who had heard of TAGRO knew about the partnership, while about seven in 10 were not familiar with the partnership (see Table 28). This was lower than what was reported in 2014, where 41 percent of respondents had known or heard about the partnership.

79

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

How would you rate the quality of theTAGRO program?

Average rating (0=poor, 100=excellent)Asked only of those who had heard of TAGRO

2017

2014



Surface Water The survey included questions about Tacoma’s surface water services. All the surface water services received an average rating of 58 points or more. Evergreen Tacoma, the Make a Splash grant program, street sweeping, open space management and the water pollution reporting hotline were given average ratings above 60 on the 100-point scale, or about good on average. The Puget Sound Starts Here public information campaign, flood response and storm drain maintenance were given ratings of 59, 58 and 58, respectively. Compared to those observed in 2014, most ratings given in 2017 were similar, except for the Make a Splash grant program, which received a somewhat lower rating in 2017.

Ratings for street sweeping were similar to ratings given by residents in other communities across the nation. However, storm drain maintenance was given a rating that was lower than the national average (see Benchmark Comparisons in Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses).

Figure 15: Quality of Tacoma's Surface Water/Stormwater Programs and Services, 2009-2017

How would you rate each of the following surface water/stormwater management programs or services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about…

65

65

56

68

54

59

62

65

65

59

70

69

58

58

59

62

62

63

64

67

0 20 40 60 80 100

Storm drain maintenance

Flood response*

The Puget Sound StartsHere public information…

Water pollution reportinghotline

Open space managementrestoration

Street sweeping

Make a Splash grantprogram

Evergreen Tacoma,Tacoma's Urban…


2017

2014



As in 2014, about nine in 10 respondents reported having a lawn or garden (see Table 32 in Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses). Those with lawns or gardens were asked how frequently, if at all, they or a landscaping professional used various products on their lawn or garden. About four in 10 respondents had never used fertilizers or insect or weed killers, and another four in 10 had used these once or twice a year. About five in 10 used mulch in their lawn or garden once a year or more, while about four in 10 had used compost once a year or more.

In general, a higher proportion of residents reported using each product in 2017 compared to 2014.

Figure 16: Frequency of Landscaping Products Use, 2017

How frequently, if at all, do you or a landscaping professional use any of the following products or materials on your lawn or garden? What about… Never

Once or twice per

year

3 to 6 times per

year

7 to 12 times per

year

More than 12 times per

year Total

Fertilizers (for example, MiracleGro, etc.) 43% 41% 13% 3% 0% 100%

Insect or weed killers 45% 41% 11% 2% 0% 100%

Mulch, like bark, leaves or woodchips 50% 39% 6% 3% 2% 100%

Composted food scraps or yard waste 57% 18% 10% 7% 8% 100%

Figure 17: Summary of Frequency of Landscaping Products Use, 2014-2017

Asked only of those who reported having a lawn or garden.

32%

42%

47%

48%

43%

50%

55%

57%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Composted food scraps or yard waste

Mulch, like bark, leaves or woodchips

Insect or weed killers

Fertilizers (for example, MiracleGro, etc.)

Percent of respondents doing each at least once per year

2017

2014



When asked about their familiarity with various sustainable “low impact” stormwater management practices, residents were most familiar with planting trees and rain barrels, with at least two-thirds of respondents saying they were somewhat or very familiar with these practices. Just over half were familiar with using native plant landscaping, and just under half were familiar with rain gardens and permeable pavements or pavers. Overall, compared to 2014, the level of familiarity with each of these practices was similar in 2017. However, fewer respondents reported being familiar with rain barrels and more respondents were familiar with permeable pavement or pavers.

Figure 18: Familiarity with Sustainable "Low Impact" Stormwater Management Practices, 2009-2017

How familiar, if at all, are you with each of the following sustainable “low impact” stormwater management practices?

Asked only of those who reported having a lawn or garden in 2017.

31%

29%

46%

56%

38%

52%

59%

74%

79%

46%

47%

56%

66%

76%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Permeable pavement or pavers

Rain gardens

Native plant landscaping

Rain barrels

Planting trees

Percent of very or somewhat familiar

2017

2014

2009



When asked whether they had installed low-impact stormwater treatments, about one-third of respondents said they had native plant landscaping or newly planted trees. About one in 10 had permeable pavers or rain barrels. Only 5 percent reported having a rain garden.

Figure 19: Installation of Sustainable "Low Impact" Stormwater Management Practices, 2014-2017

Have you installed any of the following at your home?

Asked only of those who reported having a lawn or garden in 2017.

Survey participants were asked where, to the best of their knowledge, they thought water went once it entered storm drains. Half believed it ran into the nearest body of water without treatment and half thought it went to a treatment plant. This was similar to what was reported in 2014.

Figure 20: Perception of Storm Water Drainage, 2009-2017

To the best of your knowledge, when water runs into storm drains in Tacoma, where does it generally go? Would you say it goes . . .

5%

10%

13%

29%

31%

5%

12%

14%

31%

32%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rain gardens

Rain barrels

Permeable pavement or pavers

Newly planted trees

Native plant landscaping

Percent of respondents who have installed each

2017

2014

48%

52%

46%

54%

50%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

To a treatment plant

Into the nearest body of water without treatment

Percent of all respondents

2017

2014

2009



Familiarity with EnviroChallenger, EnviroHouse, and Environmental Services Booths Tacoma’s Environmental Services uses a variety of resources to reach out to residents and provide education. Residents were asked about their familiarity with these programs. As in 2014, in 2017 eight in 10 respondents said they were not at all familiar with the EnviroChallenger program, while 13 percent were somewhat familiar and 5 percent said they were very familiar.

Just under two-thirds of respondents had not heard of EnviroHouse, a permanent model home showcasing green building and natural landscape ideas, materials and techniques to create a healthy home and planet, which also highlights yard and home products for the public at the Tacoma Recovery and Transfer Center. One-quarter had heard of EnviroHouse but had not visited and 13 percent had visited. Among those who had visited EnviroHouse, about four in 10 had been influenced to purchase a product they had seen there (see Figure 23 on the next page).

Figure 21: Familiarity with EnviroChallenger Program, 2014-2017

Figure 22: Familiarity with and Visitation of EnviroHouse, 2014-2017

The City of Tacoma EnviroHouse is a permanent model home showcasing green building and natural landscape ideas, materials and techniques to create a healthy home and planet. Have you ever heard of or visited the EnviroHouse?

Note: in 2014, this question was split into two questions: “Had you heard of the EnviroHouse?” and “Have you ever visited the EnviroHouse?”. The second question was only asked of those who had heard of the EnviroHouse. For comparisons to 2017, the percent of all respondents in 2014 who had heard of the EnviroHouse but not visited and those who had heard of it and visited was calculated.

18%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

How familiar are you, if at all, with the City’s EnviroChallenger program that teaches free environmental lessons to Tacoma students?

Percent of respondents very or somewhat familiar

2017

2014

13%

31%

57%

13%

23%

64%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Heard of and visited

Heard of it but had not visited

Had not heard of it


2017

2014



Figure 23: Influenced to Buy Products Displayed at EnviroHouse, 2014-2017

37%

40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Did your visit or visits influence you to purchaseany of the products you saw displayed there?

Percent yesAsked only of those who had visted the EnviroHouse.

2017

2014



Environmental Services staffs a booth at a number of community events. Respondents were asked whether they had attended these events, and if they had, whether they had visited the Environmental Services booth. Overall, half or more of survey respondents had not attended each event. About 5 percent of respondents had attended the Sustainability Expo and visited the booth. About one in 10 respondents had visited an Environmental Services booth at the Tacoma Home and Garden Show, a Rainiers baseball game or Zoolights. Half of respondents had gone to other community events, outdoor concerts or outdoor fairs and festivals in Tacoma, but only 18 percent had visited an Environmental Services booth. Level of visitation at the Environmental Services booths at various events remained stable from 2014 to 2017 (see Figure 25 on the following page).

Figure 24: Attendance of Events with Environmental Services Booths, 2017

City of Tacoma Environmental Services sets up booths, provides materials or has displays at various events around Tacoma. I am going to ask you whether you have visited any of their booths or displays at an event in the last 5 years. In the last 5 years, have you attended any of the following events in Tacoma?

5%

9%

9%

7%

18%

1%

7%

35%

40%

32%

94%

84%

56%

53%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sustainability Expo

Tacoma Home and GardenShow

Rainiers Baseball Game

Zoolights

Other community events,outdoor concerts or outdoor

fairs and festivals


Attend the event, and visit the Environmental Services booth

Attend the event and did NOT visit the Environmental Services booth

Did not attend the event



Figure 25: Visited the Environmental Services Booth at an Event, 2014-2017

3%

7%

6%

10%

14%

5%

7%

9%

9%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sustainability Expo

Zoolights


Tacoma Home and Garden Show

Other community events, outdoor concerts oroutdoor fairs and festivals

Percent who attended the event AND visited the ES booth

2017

2014



Information Source Residents were asked about their use of various sources to obtain information about solid waste, wastewater and surface water utilities. The most commonly used information sources were utility bill inserts, direct mail information and the "EnviroTalk" newsletter, with at least four in 10 saying that they had read each or stopped to spend time on each. At least half of survey respondents said they didn’t recall seeing websites for these utilities; social media sites with information about Environmental Services; shows on TV Tacoma; Environmental Services booths at community events; or newspaper or magazine ads. Overall, the proportion that had read, or stopped to spend time on, information about Environmental Services from each source was similar to 2009 and 2014 (see Figure 27 on the next page). However, more residents in 2017 than in 2014 had read or stopped to find information on City webpages and fewer used the “EnviroTalk” newsletter.

Figure 26: Use of Information Sources, 2017

I am going to list some information sources that residents use to get information about City departments. Please tell me if you recall seeing any information about solid waste (which is garbage and recycling), wastewater and surface water utilities in each information source. What about…

Read it or stopped to spend time

on it

Noticed it but didn't

spend time on it

Threw it away or

ignored it

Don't recall seeing

information Total

Inserts that come in your utility bill 50% 23% 10% 17% 100%

Direct mail information pieces, such as postcards 46% 14% 7% 33% 100%

The "EnviroTalk" newsletter 40% 10% 3% 47% 100%

City webpages 29% 17% 4% 50% 100%

Newspapers or magazines 21% 13% 3% 63% 100%

A City of Tacoma or Environmental Services booth at community events 17% 11% 3% 69% 100%

Social media (Facebook, Twitter and YouTube) 10% 9% 4% 76% 100%

Shows on TV Tacoma (channel 12 or 21) 10% 12% 4% 74% 100%



Figure 27: Use of Information Sources, 2009-2017

Please tell me if you recall seeing any information about solid waste (which is garbage and recycling), wastewater and surface water utilities in each information source. What about . . .

12%

15%

24%

17%

49%

45%

53%

9%

11%

15%

17%

22%

47%

47%

50%

10%

10%

17%

21%

29%

40%

46%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Social media (Facebook, Twitter and YouTube)

Shows on TV Tacoma (channel 12 or 21)

A City of Tacoma or Environmental Services booth atcommunity events

Newspapers or magazines

City webpages

The “EnviroTalk” newsletter

Direct mail information pieces, such as postcards

Inserts that come in your utility bill

Percent of respondents who read It or spent time on It

201720142009



Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses

Frequency of Response to Each Survey Question The following pages contain responses to each question on the survey, with two tables for most questions. The first table excludes the “don’t know” and “refused” responses. The second includes these responses.

