civicinsights.orgcivicinsights.org/sites/default/files/NEORSD 2016 report 2… · Web...

Assessment of the Impact of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Communication and Community Relations Efforts

Community Research Institute

Baldwin Wallace University275 Eastland RoadBerea, Ohio 44017

440.826.2460

Investigators:

Tom Sutton, Ph.D.

Pierre David, Ph.D.

May 12, 2016

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 6

Study Methodology 11

Section 1: Phone Survey of NEORSD Household Customers 14

Section 1.A: Customer Priorities 14

Section 1.B: Respondent Unaided Recall of Agencies Responsible for Services 19

Section 1.C: Aided Responses of Agencies Responsible for Services 23

Section 1.D: Customer Awareness of Wastewater Treatment and Water Quality 26

Section 1.E: NEORSD Awareness Campaigns 28

Section 1.F: Respondent Ratings of Water Department and NEORSD Services 31

Section 1.G: Respondent Media Usage 34

Section 1.H: Respondent Demographics 35

Part I, Section 2: Customer Service Department User Survey Results 38

Section 2.A: Customer Service Department Responsiveness 38

Section 2.B: Customer Service Department Rating 40

Part II: Qualitative Data and Analysis 42

Section 3.A: Residential Focus Group Methodology 42

Section 3.B: Focus Group Summaries (organized by question) 42

Section 3.C: Summary Focus Group Points 55

Section 4: Business Interviews 57

Section 5: Elected Official Interviews 61

Section 5.A: Elected Official Interview Summaries 62

Section 5.B: Elected Official Interview Data Analysis 70

2

Part III: Comparative Analysis of 2012 and 2016 Study Data 72

Section 6.A: Phone Survey Data Analysis 72

Section 6.B: Focus Group and Business Interview Data Analysis 74

Section 6.C: Comparative analysis of 2012 and 2016 elected official interview data 76

Section 6.D: Policy and Communications Strategic Recommendations 77

Appendix 1: Household Customer Phone Survey Questions 80

Appendix 2: Questions for Customer Service User Phone Survey 89

Appendix 3: Focus Group Questions for household survey respondents 92

Appendix 4: Focus Group Questions for business and nonprofit representatives 94

Appendix 5: Elected Official Interview Questions 96

3

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1.1: Respondent priority - Keeping Lake Erie clean for recreational use 15

Figure 1.2: Respondent priority – Keeping Lake Erie clean as source of drinking water 15

Figure 1.3: Respondent priority – minimizing chance of neighborhood street flooding 16

Figure 1.4: Respondent priority – minimizing chance of neighborhood basement flooding 16

Figure 1.5: Respondent priority–Keeping area rivers and streams clean for recreational use 17

Figure 1.6: Respondent priority – Maintaining quality of drinking water 17

Figure 1.7: Respondent priority – Keeping water service affordable 18

Figure 1.8: Respondent priority – Keeping sewer service affordable 18

Figure 1.9: Respondent unaided perception of agency responsible for cleanliness of Lake Erie 20

Figure 1.10: Respondent perception of agency responsible for preventing Lake Erie pollution 20

Figure 1.11: Respondent perception of agency that prevents neighborhood flooding 21

Figure 1.12: Respondent perception of agency that keeps local streams free from pollution 22

Figure 1.13: Respondent perception of agency that issues water bills 22

Figure 1.14: Respondent perception of agency that issues sewer bills 23

Figure 1.15: Respondent rating of water treatment by Water Department and NEORSD 32

Figure 1.16: Rating of NEORSD and Water Department in value of service (‘Do you feel you are getting your money’s worth when you pay your bill?’) 34

Table 1.1: Keeping Lake Erie and area rivers and streams clean 24

Table 1.2: Helping to maintain quality of drinking water 24

Table 1.3: Helping to prevent flooding of basements and streets 25

Table 1.4: Cleaning wastewater 25

Table 1.5: Most responsive to customer needs 26

Table 1.6: Is stormwater that runs off roofs and streets into stormdrains treated? 26

Table 1.7: Is household dirty water that goes into Lake Erie treated? 27

Table 1.8: Is the water quality at Cleveland beaches (e.g., Edgewater) treated? 27

4

Table 1.9: Finding information about Lake Erie’s recreational water quality during beach season 28

Table 1.10: Sources of information about Lake Erie water quality 28

Table 1.11: Respondent heard of NEORSD programs 29

Table 1.12: Which agency is responsible for the ‘PUP – Pick Up Poop’ campaign? 29

Table 1.13: Which agency is responsible for the ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaign? 30

Table 1.14: Which agency is responsible for the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ campaign? 30

Table 1.15: Which agency is responsible for the Business Opportunity Program? 31

Table 1.16: Overall, how would you rate the water department's job in providing drinking water? 32

Table 1.17: Overall, how would you rate the Sewer District’s job in treating wastewater? 32

Table 1.18: Do you feel you are getting your money’s worth when you pay your water bill? 33

Table 1.19: Do you feel you are getting your money’s worth when you pay your sewer bill? 33

Table 1.20: Respondent usage of types of media (weekly) 35

Table 1.21: Which best characterizes your current situation? 35

Table 1.22: Respondent level of education 36

Table 1.23: Respondent annual household income 36

Table 1.24: Respondent ethnic background 37

Table 2.1: Did customer service representative understand the reason for your call? 38

Table 2.2: Was the issue you called about resolved right away? 38

Table 2.3: Did you have to call back to get it resolved? 39

Table 2.4: If calling back was necessary, how many times did you call back? 39

Table 2.5: Were you directed to the appropriate entity to help you with your issue? 39

Table 2.6: Was the problem resolved to your satisfaction? 39

Table 2.7: If you had to leave a message and wait for a call back from a Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District representative, were you called back promptly? 39

5

Table 2.8: How would you rate your experience with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District customer service department? 40

Table 2.9: How do you feel the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District customer service department rates in comparison to the customer service department of other utility services that you have had experience with? 40

Table 2.10: Now, please think about the best customer service that you have

ever received, from any company, as receiving a grade of A. How would you grade your overall experience with the sewer district service? 41

Table 4.1: Business interview list 58

6

Executive Summary

Project Overview

The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) contracted with the Baldwin Wallace University Community Research Institute (CRI) to conduct a follow up study to the 2012 comprehensive study of customer perceptions of the NEORSD. The follow up would gauge changes in Sewer District customer perceptions about the work of the District, to determine the effectiveness of communications strategies used since 2012.

The study involved the following components:

a mixed landline and cell phone survey of NEORSD residential household customers, with completion of 650 survey responses;

a landline phone survey of 250 customers who called the NEORSD Customer Service Department during 2015;

Four focus groups were conducted with residential customers of the NEORSD on March 7th, 8th, 21st, and 22nd, 2016. The focus groups included residents of Cleveland and of the west, east, and south suburban communities in Cuyahoga County served by the Sewer District. Each session was conducted by Tom Sutton and audio recorded, from which verbatim transcripts were created and analyzed.

Interviews were conducted with nine local elected officials during the period of April 7th – 29th, 2016 to gauge their perceptions of the work and visibility of the NEORSD.

The data gathered from the 2016 surveys, focus groups, and interviews was compared with the findings of the parallel data gathered in the 2012 CRI Sewer District study. The comparative analysis was used to develop recommendations for communications strategies for the Sewer District to initiate, maintain, or expand. Details concerning the study research design follow in Project Study Methodology.

Notable findings:

Customer priorities for the work of the Sewer District:

Keeping Lake Erie clean is a high priority for survey respondents. 93% of 2016 respondents rated ‘keeping Lake Erie clean for recreational use’ as ‘very important’ or ‘important,’ as did 92% of respondents in the 2012 survey. 96% of 2016 survey respondents listed these ratings for ‘keeping Lake Erie clean as a source of drinking water,’ as did 95% of respondents in the 2012 survey.

7

Rate affordability for sewer service continues as an area of high concern. 91% of respondents listed affordable sewer service as a ‘very important/important concern’ in 2012, while 90% gave the same ratings in the 2016 survey.

Perceptions about the quality of water at Cleveland area beaches has not changed significantly from 2012 to 2016. The 2016 survey showed 32% of respondents believing that water at beaches is always or mostly treated, a 3 point decline from 2012.

Focus group participants believe that Lake Erie and area waterways and beaches are important economic resources for Northeast Ohio, and are willing to pay higher sewer fees to reduce sewage overflow through the Project Clean Lake initiative.

The new Stormwater Management Program impervious surface fees were of strong concern to focus group participants, and the primary concern of business leaders. They are skeptical about how the fees will be used, and want to see new revenue stay in the communities where it is paid. Some suggested phasing in the fees in pilot communities, including demonstration projects, before expanding across the entire service area. The cost of the new fees for larger property owners such as businesses and organizations is of deep concern to these individuals.

Proposed rate increases related to Project Clean Lake and the Stormwater Management Program in 2012 elicited strong concerns from elected officials, who said there has been negative reaction from constituents, particularly related to the stormwater fee. Increasing sewer fees continues to be an issue in 2016. Elected officials are concerned about effect of stormwater management program fees on businesses and residents. Three officials asked about alternative sources of funding available that could ease the financial burden on rate payers.

Continued efforts to include local residents in economically challenged neighborhoods as part of the workforce on Sewer District projects is a priority for elected officials who represent neighborhoods with high levels of unemployment. This is also an area where communication strategies informing the public about Sewer District workforce initiatives can improve public perception of the District as a positive community partner.

Customer identification of the Sewer District:

There continues to be ambiguity among customers concerning the agency responsible for their water and sewer billing. 54% of respondents believe the water department issues the water bill, followed by 33% choosing local government, and 10% choosing the NEORSD. 47% of respondents said the NEORSD is responsible for issuing their sewer bill, followed by 29% who listed local government, and 20% who listed the water department.

8

The NEORSD was identified in the aided response question as being responsible for keeping Lake Erie and area rivers and streams clean by 73% of respondents in 2012 and 71% in 2016. The U.S. EPA was identified as responsible by 71% of respondents in 2012 and 76% of respondents in 2016.

The NEORSD was identified most often in the 2012 and 2016 surveys as responsible for several areas related to its core mission:

helping to maintain the quality of drinking water (70% in 2012 and 67% in 2016);

helping to prevent flooding of basements and streets (75% in 2012 and 71% in 2016);

cleaning wastewater (78% in 2012 and 79% in 2016).

There has not been much change in awareness of the four NEORSD awareness campaign programs since 2012. In the 2016 survey, 25% of respondents have heard of ‘PUP – Pick Up Poop’; 48% have heard of the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ campaign; 13% have heard of the ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaign; and 14% had heard of the Business Opportunity Program. The Sewer District rose in recognition for the ‘PUP – Pick Up Poop’ campaign, from 4% in 2012 to 21% in 2016. A similar increase from 12% to 26% occurred in recognition of the Sewer District as author of the ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaign. However, the Sewer District was recognized as the author of the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ campaign by only 7% of 2016 survey respondents. 4% of respondents tied the ‘Business Opportunity Program’ to the Sewer District.

Customer ratings of the Sewer District:

Ratings of the Sewer District’s service as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ rose from 53% in 2012 to 61% in 2016. Respondents who think they get their money’s worth from their sewer bills rose slightly from 38% in 2012 to 40% in 2016.

