Liberty Water Customer Satisfaction – Final Report - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

liberty water customer satisfaction final report n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Liberty Water Customer Satisfaction – Final Report PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Liberty Water Customer Satisfaction – Final Report

play fullscreen
1 / 136
Liberty Water Customer Satisfaction – Final Report
171 Views
Download Presentation
alaura
Download Presentation

Liberty Water Customer Satisfaction – Final Report

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Liberty Water Customer Satisfaction – Final Report September, 2011

  2. Contents Objectives & Methodology 1. 2. Key Findings & Recommendations Contents 3. Detailed Findings – Overall Detailed Findings – By Business Manager 4.

  3. Objectives & Methodology Objectives • Compare current customer satisfaction levels with 2010 and 2009 index scores • Analyze satisfaction at the overall level as well as by Business Manager Objectives & Methodology Methodology • A total of 1,007 surveys from Liberty Water’s customers were completed • All interviews were completed through the phone • Interviews were conducted in the 4 areas Liberty Water services: • Central Arizona: LPSCO, BM: Matt Garlick • Southern Arizona: Bella Vista, Rio Rico, Northern Sunrise, Southern Sunrise, BM: Martin Garlant • Eastern Arizona: Black Mountain, Gold Canyon and Entrada del Oro, BM: Charlie Hernandez • Central US: Tall Timbers, Woodmark, Big Eddy, Holly Ranch, Hill Country, Ozark Mountain, Holiday Hills, BM: Joe Wilkins • For each of the 4 business manager 250-253 interviews were completed • The study was fielded from September 1st to September 20th 2011.

  4. Key Findings & Recommendations

  5. Awareness Respondents were very familiar with the name of the facility that provides water/waste water to their home. • The Liberty Water name has caught on very well since its introduction with 72% of customers aware of it. • Customers in Central AZ were most aware of the name Liberty Water (83%). • Central US and Eastern AZ had the lowest recall of Liberty Water (73% and 55% respectively); facility customers within these regions were also significantly more likely to name the facility, other names, or do not know. • 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) Key Findings & Recommendations

  6. Perception A positive perception of the facilities was reported • Overall, 69% of respondents made positive comments. • Good/like it mentioned by 66% of respondents. • A third of respondents (35%) commented negatively. This was up 6% from 2010. Key concerns were: • Cost is too high/expensive (25%, up 5%); significantly higher in Eastern AZ (45%) • Poor water quality (6%) Southern AZ respondents were most positive, while Eastern AZ customers had the worst perception • Respondents in the Southern AZ service area were most likely to describe their facility positively (78%) and least likely to give negative comments (29%). • Eastern AZ respondents were on the opposite spectrum being least likely to describe their provider positively (54%) while giving the most complaints (48%). Key Findings & Recommendations

  7. Water Services Satisfaction with water services received remained high. • Top satisfactory aspects were: • Availability when needed wasrated 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 Findings & Recommendations

  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 werethe 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. Key Findings & Recommendations

  9. Customer Billing Respondents reported a high level of satisfaction with customer billing, on par with 2010. • Top satisfaction was reported with: • My bill is easy to read: 88% (top 2 box agreement = agree or strongly agree; 91% in 2010) • My bill is easy to understand: 87% compared to 90% in 2010 • Residents in the Eastern AZ were less satisfied with adequate payment options (74% vs. 80% overall) and payment options easy to understand/use (74% vs. 82% overall). More than half of respondents (57%; down from 61% in 2010) stated they read information inserts in their bill sometimes or always. • A lower rate of readership of information inserts was reported among respondents in Eastern AZ (46%). They appear to be less informed and less satisfied with the services they receive. • While 80% stated they had no suggestions for improving billing, 10% mentioned lower rates/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 Findings & Recommendations

