Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.a.1) Customer Outreach - Comprehensive Wastewater Master PlanCentral Contra Costa Sanitary District January 28, 2015 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD VIA: ROGER S. BAILEY, GENERAL MANAGER MS ' FROM: EMILY BARNETT, COMMUNICATION SERVICES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS MANAGER SUBJECT: CUSTOMER OUTREACH — COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN As part of the Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWMP), a three-part customer research process was implemented, and those findings will help guide the development of the future CWMP public outreach plan. This Board presentation will include the findings of each component of the customer research process to include: community stakeholder one-on-one interviews, a customer survey, and customer focus groups. Kathryn Horn, Senior Communications Manager of Katz & Associates, will be making a presentation to the Board on the findings from the community stakeholder one-on-one interviews. Katz & Associates provides these services as part of the Carollo Engineers, Inc. CWMP contract. Two documents are included in your Board packet that address the findings from the stakeholder one-on-one interviews: 1. A PowerPoint summarizing the findings. Ms. Horn will present this at the meeting; and 2. A comprehensive 11 -page report that includes information on the methodology, process, and detailed findings. This report is included as an informational item meant to provide you with additional detail. It will not be presented at the meeting, although to the extent you have questions, Ms. Horn will be available to respond to questions. Dave Metz, Principal and President of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3), will be making a presentation to the Board on the findings from the customer survey and focus groups. FM3 provides these services as part of the District's overall outreach efforts and to additionally support the CWMP outreach efforts. Two documents are included in your Board packet that address the findings from the customer survey and focus groups: 1. A PowerPoint summarizing the findings of both the survey and focus groups; and 1. A PowerPoint summarizing the findings of both the survey and focus groups. Mr. Metz will present this at the meeting; and 2. A comprehensive PowerPoint report that includes additional detailed information on the findings. This report is more lengthy and will not be presented at the meeting, although to the extent you have questions, Mr. Metz will be available for questions. Katz & Associates and FM3 will continue to work closely with the Communication Services Division to provide coordination, information sharing, and support to ensure alignment between the CWMP and District's overall public outreach efforts. Regular updates will be provided to the Board. This is an informational item and does not require Board action. Attached Supporting Documents: 1. PowerPoint— Katz & Associates summarizing one-on-one interviews 2. Report — Katz & Associates 3. PowerPoint — FM3 summarizing findings of survey and focus groups 4. PowerPoint Report — FM3 including detailed findings of survey and focus groups ATTACHMENT 1 PRESENTATION TO BE GIVEN AT MEETING Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Summary of Key Stakeholder Interviews January 28, 2016 1. Review of Interview Approach 2. Review of Interview Findings & Key Themes 3. Next Steps • 20 one-on-one discussions to gain qualitative not quantitative feedback • Stakeholders interviewed were recommended during one-on-one interviews with board members • Interviewees were promised anonymity • Interviews lasted 45-60 minutes 01/15/16 2 • Not statistically representative of larger population • Opinions may not be factually accurate • Stakeholders represented long-standing investment within their community groups and not the general population • All of the interviewees were approximately over 35 years old, most were over 50 years old • Patty Deutsche, Tesoro Refinery • Lesley Hunt, Friends of the Creeks • Shelley Despotakis, Danville Chamber of Commerce • Jessica Braverman, Alamo Rotary • Heather Schiff man, Contra Costa Realtors Association • Gary Darling, Delta Diablo Sanitary District • John Burgh, Contra Costa Water District President Garcia, Diablo Valley College Bob Glover, Business Industry Association • Ian Wren, Baykeeper • lack Weir, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association • Diane Burgis, East Bay Regional Parks Bob Simmons, Mayor of Walnut Creek • Bob Whitley, East Bay Leadership Council • Steve Lake, Engineer at Town of Danville • Curtis Swanson, Former Director of Operations, CCCSD • James Kelly, Former GM of Central San • Anne Flynn, League of Women Voters • Alex Coate, East Bay Municipal Utilities District • Candace Andersen, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 01/15/16 3 • Contra Costa Times • City of Concord • Informed Rossmoor Voices • Alamo Women's Club • Mt. Diablo Unified School District • Rotary Club of Alamo • Shell Martinez Refinery • Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Contra Costa County • Friends of the San Francisco Estuary yy�F� • "No News is Good News" • Favorable Customer Service • Available Household Hazardous Waste Program • Ongoing Public Outreach • Reasonable Rates • Residential Recycled Water Program 01/15/16 0 • Post-retirement benefits/pension deficit • Rates may be seen as already too high • Lack of Innovation, exploration of new technologies • Nutrient levels discharged into the Bay • To address an uncertain future (droughts, floods, climate change, growth, etc.) • To improve/expand resource recovery efforts • To improve/expand the recycled water program • To remove ammonia discharge • To integrate public-private partnerships 01/15/16 5 • Comparison of administrative costs including pensions/salaries vs. facilities/equipment • Seismic safety improvements • Inclusion of range of treatment technologies that can be incorporated to achieve the desired results, including nutrient reduction • Comparison of rates to other agencies in the region • Investments vs. regulations/mandates • Need for ongoing public engagement and openness • A need for Central San to prove that investments must be made and prioritized • Need for a third party to look at the useful life of the facilities and their conditions in a scientific manner • Addressing climate change/uncertain future conditions • Addressing increasing population • A look into spreading out investments but locking in current costs r--- 01/15/16 I: 01/15/16 • A11 of the stakeholders interviewed stated they support the use of recycled water for non - drinking purposes. Additional responses included the following: — Need to increase collaboration with other agencies (CCWD) to treat and transport water — Need to identify new/emerging technologies available for recycling water — Need to utilize public/private partnerships Support for researching technologies such indirect potable reuse were generally favorable. Some considerations from stakeholders included: • Benefit vs. Cost • Potential negative public perception • Rate increases should be small and gradual • Role and potential collaboration of other agencies including CCWD • Desalination should also be considered 01/15/16 Preferred Communication Methods • Newspaper Articles /Newsletters — Contra Costa Times — The Pipeline • Email • Social Media • Radio • Presentations community groups • Industry Publications • CCTV ==u • More presentations (Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Chambers of Commerce) — Including presentations by Board Members • Increased presence community events • A presentation at a Mayor's Conference • Mailed postcards with updates • Internet advertising • Media • Elected Officials • Contra Costa Public Works Department • Chambers of Commerce • Libraries • Homeowner's Associations • Schools • Environmental Groups • Building Industry Association • The East Bay Leadership Council • Social Media • Contra Costa Taxpayers Association • Continue reaching out to additional stakeholders • Use key themes to develop communications strategy and key messaging and research findings • Create collateral material based on key messaging 01/15/16 9 Questions . 