The responsiveness of the Customer Service Department improved from 2012 to 2016. 78% of respondents thought that the customer service representative understood the reason for their call, down 3 points from 81% in 2012. Prompt resolution of issues increased from 56% in 2012 to 63% in 2016. Ratings of respondent experience with the Customer Service Department as ‘excellent’ increased from 21% in 2012 to 29% in 2016. Those that thought their experience with the NEORSD Customer Service Department was better than with other utility departments increased from 22% in 2012 to 26% in 2016.

Respondents are less positive in their perceptions of overall agency responsiveness in 2016 as compared to the 2012 data. All agencies had a significant decline in positive ratings for agency responsiveness, which may be due to growing public

9

uncertainty and doubt about the ability of government to fulfill essential responsibilities effectively, highlighted by recent water issues in Flint, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio. The range of positive responsiveness ratings dropped from 24% - 50% in 2012 to 8% - 18% in 2016. The NEORSD declined 27 points from 45% in 2012 to 18% in 2016.

Elected officials’ support for the work of the Sewer District was steady in 2012, and has increased in 2016. It is clear that specific community engagement initiatives of the District are valued by these officials, who encourage this work to continue and expand. They echo the concern expressed in the survey, focus groups, and business interviews that justifications for rate changes need to be clearly explained and supported with tangible results.

Customer perceptions about getting information about the work of the Sewer District:

Sewer District communications play an important role in helping customers get information about water and beach quality. There was a strong emphasis in the focus groups on providing clear information about rate increases and the ways this revenue will be used to improve water quality. Project details, timelines, costs, and outcomes should be provided on a variety of platforms, including the NEORSD website, through social media, and in public meetings held in cooperation with local elected officials.

Other effective communication strategies include use of banner announcements on local news programs; radio announcements; subscriber emails and texts; locally distributed newsletters and/or articles in local independent publications (e.g., the Observer, Westlife).

The suggestion of a phone app to get information about beach conditions, water quality, rate changes, and project progress information was frequently offered.

Customers are skeptical about the effectiveness and cost of Sewer District promotions that are not directly related to specific projects or community awareness events. Examples such as seeing the Sewer District logo at Progressive Field were cited. However, communications that aim directly at customers with specific information were supported.

Supplemental information in bills is not popular, and usually is ignored. Instead, the District should develop its own billing system with bills designed to catch attention and provide simple, direct information on the bill (e.g., about water usage, rate changes and project progress), as well as through electronic payment platforms.

10

Community meetings are still considered important as a means of providing information about specific projects and rate changes. Working with local elected officials to hold public meetings is an effective way to build trust between community residents and the Sewer District.

Survey respondents who believe it is ‘always possible’ or ‘mostly possible’ to find information about Lake Erie recreational water quality declined from 74% in 2012 to 68% in 2016, while those who indicated they don’t know rose from 15% to 23%.

Customer media usage:

Respondents seeking information about Lake Erie water quality have decreased usage of Cleveland.com or the Cleveland Plain Dealer by half, from 32% in 2012 to 16% in 2016. Respondents are using websites more frequently to get this information. Usage of the Cleveland Metroparks website increased from 9% in 2012 to 25% in 2016, while usage of the Ohio State Parks’ website increased from 9% in 2012 to 16% in 2016.

NEORSD customer media usage is shifting aware from print sources and towards social media and Internet websites. Respondent usage of regional newspapers such as The Plain Dealer dropped 15 points, from 69% in 2012 to 54% in 2016. Local community newspapers also dropped, from 47% in 2012 to 40% in 2016. In contrast, use of social media almost doubled from 29% in 2012 to 54% in 2016. Just over half of the respondents in 2016 use national and/or local news websites, and/or national or local radio programs. Television still leads by a wide margin over other media sources, holding steady at 81% of respondents in 2016, down one point from 2012 usage frequency.

11

Project Study Methodology

The assessment of Sewer District communications and community relations strategies consisted of five components:

1. Phone survey of a random sample of 650 residential customers of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District;

2. Phone survey of all Sewer District customers who called the NEORSD Customer Service Department in 2015;

3. Four focus groups of Sewer District residential customers;4. Interviews with owners and managers of businesses and organizations served by the

Sewer District;5. Interviews with local elected officials.

Residential Customer Phone Survey

A phone survey of a sample of 650 residential customers of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District was conducted during the period of February 1st – March 2nd, 2016. The sample is a mix of 24% (156) cell phone numbers and 76% (494) landline numbers. A randomized list of landline numbers was generated from a master residential customer phone number list including data from 2013 and 2014 provided by the Sewer District. A supplemental randomized list of phone numbers was generated using whitepages.com (which contained some cell numbers along with landline numbers). A randomized list of 5,000 cell phone numbers was purchased from GoLeads, a database provider contracted by the BW Community Research Institute. The landline and cell phone samples include households from all ZIP codes in the service area of the NEORSD.

The survey was conducted in the BW Community Research Institute survey lab by BW students, with calling taking place on Mondays through Thursdays during the hours of 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm. Cell phone numbers provided through the GoLeads database were contacted by text messaging with a link to the survey. As an incentive to encourage participation, cell phone users who completed the survey using the link had the option to provide contact information to be entered into a drawing for an Ipad (49 provided contact information, and one was selected and sent an Ipad). The outcome of the survey was that 650 surveys were completed, with a margin of error of +3.8% at the 95% confidence level.

Customer Service Department 2015 Caller Survey

A complete list of customer calls made in 2015 was provided by the supervisor of the Sewer District Customer Service Department. The list was used to conduct calls to residents who had contacted the Customer Service Department, asking them to complete a survey about their experience dealing with the Customer Service Department. Calling took place Mondays through Thursdays, 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm, during the period of February 15th – March 10th, 2016 (note: these calls were made during the same time period as the Sewer District customer

12

survey by CRI student callers). The survey concluded with completion of 250 surveys by respondents, and used 70% numbers from the list provided by the Sewer District. As this was a non-randomized survey of a portion of the population of individuals who had contacted the Sewer District Customer Service Department, a margin of error does not apply.

Residential Focus Groups

Four focus groups of residential customers of the Sewer District were organized and conducted. The groups represented residents of the City of Cleveland and suburban communities served by the Sewer District in the west, east, and south regions of Cuyahoga County. Participants who provided contact information to participate in the focus groups were drawn from the customer survey. Individuals who participated in the focus groups received a $50.00 cash stipend. Each provided their name, home address, and signature upon receipt of the stipend.

The focus groups were facilitated by Tom Sutton. Each was audio recorded. Participants were informed that they would be recorded, and that recording transcriptions would be used to summarize each focus group, but that names would not be associated with comments. Complete written transcripts were developed from each recorded session and used to develop a general report about each focus group (see Part II, Section 3 for details).

The focus groups each occurred during the time period of 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm, and took place as follows:

March 7th: West suburbs residents (held at BWU)March 8th: South suburbs residents (held at BWU)March 21st: East suburbs residents (held at Tri-C Corporate College East)March 22nd: Cleveland residents (held at BWU)

Business & Organization Owner and Management Interviews

The original proposal was to conduct four focus groups with business owners and managers of large nonprofit organizations. However, most of the invited participants did not appear for the first two focus groups (three who did appear were interviewed by Tom Sutton). The investigators suggested to the Sewer District staff that targeted interviews would provide better information and be more likely to be completed. Sewer District staff agreed to the change in approach.

Business owners and organization managers were identified through research conducted by a student in the Baldwin Wallace University School of Business under the supervision of Professor Robert B. Young. These were identified on the basis of being responsible for larger areas of property with significant percentages of impervious surface area.

27 business and organization contacts were identified and contacted during the period of April 17th – 29th. Phone interviews were conducted by Professor Young with business and nonprofit

13

organization owners and managers to gather information about their experience with and perceptions of the work of the Sewer District, with special focus on the impact of the Stormwater Management Program fee. Eleven interviews were completed (see Part II, Section 4 for interview data).

Elected Official Interviews

Interviews were conducted with local elected officials identified by the Sewer District, which included a mix of state representatives, mayors, city council members, and the office of Congresswoman Marcia Fudge. Due to lack of response by several identified officials, the CRI conducted supplemental interviews with elected officials from other communities served by the Sewer District. Nine local official interviews were conducted during the period of April 7th – 29th. Six were conducted by BW student Evelyn Zwolinski, and three by Tom Sutton. The interviews were conducted by phone or in person. Two individuals emailed written responses to the survey.

14

Part I, Section 1: Phone Survey of NEORSD Household Customers

Section 1.A: Customer Priorities

Residential customers of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District are clear in the importance placed on the results of the work of the District in keeping Lake Erie and waterways clean, as well as minimizing the chances of residential flooding. Respondents were asked to rate a variety of priorities as ‘a very important concern,’ ‘an important concern,’ ‘a minor concern,’ or ‘not a concern.’ Figures 1.1 – 1.5 illustrate the high priority placed on the importance of keeping Lake Erie and area waterways clean. ‘Keeping Lake Erie clean for recreational use’ (Figure 1.1) was rated as ‘very important’ or ‘important’ by 93% of respondents, mirroring the 92% of residents with the same concerns in the 2012 phone survey. A similar 96% of respondents listed these ratings for ‘keeping Lake Erie clean as a source of drinking water’ (Figure 1.2), and provided the same level of concern for ‘maintaining the quality of our drinking water’ (Figure 1.6). These results were virtually identical to the 2012 survey data, in which 95% of respondents rated clean drinking water as a ‘very important/important concern.’ ‘Keeping area rivers and streams clean for recreational use’ (Figure 1.5) was listed as a ‘very important/important concern’ by 94% of respondents, a 4 point increase from the 90% result in the 2012 survey.

Concern about neighborhood street and basement flooding has risen since the 2012 survey. 66% of respondents in the 2012 survey listed the chance of basement and neighborhood flooding as ‘very important/important concern.’ In the 2016 survey, 72% expressed concern about the chance of neighborhood street flooding, and 74% were concerned about the chance of basement flooding (Figures 1.3 and 1.4).

Rate affordability for sewer service continues as a high concern, while concerns about affordable water service is less of a concern compared with the 2012 survey. 91% of respondents listed affordable sewer service as a ‘very important/important concern’ in 2012, while 90% gave the same ratings in the 2016 survey (Figure 1.8). In contrast, 81% of respondents in 2016 listed affordable water rates as a ‘very important/important concern,’ a drop of 13 points compared with the 94% who listed as a ‘very important/important concern’ in the 2012 survey.

15

Figure 1.1: Respondent priority - Keeping Lake Erie clean for recreational use

68%

25%

5% 2%

Keeping Lake Erie clean for recreational use

Very important concernImportant ConcernMinor concernNot a concern

Figure 1.2: Respondent priority – Keeping Lake Erie clean as source of drinking water

86%

10%

2% 2%

Keeping Lake Erie clean as a source of drinking water


16

Figure 1.3: Respondent priority – minimizing chance of neighborhood street flooding

46%

26%

17%

11%

Minimizing the chance of street flooding in my neighborhood


Figure 1.4: Respondent priority – minimizing chance of neighborhood basement flooding

53%

21%

12%

14%

Minimizing the chance of basement flooding in my neighborhood


17

Figure 1.5: Respondent priority – Keeping area rivers and streams clean for recreational use

67%

27%

4%2%

Keeping area rivers and streams clean for recreational use


Figure 1.6: Respondent priority – Maintaining quality of drinking water

89%

7%

1% 2%

Maintaining the quality of our drink-ing water


18

Figure 1.7: Respondent priority – Keeping water service affordable

18%

63%

12%

7%

Keeping water service affordable


Figure 1.8: Respondent priority – Keeping sewer service affordable

68%

22%

6%4%

Keeping sewer service affordable


19

Section 1.B: Respondent Unaided Recall of Agencies Responsible for Services

The 2016 survey asked respondents about which agencies are responsible for a variety of services related to the priorities discussed in the first set of survey questions (Figures 1.1 – 1.8). These questions were asked in two rounds. In the first set, the respondents were asked about which agency was responsible, but without a list of choices (referred to as ‘unaided responses’). In the second round, respondents were provided with the names of agencies, and asked if each was or was not responsible for providing the particular service being discussed. Unaided responses were coded and categorized using the same list that was provided in the second round of questions: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA – did not specify federal or state); local government (city, county, Metroparks); state government; federal government; water department; NEORSD; ‘all agencies responsible.’

