Objectives & Methodology 3 Objectives A total of 1,007
surveys from Liberty Waters 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 1 st to September 20 th 2011.
Methodology Compare current customer satisfaction levels with 2010
and 2009 index scores Analyze satisfaction at the overall level as
well as by Business Manager Objectives & Methodology
Slide 4
KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 4
Slide 5
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. 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) Awareness 5 Key Findings &
Recommendations
Slide 6
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
Slide 7
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
Slide 8
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. 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 /dont 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 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% Key Findings &
Recommendations
Slide 9
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/dont 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
Slide 10
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
Slide 11
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
Slide 12
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%). 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). Company Evaluation 12 Top 2 Box
Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree NOTE: Orange circled data
indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
Key Findings & Recommendations
Slide 13
Company Evaluation More customers (47% and 59%) continued to
feel that water and waste water/sewage costs were too high.
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. 13 Top 2 Box Scores
(4,5): 5 = Much 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 Water46%40%36%45%64% 2011 Water47%51%40%39%57%
CHANGE+1%+11%+4%-6%-7% 2010 Waste water/sewer55%34%47%76%60% 2011
Waste water/sewer59%45%50%81%55% CHANGE+4%+11%+3%+5%-5% NOTE:
Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s). Key Findings & Recommendations
Slide 14
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).
Company Evaluation 14 Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied
Key Findings & Recommendations
Slide 15
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
Slide 16
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
Slide 17
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 Key
Findings & Recommendations
Slide 18
DETAILED FINDINGS: RESPONDENT PROFILES & NEW QUESTIONS
18
Slide 19
Respondent Profile 19 NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are
significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly
lower: at 95% confidence level. TotalCentral AZSouthern AZEastern
AZCentral US Contact Residence99% 100% Business1% 0% Gender Male52%
54%51%52%49% Female48% 46%49%48%51% Age 18 to 24 years 2%1%6%0%2%
25 to 34 years 13%16%21%2%13% 35 to 44 years 15%27%21%3%8% 45 to 54
years 13% 15%14%10% 55 to 64 years 22%16%22%30%18% 64 years or
older 36%27%17%50% Household Income Under $25,000 8%2%18%3%9%
$25,000 - $49,999 20%13%28%18%21% $50,000 - $74,999 18%20%21%14%17%
$75,000 - $99,999 15%19%15%16%9% $100,000 - $149,999 9%13%4%8%10%
$150,000 or more 5%4%2%7%5% Prefer not to say 26%29%12%34%29%
Ethnicity White/Caucasian 75%69%55%87%89% Black/African-American
3%5%3%2%1% Asian or Pacific Islander 2%6%3%0% Native
American/Alaska Native 0% Hispanic/ Latino (White/Caucasian)
11%10%28%2%4% Hispanic/ Latino (Black/African-American) 1% 0%
Hispanic/ Latino (all other or multiple race) 1% 4%0% Other 3% 4%2%
Prefer not to say 5% 2%8%4% Respondent Profile
Slide 20
20 NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher;
data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95%
confidence level. TotalCentral AZSouthern AZEastern AZCentral US
Children in Household (Average per age) Under 3 years of age
1.171.191.101.331.21 3 to 5 years of age 1.241.221.361.001.15 5 to
9 years of age 1.371.221.521.501.43 10 to 12 years of age
1.201.221.251.111.08 13 to 17 years of age 1.391.641.241.141.33
Education Less than high school 2%1%4%0%2% High school/GED 16%
21%13%14% Professional school/training 5%2%7%4%5% Some college
27%25%32%23%28% Associate's Degree 8%10%7% Bachelor's Degree
24%23%18%27%26% Some Graduate School 4%8%2%4% Graduate School
Degree 15%17%9%22%14% Years in Current Residence Less than one year
12%16%14%9%10% 1 to 5 years 37%45%40%32%31% 6 to 10 years
26%30%19%33%23% 11 to 20 years 19%7%17%25%26% More than 20 years
6%1%11%2%10% Dont know 0%1%0% Respondent Profile
Slide 21
Importance of Website in Spanish 21 Q13b. How important is it
to you that Liberty Waters website is available in Spanish
language? 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 NOTE: Orange circled
data indicates significant regional difference. Detailed Findings
New
Slide 22
Environmental Friendliness 22 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? Importance of
Environmental FriendlinessOpenness to Rate Increase to Ensure
Environmental Friendliness NOTE: Orange circled data indicates
significant regional difference. 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. Detailed Findings
New
Slide 23
DETAILED FINDINGS: OVERALL FINDINGS 23
Slide 24
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%
Reasonable cost 4%1% 0% Negative Comments (NET) 36%29%35%+6%
Cost/expensive 24%20%25%+5% Poor water quality 8%6% 0% Low water
pressure 4%2% 0% Awareness & Perception 24 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?