01/15/16 10 Katz & Associates 1161 Mission Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 www. katza ndassociates.com ATTACHMENT 2 Provided for Info. Only — No Presentation Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan Summary of Key Stakeholder One -on -One Discussions January 5, 2016 1. Introduction In fall 2015, Katz & Associates conducted one-on-one discussions with 20 key stakeholders —individuals who live and/or work within the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's (Central San) service area and/or are involved in the community. The purpose of these discussions was to gauge awareness and perceptions about Central San, determine level of understanding among stakeholders about infrastructure needs, and obtain feedback on the most effective ways for Central San to communicate with members of the community. Specifically, the objectives of the one-on-one conversations were to determine their: • Knowledge and experience with Central San • Level of understanding of the work conducted by Central San • Level of support for investment in replacing or upgrading aging infrastructure and willingness to pay for it • Level of support for increasing use of recycled water for both drinking and non -drinking purposes • Opinions about what Central San does well or could improve • Preferred methods for reaching and communicating with stakeholders Methodology One-on-one discussions are a qualitative research method best suited for uncovering a range of views, beliefs, attitudes, opinions and experiences that may exist in a certain population. With one-on-one discussions, a trained interviewer uses a questionnaire to conduct a structured conversation with participants. The one-on-one or small group discussions for Central San were conducted in-person or via telephone by Katz & Associates' Kathryn Horn and Emily Powell. The one-on-one discussions used a "non -probability sample," which means the sample was not meant to be statistically representative of a larger group, and the size of the group does not affect the integrity of the data collected. Method Limitations Like other qualitative methods, one-on-one discussions allow for detailed exploration of topics but do not provide data that is statistically representative of a larger population. This report details trends among participants when applicable, but those trends cannot be generalized. Instead, the information obtained is descriptive and should be considered as representing a range of opinions that may exist among stakeholders. It should also be noted that opinions may not necessarily be factually accurate. The stakeholders interviewed were recommended by the Board of Directors and selected because of their leadership and civic expertise within the service area, and were skewed toward an older population demographic (most of them over 50 years old, and all of them over 35 years old). Therefore, the comments provided are not representative of the sentiments of younger adults in the community. Anonymity Participants were told that their responses would be incorporated anonymously, and were promised anonymity to encourage candid feedback. 2 Stakeholder Questionnaire A list of 13 questions was prepared by Katz & Associations with approval by Central San as a guide for the interviews (see Appendix A for questionnaire). The guide included unprompted questions, meaning that the questions were open-ended, and the interviewer did not suggest possible answers. In some cases, follow-up questions were asked for clarification. Discussion Length The one-on-one conversations ranged in length from 45 minutes to 60 minutes, with the majority of discussions lasting approximately 45 minutes. The interviewer did not cut off the discussion. Instead, the interviewer encouraged using as much time as each participant could provide to allow the maximum opportunity for discussion. Summary of Responses Individuals participating in the one-on-one discussions had a range of backgrounds including some with past involvement with Central San. Participants included staff from nearby utilities, engineering consultants, representatives of business, economic, environmental and advocacy interests, and elected officials. The summary below is organized by topic area and generalized to provide the essence of the input received during the one-on-one discussions. 2. General Perceptions of Central San Stakeholders were asked about their general impressions of Central San. All of the stakeholders had heard of Central San prior to the interview, and they were mostly familiar with Central San's wastewater treatment and recycled water services. Some of the participants were confused about the difference between Central San and Contra Costa Water District. One of the stakeholders noted that the general public may not be aware of the services provided by Central San. When asked how they received information regarding Central San, responses included: • The Pipeline newsletter • Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) • California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) • Word—of-mouth • Central San's website The perception of Central San was favorable overall. Many respondents stated that they did not hear about Central San very often but some explained that "no news is usually good news" in the water and wastewater industry. Positive perceptions were focused on: • Customer Service • Household Hazardous Waste Program • Public Outreach • Rates • Recycled Water Program 3 Negative perceptions of Central San were focused on: • Lack of Innovation, exploration of new technologies • Nutrient levels discharged into the Bay • Post-retirement benefits/pension deficit • Rates may be seen as already too high 3. Infrastructure Investments and Rate Increases Current Sewer Rates Most of the stakeholders who participated did not know what their exact sewer rates were on an annual basis, but knew "roughly" the amount. Responses ranged from $100-600 per year. The majority of answers fell around $300-400 per year. Half of the participants knew that their sewer bill was included on their property tax bill. A few of the respondents stated that they would refer to the website to find out their annual rates. None of the stakeholders expressed any concern over their current sewer rates, with a few noting that they felt they were reasonable and/or probably comparable to other districts in the area. Infrastructure Investments All of the stakeholders felt that investments in infrastructure, such as updates to wastewater treatment plants and pipelines, were important. Top priorities when considering infrastructure investments included: • Addressing an uncertain future (droughts, floods, climate change, etc.) • Improving/expanding resource recovery efforts • Improving/expanding the recycled water program • Removing ammonia discharge • Seeking public-private partnerships Stakeholders were asked what questions they would need answered to justify investments in infrastructure that would likely result in higher sewer rates. Several stakeholders wanted to know exactly how much the rates would be raised, and wanted to be provided with detailed reporting of how the funds would be used and what type of wastewater technology was researched and chosen. Additional priorities included: • Comparison of rates to other agencies in the region • Investments vs. regulations/mandates • Seismic safety improvements • Comparison of administrative costs including pensions/salaries vs. facilities/equipment • Inclusion of range of treatment technologies that can be incorporated to achieve the desired results, including nutrient reduction • Need for a third party to look at the useful life of the facilities and their conditions in a scientific manner IIn • A look into spreading out investments but locking in current costs • Addressing increasing population • Addressing climate change/uncertain future conditions • A need for Central San to prove that investments must be made and prioritized • Need for ongoing public engagement and openness 4. Support for recycled water use Understanding of the recycled water program Stakeholders were asked if they were aware of Central San's current recycled water program that uses 600 