  10. Customer Service A third of respondents (34%) had contacted customer service via phone in 2011 (up 5%), while 26% visited an office (up 1%). Their experiences were very positive (factors rated at 80% to 88% satisfaction) and were on par with 2010. Overall experience was rated excellent/good by 78%, which was on par with 2010 (78%) and higher than 2009 (68%). • Eastern AZ residents were least likely to have contacted customer service. Offering longer office hours past 5 PM on weekdays was requested by more then one quarter (29%). • There were no significant differences between regions in terms of office hour preference. Wait time to speak to a live person should be no more than 4 to 5 minutes. • A wait time of less than 4 minutes was considered acceptable by 56% of respondents. If the wait dropped to 2 minutes 86% of respondents would be satisfied. • A wait time of more than 5 minutes was deemed unacceptable by 82%. Customer service in Spanish was not of great demand. However, customers in the Southern AZ service area (20%) were more likely to prefer being offered Spanish customer service compared to overall (11%). Key Findings & Recommendations

  11. Home Visits by Service Representative Only 8% of respondents reported receiving a home visit by a service representative within the last year. Home visits were rated satisfactory. • Customers in Southern AZ reported receiving the most home visits by service representatives, with 15% stating they received at least one visit. This was on par with 2010 data. • Eastern AZ and Central US received the fewest home visits; 97% and 93% of respondents respectively stated no service representative had come to their home. • Most aspects of the service representatives’ home visit were rated highly, with agreement scores (agree/strongly agree) that services were performed well at 70% and higher. Kept informed of progress in resolving the problem, however, received a 64% satisfaction score and was lowest in Eastern AZ (25%). Overall satisfaction with service representatives’ home visits was 70% somewhat/very satisfied, a 14% drop as compared to 2010. Key Findings & Recommendations

  12. Company Evaluation Customers were highly satisfied with water/ waste water facility on provides a safe water supply and provides a reliable water supply. • Provides reliable water supply: 91%(top 2 box agreement = 91% of respondents stated they agree or strongly agree; slightly down from 93% in 2010). • Provides a safe water supply: 83% slightly down from 86% in 2010. • Encourages water conservation was up 2% (73%). • The other elements of the company evaluation rated somewhat lower but still two thirds agreed that the company was a good neighbor (65%, down 3%) and/or is customer friendly (69%, down 4%). • 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). Key Findings & Recommendations Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).

  13. Company Evaluation Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Much too High More customers (47% and 59%) continued to feel that water and waste water/sewage costs were too high. • Respondents in the Central AZ and Central US service area were least satisfied with their water prices (51% and 57% too high respectively), while Eastern AZ customers felt strongly that their waste water prices were too high (81%, up 5%). • It is important to note that scores in Central AZ rose by 11% each while fewer people in Central US felt the costs were too high. Key Findings & Recommendations NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s).

  14. Company Evaluation Overall Satisfaction with their facility was rated high with 78% of respondents being somewhat or very satisfied. This was on par with 2010. • Eastern AZ received lowest satisfaction scores with only 58% of respondents satisfied with their facility. However, satisfaction levels among these customers continued on an upward trend (+2% from 2010 and significantly up from 42% in 2009). Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied Key Findings & Recommendations

  15. Satisfaction & Rate Hikes In 2011 customers’ feedback regarding their satisfaction with their water and/or waste water provider was positive. This was true for the overall satisfaction rating as well as for specific services tested such as water service, billing, customer service and home visits by service representatives. While most satisfaction ratings remained comparable to 2010 or improved slightly, there was some downward movement to note: • Satisfaction with color, water taste and price charged fell by 3% to 7% • Advanced notification of water interruptions fell by 12% • Satisfaction with all aspects of online services fell by 3% to 8% • Satisfaction with all aspects of service rep home visits fell by 8% to 16%; overall satisfaction fell 14% While several facilities have implemented rate hikes or are going through the formal process of getting rate increases approved, customer satisfaction with the overall company performance has remained consistent at 78% somewhat/very satisfied. However, satisfaction with the water prices decreased by 5%, primarily driven by low satisfaction levels in the Central US. It is essential to continue with public relations campaigns to help customers understand why rates are increasing, how it will benefit customers in the long run and that Liberty Water is a “friend and good neighbor” who works to improve and help the community. To alleviate the financial burden of the customers facing upcoming rate hikes, it is suggested to implement small rate increases gradually over time (preferred by 87%). There was considerable interest in information and involvement in the process for rate hikes. • About half (52%) of the interviewed customers were somewhat or very likely to attend informational meetings. Key Findings & Recommendations