Table 1: Question #1 without don't know and refused responses

Overall, how would you rate the . . . Excellent Good Fair Poor Total

Overall, how would you rate the quality of the overall natural environment in the City of Tacoma? 10% 55% 31% 4% 100%

Overall, how would you rate the job that Tacoma City Government is doing at protecting the environment? 10% 50% 34% 6% 100%

Table 2: Question #1 with don't know and refused responses

Overall, how would you rate the . . . Excellent Good Fair Poor DON'T KNOW REFUSED Total

Overall, how would you rate the quality of the overall natural environment in the City of Tacoma? 10% 54% 31% 4% 1% 1% 100%

Overall, how would you rate the job that Tacoma City Government is doing at protecting the environment? 9% 46% 31% 6% 8% 0% 100%


Please tell me how often, if at all, you do each of the following. What about . . . Always Frequently Sometimes Never Total

Recycle standard curbside recyclable items such as paper, cans, and plastic 89% 6% 2% 3% 100%

Recycle yard waste 78% 8% 9% 5% 100%

Recycle glass 66% 6% 12% 17% 100%

Wash your car on the lawn 7% 4% 13% 75% 100%

Wash your car at a commercial car wash 28% 11% 34% 28% 100%

Leave grass clippings on your lawn using a regular or mulching lawn mower 34% 9% 23% 35% 100%

Dispose of household hazardous waste at the Tacoma recovery and transfer center, formerly landfill drop-off site 40% 10% 21% 29% 100%

Garden at a community garden 2% 1% 6% 92% 100%

Buy products with less packaging 21% 29% 40% 11% 100%

Use non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products 33% 28% 32% 7% 100%

Compost food and/or yard waste 45% 14% 17% 24% 100%

Participated in caring for or restoring open, natural spaces in Tacoma by being part of a work party or event, or by volunteering with groups such as MetroParks Chip-In!, Forterra, or Green Tacoma Partnership. 2% 3% 19% 76% 100%




Please tell me how often, if at all, you do each of the following. What about . . . Always Frequently Sometimes Never

DON'T KNOW REFUSED Total

Recycle standard curbside recyclable items such as paper, cans, and plastic 88% 6% 2% 3% 0% 1% 100%

Recycle yard waste 78% 8% 9% 5% 1% 0% 100%

Recycle glass 65% 6% 12% 17% 0% 1% 100%

Wash your car on the lawn 7% 4% 13% 74% 1% 0% 100%

Wash your car at a commercial car wash 28% 10% 33% 27% 0% 0% 100%

Leave grass clippings on your lawn using a regular or mulching lawn mower 33% 9% 22% 34% 2% 0% 100%

Dispose of household hazardous waste at the Tacoma Recovery and Transfer Center, formerly landfill drop-off site 40 % 10 % 20 % 28 % 1 % 1 %

100 %

Garden at a community garden 2% 1% 5% 90% 1% 0% 100%

Buy products with less packaging 20% 27% 38% 10% 4% 1% 100%

Use non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products 32% 27% 31% 7% 2% 0% 100%

Compost food and/or yard waste 44% 14% 17% 24% 1% 0% 100%

Participated in caring for or restoring open, natural spaces in Tacoma by being part of a work party or event, or by volunteering with groups such as MetroParks Chip-In!, Forterra, or Green Tacoma Partnership. 2% 3% 19% 75% 1% 1% 100%


I just asked you how often you did various activities. Now, please tell me how effective or ineffective you think each activity is at protecting the environment. What about . . .

Very effective

Somewhat effective

Not at all effective Total

Recycling common household items such as paper, cans, and plastic 86% 14% 1% 100%

Recycling yard waste 70% 27% 3% 100%

Recycling glass 74% 23% 3% 100%

Washing your car on the lawn 27% 31% 41% 100%

Washing your car at a commercial car wash 41% 43% 16% 100%

Leaving grass clippings on your lawn using a regular or mulching lawn mower 38% 52% 10% 100%

Disposing of household hazardous waste at the Tacoma Recovery and Transfer Center, formerly landfill drop-off site 82 % 15 % 3 %

100 %

Buying products with less packaging 67 % 30 % 3 % 100

%

Using non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products 67% 29% 4% 100%

Composting food and/or yard waste 65% 31% 4% 100%

Participating in caring for or restoring open, natural spaces in Tacoma by being part of a work party or by volunteering with groups such as MetroParks Chip-In!, Forterra, or Green Tacoma Partnership. 64% 32% 4% 100%

Planting trees 82% 15% 3% 100%




I just asked you how often you did various activities. Now, please tell me how effective or ineffective you think each activity is at protecting the environment. What about . . .

Very effective

Somewhat effective

Not at all effective


Recycling common household items such as paper, cans, and plastic 85% 14% 0% 1% 0% 100%

Recycling yard waste 69% 26% 3% 1% 0% 100%

Recycling glass 72% 23% 3% 2% 0% 100%

Washing your car on the lawn 25% 28% 38% 8% 1% 100%

Washing your car at a commercial car wash 38% 41% 15% 6% 0% 100%

Leaving grass clippings on your lawn using a regular or mulching lawn mower 35 % 48 % 9 % 8 % 0 %

100 %

Disposing of household hazardous waste at the Tacoma Recovery and Transfer Center, formerly landfill drop-off site 80 % 15 % 3 % 2 % 0 %

100 %

Buying products with less packaging 65 % 29 % 3 % 2 % 0 % 100

%

Using non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products 65% 28% 4% 1% 1% 100%

Composting food and/or yard waste 63% 30% 4% 2% 1% 100%

Participating in caring for or restoring open, natural spaces in Tacoma by being part of a work party or by volunteering with groups such as MetroParks Chip-In!, Forterra, or Green Tacoma Partnership. 61% 30% 4% 5% 1% 100%

Planting trees 81% 15% 3% 1% 1% 100%


How would you rate each of the following solid waste services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about . . . Excellent Good Fair Poor Total

Garbage collection services 45% 31% 17% 7% 100%

Recycling collection services 51% 32% 12% 5% 100%

Yard waste collection services 52% 34% 11% 3% 100%

Blight cleanup program 28% 39% 23% 9% 100%

Call-2-Haul 53% 29% 15% 3% 100%

Overall solid waste collection services 43% 39% 13% 4% 100%


How would you rate each of the following solid waste services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about . . . Excellent Good Fair Poor

HAVEN'T HEARD OF

IT

HEARD OF IT, BUT HAVEN'T

USED IT DON'T KNOW REFUSED Total

Garbage collection services 45% 31% 17% 7% 0% 0% 1% 0% 100%

Recycling collection services 50% 31% 12% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Yard waste collection services 51% 34% 11% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 100%

Blight cleanup program 14% 20% 12% 5% 39% 4% 7% 0% 100%

Call-2-Haul 37% 20% 10% 2% 13% 14% 5% 0% 100%

Overall solid waste collection services 42% 38% 13% 4% 1% 0% 1% 0% 100%




Does your household participate in the City's curbside food waste recycling program? Percent of Respondents

YES 54%

NO 46%

Total 100%


Does your household participate in the City's curbside food waste recycling program? Percent of Respondents

YES 49%

NO 42%

DON'T KNOW 9%

REFUSED 0%

Total 100%


Can you tell me the primary reason that you do not participate in the City's curbside food and yard waste recycling program? [SELECT ONLY ONE RESPONSE.] (Only asked of those who answered "no" to question #7)

Percent of Respondents

AM NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO MANAGE YARD WASTE RECYCLING 1%

COMPOST MY OWN FOOD/YARD WASTE 8%

DON'T BELIEVE/AGREE WITH THIS PROGRAM 4%

HIRE SOMEONE TO MANAGE MY YARD/LANDSCAPING - THEY HAUL IT AWAY 0%

JUST DON'T WANT TO 3%

NO TIME 6%

NO YARD/YARD WASTE 6%

TAKE IT TO THE LANDFILL 0%

USE OUR YARD WASTE FOR MULCH/REUSE OUR YARD WASTE 2%

FOOD WASTE STINKS IF WE WAIT FOR IT TO BE COLLECTED BY THE CITY 4%

I LIVE IN A RENTAL/COMPLEX OR NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T OFFER IT 4%

DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT/DIDN'T KNOW IT EXISTED* 40%

OTHER, SPECIFY 14%

DON'T KNOW 8%

REFUSED 1%

Total 100%

*This is a new category that was created based on the “other” responses from respondents. See Appendix B: Verbatim Responses

to Open-Ended Survey Questions for a list of all “other” responses.




Please rate the quality of each portion of the City of Tacoma's Recovery and Transfer Center, formerly known as the Tacoma Landfill located off of Center Street. What about the… Excellent Good Fair Poor Total

Garbage unloading area 39% 45% 15% 1% 100%

Recycling Center 46% 42% 11% 1% 100%

Household hazardous waste facility 37% 50% 12% 1% 100%

Yard waste unloading area 35% 49% 15% 1% 100%

Goodwill donation station 38% 45% 12% 5% 100%

Interactions with employees 46% 39% 14% 1% 100%


Please rate the quality of each portion of the City of Tacoma's Recovery and Transfer Center, formerly known as the Tacoma Landfill located off of Center Street. What about the… Excellent Good Fair Poor

HAVEN'T HEARD OF

IT

HEARD OF IT, BUT

HAVEN'T USED IT


Garbage unloading area 31% 36% 12% 1% 4% 8% 8% 0% 100%

Recycling Center 37% 33% 9% 1% 2% 12% 6% 0% 100%

Household hazardous waste facility 29% 39% 10% 0% 3% 11% 7% 0% 100%

Yard waste unloading area 25% 35% 11% 1% 6% 14% 8% 0% 100%

Goodwill donation station 30% 35% 10% 4% 4% 11% 6% 0% 100%

Interactions with employees 40% 33% 12% 1% 3% 5% 8% 0% 100%


I'd like to ask you about the customer service provided by the Solid Waste Division of the City of Tacoma's Environmental Services Department. Have you had any contact with an employee of Solid Waste in the past year, including garbage services, recycling services, Call 2 Haul, landfill services or any others?


YES 55%

NO 45%

Total 100%


I'd like to ask you about the customer service provided by the Solid Waste Division of the City of Tacoma's Environmental Services Department. Have you had any contact with an employee of Solid Waste in the past year, including garbage services, recycling services, Call 2 Haul, landfill services or any others?


YES 54%

NO 45%

DON'T KNOW 0%

Total 100%




Can you tell me what your impression was of the customer service provided by Solid Waste employees in your most recent contact? Would you rate them as excellent, good, fair or poor in the following areas? What about . . . Only asked of those who had had contact in the past year. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total

Their knowledge of the topic about which you contacted them 70% 23% 4% 3% 100%

Their responsiveness to your concern or question 67% 20% 8% 4% 100%

Their courtesy to you or others 70% 19% 7% 4% 100%

Your overall impression 66% 21% 8% 4% 100%


Can you tell me what your impression was of the customer service provided by Solid Waste employees in your most recent contact? Would you rate them as excellent, good, fair or poor in the following areas? What about . . . Only asked of those who had had contact in the past year. Excellent Good Fair Poor


Their knowledge of the topic about which you contacted them 68% 22% 4% 3% 1% 1% 100%

Their responsiveness to your concern or question 67% 20% 8% 4% 1% 0% 100%

Their courtesy to you or others 70% 19% 7% 4% 0% 0% 100%

Your overall impression 66% 21% 8% 4% 0% 0% 100%


How would you rate each of the following wastewater programs, products and services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about… Excellent Good Fair Poor Total

TAGRO (which is short for "Tacoma Grow") soil products and services 44% 38% 15% 4% 100%

Sewer Conservation Loan Program 21% 48% 24% 6% 100%

Overall services such as wastewater treatment, maintenance and operation of pipes and pump stations, etc. 27% 54% 13% 5% 100%


How would you rate each of the following wastewater programs, products and services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about… Excellent Good Fair Poor

HAVEN'T HEARD OF

IT

HEARD OF IT, BUT HAVEN'T

USED IT DON'T KNOW REFUSED Total

TAGRO (which is short for "Tacoma Grow") soil products and services 27% 23% 9% 2% 19% 11% 7% 1% 100%

Sewer Conservation Loan Program 8% 19% 9% 2% 42% 5% 15% 0% 100%

Overall services such as wastewater treatment, maintenance and operation of pipes and pump stations, etc. 21% 42% 10% 4% 7% 6% 10% 0% 100%




As I read some common materials, please tell me how often, if at all, you dispose of each item through the city's wastewater system, either by flushing it down the toilet or by pouring it down the sink or other household drain. What about . . . Always Frequently Sometimes Never Total

Disposable wipes 4% 4% 10% 82% 100%

Medications 1% 0% 6% 92% 100%

Pet waste 1% 0% 11% 87% 100%

Garden chemicals 1% 0% 2% 97% 100%

Pool water 0% 0% 3% 97% 100%

Cooking grease or oil 1% 2% 23% 73% 100%

Paint solvents 1% 1% 4% 95% 100%

Motor oils or other automotive fluids 1% 0% 0% 99% 100%

Household cleaning products 6% 7% 35% 52% 100%


As I read some common materials, please tell me how often, if at all, you dispose of each item through the city's wastewater system, either by flushing it down the toilet or by pouring it down the sink or other household drain. What about . . . Always Frequently Sometimes Never


Disposable wipes 4% 4% 10% 82% 1% 0% 100%

Medications 1% 0% 6% 92% 0% 0% 100%

Pet waste 1% 0% 11% 87% 0% 0% 100%

Garden chemicals 1% 0% 2% 97% 0% 0% 100%

Pool water 0% 0% 3% 94% 2% 0% 100%

Cooking grease or oil 1% 2% 23% 73% 0% 0% 100%

Paint solvents 1% 1% 3% 94% 1% 0% 100%

Motor oils or other automotive fluids 1% 0% 0% 99% 0% 0% 100%

Household cleaning products 6% 7% 35% 51% 1% 0% 100%


TAGRO is the City of Tacoma's landscaping mixes made from wastewater biosolids for landscaping, vegetable gardens and container gardening. They are available in bulk or by the bag. Before I described it, had you heard of TAGRO?