million gallons of recycled wastewater per day to irrigate some local parks and golf courses. Most of the respondents were aware that Central San does have a recycled water program, however very few knew the amount of water reclaimed and reused per day for irrigation purposes. Several respondents felt that Central San was under -utilizing recycled water and that they could do more. One respondent suggested that Central San could work with nearby refineries to use recycled water. Support for non -potable recycled water All of the stakeholders interviewed stated they support the use of recycled water for non -drinking purposes. Additional responses included the following: • Need to increase collaboration with other agencies (CCWD) • Need to identify new/emerging technologies available for recycling water • Need to utilize public/private partnerships to treat and transport the water Support for indirect potable reuse research Stakeholders were asked if they supported Central San looking into the feasibility of treating wastewater to an advanced level and using it for storage as part of the raw water supply. Almost all of the stakeholders said that they would support this effort. In fact, most of them stated they would support paying higher rates on their property tax bill to support this effort. Two of the respondents voiced concerns about trace prescription drugs in the groundwater supply. Additional comments included the following: • Cost vs. Benefit • Might be negative public perception • Rate increases should be small and gradual • Role and potential collaboration of other agencies including Contra Costa Water District • Would also support looking into desalination 5 5. Preferred Communication Best communication methods When asked about the best methods to communicate with and update stakeholders and community members, participants indicated the following sources (including the number of times mentioned): • Newspaper/Newsletter articles (16) o Contra Costa Times (16) o The Pipeline (13) o LamorindaSun (3) o Danville and San Ramon Express (1) o Alamo/Danville Today (1) o Valley Sen tin el (1) o Community Focus (1) o Town of Danville Newsletter (1) • Email (13) o Town of Danville a -blast Social Media (13) o Facebook(13) • Notifications from elected officials (1) o Twitter (7) o Linkedln (7) o Nextdoor.com (5) o Pleasant Hill Patch (1) o Danville Patch (1) • Radio (1) o NPR (1) o KQED (1) o KGO (1) • Presentations to community groups o Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs and similar organizations (3) o Walnut Creek Watershed Council (1) o East Bay Leadership Council (1) • Industry Publications (1) • CCN (1) The Pipeline The majority of the stakeholders interviewed stated they receive Central San's publication, The Pipeline. The majority of those that received it stated that they read it regularly and find it useful and informative. Some stated that they would prefer that Central San send it digitally to reduce waste. Others enjoyed receiving hard copies and said that they would be less likely to read a digital publication. 11 Frequency of communication When asked about a preferred frequency of communication, most responded that The Pipeline's publication schedule was appropriate. Others stated that correspondence should be on an "as -needed" basis, and they would like to receive updates whenever there are new projects, areas for concern, or interesting events. How to better communicate to the public Stakeholders were asked for additional ways in which Central San could communicate with stakeholders and community members. Respondents were split based on whether they preferred electronic or print materials. Several suggested in-person presentations to community groups and elected officials. Responses included: • Ongoing speaker's bureau presentations to community groups, including presentations by Board members • Special presentations to the City of Concord and City of Clayton • Expanded electronic and social media • Presentations to Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Chambers of Commerce • A presentation at mayor's conference • Outreach at local community events, fairs and farmers markets • Mailed postcards with updates o Include "Top five items homeowners should know about their sewer system" • Internet advertising Most trusted sources of information According to participant responses, information is obtained from a variety of sources. Additionally, participants were asked to identify the information resources they felt were the most trustworthy sources of information. Responses included: • Media o ABC 7 News o The Bay Area News Group o Contra Costa Times o San Francisco Chronicle • Elected Officials o City Managers o County Supervisors • Contra Costa Public Works Department • Chambers of Commerce • Libraries • Homeowner's Associations • Schools • Contra Costa Taxpayers Association 7 • Environmental Groups • Building Industry Association • The East Bay Leadership Council o Water Task Force • Social Media o Facebook 6. Additional Comments Stakeholders were asked if there were any additional comments. The following are the main themes of the comments provided: • Expand recycled water program and look into a larger distribution center • Look into additional funding sources: corporate sponsorships, bonds and sales tax • Strategic plans should be posted on the website • Consider a name change, away from "Sanitary District' • Be transparent regarding pension liability issue • Look at how to better do resource recovery 7. Next Steps Input collected from the one-on-one stakeholder meetings will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan Strategic Communication Plan that is under development. The Strategic Communication Plan will include some of the suggested outreach techniques and methods that came out of these discussions. This will help ensure a robust and proactive communication program moving forward. The Communications Plan will also identify some of the positive and negative public perceptions that were identified and determine ways in which Central San can better address these perceptions. APPENDIX A — STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan Stakeholder One -on -One Questionnaire Person Interviewed: Who Conducted Interview? Date: 1. Before we requested time to discuss Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD or Central San), had you heard anything about this agency? If yes, then what and how? 2. Are you familiar with the services provided by CCCSD? 3. What are your general impressions of CCCSD? 4. Do you know what your sewer rates are on an annual basis? S. CCCSD recently initiated an 18 -month Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan to evaluate the conditions of its capital facilities and make recommendations on future investments to replace or upgrade aging infrastructure. The District also wants to ensure it meets future environmental requirements associated with treating and discharging wastewater into the Bay. Do you think infrastructure investments such as a wastewater treatment plant and pipelines are important? 6. It is highly probable that the CWMP will identify significant investments required over the next decade, resulting in a need to raise sewer rates for the next several years. What questions would you need answered to ensure these investments are justified? 7. Are you aware that CCCSD currently recycles 600 million gallons of wastewater and uses it to run their facilities and for some local parks and golf courses? 8. Do you support the use of recycled water? If yes, would you like to see the District increase the use of recycled water for non -drinking purposes, even if it means raising your sewer rates? 9. Some sanitary and water agencies are now treating their wastewater to an advanced level and using it for storage as a part of their raw water supply. This becomes a drought -proof, reliable supply of water for the region. Would you support CCCSD looking at the feasibility of this opportunity? (if yes, discuss cost considerations -- would you be willing to pay more each year on your property tax bills to support a higher treatment of wastewater to be used to supplement our groundwater suppliers in the region?) 