When asked ‘which agency or agencies do you think are responsible for keeping Lake Erie clean,’ 50% of respondents listed the EPA, while 14% said the NEORSD, and 13% said the water department (Figure 1.9). The EPA continued as the first choice in response to the question, ‘which agency or agencies do you think are responsible for helping to keep polluted water from flowing into Lake Erie,’ with 41% saying the EPA, 26% mentioning the NEORSD, and 11% saying it is the water department (Figure 1.10). When asked which agency or agencies are responsible for preventing neighborhood flooding, 43% said local government, 33% said the NEORSD, and 13% said the water department (Figure 1.11). Respondents were then asked which agency or agencies are responsible for keeping local streams free from pollution. The top three responses were the EPA (35%), local government (26%), and state government (13%). The NEORSD was a close fourth at 12% (Figure 1.12).

The final two questions with unaided responses asked respondents to name the agency or agencies responsible for issuing their water bill and sewer bill. Figure 1.13 shows that 54% of respondents believe the water department issues the water bill, followed by 33% choosing local government, and 10% choosing the NEORSD. In Figure 1.14, 47% of respondents said the NEORSD is responsible for issuing their sewer bill, followed by 29% who listed local government, and 20% who listed the water department. Given that most NEORSD customers continue to receive a combined water and sewer bill from the City of Cleveland, it is clear that there is still ambiguity in perceptions about which agency is responsible for issuing these bills.

20

Figure 1.9: Respondent unaided perception of agency responsible for cleanliness of Lake Erie

50%

8%

8%

3%

13%

14%

4%

Agency Responsible for Lake Erie's Clean-liness (unaided responses)

EPA (U.S., State, or unspec-ified)

Local Gov't (City, County, Metroparks)

State Gov't

Federal Gov't

Water Dept

NEORSD

Everyone/All

Figure 1.10: Respondent perception of agency responsible for preventing Lake Erie pollution

41%

7%5%5%

11%

26%

5%

Agency Responsible for preventing pol-luted water from flowing into Lake Erie

(unaided responses)



State Gov't

Federal Gov't

Water Dept

NEORSD

Everyone/All

21

Figure 1.11: Respondent perception of agency that prevents neighborhood flooding

4%

42%

2%3%13%

33%

2%

Agency Responsible for preventing neighborhood flooding

(unaided responses)EPA (U.S., State, or unspec-ified)


State Gov't

Federal Gov't

Water Dept

NEORSD

Everyone/All

22

Figure 1.12: Respondent perception of agency that keeps local streams free from pollution

35%

26%

13%

3%

7%

12%

4%

Agency Responsible for keeping local streams free of pollution

(unaided responses)

EPA (U.S., State, or unspec-ified)Local Gov't (City, County, Metroparks)State Gov'tFederal Gov'tWater DeptNEORSDEveryone/All

Figure 1.13: Respondent perception of agency that issues water bills

1%

33%

2%0%54%

10%

Agency Responsible for issuing water bills

(unaided responses)



State Gov't

Federal Gov't

Water Dept

NEORSD

23

Figure 1.14: Respondent perception of agency that issues sewer bills

1%

29%

2%0%

20%

47%

Agency Responsible for issuing sewer bills

(unaided responses)EPA (U.S., State, or unspec-ified)Local Gov't (City, County, Metroparks)State Gov'tFederal Gov'tWater DeptNEORSD

Section 1.C: Aided Responses of Agencies Responsible for Services

Tables 1.1 – 1.5 present comparative data from the 2012 and 2016 NEORSD residential customer phone surveys concerning perceptions of agencies responsible for water treatment. In general, there has not been significant change in respondent perceptions of which agencies are responsible for keeping Lake Erie and local waterways clean, maintaining clean drinking water, preventing basement and street flooding, and cleaning wastewater.

The agencies with the biggest changes in identification as responsible for keeping Lake Erie and area rivers and streams clean (Table 1.1) were the U.S. EPA, which rose 5 points from 71% in 2012 to 76% in 2016, and Cleveland municipal government, which also rose 5 points from 54% to 59%. The NEORSD was chosen by 73% of respondents in 2012 and 71% in 2016, a slight decline of two points. The other two agencies chosen most often by respondents in both surveys were the Ohio EPA (78% in 2012; 81% in 2016), and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (72% in 2012; 71% in 2016).

24

Table 1.1: Keeping Lake Erie and area rivers and streams clean

Agency 2012 2016 DifferenceU.S. EPA 71% 76% +5Ohio EPA 78% 81% +3City Water Dept. 59% 60% +1Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 72% 71% -1NEORSD 73% 71% -2Your city’s municipal government 50% 51% +1Cleveland municipal government 54% 59% +5Cuyahoga County government 61% 62% +1

Agencies identified as responsible for helping to maintain the quality of drinking water also maintained similar patterns of choice in 2012 and 2016, with the exception of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which declined 30 points as a choice of respondents, from 57% in 2012 to 27% in 2016. The U.S. EPA rose as a choice by 6 points from 61% in 2012 to 67% in 2016. The NEORSD declined as a choice by 3 points, from 70% in 2012 to 67% in 2016.

Table 1.2: Helping to maintain quality of drinking water

Agency 2012 2016 DifferenceU.S. EPA 61% 67% +6Ohio EPA 71% 73% +2City Water Dept. 83% 81% -2Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 57% 27% -30NEORSD 70% 67% -3Your city’s municipal government 58% 57% -1Cleveland municipal government 59% 59% 0Cuyahoga County government 58% 61% +3

Respondent perceptions about which agencies are responsible for helping to prevent flooding of basements and streets (Table 1.3) also maintained similar levels of choice, with the significant exception of the U.S. EPA, which rose as a choice from 19% in 2012 to 63% in 2016. The other significant change was a decline of 9 points in the choice of Cleveland municipal government, which dropped from 54% in 2012 to 45% in 2016. The NEORSD was the most frequently identified agency for this role, chosen by 75% of respondents in 2012 and 71% of respondents in 2016.

25

Table 1.3: Helping to prevent flooding of basements and streets

Agency 2012 2016 DifferenceU.S. EPA 19% 63% +44Ohio EPA 27% 27% 0City Water Dept. 54% 57% +3Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 29% 32% +3NEORSD 75% 71% -4Your city’s municipal government 72% 71% -1Cleveland municipal government 54% 45% -9Cuyahoga County government 56% 55% -1

Table 1.4 shows that the NEORSD was the most frequently identified agency responsible for cleaning wastewater (78% in 2012, and 79% in 2016). ‘City Water Department’ was the next most frequently identified in 2012 (70%), but declined to 62% in 2016. ‘Your city’s municipal government’ increased significantly as an identified agency, rising from 51% in 2012 to 79% in 2016.

Table 1.4: Cleaning wastewater

Agency 2012 2016 DifferenceU.S. EPA 37% 37% 0Ohio EPA 47% 46% -1City Water Dept. 70% 62% -8Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 40% 38% -2NEORSD 78% 79% +1Your city’s municipal government 51% 79% +28Cleveland municipal government 51% 47% -4Cuyahoga County government 50% 48% -2

Table 1.5 presents respondent perceptions of which agencies are most responsive to customer needs. Respondents are clearly less positive in their perceptions of agency responsiveness in 2016 as compared to the 2012 data. The declines in choice as most responsive ranged from a 10 point drop for the U.S. EPA (24% in 2012; 14% in 2016) to a 33 point drop for ‘your city’s municipal government’ (50% in 2012; 17% in 2016). The NEORSD declined 27 points from 45% in 2012 to 18% in 2016. ‘City Water Department’ declined from 49% in 2012 to 18% in 2016 (a 31 point drop), and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources declined 30 points from 38% in 2012 to 8% in 2016.

It is likely that a combination of factors are involved in the declines in respondent opinion. News stories about water quality issues in Flint, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio, as well as a negative presidential primary campaign season are likely to have affected respondent

26

perceptions in the 2016 survey. It is important to note that the data reflect an overall drop in respondent opinion about agency responsiveness, rather than only seeing significant changes in opinions about particular agencies. Also, the three agencies most frequently chosen as being responsive in 2012 were also chosen most frequently in 2016 (‘city municipal government,’ ‘city water department,’ ‘NEORSD’).

Table 1.5: Most responsive to customer needs

Agency 2012 2016 DifferenceU.S. EPA 24% 14% -10Ohio EPA 30% 15% -15City Water Dept. 49% 18% -31Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 38% 8% -30NEORSD 45% 18% -27Your city’s municipal government 50% 17% -33Cleveland municipal government 33% 3% -30Cuyahoga County government 34% 7% -27

Section 1.D: Customer Awareness of Wastewater Treatment and Water Quality

Respondent opinion concerning wastewater treatment and water quality has not changed significantly from 2012 to 2016. Table 1.6 shows that there was a net 2 point increase in the percentage of respondents who think that stormwater from roofs and streets is either ‘always treated’ or ‘mostly treated,’ rising from 31% in 2012 to 33% in 2016. Those who think such wastewater is either ‘mostly untreated’ or ‘always untreated’ stayed the same at 32% in both surveys. Respondents answering ‘Don’t know’ declined from 27% in 2012 to 25% in 2016.

Table 1.6: Is stormwater that runs off roofs and streets into stormdrains treated?

Level of treatment 2012 2016 DifferenceAlways Treated 5% 11% +6Mostly Treated 26% 22% -4Mostly Untreated 30% 27% -3Always Untreated 12% 15% +3Don’t Know 27% 25% -2

27

Table 1.7 shows that respondent perception that household wastewater returned to Lake Erie is ‘always treated’ or ‘mostly treated’ rose from 58% in 2012 to 65% in 2016, while those who think it is ‘mostly untreated’ or ‘always untreated’ declined from 19% in 2012 to 14% in 2016. Those answering ‘Don’t know’ declined from 23% in 2012 to 20% in 2016.

Table 1.7: Is household dirty water that goes into Lake Erie treated?

Level of treatment 2012 2016 DifferenceAlways Treated 19% 24% +5Mostly Treated 39% 41% +2Mostly Untreated 15% 9% -6Always Untreated 4% 5% +1Don’t Know 23% 20% -3

Perceptions about the quality of water at Cleveland area beaches has not changed significantly from 2012 to 2016 (Table 1.8). While there was a net decline of 3 points in perceptions that water at beaches is always or mostly treated (35% in 2012; 32% in 2016), there was also a decline in the percentage of respondents who think beach waters are mostly or always untreated (54% in 2012; 50% in 2016). There was also an increase of respondents who said they don’t know, from 11% in 2012 to 18% in 2016.