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 NOTE: Data in orange
shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells
are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. Significantly
Higher Correct Local Facility Name/Abbreviation: Eastern AZ (26%)
Liberty Water/Algonquin: Central AZ (83%); Southern AZ (77%);
Central US (73%) Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 25
Water Services Satisfaction 25 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.
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 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%) NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant
change/ difference compared to other year(s). Detailed Findings
Overall
Slide 26
Water Services Interruptions 26 Water Interruption Within Last
YearWater Interruption Resolved Quickly 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. 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%). Significantly Higher Water Interruption
Central US (26%) / Southern AZ (24%) vs. Central AZ (4%) Why Not
Resolved Quickly (N = 18) Resolution took too long (4 mentions) No
explanation for interruption (1 mentions) No notification of
service interruption (1 mentions) Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 27
Water Services Interruptions Notification 27 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.
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 InterruptionsImprovements of
Notifications of Scheduled Service Interruptions NOTE: Orange
circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to
other year(s). Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 28
Water Services Improvements 28 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. Suggestions 2009
Total 2010 Total 2011 Results Total Central AZ Southern AZ Eastern
AZ* Central US Water filtration (improve taste/smell/color) 14%
16%18%16%-12% Lower rates/ don't increase rates 11%14%17%18%13%-21%
Improve water pressure 7%4% 2%5%- No suggestions/fine as is
61%63%58%59%60%-55% 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/dont increase rates was mentioned by 17% of customers with a
significantly higher response in the Central US service area (21%).
7. Do you have any suggestions on how [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP
CODE] could improve their water services? Detailed Findings
Overall
Slide 29
Customer Billing Satisfaction 29 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. Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree 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
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% 74%78% Payment options easy to understand/ use
86%85%74%81% NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant
change/ 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. Detailed Findings
Overall
Slide 30
Customer Billing Information/Services 30 9. How often do you
read the informational inserts included in your bill? 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 NOTE: Orange circled data indicates
significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
Significantly More Likely to Always Read Inserts Central US (33%) /
Southern AZ (31%) vs. Central AZ (23%) / Eastern AZ (18%) Detailed
Findings Overall
Slide 31
Customer Billings Improvements 31 11. Do you have any
suggestions for improving the billing? 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/dont 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. *Mentions 2%+ shown NOTE: Data in orange shaded
cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are
significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. Suggestions for
Improvements 2009 Total 2010 Total 2011 Total Difference from 2010
Lower rates/Don't increase rates7%6%10%+4% Improve or implement
electronic/online/paperless billing 10%4%3%-1% Make bill easier to
understand1%2% 0% No suggestions/fine as is74%82%80%-2% Detailed
Findings Overall
Slide 32
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%). 32 Accessed Website Significantly Higher:
Accessed Website Yes: Central AZ (40%) Online Services Used 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? NOTE:
Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s). Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 33
Satisfaction with Website Online Services 33 Satisfaction with
Online Services Used Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied
Suggestions for improvements (N = 286) 9% Improve user
interface/easier to navigate 87% No suggestions/fine as is 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? 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.
NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s). Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 34
Customer Service Calls & Visits 34 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?
