liberty water customer satisfaction – final report

Liberty Water Customer Satisfaction – Final ReportSeptember, 2011

Contents

Objectives & Methodology1.2. Key Findings & Recommendations

3.4. Detailed Findings –

By Business Manager

Detailed Findings – Overall

2

Con

tent

s

3

Objectives & Methodology Objectives

• 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.

Methodology

• Compare current customer satisfaction levels with 2010 and 2009 index scores• Analyze satisfaction at the overall level as well as by Business Manager

Obj

ectiv

es &

Met

hodo

logy

4

KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

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)

Total Central AZ Southern AZ

Eastern AZ Central US0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18% 12% 17%26%

16%

72%83% 77%

55%

73%

Correct local facility name/ abbreviationLiberty Water

AwarenessK

ey F

indi

ngs

& R

ecom

men

datio

ns

6

PerceptionA 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%).

Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

7

Water ServicesSatisfaction 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.

Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

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 /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.

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%

Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

9

Customer BillingRespondents 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.Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

10

Customer ServiceA 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%).

Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

11

Home Visits by Service RepresentativeOnly 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.

Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

12

Is a good neighbor

Is customer friendly

Provides a safe water supply

Provides a reliable water supply

Encourages water conservation

65%

67%

83%

91%

67%

68%

73%

86%

93%

71%

65%

69%

83%

91%

73%

2011 (N=1007) 2010 (N=1003) 2009 (N=1000)

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

Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree

NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).

Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

13

Company EvaluationMore 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.

Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Much too High

Water

Waste water/ sewer

39%

54%

46%

55%

47%

59%

2011 (N=1003) 2010 (N=1003) 2009 (N=1000)

Rates of Utilities (Top 2 box score: 4/5 = somewhat/much too high) Total Central

AZSouthern

AZEastern

AZCentral

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%


Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

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

Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied

Total Central AZ Southern AZ Eastern AZ Central US

74%

90% 87%

42%

78%78%87% 88%

56%

78%78% 83% 89%

58%

79%

2009 2010 2011

Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

15

Satisfaction & Rate HikesIn 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.

Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

16

RecommendationsWater 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.

Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

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.

Key

Fin

ding

s &

Rec

omm

enda

tions

18

DETAILED FINDINGS:RESPONDENT PROFILES & NEW QUESTIONS

19

Respondent Profile

NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.

Total Central AZ Southern AZ Eastern AZ Central USContact Residence 99% 99% 99% 100% 100%Business 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%Gender Male 52% 54% 51% 52% 49%Female 48% 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% 13% 15% 14% 10%55 to 64 years 22% 16% 22% 30% 18%64 years or older 36% 27% 17% 50% 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% 0%Native American/Alaska Native 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Hispanic/ Latino (White/Caucasian) 11% 10% 28% 2% 4%Hispanic/ Latino (Black/African-American) 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%Hispanic/ Latino (all other or multiple race) 1% 1% 4% 0% 0%Other 3% 3% 4% 2% 2%Prefer not to say 5% 5% 2% 8% 4%

Res

pond

ent P

rofil

e

20

Respondent Profile


Total Central AZ Southern AZ Eastern AZ Central USChildren in Household (Average per age) Under 3 years of age 1.17 1.19 1.10 1.33 1.213 to 5 years of age 1.24 1.22 1.36 1.00 1.155 to 9 years of age 1.37 1.22 1.52 1.50 1.4310 to 12 years of age 1.20 1.22 1.25 1.11 1.0813 to 17 years of age 1.39 1.64 1.24 1.14 1.33Education Less than high school 2% 1% 4% 0% 2%High school/GED 16% 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% 7% 7%Bachelor's Degree 24% 23% 18% 27% 26%Some Graduate School 4% 8% 2% 4% 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%Don’t know 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Res

pond

ent P

rofil

e

21

Importance of Website in Spanish

Q13b. How important is it to you that Liberty Water’s 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).


TOTAL 2011 (n=426)

Central AZ (n=101)

Southern AZ (n=177)

Eastern AZ (n=51)

Central US (n=97)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

11% 6%19%

2% 6%

8%9%

11%

2%3%

10% 13%

11%

8%8%

4% 3%

4%

4%3%

68% 69%55%

84% 79%

Not at all important

Somewhat unimpor-tant

Neither important nor unimportant

Somewhat impor-tant

Very important

NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant regional difference.

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

New

22

Environmental Friendliness

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 Friendliness Openness to Rate Increase to Ensure Environmental Friendliness

TOTAL 2011

(n=918)

Central AZ

(n=238)

Southern AZ

(n=228)

Eastern AZ

(n=230)

Central US

(n=222)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

16% 17%25%

10% 11%

31%35%

36%

21%32%

14%17%

15%

14%

13%

12%9%

9%

17%

12%

27% 22%15%

38% 32%Very much against

Somewhat against

Neither open nor against

Somewhat open

Very openTOTAL 2011

(n=1007)

Central AZ

(n=253)

South-ern AZ

(n=250)

Eastern AZ

(n=253)

Central US

(n=251)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

66% 69% 72%64% 58%

26%25% 20%

27%31%

4% 2% 3% 5% 5%2% 2% 1% 1% 3%4% 2% 5% 4% 4%

Not at all important

Somewhat unimportant

Neither im-portant nor unimportant

Somewhat important

Very impor-tant

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.

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

New

23

DETAILED FINDINGS:OVERALL FINDINGS

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% 1% 0%

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%

Awareness & Perception

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.

