Liberty Water
Customer Satisfaction – Final Report
September, 2011
Contents
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Objectives & Methodology
Key Findings & Recommendations
Detailed Findings –
Overall
Detailed Findings –
By Business Manager
2
Objectives & Methodology
Objectives & Methodology
Objectives
• Compare current customer satisfaction levels with 2010 and 2009 index scores
• Analyze satisfaction at the overall level as well as by Business Manager
Methodology
• A total of 1,007 surveys from Liberty Water’s customers were completed
• All interviews were completed through the phone
• Interviews were conducted in the 4 areas Liberty Water services:
• Central Arizona: LPSCO, BM: Matt Garlick
• Southern Arizona: Bella Vista, Rio Rico, Northern Sunrise, Southern Sunrise, BM: Martin Garlant
• Eastern Arizona: Black Mountain, Gold Canyon and Entrada del Oro, BM: Charlie Hernandez
• Central US: Tall Timbers, Woodmark, Big Eddy, Holly Ranch, Hill Country, Ozark Mountain, Holiday Hills,
BM: Joe Wilkins
• For each of the 4 business manager 250-253 interviews were completed
• The study was fielded from September 1st to September 20th 2011.
3
KEY FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
4
Key Findings & Recommendations
Awareness
Respondents were very familiar with the name of the facility that provides water/waste
water to their home.
•
•
•
The Liberty Water name has caught on very well since its introduction with 72% of customers aware of it.
Customers in Central AZ were most aware of the name Liberty Water (83%).
Central US and Eastern AZ had the lowest recall of Liberty Water (73% and 55% respectively); facility
customers within these regions were also significantly more likely to name the facility, other names, or do
not know.
100%
80%
72%
83%
77%
73%
55%
60%
40%
20%
18%
12%
17%
26%
16%
0%
Total
Central AZ Southern Eastern AZ Central US
AZ
Correct local facility name/ abbreviation
Liberty Water
Facilities with customers significantly
more familiar with the facility name
rather than Liberty Water were:
•
•
•
Tall Timbers (25%) – Central US
Woodmark Utility (21%) – Central US
Big Eddy (29%) – Central US
Facilities with customers significantly
more familiar with other names or do
not know :
•
•
•
Black Mountain – Eastern AZ
– 4% Municipal/City (vs. 1% overall)
– 11% Do Not Know (vs. 5% overall)
Gold Canyon – Eastern AZ
– 10% AZ Water Co. (vs. 9% overall)
Entrada del Oro – Eastern AZ
– 13% AZ Water Co. (vs. 9% overall)
5
Key Findings & Recommendations
Perception
A positive perception of the facilities was reported
•
Overall, 69% of respondents made positive comments.
• Good/like it mentioned by 66% of respondents.
•
A third of respondents (35%) commented negatively. This was up 6% from 2010. Key
concerns were:
• Cost is too high/expensive (25%, up 5%); significantly higher in Eastern AZ (45%)
• Poor water quality (6%)
Southern AZ respondents were most positive, while Eastern AZ customers had the worst
perception
•
Respondents in the Southern AZ service area were most likely to describe their facility
positively (78%) and least likely to give negative comments (29%).
•
Eastern AZ respondents were on the opposite spectrum being least likely to describe their
provider positively (54%) while giving the most complaints (48%).
6
Key Findings & Recommendations
Water Services
Satisfaction with water services received remained high.
•
Top satisfactory aspects were:
• Availability when needed was rated as satisfactory/very satisfactory (top 2 box score) by 92% of
respondents which was on par with the previous two years (92% to 93%).
• Color of tap water: 81% gave top 2 box satisfaction ratings (84% in 2010).
• Water pressure: 81% gave top 2 box satisfaction ratings (80% in 2010).
Price and taste were the two areas of concern.
•
Price charged had the lowest top 2 box satisfaction score (46%, down 5% from 2010); Central US
customers had a significantly lower score (36%).
•
Taste was found satisfactory by only about half (53%, down 7% from 2010) of respondents; Central AZ
has a significantly lower score (44%).
16% of interviewed customers reported service interruptions. The fewest water interruptions
were reported by respondents in the Central AZ service area.
•
Only 4% of respondents in Central AZ had interruptions in the last year compared to 24% in Southern AZ
and 26% in the Central US.
•
Within Central US, Ozark Mountain customers experienced significantly more water interruptions (75%).
Water interruptions were resolved quickly in all areas as reported by 83% of affected
respondents.
7
Key Findings & Recommendations
Water Services (Cont.)
Advance notifications remained somewhat few or were not remembered
•
Overall only 22% of respondents (down from 34% in 2010) with scheduled interruptions had received
advance notifications. Customers in Central AZ were most likely to have received a notification (44%).
• Improve on notifying residents of scheduled water interruptions in advance.
Notification Sent to Respondents reporting
SCHEDULED interruption
TOTAL
2011
Central AZ
Southern
AZ
Central US
Yes
22%
44%
26%
12%
No
69%
56%
64%
78%
Not Applicable/No Interruption
9%
0%
10%
10%
Preferred methods to improve notifications were:
•
•
•
Send notice at least one week in advance (50%)
Reminder call day of interruption (40%)
Send notices via email (40%)
Lower rates /don’t increase rates and water filtration were the most often mentioned
improvements to water services (17% and 16%, respectively).
•
Central US residents continued to complain most about their water rates (21%) but were less concerned
with the water filtration as compared to the other regions (12%).
Overall, satisfaction and feedback with water service received was positive and on par with
2010. However, some additional concerns about high/rising prices and water quality (color
and taste were) were noted.
8
Key Findings & Recommendations
Customer Billing
Respondents reported a high level of satisfaction with customer billing, on par with 2010.
•
•
Top satisfaction was reported with:
• My bill is easy to read: 88% (top 2 box agreement = agree or strongly agree; 91% in 2010)
• My bill is easy to understand: 87% compared to 90% in 2010
Residents in the Eastern AZ were less satisfied with adequate payment options (74% vs. 80% overall) and
payment options easy to understand/use (74% vs. 82% overall).
More than half of respondents (57%; down from 61% in 2010) stated they read information
inserts in their bill sometimes or always.
•
•
A lower rate of readership of information inserts was reported among respondents in Eastern AZ (46%).
They appear to be less informed and less satisfied with the services they receive.
While 80% stated they had no suggestions for improving billing, 10% mentioned lower rates/don’t
increase rates.
Website usage nearly doubled as 28% of interviewed customers have accessed the website
(up from 15% in 2010). Those who used the website services were very satisfied.
•
Online services utilized by most were:
• Access to account information online (79%; up 2%)
• Pay online by credit card (62%; up 2%)
• Forms online to establish new service saw the biggest increase in usage (32% vs. 20% in 2010)
• Satisfaction with most of the online services was high (72% to 83% somewhat to very satisfied), the
exception being ease to receive customer support (61%).
• It is important to note, however, that these satisfaction scores all fell from 3% to 8% in 2011.
9
Key Findings & Recommendations
Customer Service
A third of respondents (34%) had contacted customer service via phone in 2011 (up 5%),
while 26% visited an office (up 1%). Their experiences were very positive (factors rated at
80% to 88% satisfaction) and were on par with 2010. Overall experience was rated
excellent/good by 78%, which was on par with 2010 (78%) and higher than 2009 (68%).
•
Eastern AZ residents were least likely to have contacted customer service.
Offering longer office hours past 5 PM on weekdays was requested by more then one quarter
(29%).
•
There were no significant differences between regions in terms of office hour preference.
Wait time to speak to a live person should be no more than 4 to 5 minutes.
•
A wait time of less than 4 minutes was considered acceptable by 56% of respondents. If
the wait dropped to 2 minutes 86% of respondents would be satisfied.
•
A wait time of more than 5 minutes was deemed unacceptable by 82%.
Customer service in Spanish was not of great demand. However, customers in the Southern
AZ service area (20%) were more likely to prefer being offered Spanish customer service
compared to overall (11%).
10
Key Findings & Recommendations
Home Visits by Service Representative
Only 8% of respondents reported receiving a home visit by a service representative within the
last year. Home visits were rated satisfactory.
•
Customers in Southern AZ reported receiving the most home visits by service
representatives, with 15% stating they received at least one visit. This was on par with
2010 data.
•
Eastern AZ and Central US received the fewest home visits; 97% and 93% of respondents
respectively stated no service representative had come to their home.
•
Most aspects of the service representatives’ home visit were rated highly, with agreement
scores (agree/strongly agree) that services were performed well at 70% and higher. Kept
informed of progress in resolving the problem, however, received a 64% satisfaction score
and was lowest in Eastern AZ (25%).
Overall satisfaction with service representatives’ home visits was 70% somewhat/very
satisfied, a 14% drop as compared to 2010.
11
Key Findings & Recommendations
Company Evaluation
Customers were highly satisfied with water/ waste water facility on provides a safe water
supply and provides a reliable water supply.
•
•
•
•
Provides reliable water supply: 91% (top 2 box agreement = 91% of respondents stated they agree or
strongly agree; slightly down from 93% in 2010).
Provides a safe water supply: 83% slightly down from 86% in 2010.
Encourages water conservation was up 2% (73%).
The other elements of the company evaluation rated somewhat lower but still two thirds agreed that the
company was a good neighbor (65%, down 3%) and/or is customer friendly (69%, down 4%).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
65%
68%
65%
Is a good neighbor
67%
73%
69%
Is customer friendly
83%
86%
83%
Provides a safe water supply
91%
93%
91%
Provides a reliable water supply
67%
71%
73%
Encourages water conservation
2009 (N=1000)
•
2010 (N=1003)
2011 (N=1007)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates
significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s).
Similar to 2009 and 2010, good neighbor and customer friendly received lowest ratings in Eastern AZ
(43% and 44% respectively). Those facilities with the lowest scores were Black Mountain (29% / 40%)
and Gold Canyon (43% each).
12
Key Findings & Recommendations
Company Evaluation
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Much too High
39%
More customers (47% and 59%) continued Water
to feel that water and waste water/sewage
costs were too high.
46%
47%
54%
55%
59%
Waste water/
sewer
2009 (N=1000)
2010 (N=1003)
2011 (N=1003)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant
change/ difference compared to other year(s).
•
Respondents in the Central AZ and Central US service area were least satisfied with their
water prices (51% and 57% too high respectively), while Eastern AZ customers felt
strongly that their waste water prices were too high (81%, up 5%).
•
It is important to note that scores in Central AZ rose by 11% each while fewer people in
Central US felt the costs were too high.
Rates of Utilities (Top 2 box score:
4/5 = somewhat/much too high)
Total
Central
AZ
Southern
AZ
Eastern
AZ
Central
US
2010 Water
46%
40%
36%
45%
64%
2011 Water
47%
51%
40%
39%
57%
CHANGE
+1%
+11%
+4%
-6%
-7%
2010 Waste water/sewer
55%
34%
47%
76%
60%
2011 Waste water/sewer
59%
45%
50%
81%
55%
CHANGE
+4%
+11%
+3%
+5%
-5%
13
Key Findings & Recommendations
Company Evaluation
Overall Satisfaction with their facility was rated high with 78% of respondents being
somewhat or very satisfied. This was on par with 2010.
•
Eastern AZ received lowest satisfaction scores with only 58% of respondents satisfied with
their facility. However, satisfaction levels among these customers continued on an upward
trend (+2% from 2010 and significantly up from 42% in 2009).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied
74%78%78%
90%87%
83%
87%88%89%
78%78%79%
56%58%
42%
Total
Central AZ
Southern AZ
2009
2010
Eastern AZ
2011
Central US
14
Key Findings & Recommendations
Satisfaction & Rate Hikes
In 2011 customers’ feedback regarding their satisfaction with their water and/or waste water
provider was positive. This was true for the overall satisfaction rating as well as for specific services
tested such as water service, billing, customer service and home visits by service representatives.
While most satisfaction ratings remained comparable to 2010 or improved slightly, there was some
downward movement to note:
•
Satisfaction with color, water taste and price charged fell by 3% to 7%
•
Advanced notification of water interruptions fell by 12%
•
Satisfaction with all aspects of online services fell by 3% to 8%
•
Satisfaction with all aspects of service rep home visits fell by 8% to 16%; overall satisfaction fell 14%
While several facilities have implemented rate hikes or are going through the formal process of
getting rate increases approved, customer satisfaction with the overall company performance has
remained consistent at 78% somewhat/very satisfied.
However, satisfaction with the water prices decreased by 5%, primarily driven by low satisfaction
levels in the Central US.
It is essential to continue with public relations campaigns to help customers understand why rates
are increasing, how it will benefit customers in the long run and that Liberty Water is a “friend and
good neighbor” who works to improve and help the community.
To alleviate the financial burden of the customers facing upcoming rate hikes, it is suggested to
implement small rate increases gradually over time (preferred by 87%).
There was considerable interest in information and involvement in the process for rate hikes.
• About half (52%) of the interviewed customers were somewhat or very likely to attend informational
meetings.
15
Key Findings & Recommendations
Recommendations
Water Services
•
•
•
•
The main concern was price.
• Given that reducing prices may not be an option, it is essential for Liberty Water to continue with
comprehensive public relations campaigns to increase customer understanding and acceptance of
the rate increases.
Look at improving taste, especially in Central AZ.
Work to minimize water interruptions, specifically in the Central US and Southern AZ.
Advance notification of scheduled interruptions or awareness of notifications was low.
• Continue to improve on notifying residents of scheduled water interruptions in advance possibly
though different design and coloring schemes of notices.
• Customers requested reminders especially the day before and on the day of the outage.
• Utilize technology (phone calls/ email/ online postings) to notify and remind residents of outages.
Website and Online Services
•
Website usage was nearly double with 28% customers using it. While still high, satisfaction levels on all
online factors were down in 2011.
• Continue to promote website and new services included.
• Look at updating website services and work to make them easier to use.
• Look into possibility of mobile/smart phone connectivity with the website.
16
Key Findings & Recommendations
Recommendations (Cont.)
Customer Service
•
Customers were overall satisfied with the service they received. Some measures to further improve
customer satisfaction include:
• Offer longer office hours, being open past 5PM.
• Keep wait times to speak to a live person to less than 5 minutes, preferably to less than 2 minutes.
• Offer Spanish customer service specifically in the Southern AZ service area.
• Work to have satisfaction with service rep home visits bounce back from their 8% to 13% decline
in 2011.
Overall Company
•
Overall Liberty Water received strong ratings on the various elements of the company evaluation.
However, some aspects rated somewhat lower for certain areas:
• Improve perception of facilities as good neighbor and customer friendly, especially in Eastern AZ
and for the Black Mountain and Gold Canyon facilities.
Eastern AZ
•
Those provided with waste water/sewer services in Eastern AZ tended to be least satisfied. Areas of
improvement were:
• Provide more payment options and make payment options more user friendly.
• When communicating with customer, use additional methods including online/email besides
inserts into the bill. Only 46% of respondent stated they read them sometime/always.
• Better educate them on the reasons for rate increases to offset their lack of satisfaction with
current prices.
• Improvements to the website will be beneficial as this region had the lowest satisfaction scores for
the website; specifically they want the site to be easier to navigate.
• Improve customer service and provide more hours of availability.