YES 59%

NO 41%

Total 100%




TAGRO is the City of Tacoma's landscaping mixes made from wastewater biosolids for landscaping, vegetable gardens and container gardening. They are available in bulk or by the bag. Before I described it, had you heard of TAGRO?


YES 59%

NO 41%

DON'T KNOW 1%

Total 100%


Have you ever used any TAGRO products? Only asked of those who had head of TAGRO. Percent of Respondents

YES 55%

NO 45%

Total 100%


Have you ever used any TAGRO products? Only asked of those who had head of TAGRO. Percent of Respondents

YES 55%

NO 45%

DON'T KNOW 0%

Total 100%


How would you rate the quality of the TAGRO program? Only asked of those who had head of TAGRO. Percent of Respondents

Excellent 58%

Good 28%

Fair 11%

Poor 4%

Total 100%


How would you rate the quality of the TAGRO program? Only asked of those who had head of TAGRO. Percent of Respondents

Excellent 50%

Good 24%

Fair 9%

Poor 3%

DON'T KNOW 13%

REFUSED 0%

Total 100%




Did you know about or have you heard about TAGRO's partnership with community gardens? Only asked of those who had head of TAGRO. Percent of Respondents

YES 30%

NO 70%

Total 100%


Did you know about or have you heard about TAGRO's partnership with community gardens? Only asked of those who had head of TAGRO. Percent of Respondents

YES 30%

NO 69%

DON'T KNOW 0%

REFUSED 0%

Total 100%


How would you rate each of the following surface water/stormwater management programs or services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about… Excellent Good Fair Poor Total

Street sweeping 25% 46% 21% 8% 100%

Flood response 22% 41% 28% 9% 100%

Make a Splash grant program 28% 41% 27% 4% 100%

Water pollution reporting hotline 20% 53% 19% 8% 100%

Open space management restoration 19% 54% 21% 6% 100%

Evergreen Tacoma, Tacoma's Urban forestry program 29% 48% 21% 3% 100%

Storm drain maintenance 19% 46% 24% 11% 100%

The Puget Sound Starts Here public information campaign 19% 49% 21% 11% 100%


How would you rate each of the following surface water/stormwater management programs or services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about… Excellent Good Fair Poor

HAVEN'T HEARD OF

IT

HEARD OF IT, BUT

HAVEN'T USED IT


Street sweeping 23% 43% 20% 7% 2% 1% 4% 0% 100%

Flood response 12% 22% 15% 5% 16% 13% 16% 1% 100%

Make a Splash grant program 9% 13% 9% 1% 51% 5% 12% 0% 100%

Water pollution reporting hotline 10% 26% 9% 4% 25% 17% 10% 0% 100%

Open space management restoration 11% 32% 12% 4% 26% 3% 11% 0% 100%

Evergreen Tacoma, Tacoma's Urban forestry program 14% 23% 10% 2% 35% 7% 9% 1% 100%

Storm drain maintenance 17% 40% 21% 10% 4% 2% 6% 0% 100%

The Puget Sound Starts Here public information campaign 9% 24% 10% 5% 38% 3% 10% 0% 100%




Do you have a lawn or garden? Percent of Respondents

YES 90%

NO 10%

Total 100%


Do you have a lawn or garden? Percent of Respondents

YES 90%

NO 10%

DON'T KNOW 0%

Total 100%


How frequently, if at all, do you or a landscaping professional use any of the following products or materials on your lawn or garden? What about... Only asked of those with a lawn. Never

Once or twice per

year

3 to 6 times per

year

7 to 12 times per

year

More than 12 times per

year Total

Fertilizers (for example, MiracleGro, etc.) 43% 41% 13% 3% 0% 100%

Insect or weed killers 45% 41% 11% 2% 0% 100%

Composted food scraps or yard waste 57% 18% 10% 7% 8% 100%

Mulch, like bark, leaves or woodchips 50% 39% 6% 3% 2% 100%


How frequently, if at all, do you or a landscaping professional use any of the following products or materials on your lawn or garden? What about… Only asked of those with a lawn. Never

Once or twice

per year

3 to 6 times

per year

7 to 12 times

per year

More than 12

times per year


Fertilizers (for example, MiracleGro, etc.) 42% 40% 12% 3% 0% 3% 0% 100%

Insect or weed killers 44% 40% 11% 2% 0% 2% 0% 100%

Composted food scraps or yard waste 56% 18% 9% 7% 8% 2% 0% 100%

Mulch, like bark, leaves or woodchips 49% 39% 5% 3% 2% 1% 1% 100%




How familiar, if at all, are you with each of the following sustainable “low impact” stormwater management practices? Only asked of those with a lawn.

Very familiar

Somewhat familiar

Not at all familiar Total

Rain gardens 19% 28% 53% 100%

Rain barrels 30% 36% 34% 100%

Permeable pavement or pavers 17% 30% 54% 100%

Native plant landscaping 23% 33% 44% 100%

Planting trees 45% 31% 24% 100%


How familiar, if at all, are you with each of the following sustainable “low impact” stormwater management practices? Only asked of those with a lawn.

Very familiar

Somewhat familiar

Not at all familiar


Rain gardens 18% 28% 53% 1% 0% 100%

Rain barrels 30% 35% 34% 2% 0% 100%

Permeable pavement or pavers 16% 28% 51% 5% 0% 100%

Native plant landscaping 23% 32% 43% 2% 0% 100%

Planting trees 45% 30% 24% 1% 0% 100%


Have you installed any of the following at your home? Only asked of those with a lawn. YES NO Total

Rain gardens 5% 95% 100%

Rain barrels 12% 88% 100%

Permeable pavement or pavers 14% 86% 100%

Native plant landscaping 32% 68% 100%

Newly planted trees 31% 69% 100%


Have you installed any of the following at your home? Only asked of those with a lawn. YES NO DON'T KNOW Total

Rain gardens 5% 94% 1% 100%

Rain barrels 12% 88% 0% 100%

Permeable pavement or pavers 13% 84% 2% 100%

Native plant landscaping 31% 67% 1% 100%

Newly planted trees 31% 69% 0% 100%






To a treatment plant 50%

Into the nearest body of water without treatment 50%

Total 100%




To a treatment plant 44%

Into the nearest body of water without treatment 44%

DON'T KNOW 12%

Total 100%


How familiar are you, if at all, with the City's EnviroChallenger program that teaches free environmental lessons to Tacoma students?


Very familiar 5%

Somewhat familiar 13%

Not at all familiar 82%

Total 100%


How familiar are you, if at all, with the City's EnviroChallenger program that teaches free environmental lessons to Tacoma students?


Very familiar 5%

Somewhat familiar 13%

Not at all familiar 81%

DON'T KNOW 0%

Total 100%




Yes, heard of it but not visited 23%

Yes, visited 13%

No, not heard of 64%

Total 100%






Yes, heard of it but not visited 23%

Yes, visited 13%

No, not heard of 64%

DON'T KNOW 0%

Total 100%


Did your visit or visits influence you to purchase any of the products you saw displayed there? Only asked of those who had visited the EnviroHouse. Percent of Respondents

YES 40%

NO 60%

Total 100%


Did your visit or visits influence you to purchase any of the products you saw displayed there? Only asked of those who had visited the EnviroHouse. Percent of Respondents

YES 38%

NO 58%

DON'T KNOW 4%

Total 100%



Attend the event, and visit the

Environmental Services booth

Attend the event and did NOT visit the Environmental Services booth

Did not attend

the event Total

Tacoma Home and Garden Show 9% 7% 84% 100%

Zoolights 7% 40% 53% 100%

Rainiers Baseball Game 9% 35% 56% 100%

Sustainability Expo 5% 1% 94% 100%

Other community events, outdoor concerts or outdoor fairs and festivals 18% 32% 50% 100%





Attend the event, and visit the

Environmental Services booth

Attend the event and did NOT visit

the Environmental Services booth

Did not attend

the event


Tacoma Home and Garden Show 9% 7% 83% 1% 0% 100%

Zoolights 7% 40% 52% 1% 1% 100%

Rainiers Baseball Game 9% 35% 56% 0% 0% 100%

Sustainability Expo 5% 1% 94% 0% 0% 100%

Other community events, outdoor concerts or outdoor fairs and festivals 17% 31% 49% 2% 0% 100%


I am going to list some information sources that residents use to get information about City departments. Please tell me if you recall seeing any information about solid waste (which is garbage and recycling), wastewater and surface water utilities in each information source. What about...

Read it or stopped to spend time

on it


spend time on it

Threw it away or

ignored it

Don't recall seeing

information Total

The "EnviroTalk" newsletter 40% 10% 3% 47% 100%

Inserts that come in your utility bill 50% 23% 10% 17% 100%

City webpages 29% 17% 4% 50% 100%

Shows on TV Tacoma (channel 12 or 21) 10% 12% 4% 74% 100%

A City of Tacoma or Environmental Services booth at community events 17% 11% 3% 69% 100%

Newspapers or magazines 21% 13% 3% 63% 100%

Direct mail information pieces, such as postcards 46% 14% 7% 33% 100%

Social media (Facebook, Twitter and YouTube) 10% 9% 4% 76% 100%




I am going to list some information sources that residents use to get information about City departments. Please tell me if you recall seeing any information about solid waste (which is garbage and recycling), wastewater and surface water utilities in each information source. What about…

Read it or stopped to spend time on it


spend time on it

Threw it away or ignored

it

Don't recall seeing

information

DON'T USE THIS SOURCE


The "EnviroTalk" newsletter 38% 9% 2% 45% 3% 2% 0% 100%

Inserts that come in your utility bill 48% 22% 10% 17% 2% 1% 0% 100%

City webpages 26% 15% 3% 44% 9% 3% 0% 100%

Shows on TV Tacoma (channel 12 or 21) 8% 10% 3% 62% 15% 1% 0% 100%

A City of Tacoma or Environmental Services booth at community events 16% 10% 3% 64% 5% 2% 0% 100%

Newspapers or magazines 19% 12% 3% 58% 7% 1% 0% 100%

Direct mail information pieces, such as postcards 45% 14% 7% 32% 1% 2% 0% 100%

Social media (Facebook, Twitter and YouTube) 9% 9% 4% 69% 9% 1% 0% 100%

Table 52: Question #D1 with don't know and refused responses

How long have you lived in the City of Tacoma? Percent of Respondents

Less than 5 years 31%

5-9 years 13%

10-19 years 13%

20 years or more 43%

DON'T KNOW 0%

REFUSED 0%

Total 100%


Please tell me which of the following best describes the building you live in. Is it a… Percent of Respondents

Single-family house detached from any other houses 90%

House attached to one or more houses, such as a duplex or townhome 8%

Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 2%

Mobile home 0%

Other 0%

DON'T KNOW 0%

REFUSED 0%

Total 100%




Do you rent or own your home? Percent of Respondents

Rent 46%

Own 53%

DON'T KNOW 1%

REFUSED 1%

Total 100%


Please stop me when I read the correct age category. Are you… Percent of Respondents

18-24 years 6%

25-34 years 28%

35-44 years 17%

45-54 years 19%

55-64 years 15%

65-74 years 9%

75 years or older 6%

REFUSED 1%

Total 100%


Now, can you tell me what best describes your racial origin or ethnicity? You can pick more than one category, if you have a multi-ethnic heritage. Would you say you are . . .

Percent of Respondents*

White 80%

Black or African American 11%

American Indian or Alaskan Native 5%

Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 5%

Hispanic, Spanish or Latino 7%

SOME OTHER RACE 2%

REFUSED 2%

*Total may exceed more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer.

