4. PROGRAM OBSERVATIONZ... IO. APPENDIX...m...*,... 12

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "4. PROGRAM OBSERVATIONZ... IO. APPENDIX...m...*,... 12"

Steven Jefferson
5 years ago
Views:

2 1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIE,..._. _. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES...._..._ PROMOTION AND ADVERTISI~\ G._. _. _. _. _. PROGRAM SERWCE AREA _...._. PROGRAM QUALIFCATIONS......_._..._.._. 2. REBATE METHODOLOGY AmND PROCESS RESULTS REBATE DATA REAKDOWN 5Y5ASIN 5OAF D... 8 WATER SAVINGS... 9 PROGRAM INSTALLATIONS AA D REBATES BY FISCAL YEAR PROGRAM OBSERVATIONZ IO 5 PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS.... * APPENDIX m...*,... 12

3 c f, Program Overrvieuvll PROGRAM FUNDING. The City of Tampa s Great Toil& Rebate Program was cooperatively funded by the Southwest Florida Water Managzment District. The District paid 41% of the project cost incurred by the project end date. The total project cost was $436, Without the generous support of The Hillsborough River Basin Board, the Northwest Hillsborough River Basin Board. and The Alatia River Basin Board the impact this successful project has had on the water savings in the City of Tampa would have been far less The City of Tampa contributed 59% of the funding for this project.. In the interest of customer servic :, the City of Tampa funded an additional $18, after the prqject end date to pro\ ide rebates for 120 customers who replaced their toilets soon after the program enli date. These after program rebates were not cooperativelv funded. PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES. The City of Tampa contracted with Volt VIEWtech to provide the administration of the program and rebate fulfillment. ioh VIEWtech s responsibilities included managing the day to day program operations, working with customers to guide them through the program, tracking all program activity after an application was received, inspecting 100% of Ultra-Low Volume Toilet (ULV) installations, and preparing and issuing all rebate checks.. The City of Tampa s responsibilities included establishing program policy, providing program marketing and promotion, and final oversight of program operations. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES. The Great Toilet Rebate Progran s overall objective is to encourage the City of Tampa water customers to conserve wat :r by replacing their existing high flow (over 1.6 gallons per flush) toilets with neu ultra low volume toilets. Most customers with an operable high flow toilet do not consider replacement until their existing unit fails, Offering customers a rebate covering a substantial portion of the replacement cost results in the replacement of mary high flow units that would not normally be replaced until far in the future.. Program staff provided complete Great Toilet Rebate program information to all interested residential water custoiners of the City of Tampa Water Department, City Of Tampa

4 . Rebates were budgeted for up to 6000 Ultra Low Volume toilets purchased and installed by water customers of tire City of Tampa Water Department rebates were targeted for single family clrstomers rebates were targeted for multi-family customers. 1,000 rebates were t 3rgeted for hotel / motel customers. 750 rebates were targeted for office building customers. 250 rebates were targeted for public / educational customers.. On-site inspections, for verification of installations, were provided for one hundred percent ( 100%) of toilets rebated through the Great Toilet Rebate program.. At the customers request, all replaced toilets were picked up and transported for recycling to the City Of Tampa > road materials recycling center. PROMOTION AND ADVERTISING. A mailing specifically designed to explain and encourage participation in the rebate program, was sent to over 325 h;ensed plumbers registered with the City if Tampa The mailing was also sent to loc;j retailers who sell plumbing supplies and toilets, A response form was included in the mailing so interested Trade Partners could request additional program literature, ap:3lications, and other necessary forms. 52 plumbers responded over the course of tht year.. Additional contacts with Trade Partners occurred throughout the program using both phone and field contacts. PROGRAM SERVICE AREA. The City of Tampa Water Department serves customers within the City of Tampa city limits. Additional customers are Hillsborough County residents provided water service by the City of Tampa, and provitled sewer service by Hillsborough County. Please find attached map in the appendix arca which defines the City of Tampa Service Area. PROGRAM QUALIFICATIONS. The program was open to all res dential customers of the City of Tampa Water Department. Single Family customer rebate levels were as follows: 1 st Toilet u I to $100 or cost, whichever was less. 2nd Toilet Additional toilets u I to $80 or cost, whichever was less u I to $50 or cost, whichever was less. 2 City Of Tampa