Correct Local Facility Name/Abbreviation

Liberty Water/ Algonquin

Municipal Service

Arizona Water Company

Other Company

Don't Know

83%

3%

3%

0%

6%

5%

34%

35%

3%

0%

2%

26%

18%

72%

1%

2%

4%

4%

2011 (N=1007)

2010 (N=1003)

2009 (N=1000)

Name of Water/Waste Water Provider


Significantly Higher

Correct Local Facility Name/Abbreviation: Eastern AZ (26%)

Liberty Water/Algonquin: Central AZ (83%); Southern AZ (77%); Central US (73%)

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

25

Water Services – Satisfaction

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%)

Taste Color Smell Availabil-ity when needed

Water pressure

Price charged

59%

83%78%

92%

80%

58%60%

84%

76%

93%

80%

51%53%

81% 77%

92%

81%

46%

2009 (n=678) 2010 (N=662) 2011 (N=658)NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

26

Water Services – Interruptions

Water Interruption Within Last Year Water 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%).

Yes No0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% 90%

10%

83%

17%

83%

17%

2009 (N=139) 2010 (N=112) 2011 (N=108)

Yes No0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

21%

80%

17%

83%

16%

84%

2009 (n=678) 2010 (N=663) 2011 (N=658)

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)

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

27

Water Services – Interruptions Notification

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 Interruptions Improvements of Notifications of Scheduled Service Interruptions

Yes No Not applicable0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

39%46%

15%

34%

53%

13%22%

69%

9%

2009 (N=139) 2010 (N=112) 2011 (N=108)

Send notice at least one week in advance

Send reminder notice day before interruption

Reminder call day of interruption

Include notice in monthly bill

Send notices by regular mail

Send notices by email

Do Not have interruptions

Schedule interruptions during night only

Something else

61%

58%

55%

55%

52%

48%

3%

1%

14%

36%

47%

46%

34%

36%

31%

4%

0%

7%

50%

39%

40%

38%

31%

40%

0%

0%

16%

2011 (N=108)2010 (N=112)2009 (N=139)NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/

difference compared to other year(s).

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

28

Water Services – Improvements

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% 14% 16% 18% 16% - 12%

Lower rates/ don't increase rates 11% 14% 17% 18% 13% - 21%

Improve water pressure 7% 4% 4% 2% 5% - 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/don’t 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?

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

29

Customer Billing – Satisfaction

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.


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).

Bill easy to read

Bill easy to understand

Adequate payment options

provided

Payment options easy

to under-stand/use

88% 86%

70%76%

91% 90%

78%83%

88% 87%80% 82%

2009 (N=1000) 2010 (N=1003) 2011 (N=1007)

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% 84% 74% 78%

Payment options easy to understand/ use 86% 85% 74% 81%


NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.D

etai

led

Find

ings

– O

vera

ll

30

Customer Billing – Information/Services

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

2009 (N=1003)

2010 (N=1003)

2011 (N=1007)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

30% 28% 26%

32% 33% 31%

4% 4% 4%

15% 16% 17%

19% 19% 22%

Never

Rarely

Not sure

Sometimes

Always


Significantly More Likely to Always Read Inserts

Central US (33%) / Southern AZ (31%) vs. Central AZ (23%) / Eastern AZ (18%)

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

31

Customer Billings – Improvements

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/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.

*Mentions 2%+ shownNOTE: 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

2011Total


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%

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

32

Website – Online ServicesAlmost 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

Significantly Higher: Accessed Website

Yes: Central AZ (40%)

Access to account in-formation

online

Access to forms on-line to es-

tablish new service

Paperless bill

state-ment

Pay online by credit

card

Water conserva-tion calcu-

lator

77%

20%

39%

60%

79%

32%

43%

62%

11%

2009 (N/A) 2010 (N=148) 2011 (N=286)

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?


2009 (N/A)

2010 (N=1003)

2011 (N=1007)

15%28%

84%70%

1% 1%

Not sure No

Yes

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

33

Satisfaction with Website – Online Services

Satisfaction with Online Services UsedTop 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?

Usefulness of information

Ease to find content searched for

Ease to access account in-formation

Ease to pay your bill online

Ease to receive customer support

Overall user-friendliness of the website

80%

77%

90%

83%

64%

84%

76%

72%

83%

77%

61%

76%

2011 (N=286) 2010 (N=148) 2009 (N/A)

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.


Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

34

Customer Service – Calls & Visits

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

0 1 2 3 4+0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

77%

8%

5%2%

8%

75%

9%5%

2%

8%

74%

8%4%

2%

11%

2009 (N=1000) 2010 (N=1003) 2011 (N=1007)

0 1 2 3 4+ 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

69%

12%9%

2%8%

71%

13%7%

4% 6%

66%

11% 8%4%

9%

2009 (N=1000) 2010 (N=1003) 2011 (N=1007)NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

35

Customer Service – Satisfaction

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.


Convenient office hours

Reasonable time waiting

Courteous/ professional staff

Knowledgeable staff

Staff easy to understand

Staff handle request quickly

Request solved to my satis-faction

72%

77%

80%

76%

83%

75%

75%

79%

86%

88%

85%

88%

83%

82%

82%

86%

88%

85%

88%

80%

82%


Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

36

Customer Service – Hours & Wait Time

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.