Table 57: Question #D6

ENTER GENDER OF RESPONDENT. Percent of Respondents

FEMALE 52%

MALE 48%

Total 100%



Benchmark Comparisons NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 700 communities whose residents evaluated the local government services or community characteristics. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. For the Tacoma Environmental Services Customer Satisfaction Survey, a number of services were rated by residents for which benchmark comparisons were available.

Ratings were compared when there were at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. The table below shows those comparisons. The first column shows the City of Tacoma average rating. The second column is the rank assigned to Tacoma’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Tacoma’s rating to the benchmark, noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Tacoma residents was statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as “much higher” or “much lower.”

Table 58: Benchmark Comparisons

Survey Item

Tacoma Average Rating on 100-Point

Scale Rank

Number of Benchmark

Communities Comparison to the

Benchmark

Overall natural environment in the City of Tacoma 57 240 260 Much lower

Garbage collection services 71 289 340 Lower

Recycling collection services 76 165 343 Similar

Yard waste collection services 78 63 254 Higher

Overall services such as wastewater treatment, maintenance and operation of pipes and pump stations, etc. 68 5 5 Lower

Storm drain maintenance 58 256 342 Lower

Street sweeping 63 165 303 Similar

Their knowledge of the topic about which you contacted them 86 10 97 Higher

Their courtesy to you or others 85 24 83 Higher

Their responsiveness to your concern or question 84 18 95 Higher

Your overall impression 83 26 354 Much higher



Appendix B: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Survey Questions Question #6 (“other” responses) Can you tell me the primary reason that you do not participate in the City's curbside food and yard waste recycling program?

Convenience

Does not have the buckets from the city

Doesn’t affect us really

Dog gets into trash

Dogs will eat anything

Don't have that much waste.

Don't use because we have animals that use the yard.

I do yard waste religiously but I do not do food waste. I think it's stupid.

I don’t feel like I have enough things to use this service because I live by myself.

I don't generate that much food waste.

I feed what is left to the dogs

I have a garbage disposal

I have the brown can, but I didn't know that I could put food in it.

I haven't really thought about it.

I live alone so I don't have that much.

I recycle to stray cats but for the yard waste it goes into an old boat.

I throw it in the trash

I wasn't living here at the time.

It is inconvenient

Just doesn’t do the food part, curbside yard waste.

Just never started doing it

No bucket

Participate in other charities

Participate in yard waste, not food waste.

Promotes the growth of Norwegian brown rats

The container is inconvenient

There is a lot more hassle in using this.

They give us a small basket to put it in, and they come only every two weeks and it attracts animals.

We throw are food waste in the yard waste bin

We're lazy

Weren't able to put it in the biodegradable bags.

Yard waste I use and food I do not use because I do not have enough to make it worthwhile.



Appendix C: Selected Survey Responses by Respondent Subgroups Responses to select survey questions are compared here by respondent characteristics, including respondent age, sex, housing tenure (rent versus own and race/ethnicity. Cells shaded grey indicate differences between subgroups are statistically significant (p .05).

Table 59: Question #1 by Age, Sex, Tenure and Race/Ethnicity

Average rating on a 100-point scale (100=excellent, 0=poor)

18-34

35-54 55+ Female Male Rent Own

One race/ ethnicity, White

Other race/ethnicity

Did not answer race/ethnicity Overall

Overall, how would you rate the quality of the overall natural environment in the City of Tacoma? 56 56 58 56 58 53 60 57 56 52 57

Overall, how would you rate the job that Tacoma City Government is doing at protecting the environment? 53 55 56 53 56 53 56 56 53 38 55




Please tell me how often, if at all, you do each of the following. What about . . . Percent doing each always or frequently

18-34


One race/ ethnicity,

White Other

race/ethnicity Did not answer race/ethnicity Overall

Recycle standard curbside recyclable items such as paper, cans, and plastic 92% 94% 98% 95% 93% 93% 95% 94% 95% 93% 94%

Recycle yard waste 80% 88% 90% 84% 87% 79% 91% 89% 77% 95% 86%

Recycle glass 61% 78% 75% 68% 75% 63% 79% 71% 70% 100% 71%

Wash your car on the lawn 16% 8% 11% 14% 9% 10% 13% 9% 17% 13% 12%

Wash your car at a commercial car wash 31% 44% 42% 40% 37% 36% 42% 39% 38% 58% 39%

Leave grass clippings on your lawn using a regular or mulching lawn mower 39% 45% 46% 47% 39% 44% 41% 45% 35% 66% 43%

Dispose of household hazardous waste at the Tacoma recovery and transfer center, formerly landfill drop-off site 32% 55% 67% 49% 52% 42% 59% 54% 41% 49% 51%

Garden at a community garden 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 5% 24% 3%

Buy products with less packaging 50% 52% 47% 57% 42% 52% 48% 49% 49% 80% 50%

Use non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products 66% 56% 59% 63% 58% 60% 61% 61% 58% 58% 60%

Compost food and/or yard waste 48% 61% 69% 57% 61% 56% 61% 61% 53% 49% 59%

Participated in caring for or restoring open, natural spaces in Tacoma by being part of a work party or event, or by volunteering with groups such as MetroParks Chip-In!, Forterra, or Green Tacoma Partnership. 6% 5% 2% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 6% 19% 5%




How would you rate each of the following solid waste services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about . . . Average rating on a 100-point scale (100=excellent, 0=poor)

18-34


One race/ ethnicity, White



Garbage collection services 64 70 82 70 72 65 77 73 67 60 71

Recycling collection services 71 76 83 77 76 72 80 77 74 64 76

Yard waste collection services 72 79 86 79 78 72 84 81 72 65 78

Blight cleanup program 58 64 64 62 62 62 62 63 60 69 62

Call-2-Haul 67 85 80 80 75 73 80 80 71 78 77

Overall solid waste collection services 67 74 81 74 74 69 78 77 67 61 74

Table 62: Question #5, #12, #13, #23 by Age, Sex, Tenure and Race/Ethnicity

Percent yes 18-34



White Other


Does your household participate in the City's curbside food and yard waste recycling program? 49% 50% 64% 60% 47% 50% 57% 55% 49% 55% 54%

TAGRO is the City of Tacoma's landscaping mixes made from wastewater biosolids for landscaping, vegetable gardens and container gardening. They are available in bulk or by the bag. Before I described it, had you heard of TAGRO? 42% 56% 84% 60% 58% 45% 70% 65% 45% 55% 59%

Have you ever used any TAGRO products? 41% 55% 63% 49% 62% 44% 62% 54% 56% 82% 55%

The City of Tacoma EnviroHouse is a permanent model home showcasing green building and natural landscape ideas, materials and techniques to create a healthy home and planet. Have you ever heard of or visited the EnviroHouse? 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%




How would you rate each of the following wastewater programs, products and services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about… Average rating on a 100-point scale (100=excellent, 0=poor)

18-34



White Other


TAGRO (which is short for "Tacoma Grow") soil products and services 66 79 77 74 73 70 77 78 64 57 74

Sewer Conservation Loan Program 59 63 64 62 61 60 63 64 57 52 62

Overall services such as wastewater treatment, maintenance and operation of pipes and pump stations, etc. 67 67 69 67 69 68 68 70 64 47 68


Average rating on a 100-point scale (100=excellent, 0=poor)

18-34


One race/ethnicity, White



How would you rate the quality of the TAGRO program? 81 83 77 80 80 80 80 81 76 81 80


How would you rate each of the following surface water/stormwater management programs or services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about . . Average rating on a 100-point scale (100=excellent, 0=poor)

18-34



White Other


Street sweeping 64 63 60 64 62 63 63 64 60 51 63

Flood response 58 57 61 55 62 61 57 59 58 47 58

Make a Splash grant program 66 58 72 63 66 62 67 67 61 41 64

Water pollution reporting hotline 57 61 71 61 63 62 62 66 56 41 62

Open space management restoration 62 62 62 60 64 64 61 63 59 52 62

Evergreen Tacoma, Tacoma's Urban forestry program 64 69 70 64 71 65 71 70 63 54 67

Storm drain maintenance 59 55 60 56 60 56 60 61 51 43 58

The Puget Sound Starts Here public information campaign 56 57 66 59 59 59 60 61 55 56 59




City of Tacoma Environmental Services sets up booths, provides materials or has displays at various events around Tacoma. I am going to ask you whether you have visited any of their booths or displays at an event in the last 5 years. In the last 5 years, have you attended any of the following events in Tacoma? 18-34 35-54 55+ Female Male Rent Own


White

Other race/

ethnicity

Did not answer race/

ethnicity Overall

Tacoma Home and Garden Show

Attend the event, and visit the ES booth 2% 10% 15% 9% 9% 5% 12% 9% 5% 27% 9%

Attend the event and did NOT visit the ES booth 5% 7% 9% 6% 8% 4% 9% 8% 5% 8% 7%

Did not attend the event 93% 83% 76% 85% 83% 91% 78% 83% 90% 65% 84%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Zoolights




Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Sustainability Expo




Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Other community events, outdoor concerts or outdoor fairs and festivals




Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Appendix D: Survey Methodology The City of Tacoma’s Department of Environmental Services protects and restores natural resources, keeping the city clean, safe and livable through garbage and recycling pickup, wastewater treatment, household hazardous waste disposal, providing protection from stormwater pollution and much more. To maintain services that the public recognizes and appreciates, Environmental Services periodically measures resident opinion about services provided. In 2016, the City of Tacoma contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to develop and conduct its fifth iteration of the Customer Satisfaction Survey. The City of Tacoma funded this research. Please contact Dan Thompson of the City of Tacoma at [email protected] if you have any questions about the survey.

Developing the Interview Script The survey was designed to measure residential satisfaction, awareness and perception of the services provided by the City’s Environmental Services and residents’ behaviors and attitudes related to the environment. The 2017 interview script was developed using the 2014 script as the starting point. To allow comparisons of resident opinion over time, many questions remained unchanged, or were modified only slightly. Several questions were removed to shorten the survey length and staff identified a few new topics to be addressed in 2017, so additional questions were crafted and finalized in an iterative process between City of Tacoma and NRC staff. A final survey was created and was approximately 21 minutes in length. A copy of the interview script can be found in Appendix E: Interview Script.

Selecting Survey Recipients A list of 52,607 Environmental Services customers with phone numbers was provided by the City of Tacoma. Phone numbers from this list were randomly placed into “replicates” or groups. A group was then randomly selected for interviewing. A new group was chosen for calling only once all the phone numbers in the previous replicate had been “exhausted” – that is, called multiple times or a final disposition assigned (such as refusal, completed interview, etc.).

Administering the Survey The interview script was programmed for use in a Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system, an interactive front-end computer system that aids interviewers in asking questions over the telephone, and manages the sample (the telephone numbers to be called by the interviewers). The computer program controls branching to or skipping among questions, and validates the data as it is entered. As an interviewer reads the question on the screen and enters the response, the next question is automatically brought up onto their screen. In addition to controlling the branching, a CATI system provides on-line checks on the responses keyed in and alerts the interviewer of inconsistent or out-of-range values. This improves the overall quality of data collected, and means that the separate step of data entry is unnecessary.



A CATI system also schedules and sends a number to an interviewer to be dialed via an automated process. The system searches for the next household to call based on certain priority rules. If a call was not answered, the system automatically schedules the household to another time. If the interview could not be completed, the system also allows interviewers to re-schedule the appointment to a date and time favored by the household.

Interviewing for this project occurred from January 19 through January 29, 2017. Each phone number called was assigned a “disposition” describing the outcome of the call. Phone numbers determined not to serve a residence (such as disconnected numbers or those for a business) were assigned final dispositions and not called again. When an interview was completed, or if a potential respondent refused to complete the interview, a final disposition was entered and the phone number was not dialed again. Phone numbers dialed that reached voice mail or busy signals were scheduled for additional calls. Each number not assigned a final disposition was called multiple times to ensure every household in the selected sample had a good chance of participating in the survey. Final dispositions were assigned only after eight or more attempts, for numbers that remained eligible. A majority of the interviews were completed during the evening hours, although calls were made on the weekend and during weekdays also. Spanish-speaking interviewers were available for this survey and four interviews were conducted in Spanish.

The final dispositions of the numbers dialed during the survey are listed in the table on the following page. A total of 3,168 phone numbers were dialed during the survey administration. Some of these numbers were considered ineligible for the survey.1 Of the approximately 2,743 eligible households called, 400 completed interviews providing a response rate of 18 percent and 329 households refused to complete the survey.