Table 1.8: Is the water quality at Cleveland beaches (e.g., Edgewater) treated?

Level of treatment 2012 2016 DifferenceAlways Treated 2% 5% +3Mostly Treated 33% 27% -6Mostly Untreated 41% 36% -5Always Untreated 13% 14% +1Don’t Know 11% 18% +7

Respondent perception of the ability to find information about Lake Erie recreational water quality has declined, according to the data in Table 1.9. Respondents who believe it is ‘always possible’ or ‘mostly possible’ to find information declined from 74% in 2012 to 68% in 2016, while those who indicated they don’t know rose from 15% to 23%. However, the perception that information is not possible to find is low, changing only 1 point from 11% in 2012 to 12% in 2016.

28

Table 1.9: Finding information about Lake Erie’s recreational water quality during beach season

Finding information is…

2012 2016 Difference

Always Possible 37% 24% -13Mostly Possible 37% 42% +5Mostly Impossible 8% 8% 0Always Impossible 3% 4% +1Don’t Know 15% 23% +8

Respondents seeking information about Lake Erie water quality have decreased usage of Cleveland.com or the Cleveland Plain Dealer by half, from 32% in 2012 to 16% in 2016, according to the data in Table 1.10. Websites as a source of information have increased in usage: with the biggest changes in use of the Cleveland Metroparks website (9% in 2012; 25% in 2016), and the Ohio State Parks’ website (9% in 2012; 16% in 2016).

Table 1.10: Sources of information about Lake Erie water quality

Source 2012 2016 DifferenceEPA website 14% 19% +5Cleveland.com or Cleveland Plain Dealer 32% 16% -16Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District’s website

10% 12% +2

Cleveland Metroparks’ website 9% 25% +16Ohio State Parks’ website 9% 16% +7Other 25% 11% -14

Section 1.E: NEORSD Awareness Campaigns

Section 1.E presents information about respondents’ knowledge of Sewer District public awareness campaigns, and perceptions of which agency is responsible for each campaign. While awareness of the programs has not changed much (Table 1.11), the data shows that recognition of the NEORSD as the agency responsible for these campaigns has increased significantly from 2012 to 2016, as depicted in Tables 1.12 – 1.15.

There has not been much change in awareness of the four NEORSD campaign programs since 2012. Table 1.11 shows slight increases of 3 points to 35% in awareness of the PUP, Pick Up Poop campaign, and 2 points in the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ campaign, which is at 48%. The ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaign dropped a point to 13%, while the Business Opportunity Program remained at 14% awareness.

29

Table 1.11: Respondent heard of NEORSD programs

NEORSD program 2012 2016 DifferencePUP or Pick Up Poop 32% 35% +3Where Does It Go? 14% 13% -1Keeping Our Great Lake Great 46% 48% +2Business Opportunity Program 14% 14% 0

Tables 1.12 – 1.15 depict respondent choices of agencies responsible for each of the NEORSD campaigns. There was a significant increase in understanding of the PUP – Pick Up Poop campaign being the responsibility of the NEORSD, rising from 4% in 2012 to 21% in 2016. Clarity of the difference between the NEORSD and the City Water Department regarding this campaign has been achieved: The City Water Department was only chosen by 4% of 2016 survey respondents, compared to 25% in 2012. However, respondents were diffused in choices of other agencies in 2016. City municipal government and Cuyahoga County tied at 17%, followed by the Ohio EPA at 16%, and the U.S. EPA and Ohio Department of Natural Resources each at 10%.

Table 1.12: Which agency is responsible for the ‘PUP – Pick Up Poop’ campaign?

Agency 2012 2016 DifferenceU.S. EPA 3% 10% +7Ohio EPA 0% 16% +16City Water Dept. 25% 4% -21Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources --- 10% ---NEORSD 4% 21% +17Your city’s municipal government 9% 17% +8Cleveland municipal government --- 6% ---Cuyahoga County government 7% 17% +10

The ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaign saw a remarkable change in respondent agency recognition. 61% of respondents in 2012 chose the City Water Department as the responsible agency, while only 12% chose the NEORSD. In 2016, the NEORSD was chosen the most frequently by respondents (26%), compared with only 9% choosing the City Water Department. The other agencies chosen by respondents in 2016 were the Ohio EPA (14%), Cuyahoga County government (13%), and the U.S. EPA (10%).

30

Table 1.13: Which agency is responsible for the ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaign?

Agency 2012 2016 DifferenceU.S. EPA 6% 10% +4Ohio EPA 2% 14% +12City Water Dept. 61% 9% -52Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources --- 6% ---NEORSD 12% 26% +14Your city’s municipal government 2% 5% +3Cleveland municipal government --- 5% ---Cuyahoga County government 2% 13% +11

The biggest surprise of the survey was the lack of recognition of the NEORSD as the agency responsible for the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ campaign. Only 7% of 2016 survey respondents chose the NEORSD, while 29% chose the Ohio EPA, 22% chose the U.S. EPA, and 19% chose the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The U.S. and Ohio EPA were also the lead choices in 2012, but at much lower levels of 7% and 14%, respectively.

Table 1.14: Which agency is responsible for the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ campaign?

Agency 2012 2016 DifferenceU.S. EPA 7% 22% +15Ohio EPA 14% 29% +15City Water Dept. 3% 5% +2Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources --- 19% ---NEORSD 2% 7% +5Your city’s municipal government 6% 2% -4Cleveland municipal government --- 4% ---Cuyahoga County government 3% 8% +5

Similar to the results for the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ campaign, the Business Opportunity Program was not recognized as an NEORSD campaign in 2016. Only 4% of respondents chose the NEORSD, compared to 23% who chose Cuyahoga County Government, 12% that chose Cleveland municipal government, and 10% that each chose city municipal government and the U.S. EPA.

31

Table 1.15: Which agency is responsible for the Business Opportunity Program?

Agency 2012 2016 DifferenceU.S. EPA 2% 10% +8Ohio EPA 2% 9% +7City Water Dept. 3% 4% +1Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources ---- 8% ---NEORSD 0% 4% +4Your city’s municipal government 19% 10% -9Cleveland municipal government --- 12% ---Cuyahoga County government 10% 23% +13

As to why the ‘PUP – Pick Up Poop’ and ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaigns had higher recognition of the NEORSD as the responsible agency, it may be due to uniqueness and connection. ‘PUP – Pick UP Poop’ is a unique campaign targeting dog owners and seeking a change in behavior. The yard signs in particular may have been an effective tool for achieving behavioral change and recognition of the NEORSD’s role. The ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaign implies a connection with the NEORSD, in that it refers in the title specifically to the primary work of the District, the treatment of wastewater that leaves households and properties.

In contrast, the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ and ‘Business Opportunity Program’ campaigns have less direct connection with the work of the Sewer District. ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ has achieved the highest level of awareness at 48%. However, it may be that while respondents believe that keeping Lake Erie clean is a high priority as indicated in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, they do not necessarily connect the overall goal implied in the campaign directly with the Sewer District as the primary responsible agency.

Section 1.F: Respondent Ratings of Water Department and NEORSD Services

While overall ratings of the NEORSD and the Water Department have improved from 2012 to 2016, the Water Department continues to be the more recognized agency by survey respondents. Respondents rated the NEORSD as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ rose from a combined 53% in 2012 to 61% in 2016 (Table 1.17). Water Department ratings for these categories rose from 68% to 75% in 2016 (Table 1.16). The similarity in improvement is positive news for both agencies. It may be that the Water Department continues to get higher recognition and credit due to being the primary combined billing agent for many communities in the Sewer District.

32

Figure 1.15: Respondent rating of water treatment by Water Department and NEORSD

Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

NEORSD

Water Department

Table 1.16: Overall, how would you rate the water department's job in providing drinking water?

Table 1.17: Overall, how would you rate the Sewer District’s job in treating wastewater?

Rating 2012 2016 DifferenceExcellent 19% 27% +8Good 49% 48% -1Fair 26% 17% -9Poor 4% 5% +1Very poor 2% 3% +1

Rating 2012 2016 DifferenceExcellent 8% 15% +7Good 45% 46% +1Fair 36% 24% -12Poor 2% 10% +8Very poor 9% 4% -5

33

Respondents are less positive about whether they are getting their money’s worth from their water bills, but more confident about the worth of their sewer service. Table 1.18 shows a 6 point drop in the ‘mostly yes’ category for water bills, from 40% to 34%. Table 1.19 shows a 2 point increase for the NEORSD in the ‘mostly yes’ category, from 38% to 40%.

Table 1.18: Do you feel you are getting your money’s worth when you pay your water bill?

Table 1.19: Do you feel you are getting your money’s worth when you pay your sewer bill?

Response 2012 2016 DifferenceMostly yes 40% 34% -6Mostly no 35% 42% +7In between 21% 16% -5Don’t know 9% 26% +17

Response 2012 2016 DifferenceMostly yes 38% 40% +2Mostly no 40% 33% -7In between 16% 15% -1Don’t know 10% 30% +20

34

Figure 1.16: Rating of NEORSD and Water Department in value of service (‘Do you feel you are getting your money’s worth when you pay your bill?’)

Mostly yes In Between Mostly no Don't know-8.32667268468867E-17

0.0999999999999999

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

NEORSD

Water Department

Section 1.G: Respondent Media Usage

NEORSD customer media usage is shifting aware from print sources and towards social media and Internet websites. According to Table 1.20, respondent usage of regional newspapers such as The Plain Dealer dropped 15 points, from 69% in 2012 to 54% in 2016. Local community newspapers also dropped, from 47% in 2012 to 40% in 2016. In contrast, use of social media almost doubled from 29% in 2012 to 54% in 2016. Just over half of the respondents in 2016 use national and/or local news websites, and/or national or local radio programs. Television still leads by a wide margin over other media sources, holding steady at 81% of respondents in 2016, down one point from 2012 usage frequency.

Type of media used 2012 2016 Difference 2016

35

primary media source

Regional newspaper (e.g., Plain Dealer or Akron Beacon Journal)

69% 54% -15 9%

Local community newspaper print edition (e.g., Sun Newspaper)

47% 40% -7 ---

Regional printed publication (e.g., Cleveland Magazine, Crain’s)

23% 25% +2 ---

National news website (e.g., CNN.com) 41% 52% +11 24%National or local radio program 65% 52% -13 8%Local news website (e.g., Cleveland.com; Ohio.com)

--- 52% --- ---

Television station 82% 81% -1 40%Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) 29% 54% +25 7%

Table 1.20: Respondent usage of types of media (weekly)

Section 1.H: Respondent Demographics

Respondent demographics have changed from the 2012 to the 2016 surveys. This may in be in part due to the inclusion of cell phone users in the 2016 survey sample (the 2012 survey sample was only household landline phones). The percentage of males in the 2016 survey rose 5 points to 38% from 33% in 2012. Registered voters declined slightly, from 95% in 2012 to 92% in 2016. According to Table 1.21, the percentage of homeowners decreased from 90% to 82%, while those renting increased 5 points to 8%, and those living with a parent, relative, or friend rose 4 points to 10%.

Table 1.21: Which best characterizes your current situation?