More Convenient Time

2009(N=237)

2010 (N=210)

2011 (N=182)


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% 4% 0%

Office hours are fine 20% 25% 23% -2%

Acceptable Wait Time for Live Person

Mean = 3.86 (2009); 3.69 min. (2010); 3.99 min. (2011)

l minute or less

2-3 minutes

4-5 minutes

6-10 minutes

More than 10 minutes

18%

31%

35%

9%

7%

20%

32%

32%

10%

7%

14%

30%

38%

10%

9%

2011 (N=426)2010 (N=416)2009 (N=399)


Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

37

Customer Services – Overall Experience

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

2009 (N=399)

2010 (N=416)

2011 (N=426)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

37%47% 48%

31%

31% 30%

18%13% 14%

8% 5% 4%6% 5% 5%

PoorFairSatisfactoryGoodExcellent

Suggestions for Improvements 2009 Total 2010

Total2011Total


Improve communication w/customers (service follow-up, shutoffs, etc)

2% 3% 1% -2%

Be more polite/ friendly/ understanding

5% 3% 3% 0%

Speak English better/ English as a default language

1% 2% 1% -1%

Be more professional/ knowledgeable 5% 2% 2% 0%

No suggestions/fine as is 77% 84% 87% +3%



Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

38

Customer Services – Spanish

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?

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

Yes, I prefer Spanish

No, I prefer English

No language preference

8%

88%

4%

9%

85%

6%

11%

81%

8%

2011 (N=426) 2010 (N=416) 2009 (N=399)


2011 (N=426)0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

11%

8%

10%4%

68%

Not at all impor-tant


Neither impor-tant nor unim-portant

Somewhat important

Very important


Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

39

Service Rep Home Visits

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

0 1 2 3 4+0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% 93%

5%1% 0% 0%

93%

5%1% 0% 0%

90%

6%1% 1% 0%


Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

40

Service Rep Home Visits – Satisfaction

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.


Service rep arrived as scheduled

Service rep was courteous & professional

Service rep was knowledgeable

Kept informed of progress in resolving problem

Service rep resolved problem in timely manner

Easy to schedule service visit

Happy with how soon service visits was scheduled

79%

79%

80%

66%

80%

79%

80%

87%

87%

87%

73%

81%

84%

86%

74%

78%

75%

64%

73%

73%

70%


Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

41

Service Rep Home Visits – Overall Satisfaction & Improvements

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

2009 (N=65)

2010 (N=62)

2011 (N=77)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

59% 58%48%

22% 26%

22%

11%11%

17%

2%2%

3%8% 3%

10%

Not satisfactory at all

Somewhat unsatis-factory

Neutral

Somewhat satisfac-tory

Very satisfactory

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

42

Company Evaluation – Satisfaction

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%).


Is a good neighbor





65%

67%

83%

91%

67%

68%

73%

86%

93%

71%

65%

69%

83%

91%

73%

2011 (N=1007) 2010 (N=1003) 2009 (N=1000)


Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

43

Company Evaluation – Utility Rates

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.


Gas

Electricity

Landline phone

TV service

Water

Waste water/ sewer

41%

64%

48%

65%

39%

54%

39%

61%

48%

64%

46%

55%

33%

60%

47%

63%

47%

59%

2011 (N=1003) 2010 (N=998) 2009 (N=993)


Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

44

Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction

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

2009 (N=1000

)

2010 (N=1003

)

2011 (N=1007

)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

43% 43% 42%

32% 35% 36%

9%10% 8%

9%7% 8%

8% 5% 7%

Not satisfied at all

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

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).


Suggestions for Improvements 2009 Total

2010 Total

2011Total


Why Satisfied N=743 N=777 N=775Reliable/No service interruptions 14% 6% 8% +2%Service is satisfactory/good/excellent 14% 10% 8% -2%Never had a problem/complaint 26% 37% 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% 8% 6% -2%Water quality is good 6% 4% 4% 0%Prompt, considerate repair service 4% 2% 3% +1%Water is cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard 4% 3% 3% 0%

Why Not Satisfied N=176 N=124 N=152Cost is too high/rate increases 63% 72% 77% +5%Raising the rates 14% 0% 0% 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%

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

46

Rate Hikes

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.

2009 (N/A)

2010 (n=1003

)

2011 (n=1007

)

23% 22%

30% 30%

5% 6%

12% 12%

29% 30%Not at all likely

Somewhat un-likely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Somewhat likely

Very likely

Rate Hike Preference

Rate increases that are put in place gradually. Small

increases occur every year

Wait longer periods be-tween rate adjustments and get a larger increase all at

once

89%

11%

87%

13%

2011 (n=1007) 2010 (n=1003) 2009 (N/A)

Det

aile

d Fi

ndin

gs –

Ove

rall

47

CENTRAL ARIZONA (LPSCO)

Business Manager: Matthew Garlick

48



Local Facility Name/Abbreviation


Municipal Service

Other Company

Don't Know

89%

1%

2%

4%

5%

46%

32%

1%

2%

20%

12%

83%

0%

3%

2%

2011 (N=253) 2010 (N=251) 2009 (N=250)


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


Local Facility Name/Abbreviation: Residents 6 years or more (19%)

Liberty Water/Algonquin: Residents 5 years or less (90%)


2009(n=250)

2010 (N=251)

2011 (N=253)


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%


Cost is too high 5% 8% 18% +10%

Water quality 10% 7% 9% +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%).

Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

49



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.


Taste Color Smell Availability when needed

Water pressure

Price charged

53%

84%79%

96%87%

63%51%

84%

73%

96%

84%

55%44%

81% 73%

94%85%

43%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=251) 2011 (N=253)


Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

50



*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.

Yes No0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

91%

9%

89%

11%

100%

0%

2009 (N=11*) 2010 (N=9*) 2011 (N=9*)

Yes No0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

4%

96%

4%

96%

4%

96%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=250) 2011 (N=251)


N/AMat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

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%).