1 Disconnected, fax/data line or business phone numbers were not included as eligible households. For 1,776 phone numbers where the eligibility status of the household was unknown, 69% were estimated to be eligible. This proportion was assumed to hold for those households not contacted, or where the household refused, and therefore prevented knowing the eligibility status, and only 69% of these numbers were included in the final response rate calculation.



Table 67: Disposition of all Numbers Called for the 2014 Tacoma Environmental Services Phone Survey

Call Disposition Number of Phone Numbers Contacted

Complete 400

Refusal and breakoff 25

Refusal 304

Respondent never available 171

Other, non-refusals 48

Language problem 19

Always busy 76

No answer 609

Answering machine-don't know if household was eligible 1,067

Out of sample - other strata than originally coded 17

Fax/data line 22

Disconnected number 322

Business, government office, other organizations 64

Total phone numbers used 3,168

I=Complete Interviews 400

P=Partial Interviews 0

R=Refusal and break off 329

NC=Non-contact 171

O=Other 67

e1: the estimated proportion of cases of unknown eligibility that are eligible 69%

UH=Unknown Household 1,776

UO=Unknown other 0

Response rate2 18% 1Estimate of e is based on proportion of eligible households among all numbers for which a definitive determination of status was obtained (a very conservative estimate). 2The response rate was calculated as I/((I+P) + (R+NC+O) + e(UH+UO)).This is Response Rate 3 on the AAPOR Response Rate Calculator (see http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Education-Resources/For-Researchers/Poll-Survey-FAQ/Response-Rates-An-Overview.aspx)

Confidence Intervals The 95 percent confidence interval (or “margin of error”) quantifies the “sampling error” or precision of the estimates made from the survey results. A 95 percent confidence interval can be calculated for any sample size, and indicates that in 95 of 100 surveys conducted like this one, for a particular item, a result would be found that is within plus-or-minus 6 percentage points of the result that would be found if everyone in the population of interest was surveyed. The practical difficulties of conducting any resident survey may introduce other sources of error in addition to sampling error. Despite best efforts to boost participation and ensure potential inclusion of all eligible households, some selected households will decline participation in the survey (potentially introducing non-response error) and some eligible households may be unintentionally excluded from the listed sources for the sample (referred to as coverage error).

While the 95 percent confidence level for the survey is generally no greater than plus-or-minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for all survey respondents (400 responses), results for subgroups will have wider confidence intervals. Where estimates are given for subgroups, they are less precise. For each subgroup from the survey, the margin of error rises to as much as plus-or-minus 14 percent for a sample size of 50 to plus-or-minus 7 percent for 200



completed surveys. For average ratings based on the 100-point scale, the 95 percent confidence interval around an average rating based on all respondents typically will be no greater than plus or minus three points on the 100-point scale.

Analyzing the Data Survey Processing (Data Entry)

Use of a CATI system means that all collected data were entered into the dataset at the time of the interview. Skip patterns were programmed into CATI so interviewers were automatically “skipped” to the appropriate question based on the individual responses being given. Before the data were analyzed, an in-depth cleaning of the data was conducted as part of the standard quality control procedures.

Weighting the Data

The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the 2010 Census and the 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates for adults in the City.

The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were statistically adjusted to reflect the larger population using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Raking procedure. Survey results were weighted by housing tenure (rent or own), race and ethnicity, gender and age using Census and ACS norms to reflect the appropriate percent of residents by these characteristics. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table below.

Table 68: Weighting Table

Characteristic Population

Norm1 Unweighted

Data Weighted

Data

Housing

Rent home 46.1% 22.0% 46.0%

Own home 53.9% 78.0% 54.0%

Detached unit 64.0% 93.5% 89.8%

Attached unit 36.0% 6.5% 10.2%

Age

18-34 years of age 34.4% 21.6% 34.1%

35-54 years of age 36.4% 33.2% 36.1%

55+ years of age 29.2% 45.2% 29.7%

Sex

Female 51.9% 47.0% 52.1%

Male 48.1% 53.0% 47.9%

Sex and Age

Females 18-34 17.5% 8.8% 17.4%

Females 35-54 18.3% 14.3% 18.2%

Females 55+ 16.2% 23.9% 16.6%

Males 18-34 16.9% 12.8% 16.8%

Males 35-54 18.1% 18.8% 18.0%

Males 55+ 13.0% 21.4% 13.2% 1Source: 2010 Census population in households, except attached versus detached from the American Community Survey 2011 5-year estimates



Data Analysis

The electronic dataset was analyzed by NRC staff using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, the “percent positive” and average ratings are presented in the body of the report. The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (e.g., “excellent” and “good”, “very effective” and “somewhat effective”). A complete set of frequencies for each survey question is presented in Appendix A: Complete Set of Survey Responses. Also included are results compared by respondent characteristics in Appendix C: Selected Survey Responses by Respondent Subgroups. ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of selected survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5 percent probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95 percent probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of survey respondents represent “real” differences among those populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant, they have been marked with grey shading in the appendices.

Putting Evaluations onto a 100-point Scale

Although responses to many of the evaluative or frequency questions were made on a four-point scale with one representing the best rating and four the worst, the scales had different labels (e.g., "excellent," "very effective"). To make comparisons across survey years (as some response scales changed slightly in 2009 from those used in 2002 and 2005), many of the results in this summary are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. If everyone reported "excellent," then the result would be 100 on the 0-100 scale. If the average rating for quality of the natural environment were right in the middle of the scale (between "fair" and “good”), then the result would be 50. The new scale can be thought of like the thermometer used to represent total giving to United Way. The higher the thermometer reading, the closer to the goal of 100 – in this case, the most positive response possible. The 95 percent confidence interval around a score on the 0-100 scale based on all respondents typically will be no greater than plus-or-minus three points on the 100-point scale.

Benchmark Comparisons

Communities use the comparative information provided by benchmarks to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local government performance. We do not know what is small or large without comparing. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up “good” citizen evaluations, we need to know how others rate their services to understand if “good” is good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a community is left with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair. Streets always lose to fire. We need to ask more important and harder questions. We need to know how residents’ ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities.

A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service – one that closes most of its cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low – still has a problem to fix if the residents in the city it intends to protect believe services are not very good compared to ratings given by residents in other cities to their own objectively “worse” departments.



The benchmark data can help that police department – or any city department – to understand how well citizens think it is doing. Without the comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing what the other teams are scoring. We recommend that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results.

NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 600 communities whose residents evaluated local government services. Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each community, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million Americans. NRC has innovated a method for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that we have conducted with those that others have conducted. We have described our integration methods thoroughly in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management and in our first book on conducting and using citizen surveys, Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on our work.2 The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in our proprietary databases.

Communities in NRC’s benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. Comparisons may be made to subsets of communities (within a given region or population category). Most commonly (including in this report), comparisons are made to all communities. Despite the differences in community characteristics, all are in the business of providing local government services to residents. Though individual community circumstances, resources and practices vary, the objective in every community is to provide services that are so timely, tailored and effective that residents conclude the services are of the highest quality. High ratings in any community, like SAT scores in any teen household, bring pride and a sense of accomplishment.

National benchmark comparisons have been included in the report when available. Benchmark comparisons have been provided when similar questions on the Tacoma Environmental Services survey are included in NRC’s database and there are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked, though most questions are compared to more than five other cities across the country.

Where comparisons are available, Tacoma results are noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark or “similar to” the benchmark. This evaluation of “above,” “below” or “similar” to comes from a statistical comparison of Tacoma’s rating to the benchmark. In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much higher” or “much lower”). These labels come from a statistical comparison of Tacoma’s rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered “similar” if it is within the margin of error; ”higher” or “lower” if the difference between Tacoma’s rating and the benchmark is greater the margin of error; and “much higher” or “much lower” if the difference between Tacoma’s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error.

2 Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction, Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 271-288.; Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, E. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public Administration Review, 64, 331-341



The communities included in Tacoma’s comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the 2010 Census.

Adams County, CO ..................................... 441,603 Airway Heights city, WA .............................. 6,114 Albany city, OR ............................................... 50,158 Albemarle County, VA ................................. 98,970 Albert Lea city, MN ....................................... 18,016 Alexandria city, VA .................................... 139,966 Algonquin village, IL .................................... 30,046 Aliso Viejo city, CA ........................................ 47,823 Altoona city, IA ............................................... 14,541 American Canyon city, CA ......................... 19,454 Ames city, IA .................................................... 58,965 Andover CDP, MA ............................................ 8,762 Ankeny city, IA................................................ 45,582 Ann Arbor city, MI...................................... 113,934 Annapolis city, MD ........................................ 38,394 Apache Junction city, AZ ............................ 35,840 Apple Valley town, CA ................................. 69,135 Arapahoe County, CO................................ 572,003 Arkansas City city, AR ....................................... 366 Arlington County, VA ................................ 207,627 Arvada city, CO ............................................ 106,433 Asheville city, NC ........................................... 83,393 Ashland city, OR ............................................. 20,078 Ashland town, MA ......................................... 16,593 Ashland town, VA ............................................ 7,225 Aspen city, CO ................................................... 6,658 Athens-Clarke County unified government (balance), ....................................................... 115,452 Auburn city, AL............................................... 53,380 Auburn city, WA ............................................. 70,180 Augusta CCD, GA ......................................... 134,777 Aurora city, CO ............................................ 325,078 Austin city, TX .............................................. 790,390 Avon town, CO .................................................. 6,447 Avondale city, AZ ........................................... 76,238 Azusa city, CA .................................................. 46,361 Bainbridge Island city, WA ....................... 23,025 Baltimore city, MD ..................................... 620,961 Bartonville town, TX ...................................... 1,469 Battle Creek city, MI ..................................... 52,347 Bay City city, MI ............................................. 34,932 Baytown city, TX ............................................ 71,802 Bedford city, TX ............................................. 46,979 Bedford town, MA ......................................... 13,320 Bellevue city, WA........................................ 122,363 Bellingham city, WA ..................................... 80,885 Beltrami County, MN ................................... 44,442 Benbrook city, TX .......................................... 21,234 Bend city, OR ................................................... 76,639 Bettendorf city, IA ......................................... 33,217 Billings city, MT ........................................... 104,170 Blaine city, MN ................................................ 57,186 Bloomfield Hills city, MI ............................... 3,869 Bloomington city, MN .................................. 82,893 Blue Springs city, MO................................... 52,575 Boise City city, ID ....................................... 205,671 Boone County, KY ....................................... 118,811 Boulder city, CO ............................................. 97,385 Bowling Green city, KY ............................... 58,067 Bozeman city, MT .......................................... 37,280 Brentwood city, MO ....................................... 8,055 Brentwood city, TN ...................................... 37,060 Brighton city, CO ............................................ 33,352 Brighton city, MI .............................................. 7,444 Bristol city, TN ................................................ 26,702

Broken Arrow city, OK ............................... 98,850 Brookfield city, WI ....................................... 37,920 Brookline CDP, MA ....................................... 58,732 Broomfield city, CO ...................................... 55,889 Brownsburg town, IN ................................. 21,285 Burien city, WA .............................................. 33,313 Burleson city, TX ........................................... 36,690 Cabarrus County, NC ................................. 178,011 Cambridge city, MA.................................... 105,162 Cannon Beach city, OR .................................. 1,690 Cañon City city, CO ....................................... 16,400 Canton city, SD .................................................. 3,057 Cape Coral city, FL ...................................... 154,305 Cape Girardeau city, MO ............................ 37,941 Carlisle borough, PA .................................... 18,682 Carlsbad city, CA ......................................... 105,328 Carroll city, IA ................................................ 10,103 Cartersville city, GA ..................................... 19,731 Cary town, NC ............................................... 135,234 Casper city, WY .............................................. 55,316 Castine town, ME ............................................. 1,366 Castle Pines North city, CO ....................... 10,360 Castle Rock town, CO .................................. 48,231 Cedar Hill city, TX ......................................... 45,028 Cedar Rapids city, IA ................................. 126,326 Celina city, TX .................................................... 6,028 Centennial city, CO ..................................... 100,377 Chambersburg borough, PA .................... 20,268 Chandler city, AZ ......................................... 236,123 Chandler city, TX .............................................. 2,734 Chanhassen city, MN ................................... 22,952 Chapel Hill town, NC ................................... 57,233 Charles County, MD ................................... 146,551 Charlotte city, NC ........................................ 731,424 Charlotte County, FL ................................. 159,978 Charlottesville city, VA ............................... 43,475 Chattanooga city, TN ................................. 167,674 Chesterfield County, VA ........................... 316,236 Chippewa Falls city, WI.............................. 13,661 Citrus Heights city, CA ................................ 83,301 Clackamas County, OR .............................. 375,992 Clarendon Hills village, IL ............................ 8,427 Clayton city, MO ............................................ 15,939 Clearwater city, FL ..................................... 107,685 Cleveland Heights city, OH ....................... 46,121 Clinton city, SC .................................................. 8,490 Clive city, IA ..................................................... 15,447 Clovis city, CA ................................................. 95,631 College Park city, MD .................................. 30,413 College Station city, TX............................... 93,857 Colleyville city, TX ........................................ 22,807 Collinsville city, IL ........................................ 25,579 Columbia city, SC ........................................ 129,272 Columbia Falls city, MT ................................. 4,688 Columbus city, WI ........................................... 4,991 Commerce City city, CO .............................. 45,913 Concord city, CA .......................................... 122,067 Concord town, MA ........................................ 17,668 Coon Rapids city, MN .................................. 61,476 Copperas Cove city, TX ............................... 32,032 Coronado city, CA ......................................... 18,912 Corvallis city, OR ........................................... 54,462 Cottonwood Heights city, UT .................. 33,433 Creve Coeur city, MO ................................... 17,833 Cross Roads town, TX .................................... 1,563