5 . All other customer rebate levels -Yere as follows: Per toilet I.!) to $50 or cost, whichever was less.. There is no limit on the number ctf toilets rebated per customer. Single Family Customer Classifications were as follows: Single Family Home i includes individually owned condominiums, and mobile homes) Duplex homes Customers were considered MulTifamily if there were three (3) or more living units for a water account. Duration: June 14, 1996 until all funds were expended. The final funds were expended on October 22, The original purchase receipt was required to have been dated on, or after, May 26, Original receipts were required to be submitted for each toilet rebated to prevent fraud. Rebate applicable customer cost ; were. The LJLV toilet The toilet seat Parts required for the installation of the ULV toilet. Installation charges were not api4icable Customers had a choice of either self-installing or contracting with a licensed plumber for the installation of the Ultra I :IW Volume toilets. Funds were budgeted for rebating up to 6,000 ULV toilets on a first-come / first-served basis. 3 City Of Tampa

6 . Interested customers would call ; he rebate hotline at (8 13) They were asked if they were a customer of the City of Tampa Water Department and sent an application and program guidelines.. Plumbers, at their option, had rel late applications available to them directly. Those plumbers with rebate application 4 in stock (52) were able to provide the customer with forms at the time of installation. This encouraged toilet replacement over toilet repair and removed high volume flush toilets from the private sector.. Applications were also made avarlable at plumbing outlets and home centers to promote the replacement of high volume toilets.. Customers were asked to compltte the installation and return the program application with the original sales receipt.. Upon receipt of the complete cu:;tomer application and original sales receipt the customer information was data entered into the program software. A customer application number was automat,cally assigned by the system.. The original receipt was stamper, with the program stamp to eliminate the possibility the receipt would be reused in the PI ogram. At the customer s request the original receipt was returned to the customer wiih a copy placed in the customers file.. To eliminate the tracking of cust.)mers who did not participate in the program, customers were tracked upon rer:eipt of a completed application. Many applications reached customers through sources other than the program staff. Both plumbers and retailers regularly distributed program literature and applications to their customers. Therefore any tracking of applic;ltions sent out, compared to applications received, would not have resulted in usabli: data.. Once all data was entered into tt e program software the customer was assigned to a program inspector. An office-based scheduler would schedule an inspection time at the customer s convenience.. All inspections were performed Ily Volt VIEWtech inspectors. All inspectors hired had a background in customer servic: and familiarity in construction. Inspectors were trained in program procedures, vlater conservation techniques and policy, and City of Tampa permitting requirements Training occurred in both the office classroom, and the field City Of Tampa

7 . During the inspection the inspect or would: Verify the ULV insta lation Complete a customer survey Complete an inspectit m checklist Indelibly mark all toilet tanks with the reservation number and year of program participation Install up to one low flow showerhead per toilet replaced at the customer s request where a low :low showerhead did not already exist. Put customers reque: ting toilet pick up on a pick up list to be picked up after the inspection. Customers failing an inspection tvere told how they could come into compliance. When completed, a follow up inspection was performed. Upon passing an inspection the 1 aperwork was processed and the customer was issued a rebate check. City Of Tampa

8 REBATE DATA * Total Rebates Processed ** 4824 Single Family Rebates Processed 1952 Single Family Units 1533 Multi-family Rebates Processed 2857 Multi-family Units 2173 Commercial Rebates Processed 15 Commercial Units 11 Total Rebate Dollars Expended I *** Total Single Family Rebate Dollars I {xpended Total Multi-family Rebate Dollars E: upended t Total Commercial Rebate Dollars E,:pended I $323, I $180, $142, Average Single Family Rebate Per I oilet I Average Multi-family Rebate Per Tc ilet I I Average Commercial Rebate Per Toilet 6 City Of Tampa

9 Percentage Single Family Toilets Percentage Multi-family Toilets -~ Percentage Commercial Toilets Percentage Single-family Rebate Dollars Percentage Multi-Family Rebate Dollars Percentage Commercial Rebate Doll jr-s 40% 59% 1% 55% 44% 1% * Includes data from the post program funding provided by the City of Tampa. ** Program goals of 6,000 rebates predicted more participation in the commercial,public institution, and educational sector th ;ln occurred *** A portion of FY 96 rebate fund: were used to fund unfulfilled FY 95 rebate commitments. 7 City Of Tampa

10 BREAKDOWN BY BASIN BOARD Alafia River Basin Board Toilets Rebated 29 I Alafia River Basin Board Rebate Dollars Issued -_- Hillsborough River Basin Board To; ets Rebated --. Hillsborough River Basin Board Rei ate Dollars Issued Northwest Hillsborough River Basin Board Toilets Rebated $2, $171, I 2, Northwest Hillsborough River Basin Board Rebate $149, Dollars Issued 8 City Of Tampa