20%

40%

60%

36%

27%

36%44%

33%

22%

44%

56%

0%

2009 (N=11*) 2010 (N=9*) 2011 (N=9*)









Something else

64%

82%

55%

64%

55%

55%

0%

0%

27%

22%

22%

56%

22%

33%

33%

0%

0%

0%

78%

56%

44%

33%

22%

22%

0%

0%

22%

2011 (N=9*)2010 (N=9*)2009 (N=11*)

Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

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


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.


Suggestions for Improvements 2009(n=250)

2010 (n=250)

2011(n=251)


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%Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

53




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).

Bill easy to read Bill easy to understand Adequate payment options provided

Payment options easy to understand/use

92% 92%

73%82%

92% 92%82% 85%89% 86% 84% 86%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=251) 2011 (N=253)


Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

54



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).


2009 (N=250)

2010 (N=251)

2011 (N=253)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

28% 29% 23%

33% 35%35%

1% 2%4%

20% 16%19%

18% 18% 20%

Never

RarelyNot sure

Sometimes

Always

Significantly Higher:Never Read Info Inserts in Bill

18 to 44 year old (24%), Residents 5 years or less (25%)

Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

55




Lower rates/don’t increase rates and improve or implement electronic/online/paperless billing were mentioned most by 5% of customers each.


Suggestions for Improvements 2009(N=250)

2010 (N=251)

2011(N=253)



Lower rates/don't increase rates 2% 2% 5% +3%

Automatic payments via bank draft 2% 1% 1% 0%



Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

56

Website – Online ServicesSignificantly 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


Yes: 18 to 44 years (57%)

2009 (N/A)

2010 (N=251)

2011 (N=253)

21%

40%

78%59%

1% 2%

Not sure No

Yes

Access to ac-count infor-

mation online

Access to forms online to establish new service

Paperless bill statement

Pay online by credit card

77%

28%36%

55%

81%

45%

55%63%

2009 (N/A) 2010 (N=53) 2011 (N=101)




Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

57













77%

74%

90%

74%

64%

77%

73%

69%

81%

80%

58%

77%

2011 (N=101) 2010 (N=53) 2009 (N/A)

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%).


Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

58



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).





0 1 2 3 4+0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

76%

13%

4% 2% 5%

79%

7% 6%

1%

6%

79%

9%4% 1% 4%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=251) 2011 (N=253)

0 1 2 3 4+ 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

70%

14%8% 3% 5%

71%

14%

7% 3% 5%

65%

11% 8% 6% 8%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=251) 2011 (N=253)

Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

59



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).





Knowledgeable staff




72%

76%

87%

85%

88%

87%

80%

83%

88%

91%

89%

92%

88%

89%

76%

89%

86%

85%

87%

81%

82%

2011 (N=101) 2010 (N=99) 2009 (N=97)


Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

60



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.



2009 (N=60)

2010 (N=42)

2011 (N=49)




Weekday hours: early open/before 8AM 13% 0% 4% +4%

Office hours are fine 13% 24% 29% +5%

Acceptable Wait Time for Live PersonMean = 4.00 min (2009); 3.79 min. (2010);

4.01 min. (2011)

l minute or less

2-3 minutes

4-5 minutes

6-10 minutes


17%

30%

34%

11%

8%

20%

26%

34%

10%

9%

11%

31%

43%

9%

7%

2011 (N=101) 2010 (N=99) 2009 (N=97)

Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

61



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%).


2009 (N=97)

2010 (N=99)

2011 (N=101)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

45% 49% 46%

31%35%

31%

11%8%

14%6% 3% 6%6% 5% 4%



2009 (n=97)

2010 (N=99)

2011 (n=101)


Be more polite/ friendly/ understanding 5% 3% 5% +2

Speak English better/English as a default language

3% 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 services 4% 1% 1% 0

No suggestions/fine as is 77% 86% 83% -3


Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

62



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).





8%

87%

5%

5%

89%

6%

9%

85%

6%

2011 (N=101) 2010 (N=99) 2009 (N=97)


2011 (N=101)0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

6%9%

13%3%

69%




Somewhat important

Very importantSignificantly Higher

Yes, I prefer Spanish: Hispanics (35%)

Website in Spanish Very/Somewhat Important: Hispanics (35%)

Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

63



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.




0 1 2 3 4+0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% 92%

5% 2% 1% 0%

93%

5%1% 0% 0%

88%

8%1%

0%0%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=250) 2011 (N=251)Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

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.









89%

89%

94%

83%

89%

78%

83%

93%

93%

93%

80%

80%

93%

93%

87%

87%

83%

70%

83%

78%

74%

2011 (N=23*) 2010 (N=15*) 2009 (N=18*)Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

65


*Caution: small sample size16. 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.


2009 (N=18*

)

2010 (N=15*

)

2011 (N=23*

)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

78% 73%

52%

6% 13%

22%

11%13%

13%

0.0560.13



Neutral


Very satisfactory

Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

66



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%.


Is a good neighbor





82%

84%

83%

95%

76%

80%

85%

85%

95%

77%

70%

78%

81%

93%

72%

2011 (N=253) 2010 (N=251) 2009 (N=250)



Is customer friendly: Residents 5 years or less (84%)

Encourages water conservation: Residents 5 years or less (77%)Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

67



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.


Gas

Electricity

Landline phone

TV service

Water

Waste water/ sewer

35%

81%

51%

68%

29%

35%

32%

77%

55%

74%

40%

34%

24%

77%

54%

67%

51%

45%

2011 (N=251) 2010 (N=250) 2009 (N=247)



Water: Non-Hispanics (54%), Residents 6 years or more (61%)

Waste Water/Sewer : Non-Hispanics (50%), Residents 6 years or more (54%)M

atth

ew G

arlic

k –

Cen

tral A

Z

68



Respondents were satisfied with their water/waste water provider overall, with 83% of respondents stating they were somewhat/very satisfied (-5% from 2010).