Dacono city, CO ................................................. 4,152 Dade City city, FL ............................................. 6,437 Dakota County, MN ................................... 398,552 Dallas city, OR ................................................. 14,583 Dallas city, TX .......................................... 1,197,816 Danville city, KY ............................................. 16,218 Dardenne Prairie city, MO ........................ 11,494 Davenport city, IA ......................................... 99,685 Davidson town, NC ....................................... 10,944 Dayton city, OH ........................................... 141,527 Decatur city, GA ............................................. 19,335 Del Mar city, CA................................................. 4,161 DeLand city, FL .............................................. 27,031 Delaware city, OH ......................................... 34,753 Delray Beach city, FL ................................... 60,522 Denison city, TX ............................................. 22,682 Denton city, TX ............................................ 113,383 Denver city, CO ............................................ 600,158 Derby city, KS ................................................. 22,158 Des Moines city, IA .................................... 203,433 Des Peres city, MO ........................................... 8,373 Destin city, FL ................................................. 12,305 Dothan city, AL ............................................... 65,496 Douglas County, CO ................................... 285,465 Dover city, NH ................................................ 29,987 Dublin city, CA ................................................ 46,036 Dublin city, OH ............................................... 41,751 Duluth city, MN .............................................. 86,265 Duncanville city, TX ..................................... 38,524 Durham city, NC.......................................... 228,330 Durham County, NC .................................. 267,587 Eagan city, MN ................................................ 64,206 Eagle Mountain city, UT ............................. 21,415 Eagle town, CO .................................................. 6,508 East Baton Rouge Parish, LA ................ 440,171 East Grand Forks city, MN ........................... 8,601 East Lansing city, MI .................................... 48,579 Eau Claire city, WI ........................................ 65,883 Eden Prairie city, MN .................................. 60,797 Edgerton city, KS .............................................. 1,671 Edgewater city, CO .......................................... 5,170 Edina city, MN ................................................ 47,941 Edmond city, OK ............................................ 81,405 Edmonds city, WA ........................................ 39,709 El Cerrito city, CA .......................................... 23,549 El Dorado County, CA ............................... 181,058 El Paso city, TX ............................................ 649,121 Elk Grove city, CA ....................................... 153,015 Elk River city, MN ......................................... 22,974 Elko New Market city, MN ........................... 4,110 Elmhurst city, IL ............................................ 44,121 Encinitas city, CA ........................................... 59,518 Englewood city, CO ...................................... 30,255 Erie town, CO .................................................. 18,135 Escambia County, FL ................................ 297,619 Estes Park town, CO ........................................ 5,858 Fairview town, TX ........................................... 7,248 Farmersville city, TX ...................................... 3,301 Farmington Hills city, MI ........................... 79,740 Fayetteville city, NC .................................. 200,564 Fishers town, IN ............................................ 76,794 Flower Mound town, TX ............................ 64,669 Forest Grove city, OR .................................. 21,083 Fort Collins city, CO ................................... 143,986 Fort Lauderdale city, FL .......................... 165,521



Fort Smith city, AR ........................................ 86,209 Fort Worth city, TX .................................... 741,206 Fountain Hills town, AZ .............................. 22,489 Franklin city, TN ............................................ 62,487 Fredericksburg city, VA .............................. 24,286 Fremont city, CA ......................................... 214,089 Friendswood city, TX ................................... 35,805 Fruita city, CO ................................................. 12,646 Gahanna city, OH ........................................... 33,248 Gaithersburg city, MD ................................. 59,933 Galveston city, TX .......................................... 47,743 Gardner city, KS ............................................. 19,123 Geneva city, NY ............................................... 13,261 Georgetown city, TX ..................................... 47,400 Germantown city, TN .................................. 38,844 Gilbert town, AZ .......................................... 208,453 Gillette city, WY .............................................. 29,087 Glendora city, CA ........................................... 50,073 Glenview village, IL ...................................... 44,692 Globe city, AZ .................................................... 7,532 Golden city, CO ............................................... 18,867 Golden Valley city, MN ................................ 20,371 Goodyear city, AZ .......................................... 65,275 Grafton village, WI ........................................ 11,459 Grand Blanc city, MI ....................................... 8,276 Grand Island city, NE ................................... 48,520 Grants Pass city, OR ..................................... 34,533 Grass Valley city, CA ..................................... 12,860 Greenville city, NC ......................................... 84,554 Greenwich town, CT ..................................... 61,171 Greenwood Village city, CO ...................... 13,925 Greer city, SC ................................................... 25,515 Guilford County, NC .................................. 488,406 Gunnison County, CO ................................... 15,324 Hailey city, ID .................................................... 7,960 Haines Borough, AK ....................................... 2,508 Hallandale Beach city, FL ........................... 37,113 Hamilton city, OH .......................................... 62,477 Hanover County, VA ..................................... 99,863 Harrisburg city, SD ......................................... 4,089 Harrisonburg city, VA .................................. 48,914 Harrisonville city, MO ................................. 10,019 Hayward city, CA ........................................ 144,186 Henderson city, NV .................................... 257,729 Herndon town, VA ........................................ 23,292 High Point city, NC ..................................... 104,371 Highland Park city, IL .................................. 29,763 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO .......................... 96,713 Holland city, MI .............................................. 33,051 Honolulu County, HI ................................. 953,207 Hooksett town, NH ....................................... 13,451 Hopkins city, MN ........................................... 17,591 Hopkinton town, MA ................................... 14,925 Hoquiam city, WA ........................................... 8,726 Horry County, SC ........................................ 269,291 Howard village, WI ....................................... 17,399 Hudson city, OH ............................................. 22,262 Hudson town, CO ............................................. 2,356 Hudsonville city, MI ....................................... 7,116 Huntersville town, NC ................................. 46,773 Huntley village, IL ......................................... 24,291 Hurst city, TX ................................................... 37,337 Hutchinson city, MN ..................................... 14,178 Hutto city, TX .................................................. 14,698 Hyattsville city, MD ...................................... 17,557 Independence city, MO ............................ 116,830 Indian Trail town, NC .................................. 33,518 Indianola city, IA ............................................ 14,782 Iowa City city, IA ............................................ 67,862

Irving city, TX ............................................... 216,290 Issaquah city, WA ......................................... 30,434 Jackson County, MI .................................... 160,248 James City County, VA ................................ 67,009 Jefferson County, CO ................................. 534,543 Jefferson County, NY ................................. 116,229 Jefferson Parish, LA ................................... 432,552 Johnson City city, TN ................................... 63,152 Johnston city, IA ............................................ 17,278 Jupiter town, FL ............................................. 55,156 Kansas City city, KS .................................... 145,786 Kansas City city, MO .................................. 459,787 Keizer city, OR ................................................ 36,478 Kenmore city, WA ......................................... 20,460 Kennedale city, TX ........................................... 6,763 Kennett Square borough, PA ...................... 6,072 Kent city, WA .................................................. 92,411 Kerrville city, TX ........................................... 22,347 Kettering city, OH ......................................... 56,163 Key West city, FL .......................................... 24,649 King City city, CA ........................................... 12,874 King County, WA ..................................... 1,931,249 Kirkland city, WA .......................................... 48,787 Kirkwood city, MO ....................................... 27,540 Knoxville city, IA .............................................. 7,313 La Mesa city, CA ............................................. 57,065 La Plata town, MD ........................................... 8,753 La Porte city, TX ............................................ 33,800 La Vista city, NE ............................................. 15,758 Lafayette city, CO .......................................... 24,453 Laguna Beach city, CA ................................. 22,723 Laguna Hills city, CA .................................... 30,344 Laguna Niguel city, CA ................................ 62,979 Lake Forest city, IL ....................................... 19,375 Lake Oswego city, OR .................................. 36,619 Lake Stevens city, WA ................................. 28,069 Lake Worth city, FL ...................................... 34,910 Lake Zurich village, IL ................................ 19,631 Lakeville city, MN ......................................... 55,954 Lakewood city, CO ...................................... 142,980 Lakewood city, WA ...................................... 58,163 Lane County, OR .......................................... 351,715 Lansing city, MI ........................................... 114,297 Laramie city, WY ........................................... 30,816 Larimer County, CO ................................... 299,630 Las Vegas city, NV ....................................... 583,756 Lawrence city, KS ......................................... 87,643 Lawrenceville city, GA ................................ 28,546 Lee's Summit city, MO ................................ 91,364 Lehi city, UT .................................................... 47,407 Lenexa city, KS ............................................... 48,190 Lewis County, NY .......................................... 27,087 Lewiston city, ID ........................................... 31,894 Lewisville city, TX ......................................... 95,290 Libertyville village, IL ................................. 20,315 Lincoln city, NE ............................................ 258,379 Lindsborg city, KS ............................................ 3,458 Little Chute village, WI ............................... 10,449 Littleton city, CO ........................................... 41,737 Livermore city, CA ........................................ 80,968 Lombard village, IL ...................................... 43,165 Lone Tree city, CO ........................................ 10,218 Long Grove village, IL .................................... 8,043 Longmont city, CO ........................................ 86,270 Longview city, TX ......................................... 80,455 Lonsdale city, MN ............................................ 3,674 Los Alamos County, NM ............................. 17,950 Los Altos Hills town, CA ................................ 7,922 Louisville city, CO ......................................... 18,376

Lower Merion township, PA .................... 57,825 Lynchburg city, VA ....................................... 75,568 Lynnwood city, WA ...................................... 35,836 Macomb County, MI .................................. 840,978 Manhattan Beach city, CA ......................... 35,135 Manhattan city, KS ........................................ 52,281 Mankato city, MN .......................................... 39,309 Maple Grove city, MN .................................. 61,567 Maricopa County, AZ ............................ 3,817,117 Marshfield city, WI ....................................... 19,118 Martinez city, CA ........................................... 35,824 Marysville city, WA ...................................... 60,020 Matthews town, NC ...................................... 27,198 McAllen city, TX .......................................... 129,877 McDonough city, GA .................................... 22,084 McKinney city, TX ...................................... 131,117 McMinnville city, OR .................................... 32,187 Menlo Park city, CA ...................................... 32,026 Mercer Island city, WA ............................... 22,699 Meridian charter township, MI............... 39,688 Meridian city, ID ............................................ 75,092 Merriam city, KS ............................................ 11,003 Mesa city, AZ ................................................ 439,041 Mesa County, CO ......................................... 146,723 Miami Beach city, FL .................................... 87,779 Miami city, FL .............................................. 399,457 Middleton city, WI ........................................ 17,442 Midland city, MI ............................................. 41,863 Milford city, DE ................................................. 9,559 Milton city, GA ................................................ 32,661 Minneapolis city, MN ................................ 382,578 Mission Viejo city, CA .................................. 93,305 Modesto city, CA ......................................... 201,165 Monterey city, CA .......................................... 27,810 Montgomery County, VA ........................... 94,392 Monticello city, UT .......................................... 1,972 Monument town, CO ....................................... 5,530 Mooresville town, NC .................................. 32,711 Moraga town, CA ........................................... 16,016 Morristown city, TN ..................................... 29,137 Morrisville town, NC ................................... 18,576 Morro Bay city, CA ........................................ 10,234 Mountain Village town, CO .......................... 1,320 Mountlake Terrace city, WA .................... 19,909 Murphy city, TX ............................................. 17,708 Naperville city, IL ....................................... 141,853 Napoleon city, OH ............................................ 8,749 Needham CDP, MA ........................................ 28,886 New Braunfels city, TX ............................... 57,740 New Brighton city, MN ............................... 21,456 New Hanover County, NC ....................... 202,667 New Orleans city, LA ................................ 343,829 New Smyrna Beach city, FL ...................... 22,464 New Ulm city, MN ......................................... 13,522 Newberg city, OR .......................................... 22,068 Newport city, RI ............................................. 24,672 Newport News city, VA ........................... 180,719 Newton city, IA ............................................... 15,254 Noblesville city, IN ....................................... 51,969 Nogales city, AZ.............................................. 20,837 Norcross city, GA .............................................. 9,116 Norfolk city, VA ........................................... 242,803 North Port city, FL ........................................ 57,357 North Richland Hills city, TX ................... 63,343 Northglenn city, CO ...................................... 35,789 Novato city, CA ............................................... 51,904 Novi city, MI .................................................... 55,224 O'Fallon city, IL .............................................. 28,281 O'Fallon city, MO ........................................... 79,329