There was very little change in respondent levels of education. According to Table 1.22, participants with a graduate degree and/or Bachelor’s degree continue to be the largest group at 47% in 2016, dropping one point from the 2012 sample. Those with some college remained

Response 2012 2016 DifferenceHomeowner 90% 82% -8Renting 3% 8% +5Living with a parent, relative, or friend 6% 10% +4

36

the same at 30%, while those with a high school diploma rose one point to 19%. Those who did not finish high school remained at 4% in both surveys.

Table 1.22: Respondent level of education

Table 1.23 shows a slight change in respondent annual household income. Those with annual household income above $100,000 rose 7 points to 21% in 2016, while those at less than $20,000 declined 5 points to 9%. The middle income brackets saw slight changes. Those with incomes in the range of $60,000 - $100,000 declined from 29% in 2012 to 27% in 2016, while those in the $20,000 - $60,000 range remained the same at 43%.

Table 1.23: Respondent annual household income

Respondent ethnic background became more diverse in 2016. Table 1.24 shows 1 point increases in African-Americans and Hispanics, and a 4 point increase in those who identified as other or more than one choice, from 5% to 9%. Overall, non-Caucasians increased from 24% of the sample in 2012 to 29% in 2016.

Level of education 2012 2016 DifferenceDid not finish high school 4% 4% 0High school diploma/G.E.D. 18% 19% +1Some college or technical school 30% 30% 0Bachelor’s degree 27% 26% -1Graduate or professional degree 21% 21% 0

Annual household income 2012 2016 DifferenceLess than $20,000 14% 9% -5Between $20,000 - $40,000 21% 23% +2Between $40,000 - $60,000 22% 20% -2Between $60,000 - $80,000 17% 17% 0Between $80,000 - $100,000 12% 10% -2More than $100,000 14% 21% +7

37

Table 1.24: Respondent ethnic background

Ethnic background 2012 2016 DifferenceAfrican-American 17% 18% +1Asian-American 1% 0% -1Caucasian 76% 71% -5Hispanic 1% 2% +1Other or more than one of the other choices 5% 9% +4

38

Part I, Section 2: Customer Service Department User Survey Results

A landline phone survey was conducted of all individuals who called the Customer Service Department in 2015. The survey was conducted from February 15th – March 10th, 2016. Calling took place on Monday – Thursday evenings, 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm. 70% of numbers were called, with follow up calls placed to numbers that did not answer or had voicemail. There were 250 respondents who completed the survey, compared with 302 who completed a similar survey in 2012. The 2012 respondent call list consisted of all individuals who called the Customer Service Department during the period of March 1st – July 1st, 2012. The Customer Service Department noted that the call volume during the 2012 period was much higher due to the introduction of the new stormwater management fee (which was then suspended due to litigation).

Section 2.A: Customer Service Department Responsiveness

Overall, the responsiveness of the Customer Service Department improved from 2012 to 2016. Table 2.1 shows that 78% of respondents thought that the customer service representative understood the reason for their call, down 3 points from 81% in 2012. Prompt resolution of issues increased from 56% in 2012 to 63% in 2016 (Table 2.2).

Table 2.1: Did customer service representative understand the reason for your call?

Year Yes Only partially No I don’t know2012 81% 9% 4% 6%2016 78% 11% 9% 3%

Difference -3 +2 +5 -3

Table 2.2: Was the issue you called about resolved right away?

Year Yes No2012 56% 44%2016 63% 37%

Difference +7 -7

There was no change in the call back percentage between 2012 and 2016, with 31% of respondents in both surveys saying they needed to call the Customer Service Department again to get an issue resolved (Table 2.3). The number of times respondents needed to call back improved significantly (Table 2.4). Those having to call back more than once declined 28 points, from 58% in 2012 to 30% in 2016. However, there was a 9 point increase in those who had not had their issue resolved, rising from 26% in 2012 to 35% in 2016. Table 2.5 shows that respondents received good direction in getting help, rising from 77% in 2012 to 80% in 2016. Most importantly, respondent problem resolution increased significantly from 57% in 2012 to 87% in 2016, a 30 point increase (Table 2.6). The promptness of call backs was more mixed.

39

Table 2.7 shows that those who thought they did not get a prompt call back declined from 57% in 2012 to 42% in 2016. While this is a good result, new choices in the 2016 survey of ‘not really’ at 12% and ‘have not received a call back’ at 5% diminish the effectiveness of call backs.

Table 2.3: Did you have to call back to get it resolved?

Year Yes No2012 31% 69%2016 31% 69%

Difference 0 0

Table 2.4: If calling back was necessary, how many times did you call back?

Year Once Twice More than twice It’s still not resolved2012 16% 21% 37% 26%2016 36% 6% 24% 35%

Difference +20 -15 -13 +9

Table 2.5: Were you directed to the appropriate entity to help you with your issue?

Year Yes No2012 77% 21%2016 80% 20%

Difference +3 -1

Table 2.6: Was the problem resolved to your satisfaction?

Year Yes No Not yet I have given up2012 57% 17% 23% 2%2016 87% 13% --- ---

Difference +30 -4 --- ---

Table 2.7: If you had to leave a message and wait for a call back from a Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District representative, were you called back promptly?

Year Yes No Not really Have not been called back yet

2012 37% 57% --- ---2016 40% 42% 12% 5%

Difference +3 -15 --- ---

40

Section 2.B: Customer Service Department Rating

Ratings of the Customer Service Department improved from 2012 to 2016. Those rating their experience as ‘excellent’ increased from 21% in 2012 to 29% in 2016 (Table 2.8). A ‘good’ rating dropped only 3 points from 40% to 37%. ‘Fair’ and ‘Poor’ ratings declined from 38% in 2012 to to 34% in 2016. Comparison with other utility service customer service departments showed some improvement (Table 2.9). Those that thought their experience with the NEORSD Customer Service Department was better than with other utility departments increased from 22% in 2012 to 26% in 2016. Those that thought their experience was worse declined from 23% in 2012 to 20% in 2016.

Table 2.8: How would you rate your experience with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District customer service department?

Year Excellent Good Fair Poor2012 21% 40% 19% 19%2016 29% 37% 16% 18%

Difference +8 -3 -3 -1

Table 2.9: How do you feel the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District customer service department rates in comparison to the customer service department of other utility services that you have had experience with?

Rating 2012 2016 DifferenceBetter than other utility services 22% 26% +4About the same as other utility services 51% 41% -10Worse than other utility services 23% 20% -3I have not had experience with other utility services 4% 13% +9

Table 2.10 shows the letter grade ranking given by respondents, who were asked to compare the NEORSD Customer Service Department to the best customer service they had ever received, and then use this comparison to grade the NEORSD. The 2012 survey provided whole letter grades (A, B, C, D, F), while the 2016 added pluses and minuses (A, A-, B+, B, etc.) The overall grading of the NEORSD Customer Service Department improved. The 2016 survey showed 29% assigning an ‘A’ or ‘A-‘, compared with 27% in 2012. Rankings in the ‘B’ range were 37%, compared with 31% who gave the department a ‘B’ in 2012. ‘D’ ratings declined from 9% to 7%, and ‘F’ ratings declined from 17% to 10%. Given that customers call the Customer Service Department for either information or to resolve a problem, the change in ratings is a good sign of overall improvement in customer perception of how they have been served by the department.

41

Table 2.10: Now, please think about the best customer service that you have ever received, from any company, as receiving a grade of A. How would you grade your overall experience with the sewer district service?

Year A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F2012 27% 31% 16% 9% 17%2016 26% 3% 8% 25% 4% 3% 12% 2% 0% 6% 1% 10%

42

Part II: Qualitative Data and Analysis

Section 3.A: Residential Focus Group Methodology

The study involved residents from households served by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District in four focus groups organized by region: a. City of Cleveland; b. West suburbs; c. East suburbs; d. South suburbs. Residents were recruited through the household phone survey conducted by the Community Research Institute. Participants would each receive $50 in cash for completing a one hour focus group. 159 phone survey respondents provided contact information to participate in a focus group. Of these, supplemented with additional potential participants from communities needing more representation in the focus groups, 56 agreed to participate in the residential focus groups. From this number, 32 appeared for the four scheduled focus group sessions.

The focus groups took place as follows:

March 7th, 2016; 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm at Baldwin Wallace University – West suburbs residential group (9 participants)

March 8th, 2016: 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm at Baldwin Wallace University – South suburbs residential group (8 participants)

March 21st, 2016: 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm at Corporate College East (Tri-C) – East suburbs residential group (9 participants)

March 22nd, 2016: 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm at Baldwin Wallace University – Cleveland residential group (8 participants)

Each of the focus groups was facilitated by Dr. Sutton, with the exception of the West suburbs residential group, which was facilitated by Professor Robert B. Young (BW School of Business). Each focus group was audio-recorded, with transcripts made of each recording. Participants were informed that the session would be recorded, and that all comments would be kept anonymous in the transcript, data reporting and analysis. Each participant was given $50.00 cash at the conclusion of each focus group. The participants provided their name, signature, and home address to verify participation in the focus groups.

Summaries of the focus group responses to each of the questions are below, followed by a set of highlighted points.

Section 3.B: Focus Group Summaries (organized by question)

1. Which agency is responsible for sending your water and sewer bill? How often are you billed? Have you noticed changes to your billing amounts?

Agency responsible for billing: There was a mix of responses concerning which agency is responsible for respondents’ water and sewer bill. For the Cleveland focus group, two identified the Cleveland Water Department, while two others identified the County, and one

43

identified the NEORSD. For the West suburb focus group, all seven were aware of which agency sends their bills (usually City of Cleveland; at times a local municipality). The East suburbs group all said their bills come from the Cleveland Water Department and the NEORSD as separate bills. The South suburbs group was less certain about which agency handles billing, in part because most of this group uses autopay for their water and sewer bills. Two said they think the water and sewer billing is combined, from the Cleveland Water Department, while two others thought they were billed separately by the NEORSD.

Billing frequency: For the Cleveland household focus group, two said they are billed every three months, while four said they did not know, as their bill is automatically paid out of a checking account. The West suburbs group split on billing frequency; three said their bill arrives monthly, while four said they are billed quarterly. The East suburbs group all said their billing is quarterly. The South suburbs group thought their bill comes quarterly.

Changes in billing amounts: Six in the Cleveland household group said their bill had gone up. One said it had gone up ‘a lot,’ while another said the bill had gone up ‘a little bit,’ possibly due to the Homestead exemption. One thought their bill had gone up ‘a couple of bucks.’ The West suburb group believed their bills have increased considerably over the past five years. A few residents said that their impressions were that their bills had doubled over the past five years. Two from Parma mentioned that part of their billing increase was the $12/month additional charge for garbage pickup added by the city. The East suburbs group was mixed in response to the question of rate increases. There was some discussion about the addition of sprinklers to some households, and the use of the watering exemption to lower sewer bills (two participants were not aware of this option). One said the bill has increased slightly, but not enough to notice. For the South suburbs group, two thought their bills had increased significantly. Again, as with other respondents, the use of autopay appeared to make it less clear as to how much bills had changed. Two specifically mentioned a rate increase in 2015, with one saying they thought the increase was ‘substantial.’

2. Have you ever called the NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT Customer Service Department for assistance? If so, what was your experience? Courteous? Responsive? Helpful?

There was only one participant from the South suburbs group and one from the West suburbs group who had called the NEORSD Customer Service Department for assistance. No other participants have called the Customer Service Department.