2009 (N=250)

2010 (N=251)

2011 (N=253)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

63%52%

45%

27%35%

38%

6% 10%8%

3% 2%6%

1% 1% 3%



Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

69



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.



2010 (N=251)

2011(N=253)


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

Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

70

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.

2009 (N/A)

2010 (N=251)

2011 (N=253)

16% 14%

34% 32%

4% 7%

13% 10%

33% 37%Not at all likely

Somewhat un-likely


Somewhat likely

Very likely





once

92%

8%

85%

15%

2011 (N=253) 2010 (N=251) 2009 (N/A)

Mat

thew

Gar

lick

– C

entra

l AZ

71

SOUTHERN ARIZONA (BELLA VISTA, RIO RICO, NORTHERN SUNRISE, SOUTHERN SUNRISE)

Business Manager: Martin Garlant

72



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.

Correct Local Facility Name/Abbreviation


Municipal Service

Other Company

Don't Know

87%

3%

4%

2%

4%

44%

37%

0%

2%

17%

17%

77%

1%

3%

2%

2011 (N=250) 2010 (N=252) 2009 (N=250)




2009(n=250)

2010 (N=252)

2011 (N=250)


Positive Comments (NET) 77% 78% 78% 0%

Positive general 73% 75% 73% -2%

Water quality 9% 4% 2% -2%

Cost is reasonable 6% 0% 2% +2%



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%Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

73



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.



Water pressure

Price charged

60%

85%80%

92%

78%

63%62%

84%76%

92%

76%

60%54%

80%80% 89% 81%

54%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=251) 2011 (N=248)

Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

74




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.

Yes No0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% 90%

10%

78%

22%

76%

24%

2009 (N=61) 2010 (N=59) 2011 (N=58)

Yes No0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

24%

76%

24%

77%

23%

77%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=251) 2011 (N=248)Why Not Resolved Quickly (N = 14)

Resolution took too long (4mentions)

No explanation for interruption (1 mention)

Don’t know (1 mention)

Other (8 mentions)


Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

75








Something else

56%

54%

66%

54%

64%

48%

3%

13%

48%

46%

32%

36%

34%

36%

3%

5%

28%

40%

47%

28%

38%

31%

0%

14%

2011 (N=58)2010 (N=59)2009 (N=61)



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%).



20%

40%

60%

80%

33%

51%

16%

36%51%

14%

26%

64%

10%

2009 (N=61) 2010 (N=59) 2011 (N=58)


Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

76



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%).



2010 (n=251)

2011(n=248)



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%


Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

77




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% 88%

73%79%

94% 95%87% 87%88% 87% 84% 85%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=252) 2011 (N=250)


Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

78



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).


2009 (N=250)

2010 (N=252)

2011 (N=250)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

33% 29% 31%

38%34% 31%

2%5% 4%

13% 18% 17%

14% 15% 16%

Never

RarelyNot sure

Sometimes

Always


Always: Residents 6 years or more (38%)

Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

79



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.



2010 (N=252)

2011(N=250)



Lower rates/don't increase rates 3% 3% 6% +3%



Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

80

Website – Online ServicesNearly 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%).


2009 (N/A)

2010 (N=252)

2011 (N=250)

17%30%

82%69%

1% 1%

Not sure No

Yes


mation online




86%

14%

50%

74%

91%

23%

41%

76%

2009 (N/A) 2010 (N=42) 2011 (N=75)




Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

81







88%

86%

94%

91%

57%

93%

87%

83%

85%

81%

68%

85%

2011 (N=75) 2010 (N=42) 2009 (N/A)

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.







Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

82



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).





0 1 2 3 4+0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%62%

9%8%

4%

15%

55%

14%

8%4%

18%

49%

11% 10%

2%

28%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=252) 2011 (N=250)

0 1 2 3 4+ 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

58%

14%11%

3%

13%

60%

15%

8% 6%11%

46%

13% 12%7%

21%


Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

83



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.





Knowledgeable staff




76%

81%

81%

79%

81%

74%

78%

80%

86%

87%

84%

90%

82%

84%

85%

85%

88%

84%

88%

81%

83%

2011 (N=177) 2010 (N=162) 2009 (N=140)


Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

84



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.



2009 (N=79)

2010 (N=83)

2011 (N=77)


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 fine 23% 21% 21% 0%


Mean = 3.99 min (2009); 3.95 min. (2010); 4.27 min. (2011)

l minute or less

2-3 minutes

4-5 minutes

6-10 minutes


19%

26%

36%

9%

9%

18%

30%

35%

12%

6%

14%

27%

38%

12%

9%

2011 (N=177) 2010 (N=162) 2009 (N=140)

Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

85



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.


2009 (N=140)

2010 (N=162)

2011 (N=177)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

39% 45% 49%

35%31%

31%

15% 17% 11%6%

5%3%

5% 3% 7%



2009 (n=140)

2010(N=162)

2011 (n=177)


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%


NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level.M

artin

Gar

lant

– S

outh

ern

AZ

86



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.





15%

79%

6%

17%

74%

9%

20%

69%

11%

2011 (N=177) 2010 (N=162) 2009 (N=140)


2011 (N=177)0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

19%

11%

11%4%

55%




Somewhat important

Very important



Prefer Spanish: Rio Rico (33%)

Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

87



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).