Oak Park village, IL ....................................... 51,878 Oakland city, CA .......................................... 390,724 Oakley city, CA ................................................ 35,432 Ogdensburg city, NY .................................... 11,128 Oklahoma City city, OK ............................ 579,999 Olathe city, KS .............................................. 125,872 Old Town city, ME ........................................... 7,840 Olmsted County, MN ................................. 144,248 Olympia city, WA ........................................... 46,478 Orland Park village, IL................................. 56,767 Oshkosh city, WI ............................................ 66,083 Oshtemo charter township, MI ............... 21,705 Otsego County, MI ......................................... 24,164 Oviedo city, FL ................................................ 33,342 Paducah city, KY ............................................ 25,024 Palm Beach Gardens city, FL .................... 48,452 Palm Coast city, FL ........................................ 75,180 Palo Alto city, CA ........................................... 64,403 Papillion city, NE ........................................... 18,894 Paradise Valley town, AZ ........................... 12,820 Park City city, UT ............................................. 7,558 Parker town, CO ............................................. 45,297 Parkland city, FL ............................................ 23,962 Pasadena city, CA ....................................... 137,122 Pasco city, WA................................................. 59,781 Pasco County, FL......................................... 464,697 Payette city, ID .................................................. 7,433 Pearland city, TX ............................................ 91,252 Peoria city, AZ .............................................. 154,065 Peoria city, IL ............................................... 115,007 Peoria County, IL ........................................ 186,494 Pflugerville city, TX ...................................... 46,936 Phoenix city, AZ ...................................... 1,445,632 Pinehurst village, NC ................................... 13,124 Piqua city, OH .................................................. 20,522 Pitkin County, CO .......................................... 17,148 Plano city, TX ................................................ 259,841 Platte City city, MO ......................................... 4,691 Plymouth city, MN ........................................ 70,576 Pocatello city, ID ............................................ 54,255 Polk County, IA ............................................ 430,640 Pompano Beach city, FL ............................. 99,845 Port Orange city, FL ..................................... 56,048 Portland city, OR ......................................... 583,776 Post Falls city, ID ........................................... 27,574 Powell city, OH ............................................... 11,500 Prince William County, VA ..................... 402,002 Prior Lake city, MN ....................................... 22,796 Pueblo city, CO ............................................. 106,595 Purcellville town, VA ..................................... 7,727 Queen Creek town, AZ ................................. 26,361 Radnor township, PA ................................... 31,531 Ramsey city, MN ............................................ 23,668 Raymond town, ME ........................................ 4,436 Raymore city, MO .......................................... 19,206 Redmond city, OR .......................................... 26,215 Redmond city, WA ........................................ 54,144 Rehoboth Beach city, DE .............................. 1,327 Reno city, NV ................................................ 225,221 Reston CDP, VA .............................................. 58,404 Richmond city, CA ...................................... 103,701 Richmond Heights city, MO ........................ 8,603 Rifle city, CO ....................................................... 9,172 Rio Rancho city, NM ..................................... 87,521 River Falls city, WI ........................................ 15,000 Riverside city, CA ....................................... 303,871 Riverside city, MO ........................................... 2,937 Roanoke County, VA .................................... 92,376 Rochester Hills city, MI ............................... 70,995

Rock Hill city, SC ........................................... 66,154 Rockville city, MD ......................................... 61,209 Roeland Park city, KS ..................................... 6,731 Rogers city, MN................................................. 8,597 Rohnert Park city, CA.................................. 40,971 Rolla city, MO .................................................. 19,559 Roselle village, IL .......................................... 22,763 Rosemount city, MN .................................... 21,874 Rosenberg city, TX ....................................... 30,618 Roseville city, MN ......................................... 33,660 Round Rock city, TX .................................... 99,887 Royal Oak city, MI ......................................... 57,236 Saco city, ME ................................................... 18,482 Sahuarita town, AZ ...................................... 25,259 Salida city, CO .................................................... 5,236 Sammamish city, WA .................................. 45,780 San Anselmo town, CA ............................... 12,336 San Antonio city, TX .............................. 1,327,407 San Carlos city, CA ........................................ 28,406 San Diego city, CA ................................... 1,307,402 San Francisco city, CA ............................... 805,235 San Jose city, CA .......................................... 945,942 San Juan County, NM ................................. 130,044 San Marcos city, CA ...................................... 83,781 San Marcos city, TX ...................................... 44,894 San Rafael city, CA ........................................ 57,713 Sanford city, FL .............................................. 53,570 Sangamon County, IL ................................ 197,465 Santa Clarita city, CA ................................. 176,320 Santa Fe city, NM .......................................... 67,947 Santa Fe County, NM ................................. 144,170 Santa Monica city, CA .................................. 89,736 Sarasota County, FL ................................... 379,448 Savage city, MN .............................................. 26,911 Schaumburg village, IL ............................... 74,227 Scott County, MN ........................................ 129,928 Scottsdale city, AZ ...................................... 217,385 Seaside city, CA .............................................. 33,025 Sevierville city, TN ....................................... 14,807 Shakopee city, MN ........................................ 37,076 Shawnee city, KS ........................................... 62,209 Shawnee city, OK .......................................... 29,857 Sheboygan city, WI ...................................... 49,288 Sherborn town, MA ......................................... 4,119 Shoreview city, MN ...................................... 25,043 Shorewood city, MN ....................................... 7,307 Shorewood village, IL ................................. 15,615 Shorewood village, WI ............................... 13,162 Sierra Vista city, AZ...................................... 43,888 Sioux Center city, IA ....................................... 7,048 Sioux Falls city, SD ..................................... 153,888 Skokie village, IL ........................................... 64,784 Snellville city, GA .......................................... 18,242 South Lake Tahoe city, CA ........................ 21,403 Southborough town, MA .............................. 9,767 Southlake city, TX ......................................... 26,575 Spokane Valley city, WA ............................ 89,755 Spring Hill city, KS ........................................... 5,437 Springboro city, OH ..................................... 17,409 Springfield city, MO ................................... 159,498 Springville city, UT ....................................... 29,466 St. Augustine city, FL ................................... 12,975 St. Charles city, IL ......................................... 32,974 St. Cloud city, FL ............................................ 35,183 St. Cloud city, MN .......................................... 65,842 St. Joseph city, MO ........................................ 76,780 St. Louis County, MN ................................. 200,226 St. Louis Park city, MN ................................ 45,250 Stallings town, NC ........................................ 13,831

State College borough, PA ......................... 42,034 Steamboat Springs city, CO ...................... 12,088 Sterling Heights city, MI .......................... 129,699 Sugar Grove village, IL ................................... 8,997 Sugar Land city, TX ...................................... 78,817 Suisun City city, CA ....................................... 28,111 Summit city, NJ ............................................... 21,457 Summit County, UT ...................................... 36,324 Summit village, IL ......................................... 11,054 Sunnyvale city, CA ..................................... 140,081 Surprise city, AZ ......................................... 117,517 Suwanee city, GA ........................................... 15,355 Tacoma city, WA ......................................... 198,397 Takoma Park city, MD ................................. 16,715 Tamarac city, FL ............................................ 60,427 Temecula city, CA ....................................... 100,097 Tempe city, AZ ............................................. 161,719 Texarkana city, TX ........................................ 36,411 The Woodlands CDP, TX ............................ 93,847 Thornton city, CO ....................................... 118,772 Thousand Oaks city, CA ........................... 126,683 Tigard city, OR ................................................ 48,035 Tracy city, CA .................................................. 82,922 Trinidad CCD, CO .......................................... 12,017 Tualatin city, OR ............................................ 26,054 Tulsa city, OK ............................................... 391,906 Twin Falls city, ID ......................................... 44,125 Tyler city, TX ................................................... 96,900 Umatilla city, OR ............................................... 6,906 University Park city, TX ............................. 23,068 Upper Arlington city, OH ........................... 33,771 Urbandale city, IA ......................................... 39,463 Vail town, CO ...................................................... 5,305 Vancouver city, WA ................................... 161,791 Ventura CCD, CA ......................................... 111,889 Vernon Hills village, IL ............................... 25,113 Vestavia Hills city, AL .................................. 34,033 Victoria city, MN ............................................... 7,345 Vienna town, VA ............................................ 15,687 Virginia Beach city, VA ............................ 437,994 Wake Forest town, NC ................................ 30,117 Walnut Creek city, CA ................................. 64,173 Washington County, MN ......................... 238,136 Washington town, NH .................................... 1,123 Washougal city, WA ..................................... 14,095 Watauga city, TX ............................................ 23,497 Wauwatosa city, WI ..................................... 46,396 Waverly city, IA ................................................. 9,874 Weddington town, NC .................................... 9,459 Wentzville city, MO ...................................... 29,070 West Carrollton city, OH ............................ 13,143 West Chester borough, PA ........................ 18,461 West Des Moines city, IA ........................... 56,609 Western Springs village, IL ....................... 12,975 Westerville city, OH ..................................... 36,120 Westlake town, TX .............................................. 992 Westminster city, CO ................................ 106,114 Weston town, MA .......................................... 11,261 Wheat Ridge city, CO ................................... 30,166 White House city, TN ................................... 10,255 Wichita city, KS ........................................... 382,368 Williamsburg city, VA ................................. 14,068 Willowbrook village, IL ................................. 8,540 Wilmington city, NC .................................. 106,476 Wilsonville city, OR ...................................... 19,509 Winchester city, VA ...................................... 26,203 Windsor town, CO ......................................... 18,644 Windsor town, CT ......................................... 29,044 Winnetka village, IL ..................................... 12,187



Winston-Salem city, NC ........................... 229,617 Winter Garden city, FL ................................ 34,568 Woodbury city, MN ...................................... 61,961 Woodland city, CA ......................................... 55,468

Wrentham town, MA ................................... 10,955 Wyandotte County, KS ............................. 157,505 Yakima city, WA ............................................ 91,067 York County, VA ............................................ 65,464

Yorktown town, IN .......................................... 9,405 Yountville city, CA ............................................ 2,933



Appendix E: Interview Script The following pages contain a copy of the script interviewers followed when talking with survey participants.

TEXT IN CAPS IS INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE READ ALOUD.

INTRODUCTION Hello, my name is _____________ and I’m calling on the behalf of the City of Tacoma. The City wants to know what you think about the City’s Wastewater, Surface Water and Solid Waste Utilities. We are not trying to sell you anything. Your responses are confidential and will be reported in group form only to help make decisions about the future of the city. We need to complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Is that you? [IF NO: May I speak with that person?] [REPEAT FIRST PARAGRAPH WITH NEW PERSON.]

GENERAL

1. Overall, how would you rate the…[ROTATE A-B]?

a. Quality of the overall natural environment in the City of Tacoma b. Job that Tacoma City Government is doing at protecting the environment

Would you say…[REREAD SCALE AS NECESSARY.]