17
DETAILED FINDINGS:
RESPONDENT PROFILES &
NEW QUESTIONS
18
Respondent Profile
Respondent Profile
Contact
Residence
Business
Gender
Male
Female
Age
18 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
64 years or older
Household Income
Under $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 or more
Prefer not to say
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian
Black/African-American
Asian or Pacific Islander
Native American/Alaska Native
Hispanic/ Latino (White/Caucasian)
Hispanic/ Latino (Black/African-American)
Hispanic/ Latino (all other or multiple race)
Other
Prefer not to say
Total
Central AZ
Southern AZ
Eastern AZ
Central US
99%
1%
99%
1%
99%
1%
100%
0%
100%
0%
52%
48%
54%
46%
51%
49%
52%
48%
49%
51%
2%
13%
15%
13%
22%
36%
1%
16%
27%
13%
16%
27%
6%
21%
21%
15%
22%
17%
0%
2%
3%
14%
30%
50%
2%
13%
8%
10%
18%
50%
8%
20%
18%
15%
9%
5%
26%
2%
13%
20%
19%
13%
4%
29%
18%
28%
21%
15%
4%
2%
12%
3%
18%
14%
16%
8%
7%
34%
9%
21%
17%
9%
10%
5%
29%
75%
3%
2%
0%
11%
1%
1%
3%
5%
69%
5%
6%
0%
10%
1%
1%
3%
5%
55%
3%
3%
0%
28%
1%
4%
4%
2%
87%
2%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
2%
8%
89%
1%
0%
0%
4%
0%
0%
2%
4%
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells
are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
19
Respondent Profile
Respondent Profile
Children in Household (Average per age)
Under 3 years of age
3 to 5 years of age
5 to 9 years of age
10 to 12 years of age
13 to 17 years of age
Education
Less than high school
High school/GED
Professional school/training
Some college
Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Some Graduate School
Graduate School Degree
Years in Current Residence
Less than one year
1 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 20 years
More than 20 years
Don’t know
Total
Central AZ
Southern AZ
Eastern AZ
Central US
1.17
1.24
1.37
1.20
1.39
1.19
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.64
1.10
1.36
1.52
1.25
1.24
1.33
1.00
1.50
1.11
1.14
1.21
1.15
1.43
1.08
1.33
2%
16%
5%
27%
8%
24%
4%
15%
1%
16%
2%
25%
10%
23%
8%
17%
4%
21%
7%
32%
7%
18%
2%
9%
0%
13%
4%
23%
7%
27%
4%
22%
2%
14%
5%
28%
7%
26%
4%
14%
12%
37%
26%
19%
6%
0%
16%
45%
30%
7%
1%
1%
14%
40%
19%
17%
11%
0%
9%
32%
33%
25%
2%
0%
10%
31%
23%
26%
10%
0%
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells
are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
20
Detailed Findings – New
Importance of Website in Spanish
Respondents overall did not indicate a great need for the website to be available in Spanish, with only 19%
stating that it was somewhat or very important.
Southern AZ residents, however, were significantly more likely to indicate that the availability of the website in
Spanish was important (30% somewhat or very important).
Importance of Website in Spanish
100%
Not at all
important
80%
Somewhat
unimportant
55%
68%
60%
69%
84%
20%
8%
0%
Neither important
nor unimportant
4%
11%
40%
4%
10%
79%
3%
13%
11%
9%
6%
TOTAL 2011
(n=426)
Central AZ
(n=101)
11%
3%
4%
8%
19%
8%
3%
6%
2%
2%
Southern AZ Eastern AZ (n=51) Central US (n=97)
(n=177)
Q13b. How important is it to you that Liberty Water’s website is available in Spanish language?
Somewhat
important
Very important
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant regional
difference.
21
Detailed Findings – New
Environmental Friendliness
The vast majority of respondents indicated that it is somewhat or very important for their water/waste water
provider to be environmentally friendly (92%). Residents of Central and Southern Arizona were significantly more
likely to state that it is very important (69% and 72%, respectively vs. 66% overall).
Although respondents thought it was important for their utility company to be environmentally friendly, only 47%
were somewhat or very open to incurring a slight rate increase to ensure high environmentally-friendly
performance. Residents of Central and Southern Arizona were significantly more likely to be very open to this idea
(17% and 25% respectively v. 16% overall) compared with other regions.
Importance of Environmental Friendliness
100%
80%
4%
2%
4%
26%
2%
2%
2%
25%
5%
1%
3%
20%
4%
1%
5%
27%
4%
3%
5%
31%
Not at all
important
Openness to Rate Increase to Ensure
Environmental Friendliness
100%
27%
80%
Somewhat
unimportant
22%
9%
66%
69%
72%
64%
58%
20%
0%
TOTAL Central Southern Eastern Central
2011
AZ
AZ
AZ
US
(n=1007) (n=253) (n=250) (n=253) (n=251)
32%
Somewhat
against
15%
12%
17%
60%
40%
38%
9%
12%
60%
Very much
against
15%
Neither
important
nor
40%
unimportant
Somewhat
important
20%
15%
Very
important
16%
17%
36%
31%
35%
13%
Neither
open nor
against
32%
Somewhat
open
14%
21%
17%
25%
10%
11%
0%
Very open
TOTAL Central Southern Eastern Central
2011
AZ
AZ
AZ
US
(n=918) (n=238) (n=228) (n=230) (n=222)
Q23. How important is it to you for [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] to be environmentally friendly?
Q24. Would you be open to incurring a slight rate increase to ensure high environmentally-friendly performance?
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant
regional difference.
22
DETAILED FINDINGS:
OVERALL FINDINGS
23
Detailed Findings – Overall
Awareness & Perception
Familiarity with the water and/or waste water provider remained high. An obvious shift from the association
with the local facility name to the newly branded Liberty Water name (72%) could be seen. Eastern Arizona
tended to be most familiar with their facility name while respondents in the other three regions tended to
associate more strongly with the Liberty Water name (73% to 80%).
When asked to describe their provider, 69% of comments were positive. Overall/general positive comments
(66%) were on par with the previous years. Mentions of good water quality decreased, while negative
comments overall and cost/expensive increased by 5% to 6% each.
Name of Water/Waste Water Provider
Correct Local Facility
Name/Abbreviation
Liberty Water/ Algonquin
18%
3%
Municipal Service
3%
3%
1%
Arizona Water Company
0%
0%
2%
Other Company
6%
2%
4%
Don't Know
5%
4%
34%
35%
26%
Suggestions for
Improvements
2009
(N=1000)
2010
(N=1003)
2011
(N=1007)
Difference
from 2010
Positive
Comments (NET)
71%
68%
69%
+1%
Good/Like it
(general)
68%
65%
66%
+1%
Good water
quality
8%
3%
1%
-2%
2009 (N=1000)
Reasonable cost
4%
1%
1%
0%
2010 (N=1003)
Negative
Comments (NET)
36%
29%
35%
+6%
Cost/expensive
24%
20%
25%
+5%
Poor water quality
8%
6%
6%
0%
Low water
pressure
4%
2%
2%
0%
83%
72%
2011 (N=1007)
Significantly Higher
Correct Local Facility Name/Abbreviation:
Eastern AZ (26%)
Liberty Water/Algonquin: Central AZ (83%);
Southern AZ (77%); Central US (73%)
A1. What is the name of the company that provides water and/or waste water service to your household/business?
A2. How would you describe your water and/or waste water service company and the services it provides?
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly
higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly
24
lower: at 95% confidence level.
Detailed Findings – Overall
Water Services – Satisfaction
Respondents continued to be most satisfied with the water availability when needed, with 92% giving it a 4 or 5
(where 5 = Very satisfactory). Other highly rated aspects of water service were color (81%), water pressure
(81%) and smell (77%). Respondents were not only least satisfied with the price charged (46%) and taste (53%),
but both of these factors were lower in 2011 than they were in 2010 (down 5% to 7% each).
Customers of facilities in Southern AZ were the most satisfied with the price charged (54% somewhat or very
satisfied). Central AZ residents were the least satisfied with taste (44% somewhat or very satisfied).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfactory
92%93%92%
83%84%
81% 78%
76%77%
60%
59%
53%
80%80%81%
58%
51%
46%
Significantly Higher Top 2 Box Scores
Taste: Central US (65%)/ Southern AZ (54%) vs.
Central AZ (44%)
Availability when needed: Central AZ (94%) vs.
Southern AZ (89%)
Price charged: Southern AZ (54%) vs. Central AZ
(43%) / Central US (36%)
Taste
Color
Smell
2009 (n=678)
Availability Water
Price
when
pressure charged
needed
2010 (N=662)
2011 (N=658)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
1. Please rate your water services in the following areas by using a 5-point scale with 5 being “Very Satisfactory” and 1 being “Not Satisfactory At All”.
25
Detailed Findings – Overall
Water Services – Interruptions
Fewer than 1 out of 5 customers (16%) reported a water interruption within the last year. Those in the Central
Arizona service area reported significantly fewer interruptions (4%) as compared to Central US (26%) and
Southern AZ (24%).
Water interruptions were generally resolved quickly (83%).
Water Interruption Within Last Year
100%
Water Interruption Resolved Quickly
100%
84%
80%83%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
21%17%
16%
90%
83%83%
17%17%
10%
20%
0%
0%
Yes
2009 (n=678)
No
2010 (N=663)
Yes
2011 (N=658)
Significantly Higher Water Interruption
Central US (26%) / Southern AZ (24%) vs. Central
AZ (4%)
2009 (N=139)
No
2010 (N=112)
2011 (N=108)
Why Not Resolved Quickly (N = 18)
Resolution took too long (4 mentions)
No explanation for interruption (1 mentions)
2. Within the last year, have you had any interruptions to your water service?
No notification of service interruption (1 mentions)
3. Was your water service interruption problem resolved quickly?
4. Being as detailed as possible, please tell us how and why your water interruption problem was not resolved quickly.
26
Detailed Findings – Overall
Water Services – Interruptions Notification
Among the customers who had experienced a scheduled water service interruption in the last year, 22%
recalled receiving a notification in advance. Significantly higher than previous years, two-thirds (69%) reported
they had not received advance notification. This may indicate that advance notifications were not provided
consistently or that residents did not notice them among other mailings or information.
Customers requested a number of improvements to advance notifications. Send notice at least one week in
advance (50%) was considered the most important followed by reminder call day of interruption (40%) and
send notices by email (40%).
Advance Notification of Water Interruptions
80%
40%
Send notice at least one week in
advance
Send reminder notice day before
interruption
Reminder call day of
interruption
69%
60%
Improvements of Notifications of Scheduled
Service Interruptions
53%
46%
39%
34%
36%
15%13%
9%
20%
Yes
2009 (N=139)
No
2010 (N=112)
Not
applicable
34%
38%
Send notices by regular mail
2011 (N=108)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
Do Not have interruptions
Schedule interruptions during
night only
Something else
58%
55%
46%
40%
36%
31%
55%
52%
48%
31%
40%
Send notices by email
0%
50%
47%
39%
Include notice in monthly bill
22%
61%
3%
4%
0%
2009 (N=139)
1%
0%
0%
7%
2010 (N=112)
14%
16%
2011 (N=108)
5. Are you notified in advance when scheduled interruptions to water service will occur?
6. In which of the following ways could [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] improve their notifications of scheduled service interruptions? You may select all that apply.
27
Detailed Findings – Overall
Water Services – Improvements
Over half of the respondents (58%) had no suggestions on how to improve their water service, feeling it was
fine as is.
Among the improvements suggested were water filtration (improve taste/smell/color) mentioned by 16% of
customer. Lower rates/don’t increase rates was mentioned by 17% of customers with a significantly higher
response in the Central US service area (21%).
Central
AZ
2011 Results
Southern
AZ
Eastern
AZ*
Central
US
16%
18%
16%
-
12%
14%
17%
18%
13%
-
21%
7%
4%
4%
2%
5%
-
5%
61%
63%
58%
59%
60%
-
55%
Suggestions
2009
Total
2010
Total
Total
Water filtration (improve
taste/smell/color)
14%
14%
Lower rates/ don't
increase rates
11%
Improve water pressure
No suggestions/fine as is
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
* Facilities in Eastern AZ provide Sewer/Waste Water service only.
7. Do you have any suggestions on how [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] could improve their water services?
28
Detailed Findings – Overall
Customer Billing – Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction with billing remained high with 80% or more of interviewed customers stating they
somewhat or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the customer billings received.
Eastern AZ received significantly lower satisfaction scores compared with other regions for adequate payment
options provided and payments options are easy to understand/use (74% each).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
88%91% 88% 86%90% 87%
Bill easy to read
Bill easy to
understand
2009 (N=1000)
78%80%
70%
Adequate
payment
options
provided
2010 (N=1003)
83%82%
76%
Payment
options easy to
understand/use
Central
AZ
Southern
AZ
Eastern
AZ
Central
US
Bill easy to read
89%
88%
87%
88%
Bill easy to understand
86%
87%
85%
89%
Adequate payment
options provided
84%
84%
74%
78%
Payment options easy
to understand/ use
86%
85%
74%
81%
Top 2 Box Scores
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray
shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
2011 (N=1007)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
8a-d. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
29
Detailed Findings – Overall
Customer Billing – Information/Services
Over half of respondents (57%) stated they read the information inserts in their bill sometimes or always. A
slight downward trend from2009 can be seed (down 5% over last 2 years).
Residents of Central US and Southern AZ were more likely to always read these inserts.
Read Info Inserts in Bill
100%
19%
19%
15%
16%
4%
4%
32%
33%
22%
80%
60%
40%
17%
Never
4%
Rarely
Not sure
31%
Sometimes
Always
20%
30%
28%
26%
2009
(N=1003)
2010
(N=1003)
2011
(N=1007)
0%
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
9. How often do you read the informational inserts included in your bill?
Significantly More Likely to Always Read Inserts
Central US (33%) / Southern AZ (31%) vs. Central
AZ (23%) / Eastern AZ (18%)
30
Detailed Findings – Overall
Customer Billings – Improvements
When asked about suggestions to improve customer billings, the majority of respondents did not have any
improvements and felt it was fine as is (80%).
Lower rates/don’t increase rates was mentioned by 10%, up significantly from previous years (7% in 2009 and
6% in 2010).
Other comments regarding improvements related to online and automated payment options (3%) and making
the bills easier to understand (2%) were on par with last year.
Suggestions for Improvements
2009
Total
2010
Total
2011
Total
Difference from
2010
Lower rates/Don't increase rates
7%
6%
10%
+4%
Improve or implement
electronic/online/paperless billing
10%
4%
3%
-1%
Make bill easier to understand
1%
2%
2%
0%
No suggestions/fine as is
74%
82%
80%
-2%
*Mentions 2%+ shown
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
11. Do you have any suggestions for improving the billing?
31
Detailed Findings – Overall
Website – Online Services
Almost double the number of customers reported they had accessed the website compared with last year (28%
vs. 15%). Significantly more of those in the Central AZ service area stated they had accessed the website (40%).
The online services used by most was access to account information (79%) followed by pay online by credit card
(62%). Significantly more customers used the forms online to establish new service than last year (32% vs. 20%).
Accessed Website
1%
Online Services Used
77%79%
1%
60%62%
70%
Not sure
84%
32%
20%
43%
39%
11%
No
Yes
28%
15%
2009
2010
2011
(N/A) (N=1003) (N=1007)
Access to
Access to Paperless bill Pay online by
Water
account
forms online statement
credit card conservation
information to establish
calculator
online
new service
2009 (N/A)
2010 (N=148)
2011 (N=286)
Significantly Higher: Accessed Website
Yes: Central AZ (40%)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
10N1. Have you accessed [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC]’s website?
10N2. The following services are available to [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] customers. Please tell me if you have used any of them?
32
Detailed Findings – Overall
Satisfaction with Website – Online Services
Satisfaction with the online services customers had used was high. However, it should be noted that
satisfaction for all factors fell by 3% to 7% as compared to 2010 data.
Ease to access account information received the highest satisfaction rating with 83% of customers indicating
they were very or somewhat satisfied. The only area that received a relatively low score was ease to receive
customer support (61%).
Not many customers had improvement suggestions for the website (87% had no suggestions and/or stated the
site was fine as is). Those who had suggestions asked to improve user interface/easier to navigate.
Satisfaction with Online Services Used
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied
Usefulness of information
80%
76%
Suggestions for improvements (N = 286)
Ease to find content
searched for
Ease to access account
information
77%
72%
90%
83%
Ease to pay your bill online
87% No suggestions/fine as is
83%
77%
Ease to receive customer
support
Overall user-friendliness of
the website
2009 (N/A)
9% Improve user interface/easier to navigate
64%
61%
84%
76%
2010 (N=148)
2011 (N=286)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
10a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Very Satisfied and 1 is Very Dissatisfied, please tell me how satisfied you are with the new [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website.