10. How do you find out about current events related to your community? (Word-of-mouth, email, newspapers, newsletters, television, radio, direct mail, social media, etc.) a. Would you be interested in receiving updates regarding CCCSD projects in the future? b. How often would you like to receive information? c. Do you have any other suggestions about how we can communicate with stakeholders, residents and businesses in your area? d. CCCSD produces a multi -page newsletter three times a year called The Pipeline. Do you receive this newsletter and if so, do you find it informative and helpful? 11. Who and/or what do you think are the most trusted sources of public information in your community? 12. CCCSD is committed to raising awareness and working more closely with the community. What suggestions do you have that can help them achieve this goal? 13. Are there any other issues or suggestions you want to discuss as we continue this outreach effort? s�] APPENDIX B -STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPANTS • Patty Deutsche, Tesoro Refinery • Lesley Hunt, Friends of the Creeks • Shelley Despotakis, Danville Chamber of Commerce • Jessica Braverman, Alamo Rotary • Heather Schiffman, Contra Costa Realtors Association • Gary Darling, Delta Diablo Sanitary District • John Burgh, Contra Costa Water District • President Garcia, Diablo Valley College • Bob Glover, Business Industry Association • Ian Wren, Baykeeper • Jack Weir, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association • Diane Burgis, East Bay Regional Parks • Bob Simmons, Mayor of Walnut Creek • Bob Whitley, East Bay Leadership Council • Steve Lake, Engineer at Town of Danville • Curtis Swanson, Former Director of Operations, CCCSD • James Kelly, Former GM of Central San • Anne Flynn, League of Women Voters • Alex Coate, East Bay Municipal Utilities District • Candace Andersen, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors ADDITIONAL SUGGESTED STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPANTS The following stakeholders were reached out to as part of the stakeholder interview process. Some were either unavailable, unresponsive, or unwilling to participate. Some of the stakeholders are still in the process of scheduling their interview and their comments will be reflected in a later addendum report. • Association of Bay Area Governments • Friends of the San Francisco Estuary • Informed Rossmoor Voices • Contra Costa Times • Alamo Women's Club • City of Concord • Mt. Diablo Unified School District • Rotary Club of Alamo • Shell Martinez Refinery • Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Contra Costa County 11 ATTACHMENT 3 PRESENTATION TO BE GIVEN AT MEETING Survey Methodology y 401 telephone interviews with registered voters in the CCCSD service territory who own their homes ■ Excluded Clayton and Concord ■ Interviews conducted November 21-24, 2015 ■ Interviews on londlines and cell phones Y Margin of sampling error of +/- 4.9% at the 95% confidence level ➢ Some percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding Focus Group Methodology ➢ Two two-hour long focus groups were conducted on December 15, 2015 in Walnut Creek ➢ Group 1: Eight homeowners from Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, Pleasant Hill, and Alamo ➢ Group 2: Ten homeowners from Walnut Creek and Martinez Key Findings Central Contra Costa County residents are very satisfied with their wastewater treatment service. • Despite this, most are unfamiliar with the CCCSD and are unsure of who their service provider is. • Most were not aware of the amount of their annual service rate. • Residents are familiar with "Pipeline" and find it to be a useful source of information. When presented with a description of CCCSD, 91% report being satisfied. Three-quarters of residents are familiar with recycled water. 91% support its use in Contra Costa County as a general principle 61% support its use for drinking water Nearly nine -in -ten (87%) support the current practice of incinerating biosolids to generate energy and produce fertilizer. A majority of residents (87%) support the CCCSD Master Plan Support diminishes slightly (74%) once they become aware of associated rate increases 2 Most Contra Costa residents are unfamiliar with the CCCSD. How familiar are you with the District and its work in Contra Costa County? Very familiar3% Very/Smwt. Familiar Somewhat familiar 21% 24% A little familiar 32%A Little/ Not Familiar Not familiar at all qq% 76% Don't know/NA 111% .% 10, 20% So1 nox sox 3 Most residents do not know that CCCSD is the agency responsible for their wastewater treatment... Do you know the name of the agency responsible for collecting and treating wastewater in your area? Don't recall East Bay Municipal Utility District/EBMUD Central Contra Costa Coon Sanitary District Contra Costa Water Waste Management Contra Costa Water Department/District Contra Costa Sewage Treatment Center Other/Don't know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% They have little clarity on how much the wastewater treatment service costs them. How much do you pay per year for sewer service on your property tax bill? $0 10% It an $200 or less 7% rj,9 0ver$200 11% Don't know/Refused 72% ws 1.x lox Sox aou sox 60% lox 80% E When CCCSD's name is provided, many point to its wastewater treatment services. I'd like to ask you about an agency that serves your community, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. As far as you know, what services do they provide? Manage/Treat wastewater 37% Deal with sewage (general) 25% Garbage disposal 12% Recycling 7�0 Pipe maintenance13% 5� Test/Provide waterq/ Clear street drains Sanitation Other/Don't know/Nothing 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 5 Background on the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Let me tell you more about the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Central Contra Costa and the services it provides. Each Sanitary District day, the district collects and treats ' an average of 36 million gallons of wastewater from nearly 500,000 residents and about 3,000 businesses in Contra Costa County. That's enough water to fill 720,000 large bathtubs. After learning about the agency's role, a strong majority reports being satisfied with its service. How satisfied would you say that you are with the services provided by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District] Very satisfied 58% Total J Satisfied Somewhat satisfied 33% 91% Somewhat dissatisfied12V. Total Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 3% Don't know/NA 6% 0'M 10% 20% 30'M 00% 50% 60.4 7O% 6 Sources of satisfaction include the lack of issues, flooding, and good water quality. In a few words of your own, why are you SATISFIED with the District's services? General satisfaction/No issues with them Never flooding within households/ Pipes are clear Good water quality/Clean Great customer service/Excellent communication Trustworthy/Reliable/Always follow through OY. 1M P.% 901. 40% SOA 60% 7M.. 80% 7 Many residents are familiar with the concept of recycled water. How familiar are you with the concept of recycled water? Very familiar 26% Very/Smwt. Somewhat familiar 50Y Familiar J76/ Not too familiar14%1 Not Too/ Il At All Familiar Not at all familiarW10% 24% Don't know/NA u 1% 0% 10% 30% 30% 40% 50% 60% With context, three in five support its use for drinking water. Recycled water is wastewater that has been subjected to advanced treatment that meets strict federal and state regulations to make it safe for all purposes, including drinking. Through this process, wastewater can be treated to a level that helps to guarantee that fresh drinking water is available at all times, including times of extreme drought. Having heard this, would you support or oppose recycling water for use as a part of our drinking water supply? Strongly support290a Total Somewhat support 32% Support 61% Somewhat oppose!3-%/oTotal Strongly oppose 22% Oppose 35% Don't know/NA 4% 0% IO, 20° 90% 40Y. Background on Alternatives for the Disposal of Biosolids After wastewater is treated, it leaves behind organic matter known as biosolids that must be disposed of. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District produces about 200 wet tons of biosolids, or enough to fill 22 dump trucks, every day. I am going to read you several approaches that the District is considering for the disposal of those biosolids. All options meet strict state and federal environmental regulations and approvals. 9 The use of biosolids for agricultural purposes receives strong support regardless of the treatment method. ■Strng. Supp. ■Smwt. Supp. ■Smwt. Opp. ■Sung. Opp. ❑DK/NA *Reducing the amount of biosolids through incineration to generate energy and to use the ash in fertilizer Treating biosolids to a higher level, then using them for agriculture *Reducing the amount of biosolids through incineration Trucking them directly to a landfill 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Total Supp. 87% 82% 54% 47% 10 Master Plan Description Tested The District operates 1500 miles of sewers, 19 pump stations, and 22 miles of force main pipes, all of which are aging and many of which are over 50 years old. Over the next two years, the District will develop a new Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan. The plan will focus on the community's needs over the next 20 years, with the goals of addressing potential problems before they arise, minimizing disruptions, and decreasing the likelihood of failures. It will also guide implementation of our programs that will increase efficiency and ensure reliable, cost-effective services. Among the recommended improvements included in the Master Plan will be reducing energy use, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and repairing or replacing aging wastewater infrastructure. The proposed Master Plan receives strong support. Overall, does implementing this Master Plan sound like something you would support or oppose? Strongly support 54% Total Support Somewhat support 33% 87% Somewhat oppose3% Total Oppose Strongly oppose 5% 8% Don't know/NA 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% so% 60% Support drops, but remains broad, when residents learn about associated rate increases. It is estimated that implementing the Master Plan will require rate increases that may average as much as 10% per year for a period of several years. Knowing this, let me ask you again — would you support or oppose implementing the District's Master Plan? Strongly support 43t/o Total Somewhat support 31% Support 74% Somewhat oppose;4'%/o Total Oppose Strongly oppose13% 22% Don't know/NA 20 Y. 30% a0%. 50% Most residents are willing to pay as much as eight dollars more per month to support it. Keeping in mind that the average monthly wastewater bill is about $40, suppose that implementing the Master Plan and increasing the use of recycled water, reducing energy use, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and repairing or replacing aging wastewater infrastructure cost more per month. Would you find that acceptable or unacceptable? ■Comp.Acc. ■Smwt.Acc. ■SmwtUnacc. NVeryUnacc. ❑DK/NA Total Total Acc. Unacc. $4 87% 11% $6 79% 19% $8 67% 29% 0% 20% 40% 60% B0% 100°/ 12 Nearly two-thirds of residents say they have read the "Pipeline." Have you ever read Central Contra Costa Sanitary District newsletter, "Pipeline"? No Yes 35% L 64% efused/N A 1% 13 Among those familiar with it, a majority finds the newsletter to be informative. Did you find it informative? Yes .. No 4% Don't know/NA 1% A multi -faceted communications strategy is necessary. ■ Def. Pay Att. ■ Maybe Pay Att. ■ Def. Not Pay Att. ❑ DK/NA Def./Maybe Pay Att. Facility tours 55% A billboard 54% An advertisement on a website 51% An advertisement in the newspaper 48% Classroom programs in schools 45% A booth at a special event, such as a fair or a festival, home or car show 44% An advertisement on Facebook, Twitter, or Linkedln 30% o� 20% 4Ms°vc a°^� ioa% 14 Additional Findings About Sources of Information Online information sources stood out among Asian and non-white residents 40 percent of Asian residents and 44% of non-white residents said they would "definitely" pay attention to online information Online information sources also stood out among residents under 50 Residents over 65 pay attention to written brochures at higher rates than younger residents do Y Women pay more attention to all information sources than their male counterparts, except facility tours ➢ Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill residents have the highest rates of awareness of "Pipeline" V --4� �s VT !� 7ff�W�Pu�s 15 Conclusions ➢ Satisfaction with wastewater treatment service in CCCSD's service area is very high. ➢ CCCSD has very low name recognition, but when residents learn that CCCSD is responsible for the service they view it very favorably. There is familiarity with and strong support for the use of recycled water. ■ Support for its use as drinking water is weaker ■ The focus groups suggest that with education residents become more comfortable with potable use of recycled water ➢ The proposed Master Plan is well-received, with 87% support • Two-thirds of residents are willing to pay as much as $8 more per month to support it, and a majority are comfortable with rate increases of up to 10 percent per year • Residents like the idea of planning ahead, and focus group participants appreciated that the District's rates are currently below Bay Area averages Dave Metz Lucia Del Puppo Dave@FM3research.com Lucia@FM3research.com 1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone (510) 451-9521 Fax (510) 451-0384 Fairbank. Maslin. Maullin, Meta & Associates — FV13 16 ATTACHMENT 4 Provided for Info. Only — No Presentation Survey Methodology Y 401 telephone interviews with registered voters in the CCCSD service territory who own their homes ■ Excluded Clayton and Concord ■ Interviews conducted November 21-24, 2015 ■ Interviews on landlines and cell phones r Margin of sampling error of +/- 4.9% at the 95% confidence level y Some percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding Focus Group Methodology ➢ Two two-hour long focus groups were conducted on December 15, 2015 in Walnut Creek ➢ Group 1: Eight homeowners from Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, Pleasant Hill, and Alamo ➢ Group 2: Ten homeowners from Walnut Creek and Martinez Key Findings ➢ Central Contra Costa County residents are very satisfied with their wastewater treatment service. Despite this, most are unfamiliar with the CCCSD and are unsure of who their service provider is. • Most were not aware of the amount of their annual service rate. • Residents are familiar with "Pipeline" and find it to be a useful source of information. ➢ When presented with a description of CCCSD, 91% report being satisfied. ➢ Three-quarters of residents are familiar with recycled water. 91% support its use in Contra Costa County as a general principle • 61% support its use for drinking water ➢ Nearly nine -in -ten (87%) support the current practice of incinerating biosolids to generate energy and produce fertilizer. ➢ A majority of residents (87%) support the CCCSD Master Plan ➢ Support diminishes slightly (74%) once they become aware of associated rate increases 2 Contra Costa residents are satisfied with their wastewater treatment system. I am going to ask you about a variety of services you receive from local government. Please tell me whether you are generally satisfied or dissatisfied with that service. ■Very5at. ■Smwt.Sat. ❑DK/No Opin. ■Smwt.Dissat. ■Very Dissat. Total Total Sat. Dissat. Garbage collection 96% 3% Park and recreation services Drinking water treatment and service Wastewater treatment system, including the sewer pipes Street maintenance and repair a% 20% 40% 6% 80% IM% 92% 1% 86% 12% 84% 5% 72% 25% 3 Most residents understand that wastewater goes to a treatment plant, although many are uncertain. To the best of your knowledge, where does wastewater go after you flush? Goes to a treatment plant 58% Goes into the Bay9% Goes into creeks/rivers/streams 11Y. Goes in the ground 0% Other/Don't know/NA 37% 0% 10% ]0% 3094 4096 50% 6p°6 70% Most Contra Costa residents are unfamiliar with the CCCSD. How familiar are you with the District and its work in Contra Costa County? Very familiar 3% Very/Smwt. Familiar Somewhat familiar 21% 24% A little familiar A Little/ Not Familiar 32% Not familiar at all 44% 76% Don't know/NA 1% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% M Most residents do not know that CCCSD is the agency responsible for their wastewater treatment... Do you know the name of the agency responsible for collecting and treating wastewater in your area? Don't recall East Bay Municipal Utility District/EBMUD Central Contra Costa Coun Sanitary District Contra Costa Water Waste Management Contra Costa Water Department/District Contra Costa Sewage Treatment Center Other/Don't know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% ...and they have little clarity on how much the service costs them. How much do you pay per year for sewer service on your property tax bill? $0 a 10% Mean $200 or less Over$200 11% Don't know/Refused 720 0% 10% 20% 1.