The West suburbs participant called to ask about the Homestead exemption for her mother, who lives in Parma Heights. Her concern was that the exemption has to be renewed each year, which was difficult to do, as her mother received the bills, but was not aware of the need to do the annual renewal. The participant wondered why the exemption required annual renewal. The challenge of handling this would at times result in missing the deadline, and sometimes having to prorate the exemption over the remaining part of the year of eligibility.

44

The South suburbs participant called about the summer program for a new lawn sprinkler system. She did not think she was treated very well by the Customer Service Department staff, who told her that she should have known about the summer watering program. The participant also complained about the requirement to renew this request each year, and was told ‘that’s the way it is.’

3. The NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER is responsible for providing your sewer services. How effective do you think the Sewer District is in their work?

The Cleveland group thought the Sewer District does its work well. There were no complaints from this group. One said they thought the Sewer District was doing ‘pretty good considering they’ve got an aging sewer system to deal with.’

Generally speaking, the residents in the West suburbs group believe that the NEORSD is effective in its work. Since these residents had not contacted the NEORSD recently they really did not have substantive complaints. Many residents had contacted their particular city but not the NEORSD. The issue that did come up was the issue of local flooding during short periods of heavy rain. It was difficult to determine who the residents held responsible for these issues but at some level they believe that the city and the NEORSD in combination are responsible for these problems.

For the East suburbs group, the consensus was that the Sewer District has been effective. ‘We have not had an issue, so I guess they’re effective.’ ‘I guess they’re doing all right.’ One resident mentioned that it is a challenge that lines have to be replaced, but understood this is part of the work of the District and the municipality. One was prompted by this remark to mention that their street was re-done in 2011, including replacement of sewer and drainage lines, but had no complaints about the work or the results.

The South suburbs group had more discussion about this question. One resident from Berea (came to this session due to scheduling issue), discussed street flooding in their neighborhood that comes up their lawn (corner of Abbyshire, Crescent, and Lindbergh streets). He proceeded to talk about their home and many others being built on slabs, so that they do not have to worry about basement flooding. The resident does occasionally notice a bit of brown water in the toilet and faucets. He also talked about the difference in the taste of the water in Berea versus his childhood home in Parma Heights. He thought the water was much better in Parma Heights.

Two other residents of Brecksville and Broadview Heights discussed instances where water had to be shut off due to construction. Each received notices, but were concerned about whether this affected their water quality. Neither thought the Sewer District was involved in this, but were unclear about the reason for the shutoff.

Three other residents thought the Sewer District is effective in its work and had no complaints.

45

4. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District rates are determined every five years, and since the last rate schedule was passed in 2011, rates have risen about 10% per year, in part to cover the start of a 25-year pollution-reduction program called Project Clean Lake. Project Clean Lake is preventing untreated wastewater, including raw sewage, from discharging into Lake Erie. It is a federally mandated program that will last through 2035 at a cost between two and three billion dollars. Project Clean Lake will reduce raw sewage discharges into the environment from 4.5 billion gallons/year to fewer than 500 million gallons per year. Do you think the rate increases are reasonable for the impact of the project?

The Cleveland residents agreed that the rate increases are worth paying if this is for work that will significantly reduce the flow of untreated wastewater into Lake Erie. The planned reduction in annual sewer overflow from 4.5 billion gallons to 500 million gallons had a dramatic effect on focus group participants. ‘Personally, I would say yes (the rate increases are reasonable). I mean we’re on the Lake a lot. What you just said just totally grosses me out so bad. We’re at the Lake every weekend. So anything that they can do, even if it’s still five (hundred) million, I mean it’s not in the billions.’ Two others said yes, it is worth it. One participant said that ‘…water is, you couldn’t live without it. You could live without food longer then you can live without water.’

For the West suburbs group, residents believed that rate increases were reasonable for these types of projects. However several residents said that it was difficult to determine if the rate increases were reasonable since they did not know what the specific rate increase was. When they get the actual rate increase in April (2016) they will be in a better position to address reasonableness. There was only a small level of awareness of Project Clean Lake, but most felt that it was a positive project and that it must be paid for. While they believed that this project is worthwhile, several residents were also unhappy about what they see as yet another rate increase.

The West suburbs group also mentioned using the local newspapers to communicate project details and information. One resident talked about a local, multi-year, railroad bridge project that was communicated very effectively using the local newspaper and the local news. She also mentioned that it was important for the NEORSD to clearly explain why the project was being done, how it will benefit residents, and how much it will cost. Laying out large projects in a clear and logical manner seemed to make sense to everyone in this group.

The East suburbs group also supported rate increases tied to making Lake Erie clean, with several mentioning swimming in the lake as a reason for this support. One expressed concern about NEORSD spending on other projects that did not seem to be as directly tied to improving the cleanliness of the lake. One mentioned the improvements at area beaches that are now operated by the Metroparks system. Another resident discussed the importance of fishing in the area, and how this is affected by the cleanliness of the lake. One said she does not swim in the lake because of concerns about water conditions. Another resident asked about the EPA lawsuit against the Sewer District, wondering if the District was paying fines with revenues that

46

should be used for improving the system. The resident was concerned that the District should use customer fees to pay for service improvements, not fines.

The South suburbs group was mixed in their opinions about whether rate increases were reasonable. One went into detail about the connection of rates with reduction in water usage:

‘I do not (think rate increases are reasonable). No, because now you have the toilets that (use) less water. It seems like we're doing everything, but it's still not enough and I don't understand. The water pressure doesn't come out really fast at my house because the new ones can only have so much output. The toilets that are a little lower, the ones with the lower tanks. I just feel that we're getting to a point where we're doing all the environmental things but now we're not using enough water so now the water department says we're going to raise the rates…’ Two other residents mentioned conservation efforts such as toilets using less water.

Another resident said, ‘I would have to know what it would entail because if it's an ongoing process, I would like to know. We started this two years ago and this is what we've accomplished. I know whenever you put something into play, you always get something else… So things will kind of need to be adjusted. If there's an ongoing process and something else needs to be done, it would be nice to acknowledge what this rate increase will be for.’

Another resident said that they would be willing to pay rate increases to take care of specific problems tied to household usage. However, the resident did not think it was fair to charge households for pollution caused by industry and farming. These sources should be taken care of by those entities and/or the EPA.

One resident expressed skepticism about the EPA. This person saw the EPA as making money on fines from local communities, but not providing funding to help improve water treatment.

Three residents in the South suburbs group did not think rate increases had been very high. Two thought their quarterly bills were about $200. One noticed an increase in 2015, but did not think it was that much.

One resident had an interesting summary observation about rate increases: ‘I think that's such a general question (about the reasonableness of rate increases). We don't have enough information to even comment on it. I don't know how they run their organization; I don't know what their administrative costs are. I'm assuming they're low since their systems are antiquated, that they don't invest a lot. It's probably an older system. Are they (the Sewer District) high tech? What are they putting their money into? I don't know their budget so I can't even comment on that. It's such a general question. Do I see an increase for that? Am I willing to pay it if it's something for the environment? Sure. But I don't know if it's being managed properly. I don't know who is causing this or if there's a need. I work in corporate America; I know just to turn the lights on and maintain what you have, you have to invest and you have to put the money in and it has to come from somewhere and every year the costs get higher and higher. Whether it's your employee base, whether it's all your other items around you that

47

increase. It's a natural progression. The money has to come from somewhere. Who is going to pay it?’

5. What do you think are the most effective ways to communicate with the public about sewer rate increases needed to pay for the untreated water storage system?

The Cleveland group had several suggestions for communication approaches. Social media such as Facebook and Twitter were mentioned by three participants. Another suggested pop-up ads on Google, since many people use this search engine. Two mentioned ads on radio and television. Another suggested the Sewer District sponsor ads on Facebook pages about Cleveland.

In the West suburbs group, several suggestions were made about communication, including traditional media advertising as well as a website that could be used to explain plans and project costs in greater detail. Using the local news broadcasts was also mentioned by several residents as a good source of information. When asked about statement stuffers residents said they did not read them and immediately threw them away. However if notices were placed directly on their bills (in a specific “billboard” type location) residents would pay more attention to these types of communications. Interestingly, residents had no awareness of the phrase “untreated water storage system” and did not know where it was being constructed or have any relevant details about the project.

The East suburbs group suggested using cartoons to illustrate the work of the Sewer District, and what might happen without its services (e.g., a cartoon monster in Lake Erie formed by pollution). Several said that television ads are still effective, as this is a source of media many people still use. One suggested making the bill more interesting, with useful information. However, all agreed that information should not be in an insert with the bill, but should be printed on the bill itself. One suggested designing the bill and information to not look like junk mail. Another suggested using pictures. Another suggested community meetings held by the mayor and representatives from the Sewer District to explain rate increases (this person has seen this done, and thinks it is one effective approach to communicate with the community).

One participant said, ‘I mean, I would somehow try to make your bill more interesting and have that information printed because that’s the only thing I look at. Anything else, if there’s an insert in that bill we get, I don’t look at it. It’s got to be printed right on that bill, where the numbers are, and it’s something with information like “Hey, this is what we’re doing.” to make the bill more creative as opposed to the insert of a bill or getting another postcard because that postcard goes right to there on the map.’

The South suburbs group had several suggestions for communication approaches. Three said that mail is ineffective because it usually gets ignored. Two thought Facebook and email are better options for promoting the work of the Sewer District. Links to the Sewer District website were also suggested by two participants.

48

One participant explained the need for communication with ratepayers: ‘Educate them about the projects we're (the Sewer District) working on. Here's what this means in the future. This is how it impacts you. They have to relate it back to how it impacts you. Just calling out, "We're increasing your rates," obviously people are just going to be furious. What are you doing?’

Another participant used school levies and the work on the railroad underpass in Berea as examples of effective communication. The resident explained that the local paper, the Berean, was used to provide detailed information about the railroad underpass project, including a timeline and alternate routes. The budget and sources of funding were also explained.

The group also discussed the importance of providing information about water treatment and water quality in light of the recent news about water problems in Flint, Michigan. They believe this is an opportunity to reassure Sewer District and Cleveland Water Department households about what is being done to maintain high quality drinking water. People are asking about the algae blooms in Lake Erie, and how this might be affecting water quality. This is a good opportunity to provide public information about what is needed, including how rate increases will pay for treatments that will address these problems. Public information about water testing was also mentioned as an important part of the communications that should be provided by the Sewer District and Water Department.

Other miscellaneous points mentioned in this group included concern about whether there might be a connection between water quality and the increasing instances of Alzheimers and food allergies; concern that the plastic in water bottles may be a health risk; and restating the perception that people are using less water but paying higher rates.

6. Given the recent water quality issues in Toledo, OH (algae) and Flint, MI (lead), how interested are you in knowing more about our regional water quality?

The Cleveland focus group all said that their interest in water quality has increased since the situations in Toledo and Flint occurred. One thought he was naïve in assuming that authorities would inform the public if there was a problem with water quality, rather than the situation in which this was not reported for months in Flint. One thinks more safeguards are in place now to ensure that water quality is not affected. Another has a friend who works for the Cleveland Water Department who said that Cleveland water is considered among the cleanest in the country.

In the West suburbs group, everyone agreed that the recent water issues in nearby cities has heightened their awareness of water quality. They also generally agreed that the water in the Cleveland area is of high quality.