10b. Do you have any suggestions for improving [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website and/or online services?
33
Detailed Findings – Overall
Customer Service – Calls & Visits
The majority of respondents did not have any customer service contact within the last year: 66% indicated they
had not called and 74% stated they had not visited the business office.
Among those who had contact, either by phone and/or office visit, the mean number of interactions increased
(2.42 calls and 2.17 office visits in 2011) as compared to previous years (2.13 and 2.15 respectively).
Times Called Business Office
Times Visited Business Office
Mean = 2.25 (2009); 2.13 (2010); 2.42 (2011);
among those who have called within last year
Mean = 2.06 (2009); 2.15 (2010); 2.17 (2011);
among those who have visited within last year
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
71%
69%
66%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
77%
75%
74%
13%
12%
11%
10%
20%
9%7%8%
2%4%4%
8%6%9%
0%
8%
10%
9%8%
5%5%4%
11%
8%8%
2%2%2%
0%
0
2009 (N=1000)
1
2
2010 (N=1003)
3
4+
2011 (N=1007)
0
2009 (N=1000)
1
2
2010 (N=1003)
3
4+
2011 (N=1007)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
11b. To the best of your recollection, how many times have you called or visited the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office within the last year?
34
Detailed Findings – Overall
Customer Service – Satisfaction
Among those customers who reported they had contact with customer service in the last year, satisfaction was
strong and on par with 2010 scores across all aspects tested. All scores except for staff handle request quickly
remained significantly higher than 2009 scores.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
72%
79%
82%
Convenient office hours
77%
Reasonable time waiting
86%
86%
80%
Courteous/ professional staff
76%
Knowledgeable staff
88%
88%
85%
85%
83%
88%
88%
Staff easy to understand
75%
83%
80%
Staff handle request quickly
Request solved to my
satisfaction
75%
2009 (N=399)
2010 (N=416)
82%
82%
2011 (N=426)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
12a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
[INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]’s customer service. If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think only about your last contact
with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.
35
Detailed Findings – Overall
Customer Service – Hours & Wait Time
Customers who did not agree strongly that the office hours were convenient were asked what they felt would
be more convenient hours. Longer weekday hours was mentioned by 29%, followed by Saturday hours (8%) and
opening early during the week (4%).
On average, respondents reported that an acceptable wait time for a live person was approximately four
minutes (mean of 3.99 minutes), a slight increase from 2010 (3.69 minutes). With 82% of respondents feeling
an acceptable wait time is no more than five minutes, Liberty Water should strive to keep wait times below this
mark.
Acceptable Wait Time for Live Person
More Convenient
Time
2009
(N=237)
2010
(N=210)
2011
(N=182)
Difference
from 2010
Weekday hours: late
open/past 5PM
32%
27%
29%
+2%
l minute or less
Saturday hours:
half/full day
11%
7%
8%
+1%
2-3 minutes
Weekday hours: early
open/before 8AM
9%
4%
4%
0%
Office hours are fine
20%
25%
23%
-2%
Mean = 3.86 (2009); 3.69 min. (2010); 3.99 min. (2011)
12b. What would you consider more convenient office hours?
12c. How long are you willing to wait to speak to a live person?
31%
32%
30%
35%
32%
38%
4-5 minutes
6-10 minutes
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
18%
20%
14%
More than 10
minutes
9%
10%
10%
7%
7%
9%
2009 (N=399)
2010 (N=416)
2011 (N=426)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
36
Detailed Findings – Overall
Customer Services – Overall Experience
On par with 2010, slightly more than three fourths of respondents were satisfied with their overall customer
service experience (78% excellent/good).
Respondents had few suggestions on how to improve customer service; 87% had no suggestion (+3% from
2010). The few comments given centered around being polite/friendly/understanding (3%) and be more
professional/knowledgeable (2%).
Satisfaction With Overall Experience
100%
80%
6%
8%
5%
5%
5%
4%
13%
14%
31%
30%
18%
60%
31%
40%
20%
37%
47%
Poor
Fair
Satisfactory
Good
Excellent
48%
Suggestions for
Improvements
Improve
communication
w/customers (service
follow-up, shutoffs,
etc)
Be more polite/
friendly/
understanding
Speak English better/
English as a default
language
2009
Total
2010
Total
2011
Total
Difference
from 2010
2%
3%
1%
-2%
5%
3%
3%
0%
1%
2%
1%
-1%
Be more professional/
knowledgeable
5%
2%
2%
0%
No suggestions/fine as
is
77%
84%
87%
+3%
0%
2009 (N=399)
2010 (N=416)
2011change/
(N=426)
NOTE: Orange circled
data indicates
significant
difference compared to other year(s).
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
13. Overall, how would you rate your experience with the customer service you received? If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think
only about your last contact with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.
14. Do you have any suggestions for improving customer service?
37
Detailed Findings – Overall
Customer Services – Spanish
Respondents did not indicate a great need for customer service communications in Spanish, with only 11%
stating they prefer Spanish over English. Southern AZ continued to be more interested in Spanish customer
service interaction (20%).
Only 19% of respondents indicated that it was somewhat or very important for the website to be available in
Spanish. Residents of Southern and Central AZ, however, were significantly more likely to rate this as somewhat
or very important (30% and 15% respectively).
Customer Service in Spanish
Importance of Website in Spanish
100%
Yes, I prefer Spanish
8%
9%
11%
80%
88%
85%
81%
No, I prefer English
No language
preference
2009 (N=399)
4%
6%
8%
2010 (N=416)
Not at all
important
68%
60%
40%
2011 (N=426)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
13a. If customer service were available in Spanish would you take advantage of it?
Q13b. How important is it to you that Liberty Water’s website is available in Spanish language?
20%
4%
10%
8%
Somewhat
unimportant
Neither
important nor
unimportant
Somewhat
important
Very important
11%
0%
2011 (N=426)
38
Detailed Findings – Overall
Service Rep Home Visits
The vast majority of respondents had no service representative visit their home within the last year (90%
none), a significant decrease from previous years (93%). Of those who had a representative visit, the mean
number of visits was 1.48.
Number Called Business Office
Mean = 1.28 (2009); 1.52 (2010); 1.48 (2011);
among those who had a service rep visit their
home within last year
100%
93%93%
90%
80%
60%
40%
20%
5% 5% 6%
1% 1% 1%
0%
0
2009 (N=996)
1
2
2010 (N=998)
0% 0% 1%
0% 0% 0%
3
4+
2011 (N=1001)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
14b. How many times has an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee visited your home to resolve a problem within the last year?
39
Detailed Findings – Overall
Service Rep Home Visits – Satisfaction
Satisfaction with service representative home visits was high on most aspects. While satisfaction was down
compared to 2010, this change was for the most part not significant. The one exception was happy about how
soon service visit was scheduled, which was down a significant 16% as compared to last year.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
Service rep arrived as
scheduled
79%
87%
74%
Service rep was courteous &
professional
79%
87%
78%
Service rep was
knowledgeable
80%
87%
75%
66%
73%
64%
Kept informed of progress in
resolving problem
Service rep resolved problem
in timely manner
73%
79%
84%
73%
Easy to schedule service visit
Happy with how soon service
visits was scheduled
2009 (N=65)
80%
81%
70%
2010 (N=62)
80%
86%
2011 (N=77)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
15. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
your in home service visit. If an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee has visited your home more than once within the last year, please think only about your
last visit.
40
Detailed Findings – Overall
Service Rep Home Visits –
Overall Satisfaction & Improvements
Overall satisfaction with the service rep home visits was strong (70% somewhat / very satisfied), but was down
from the 84% satisfaction score given in 2010.
Overall Satisfaction With Service Visit
100%
80%
8%
2%
11%
3%
2%
11%
10%
3%
17%
22%
26%
60%
22%
Not satisfactory at
all
Somewhat
unsatisfactory
Neutral
40%
59%
20%
58%
48%
Somewhat
satisfactory
Very satisfactory
0%
2009 (N=65)2010 (N=62)2011 (N=77)
16. Overall, how would you rate your experience with the service visit to your home using a 5-point scale with 5 being “Very Satisfactory” and 1 being “Not Satisfactory At
All”? If you had more than one visit in the last year, please think only about your last visit.
41
Detailed Findings – Overall
Company Evaluation – Satisfaction
Respondents agreed that their water service facility provides a reliable water supply (91%, top 2 box
agree/strongly agree) followed by provides a safe water supply (83%). Encourages water conservation, which
placed third in satisfaction, was up as compared to previous years (73%).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
65%
68%
65%
Is a good neighbor
67%
73%
69%
Is customer friendly
83%
86%
83%
Provides a safe water supply
91%
93%
91%
Provides a reliable water
supply
67%
71%
73%
Encourages water
conservation
2009 (N=1000)
2010 (N=1003)
2011 (N=1007)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
18. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
[INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE].
42
Detailed Findings – Overall
Company Evaluation – Utility Rates
When comparing the perception of pricing for different utilities and services that respondents received, those
considered somewhat/much too high continued to be television (63%), electricity (60%) and waste water/sewer
(59%).
Waste water/sewer saw a significant jump from 55% in 2010 to 59% of respondents feeling their rate is too
high. This increase was driven mainly by customers in the Eastern AZ service area (81%).
Central AZ respondents were most satisfied with their waste water/ sewer rates as only 45% stated the rates
were somewhat/much too high.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Much too High
Gas
33%
41%
39%
64%
61%
60%
Electricity
48%
48%
47%
Landline phone
65%
64%
63%
TV service
39%
Water
46%
47%
54%
55%
59%
Waste water/
sewer
2009 (N=993)
2010 (N=998)
2011 (N=1003)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
19. For each of the following utility services, please indicate if you feel the rates charged are much too high, somewhat too high, just right, somewhat low, or very low.
43
Detailed Findings – Overall
Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
Respondents were satisfied with their water/waste water provider overall, with 78% of respondents stating
they were somewhat/very satisfied.
Eastern AZ was least satisfied (58%) with all other regions reporting top 2 box satisfaction scores of 79% or
higher.
Overall Satisfaction
100%
8%
9%
80%
9%
60%
32%
5%
7%
10%
35%
7%
8%
8%
36%
40%
20%
Not satisfied at all
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Neutral
Somewhat satisfied
43%
43%
42%
0%
2009
2010
2011
(N=1000) (N=1003) (N=1007)
20. Overall, how satisfied are you with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
44
Detailed Findings – Overall
Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
Those somewhat/very satisfied with the provider were so because they have never had a complaint (37%), the
service is satisfactory/ good/ excellent (8%), and reliable/no service interruptions (8%). However, 20% of satisfied
respondents stated that they felt the cost was too high; mainly those from Eastern AZ (30%).
Not surprisingly, cost (77%) was the main reason why respondents were dissatisfied (not satisfied at all/somewhat
dissatisfied). Other negative comments were related to customer service (9% poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer
service) and the water quality (8% odor from sewer/sewage processing facility, 5% smell/taste of water and 7%
water is cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard).
Suggestions for Improvements
Why Satisfied
Reliable/No service interruptions
Service is satisfactory/good/excellent
Never had a problem/complaint
Cost is too high/rate increases
Cost is reasonable
Good/friendly/courteous customer service
Water quality is good
Prompt, considerate repair service
Water is cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard
Why Not Satisfied
Cost is too high/rate increases
Raising the rates
Odor from sewer/sewage processing facility
Poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer service
They are dishonest/crooked/price gougers
Charged for service even when absent
Water is cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard
Smell/taste of water
2009
Total
N=743
14%
14%
26%
11%
10%
8%
6%
4%
4%
N=176
63%
14%
14%
11%
11%
7%
4%
4%
2010
Total
N=777
6%
10%
37%
21%
4%
8%
4%
2%
3%
N=124
72%
0%
10%
6%
4%
0%
5%
6%
2011
Total
N=775
8%
8%
37%
20%
5%
6%
4%
3%
3%
N=152
77%
0%
8%
9%
6%
3%
7%
5%
Difference from
2010
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
20a. Being as specific as possible, why did you say you are [INSERT FROM Q20] with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
+2%
-2%
0%
-1%
+1%
-2%
0%
+1%
0%
+5%
0%
-2%
+3%
+2%
+3%
+2%
-1%
45
Detailed Findings – Overall
Rate Hikes
In terms of customer involvement in potential rate hikes, about half (52%) stated they were very or somewhat
likely to attend an informational meeting. Those in Eastern AZ indicated a significantly higher likelihood to
attend (60%) compared to customers in the other service areas.
In case of rate increases the vast majority (87%) preferred having the increases spread out over time with small
increases occurring every year.
Likelihood of Attending Informational Meeting
29%
12%
5%
30%
23%
30%
12%
6%
30%
22%
2009
2010
2011
(N/A) (n=1003) (n=1007)
Not at all
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Rate Hike Preference
Rate increases that are
put in place gradually.
Small increases occur
every year
89%
87%
Neither likely
nor unlikely
Somewhat
likely
Very likely
Wait longer periods
between rate
adjustments and get a
larger increase all at once
2009 (N/A)
21a. If rate case informational meetings were held in your community how likely would it be that you would attend?
21c. Regarding rate increases, given the opportunity would you prefer:
11%
13%
2010 (n=1003)
2011 (n=1007)
46
Business Manager: Matthew Garlick
CENTRAL ARIZONA
(LPSCO)
47
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Awareness & Perception
Familiarity with their water and waste water provider remained high. An obvious shift from the association with the
local facility name to the newly branded Liberty Water name (83%) was noted.
When asked to describe the provider, most comments were positive (73%) and general with 69% respondents saying
good/like it. Also mentioned was good customer service (4%).
The number of respondents reporting negative comments was significantly higher this year (32% vs. 16% in 2009
and 2010). Cost is too high (18%) was the leading reason for negative associations, followed by water quality (9%).
Name of Water/Waste Water Provider
Local Facility
Name/Abbreviation
Liberty Water/
Algonquin
Municipal Service
Other Company
Don't Know
2009 (N=250)
46%
12%
1%
32%
89%
83%
2%
1%
0%
4%
2%
3%
5%
20%
2%
2010 (N=251)
2011 (N=253)
Significantly Higher
Local Facility Name/Abbreviation: Residents 6 years or
more (19%)
Liberty Water/Algonquin: Residents 5 years or less (90%)
Suggestions for
Improvements
2009
(n=250)
2010
(N=251)
2011
(N=253)
Difference
from 2010
Positive Comments
(NET)
83%
82%
73%
-9%
Positive general
82%
79%
69%
-10%
Water quality
8%
5%
1%
-4%
Customer service
2%
2%
4%
+2%
Cost is reasonable
6%
1%
1%
0%
Negative Comments
(NET)
16%
16%
32%
+16%
Cost is too high
5%
8%
18%
+10%
Water quality
10%
7%
9%
+2%
Customer service
2%
1%
4%
+2%
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
* Some number may not add up due to rounding
A1. What is the name of the company that provides water and/or waste water service to your household/business?
A2. How would you describe your water and/or waste water service company and the services it provides?
48
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Water Services – Satisfaction
Respondents generally rated the water services they received highly. Availability when needed received the
highest top 2 box score (94%; 4/5, where 5 = very satisfactory) followed by water pressure (85%) and color
(81%).
Taste of tap water (44%) and price charged (43%) received the lowest satisfaction scores, both of which were
significantly lower as compared to past years.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfactory
96% 96%
94%
87% 85%
84% 84%
84%
81%
79%
73% 73%
63%
55%
43%
53% 51%
44%
Taste
Color
2009 (N=250)
Smell
Availability Water pressure Price charged
when needed
2010 (N=251)
2011 (N=253)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
1. Please rate your water services in the following areas by using a 5-point scale with 5 being “Very Satisfactory” and 1 being “Not Satisfactory At All”.
49
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Water Services – Interruptions
Consistent with previous years, only 4% of respondents had a water service interruption in the past year.