% amt 5m w% 70% .% 5 The focus groups reflected a similar uncertainty, although a few participants were familiar with the District. Group 1: We're served by Contra Costa San and they pump the sewage to a big treatment plant in —I don't know whether it's Concord or Martinez, I guess it's Martinez — Pacheco area right by 680 and Four, and then it's flushed actually into Suisun Bay which is technically part of the Delta. Group 2: 1 see on the streets, on the manhole covers, "CCCSD" I think it says. - r -A I w When CCCSD's name is provided, many point to its wastewater treatment services. I'd like to ask you about an agency that serves your community, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. As for as you know, what services do they provide? Manage/Treat wastewater 37% Deal with sewage (general) 25% Garbage disposal 12% Recycling 7% 7 Pipe maintenance13% 5y, Test/Provide waterqry, Clear street drains3% Sanitation Other/Don't know/Nothing 31% 0% 10% 20% 30W 40% R Background on the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Let me tell you more about the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Central Contra costa and the services it provides. Each Sanitary District day, the district collects and treats an average of 36 million gallons of wastewater from nearly 500,000 residents and about 3,000 businesses in Contra Costa County. That's enough water to fill 720,000 large bathtubs. After learning about the agency's role, a strong majority reports being satisfied with its service. How satisfied would you say that you are with the services provided by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District? Very satisfied 589/,Total Satisfied Somewhat satisfied 339%. 91% Somewhat dissatisfied 2%JTotal Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1% 3% Don't know/NA 6% ax M zo% Sox 4wx sa% sax lox Service satisfaction cuts across lines of ethnicity, gender, and age... Don't Know/NA Whites 91% 3% 6% Latinos 100% 0% 0% Asians/Pacific Islanders 97% 0% 3% Residents of Color 98% 0% 2% Men 93% 1% 5% Women 89% 3% 7% 18-49 87% 5% 7% 50-64 93% 1% 6% 65+ 93% 2% 5% '3 ...as well as geography and income. Don't Know/NA Men Ages 18-49 89% 4% 8% Men Ages 50+ 95% 1% 4% Women Ages 18-49 86% 7% 7% Women Ages 50+ 91% 2% 7% Alamo, Danville, and San Ramon 91% 4% 5% Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek 94% 0% 6% Martinez and Pacheco 82% 30% 8% Moraga, Orinda, and Lafayette 93% 1% 6% Other Household income 90% 2% 8% <$60,000 91% 0% 9% $60,000-$100,000 94% 1% 4% $100,000+ 92% 3% 5% Sources of satisfaction include the lack of issues, flooding, and good water quality. In a few words of your own, why are you SATISFIED with the District's services? General satisfaction/No issues with them Never flooding within households/ Pipes are clear Good water quality/Clean Great customer service/Excellent communication Trustworthy/Reliable/Always follow through °% 1°1 x°% °o% 40% 1°1 5°% %% Bb/. 0 Verbatim Comments from Satisfied Residents They seem to be doing a good /d on'tes with them. job and maintaining the that works so infrastructure and recycle ar about them. treated water. I really don't have any complaints and no They recycle the water for us real problems. When I had a problem and it in a drought and that is had to be replaced, but they were fine and important. issued the permit. It seemed fine. That is the only real connection/ had with them. I don't have to call them, so to me that is perfect service. They also provide me with a newsletter that lets me know what it going on or how they provide the service. They make recycled water available to the public. Focus group participants expressed similar satisfaction. Group 1: 1 like their used water system. I have a 275 gallon tote and 1 go there and 1 get [recycled] water from there. Group 2: Generally when you don't hear bad things, they are doing a good job. Group 2: I'm veryfamiliar with them, in that they will take your unused chemicals that are still in labeled bottles. If you are a resident of the county, they aren't going to charge for it. The greywater that they collect, the recycled water that they use, during this drought they are giving it out for free. I see people that say, "Hey, my yard is irrigated by greywater,"or whatever the term is. So they do a lot of good things to keep the trash and the chemicals out of the water that is going to the bay and into the ocean. E Comments from the small minority that were dissatisfied indicate that they are confused about CCCSD's role. Lately, whenever I drink the water it tastes really gross and I now buy my drinking water. They have not done anything to improve and they raise their rates. I should have heard of them. The water recently started tasting bad, the bath water smells like dirt, tap water and bath water. I think they could be doing more to address priorities. Contra Costa residents are most satisfied with the safe collection of wastewater and the lack of sewer overflows. I'm going to read you some of the responsibilities of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Please tell me how satisfied you are with the job the District is doing, using a one -to -five scale where one means you are "not at oil satisfied" and five means you are "very satisfied." ■S(Very Sat.) •4 M3(Neutral) ■2 ■1(Notat All Sat.) ❑DK/NA Total Ensuring safe and reliable collection of Satisfied wastewater 9% 67% Preventing sewer overflows Protecting water quality in local streams and the Bay Providing places to safely drop off household hazardous waste Keeping the public informed about the wastewater and sewer systems 0% 20% 40% 60% 00% 100% 66% 62% 51% 50% 11 Residents are largely uncertain about the agency's performance in a variety of other areas. ■s(verysac) ■4 03(Neutral) ®2 ■tlNotatnusat.) ❑oK/Nn Total Satisfied Providing recycled water for residential uses Helping residents learn how to reduce water pollution Providing recycled water Planning for future wastewater treatment regulations Providing pharmaceutical disposal sites 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100, 43% 43% 36% 26% 37% 12 Many Contra Costa residents are familiar with the concept of recycled water. How familiar are you with the concept of recycled water? Very familiar �26% Very/Smwt. Familiar Somewhat familiar 50% 76% Not too familiar14% Not Too/ At All Familiar Not at all familiar 10% 24% Don't know/NA 1% ox 10% lox 30% aox sox sox An even greater number supports its use in Central Contra Costa County. Recycled water is wastewater that has been thoroughly treated and is safe for reuse. Do you support or oppose increasina the use of recycled water in Contra Costa County? Strongly supportIMM B7% Total Support Somewhat support0249! 91% Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know/NA iar. 20% 30% aW. soo. 5o% lox 8o% 13 The most acceptable uses of recycled water are agricultural and industrial. lam going to read you a list of potential uses for recycled water. Please indicate whether you consider each item to be a completely acceptable, somewhat acceptable, somewhat unacceptable, or completely unacceptable use for recycled water. ■ Tot al Acceptable ■Total Unacceptable Difference Irrigation, gardening, and landscaping Industrial uses Household uses other than drinking, such as laundry, showers, and dishwashers With advanced treatment, to meet safe drinking water standards 100% 80% box 40% 20% 0% 20% 4[ With more context, three in five support its use for drinking water. Recycled water is wastewater that has been subjected to advanced treatment that meets strict federal and state regulations to make it safe for all purposes, including drinking. Through this process, wastewater can be treated to a level that helps to guarantee that fresh drinking water is available at all times, including times of extreme drought. Having heard this, would you support or oppose recycling water for use as a part of our drinking water supply? Strongly supportP9o�o Total Somewhat support 32% Support 61% Somewhat oppose 13% Total Strongly oppose 2200 appose 35% Don't know/NA 4% ow. io°r. zo% aov. 4ov. 14 Focus Group Reactions to Recycled Water ➢ Focus group participants were comfortable with the use of recycled water for irrigation and household uses, such as laundry and toilet flushing ➢ There was some discomfort with the idea of using recycled waterfor drinking water v Though a discomfort persisted for some, as they learned more, their level of comfort with potable reuse grew ➢ Hearing more details about the multi- stage treatment process raised customers' confidence ➢ Consciousness of the severity of the drought left most participants open to considering new approaches to expand water supplies Focus Group Comments in Support of Recycled Water Group 1: If it can be truly cleaned Group 1: They seem to be and purified, it would be acceptable doing a good job of to me. It would conserve a scarce maintaining the infrastructure resource here in California. and treating recycled water. Group 2: The technology exists to do this. What are we waiting for? I would rather drink this than rainwater in the L.A. basin. Group 1: I see no reason that— as long as standards are upheld and criteria met regarding purity — that we should not consider this as an option. Group 1: 1 support the sustainability of the process and hope that by adding the treated water back to nature will be able to further treat the water and that it will be safe for drinking again. 15 Focus Group Comments in Opposition to Recycled Water Group 2: I would be okay flushing my toilet or maybe showering, but 1 just wouldn't want to cook or drink [with it]. I would rather go buy a bottle of water. Group 1: It's like they're saying don't throw your meds down the toilet, which means people are throwing their meds down the toilet which means that if there's recycled water that I'm using there's a good chance there's some level of medicines or some sort of toxin in there. So I'd say it's good but it's got its place. Group 1: It's a health concern. Groupl: I guess I'd want to know if that were financially feasible. It's all nice to talk about but if we have to put in a whole second system of water distribution pipes (when) we can't even replace, through the district that serves us, the ones that are in service to get us our drinking water— that's kind of a problem. Support for potable use of recycled water is generally consistent across ethnic groups. Support for Potable Use of Recycled Water by Ethnicity ■Total Support ■Total Oppose ❑DK/NA 80% - of b b O 60% H b b� P 40% Mo rn P 20% -I 0% O Latinos Whites Asians/ Residents of Color (% of Pacific Islanders Sample) (4%) (77%) Ill%) (16%) 161 Gender and age differences on the issue are modest. Support for Potable Use of Recycled Water by Gender by Age ■Total Support ■Total Oppose ❑DK/NA Women Men 80% H h b b so% 40% = ^'1 n'1 M N M 20% ry C �\ M o% (% of 18-49 50+ 18-49 50+ Sample) (15%) (3491) (12%) (38%) Support is fairly consistent across geographic areas. Support for Potable Use of Recycled Water by City ■Total Support ■Total Oppose ❑DK/NA b b 0% EEL— Alamo, Danville and San Pleasant Hill Martinez and Pacheco Moraga, Orinda, (% of Ramon and Walnut Creek and Lafayette Sample) (34%) (29%) (e%) (20%) Other (11%) O 17 Residents in the median household income range tend to be most supportive of the potable use of recycled water. Support for Potable Use of Recycled Water by Household Income ■Total Support ■Total Oppose SDK/NA 8M - Nb� sox - eA° b 'n b a oar M M N M °rye' M au — <$60,000 $60,000-5100,0000 5100,000+ of Sample) )lt%G) (23%) )52%) 18 Background on Alternatives for the Disposal of Biosolids After wastewater is treated, it leaves behind organic matter known as biosolids that must be disposed of. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District produces about 200 wet tons of biosolids, or enough to fill 22 dump trucks, every day. I am going to read you several approaches that the District is considering for the disposal of those biosolids. All options meet strict state and federal environmental regulations and approvals. The use of biosolids for agricultural purposes receives strong support regardless of the treatment method. ■Strng. Supp. ■Smwt. Supp. 0Smwt Opp. ■Strng. Opp. ❑DK/NA Total *Reducing the amount of biosolids through Su PP' incineration to generate energy and to use 87% the ash in fertilizer Treating biosolids to a higher level, then using them for agriculture *Reducing the amount of biosolids through incineration Trucking them directly to a landfill 0% 2WA Ooh 60% BM/. 100% 82% 54% 46% 19 Focus Group Comments in on Biosolid Disposal Participants read a "Pipeline" article with details of the District's approach to disposing of biosolids, then offered generally positive reactions. Group 1: It's kind of nice that the amount of stuff that's trucked off is reduced. I guess the paranoia in me is there's always pluses and minuses to everything and that I guess even though you've got scrubbers on the furnace, that there's still going to be something going up in the air that probably shouldn't Group 2: [Trucking waste to a landfill] sounds Group worse, but Pd also like to see the facts. Group 1: It's great that they're keeping stuff out of the landfill, because if you walk around in your neighborhood and see how much everybody crams into their garbage cons and it heads to the landfill, there's not much room. 20 Master Plan Description Tested The District operates 1500 miles of sewers, 19 pump stations, and 22 miles of force main pipes, all of which are aging and many of which are over 50 years old. Over the next two years, the District will develop a new Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan. The plan will focus on the community's needs over the next 20 years, with the goals of addressing potential problems before they arise, minimizing disruptions, and decreasing the likelihood of failures. It will also guide implementation of our programs that will increase efficiency and ensure reliable, cost-effective services. Among the recommended improvements included in the Master Plan will be reducing energy use, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and repairing or replacing aging wastewater infrastructure. The proposed Master Plan receives strong support. Overall, does implementing this Master Plan sound like something you would support or oppose? Strongly support 54% Total Support Somewhat support 33% 87% Somewhat oppose3% Total Oppose Strongly oppose 5% 8% Don't know/NA 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% so% 60% 21 Focus Group Reactions to the Master Plan Concept Focus group participants liked the plan's clarity and the idea of investing in the future. There was some concern that regulations may change and costs may increase leading to higher rates than anticipated. ➢ While there were mixed reactions to the rate increase, on the whole, they felt it was worth it. Group 1: It's a good idea. Group 1: What strikes me It is important to address is the whole process of the issue before it planning is designed to becomes an issue. stay ahead of the curve. Group 2: 1 think it is spelled out very clearly. It covers the future requirements and that basically you have to maintain the system. What it doesn't cover is how much are they going to impact the common homeowner. If we were to say we would end up with a 1% increase in your current cost, it would be easier to swallow. Gender differences in support for the Master Plan are minimal. Support for Master Plan by Gender ■StronglYSupport ■5omewhat5upp0rt ■Total Oppose ODK/NA % Sample Men 6% 5% 49% Women 5% 51% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100M 22 Strength of support tends to increase with age. less strongly supportive. Support for Master Plan by Age Support for Master Plan by Gender