  16. Recommendations Water Services • The main concern was price. • Given that reducing prices may not be an option, it is essential for Liberty Water to continue with comprehensive public relations campaigns to increase customer understanding and acceptance of the rate increases. • Look at improving taste, especially in Central AZ. • Work to minimize water interruptions, specifically in the Central US and Southern AZ. • Advance notification of scheduled interruptions or awareness of notifications was low. • Continue to improve on notifying residents of scheduled water interruptions in advance possibly though different design and coloring schemes of notices. • Customers requested reminders especially the day before and on the day of the outage. • Utilize technology (phone calls/ email/ online postings) to notify and remind residents of outages. Website and Online Services • Website usage was nearly double with 28% customers using it. While still high, satisfaction levels on all online factors were down in 2011. • Continue to promote website and new services included. • Look at updating website services and work to make them easier to use. • Look into possibility of mobile/smart phone connectivity with the website. Key Findings & Recommendations

  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 Findings & Recommendations

  18. Detailed Findings:Respondent Profiles & New Questions

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

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

  21. Importance of Website in Spanish Respondents overall did not indicate a great need for the website to be available in Spanish, with only 19% stating that it was somewhat or very important. Southern AZ residents, however, were significantly more likely to indicate that the availability of the website in Spanish was important (30% somewhat or very important). Importance of Website in Spanish Detailed Findings – New NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant regional difference. Q13b. How important is it to you that Liberty Water’s website is available in Spanish language?

  22. Environmental Friendliness The vast majority of respondents indicated that it is somewhat or very important for their water/waste water provider to be environmentally friendly (92%). Residents of Central and Southern Arizona were significantly more likely to state that it is very important (69% and 72%, respectively vs. 66% overall). Although respondents thought it was important for their utility company to be environmentally friendly, only 47% were somewhat or very open to incurring a slight rate increase to ensure high environmentally-friendly performance. Residents of Central and Southern Arizona were significantly more likely to be very open to this idea (17% and 25% respectively v. 16% overall) compared with other regions. Importance of Environmental Friendliness Openness to Rate Increase to Ensure Environmental Friendliness Detailed Findings – New NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant regional difference. 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?

  23. Detailed Findings:overall findings

  24. Awareness & Perception Familiarity with the water and/or waste water provider remained high. An obvious shift from the association with the local facility name to the newly branded Liberty Water name (72%) could be seen. Eastern Arizona tended to be most familiar with their facility name while respondents in the other three regions tended to associate more strongly with the Liberty Water name (73% to 80%). When asked to describe their provider, 69% of comments were positive. Overall/general positive comments (66%) were on par with the previous years. Mentions of good water quality decreased, while negative comments overall and cost/expensive increased by 5% to 6% each. Detailed Findings – Overall Name of Water/Waste Water Provider NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. 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?

  25. Water Services – Satisfaction Respondents continued to be most satisfied with the water availability when needed, with 92% giving it a 4 or 5 (where 5 = Very satisfactory). Other highly rated aspects of water service were color (81%), water pressure (81%) and smell (77%). Respondents were not only least satisfied with the price charged (46%) and taste (53%), but both of these factors were lower in 2011 than they were in 2010 (down 5% to 7% each). Customers of facilities in Southern AZ were the most satisfied with the price charged (54% somewhat or very satisfied). Central AZ residents were the least satisfied with taste (44% somewhat or very satisfied). Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfactory Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 1. Please rate your water services in the following areas by using a 5-point scale with 5 being “Very Satisfactory” and 1 being “Not Satisfactory At All”.