11 WATER SAVINGS The total number of toilets replaced was 4,824. The total number of living units where toilets were replaced was 3,717. A I ecent study performed for the City of Tampa (Water Savings and Participant Satisfaction t Realized: C ity of Tampa Toilet Rebate Program Evaluation, Ayres Associates study, Nov. 1994) showed an average savings of 38 gallons per day per household. Based on this study total water savings per day is calculated to be 14 1,246 gallons (i.e. 38 gallons x 3, 17 households). The total yearly water savings is calculated to be 5 I,554,790 gallons i.e. 141,246 gallons daily x 365 days). The lifespan of a toilet is assumed to be 30 years. 7 he savings for the fixture life is calculated to be 1,546,643,700 gallons (i.e. 51,554,730 gallons yearly x 30 years). The cost per CCF of water saved is :alculated by dividing the total cost of the program ($486,654.98) by the total CCF saved (total gallons saved divided by 748 = 2,067,705). The cost per CCF of water saved is K.24. Total Water Savings For The Great Toilet Rebate Program (FY93-96) The total number of toilets replaced was 10,952 The total number of units where toilets were replaced was The total vearly water savings is calculated to be 118,768,810 gallons (i e. 8,563 units x 38 gallons per day x 365 days). The savings for the fixture life is calculated to be 3,563,064,300 gallons (i.e ,8 10 gallons yearly x 30 years). The total rebate dollars expended for the period of FY93 through FY96 is $844, Program Installations and Rebates By Fiscal Year FY Toilets 1Jnit 5 Rebate Dollars S M C S M C S M C $60, $0 $ , , $142, $32, $ , , $266, $17, $ j.952 2,857 I ~ 2, $180, $142, $ Total , , $650, $193, $ S = Single Family, M = Multi-farnil%,, C = Commercial City Of Tampa

12 I 4. Program Observations For FY 96 the City of Tampa was required to rebid the administration and delivery contract for the toilet rebate program. This resulted in a 2 month delay in the start up of the FY 96 rebate program after the conclusion of the FY 95 rebate program. Volt VIEWtech was the successful bidder and operation of the FY 96 program commenced on June 14, During program down time sufftciert customer pressure for rebates built up creating a backlog of interested customers and greatly reducing the need for any marketing program Of course the backlog was a direct result of successful of past marketing efforts in the single and multi-family sectors. The multi-family sector has exceedeli the goal of 2,000 installations for the first time in the programs history. This is mainly dt.e to the fact that installation companies put a strong effort into the marketing of multi-family owners. Additionally the multi-family sector had time since the beginning of the rebate program to budget funds for the toilet retrofit process. Once several complexes wzre completed the word throughout the multi-family owners community was that the reb;lte program was a good idea and toilet change out was a water and dollar saver. Anecdotal evidence suggests savings of 30% to 45% of total water usage after toilet retrofit of mlllti-family complexes, The commercial, public facility, and educational sectors goal for the program was not met This was due to the fact that the exi,;ting backlog at the start of the program consumed a considerable portion of the total program funding. A targeted marketing effort towards these customers was not begun. The bulk of the program s advertisir g was supplied by several installation contractors focusing on toilet replacement. Thi? provided the rebate program with a high level of customer recognition and saved the City of Tampa a substantial sum of advertising dollars. Unfortunately, some of these instalhtion contractors, using questionable advertising and sales practices, created confusion as to whether these private installers were or were not City of Tampa employees. Overall the rebate program was tremendously successful completing a years worth of rebates in just 4 months 10 City Of Tampa

13 The City of Tampa currently require i an inspection of 100% of toilets installed. To this point cases of fraud have been mininral, probably less than 10 a year. The City of Tampa might consider reducing the inspectic)n percentage required, to speed the check process and reduce the City s cost, Toilets currently on the market deliver a wide range of operation quality. Some toilets perform very well while others perform poorly. The quality of operation does not always reflect price but is inherent in the design. The City of Tampa accepts all toilets listed as 1.6 gallons or less per flush in their rebate program It is possible to include or exclude toilets on a list based on their performance The few complaints received about toilet operation could be reduced by maintaining a quality based list of acceptable toilet models. This type of listing IS maintained by the Los Altgeles Water District in California. The list is maintained through a. testing procedrn-e and available for purchase. This list would not eliminate quality problems, as the perception of quality is subjective, but it might reduce the number of complaints. Another avenue available for entry ir Ito the rebate program is upon the sale of a home. Other communities have mandated tinlet retrofit at the sale of any home. With available rebates this mandate would cause little expense to the seller and over the period of several years it could be expected that a large percentage of existing toilets would be replaced. 11 City Of Tampa

14 City of Tampa Service Area Map Great Toilet Rebate Application ancl Guidelines 12 City Of Tampa

Toilet Rebate Program

Toilet Rebate Program CUSTOMER ELIGIBILITY: QUALIFICATIONS to receive a toilet rebate: 1. Must have an individual residential water account with Etowah Water & Sewer Authority and customer is up to date/in