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 Mean = 2.25 (2009);
2.13 (2010); 2.42 (2011); among those who have called within last
year Times Visited Business Office Mean = 2.06 (2009); 2.15 (2010);
2.17 (2011); among those who have visited within last year NOTE:
Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s). Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 35
Customer Service Satisfaction 35 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. 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 NOTE: Orange circled data
indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 36
Customer Service Hours & Wait Time 36 12b. What would you
consider more convenient office hours? 12c. How long are you
willing to wait to speak to a live person? 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. NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are
significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly
lower: at 95% confidence level. 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% Saturday hours: half/full day 11%7%8%+1%
Weekday hours: early open/before 8AM 9%4% 0% Office hours are
fine20%25%23% -2% Acceptable Wait Time for Live Person Mean = 3.86
(2009); 3.69 min. (2010); 3.99 min. (2011) NOTE: Orange circled
data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other
year(s). Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 37
Customer Services Overall Experience 37 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? 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 Suggestions for Improvements 2009 Total 2010 Total 2011
Total Difference from 2010 Improve communication w/customers
(service follow-up, shutoffs, etc) 2%3%1%-2% Be more polite/
friendly/ understanding 5%3% 0% Speak English better/ English as a
default language 1%2%1%-1% Be more professional/ knowledgeable 5%2%
0% No suggestions/fine as is 77%84%87%+3% NOTE: Data in orange
shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells
are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. NOTE: Orange
circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to
other year(s). Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 38
Customer Services Spanish 38 13a. If customer service were
available in Spanish would you take advantage of it? Q13b. How
important is it to you that Liberty Waters website is available in
Spanish language? 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 SpanishImportance of Website in Spanish NOTE: Orange
circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to
other year(s). Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 39
Service Rep Home Visits 39 14b. How many times has an [INSERT
FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee visited your home to resolve a
problem within the last year? 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 NOTE: Orange circled data indicates
significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). Detailed
Findings Overall
Slide 40
Service Rep Home Visits Satisfaction 40 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.
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 NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant
change/ difference compared to other year(s). Detailed Findings
Overall
Slide 41
Service Rep Home Visits Overall Satisfaction & Improvements
41 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. 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 Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 42
Company Evaluation Satisfaction 42 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]. 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 NOTE: Orange
circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to
other year(s). Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 43
Company Evaluation Utility Rates 43 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. 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 NOTE: Orange circled data indicates
significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). Detailed
Findings Overall
Slide 44
Company Evaluation Overall Satisfaction 44 20. Overall, how
satisfied are you with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
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 Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 45
Company Evaluation Overall Satisfaction 45 20a. Being as
specific as possible, why did you say you are [INSERT FROM Q20]
with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]? 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). NOTE: Data in orange shaded
cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are
significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. Suggestions for
Improvements 2009 Total 2010 Total 2011 Total Difference from 2010
Why SatisfiedN=743N=777N=775 Reliable/No service interruptions
14%6%8%+2% Service is satisfactory/good/excellent 14%10%8%-2% Never
had a problem/complaint 26%37% 0% Cost is too high/rate increases
11%21%20%-1% Cost is reasonable 10%4%5%+1% Good/friendly/courteous
customer service 8% 6%-2% Water quality is good 6%4% 0% Prompt,
considerate repair service 4%2%3%+1% Water is
cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard 4%3% 0% Why Not
SatisfiedN=176N=124N=152 Cost is too high/rate increases
63%72%77%+5% Raising the rates 14%0% Odor from sewer/sewage
processing facility 14%10%8%-2% Poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer
service 11%6%9%+3% They are dishonest/crooked/price gougers
11%4%6%+2% Charged for service even when absent 7%0%3%+3% Water is
cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard 4%5%7%+2% Smell/taste of
water 4%6%5%-1% Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 46
Rate Hikes 46 Likelihood of Attending Informational Meeting
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:
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. Rate Hike
Preference Detailed Findings Overall
Slide 47
CENTRAL ARIZONA (LPSCO) Business Manager: Matthew Garlick
47
Slide 48
Awareness & Perception 48 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? Name of
Water/Waste Water Provider 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 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 general82%79%69%-10% Water
quality8%5%1%-4% Customer service2% 4%+2% Cost is reasonable6%1% 0%
Negative Comments (NET) 16% 32%+16% Cost is too high5%8%18%+10%
Water quality10%7%9%+2% Customer service2%1%4%+2% 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%). Matthew
Garlick Central AZ
Slide 49
Water Services Satisfaction 49 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.