0 1 2 3 4+0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%86%

10%2% 0% 0%

83%

10%

2% 1% 2%

81%

11%2% 2% 0%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=251) 2011 (N=248)


Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

88



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%).









84%

78%

78%

63%

81%

88%

88%

87%

87%

87%

71%

82%

82%

87%

70%

78%

81%

68%

76%

76%

76%

2011 (N=37) 2010 (N=38) 2009 (N=32)

Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

89



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.


2009 (N=32)

2010 (N=38)

2011 (N=37)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

59% 58%49%

25% 29%

27%

6% 8%19%

3%3%6% 3% 5%



Neutral


Very satisfactory

Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

90



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.


Is a good neighbor





75%

79%

82%

89%

58%

77%

85%

86%

92%

69%

81%

84%

86%

91%

74%

2011 (N=250) 2010 (N=252) 2009 (N=250)



Provides a safe water supply: At residence less than 5 years (91%)

Encourages water conservation: Belle Vista (81%)Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

91



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.


Gas

Electricity

Landline phone

TV service

Water

Waste water/ sewer

54%

66%

53%

70%

36%

38%

62%

63%

51%

66%

36%

47%

54%

66%

57%

69%

40%

50%

2011 (N=249) 2010 (N=251) 2009 (N=248)


Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

92



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%).


2009 (N=250)

2010 (N=252)

2011 (N=250)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

53% 52% 52%

34% 35% 36%

8% 6% 4%4% 6% 5%

0.012 0.02



Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied


Very satisfied: Belle Vista (69%); Ages 18-44 (66%); Residents less than 5 years (64%)

Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

93



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.


2010 (n=252)

2011(n=250)


Why Satisfied N=217 N=221 N=222Reliable/No service interruptions 17% 10% 9% -1%Never had a problem/complaint 18% 34% 32% -2%Cost is reasonable 14% 5% 6% +1%Good/friendly/courteous customer service 14% 9% 9% 0%Service is satisfactory/good/excellent 11% 13% 8% -5%Water quality is good 11% 4% 4% 0%Cost is too high/rate increases 10% 14% 14% 0%Why Not Satisfied N=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%Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

94

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.

2009 (N/A)

2010 (n=252)

2011 (n=250)

20% 20%

28% 30%

7% 7%

17% 15%

29% 29%

Not at all likely

Somewhat un-likely


Somewhat likely

Very likely





once

91%

10%

90%

10%

2011 (n=250) 2010 (n=252) 2009 (N/A)

Mar

tin G

arla

nt –

Sou

ther

n A

Z

95

EASTERN ARIZONA (BLACK MOUNTAIN, GOLD CANYON, ENTRADA DEL ORO)

Business Manager: Charlie Hernandez

96



Correct Local Facility Name/Abbrevi-ation


Municipal Service

Arizona Water Company

Other Company

Don't Know

80%

2%

2%

0%

10%

6%

26%

31%

10%

0%

1%

32%

26%

55%

1%

9%

4%

5%

2011 (N=253) 2010 (N=250) 2009 (N=250)




Liberty Water/Algonquin: Residents less than 5 years (64%)


2009(n=250)

2010 (N=250)

2011 (N=253)



Positive general 52% 46% 53% +7%


Cost is reasonable 2% 1% 0% -1%

Customer service 0% 1% 1% 0%


Cost is too high 53% 35% 45% +10%


Negative general 5% 4% 5% +1%

Customer Service 2% 3% 1% -2%

Sewage smell 8% 6% 2% -4%

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%).

Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

97




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.



83% 80%

63%68%

91% 87%

73%79%

87% 85%

74% 74%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=250) 2011 (N=253)



Bill easy to read: Gold Canyon (90%)

Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

98



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%).


2009 (N=250)

2010 (N=250)

2011 (N=253)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

25% 22% 18%

28% 32%28%

4% 6%

3%

18% 15%18%

24% 25%32%

Never

RarelyNot sure

Sometimes

Always


Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

99




Lower rates/don’t increase rates was mentioned by 21%, up significantly from previous years.



2010 (N=250)

2011(N=253)


Improve or implement Electronic/online/paperless billing 6% 5% 3% -2%



Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

100

Website – Online ServicesA 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%).


2009 (N/A)

2010 (N=250)

2011 (N=253)

10%21%

90%78%

0% 1%

Not sure No

Yes


mation online




71%

8%

42% 42%

64%

28%34%

42%

2009 (N/A) 2010 (N=24*) 2011 (N=53)



NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).*Caution: small sample size

Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

101













79%

71%

77%

70%

67%

79%

59%

62%

71%

72%

51%

62%

2011 (N=53) 2010 (N=24*) 2009 (N/A)

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%).


*Caution: small sample size

Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

102



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).





0 1 2 3 4+0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 94%

4%2% 0% 0%

96%

3% 0% 0% 1%

94%

3% 1% 0% 0%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=250) 2011 (N=253)

0 1 2 3 4+ 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

77%

8% 8%2% 5%

82%

8% 6%2% 3%

81%

8% 6%2% 2%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=250) 2011 (N=253)

Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

103



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.





Knowledgeable staff




62%

65%

60%

56%

70%

56%

56%

67%

77%

86%

80%

82%

71%

65%

69%

77%

78%

75%

78%

67%

73%

2011 (N=51) 2010 (N=51) 2009 (N=63)


Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

104



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.