Among these, 100% stated the interruption was resolved quickly.
Water Interruption Within Last Year
120%
120%
96%
96% 96%
100%
Water Interruption Resolved Quickly
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
100%
91%
89%
9%11%
0%
20%
4% 4% 4%
0%
0%
Yes
2009 (N=250)
No
2010 (N=250)
Yes
2011 (N=251)
2009 (N=11*)
No
2010 (N=9*)
2011 (N=9*)
Why Not Resolved Quickly (N = 0)
N/A
*Caution: small sample size.
2. Within the last year, have you had any interruptions to your water service?
3. Was your water service interruption problem resolved quickly?
4. Being as detailed as possible, please tell us how and why your water interruption problem was not resolved quickly.
50
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Water Services – Interruptions Notification
Consistent with 2010 findings, of the nine customers who had a water interruption in the last year four (44%)
stated they received an advance notification of the scheduled interruptions.
In terms of improvements for scheduled service interruptions, the top improvement requested was send
notices by email (78%).
Advance Notification of Water Interruptions
40%
44% 44%
36%
33%
27%
64%
78%
82%
22%
56%
55%
56%
44%
64%
22%
33%
55%
33%
22%
55%
33%
22%
Send notices by email
56%
60%
Improvements of Notifications of Scheduled
Service Interruptions
36%
22%
20%
22%
Send notice at least one
week in advance
Reminder call day of
interruption
Send reminder notice day
before interruption
Send notices by regular mail
0%
0%
Yes
2009 (N=11*)
No
2010 (N=9*)
Not
applicable
2011 (N=9*)
Include notice in monthly bill
Do Not have interruptions
Schedule interruptions
during night only
Something else
*Caution: small sample size.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2009 (N=11*)
27%
22%
2010 (N=9*)
2011 (N=9*)
5. Are you notified in advance when scheduled interruptions to water service will occur?
6. In which of the following ways could [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] improve their notifications of scheduled service interruptions? You may select all that apply.
51
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Water Services – Improvements
Over half of the respondents (59%) had no suggestions on how to improve their water service, feeling it was
fine as is.
Among the improvements suggested were water filtration (improve taste/smell/color) mentioned by 18% of
customers. Lower rates/don’t increase rates, also mentioned by 18% of customers, was significantly higher as
compared to previous years.
2009
(n=250)
2010
(n=250)
2011
(n=251)
Difference from
2010
Water filtration (improve taste/ smell/
color)/ soften water
16%
16%
18%
+3%
Lower rates/ don't increase rates
6%
11%
18%
+7%
Improve water pressure
4%
2%
2%
0%
Electronic/ online billing
1%
2%
1%
-2%
Improve cold water temperature
fluctuations
3%
2%
2%
0%
More customer outreach/better
communications
1%
0%
2%
+2%
No suggestions/fine as is
66%
66%
59%
-8%
Suggestions for Improvements
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
* Some number may not add up due to rounding
7. Do you have any suggestions on how [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] could improve their water services?
52
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Customer Billing – Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction with billing remained high with 84% or more of interviewed customers somewhat or
strongly agreeing that they were satisfied with the customer billings received. Compared with 2009, customers
were more satisfied with the payment options provided (84% in 2011).
Conversely, 2011 respondents were significantly less likely to agree that bills are easy to understand (86%
somewhat or strongly agree vs. 92% in 2010 and 2009).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
92% 92% 89%
92% 92%
86%
82% 85%
82% 84%
86%
73%
Bill easy to read
Bill easy to understand
2009 (N=250)
Adequate payment
options provided
2010 (N=251)
Payment options easy to
understand/use
2011 (N=253)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
8a-d. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
53
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Customer Billing – Information/Services
Over half of respondents (58%) stated they read the information inserts in their bill sometimes or always. These
results were slightly lower than previous years. Customers aged 18-44 years and residents living in the area for
5 years or less were significantly more likely to have never read the information inserts (24% and 25%
respectively vs. 20% overall).
Read Info Inserts in Bill
Significantly Higher:
Never Read Info Inserts in Bill
100%
18%
18%
20%
16%
18 to 44 year old (24%),
Residents 5 years or less (25%)
20%
80%
60%
40%
1%
33%
2%
19%
Never
4%
Rarely
Not sure
35%
35%
Sometimes
Always
20%
28%
29%
2009
(N=250)
2010
(N=251)
23%
0%
9. How often do you read the informational inserts included in your bill?
2011
(N=253)
54
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Customer Billings – Improvements
When asked about suggestions to improve customer billings, the majority of respondents did not have any
improvements and felt it was fine as is (85%).
Lower rates/don’t increase rates and improve or implement electronic/online/paperless billing were mentioned
most by 5% of customers each.
2009
(N=250)
2010
(N=251)
2011
(N=253)
Difference from
2010
Improve or implement
electronic/online/paperless billing
13%
7%
5%
-2%
Lower rates/don't increase rates
2%
2%
5%
+3%
Automatic payments via bank draft
2%
1%
1%
0%
Make bill easier to understand
0%
2%
2%
0%
No suggestions/fine as is
76%
83%
85%
+2%
Suggestions for Improvements
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
11. Do you have any suggestions for improving the billing?
55
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Website – Online Services
Significantly more customers reported they had accessed the Liberty Water website this year compared with
last year (40% vs. 21%). Younger respondents were significantly more likely to have accessed the website (57%).
The online service used by most was access to account information (81%). Significantly more customers are
using the paperless bill statement online compared to last year (55% vs. 36%).
Accessed Updated Website
1%
2%
81%
77%
Online Services Used
63%
55%
59%
Not sure
45%
36%
78%
No
55%
28%
Yes
40%
21%
2009
(N/A)
2010
2011
(N=251) (N=253)
Significantly Higher: Accessed Website
Yes: 18 to 44 years (57%)
Access to Access to forms Paperless bill
account
online to
statement
information establish new
online
service
2009 (N/A)
2010 (N=53)
Pay online by
credit card
2011 (N=101)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s).
10N1. Have you accessed [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC]’s website?
10N2. The following services are available to [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] customers. Please tell me if you have used any of them?
56
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Satisfaction with Website – Online Services
Satisfaction with most of the online services customers had used was high.
Ease to access account information (81%) and ease to pay your bill online (80%) received the highest
satisfaction ratings, with about eight in ten customers indicating they were very or somewhat satisfied.
The only area that received relatively lower scores was ease to receive customer support (58%).
Not many customers had improvement suggestions for the website (86% had no suggestions and/or stated the
site was fine as is). Those who had suggestions asked to improve user interface/easier to navigate.
Satisfaction with Online Services Used
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied
Usefulness of information
77%
73%
Suggestions for improvements (N = 101)
Ease to find content
searched for
Ease to access account
information
74%
69%
81%
Ease to pay your bill online
90%
86% No suggestions/fine as is
74%
80%
Ease to receive customer
support
Overall user-friendliness of
the website
2009 (N/A)
10% Improve user interface/easier to navigate
64%
58%
77%
77%
2010 (N=53)
2011 (N=101)
10a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Very Satisfied and 1 is Very Dissatisfied, please tell me how satisfied you are with the new [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website.
10b. Do you have any suggestions for improving [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website and/or online services?
57
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Customer Service – Calls & Visits
The majority of respondents did not call (65%) or visit (79%) the business office within the last year.
Respondents who had contacted the business office had both called or visited the office twice, on average
(2.41 calls and 1.83 visits). While the mean number of calls was higher in 2011 (up 0.38), the mean number of
visits fell slightly (down 0.10).
Times Called Business Office
Mean = 1.97 (2009); 2.03 (2010); 2.41 (2011);
among those who have called within last year
90%
80%
70%
70%71%
65%
Times Visited Business Office
Mean = 1.79 (2009); 1.93 (2010); 1.83 (2011);
among those who have visited within last year
90%
79%79%
80% 76%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
14% 14%
11% 8% 8%
8%
7% 3% 6% 5%5%
3%
20%
10%
0%
20%
13%
9% 6%
7% 4%
4%
10%
0%
0
1
2009 (N=250)
2
3
2010 (N=251)
4+
2011 (N=253)
0
1
2009 (N=250)
2
1% 5%6%
4%
2%
1%
3
4+
2010 (N=251)
11b. To the best of your recollection, how many times have you called or visited the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office within the last year?
2011 (N=253)
58
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Customer Service – Satisfaction
Among those customers who reported they had contact with customer service in the last year, satisfaction was
strong.
Compared with 2009, customers were now more satisfied with reasonable time waiting (89% vs. 76% in 2009).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
72%
83%
76%
Convenient office hours
76%
Reasonable time waiting
88%
89%
87%
91%
86%
Courteous/ professional staff
85%
89%
85%
Knowledgeable staff
88%
92%
87%
Staff easy to understand
Staff handle request quickly
87%
88%
81%
Request solved to my
satisfaction
80%
89%
82%
2009 (N=97)
2010 (N=99)
2011 (N=101)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
12a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
[INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]’s customer service. If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think only about your last contact
with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.
59
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Customer Service – Hours & Wait Time
Customers who did not agree that the office hours were convenient were asked what they felt would better.
Longer weekday hours (35%) and office hours on Saturdays (12%) were suggested; keeping the office open
later on weekdays was up 14% from 2010. Compared to 2010, fewer suggestions regarding better office hours
were made and more customers indicated the current hours were fine (29%).
On average, respondents reported that an acceptable wait time for a live person was approximately four
minutes (mean of 4.01 minutes), a slight increase from 2010 (3.79 minutes). With 85% of respondents feeling
an acceptable wait time is no more than five minutes, Liberty Water should strive to keep wait times below this
mark.
More Convenient
Time
Acceptable Wait Time for Live Person
Mean = 4.00 min (2009); 3.79 min. (2010);
4.01 min. (2011)
2009
(N=60)
2010
(N=42)
2011
(N=49)
Difference
from 2010
Weekday hours: late
open/past 5PM
45%
21%
35%
+14%
l minute or less
Saturday hours: half/full
day
10%
7%
12%
+5%
2-3 minutes
Weekday hours: early
open/before 8AM
13%
0%
4%
+4%
Office hours are fine
13%
24%
29%
+5%
More than 10
minutes
2009 (N=97)
12b. What would you consider more convenient office hours?
12c. How long are you willing to wait to speak to a live person?
30%
26%
31%
34%
34%
43%
4-5 minutes
6-10 minutes
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
17%
20%
11%
11%
10%
9%
8%
9%
7%
2010 (N=99)
2011 (N=101)
60
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Customer Services – Overall Experience
Slightly more than three fourths of respondents were satisfied with their overall customer service experience
(77% excellent/good).
Respondents had few suggestions on how to improve customer service; 83% had no suggestion. The few
comments given centered around being polite/friendly/understanding (5%).
Satisfaction With Overall Experience
100%
80%
6%
6%
5%
3%
8%
11%
14%
31%
Poor
Fair
35%
60%
Suggestions for
Improvements
4%
6%
31%
Satisfactory
Good
Excellent
40%
20%
45%
49%
46%
0%
2009 (N=97)
2010 (N=99)
2011 (N=101)
2009
(n=97)
2010
(N=99)
2011
(n=101)
Difference
from 2010
5%
3%
5%
+2
3%
3%
0%
-3
1%
3%
1%
-2
3%
2%
0%
-2
Increase online services
4%
1%
1%
0
No suggestions/fine as
is
77%
86%
83%
-3
Be more polite/
friendly/ understanding
Speak English
better/English as a
default language
Be more professional/
knowledgeable
Improve communication
w/customers (service
follow-up, shut offs, etc)
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
13. Overall, how would you rate your experience with the customer service you received? If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think
only about your last contact with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.
14. Do you have any suggestions for improving customer service?
61
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Customer Services – Spanish
Respondents did not indicate a great need for customer service communications in Spanish, with only 9% stating
they prefer Spanish over English. Only 15% of respondents indicated that it was somewhat or very important to
have the website available in Spanish.
Not surprisingly, Hispanics were significantly more likely to prefer customer service and website in Spanish (35%
each).
Customer Service in Spanish
Importance of Website in Spanish
100%
Yes, I prefer Spanish
8%
5%
9%
80%
87%
89%
85%
No, I prefer English
No language
preference
2009 (N=97)
Not at all
important
5%
6%
6%
60%
69%
40%
3%
2010 (N=99)
2011 (N=101)
20%
Significantly Higher
Yes, I prefer Spanish: Hispanics (35%)
Website in Spanish Very/Somewhat Important: Hispanics (35%)
13a. If customer service were available in Spanish would you take advantage of it?
Q13b. How important is it to you that Liberty Water’s website is available in Spanish language?
0%
13%
Somewhat
unimportant
Neither
important nor
unimportant
Somewhat
important
Very important
9%
6%
2011 (N=101)
62
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Service Rep Home Visits
The vast majority of respondents had no service representative visit their home within the last year (88%). Of
those who had a representative visit, the average number of visits was 1.13, consistent with 2010.
Number Called Business Office
Mean = 1.44 (2009); 1.13 (2010); 1.13 (2011);
among those who had a service rep visit their
home within last year
100%
92%93%
88%
80%
60%
40%
20%
8%
5%5%
2%1%1%
0%
0
1
2
2009 (N=250)
2010 (N=250)
0%
1% 0%
0%0%0%
3
4+
2011 (N=251)
14b. How many times has an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee visited your home to resolve a problem within the last year?
63
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Service Rep Home Visits – Satisfaction
Satisfaction with service representative home visits was high on most aspects. While satisfaction was slightly
down on most aspects compared to 2010, this change was not significant.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
Service rep arrived as
scheduled
89%
93%
87%
Service rep was courteous &
professional
89%
93%
87%
Service rep was
knowledgeable
94%
93%
83%
Kept informed of progress in
resolving problem
70%
89%
80%
83%
Service rep resolved problem
in timely manner
78%
78%
Easy to schedule service visit
83%
Happy with how soon service
visits was scheduled
2009 (N=18*)
83%
80%
74%
2010 (N=15*)
93%
93%
2011 (N=23*)
*Caution: small sample size.
15. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
your in home service visit. If an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee has visited your home more than once within the last year, please think only about your
last visit.
64
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Service Rep Home Visits –
Overall Satisfaction & Improvements
Overall satisfaction with home service visits dropped compared to 2010 (74% somewhat or very satisfied vs.
86% in 2010), although this difference was not statistically significant.
Overall Satisfaction With Service Visit
100%
80%
6%
11%
6%
13%
13%
13%
13%
Not satisfactory at
all
22%
Somewhat
unsatisfactory
60%
Neutral
40%
78%
73%
52%
20%
Somewhat
satisfactory
Very satisfactory
0%
2009
2010
2011
(N=18*) (N=15*) (N=23*)
*Caution: small sample size
16. Overall, how would you rate your experience with the service visit to your home using a 5-point scale with 5 being “Very Satisfactory” and 1 being “Not Satisfactory At
All”? If you had more than one visit in the last year, please think only about your last visit.
65
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Company Evaluation – Satisfaction
Respondents agreed that their water service facility provides a reliable water supply (93%, top 2 box
agree/strongly agree) followed by provides a safe water supply (81%). While all agreement scores were down
compared to 2010, is a good neighbor was significantly lower at 70%.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
Is a good neighbor
70%
82%
80%
Is customer friendly
84%
85%
78%
Provides a safe water supply
83%
85%
81%
95%
95%
93%
Provides a reliable water
supply
76%
77%
72%
Encourages water
conservation
2009 (N=250)
2010 (N=251)
2011 (N=253)
Significantly Higher
Is customer friendly: Residents 5 years or less (84%)
Encourages water conservation: Residents 5 years or less (77%)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
18. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
[INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE].
66
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Company Evaluation – Utility Rates
When comparing the perception of pricing for different utilities and services that respondents received, those
considered somewhat/much too high continued to be electricity (77%) and television (67%).
Water and waste water/sewer both saw a significant jump of respondents considering their rate is too high.