by Age of ■Strongly Support ■Somewhat5upport ■Total Oppose ■ Strongly Support 1115ornewhatSupoort ■Tota10 Sample 18-2932% Women 5% 30-39 55% 5% 6% 40-49 48% 7%' 16% 50-64 56% 5% 32% 65-74 54% 14% 20% 75+ 8% 0 20% 18-49 46% 6% 27% 50+ 73 65+ 57% 41% o% 20% 40% 60% 80% t00% 23 less strongly supportive. Support for Master Plan by Gender by Age of ■Strongly Support ■Somewhat5upport ■Total Oppose 00K/NA Sample 18-49 61% Women 57% g% 38 ll% Younger residents, of both genders, tend to be less strongly supportive. Support for Master Plan by Gender by Age of ■Strongly Support ■Somewhat5upport ■Total Oppose 00K/NA Sample 18-49 ° 12% Women 50+ 38 18-49 15% Men 50+ 0'm 20% 4p% 60% 801% ° 34% 100% Residents of Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and unincorporated areas are most supportive. Support for Master Plan by City Alamo, Danville, and San Ramon Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek Martinez and Pacheco Moraga, Orinda, and Lafayette Other 0% ■Strongly Support ■Somewhat Support ■total Oonose ❑DK/NA Sampof le 34% 29% 6% 70% 40% 60% 60% 100% Support drops, but remains broad, when residents learn about associated rate increases. It is estimated that implementing the Master Plan will require rate increases that may average as much as 10% per year for a period of several years. Knowing this, let me ask you again — would you support or oppose implementing the District's Master Plan? Strongly support 43%J Total Support Somewhat support 31 % o 74 /o Somewhat oppose - ;4'%/. Total Oppose Strongly oppose13% 221 Don't know/NA ay. int eon ao% 4a% bar. 24 Most residents are willing to pay as much as eight dollars more per month to support it. Keeping in mind that the average monthly wastewater bill is about $40, suppose that implementing the Master Plan and increasing the use of recycled water, reducing energy use, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and repairing or replacing aging wastewater infrastructure cost more per month. Would you find that acceptable or unacceptable? ■Comp.Acc. ■SMM.A¢. ■SmM.Unacc. ■Very Unacc. ❑DK/NA Total Total Acc. Unacc. $4 87% 11% $6 79% 19% $8 67% 30% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% In focus groups, participants expressed an even higher willingness to pay. Across the two groups the average amount offered was $11.71 per month ➢ Their monthly amounts ranged from $2.50 to $30 ➢ Despite an initial distaste towards a rate increase, there was a sense that for what they were getting from the Master Plan made it worthwhile ➢ Knowing that Contra Costa County residents pay less than the area average helped soften the blow of a rate increase ➢ Some expressed a desire for an explicit time limit on the higher rates Group 1: I'd want to see like a sunset clause that Group 1: It sounds like o good it's for "x" years and done. If it's open-ended I investment to me for the generally don't support stuff like that. future. 25 The highest -priority improvements are repairing aging infrastructure, meeting safety and health standards, and increasing the use of recycled water. Please tell me if you think it should be a very high priority, a somewhat high priority, a somewhat low priority, or a very low priority for the Wastewater District to improve this service, knowing that it could mean an increased cost to local residents. ■V Maintaining, enhancing, or replacing aging equipment, pipelines, facilities, and buildings Increasing the use of recycled water Meeting increased state and federal health and safety regulations Preparing for the future growth of communities in Central Contra Costa County Reducing greenhouse gas emissions Reducing District energy consumption Preparing for changes related to climate change Total High •Smwt.High ®Smwt.Low ■Very Low ❑DK/NA High 86% 0% 20% 60% 60% 80% 100% 85% 84% 81% 72% 72% 66% 26 Nearly two-thirds of residents say they have read the "Pipeline." Have you ever read Central Contra Costa Sanitary District newsletter, "Pipeline"? No Yes efused /N A 1% Among those familiar with it, a majority finds the newsletter to be informative. Did you find it informative? roo�_ Yes No 4% Don't know/NA 1% 19 27 To a remarkable degree, focus group participants remembered "Pipeline" and its contents. ..�. Group 1: They do send out a "rD Pipeline" newsletter and it Group 1: 1 like that its has some really helpful hints. I very colorful. It seems got one the other day and it more colorful than it said to use baking soda to j ever has been. clean your carpet instead of using chemicals on your carpet. Group 1: I've seen some things, I've seen the letters in 'Pipeline." I remember one of the articles talking about not throwing flushable wipes in the toilet, and they had a full article about it. So we were always aware of not putting anything in the toilet. So Pipeline could be still... its snail mail, but it still gets people's attention. And we don't watch TV Residents say the newsletter and pamphlets are the best way to reach them. I am going to read you a list of ways to present information about wastewater treatment and the services the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District provides. Please tell me whether you would definitely pay attention, maybe pay attention, or definitely not pay attention to information if it were presented to you in that way. ■ Def. Pay Att. ■ Maybe Pay Att. ■Def, Nat Pay Att. ❑ DK/NA Def./MaybeAtt. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's Pay ayA newsletter, "Pipeline' A written brochure or pamphlet A news article in your local newspaper An on-line information source you could access from a computer A radio ad Public forums, community presentations, and open houses 0% 20% 40% 50% W% 100% 78% 71% 71% 59% 57% W A multi -faceted communications strategy is necessary. ■Def. Pay Att. ■Maybe Pay Att. ■ Def. Not Pay Att. ❑DK/NA Def./Maybe Pay Att. Facility tours 55% A billboard An advertisement on a website An advertisement in the newspaper Classroom programs in schools A booth at a special event, such as a fair or a festival, home or car show An advertisement on Facebook, Twitter, or Linkedln M 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100'% Additional Findings About Sources of Information Online information sources stood out among Asian and non-white residents 40 percent of Asian residents and 44% of non-white residents said they would "definitely" pay attention to online information Online information sources also stood out among residents under 50 Residents over 65 pay attention to written brochures at higher rates than younger residents do Women pay more attention to all information sources than their male counterparts, except facility tours Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill residents have the highest rates of awareness of "Pipeline" .. PROTE 1 _ VKfD5�PAGE1N9DEtHrNAPR1U1 J- 29 54% 51% 48% 45% 44% 30% Reactions to CCCSD YouTube Videos ➢ When focus group participants watched a series of CCCSD YouTube videos they found them useful and helpful ➢ Participants highlighted the diversity in the videos as a positive factor ➢ They valued the practical advice in videos like "Don't Flush Your Medications!" and "Dispose Your Cooking Oil Properly!" 30 Conclusions ➢ Satisfaction with wastewater treatment service in CCCSD's service area is very high. ➢ CCCSD has very low name recognition, but when residents learn that CCCSD is responsible for the service they view it very favorably. There is familiarity with and strong support for the use of recycled water. • Support for its use as drinking water is weaker • The focus groups suggest that with education residents become more comfortable with potable use of recycled water ➢ The proposed Master Plan is well-received, with 87% support ■ Two-thirds of residents are willing to pay as much as $8 more per month to support it and a majority are comfortable with rate increases of up to 10 percent per year • Residents like the idea of planning ahead, and focus group participants appreciated that the District's rates are currently below Bay Area averages Dave Metz Lucia Del Puppo Dave@FM3research.com Lucia@FM3research.com 1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone (510) 451-9521 Fax (510) 451-0384 Fairbank..1'faslin. Maullin, Met.- & Associates —FAB 31