2009 (N=44)

2010 (N=28*)

2011 (N=26*)



Saturday hours: half/full day 7% 4% 0% -4%

Weekday hours: early open/before 8AM 11% 11% 4% -7%



Mean = 3.65 min (2009); 3.44 min. (2010); 3.71 min. (2011)

l minute or less

2-3 minutes

4-5 minutes

6-10 minutes


16%

43%

32%

10%

0%

14%

51%

26%

8%

2%

20%

31%

31%

12%

6%

2011 (N=51) 2010 (N=51) 2009 (N=63)*Caution: small sample sizeNOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).

Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

105



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.


2009 (N=63)

2010 (N=51)

2011 (N=51)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

18%

43% 41%24%

28%24%30%

18%22%14%

4% 4%14% 8% 10%



2009 (n=63)

2010 (N=51)

2011 (n=51)


Be more professional/ knowledgeable 6% 0% 4% +4%

Be more polite/ friendly/understanding 6% 2% 2% 0%

Speak to a person, not a recording 3% 0% 0% 0%

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%


Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

106



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.





3%

92%

5%

4%

96%

0%

0%

92%

8%

2011 (N=51) 2010 (N=51) 2009 (N=63)


2011 (N=51)0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2%2%8%4%

84%




Somewhat important

Very important


Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

107



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).




0 1 2 3 4+0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

97%

2% 0% 0% 0%

98%

0% 0% 0% 0%

98%

1% 0% 0% 0%

2009 (N=247) 2010 (N=250) 2011 (N=252)Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

108



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.


Is a good neighbor


36%

36%

44%

50%

43%

44%

2011 (N=253) 2010 (N=250) 2009 (N=250)


Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

109



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%).


Gas

Electricity

Landline phone

TV service

Water

Waste water/ sewer

40%

60%

41%

67%

43%

81%

35%

59%

47%

67%

45%

76%

25%

53%

38%

63%

39%

81%

2011 (N=252) 2010 (N=250) 2009 (N=250)


Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

110



More than half of respondents were satisfied with their waste water provider overall, with 58% of respondents stating they were somewhat/very satisfied.


2009 (N=250)

2010 (N=250)

2011 (N=253)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

14%29% 25%

28%

27% 33%14%

14% 12%20%

15% 15%

25%14% 16%



Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied


Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

111



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%).



2010 (n=250)

2011(n=253)


Why Satisfied N=105 N=141 N=146Never had a problem/complaint 31% 45% 39% -6%Cost is too high/rate increases 30% 29% 30% +1%Service is satisfactory/good/excellent 10% 6% 6% 0%Reliable/No service interruptions 9% 3% 8% +5%Good/friendly/courteous customer service 6% 5% 3% -2%Odor from sewer/sewage processing facility 6% 3% 1% -2%Cost is reasonable 3% 4% 2% -2%

Why Not Satisfied N=111 N=73 N=78Cost is too high/rate increases 75% 81% 82% +1%Odor from sewer/sewage processing facility 20% 15% 13% -2%They are dishonest/crooked/price gougers 15% 4% 8% +4%Poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer service 8% 1% 4% +3%Charged for service even when absent 6% 0% 4% +4%C

harli

e H

erna

ndez

– E

aste

rn A

Z

112

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.


2009 (n=N/A)

2010 (n=250)

2011 (n=253)

34% 33%

31% 26%

4%5%

8% 12%

24% 25%

Not at all likely

Somewhat un-likely


Somewhat likely

Very likely





once

87%

13%

86%

14%

2011 (n=253) 2010 (n=250) 2009 (N/A)

Cha

rlie

Her

nand

ez –

Eas

tern

AZ

113

CENTRAL US (TALL TIMBERS, WOODMARK, BIG EDDY, HOLLY RANCH, HILL COUNTRY, OZARK MOUNTAIN, HOLIDAY HILLS)

Business Manager: Joe Wilkins

114



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.

Facility Name/Abbrevi-ation


Municipal Service

Other Company

Don't Know

76%

7%

4%

8%

6%

21%

40%

0%

3%

35%

16%

73%

1%

4%

7%

2011 (N=251) 2010 (N=250) 2009 (N=250)


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


Liberty Water/Algonquin: Holly Ranch (83%)


2009(n=250)

2010 (N=250)

2011 (N=251)



Positive general 63% 61% 69% +8%



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%


Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

115


Water pressure

Price charged

64%

79% 76%87%

74%

45%

71%

86%79%

90%

81%

33%

65%

85%77%

92%

78%

36%

2009 (N=178) 2010 (N=162) 2011 (N=159)



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%).



Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

116




About one quarter (26%) of respondents had a water service interruption in the past year. Among these, 90% stated the interruption was resolved quickly.

Yes No0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% 90%

10%

89%

11%

90%

10%

2009 (N=67) 2010 (N=44) 2011 (N=41)

Yes No0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

38%

62%

27%

73%

26%

74%

2009 (N=178) 2010 (N=162) 2011 (N=159)


No notification of service interruption was given (1 mention)

Other comments (3 mentions)


Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

117



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%).



20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

45% 45%

10%

30%

59%

11%12%

78%

10%

2009 (N=67) 2010 (N=44) 2011 (N=41)









Something else

58%

54%

45%

46%

57%

49%

3%

2%

13%

52%

43%

27%

34%

46%

36%

5%

0%

11%

56%

54%

44%

42%

39%

37%

0%

0%

17%

2011 (N=41)2010 (N=44)2009 (N=67)


Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

118




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%).



2010 (n=162)

2011(n=159)


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%


Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

119




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%).



87% 85%

70%77%

87% 86%

71%80%

88% 89%

78% 81%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=250) 2011 (N=251)

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

120



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.