Non-Hispanics and residents of the area for 6 years or more were significantly more likely to perceive both of
these utilities as too high.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Much too High
Gas
24%
35%
32%
81%
77%
77%
Electricity
51%
55%
54%
Landline phone
68%
74%
67%
TV service
29%
Water
Significantly Higher
40%
35%
34%
Waste water/
sewer
2009 (N=247)
51%
Water: Non-Hispanics (54%), Residents
6 years or more (61%)
45%
2010 (N=250)
Waste Water/Sewer : Non-Hispanics
(50%), Residents 6 years or more (54%)
2011 (N=251)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
19. For each of the following utility services, please indicate if you feel the rates charged are much too high, somewhat too high, just right, somewhat low, or very low.
67
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
Respondents were satisfied with their water/waste water provider overall, with 83% of respondents stating
they were somewhat/very satisfied (-5% from 2010).
Overall Satisfaction
100%
80%
1%
3%
6%
1%
2%
10%
3%
6%
8%
Not satisfied at all
27%
35%
38%
60%
40%
63%
20%
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Neutral
Somewhat satisfied
52%
45%
0%
2009
2010
2011
(N=250) (N=251) (N=253)
20. Overall, how satisfied are you with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
68
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
Those somewhat/very satisfied with the provider were so because they have never had a problem/complaint
(39%). However, a large percentage of respondents stated that they felt the cost was too high (18% of those
who stated they were satisfied and 83% of those who stated they were not satisfied). It is important to note
that among those dissatisfied, mentions of cost as a reason were more than double that from 2010.
Suggestions for Improvements
2009
(N=250)
2010
(N=251)
2011
(N=253)
Difference from
2010
Why Satisfied
N=225
N=219
N=209
Never had a problem / complaint
33%
39%
39%
0
Cost is too high/rate increases
6%
14%
18%
+4
Service is satisfactory/ good/ excellent
14%
7%
8%
+1
Good/ friendly/ courteous customer service
5%
10%
4%
-6
Reliable/ no service interruptions
20%
6%
6%
0
Cost is reasonable
8%
2%
6%
+3
Why Not Satisfied
N=9
N=8
N=23
Cost is too high/rate increases
0%
38%
83%
+45
Odor from sewer/sewage processing facility
11%
0%
4%
+4
Poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer service
44%
13%
0%
-13
Smell/taste of water
11%
0%
13%
+13
Water is cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard
0%
13%
17%
+5
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
20a. Being as specific as possible, why did you say you are [INSERT FROM Q20] with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
69
Matthew Garlick – Central AZ
Rate Hikes
In terms of customer involvement in potential rate hikes, almost half (46%) stated they were very or somewhat
likely to attend an informational meeting.
In the case of rate increases the vast majority (85%) preferred having the increases spread out over time with
small increases occurring every year.
Likelihood of Attending Informational Meeting
33%
13%
4%
34%
16%
2009
(N/A)
37%
10%
7%
32%
14%
Not at all
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Rate Hike Preference
Rate increases that are
put in place gradually.
Small increases occur
every year
92%
85%
Neither likely
nor unlikely
Somewhat
likely
Very likely
Wait longer periods
between rate
adjustments and get a
larger increase all at once
2010
2011
(N=251) (N=253)
21a. If rate case informational meetings were held in your community how likely would it be that you would attend?
21c. Regarding rate increases, given the opportunity would you prefer:
2009 (N/A)
8%
15%
2010 (N=251)
2011 (N=253)
70
Business Manager: Martin Garlant
SOUTHERN ARIZONA
(BELLA VISTA, RIO RICO, NORTHERN
SUNRISE, SOUTHERN SUNRISE)
71
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Awareness & Perception
Familiarity with their water and waste water provider was high as the number of respondents citing Liberty
Water/Algonquin (77%) more than doubled as compared to 2010. While 17% instead named their correct local
facility name/abbreviation, the number citing don’t know fell (2% in 2011 vs. 17% last year).
When asked to describe the provider, most comments were positive (78%) and general in nature (73%). While
positive comments for customer service (8%) rose significantly in 2011, they were lower for water quality and
reasonable cost as compared to 2009.
Nearly a third (29%) of respondents mentioned negative comments: cost is too high (17%) was the leading reason
for negative associations with a noticeable increase as compared to 2009 and 2010.
Name of Water/Waste Water Provider
2009
(n=250)
2010
(N=252)
2011
(N=250)
Difference
from 2010
Positive Comments
(NET)
77%
78%
78%
0%
Positive general
73%
75%
73%
-2%
Water quality
9%
4%
2%
-2%
4%
0%
1%
Cost is reasonable
6%
0%
2%
+2%
Customer service
4%
3%
8%
+5%
2%
2%
3%
Negative Comments
(NET)
26%
24%
29%
+5%
Cost is too high
10%
10%
17%
+7%
Water quality
9%
8%
8%
0%
Negative general
2%
4%
3%
-1%
Customer service
4%
4%
4%
0%
Correct Local Facility
Name/Abbreviation
Liberty Water/
Algonquin
Municipal Service
Other Company
Don't Know
2009 (N=250)
44%
17%
3%
37%
Suggestions for
Improvements
87%
77%
4%
17%
2%
2010 (N=252)
2011 (N=250)
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
A1. What is the name of the company that provides water and/or waste water service to your household/business?
A2. How would you describe your water and/or waste water service company and the services it provides?
72
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Water Services – Satisfaction
Respondents generally rated the water services they received highly. Availability when needed received the
highest top 2 box score (89%; 4/5, where 5 = very satisfactory) but was slightly down (-3%). This was followed
by water pressure (81%; up 5% as compared to 2010) and smell (80%, up 4%). While satisfaction with color was
also at 80%, it is important to note that a downward trend in color continued (down 4% from 2010).
Taste of tap water and price charged tied for the lowest satisfaction scores (54% each). Each of these factors
also experienced a 6% to 8% decrease as compared to 2010.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfactory
85% 84%
80%
80%
80%
76%
92% 92%
89%
81%
78% 76%
63%
60%
54%
60% 62%
54%
Taste
Color
2009 (N=250)
Smell
Availability Water pressure Price charged
when needed
2010 (N=251)
2011 (N=248)
1. Please rate your water services in the following areas by using a 5-point scale with 5 being “Very Satisfactory” and 1 being “Not Satisfactory At All”.
73
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Water Services – Interruptions
Nearly a fourth (23%) of respondents had a water service interruption in the past year, which was on par with
2009 and 2010 data. Among these, 24% stated the interruption was not resolved quickly, an issue of increasing
concern over the last two years.
Among those stating their water interruption issue was not resolved quickly, resolution took too long was the
primary reason given.
Water Interruption Within Last Year
100%
Water Interruption Resolved Quickly
100%
76% 77% 77%
80%
80%
60%
90%
78% 76%
60%
40%
40%
24%
22%
10%
24% 24% 23%
20%
20%
0%
0%
Yes
2009 (N=250)
No
2010 (N=251)
Yes
2011 (N=248)
2009 (N=61)
No
2010 (N=59)
2011 (N=58)
Why Not Resolved Quickly (N = 14)
Resolution took too long (4mentions)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s).
No explanation for interruption (1 mention)
Don’t know (1 mention)
2. Within the last year, have you had any interruptions to your water service?
Other (8 mentions)
3. Was your water service interruption problem resolved quickly?
4. Being as detailed as possible, please tell us how and why your water interruption problem was not resolved quickly.
74
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Water Services – Interruptions Notification
Of the customers who had a water interruption in the last year, a fourth (26%) stated they received an advance
notification of scheduled interruptions. This was down by 10% as compared to 2010.
In terms of improvements for scheduled service interruptions, the top improvement requested was send notice
at least one week in advance (47%) followed by reminder call day of interruption (40%).
Advance Notification of Water Interruptions
80%
Send reminder notice day
before interruption
64%
60%
40%
36%
33%
26%
20%
0%
No
2010 (N=59)
Not
applicable
32%
Send notices by regular mail
Send notices by email
Something else
47%
34%
38%
2011 (N=58)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s).
66%
36%
28%
Include notice in monthly
bill
Do Not have interruptions
56%
48%
54%
46%
40%
Send notice at least one
week in advance
16%
14%
10%
2009 (N=61)
28%
Reminder call day of
interruption
51% 51%
Yes
Improvements of Notifications of Scheduled
Service Interruptions
3%
3%
0%
13%
5%
54%
64%
48%
36%
31%
2009 (N=61)
2010 (N=59)
2011 (N=58)
5. Are you notified in advance when scheduled interruptions to water service will occur?
14%
6. In which of the following ways could [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] improve their notifications of scheduled service interruptions? You may select all that apply.
75
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Water Services – Improvements
Over half of the respondents (60%) had no suggestions on how to improve their water service, feeling it was fine
as is. Among the improvements suggested were lower rates/don’t increase rates (13%) and improve water
pressure (5%).
Suggestions for Improvements
2009
(n=250)
2010
(n=251)
2011
(n=248)
Difference from
2010
Lower rates/Don't increase rates
9%
11%
13%
+2%
Improve water pressure
6%
6%
5%
-1%
Maintain better/repair facilities/lines
2%
0%
2%
+2%
New/more water tower(s)/pumping
station(s)
1%
3%
0%
-3%
No suggestions/fine as is
58%
61%
60%
-1%
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
7. Do you have any suggestions on how [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] could improve their water services?
76
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Customer Billing – Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction with billing remained high with 84% or more of interviewed customers stating they
somewhat or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with all of the factors tested. However, scores were
slightly lower in 2011 as compared to 2010. While some scores were only lower by only 2%-3%, bill easy to
understand and bill easy to read had more noticeably declines (8% and 6%, respectively).
91%
94%
88%
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
95%
88%
87%
87% 84%
73%
Bill easy to read
Bill easy to understand
2009 (N=250)
Adequate payment
options provided
2010 (N=252)
79%
87% 85%
Payment options easy to
understand/use
2011 (N=250)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
8a-d. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
77
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Customer Billing – Information/Services
Almost two thirds of respondents (62%) stated they read the information inserts in their bill sometimes or
always. These results were relatively consistent with findings in 2010 (-1%), but nearly 9% lower than the 2009
level.
It should be noted that those more likely to always read such inserts are longer term residents (38% 6+ year
residents).
Read Info Inserts in Bill
100%
80%
14%
15%
16%
13%
2%
18%
17%
5%
4%
60%
38%
34%
40%
Never
Rarely
Not sure
31%
Sometimes
Always
20%
33%
29%
31%
2009
(N=250)
2010
(N=252)
2011
(N=250)
0%
Significantly Higher
Always: Residents 6 years or more (38%)
9. How often do you read the informational inserts included in your bill?
78
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Customer Billings – Improvements
When asked about suggestions to improve customer billings, the majority of respondents did not have any
improvements and felt it was fine as is (84%), which was on par with the 85% received in 2010. Lower
rates/don’t increase rates was mentioned by 6%.
Comments regarding improve or implement electronic/online/paperless billing continued its downward trend,
down 2% compared to 2010 and down 13% compared to 2009. As noted in last years report, this is likely a
reflection of changes and new services offered on the updated website.
2009
(N=250)
2010
(N=252)
2011
(N=250)
Difference from
2010
Improve or implement
electronic/online/paperless billing
15%
4%
2%
-2%
Lower rates/don't increase rates
3%
3%
6%
+3%
Make bill easier to understand
1%
3%
3%
0%
No suggestions/fine as is
74%
85%
84%
-1%
Suggestions for Improvements
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
11. Do you have any suggestions for improving the billing?
79
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Website – Online Services
Nearly a third (30%) of customers reported they had accessed the new Liberty Water website, which
represented a 13% increase as compared to 2010.
The online services used by most was access to account information (91%) followed by pay online by credit card
(76%). Usage by new customers may also be on the rise considering access to forms online to establish new
service rose by 9% in 2011 (up to 23%).
Accessed Updated Website
1%
91%
86%
1%
69%
Online Services Used
74%76%
50%
41%
Not sure
82%
No
23%
14%
Yes
30%
17%
2009
(N/A)
2010
2011
(N=252) (N=250)
Access to Access to forms Paperless bill
account
online to
statement
information establish new
online
service
2009 (N/A)
2010 (N=42)
Pay online by
credit card
2011 (N=75)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
10N1. Have you accessed [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC]’s website?
10N2. The following services are available to [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] customers. Please tell me if you have used any of them?
80
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Satisfaction with Website – Online Services
Satisfaction with the online services customers had used was high. Usefulness of information received the
highest satisfaction rating (87% very or somewhat satisfied) and had the smallest downturn (-1%). Ease to
access account information and overall user-friendliness of the website each received scores of 85%, but both
had 8% to 9% declines as compared to 2010. The only area that received relatively lower scores was ease to
receive customer support (68%), but this was the only factor to show a positive trend (up 11%).
Not many customers had improvement suggestions for the website (85% had no suggestions and/or stated the
site was fine as is). Those who had suggestions asked to improve user interface/easier to navigate and add bank
transfer as a payment option.
Satisfaction with Online Services Used
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied
Usefulness of information
88%
87%
Ease to find content
searched for
Ease to access account
information
Suggestions for improvements (N = 75)
86%
83%
85%
Ease to pay your bill online
81%
Ease to receive customer
support
Overall user-friendliness of
the website
57%
13% Improve user interface/easier to navigate
94%
85% No suggestions/fine as is
91%
68%
93%
85%
2009 (N/A)
2010 (N=42)
2011 (N=75)
10a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Very Satisfied and 1 is Very Dissatisfied, please tell me how satisfied you are with the new [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website.
10b. Do you have any suggestions for improving [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website and/or online services?
81
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Customer Service – Calls & Visits
Nearly half of respondents did not call (46%) or visit (49%) the business office within the last year. However
those with 1+ visits were significantly higher in 2011 (51% 1+ visits vs. 45% and 38% in previous years). Those
who called or visited 4+ times showed the most dramatic increases (21% and 28%, up 10% each).
Respondents who had contacted the business office had both called or visited the office between two and
three times, on average (2.77 calls and 2.57 visits).
Times Called Business Office
Mean = 2.41 (2009); 2.40 (2010); 2.77 (2011);
among those who have called within last year
Times Visited Business Office
60%
60% 58%
Mean = 2.46 (2009); 2.44 (2010); 2.57 (2011);
among those who have visited within last year
70%
62%
60%
55%
50%
50%
70%
46%
40%
40%
30%
30%
49%
28%
21%
20%
15%
14%
13% 12%
11%
8%
10%
13%
11%
7%
6%
3%
20%
14%
9% 11%
10%
0%
18%
15%
10%
8%
8%
4%
4%
2%
0%
0
1
2009 (N=250)
2
3
2010 (N=252)
4+
2011 (N=250)
0
1
2009 (N=250)
2
3
4+
2010 (N=252)
2011 (N=250)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
11b. To the best of your recollection, how many times have you called or visited the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office within the last year?
82
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Customer Service – Satisfaction
Among those customer who reported they had contact with customer service in the last year, satisfaction was
strong and on par with 2010 across all aspects tested (within 2%). The one exception was convenient office
hours, which showed a 5% increase in satisfaction as compared to 2010.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
Convenient office hours
76%
80%
85%
Reasonable time waiting
81%
86%
85%
81%
87%
88%
Courteous/ professional staff
79%
84%
84%
Knowledgeable staff
81%
90%
88%
Staff easy to understand
74%
82%
81%
Staff handle request quickly
Request solved to my
satisfaction
78%
84%
83%
2009 (N=140)
2010 (N=162)
2011 (N=177)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
12a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
[INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]’s customer service. If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think only about your last contact
with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.
83
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Customer Service – Hours & Wait Time
Customers who did not agree strongly that the office hours were convenient were asked what they felt would
be more convenient hours. Longer weekday hours (26%) was the most preferred hours extension option.
On average, respondents reported that an acceptable wait time for a live person was just over four minutes
(mean of 4.27 minutes), a slight increase from 2010 (3.95 minutes). With 79% of respondents feeling an
acceptable wait time is no more than five minutes, Liberty Water should strive to keep wait times below this
mark.