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 NOTE: Orange circled data
indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 50
Water Services Interruptions 50 Water Interruption Within Last
YearWater Interruption Resolved Quickly *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. 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. Why Not Resolved
Quickly (N = 0) N/A Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 51
Water Services Interruptions Notification 51 *Caution: small
sample size. 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. 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
InterruptionsImprovements of Notifications of Scheduled Service
Interruptions Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 52
Water Services Improvements 52 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 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/dont increase rates, also mentioned by 18% of customers, was
significantly higher as compared to previous years. 7. Do you have
any suggestions on how [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] could
improve their water services? Suggestions for Improvements 2009
(n=250) 2010 (n=250) 2011 (n=251) Difference from 2010 Water
filtration (improve taste/ smell/ color)/ soften water 16% 18%+3%
Lower rates/ don't increase rates6%11%18%+7% Improve water
pressure4%2% 0% Electronic/ online billing1%2%1%-2% Improve cold
water temperature fluctuations 3%2% 0% More customer
outreach/better communications 1%0%2%+2% No suggestions/fine as
is66% 59%-8% Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 53
Customer Billing Satisfaction 53 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. Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree 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). NOTE: Orange circled data
indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 54
Customer Billing Information/Services 54 9. How often do you
read the informational inserts included in your bill? 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 18 to 44 year old (24%), Residents 5
years or less (25%) Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 55
Customer Billings Improvements 55 11. Do you have any
suggestions for improving the billing? 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/dont increase rates and improve or implement
electronic/online/paperless billing were mentioned most by 5% of
customers each. NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly
higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95%
confidence level. Suggestions for Improvements 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 rates2% 5%+3% Automatic payments via bank draft2%1% 0%
Make bill easier to understand0%2% 0% No suggestions/fine as
is76%83%85%+2% Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 56
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%). 56 Accessed Updated Website
Significantly Higher: Accessed Website Yes: 18 to 44 years (57%)
Online Services Used 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? NOTE: Orange circled data indicates
significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). Matthew
Garlick Central AZ
Slide 57
Satisfaction with Website Online Services 57 Satisfaction with
Online Services Used Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied
Suggestions for improvements (N = 101) 10% Improve user
interface/easier to navigate 86% No suggestions/fine as is 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? 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. Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 58
Customer Service Calls & Visits 58 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?
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 Times Visited Business Office Mean = 1.79 (2009);
1.93 (2010); 1.83 (2011); among those who have visited within last
year Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 59
Customer Service Satisfaction 59 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. 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 NOTE:
Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s). Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 60
Customer Service Hours & Wait Time 60 12b. What would you
consider more convenient office hours? 12c. How long are you
willing to wait to speak to a live person? 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. NOTE: Data in
orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded
cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. More
Convenient Time 2009 (N=60) 2010 (N=42) 2011 (N=49) Difference from
2010 Weekday hours: late open/past 5PM 45%21%35%+14% Saturday
hours: half/full day 10%7%12%+5% Weekday hours: early open/before
8AM 13%0%4%+4% Office hours are fine13%24%29% +5% Acceptable Wait
Time for Live Person Mean = 4.00 min (2009); 3.79 min. (2010); 4.01
min. (2011) Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 61
Customer Services Overall Experience 61 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? 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 Suggestions for Improvements 2009 (n=97) 2010 (N=99)
2011 (n=101) Difference from 2010 Be more polite/ friendly/
understanding 5%3%5%+2 Speak English better/English as a default
language 3% 0%-3 Be more professional/ knowledgeable 1%3%1%-2
Improve communication w/customers (service follow-up, shut offs,
etc) 3%2%0%-2 Increase online services4%1% 0 No suggestions/fine as
is 77%86%83%-3 NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly
higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95%
confidence level. Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 62
Customer Services Spanish 62 13a. If customer service were
available in Spanish would you take advantage of it? Q13b. How
important is it to you that Liberty Waters website is available in
Spanish language? 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 SpanishImportance of
Website in Spanish Significantly Higher Yes, I prefer Spanish:
Hispanics (35%) Website in Spanish Very/Somewhat Important:
Hispanics (35%) Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 63
Service Rep Home Visits 63 14b. How many times has an [INSERT
FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee visited your home to resolve a
problem within the last year? 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 Matthew
Garlick Central AZ
Slide 64
Service Rep Home Visits Satisfaction 64 *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. 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 Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 65
Service Rep Home Visits Overall Satisfaction & Improvements