  26. Water Services – Interruptions Fewer than 1 out of 5 customers (16%) reported a water interruption within the last year. Those in the Central Arizona service area reported significantly fewer interruptions (4%) as compared to Central US (26%) and Southern AZ (24%). Water interruptions were generally resolved quickly (83%). Water Interruption Within Last Year Water Interruption Resolved Quickly Detailed Findings – Overall 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.

  27. Water Services – Interruptions Notification Among the customers who had experienced a scheduled water service interruption in the last year, 22% recalled receiving a notification in advance. Significantly higher than previous years, two-thirds (69%) reported they had not received advance notification. This may indicate that advance notifications were not provided consistently or that residents did not notice them among other mailings or information. Customers requested a number of improvements to advance notifications. Send notice at least one week in advance (50%) was considered the most important followed by reminder call day of interruption (40%) and send notices by email (40%). Advance Notification of Water Interruptions Improvements of Notifications of Scheduled Service Interruptions Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 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.

  28. Water Services – Improvements • Over half of the respondents (58%) had no suggestions on how to improve their water service, feeling it was fine as is. • Among the improvements suggested were water filtration (improve taste/smell/color) mentioned by 16% of customer. Lower rates/don’t increase rates was mentioned by 17% of customers with a significantly higher response in the Central US service area (21%). Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. * Facilities in Eastern AZ provide Sewer/Waste Water service only. 7. Do you have any suggestions on how [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] could improve their water services?

  29. Customer Billing – Satisfaction Customer satisfaction with billing remained high with 80% or more of interviewed customers stating they somewhat or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the customer billings received. Eastern AZ received significantly lower satisfaction scores compared with other regions for adequate payment options provided and payments options are easy to understand/use (74% each). Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 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.

  30. Customer Billing – Information/Services Over half of respondents (57%) stated they read the information inserts in their bill sometimes or always. A slight downward trend from2009 can be seed (down 5% over last 2 years). Residents of Central US and Southern AZ were more likely to always read these inserts. Read Info Inserts in Bill Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 9. How often do you read the informational inserts included in your bill?

  31. Customer Billings – Improvements When asked about suggestions to improve customer billings, the majority of respondents did not have any improvements and felt it was fine as is (80%). Lower rates/don’t increase rates was mentioned by 10%, up significantly from previous years (7% in 2009 and 6% in 2010). Other comments regarding improvements related to online and automated payment options (3%) and making the bills easier to understand (2%) were on par with last year. Detailed Findings – Overall *Mentions 2%+ shown NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. 11. Do you have any suggestions for improving the billing?

  32. Website – Online Services Almost double the number of customers reported they had accessed the website compared with last year (28% vs. 15%). Significantly more of those in the Central AZ service area stated they had accessed the website (40%). The online services used by most was access to account information (79%) followed by pay online by credit card (62%). Significantly more customers used the forms online to establish new service than last year (32% vs. 20%). Accessed Website Online Services Used Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 10N1. Have you accessed [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC]’s website? 10N2. The following services are available to [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] customers. Please tell me if you have used any of them?

  33. Satisfaction with Website – Online Services Satisfaction with the online services customers had used was high. However, it should be noted that satisfaction for all factors fell by 3% to 7% as compared to 2010 data. Ease to access account information received the highest satisfaction rating with 83% of customers indicating they were very or somewhat satisfied. The only area that received a relatively low score was ease to receive customer support (61%). Not many customers had improvement suggestions for the website (87% had no suggestions and/or stated the site was fine as is). Those who had suggestions asked to improve user interface/easier to navigate. Detailed Findings – Overall Satisfaction with Online Services Used Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfied NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 10a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Very Satisfied and 1 is Very Dissatisfied, please tell me how satisfied you are with the new [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website. 10b. Do you have any suggestions for improving [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON QFAC] website and/or online services?