Acceptable Wait Time for Live Person
More Convenient
Time
2009
(N=79)
2010
(N=83)
2011
(N=77)
Difference
from 2010
Weekday hours: late
open/past 5PM
32%
39%
26%
-13%
l minute or less
Saturday hours: half/full
day
15%
10%
9%
-1%
2-3 minutes
Weekday hours: early
open/before 8AM
8%
6%
4%
-2%
Office hours are fine
23%
21%
21%
0%
Mean = 3.99 min (2009); 3.95 min. (2010); 4.27 min. (2011)
More than 10
minutes
2009 (N=140)
12b. What would you consider more convenient office hours?
12c. How long are you willing to wait to speak to a live person?
26%
30%
27%
36%
35%
38%
4-5 minutes
6-10 minutes
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
19%
18%
14%
9%
12%
12%
9%
6%
9%
2010 (N=162)
2011 (N=177)
84
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Customer Services – Overall Experience
More than three fourths of respondents were satisfied with their overall customer service experience (80%
excellent/good), which continued its upward trend (up 4% from 2010 and up 6% from 2009).
Respondents had few suggestions on how to improve customer service; 88% had no suggestion (up 5% from 2010).
The few comments given centered around being more polite and professional.
Satisfaction With Overall Experience
100%
80%
5%
6%
15%
3%
5%
17%
Suggestions for
Improvements
7%
3%
11%
Poor
Fair
60%
35%
31%
31%
Good
Excellent
40%
20%
Satisfactory
39%
45%
49%
2009
(n=140)
2010
(N=162)
2011 Difference
(n=177) from 2010
Be more professional/
knowledgeable
6%
3%
2%
-1%
Be more polite/
friendly/understanding
6%
3%
3%
0%
Improve communication
w/customer
1%
3%
1%
-2%
Speak English better/as
a default language
1%
3%
1%
-2%
No suggestions/fine as
is
79%
83%
88%
+5%
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
0%
2009 (N=140)
2010 (N=162)
2011 (N=177)
13. Overall, how would you rate your experience with the customer service you received? If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think
only about your last contact with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.
14. Do you have any suggestions for improving customer service?
85
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Customer Services – Spanish
Respondents continued to show a slight rise in preference for customer service in Spanish with one in five
(20%, up 3%) now preferring it over English. The Rio Rico respondents showed a significantly higher interest in
Spanish customer service (33%).
Nearly a third (30%) felt a Spanish website was somewhat or very important.
Customer Service in Spanish
Importance of Website in Spanish
100%
Yes, I prefer Spanish
15%
17%
20%
Not at all
important
80%
55%
79%
74%
69%
No, I prefer English
No language
preference
2009 (N=140)
6%
9%
11%
2010 (N=162)
60%
40%
2011 (N=177)
20%
4%
11%
Somewhat
unimportant
Neither
important nor
unimportant
Somewhat
important
11%
Very important
19%
Significantly Higher
0%
Prefer Spanish: Rio Rico (33%)
2011 (N=177)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
13a. If customer service were available in Spanish would you take advantage of it?
Q13b. How important is it to you that Liberty Water’s website is available in Spanish language?
86
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Service Rep Home Visits
Most respondents had no service representative visit their home within the last year (81% none). Of those who
had a representative visit, the average number of visits was 1.73 which was on par with 2010 (1.74 visits).
Number Called Business Office
Mean = 1.22 (2009); 1.74 (2010); 1.73 (2011);
among those who had a service rep visit their
home within last year
100%
80%
86%
83%81%
60%
40%
20%
10%
10% 11%
2%2%2%
0%
0
1
2
2009 (N=250)
2010 (N=251)
0%1%2%
0%2%0%
3
4+
2011 (N=248)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
14b. How many times has an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee visited your home to resolve a problem within the last year?
87
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Service Rep Home Visits – Satisfaction
While satisfaction with service representative home visits was still strong, 2011 levels were lower for all factors
tested. While some decreases were small (as low as 3%), service rep arrived when scheduled saw the largest
decline in satisfaction (-17%, down to 70%). This placed it as the second worst in satisfaction behind kept
informed of progress in resolving problem (68%).
Service rep knowledgeable received the highest satisfaction score (81%).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
Service rep arrived as
scheduled
84%
87%
70%
Service rep was courteous &
professional
78%
87%
78%
Service rep was
knowledgeable
78%
87%
81%
63%
71%
68%
Kept informed of progress in
resolving problem
Service rep resolved problem
in timely manner
81%
82%
76%
Easy to schedule service visit
88%
82%
76%
Happy with how soon service
visits was scheduled
88%
87%
2009 (N=32)
76%
2010 (N=38)
2011 (N=37)
15. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
your in home service visit. If an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee has visited your home more than once within the last year, please think only about your
last visit.
88
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Service Rep Home Visits –
Overall Satisfaction & Improvements
Overall satisfaction with the service rep home visit fell noticeably in 2011; three fourths (76%) of respondents
indicated they were somewhat/very satisfied which was a decrease of 11% as compared to 2010.
Overall Satisfaction With Service Visit
100%
6%
3%
6%
3%
3%
8%
19%
80%
25%
5%
29%
27%
60%
Not satisfactory at
all
Somewhat
unsatisfactory
Neutral
40%
59%
58%
20%
49%
Somewhat
satisfactory
Very satisfactory
0%
2009
(N=32)
2010
(N=38)
2011
(N=37)
16. Overall, how would you rate your experience with the service visit to your home using a 5-point scale with 5 being “Very Satisfactory” and 1 being “Not Satisfactory At
All”? If you had more than one visit in the last year, please think only about your last visit.
89
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Company Evaluation – Satisfaction
Respondents agreed that their water service facility provides a reliable water supply (91%, top 2 box
agree/strongly agree) followed by provides a safe water supply (86%). While all agreement scores were
relatively consistent with or up from 2010, encourages water conservation was significantly higher at 74%
compared to 69% in 2010 and 58% in 2009.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
75%
77%
81%
Is a good neighbor
Is customer friendly
79%
85%
84%
Provides a safe water supply
82%
86%
86%
89%
92%
91%
Provides a reliable water
supply
58%
Encourages water
conservation
2009 (N=250)
2010 (N=252)
69%
74%
2011 (N=250)
Significantly Higher
Provides a safe water supply: At residence less than 5 years (91%)
Encourages water conservation: Belle Vista (81%)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
18. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
[INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE].
90
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Company Evaluation – Utility Rates
When comparing the perception of pricing for different utilities and services that respondents received, those
considered somewhat/much too high were television (69%), electricity (66%) and landline phone (57%).
Water and waste water/sewer actually had the lowest “too high” scores (40% and 50% respectively). However,
both received scores that were 3% to 4% higher as compared to 2010 data.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Much too High
54%
62%
54%
Gas
66%
63%
66%
Electricity
53%
51%
57%
Landline phone
70%
66%
69%
TV service
36%
36%
40%
Water
38%
Waste water/
sewer
2009 (N=248)
2010 (N=251)
47%
50%
2011 (N=249)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
19. For each of the following utility services, please indicate if you feel the rates charged are much too high, somewhat too high, just right, somewhat low, or very low.
91
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
Respondents were satisfied with their water/waste water provider overall, with 88% of respondents stating
they were somewhat/very satisfied (up 1% from 2010).
Those with significantly higher very satisfied scores were from Belle Vista (69% vs. 52% overall), 18-44 year olds
(66%) and residents less than 5 years (64%).
Overall Satisfaction
100%
1%
4%
8%
6%
6%
2%
5%
4%
80%
Not satisfied at all
34%
35%
36%
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Neutral
60%
40%
Somewhat satisfied
53%
52%
52%
20%
0%
2009
2010
2011
(N=250) (N=252) (N=250)
Significantly Higher
20. Overall, how satisfied are you with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
Very satisfied: Belle Vista (69%); Ages 18-44 (66%); Residents less
than 5 years (64%)
92
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
Those somewhat/very satisfied with the provider were so because they never had a problem/complaint (32%).
However, 14% of those satisfied still felt the cost is too high/rate increases.
Not surprisingly, cost is too high/rate increases (59%) was the main reason why respondents were dissatisfied
(not satisfied at all/somewhat dissatisfied). Of even more importance is the fact cost as a factor rose by 19% as
compared to 2010 data. Poor/unfriendly/uncaring service was also an important reason for dissatisfaction
(24%; up 11% from 2010).
Suggestions for Improvements
Why Satisfied
Reliable/No service interruptions
Never had a problem/complaint
Cost is reasonable
Good/friendly/courteous customer service
Service is satisfactory/good/excellent
Water quality is good
Cost is too high/rate increases
Why Not Satisfied
Cost is too high/rate increases
Poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer service
Water is cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard
Low/Fluctuating water pressure
Smell/taste of water
2009
(n=250)
2010
(n=252)
2011
(n=250)
N=217
17%
18%
14%
14%
11%
11%
10%
N=13*
23%
15%
15%
8%
8%
N=221
10%
34%
5%
9%
13%
4%
14%
N=15*
40%
13%
7%
7%
7%
N=222
9%
32%
6%
9%
8%
4%
14%
N=17*
59%
24%
12%
6%
0%
Difference from
2010
-1%
-2%
+1%
0%
-5%
0%
0%
+19%
+11%
+5%
-1%
-7%
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
*Caution: small sample size.
20a. Being as specific as possible, why did you say you are [INSERT FROM Q20] with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
93
Martin Garlant – Southern AZ
Rate Hikes
In terms of customer involvement in potential rate hikes, half (50%) stated they were very or somewhat likely
to attend an informational meeting.
In case of rate increases, the vast majority (91%) preferred having the increases spread out over time with small
increases occurring every year.
Likelihood of Attending Informational Meeting
29%
29%
Not at all
likely
17%
15%
7%
7%
28%
30%
Somewhat
unlikely
2009
(N/A)
20%
2010
2011
(n=252) (n=250)
Rate increases that are
put in place gradually.
Small increases occur
every year
91%
90%
Neither likely
nor unlikely
Somewhat
likely
20%
Rate Hike Preference
Very likely
Wait longer periods
between rate
adjustments and get a
larger increase all at once
2009 (N/A)
21a. If rate case informational meetings were held in your community how likely would it be that you would attend?
21c. Regarding rate increases, given the opportunity would you prefer:
10%
10%
2010 (n=252)
2011 (n=250)
94
Business Manager: Charlie Hernandez
EASTERN ARIZONA
(BLACK MOUNTAIN, GOLD CANYON,
ENTRADA DEL ORO)
95
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Awareness & Perception
Familiarity with their water and waste water provider remained high. An obvious shift from the association with
the local facility name to the newly branded Liberty Water name (55%, up 24%) was noted.
When asked to describe the provider, about half of the comments were positive (54%) and general with 53%
respondents saying good/like it.
About half of respondents also mentioned negative comments (48%): Cost is too high (45%) was the leading
reason for negative associations, up significantly from 2010 (up 10%).
2009
(n=250)
2010
(N=250)
2011
(N=253)
Difference
from 2010
Positive Comments
(NET)
55%
46%
54%
+8%
Positive general
52%
46%
53%
+7%
Water quality
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
Cost is reasonable
2%
1%
0%
-1%
Customer service
0%
1%
1%
0%
10%
1%
4%
Negative Comments
(NET)
61%
41%
48%
+7%
Cost is too high
53%
35%
45%
+10%
Water quality
6%
2%
2%
0%
Negative general
5%
4%
5%
+1%
Customer Service
2%
3%
1%
-2%
Sewage smell
8%
6%
2%
-4%
Name of Water/Waste Water Provider
Correct Local Facility
Name/Abbreviation
Liberty Water/ Algonquin
Municipal Service
Arizona Water Company
Other Company
Don't Know
2009 (N=250)
80%
26%
26%
2%
31%
55%
2%
10%
1%
6%
5%
32%
2010 (N=250)
2011 (N=253)
Significantly Higher
Liberty Water/Algonquin: Residents less than 5 years (64%)
Suggestions for
Improvements
A1. What is the name of the company that provides water and/or waste water service to your household/business?
A2. How would you describe your water and/or waste water service company and the services it provides?
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are
significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells
are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
96
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Customer Billing – Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction with billing remained high with 74% or more of interviewed customers stating they
somewhat or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the customer billings received. All aspects of billing
tested decreased slightly in satisfaction compared to 2010 with the exception of adequate payment options
provided.
Residents of Gold Canyon were significantly more likely to agree that bills are easy to read.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
91%
83%
87%
80%
87% 85%
79%
73% 74%
68%
63%
Bill easy to read
Bill easy to understand
2009 (N=250)
Adequate payment
options provided
2010 (N=250)
74%
Payment options easy to
understand/use
2011 (N=253)
Significantly Higher
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
Bill easy to read: Gold Canyon (90%)
8a-d. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
97
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Customer Billing – Information/Services
Almost half of respondents (46%) stated they read the information inserts in their bill sometimes or always.
Significantly more customers indicated they never read the information inserts compared to last year (32% vs.
25%).
Read Info Inserts in Bill
100%
24%
25%
18%
15%
4%
6%
80%
60%
40%
28%
32%
Never
18%
Rarely
3%
Not sure
Sometimes
32%
28%
Always
20%
25%
22%
18%
2009
(N=250)
2010
(N=250)
2011
(N=253)
0%
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
9. How often do you read the informational inserts included in your bill?
98
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Customer Billings – Improvements
When asked about suggestions to improve customer billings, the majority of respondents did not have any
improvements and felt it was fine as is (69%).
Lower rates/don’t increase rates was mentioned by 21%, up significantly from previous years.
Suggestions for Improvements
2009
(N=250)
2010
(N=250)
2011
(N=253)
Difference from
2010
Improve or implement
Electronic/online/paperless billing
6%
5%
3%
-2%
Lower rates/Don't increase rates
17%
12%
21%
+9%
No suggestions/fine as is
69%
79%
69%
-10%
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
11. Do you have any suggestions for improving the billing?
99
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Website – Online Services
A fifth (21%) of customers reported they had accessed the Liberty Water website, significantly higher than in
2010 (10%).
The online services used by most was access to account information (64%) followed by pay online by credit card
(42%).
Accessed Updated Website
0%
Online Services Used
71%
64%
1%
42%
Not sure
90%
34%
78%
28%
No
8%
Yes
10%
2009
(N/A)
42%42%
21%
2010
2011
(N=250) (N=253)
Access to Access to forms Paperless bill
account
online to
statement
information establish new
online
service
2009 (N/A)
2010 (N=24*)
Pay online by
credit card
2011 (N=53)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
*Caution: small sample size
10N1. Have you accessed [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC]’s website?
10N2. The following services are available to [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] customers. Please tell me if you have used any of them?
100
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Satisfaction with Website – Online Services
Satisfaction with the online services customers had used was high. Ease to pay your bill online (72%) and ease
to access account information (71%) received the highest satisfaction ratings.
The only area that received a relatively lower score was ease to receive customer support (51%).
Not many customers had improvement suggestions for the website (81% had no suggestions and/or stated the
site was fine as is). Those who had suggestions asked to improve user interface/easier to navigate.
Satisfaction with Online Services Used
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied
Usefulness of information
Ease to find content
searched for
Ease to access account
information
62%
71%
Suggestions for improvements (N = 53)
77%
71%
Ease to pay your bill online
70%
72%
Ease to receive customer
support
Overall user-friendliness of
the website
2009 (N/A)
79%
59%
51%
81% No suggestions/fine as is
67%
62%
2010 (N=24*)
13% Improve user interface/easier to navigate
79%
2011 (N=53)
*Caution: small sample size
10a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Very Satisfied and 1 is Very Dissatisfied, please tell me how satisfied you are with the new [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website.
10b. Do you have any suggestions for improving [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website and/or online services?
101
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Customer Service – Calls & Visits
The majority of respondents did not call (81%) or visit (94%) the business office within the last year.