65 *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. 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
Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 66
Company Evaluation Satisfaction 66 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]. 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 NOTE: Orange
circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to
other year(s). Significantly Higher Is customer friendly: Residents
5 years or less (84%) Encourages water conservation: Residents 5
years or less (77%) Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 67
Company Evaluation Utility Rates 67 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. 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 NOTE: Orange
circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to
other year(s). Significantly Higher Water: Non-Hispanics (54%),
Residents 6 years or more (61%) Waste Water/Sewer : Non-Hispanics
(50%), Residents 6 years or more (54%) Matthew Garlick Central
AZ
Slide 68
Company Evaluation Overall Satisfaction 68 20. Overall, how
satisfied are you with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
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 Matthew Garlick
Central AZ
Slide 69
Company Evaluation Overall Satisfaction 69 20a. Being as
specific as possible, why did you say you are [INSERT FROM Q20]
with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]? 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. NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly
higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95%
confidence level. Suggestions for Improvements 2009 (N=250) 2010
(N=251) 2011 (N=253) Difference from 2010 Why
SatisfiedN=225N=219N=209 Never had a problem / complaint33%39% 0
Cost is too high/rate increases6%14%18%+4 Service is satisfactory/
good/ excellent14%7%8%+1 Good/ friendly/ courteous customer
service5%10%4%-6 Reliable/ no service interruptions20%6% 0 Cost is
reasonable8%2%6%+3 Why Not SatisfiedN=9N=8N=23 Cost is too
high/rate increases0%38%83%+45 Odor from sewer/sewage processing
facility11%0%4%+4 Poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer
service44%13%0%-13 Smell/taste of water11%0%13%+13 Water is
cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard0%13%17%+5 Matthew Garlick
Central AZ
Slide 70
Rate Hikes 70 Likelihood of Attending Informational Meeting
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:
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. Rate Hike Preference
Matthew Garlick Central AZ
Slide 71
SOUTHERN ARIZONA (BELLA VISTA, RIO RICO, NORTHERN SUNRISE,
SOUTHERN SUNRISE) Business Manager: Martin Garlant 71
Slide 72
Awareness & Perception 72 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?
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 dont
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 NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly
higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95%
confidence level. Suggestions for Improvements 2009 (n=250) 2010
(N=252) 2011 (N=250) Difference from 2010 Positive Comments (NET)
77%78% 0% Positive general73%75%73%-2% Water quality9%4%2%-2% Cost
is reasonable6%0%2%+2% Customer service4%3%8%+5% Negative Comments
(NET) 26%24%29%+5% Cost is too high10% 17%+7% Water quality9%8% 0%
Negative general2%4%3%-1% Customer service4% 0% Martin Garlant
Southern AZ
Slide 73
Water Services Satisfaction 73 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.
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 Martin Garlant
Southern AZ
Slide 74
Water Services Interruptions 74 Water Interruption Within Last
YearWater Interruption Resolved Quickly 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. 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. Why Not Resolved
Quickly (N = 14) Resolution took too long (4mentions) No
explanation for interruption (1 mention) Dont know (1 mention)
Other (8 mentions) NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant
change/ difference compared to other year(s). Martin Garlant
Southern AZ
Slide 75
Water Services Interruptions Notification 75 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. 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 InterruptionsImprovements of
Notifications of Scheduled Service Interruptions NOTE: Orange
circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to
other year(s). Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 76
Water Services Improvements 76 NOTE: Data in orange shaded
cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are
significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. 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/dont increase rates (13%) and improve
water pressure (5%). 7. Do you have any suggestions on how [INSERT
FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] could improve their water services?
Suggestions for Improvements 2009 (n=250) 2010 (n=251) 2011 (n=248)
Difference from 2010 Lower rates/Don't increase rates9%11%13%+2%
Improve water pressure6% 5%-1% Maintain better/repair
facilities/lines2%0%2%+2% New/more water tower(s)/pumping
station(s) 1%3%0%-3% No suggestions/fine as is58%61%60%-1% Martin
Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 77
Customer Billing Satisfaction 77 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. Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree 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). NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant
change/ difference compared to other year(s). Martin Garlant
Southern AZ
Slide 78
Customer Billing Information/Services 78 9. How often do you
read the informational inserts included in your bill? 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 Significantly Higher
Always: Residents 6 years or more (38%) Martin Garlant Southern
AZ
Slide 79
Customer Billings Improvements 79 11. Do you have any
suggestions for improving the billing? 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/dont 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. NOTE: Data in orange
shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells
are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. Suggestions for
Improvements 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 rates3% 6%+3% Make bill
easier to understand1%3% 0% No suggestions/fine as is74%85%84%-1%
Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 80
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%). 80 Accessed Updated
WebsiteOnline Services Used 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? NOTE: Orange circled data
indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).
Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 81
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 Website Online Services 81 Satisfaction
with Online Services Used Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very
Satisfied Suggestions for improvements (N = 75) 13% Improve user
interface/easier to navigate 85% No suggestions/fine as is 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? Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 82
Customer Service Calls & Visits 82 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?
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 Mean = 2.46 (2009); 2.44 (2010); 2.57
(2011); among those who have visited within last year NOTE: Orange
circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to
other year(s). Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 83
Customer Service Satisfaction 83 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. 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 NOTE: Orange
circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to
other year(s). Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 84
Customer Service Hours & Wait Time 84 12b. What would you
consider more convenient office hours? 12c. How long are you
willing to wait to speak to a live person? 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. NOTE: Data in
orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded
cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. 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% Saturday
hours: half/full day 15%10%9%-1% Weekday hours: early open/before
8AM 8%6%4%-2% Office hours are fine23%21% 0% Acceptable Wait Time
for Live Person Mean = 3.99 min (2009); 3.95 min. (2010); 4.27 min.
(2011) Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 85
Customer Services Overall Experience 85 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? 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 Suggestions for Improvements 2009 (n=140) 2010
(N=162) 2011 (n=177) Difference from 2010 Be more professional/
knowledgeable 6%3%2%-1% Be more polite/ friendly/understanding 6%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. Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 86
Customer Services Spanish 86 13a. If customer service were
available in Spanish would you take advantage of it? Q13b. How
important is it to you that Liberty Waters website is available in
Spanish language? 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 SpanishImportance of Website in
Spanish NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s). Significantly Higher Prefer
Spanish: Rio Rico (33%) Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 87
Service Rep Home Visits 87 14b. How many times has an [INSERT
FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee visited your home to resolve a
problem within the last year? 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 NOTE:
Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference
compared to other year(s). Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 88
Service Rep Home Visits Satisfaction 88 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.
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 Martin Garlant Southern
AZ
Slide 89
Service Rep Home Visits Overall Satisfaction & Improvements
89 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. 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 Martin
Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 90
Company Evaluation Satisfaction 90 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]. 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 NOTE: Orange
circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to
other year(s). Significantly Higher Provides a safe water supply:
At residence less than 5 years (91%) Encourages water conservation:
Belle Vista (81%) Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 91
Company Evaluation Utility Rates 91 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. 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 NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/
difference compared to other year(s). Martin Garlant Southern
AZ
Slide 92
Company Evaluation Overall Satisfaction 92 20. Overall, how
satisfied are you with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?
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 Significantly Higher Very satisfied: Belle Vista
(69%); Ages 18-44 (66%); Residents less than 5 years (64%) Martin
Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 93
Company Evaluation Overall Satisfaction 93 20a. Being as
specific as possible, why did you say you are [INSERT FROM Q20]
with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]? 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). 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. Suggestions for Improvements 2009
(n=250) 2010 (n=252) 2011 (n=250) Difference from 2010 Why
SatisfiedN=217N=221N=222 Reliable/No service
interruptions17%10%9%-1% Never had a problem/complaint18%34%32%-2%
Cost is reasonable14%5%6%+1% Good/friendly/courteous customer
service14%9% 0% Service is satisfactory/good/excellent11%13%8%-5%
Water quality is good11%4% 0% Cost is too high/rate increases10%14%
0% Why Not SatisfiedN=13*N=15*N=17* Cost is too high/rate increases
23%40%59%+19% Poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer service
15%13%24%+11% Water is cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard
15%7%12%+5% Low/Fluctuating water pressure 8%7%6%-1% Smell/taste of
water 8%7%0%-7% Martin Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 94
Rate Hikes 94 Likelihood of Attending Informational Meeting
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:
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. Rate Hike Preference Martin
Garlant Southern AZ
Slide 95
EASTERN ARIZONA (BLACK MOUNTAIN, GOLD CANYON, ENTRADA DEL ORO)
Business Manager: Charlie Hernandez 95
Slide 96
Awareness & Perception 96 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? Name of
Water/Waste Water Provider NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are
significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly
lower: at 95% confidence level. Significantly Higher Liberty
Water/Algonquin: Residents less than 5 years (64%) Suggestions for
Improvements 200