1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

2. Please tell me how often, if at all, you do each of the following. What about…[ROTATE A-N]?

a. Recycle standard curbside recyclable items such as paper, cans, and plastic b. Recycle yard waste c. Recycle glass d. Wash your car on the lawn e. Wash your car at a commercial car wash g. Leave grass clippings on your lawn using a regular or mulching lawn mower i. Dispose of household hazardous waste at the Tacoma recovery and transfer center, formerly landfill drop-off

site j. Garden at a community garden k. Buy products with less packaging l. Use non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products m. Compost food and/or yard waste n. Participated in caring for or restoring open, natural spaces in Tacoma by being part of a work party or event,

or by volunteering with groups such as MetroParks Chip-In!, Forterra, or Green Tacoma Partnership.


1. Always 2. Frequently 3. Sometimes 4. Never 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ]



99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

3. I just asked you how often you did various activities. Now, please tell me how effective or ineffective you think each activity is at protecting the environment. What about…[ROTATE A-N]?

a. Recycling common household items such as paper, cans, and plastic b. Recycling yard waste c. Recycling glass d. Washing your car on the lawn e. Washing your car at a commercial car wash f. Scooping and disposing of pet waste in the garbage g. Leaving grass clippings on your lawn using a regular or mulching lawn mower i. Disposing of household hazardous waste at the Tacoma recovery and transfer center, formerly landfill drop-off

site j. Buying products with less packaging k. Using non-toxic or non-hazardous cleaning products l. Composting food and/or yard waste m. Participating in caring for or restoring open, natural spaces in Tacoma by being part of a work party or by

volunteering with groups such as MetroParks Chip-In!, Forterra, or Green Tacoma Partnership. n. Planting trees


1. Very effective 2. Somewhat effective 3. Not at all effective 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

SOLID WASTE Now let’s talk about solid waste services (in other words garbage and recycling services) provided by the City of Tacoma.

4. How would you rate each of the following solid waste services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about…[ROTATE A-E, ALWAYS ASK F LAST]? [IF RESPONDENT SAYS “DON’T KNOW” – PROBE TO FIND OUT IF THEY HAVEN’T HEARD OF IT OR IF THEY HAVE HEARD OF IT, BUT DON’T USE IT]

a. Garbage collection services b. Recycling collection services c. Yard waste collection services d. Blight cleanup program e. Call-2-Haul f. Overall solid waste collection services


1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. HAVEN’T HEARD OF IT 6. HEARD OF IT, BUT HAVEN’T USED IT 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

5. Does your household participate in the City’s curbside food waste recycling program?

1. YES [GO TO QUESTION #7] 2. NO [GO TO QUESTION #6] 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] [GO TO QUESTION #7]



99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ] [GO TO QUESTION #7]

6. Can you tell me the primary reason that you do not participate in the City’s curbside food and yard waste recycling program? [SELECT ONLY ONE RESPONSE.]

1. AM NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO MANAGE YARD WASTE RECYCLING 2. COMPOST MY OWN FOOD/YARD WASTE 3. DON'T BELIEVE/AGREE WITH THIS PROGRAM 4. HIRE SOMEONE TO MANAGE MY YARD/LANDSCAPING - THEY HAUL IT AWAY 5. JUST DON'T WANT TO 6. NO TIME 7. NO YARD/YARD WASTE 8. TAKE IT TO THE LANDFILL 9. USE OUR YARD WASTE FOR MULCH/REUSE OUR YARD WASTE 10. FOOD WASTE STINKS IF WE WAIT FOR IT TO BE COLLECTED BY THE CITY 11. I LIVE IN A RENTAL/COMPLEX OR NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN’T OFFER IT 97. OTHER, SPECIFY: _____________________ [DO NOT READ] 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

7. Please rate the quality of each portion of the City of Tacoma’s Recovery and Transfer Center, formerly known as the Tacoma Landfill located off of Center Street. What about the…[ROTATE A-F, ALWAYS ASK G LAST]? [IF RESPONDENT SAYS “DON’T KNOW” – PROBE TO FIND OUT IF THEY HAVEN’T HEARD OF IT OR IF THEY HAVE HEARD OF IT, BUT DON’T USE IT]

a. Garbage unloading area b. Recycling Center c. Household hazardous waste facility d. Yard waste unloading area e. Goodwill donation station f. ScaleHouse where users pull in and get weighed upon entering the center and again as they leave after

disposing of their load. g. Interactions with employees



8. I’d like to ask you about the customer service provided by the Solid Waste Division of the City of Tacoma’s Environmental Services Department. Have you had any contact with an employee of Solid Waste in the past year, including garbage services, recycling services, Call 2 Haul, landfill services or any others?

1. YES [GO TO QUESTION #10] 2. NO [GO TO QUESTION #11] 98. DON’T KNOW [GO TO QUESTION #11] 99. REFUSED [GO TO QUESTION #11]



9. Can you tell me what your impression was of the customer service provided by Solid Waste employees in your most recent contact? Would you rate them as excellent, good, fair or poor in the following areas [ROTATE A-C, ALWAYS ASK D LAST]? What about . . .

a. Their knowledge of the topic about which you contacted them b. Their responsiveness to your concern or question c. Their courtesy to you or others d. Your overall impression



WASTEWATER My next questions are about wastewater services provided by the City of Tacoma.

10. How would you rate each of the following wastewater programs, products and services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about…[ROTATE A-B, ALWAYS ASK C LAST]? [IF RESPONDENT SAYS “DON’T KNOW” – PROBE TO FIND OUT IF THEY HAVEN’T HEARD OF IT OR IF THEY HAVE HEARD OF IT, BUT DON’T USE IT.]

a. TAGRO (which is short for “Tacoma Grow”) soil products and services b. Sewer Conservation Loan Program c. Overall services such as wastewater treatment, maintenance and operation of pipes and pump stations, etc.



11. As I read some common materials, please tell me how often, if at all, you dispose of each item through the city’s wastewater system, either by flushing it down the toilet or by pouring it down the sink or other household drain. What about…[ROTATE A-I]?

a. Disposable wipes b. Medications c. Pet waste d. Garden chemicals e. Pool water f. Cooking grease or oil g. Paint solvents h. Motor oils or other automotive fluids i. Household cleaning products


1. Always 2. Frequently 3. Sometimes 4. Never



98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

12. TAGRO is the City of Tacoma’s landscaping mixes made from wastewater biosolids for landscaping, vegetable gardens and container gardening. They are available in bulk or by the bag. Before I described it, had you heard of TAGRO?

1. YES [GO TO QUESTION #13] 2. NO [GO TO QUESTION #16] 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] [GO TO QUESTION #16] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ] [GO TO QUESTION #16]

13. Have you ever used any TAGRO products?

1. YES 2. NO 98. DON’T KNOW 99. REFUSED

14. How would you rate the quality of the TAGRO program?


15. Did you know about or have you heard about TAGRO’s partnership with community gardens?


SURFACE WATER The next set of questions is about surface water services provided by the City of Tacoma.

16. How would you rate each of the following surface water/stormwater management programs or services provided by the City of Tacoma? What about…[ROTATE A-H]? [IF RESPONDENT SAYS “DON’T KNOW” – PROBE TO FIND OUT IF THEY HAVEN’T HEARD OF IT OR IF THEY HAVE HEARD OF IT, BUT DON’T USE IT.]

a. Street sweeping b. flood response c. Make a Splash grant program d. Water pollution reporting hotline e. Open space management restoration f. Evergreen Tacoma, Tacoma’s Urban forestry program g. Storm drain maintenance h. The Puget Sound Starts Here public information campaign





17. Do you have a lawn or garden?

1. YES [GO TO QUESTION #18] 2. NO [GO TO QUESTION #21] 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] [GO TO QUESTION #21] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ] [GO TO QUESTION #21]

18. How frequently, if at all, do you or a landscaping professional use any of the following products or materials on your lawn or garden? What about…[ROTATE A-D]?

a. Fertilizers (for example, MiracleGro, etc.) b. Insect or weed killers c. Composted food scraps or yard waste d. Mulch, like bark, leaves or woodchips


1. Never 2. Once or twice per year 3. 3 to 6 times per year 4. 7 to 12 times per year 5. More than 12 times per year 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

19. How familiar, if at all, are you with each of the following sustainable “low impact” stormwater management practices? [ROTATE A –E]

a. Rain gardens b. Rain barrels c. Permeable pavement or pavers d. Native plant landscaping e. Planting trees

Would you say …[REREAD SCALE AS NECESSARY.]

1. Very familiar 2. Somewhat familiar 3. Not at all familiar 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

20. Have you installed any of the following at your home? [ROTATE A – E]

a. Rain gardens b. Rain barrels c. Permeable pavement or pavers d. Native plant landscaping e. Newly planted trees




21. To the best of your knowledge, when water runs into storm drains in Tacoma, where does it generally go? Would you say it goes…[REREAD SCALE AS NECESSARY]?

1. To a treatment plant 2. Into the nearest body of water without treatment 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

ENVIROCHALLENGER AND ENVIROHOUSE

22. How familiar are you, if at all, with the City’s EnviroChallenger program that teaches free environmental lessons to Tacoma students?

1. Very familiar 2. Somewhat familiar 3. Not at all familiar 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

23. The City of Tacoma EnviroHouse is a permanent model home showcasing green building and natural landscape ideas, materials and techniques to create a healthy home and planet. Have you ever heard of or visited the EnviroHouse?

1. YES, HEARD OF BUT NOT VISITED [GO TO QUESTION #25] 2. YES< VISITED [GO TO QUESTION #24] 3. NO, NOT HEARD OF [GO TO QUESTION #25] 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] [GO TO QUESTION #25] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ] [GO TO QUESTION #25]

24. Did your visit or visits influence you to purchase any of the products you saw displayed there?


25. City of Tacoma Environmental Services sets up booths, provides materials or has displays at various events around Tacoma. I am going to ask you whether you have visited any of their booths or displays at an event in the last 5 years.. In the last 5 years, have you attended any of the following events in Tacoma? What about . . . [ROTATE #A - #D, ASK #E LAST]

a. Tacoma Home and Garden Show b. Zoolights c. Rainiers Baseball Game d. Sustainability Expo e. Other community events, outdoor concerts or outdoor fairs and festivals

In the last 5 years, did you . . .

1. Attend the event, and visit the Environmental Services booth 2. Attend the event and did NOT visit the Environmental Services booth 3. Did not attend the event. 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]



INFORMATION SOURCES Next I want to talk about ways in which people sometimes get information from City departments.

26. I am going to list some information sources that residents use to get information about City departments. Please tell me if you recall seeing any information about solid waste (which is garbage and recycling), wastewater and surface water utilities in each information source. What about…[ROTATE A-H]?

a. The “EnviroTalk” newsletter b. Inserts that come in your utility bill c. City webpages d. Shows on TV Tacoma (channel 12 or 21) e. A City of Tacoma or Environmental Services booth at community events f. Newspapers or magazines g. Direct mail information pieces, such as postcards h. Social media (Facebook, Twitter and YouTube)

Would you say you…[REREAD SCALE AS NECESSARY.]

1. Read it or stopped to spend time on it 2. Noticed it but didn’t spend time on it 3. Threw it away or ignored it 4. Don’t recall seeing information 97. DON’T USE [DO NOT READ] 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

DEMOGRAPHICS My last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely confidential and will be reported in group form only.

D1. How long have you lived in the City of Tacoma?

1. Less than 5 years 2. 5-9 years 3. 10-19 years 4. 20 years or more 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

D2. Please tell me which of the following best describes the building you live in. Is it a…

1. Single-family house detached from any other houses 2. House attached to one or more houses, such as a duplex or townhome 3. Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 4. Mobile home 5. Other 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

D3. Do you rent or own your home?

1. Rent 2. Own 98. DON’T KNOW [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]



D4. Please stop me when I read the correct age category. Are you…

1. 18-24 years 2. 25-34 years 3. 35-44 years 4. 45-54 years 5. 55-64 years 6. 65-74 years 7. 75 years or older 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

D5. Now, can you tell me what best describes your racial origin or ethnicity? You can pick more than one category, if you have a multi-ethnic heritage. Would you say you are . . .

1. White 2. Black or African American 3. American Indian or Alaskan Native 4. Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander

5. Hispanic, Spanish or Latino 6. SOME OTHER RACE [DO NOT READ] 99. REFUSED [DO NOT READ]

D6. DO NOT ASK RESPONDENT THEIR GENDER. ENTER GENDER OF RESPONDENT.

1. FEMALE 2. MALE

CLOSING Those are all the questions I have for you today. Thank you very much for your time.

environmental services customer satisfaction survey report...

Documents