Respondents who had contacted the business office had both called or visited the office nearly twice, on
average (1.96 calls and 1.58 visits).
Times Called Business Office
Mean = 2.25 (2009); 2.00 (2010); 1.96 (2011);
among those who have called within last year
100%
90%
Times Visited Business Office
Mean = 1.53 (2009); 1.44 (2010); 1.58 (2011);
among those who have visited within last year
100% 94%
96%
94%
90%
82%
81%
80% 77%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
8%
8% 8%
8%
6%
6%
10%
5%
2%
2% 3%
2%
2%
0%
4%
10%
0%
0
1
2009 (N=250)
2
3
2010 (N=250)
4+
2011 (N=253)
0
3%
3% 2% 1%
1%
0% 0%
0%
0% 0%
0%
1
2009 (N=250)
2
3
4+
2010 (N=250)
11b. To the best of your recollection, how many times have you called or visited the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office within the last year?
2011 (N=253)
102
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Customer Service – Satisfaction
Among those customers who reported they had contact with customer service in the last year, satisfaction was
strong in general.
While agreement that staff are courteous/professional (78%) and knowledgeable (75%) decreased slightly in
2011 as compared to 2010, these values are still significantly higher than 2009.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
62%
67%
69%
Convenient office hours
65%
Reasonable time waiting
77%
77%
60%
Courteous/ professional staff
78%
56%
Knowledgeable staff
80%
75%
70%
Staff easy to understand
56%
Staff handle request quickly
Request solved to my
satisfaction
56%
2009 (N=63)
2010 (N=51)
86%
82%
78%
71%
67%
65%
73%
2011 (N=51)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
12a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
[INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]’s customer service. If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think only about your last contact
with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.
103
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Customer Service – Hours & Wait Time
Customers who did not agree strongly that the office hours were convenient were asked what they felt would
be more convenient hours. Longer weekday hours (19%, up 8%) was mentioned most often. Compared to 2010,
fewer customers indicated the current hours were fine (15%, down 10%).
On average, respondents reported that an acceptable wait time for a live person was approximately three and a
half minutes (mean of 3.71 minutes), a slight increase from 2010 (3.44 minutes). With 82% of respondents
feeling an acceptable wait time is no more than five minutes, Liberty Water should strive to keep wait times
below this mark.
Acceptable Wait Time for Live Person
More Convenient
Time
2009
(N=44)
2010
(N=28*)
2011
(N=26*)
Difference
from 2010
Weekday hours: late
open/past 5PM
23%
11%
19%
+8%
l minute or less
Saturday hours:
half/full day
7%
4%
0%
-4%
2-3 minutes
Weekday hours: early
open/before 8AM
11%
11%
4%
-7%
Office hours are fine
14%
25%
15%
-10%
Mean = 3.65 min (2009); 3.44 min. (2010); 3.71 min. (2011)
16%
14%
20%
31%
32%
26%
31%
4-5 minutes
10%
8%
12%
6-10 minutes
More than 10
minutes
0%
2%
6%
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
*Caution: small sample size
2009 (N=63)
12b. What would you consider more convenient office hours?
12c. How long are you willing to wait to speak to a live person?
43%
51%
2010 (N=51)
2011 (N=51)
104
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Customer Services – Overall Experience
About three fourths of respondents were satisfied with their overall customer service experience (65%
excellent/good).
Respondents had few suggestions on how to improve customer service; 84% had no suggestion. The few
comments given centered around being professional/knowledgeable.
Satisfaction With Overall Experience
100%
80%
60%
14%
8%
4%
14%
18%
30%
28%
22%
24%
40%
24%
43%
20%
41%
18%
0%
2009
(N=63)
2010
(N=51)
Suggestions for
Improvements
10%
4%
2011
(N=51)
2009
(n=63)
2010
(N=51)
2011
(n=51)
Difference
from 2010
Poor
Be more professional/
knowledgeable
6%
0%
4%
+4%
Fair
Be more polite/
friendly/understanding
6%
2%
2%
0%
Good
Speak to a person, not a
recording
3%
0%
0%
0%
Excellent
Lower the rates/Don't
increase rates
5%
6%
2%
-4%
Improve communication
w/customer
2%
8%
2%
-6%
Answer the phone
promptly
3%
0%
2%
+2%
No suggestions/ fine as
is
68%
82%
84%
+2%
Satisfactory
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
13. Overall, how would you rate your experience with the customer service you received? If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think
only about your last contact with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.
14. Do you have any suggestions for improving customer service?
105
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Customer Services – Spanish
None of the interviewed customers in Eastern Arizona indicated a preference for customer service
communications in Spanish. Similarly, only 4% thought it was somewhat or very important for the website to be
available in Spanish.
Customer Service in Spanish
Importance of Website in Spanish
100%
Yes, I prefer Spanish
3%
4%
0%
No language
preference
80%
92%
96%
92%
No, I prefer English
Not at all
important
5%
0%
8%
60%
Somewhat
unimportant
84%
40%
Neither
important nor
unimportant
Somewhat
important
20%
2009 (N=63)
2010 (N=51)
2011 (N=51)
0%
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
13a. If customer service were available in Spanish would you take advantage of it?
Q13b. How important is it to you that Liberty Water’s website is available in Spanish language?
4%
8%
2%
2%
2011 (N=51)
Very important
106
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Service Rep Home Visits
The vast majority of respondents had no service representative visit their home within the last year (98%). Of
those who had a representative visit, the average number of visits was 1.25, which was up slightly from 2010
(1.00 visits).
Number Called Business Office
Mean = 1.14 (2009); 1.00 (2010); 1.25 (2011);
among those who had a service rep visit their
home within last year
120%
100%
98%
97% 98%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2% 0% 1%
0% 0% 0%
0
1
2
2009 (N=247)
2010 (N=250)
0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0%
3
4+
2011 (N=252)
14b. How many times has an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee visited your home to resolve a problem within the last year?
107
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Company Evaluation – Satisfaction
Less than half of respondents agreed that Liberty Water is a good neighbor (43%) and is customer friendly
(44%). While all agreement scores were down slightly compared to 2010, they were still above 2009 scores.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
36%
Is a good neighbor
44%
43%
36%
Is customer friendly
50%
44%
2009 (N=250)
2010 (N=250)
2011 (N=253)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
18. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
[INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE].
108
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Company Evaluation – Utility Rates
When comparing the perception of pricing for different utilities and services that respondents received, those
considered somewhat/much too high continued to be waste water/sewer (81%) and television (63%).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Much too High
Gas
25%
40%
35%
60%
59%
53%
Electricity
41%
47%
38%
Landline phone
67%
67%
63%
TV service
43%
45%
39%
Water
81%
76%
81%
Waste water/
sewer
2009 (N=250)
2010 (N=250)
2011 (N=252)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
19. For each of the following utility services, please indicate if you feel the rates charged are much too high, somewhat too high, just right, somewhat low, or very low.
109
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
More than half of respondents were satisfied with their waste water provider overall, with 58% of respondents
stating they were somewhat/very satisfied.
Overall Satisfaction
100%
25%
80%
60%
20%
14%
16%
15%
15%
Not satisfied at all
14%
12%
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Neutral
27%
33%
14%
40%
Somewhat satisfied
28%
20%
29%
14%
25%
0%
2009
2010
2011
(N=250) (N=250) (N=253)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
20. Overall, how satisfied are you with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
110
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
Those somewhat/very satisfied with the provider were so because they had never had a problem/complaint (39%)
and reliable/no service interruptions (8%). However, 30% of respondents stated that they felt the cost was too
high.
Not surprisingly, cost (82%) was the main reason why respondents were dissatisfied (not satisfied at all/somewhat
dissatisfied). Other negative comments were related to odor from sewer/sewage processing facility (13%) and
dishonest/crooked/price gougers (8%).
Suggestions for Improvements
2009
(n=250)
2010
(n=250)
2011
(n=253)
Why Satisfied
Never had a problem/complaint
Cost is too high/rate increases
Service is satisfactory/good/excellent
Reliable/No service interruptions
Good/friendly/courteous customer service
Odor from sewer/sewage processing facility
Cost is reasonable
Why Not Satisfied
Cost is too high/rate increases
Odor from sewer/sewage processing facility
They are dishonest/crooked/price gougers
Poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer service
Charged for service even when absent
N=105
31%
30%
10%
9%
6%
6%
3%
N=111
75%
20%
15%
8%
6%
N=141
45%
29%
6%
3%
5%
3%
4%
N=73
81%
15%
4%
1%
0%
N=146
39%
30%
6%
8%
3%
1%
2%
N=78
82%
13%
8%
4%
4%
Difference from
2010
-6%
+1%
0%
+5%
-2%
-2%
-2%
+1%
-2%
+4%
+3%
+4%
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
20a. Being as specific as possible, why did you say you are [INSERT FROM Q20] with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
111
Charlie Hernandez – Eastern AZ
Rate Hikes
In terms of customer involvement in potential rate hikes, over half (59%) stated they were very or somewhat
likely to attend an informational meeting.
In case of rate increases, the vast majority (86%) preferred having the increases spread out over time with small
increases occurring every year.
Likelihood of Attending Informational Meeting
24%
8%
4%
31%
34%
Rate Hike Preference
25%
12%
5%
26%
33%
2009
2010
2011
(n=N/A) (n=250) (n=253)
Not at all
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Rate increases that are
put in place gradually.
Small increases occur
every year
87%
86%
Neither likely
nor unlikely
Somewhat
likely
Very likely
Wait longer periods
between rate
adjustments and get a
larger increase all at once
2009 (N/A)
21a. If rate case informational meetings were held in your community how likely would it be that you would attend?
21c. Regarding rate increases, given the opportunity would you prefer:
13%
14%
2010 (n=250)
2011 (n=253)
112
Business Manager: Joe Wilkins
CENTRAL US
(TALL TIMBERS, WOODMARK, BIG EDDY,
HOLLY RANCH, HILL COUNTRY, OZARK
MOUNTAIN, HOLIDAY HILLS)
113
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Awareness & Perception
Familiarity with their water and waste water provider remained high. A drastic shift from the association with
the local facility name to the newly branded Liberty Water name was noted (73%, up 33%).
When asked to describe the provider, most comments were positive (71%) and general with 69% respondents
saying good/like it.
About one-third of respondents (31%) mentioned negative comments: Cost is too high (19%) was the leading
reason for negative associations, although it was slightly down from 26% in 2010.
Name of Water/Waste Water Provider
Facility
Name/Abbreviation
Liberty Water/
Algonquin
Municipal Service
Other Company
Don't Know
2009 (N=250)
21%
16%
7%
4%
0%
1%
8%
3%
4%
6%
7%
76%
40%
73%
35%
2010 (N=250)
Significantly Higher
Liberty Water/Algonquin: Holly Ranch (83%)
2011 (N=251)
Suggestions for
Improvements
2009
(n=250)
2010
(N=250)
2011
(N=251)
Difference
from 2010
Positive Comments
(NET)
68%
64%
71%
+6%
Positive general
63%
61%
69%
+8%
Water quality
11%
2%
2%
0%
Customer service
3%
1%
3%
+2%
Cost is reasonable
2%
0%
0%
0%
Negative Comments
(NET)
40%
34%
31%
-3%
Cost is too high
28%
26%
19%
-7%
Water quality
6%
5%
6%
+1%
Customer service
2%
1%
4%
+3%
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
* Some number may not add up due to rounding
A1. What is the name of the company that provides water and/or waste water service to your household/business?
A2. How would you describe your water and/or waste water service company and the services it provides?
114
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Water Services – Satisfaction
Respondents generally rated the water services they received highly. Availability when needed received the
highest top 2 box score (92%; 4/5, where 5 = very satisfactory) followed by color (85%).
However, satisfaction with price charged was very low (36%).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfactory
79%
86%
85%
71%
65%
64%
87%
90%92%
76% 79% 77%
74%81% 78%
45%
33%36%
Taste
Color
2009 (N=178)
Smell
Availability Water pressure Price charged
when needed
2010 (N=162)
2011 (N=159)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
1. Please rate your water services in the following areas by using a 5-point scale with 5 being “Very Satisfactory” and 1 being “Not Satisfactory At All”.
115
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Water Services – Interruptions
About one quarter (26%) of respondents had a water service interruption in the past year. Among these, 90%
stated the interruption was resolved quickly.
Water Interruption Within Last Year
73% 74%
80%
100%
62%
90%
89% 90%
80%
60%
40%
Water Interruption Resolved Quickly
60%
38%
27% 26%
40%
20%
11%
10% 10%
20%
0%
0%
Yes
2009 (N=178)
No
2010 (N=162)
Yes
2011 (N=159)
2009 (N=67)
No
2010 (N=44)
2011 (N=41)
Why Not Resolved Quickly (N = 4)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
No notification of service interruption was given (1 mention)
Other comments (3 mentions)
2. Within the last year, have you had any interruptions to your water service?
3. Was your water service interruption problem resolved quickly?
4. Being as detailed as possible, please tell us how and why your water interruption problem was not resolved quickly.
116
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Water Services – Interruptions Notification
Of the customers who had a water interruption in the last year, 45% stated they received an advance
notification of scheduled interruptions. The percent of respondents who stated they did not receive advance
notification was significantly higher this year compared to 2009 and 2010 (79% vs. 45%-59%).
In terms of improvements for scheduled service interruptions, the top improvement requested was to send a
reminder notice on the day before the interruption (56%).
Advance Notification of Water Interruptions
100%
78%
80%
60%
40%
20%
59%
45%
45%
30%
11%
10% 10%
12%
0%
Yes
2009 (N=67)
No
2010 (N=44)
Not
applicable
2011 (N=41)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
Improvements of Notifications of Scheduled
Service Interruptions
Send reminder notice day
58%
52%
56%
before interruption
Send notice at least one
54%
43%
54%
week in advance
45%
Send notices by email
27%
44%
46%
Include notice in monthly bill
34%
42%
Reminder call day of
57%
46%
39%
interruption
49%
Send notices by regular mail
36%
37%
3%
Do Not have interruptions
5%
0%
2009 (N=67)
Schedule interruptions
2%
0%
0%
during night only
2010 (N=44)
13%
Something else
11%
2011 (N=41)
17%
5. Are you notified in advance when scheduled interruptions to water service will occur?
6. In which of the following ways could [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] improve their notifications of scheduled service interruptions? You may select all that apply.
117
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Water Services – Improvements
Over half of the respondents (55%) had no suggestions on how to improve their water service, feeling it was
fine as is.
Among the improvements suggested were lower the rates/don’t increase rates mentioned by 21% of
customers. Central US customers also requested improved water filtration (12%).
2009
(n=178)
2010
(n=162)
2011
(n=159)
Difference from
2010
Water filtration (improve taste/ smell/
color)/ soften water
8%
11%
12%
+1%
Lower rates/ don't increase rates
20%
22%
21%
-1%
Improve water pressure
11%
3%
5%
+2%
Maintain better/repair facilities/lines
3%
2%
3%
+1%
New/more water tower(s)/pumping
station(s)
4%
1%
3%
+2%
Improve shutoff notification
1%
2%
0%
-2%
No suggestions/fine as is
56%
61%
55%
-6%
Suggestions for Improvements
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
* Some number may not add up due to rounding
7. Do you have any suggestions on how [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] could improve their water services?
118
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Customer Billing – Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction with billing remained high with 78% or more of interviewed customers stating they
somewhat or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the customer billings received.
Almost 90% stated that they somewhat or strongly agreed that the bills are easy to understand (89%) and easy
to read (88%).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
87% 87% 88%
85% 86%
89%
77% 80%
78%
70% 71%
Bill easy to read
Bill easy to understand
2009 (N=250)
Adequate payment
options provided
2010 (N=250)
81%
Payment options easy to
understand/use
2011 (N=251)
8a-d. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
119
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Customer Billing – Information/Services
Consistent with previous years, almost two-thirds of respondents (63%) stated they read the information
inserts in their bill sometimes or always. Residents of Holly Ranch and Big Eddy, as well as customers 65 years
of age or older, were significantly more likely to always read the information inserts in their bills.