  34. Customer Service – Calls & Visits The majority of respondents did not have any customer service contact within the last year: 66% indicated they had not called and 74% stated they had not visited the business office. Among those who had contact, either by phone and/or office visit, the mean number of interactions increased (2.42 calls and 2.17 office visits in 2011) as compared to previous years (2.13 and 2.15 respectively). Times Called Business Office 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 Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 11b. To the best of your recollection, how many times have you called or visited the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office within the last year?

  35. Customer Service – Satisfaction Among those customers who reported they had contact with customer service in the last year, satisfaction was strong and on par with 2010 scores across all aspects tested. All scores except for staff handle request quickly remained significantly higher than 2009 scores. Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 12a. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]’s customer service. If you have called or visited the office more than once in the last year, please think only about your last contact with the [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] business office.

  36. Customer Service – Hours & Wait Time Customers who did not agree strongly that the office hours were convenient were asked what they felt would be more convenient hours. Longer weekday hours was mentioned by 29%, followed by Saturday hours (8%) and opening early during the week (4%). On average, respondents reported that an acceptable wait time for a live person was approximately four minutes (mean of 3.99 minutes), a slight increase from 2010 (3.69 minutes). With 82% of respondents feeling an acceptable wait time is no more than five minutes, Liberty Water should strive to keep wait times below this mark. Detailed Findings – Overall Acceptable Wait Time for Live Person Mean = 3.86 (2009); 3.69 min. (2010); 3.99 min. (2011) NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 12b. What would you consider more convenient office hours? 12c. How long are you willing to wait to speak to a live person?

  37. Customer Services – Overall Experience On par with 2010, slightly more than three fourths of respondents were satisfied with their overall customer service experience (78% excellent/good). Respondents had few suggestions on how to improve customer service; 87% had no suggestion (+3% from 2010). The few comments given centered around being polite/friendly/understanding (3%) and be more professional/knowledgeable (2%). Satisfaction With Overall Experience Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 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?

  38. Customer Services – Spanish Respondents did not indicate a great need for customer service communications in Spanish, with only 11% stating they prefer Spanish over English. Southern AZ continued to be more interested in Spanish customer service interaction (20%). Only 19% of respondents indicated that it was somewhat or very important for the website to be available in Spanish. Residents of Southern and Central AZ, however, were significantly more likely to rate this as somewhat or very important (30% and 15% respectively). Customer Service in Spanish Importance of Website in Spanish Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 13a. If customer service were available in Spanish would you take advantage of it? Q13b. How important is it to you that Liberty Water’s website is available in Spanish language?

  39. Service Rep Home Visits The vast majority of respondents had no service representative visit their home within the last year (90% none), a significant decrease from previous years (93%). Of those who had a representative visit, the mean number of visits was 1.48. Number Called Business Office Mean = 1.28 (2009); 1.52 (2010); 1.48 (2011); among those who had a service rep visit their home within last year Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 14b. How many times has an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee visited your home to resolve a problem within the last year?

  40. Service Rep Home Visits – Satisfaction Satisfaction with service representative home visits was high on most aspects. While satisfaction was down compared to 2010, this change was for the most part not significant. The one exception was happy about how soon service visit was scheduled, which was down a significant 16% as compared to last year. Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 15. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about your in home service visit. If an [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE] employee has visited your home more than once within the last year, please think only about your last visit.

  41. Service Rep Home Visits – Overall Satisfaction & Improvements Overall satisfaction with the service rep home visits was strong (70% somewhat / very satisfied), but was down from the 84% satisfaction score given in 2010. Overall Satisfaction With Service Visit Detailed Findings – Overall 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.

  42. Company Evaluation – Satisfaction Respondents agreed that their water service facility provides a reliable water supply (91%, top 2 box agree/strongly agree) followed by provides a safe water supply (83%). Encourages water conservation, which placed third in satisfaction,was up as compared to previous years (73%). Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Strongly Agree Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 18. Using a 5-point scale where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE].