2009 (N=250)

2010 (N=250)

2011 (N=251)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

35% 30% 33%

27% 29% 30%

7%4% 3%

11% 17% 15%

20% 20% 19%

Never

RarelyNot sure

Sometimes

Always


Always read info inserts in bill: Holly Ranch (41%), Big Eddy (41%), 65+ years or older (42%)

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

121




Consistent with last year, lower rates/don’t increase rates was mentioned by 8%.



2010 (N=250)

2011(N=251)


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%Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

122

Website – Online ServicesThe 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%).



Yes: 18 to 44 years (40%)

2009 (N/A)

2010 (N=250)

2011 (N=251)

12%23%

87%76%

1% 1%

Not sure No

Yes


mation online




69%

21%24%

62%

74%

23%

33%

58%

2009 (N/A) 2010 (N=29*) 2011 (N=57)



NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).*Caution: small sample size.

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

123




4% Other comments









76%

76%

90%

100%

69%

86%

81%

70%

93%

68%

63%

72%

2011 (N=57) 2010 (N=29*) 2009 (N/A)

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).

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

124



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).





0 1 2 3 4+0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

77%

8%4%

0%

11%

72%

13%5%

1%

8%

74%

9%2% 3%

11%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=250) 2011 (N=251)

0 1 2 3 4+ 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%73%

11%8%

1%

7%

70%

13%8%

4% 4%

73%

11%7%

3%6%

2009 (N=250) 2010 (N=250) 2011 (N=251)

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

125



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.





Knowledgeable staff




73%

79%

83%

78%

88%

76%

78%

80%

88%

88%

85%

84%

85%

82%

88%

91%

96%

90%

95%

85%

87%

2011 (N=97) 2010 (N=104) 2009 (N=99)



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%)

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

126



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.



2009 (N=54)

2010 (N=57)

2011 (N=30)




Weekday hours: early open/before 8AM 6% 2% 3% +1%


Acceptable Wait Time for Live PersonMean = 3.68 min (2009); 3.32 min. (2010);

3.60 min. (2011)

l minute or less

2-3 minutes

4-5 minutes

6-10 minutes


18%

31%

37%

8%

5%

25%

33%

28%

7%

8%

13%

35%

35%

5%

11%

2011 (N=97) 2010 (N=104) 2009 (N=99)


Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

127



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%).


2009 (N=99)

2010 (N=104)

2011 (N=97)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

40%50% 51%

28%27% 30%

20% 11%16%

9% 7%3%2% 6% 1%



2009 (n=99)

2010 (N=104)

2011 (n=97)


Be more polite/ friendly/ understanding 0% 4% 0% -4%

Speak English better/English as a default language

0% 2% 0% -2%

Be more professional/ knowledgeable 5% 2% 1% -1%

Improve communication w/customers (service follow-up, shut offs, etc)

0% 4% 3% -1%



Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

128


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?

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.





2%

97%

1%

3%

94%

3%

2%

92%

6%

2011 (N=97) 2010 (N=104) 2009 (N=99)


2011 (N=97)0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

6%3%8%3%

79%




Somewhat important

Very important

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

129



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).




0 1 2 3 4+0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

96%

3% 0% 0% 0%

96%

3% 0% 0.4% 0%

93%

3% 2%0.4%

0%

2009 (N=249) 2010 (N=247) 2011 (N=250)


Average Number of Home Visits: Woodmark Utility (2.50)

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

130



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.









38%

63%

63%

63%

63%

50%

38%

75%

75%

75%

63%

75%

75%

63%

62%

62%

54%

54%

62%

62%

54%

2011 (N=13*) 2010 (N=8*) 2009 (N=8*)*Caution: small sample size.

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

131



About half of respondents (54%) stated they were somewhat or very satisfied, down slightly from 2010 (63%).


2009 (N=8*)

2010 (N=8*)

2011 (N=13*

)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

38% 38% 39%

25% 25%15%

25% 25%

15%

13% 13% 15%

0.154 Not satisfactory at all


Neutral


Very satisfactory

*Caution: small sample size.

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

132



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%).


Is a good neighbor





65%

70%

85%

89%

66%

68%

72%

89%

91%

63%

66%

70%

82%

89%

73%

2011 (N=251) 2010 (N=250) 2009 (N=250)

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

133



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).


Gas

Electricity

Landline phone

TV service

Water

Waste water/ sewer

30%

47%

48%

56%

47%

57%

24%

46%

39%

49%

64%

60%

33%

42%

41%

53%

57%

55%

2011 (N=251) 2010 (N=247) 2009 (N=248)



Water: Big Eddy (71%), Holly Ranch (65%)

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

134



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%).


2009 (N=250)

2010 (N=250)

2011 (N=251)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

41% 36%44%

37% 42%35%

8% 10% 8%8% 6% 7%5% 6% 6%



Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

Significantly Higher Overall Satisfaction

(Very or Somewhat Satisfied)

Residents 5 years or less (85%)

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

135



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%).



2010 (N=250)

2011(N=251)


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.

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

136

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.


2009 (N/A)

2010 (N=250)

2011 (N=251)

24% 22%

28% 32%

6% 4%11% 11%

31% 30%

Not at all likely

Somewhat un-likely


Somewhat likely

Very likely



increases occur every year.


once

88%

12%

86%

14%

2011 (N=251) 2010 (N=250) 2009 (N/A)

Significantly Higher More Likely (Very or Somewhat Likely)

Holly Ranch (66%)

Joe

Wilk

ins

– C

entra

l US

liberty water customer satisfaction – final report

Documents

az water

central az

eastern az customers

eastern az respondents

southern az respondents

waterwaste water

facility customers

areas liberty water