The East suburbs group also were very interested in water quality reporting as a result of the situations in Toledo and Flint, particularly concerning the appearance of government errors and cover-ups of the situation in Flint.

49

The South suburbs group did not see this as an issue. They generally trust the Cleveland Water Department and Sewer District to continue to deliver high quality water service.

7. Maintaining and monitoring water quality is a focus of the Sewer District’s work, including collecting data about the quality of water at Cleveland’s recreational beaches during the summer months. What would be the best ways for the Sewer District to provide information about beach and water quality to the public?

The Cleveland group suggested several ideas. Some said a smart phone app that people could use to check water conditions at area beaches. A few suggested news bulletins about beach conditions, saying that some people still turn to local news for information such as this (although a few participants were doubtful about how many people still watch the news on a regular basis). One type of broadcast that gets more attention are live sporting events, which draw a lot of viewers and listeners, and might therefor be good vehicles for notifications.

Social media, website updates, and notices on weather service media such as the Weather Channel and Accuweather were suggested as good points for notification. Texting notifications to subscribers was also suggested.

The West suburbs group had similar suggestions as had been offered for question 5 about communication strategies. Most mentioned the signs placed directly at the beaches warning residents about water quality on particular days when the water was unsuitable for swimming.

Three participants in the East suburb group suggested a phone app for notifications. One suggested notifications on Facebook, while another thought a news bulletin would be helpful. One thought that notifications about both beach water quality and drinking water quality would be useful. Another said he would review the annual EPA water quality report, and thinks this should be more widely promoted as a source of information.

The South suburbs group mentioned similar suggestions as the other groups, highlighting the use of an app for notification. Banner notifications on TV were also suggested, particularly during the morning news period when people are checking weather conditions to plan a day at the beach.

8. The NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT manages a Regional Stormwater Management Program that will charge an average fee of $5.15/month to household customers starting later this year based on the square footage of hard surfaces on their property. The funds will be used reduce stormwater runoff in the region served by the NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT, thereby reducing regional problems like stream erosion, flooding, and debris problems caused by stormwater. The Sewer District had suspended this program following a 2013 Cuyahoga County court ruling, but the Ohio Supreme Court authorized the

50

program in September of 2015. Once the program relaunches and fees begin to be charged, the Sewer District believes that the program will act as encourage property owners to find ways to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff on their property. What are your thoughts about this initiative?

The Regional Stormwater Management Program received the most attention by each of the focus groups, with concerns expressed about the formula for new fees, and questions about how the funds will be used. Focus group participants are very concerned about the use of impervious surface square footage as the basis for calculating the fee. They are also concerned about paying fees that will be used in other communities, and would rather see such fees stay in their communities for necessary projects.

The Cleveland focus group discussed current rates and what this would do in terms of increases. Current rates of roughly $200/quarter were mentioned by three participants. One expressed concern about homeowners paying these fees, while renters do not (the point that renters may pay through increased rent was not addressed). The size of houses, roofs, driveways and patios was discussed, with questions about what this would mean for individual homeowners. One participant said, ‘There will be some level of consternation on this one but what can we do, stop it, tell them no?’ Another said, ‘Yeah, this is probably the straw that broke the camel’s back.’ Remembering the first bills that came with the new fee in 2012 (before the fee was suspended due to court action), one participant said, ‘I remember the first time I got that bill, I was like are you kidding me right now. Because I didn’t realize it was, that’s how it would come.’

For the West suburbs group, a few residents had some awareness about this project. Many residents were unhappy about another rate increase and felt that they were already conserving as much as possible. Additionally they did not have many good ideas as to how to conserve more water. Several residents were confused as to how this rate “formula” would be applied to residential property. They fully understood the issue as it relates to large commercial property but not nearly as much when discussing residential patios and other private hardscape.

The East suburbs group had several questions about the proposed fee and projects. One participant asked, ‘So when you say projects, they're just going to educate us, or are they going to give us a rain barrel? They're taking money from me to tell me I have to go buy something.’ Another said, ‘With recycling, we pay in and we get our little recycle bin and we can throw everything in so that allows me to be someone who's conscious of what I'm throwing away into our landfills. But if you're going to process a fee for me, not tax me, and then tell me I have to go spend money, then I have an issue.’ Two other participants asked whether efforts to keep water on one’s property and away from street runoff might result in creating standing water problems that would then be cited as a violation by local municipal authorities.

One participant has already had problems with water on his property: ‘See, part of my problem is this...We just built a house. So hopefully we're not going to have a lot of sewer problems. The house we just left had that problem with the water tank because it was saturated. They built

51

the swales and it was supposed to run off into this ravine and people started building fences on their properties where it got cut off and literally, a decent rain, the water would sit for two days. A storm?...a week. I couldn't enjoy the yard. My kids couldn't play in the backyard. I couldn't enjoy it. There's no sense owning a property if you can't enjoy it. I don't like that at all.’

The South suburbs group expressed similar concerns to the other focus groups. They did not see the point of being charged additional fees for efforts to keep water on one’s property. Some asked about the cost of using rain barrels, and whether this was feasible. The question of standing water was raised, especially concerning mosquito breeding, and whether the additional management involved in using rain barrels was worth the effort. One asked if the fee could be adjusted based on the amount of rain each year, saying that property owners should not be penalized for weather that is beyond their control. The concern about local authorities opposing use of pervious material for driveways and patios (e.g., pervious pavers; gravel) was raised in this group, with several noting that this would make snow removal much more difficult.

There was extensive discussion about how this could be done in a way that would be more acceptable to local communities. One participant suggested that the fees should only be used in the communities where these are paid. Another said that providing detailed information to the public about specific flooding and water control problems being addressed, project design, and cost should be part of this program. Two participants suggested starting with a pilot community paying the fees and doing the projects to evaluate how this works before applying across the entire Sewer District. The concern about trading run-off for standing water on residential property was raised by several participants. In particular, the question about how this might affect older house foundations and basements was raised. Changing the water flow to keep it on one’s property might result in water collecting near foundations and cause basement seepage and deterioration of foundation, which are very expensive to address.

One participant asked about whether the satellite mapping system used to determine the amount of impervious surface for properties could also be used to identify runoff and flooding issues. One said that if such mapping identified a specific problem that could be used by the Sewer District to show local residents what needs to be done and how the fee would pay for the work. Another said that he would install a rain barrel to control water flow and flooding if necessary, but would need to see the evidence first before making the investment.

One participant suggested that fee credits be used to encourage residents to use rain barrels and other techniques to reduce property runoff. Another participant suggested using the fees as a direct subsidy for homeowner water runoff reduction projects: ‘You can get rain barrels for everybody for half price. You can purchase them for this money at a discounted price and here's your rain barrel. Here are materials or someone that can help you do the swale that you need…they shouldn't be taking money to tell us what we need to do because most people know.’

One participant who has been involved with the PUP, Pick Up Poop program used this as an example of where the Sewer District needs to be more efficient in how it is using its funds. He

52

asked about why there is an extensive public campaign to encourage people to clean up after their dogs, rather than targeting dog owners through the county dog licensing program. The point was that rather than pay for public campaigns, the Sewer District should target specific audiences with lower cost information dissemination. For the stormwater management program, the participant suggested informing residents about the rain barrel option as a project that would reduce fees through a credit or fee waiver.

9. The NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT wants to help customers get a better understanding of its work. What suggestions do you have for helping people learn more about the NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT? For instance, would you notice the NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT logo as a sponsor of local weather broadcasts? Or do you follow any Sewer District accounts on social media like Twitter or Facebook?

This question elicited some responses that were similar to the answers to earlier questions about notifying the public about beach conditions and water quality. The Cleveland residential focus group suggested using bills to explain information about the District’s work and fee changes. For customers who pay bills online or have auto-pay, perhaps send periodic emails with information, or provide the information on the website where bill paying takes place. Another participant noted that Northeast Ohio is fortunate to not have the water challenges or places like California or Arizona. This participant suggested that comparative information about rates and water conservation might be of educational value to Sewer District customers.

This group was also more negative about any activity involving Sewer District sponsorships or advertising. They felt that the Sewer District should not be spending money on things that can be viewed as traditional marketing activities used by companies that operate in competitive markets.

For the West suburbs group, none were interested in following the NEORSD on social media. Sponsoring local weather broadcasts were viewed as generally appropriate.

The East suburbs group engaged in more extensive discussion about Sewer District public information activity. Three mentioned use of an app to get information. One suggested changing the format of the bill to make it more readable and include information the District wants to communicate to ratepayers. Investing in the look and content of the bill might be more effective as a means of communicating targeted information, as well as being less expensive. Providing more detail about what fees are paying for would be useful to customers.

One participant who works in advertising is concerned about the cost of Sewer District radio spots and use of their logo at Indians games, both of which are expensive. Three participants agreed that the Sewer District is trying to get the public to understand who they are and their work. However, the reasons for doing this were still questioned by the majority of this group, who asked why an agency would spend money advertising when it has no competition, is a public agency, and does work that people understand at a basic level.

53

The South suburbs group also raised questions about the necessity of spending on publicity by the District. Two stated that the Sewer District does not have competition, and therefore does not need to persuade people to use their services. Two others said that efforts to inform the public were a good idea, but that this should be done through less expensive approaches such as community seminars. One participant thought it is the responsibility of elected city council officials to track the work of the Sewer District and represent the community’s interests and concerns.

The group agreed that the primary purpose of public communication from the Sewer District should be to provide clear information about work being done, costs, and how this will improve service and environmental conditions such as the cleanliness of Lake Erie and local waterways. Timeliness and budgets for specific projects were also suggested as information the public needs to see. Specific tactics such as providing detailed information on the District website combined with web address links on billing were suggested. One participant suggested the approach of the gas company, which shows the per unit cost, amount of gas used for a month, comparison with the prior year, and a bar chart that shows each month’s usage for the billing year. This would help households understand their water usage and be able to make adjustments. Consistency of communication, with regular updates about project progress and costs would also be helpful.

10. Do you think Lake Erie and regional waterways (e.g., Cuyahoga River, Rocky River) are important to the economy of NE Ohio? Why or why not?

The Cleveland group agreed that the Lake and waterways are important to the economy of Northeast Ohio, but focused on concern about rising rates. One mentioned the cost of maintaining old pipes, noting that this is where a lot of the cost increases are coming from, but being unhappy about having to pay these fees.

The West suburbs group agreed that the rivers and waterways are very important to the local economy. They mentioned the importance of the local ecology as well as commercial reasons such as water front property, various sporting activities, and the overall beauty of the region.

The East suburbs group also agreed that the Lake and waterways have economic value to the region. One noted the value of shipping, while another mentioned the redevelopment of the Flats for residential, recreational, and office space usage. Fishing as an economic benefit was also mentioned by two participants.

The South suburbs group discussed the amenities of the Metroparks around waterways such as Rocky River as being attractive to residents. They also noted the value of parks and Lake Erie as a draw for tourists. One participant noted that Northeast Ohio was recently ranked as a top ten area for recreation and entertainment, in part due to the parks system, beaches, and access to fishing and ski areas (source of ranking was not known).

54

11. Do you attend public meetings? How often, at which entities (e.g., school board, city council, public agency), and why?

None of the Cleveland focus group participants attend public meetings. For the West suburbs group, most residents had not attended many public meetings. Those that mentioned attending meetings were generally related to the schools as opposed to other public agencies.