  43. Company Evaluation – Utility Rates When comparing the perception of pricing for different utilities and services that respondents received, those considered somewhat/much too high continued to be television (63%), electricity (60%) and waste water/sewer (59%). Waste water/sewer saw a significant jump from 55% in 2010 to 59% of respondents feeling their rate is too high. This increase was driven mainly by customers in the Eastern AZ service area (81%). Central AZ respondents were most satisfied with their waste water/ sewer rates as only 45% stated the rates were somewhat/much too high. Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Much too High Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 19. For each of the following utility services, please indicate if you feel the rates charged are much too high, somewhat too high, just right, somewhat low, or very low.

  44. Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction Respondents were satisfied with their water/waste water provider overall, with 78% of respondents stating they were somewhat/very satisfied. Eastern AZ was least satisfied (58%) with all other regions reporting top 2 box satisfaction scores of 79% or higher. Overall Satisfaction Detailed Findings – Overall 20. Overall, how satisfied are you with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?

  45. Company Evaluation – Overall Satisfaction Those somewhat/very satisfied with the provider were so because they have never had a complaint (37%), the service is satisfactory/ good/ excellent (8%), and reliable/no service interruptions (8%). However, 20% of satisfied respondents stated that they felt the cost was too high; mainly those from Eastern AZ (30%). Not surprisingly, cost (77%) was the main reason why respondents were dissatisfied (not satisfied at all/somewhat dissatisfied). Other negative comments were related to customer service (9% poor/unfriendly/uncaring customer service) and the water quality (8% odor from sewer/sewage processing facility, 5% smell/taste of water and 7% water is cloudy/contaminated/poor quality/hard). Detailed Findings – Overall NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. 20a. Being as specific as possible, why did you say you are [INSERT FROM Q20] with [INSERT FACILITY BASED ON ZIP CODE]?

  46. Rate Hikes In terms of customer involvement in potential rate hikes, about half (52%) stated they were very or somewhat likely to attend an informational meeting. Those in Eastern AZ indicated a significantly higher likelihood to attend (60%) compared to customers in the other service areas. In case of rate increases the vast majority (87%) preferred having the increases spread out over time with small increases occurring every year. Detailed Findings – Overall Likelihood of Attending Informational Meeting Rate Hike Preference 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:

  47. Business Manager: Matthew Garlick Central Arizona (LPSCO)

  48. Awareness & Perception Familiarity with their water and waste water provider remained high. An obvious shift from the association with the local facility name to the newly branded Liberty Water name (83%) was noted. When asked to describe the provider, most comments were positive (73%) and general with 69% respondents saying good/like it. Also mentioned was good customer service (4%). The number of respondents reporting negative comments was significantly higher this year (32% vs. 16% in 2009 and 2010). Cost is too high (18%) was the leading reason for negative associations, followed by water quality (9%). Matthew Garlick – Central AZ Name of Water/Waste Water Provider NOTE: Data in orange shaded cells are significantly higher; data in gray shaded cells are significantly lower: at 95% confidence level. * Some number may not add up due to rounding 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?

  49. Water Services – Satisfaction Respondents generally rated the water services they received highly. Availability when needed received the highest top 2 box score (94%; 4/5, where 5 = very satisfactory) followed by water pressure (85%) and color (81%). Taste of tap water (44%) and price charged (43%) received the lowest satisfaction scores, both of which were significantly lower as compared to past years. Top 2 Box Scores (4,5): 5 = Very Satisfactory Matthew Garlick – Central AZ NOTE: Orange circled data indicates significant change/ difference compared to other year(s). 1. Please rate your water services in the following areas by using a 5-point scale with 5 being “Very Satisfactory” and 1 being “Not Satisfactory At All”.

  50. Water Services – Interruptions Consistent with previous years, only 4% of respondents had a water service interruption in the past year. Among these, 100% stated the interruption was resolved quickly. Water Interruption Within Last Year Water Interruption Resolved Quickly Matthew Garlick – Central AZ *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.