Read Info Inserts in Bill
Significantly Higher
Always read info inserts in bill: Holly
Ranch (41%), Big Eddy (41%), 65+
years or older (42%)
100%
20%
20%
19%
11%
17%
15%
80%
60%
7%
27%
40%
4%
29%
3%
30%
Never
Rarely
Not sure
Sometimes
Always
20%
35%
30%
33%
2009
(N=250)
2010
(N=250)
2011
(N=251)
0%
9. How often do you read the informational inserts included in your bill?
120
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Customer Billings – Improvements
When asked about suggestions to improve customer billings, the majority of respondents did not have any
improvements and felt it was fine as is (84%).
Consistent with last year, lower rates/don’t increase rates was mentioned by 8%.
2009
(N=250)
2010
(N=250)
2011
(N=251)
Difference from
2010
Improve or implement
electronic/online/paperless billing
7%
1%
2%
+1%
Lower rates/don't increase rates
6%
8%
8%
0%
Automatic payments via bank draft
2%
0%
2%
+2%
Pay with credit card
2%
0%
1%
+1%
No suggestions/fine as is
78%
82%
84%
+2%
Suggestions for Improvements
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
* Some number may not add up due to rounding
11. Do you have any suggestions for improving the billing?
121
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Website – Online Services
The percent of respondents who reported they had accessed the new Liberty Water website nearly doubled compared
to last year (23% vs. 12%). Customers aged 18-44 years were significantly more likely than older customers to have
accessed the website (40%).
The online services used by most was access to account information (74%) followed by pay online by credit card (58%).
Accessed Updated Website
1%
Online Services Used
74%
69%
1%
62%
58%
Not sure
87%
33%
76%
No
24%
21%23%
Yes
12%
2009
(N/A)
23%
2010
2011
(N=250) (N=251)
Significantly Higher: Accessed Website
Yes: 18 to 44 years (40%)
Access to Access to forms Paperless bill
account
online to
statement
information establish new
online
service
2009 (N/A)
2010 (N=29*)
Pay online by
credit card
2011 (N=57)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s).
*Caution: small sample size.
10N1. Have you accessed [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC]’s website?
10N2. The following services are available to [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] customers. Please tell me if you have used any of them?
122
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Satisfaction with Website – Online Services
Satisfaction with the online services customers had used was high. Ease to access account information received
the highest satisfaction rating with 93% of customers indicating they were very or somewhat satisfied. Ease to
receive customer support received the lowest satisfaction score (63%).
Not many customers had improvement suggestions for the website (96% had no suggestions and/or stated the
site was fine as is).
Satisfaction with Online Services Used
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied
Usefulness of information
76%
81%
Suggestions for improvements (N = 57)
Ease to find content
searched for
Ease to access account
information
76%
70%
90%
93%
Ease to pay your bill online
96% No suggestions/fine as is
100%
68%
Ease to receive customer
support
Overall user-friendliness of
the website
2009 (N/A)
4% Other comments
69%
63%
72%
2010 (N=29*)
86%
2011 (N=57)
10a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Very Satisfied and 1 is Very Dissatisfied, please tell me how satisfied you are with the new [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website.
10b. Do you have any suggestions for improving [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website and/or online services?
123
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Customer Service – Calls & Visits
The majority of respondents did not call (73%) or visit (74%) the business office within the last year.
Respondents who had contacted the business office had both called or visited the office twice on average (2.10
calls and 1.87 visits).
Times Called Business Office
Mean = 2.32 (2009); 1.97 (2010); 2.10 (2011);
among those who have called within last year
80%
70%
73% 73%
70%
Times Visited Business Office
Mean = 1.89 (2009); 1.96 (2010); 1.87 (2011);
among those who have visited within last year
90%
80% 77% 74%
72%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
13%
11% 11% 8%
7%
8%
7% 4%
4%6%
1% 3%
10%
0%
11%
8%13%
11%
8%
9% 5%
4% 2%
3%
0%1%
20%
10%
0%
0
1
2009 (N=250)
2
3
2010 (N=250)
4+
2011 (N=251)
0
1
2009 (N=250)
2
3
4+
2010 (N=250)
11b. To the best of your recollection, how many times have you called or visited the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office within the last year?
2011 (N=251)
124
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Customer Service – Satisfaction
Among those customers who reported that they had contact with customer service in the last year, satisfaction
was strong and significantly higher than previous years across almost all aspects tested.
Residents who had lived in the area for 5 years or less were significantly more likely to somewhat/strongly agree
with the following statements: reasonable waiting time, staff handle requests quickly, and request solved to my
satisfaction.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
73%
80%
88%
Convenient office hours
79%
Reasonable time waiting
88%
91%
83%
88%
96%
Courteous/ professional staff
78%
85%
90%
Knowledgeable staff
88%
84%
95%
Staff easy to understand
76%
Staff handle request quickly
Request solved to my
satisfaction
85%
85%
78%
82%
87%
2009 (N=99)
2010 (N=104)
2011 (N=97)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
Significantly Higher
Reasonable time waiting:
Residents 5 years or less (98%)
Staff handle requests quickly:
Residents 5 years or less (92%)
Request solved to my satisfaction:
Residents 5 years or less (96%)
12a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
[INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]’s customer service. If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think only about your last contact
with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.
125
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Customer Service – Hours & Wait Time
Customers who did not agree strongly that the office hours were convenient were asked what they felt would
be more convenient hours. Longer weekday hours (37%) was mentioned most and had a 14% increase as
compared to 2010. Compared to 2010, more suggestions regarding better office hours were made and fewer
customers indicated the current hours were fine (23%, down 9%).
On average, respondents reported that an acceptable wait time for a live person was approximately three and a
half minutes (mean of 3.60 minutes), a slight increase from 2010 (3.32 minutes). With 83% of respondents
feeling an acceptable wait time is no more than five minutes, Liberty Water should strive to keep wait times
below this mark.
More Convenient
Time
Acceptable Wait Time for Live Person
Mean = 3.68 min (2009); 3.32 min. (2010);
3.60 min. (2011)
2009
(N=54)
2010
(N=57)
2011
(N=30)
Difference
from 2010
Weekday hours: late
open/past 5PM
26%
23%
37%
+14%
l minute or less
Saturday hours: half/full
day
7%
5%
7%
+2%
2-3 minutes
Weekday hours: early
open/before 8AM
6%
2%
3%
+1%
Office hours are fine
28%
32%
23%
25%
31%
33%
35%
28%
6-10 minutes
8%
7%
5%
More than 10
minutes
5%
8%
11%
2009 (N=99)
12b. What would you consider more convenient office hours?
12c. How long are you willing to wait to speak to a live person?
13%
4-5 minutes
-9%
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
18%
2010 (N=104)
37%
35%
2011 (N=97)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s).
126
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Customer Services – Overall Experience
About eight in ten respondents were satisfied with their overall customer service experience (81%
excellent/good).
Respondents had few suggestions on how to improve customer service; 92% had no suggestions (up 8% from
2010). The few comments given centered around improve communications (3%).
Satisfaction With Overall Experience
100%
80%
60%
2%
9%
20%
6%
7%
11%
Suggestions for
Improvements
1%
3%
16%
Poor
27%
30%
Fair
Satisfactory
28%
Good
40%
20%
Excellent
40%
50%
51%
2010
(N=104)
2011
(N=97)
Be more polite/
friendly/ understanding
Speak English
better/English as a
default language
Be more professional/
knowledgeable
Improve communication
w/customers (service
follow-up, shut offs, etc)
No suggestions/fine as
is
2009
(n=99)
2010
(N=104)
2011
(n=97)
Difference
from 2010
0%
4%
0%
-4%
0%
2%
0%
-2%
5%
2%
1%
-1%
0%
4%
3%
-1%
81%
84%
92%
+8%
0%
2009
(N=99)
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in
gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
13. Overall, how would you rate your experience with the customer service you received? If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think
only about your last contact with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.
14. Do you have any suggestions for improving customer service?
127
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Customer Services – Spanish
Respondents did not indicate a great need for customer service communications in Spanish, with only 2%
stating they prefer Spanish over English. Only 9% of respondents indicated that having the website available in
Spanish was somewhat or very important.
Customer Service in Spanish
Importance of Website in Spanish
100%
Yes, I prefer Spanish
2%
3%
2%
No language
preference
80%
97%
94%
92%
No, I prefer English
1%
3%
6%
60%
2010 (N=104)
Somewhat
unimportant
79%
Neither
important nor
unimportant
Somewhat
important
40%
20%
2009 (N=99)
Not at all
important
2011 (N=97)
0%
3%
8%
3%
6%
Very important
2011 (N=97)
Q13a. If customer service were available in Spanish would you take advantage of it?
Q13b. How important is it to you that Liberty Water’s website is available in Spanish language?
128
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Service Rep Home Visits
The vast majority of respondents had no service representative visit their home within the last year (93%). Of
those who had a representative visit, the average number of visits was 1.46 which was up slightly from 2010
(1.25 visits). Customers of Woodmark Utility were significantly more likely to have more home visits (2.50
average visits).
Number Called Business Office
Mean = 1.25 (2009); 1.25 (2010); 1.46 (2011);
among those who had a service rep visit their
home within last year
Significantly Higher
Average Number of Home Visits:
Woodmark Utility (2.50)
120%
100%
96%96%
93%
80%
60%
40%
20%
3%3%3%
0%
0%0%2%
0
1
2
2009 (N=249)
2010 (N=247)
0.4%
0.4%0.4%
0%0%0%
3
4+
2011 (N=250)
14b. How many times has an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee visited your home to resolve a problem within the last year?
129
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Service Rep Home Visits – Satisfaction
Satisfaction with service representative home visits was moderately strong on all aspects (54% to 62%). While
satisfaction was slightly down compared to 2010, this change was not significant due to the very small sample
size.
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
38%
Service rep arrived as
scheduled
62%
Service rep was courteous &
professional
63%
62%
Service rep was
knowledgeable
63%
54%
Kept informed of progress in
resolving problem
54%
50%
Easy to schedule service visit
62%
38%
Happy with how soon service
visits was scheduled
2009 (N=8*)
54%
2010 (N=8*)
75%
75%
63%
63%
63%
62%
Service rep resolved problem
in timely manner
75%
75%
75%
63%
2011 (N=13*)
*Caution: small sample size.
15. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
your in home service visit. If an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee has visited your home more than once within the last year, please think only about your
last visit.
130
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Service Rep Home Visits –
Overall Satisfaction & Improvements
About half of respondents (54%) stated they were somewhat or very satisfied, down slightly from 2010 (63%).
Overall Satisfaction With Service Visit
100%
13%
80%
25%
13%
15%
25%
15%
Not satisfactory at
all
15%
Somewhat
unsatisfactory
15%
Neutral
60%
25%
25%
40%
20%
38%
38%
39%
Somewhat
satisfactory
Very satisfactory
0%
2009
(N=8*)
2010
2011
(N=8*) (N=13*)
*Caution: small sample size.
16. Overall, how would you rate your experience with the service visit to your home using a 5-point scale with 5 being “Very Satisfactory” and 1 being “Not Satisfactory At
All”? If you had more than one visit in the last year, please think only about your last visit.
131
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Company Evaluation – Satisfaction
Respondents agreed that their water service facility provides a reliable water supply (89%, top 2 box
agree/strongly agree) followed by provides a safe water supply (82%). The percent of respondents agreeing that
Liberty Water encourages water conservation was up 10% from last year (73% vs. 63%).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree
65%
68%
66%
Is a good neighbor
70%
72%
70%
Is customer friendly
85%
89%
82%
Provides a safe water supply
89%
91%
89%
Provides a reliable water
supply
66%
63%
Encourages water
conservation
2009 (N=250)
2010 (N=250)
73%
2011 (N=251)
18. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
[INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE].
132
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Company Evaluation – Utility Rates
When comparing the perception of pricing for different utilities and services that respondents received, those
considered somewhat/much too high continued to be water (57%), waste water/sewer (55%) and television
(53%). Big Eddy and Holly Ranch customers were significantly more likely the feel water prices are too high
(71% and 65%, respectively).
Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Much too High
Gas
24%
30%
33%
47%
46%
42%
Electricity
Landline phone
39%
41%
48%
Significantly Higher
Water: Big Eddy (71%), Holly Ranch
(65%)
56%
49%
53%
TV service
47%
Water
57%
64%
57%
60%
55%
Waste water/
sewer
2009 (N=248)
2010 (N=247)
2011 (N=251)
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
19. For each of the following utility services, please indicate if you feel the rates charged are much too high, somewhat too high, just right, somewhat low, or very low.
133
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
On par with 2010, respondents were satisfied with their water/waste water provider overall, with 79% of
respondents stating they were somewhat/very satisfied.
Residents who had lived in the area for 5 years or less were significantly more likely to be somewhat or very
satisfied overall compared to those who had lived in the area longer (85%).
Overall Satisfaction
100%
80%
5%
8%
8%
60%
37%
6%
6%
10%
6%
7%
8%
Not satisfied at all
42%
35%
40%
20%
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Neutral
Somewhat satisfied
41%
36%
44%
0%
2009
2010
2011
(N=250) (N=250) (N=251)
20. Overall, how satisfied are you with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
Significantly Higher Overall
Satisfaction
(Very or Somewhat Satisfied)
Residents 5 years or less (85%)
134
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction
Those somewhat/very satisfied with the provider were so because the service is reliable/no service interruptions
(10%) and satisfactory/good/excellent (9%). However, 22% of respondents stated that they felt the cost was too
high.
Not surprisingly, cost (71%) was the main reason for dissatisfaction (not satisfied at all/somewhat dissatisfied).
Other negative comments were poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer service (18%), water cloudy/contaminated/
poor quality/hard (15%), smell/taste of water (9%) and odor from sewer/sewage processing facility (3%).
Suggestions for Improvements
2009
(N=250)
2010
(N=250)
2011
(N=251)
Difference from
2010
Why Satisfied
N=196
N=196
N=198
Cost is too high/ rate increases
8%
29%
22%
-7%
Service is satisfactory/ good/ excellent
19%
11%
9%
-2%
Good/ friendly/ courteous customer service
6%
7%
7%
0%
Reliable/ no service interruptions
8%
3%
10%
+7%
Water quality is good
6%
3%
6%
+3%
Why Not Satisfied
N=34
N=28*
N=34
Cost is too high/rate increases
56%
75%
71%
-4%
Odor from sewer/sewage processing facility
0%
4%
3%
-1%
Poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer service
12%
11%
18%
+7%
Smell/taste of water
6%
4%
9%
+5%
Water is cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard
15%
14%
15%
+1%
*Caution: small sample size.
NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.
20a. Being as specific as possible, why did you say you are [INSERT FROM Q20] with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
135
Joe Wilkins – Central US
Rate Hikes
In terms of customer involvement in potential rate hikes, over half (54%) stated they were very or somewhat
likely to attend an informational meeting. Those in Holly Ranch indicated a significantly higher likelihood to
attend (66%) compared to customers in the other service areas.
In case of rate increases, the vast majority (86%) preferred having the increases spread out over time with small
increases occurring every year.
Likelihood of Attending Informational Meeting
31%
30%
Not at all
likely
11%
6%
28%
11%
4%
Somewhat
unlikely
32%
Neither likely
nor unlikely
Somewhat
likely
24%
2009
(N/A)
22%
2010
2011
(N=250) (N=251)
Very likely
Rate Hike Preference
Rate increases that are
put in place gradually.
Small increases occur
every year.
Wait longer periods
between rate
adjustments and get a
larger increase all at once
88%
86%
12%
14%
Significantly Higher More Likely
(Very or Somewhat Likely)
Holly Ranch (66%)
21a. If rate case informational meetings were held in your community how likely would it be that you would attend?
21c. Regarding rate increases, given the opportunity would you prefer:
2009 (N/A)
2010 (N=250)
2011 (N=251)
136