A few of the participants in the East suburbs group have attended public meetings. One attends zoning commission and city council meetings on a regular basis because it is part of his job. Another will attend specific meetings if they are addressing an issue of concern. Another said that she would go to a public meeting of the Sewer District if it included receiving a free rain barrel.

There were a few participants in the South suburbs group who have attended public meetings. One described a meeting of city council discussing installation of an emergency city alarm system to alert the community to possible flooding. The system would involve building towers in residents’ back yards. Four others said they would attend a meeting if it involved something that affected them or was of interest. Another said she does not attend meetings. One said she would attend a meeting to get information about an issue being put to a vote, to become more educated about the issue.

12. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District offers free tours of its treatment plant and laboratory to educate customers about their work. Would you attend a tour? (Have you attended?)

The Cleveland residents group was enthusiastic about attending tours of treatment plants. One said ‘it would be really cool,’ while two said it would be a good activity for kids, either with the family or as a school field trip. One thought it would be good for middle school aged children, but thought that younger kids (first, second grades) would not get as much from the experience.

The West suburbs group was also supportive of tours, but noted that these should not involve a charge. The East suburbs group was also enthusiastic about tours. One suggested, ‘If you give me a free rain barrel, I'll go. That sounds stinky.’ Another said it was like an episode of the ‘Dirty Job’ series.

The South suburbs group said they were interested in tours. Three said they did not know that tours of treatment plants were available. One asked if a sample sip of treated water was part of the tour, a bit like getting samples from tours of a chocolate factory. Two suggested doing this as school field trips, with one noting the positive effect of such a trip (to a science museum)

55

on her child. Another said that a tour could be offered at times when the beach is not accessible due to stormwater runoff events.

Section 3.C: Summary Focus Group Points

* there is a mix of perceptions regarding billing agency, with most identifying the Water Department and/or the Sewer District. Most also are billed quarterly.

* a majority of participants have noticed bills increasing, although some were less certain due to auto-pay arrangements that result in less attention to details of billing over time. Two specifically mentioned increases that occurred in 2015. A few respondents saw increases due to new sprinkler systems, but were not aware of the sewer watering exemption program.

* Only two participants have called the Customer Service Department. One called to get information about the homestead exemption program. The service response was adequate, but the respondent did not understand why the exemption required annual re-application. The other called to find out information about the property watering exemption for sewer rates, and thought she was not treated very well by the Customer Service Department.

* Most participants feel the Sewer District is effective in its work. The only concerns raised were about particular instances of water shut-offs and flooding issues that were the purview of the local municipality.

* rate increases to pay for reduction in sewage overflow into Lake Erie are worth the cost, particularly given the goal of reducing annual overflows from 4.5 billion gallons to 500 million gallons.

* Customers need to be provided with clear and timely progress reports on Project Clean Lake that include information about costs, fee changes, accomplishments, and impact of improvements.

* Social media (Facebook, Twitter) are popular platforms for getting information about the Sewer District, as well as links to the District website. Facebook ads and use of email and texting to subscribers were also favored by several participants.

* Bill stuffers were not popular among focus group participants, who said these get ignored and tossed out. Instead, focus on improving bill design to make it more eye-catching, and include information about District projects and customer water usage.

* Community meetings are still considered important as a means of providing information about specific projects and rate changes.

* Interest in water quality has increased since the news about water issues in Toledo, Ohio and Flint, Michigan. Focus group participants generally trust the Sewer District and water department to continue to provide high quality water treatment.

56

* Beach condition alerts: a phone app was the most often suggested, along with news bulletins, a banner announcement during the morning news, texts and email to subscribers, and updates on social media and websites.

* the new impervious surface rates were of strong concern to focus group participants. They are skeptical about how the fees will be used, and want to see new revenue stay in the communities where it is paid. Some suggested phasing in the fees in pilot communities, including demonstration projects, before expanding across the entire service area.

* Participants feel strongly that fees should help residents by subsidizing the cost of rain barrels and other improvements to reduce stormwater runoff. Using fee credits as incentives to encourage reduction of stormwater runoff was also suggested.

* The District needs to clearly align storm water runoff reduction strategies with local building and zoning codes. Municipalities will not allow standing water on properties, and are often strict about water diversion that may cause foundation and basement flooding problems.

* general community outreach: use phone apps and target information to specific audiences.

* several participants are critical of Sewer District spending on sponsorships and name recognition initiatives (e.g., display of the logo at Indians games). They ask why the District needs to do this as a public agency with no competition for service provision?

* Focus community awareness efforts on providing information about use of funds and project reports (cost, timeline, progress, results).

* Lake Erie and local waterways are highly valued by focus group participants. All agreed that the economic value of these resources should be a priority in maintaining water cleanliness and access. Economic benefits include recreation, access to beaches and the Metroparks, redevelopment of the Flats, fishing, new housing, and shipping use of the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie.

* A few participants attend public meetings. Several said they would attend to get information about specific issues, particularly if a general election vote is involved. Some said they would attend a public meeting of the Sewer District if it resulted in receiving a rain barrel.

* Strong enthusiasm expressed for tours of sewage treatment plants! Several thought this was something worth attending, while others discussed as a good idea for school field trips.

57

Section 4: Business Interviews

The study originally intended to conduct focus groups of business and organization owners and managers from each of the regions of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, paralleling the focus groups of household residents. After two evenings in which only one or two business people appeared for the business focus groups, the study investigators changed to a strategy of targeted one-on-one phone interviews. A student in the School of Business developed a list of businesses and contacts across the NEORSD that was then used by Professor Robert Young to set up interviews. This was done during the period of April 14 – 28, 2016. Three interviews had also been conducted with those that had appeared for the originally planned focus groups. These were conducted by Dr. Sutton on March 21st and 22nd. A list of the businesses contacted and results is found in Table 4.1.

The first three interviews (from the original focus groups, for which 28 individuals had indicated they would attend) were conducted face-to-face. The subsequent nine interviews were conducted by phone (27 were contacted, and 9 responded). Because the first three interviews were with individuals expecting to be part of the focus groups, each received the $50.00 stipend that had been promised. The phone interviews did not include a stipend, as these involved far less time by the participants. All participants were informed that their names, company names and locations would be identified in the study. They were also told that all responses would be reported in aggregate, keeping individual responses anonymous.

58

Table 4.1: Business interview list

Business Community Contact person Position ResultSouthpark Mall Strongsville Andy Selesnik Marketing

ManagerInterview 3/21

Yoga Lounge and Barre

Hudson Adam Tilocco Owner Interview 3/21

Personal Leasing Transportation

Cleveland (west)

Matt Rawlings Owner Interview 3/22

Tri-C West Parma William Scott Huebler

Grounds Supervisor

Interview 4/18

Cleveland State Cleveland Keith Polster Building Mgmt. Interview 4/18Fogg Building Brooklyn Mike Novachek Project manager Interview 4/19Myron’s Precision Automotive

Parma Myron Skarupa Owner Interview 4/20

EnviroServe Parma George Karas Owner Interview 4/20Baldwin Wallace University

Berea Bill Kerbusch BW Grounds Supervisor

Interview 4/21

Central Cadillac Cleveland (downtown)

Frank Porter Manager Interview 4/21

All-Lite Electric Co Cleveland (west)

Joe Najm Owner Interview 4/21

Kalinich Fence Strongsville Mike Kalinich Owner Interview 4/22Personal Leasing Cleveland Matt Rawlings Owner Interview 3/22Empire Masonry North

RoyaltonBernie Nofel Owner No response

Friends Ornamental Iron Co.

Cleveland (east)

Jim Cahlik Manager No response

Mama Santa’s Cleveland (east)

Antonio Starvaggi

Manager No response

Athens Pastries and Imported Foods

Cleveland (west)

Becky Alex Manager No response

Independence Excavating

Independence Don DiGeronimo Owner No response

Boyas Excavating Valley View Mike Boyas Owner No responseTaste of Europa Parma Dan Kovacevic Owner No responseEmpire Ornamental Iron

Cleveland (west)

Bill Moll Owner No response

Cornerstone Brewery

Berea Roy Blalock Manager No response

Catanese Classic Seafood

Cleveland (west)

Jim or John Catanese

Owners No response

59

The focus of the interviews was largely on the effects of the new Stormwater Management program fee, calculated on the basis of the square footage of impervious surface of a property. The interview results are as follows:

* Respondent has started a new retail service business and pays rent for space. He is not aware of the fees involved in wastewater treatment, as this is all part of the rent he pays for the space (approximately 1,500 square feet). The respondent supports efforts to mitigate stormwater runoff as a means of keeping Lake Erie and local waterways clean, but is concerned about the impact of the Stormwater Management fee on business owners who rent commercial space.

* Respondent is happy with sewer and water service and the focus on keeping area waterways and Lake Erie clean. Respondent is very aware of communication initiatives of the Sewer District, in particular the PUP – Pick Up Poop campaign. He supports efforts to keep waterways and the Lake clean, but is concerned about the impact of the new Stormwater management fees on large retail business complexes such as the one he worked for. The costs will be passed on to retail customers and may have a negative effect on sales, which in turn will hurt retailers in an already tight sales market.

* Respondent owns a commercial vehicle rental service with 3,600 square feet of garage and parking lot space. He thinks sewer rates have increased, but that these are reasonable if they are covering direct costs of maintaining clean water. He thinks that there is a lot more interest in sewer fees, especially the proposed stormwater management fee. This owner is concerned about increased fee costs, but thinks it may be worth paying if there is a clear improvement in water quality. He suggested community meetings and networking with local business and service organizations (e.g., Chambers of Commerce, Kiwanis, church groups) to get the word out about Sewer District programs and new fees.

* Respondent is aware of the Storm Water Management Fee but did not know about Project Clean Lake. He is running a retail store and did not have a lot of time to talk but is concerned about the fee. He has not seen any correspondence about it yet and is not sure that it is really going to happen. He has very little involvement with the Sewer District overall as a business owner. He also has no idea as to how his specific fee will be calculated.

* Respondent was very aware of the stormwater management program and fees. He was very aware of the fee but thought that it was never levied due to the law suit. His business association was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the stormwater fee. His business manager calculated an estimate of what their fee might be, but did not share this information. He believed that it would be large businesses that were going to pay the bulk of the cost due to their footprint. I asked if he knew about any other cities that were assessing businesses storm water fees and he said he had heard that this was being done in southern Ohio but did not think this was a very widespread initiative. He said that his sense was that the Sewer District had planned to assess the fee and that businesses would simply pay it. He said he thought the District was likely surprised by the amount of pushback and the law suit to try and stop it from

60

happening. The respondent was also aware of Project Clean Lake but was not familiar with the name of the project. He knew about the water flowing into the lake and also about the algae problem in western Lake Erie that moves from west to east, affecting the water quality and other environmental issues.

* The respondent works with a large nonprofit organization, and is very aware of the stormwater management fee. He was also aware of Project Clean Lake but did not know the project by name. The respondent said that to his knowledge the organization had never paid the fee because the law suit put everything on hold. The responded discussed a host of things that had been done to mitigate storm water runoff, including installation of numerous water retention basins. The respondent is concerned about what the potential fee might be, given the large footprint of the organization. The property is crossed by several city streets. There is also one building with a green roof. The respondent suggested that the Sewer District needs to send a person out to walk around and see the efforts the organization has made to try and mitigate storm water runoff. He does not like the idea of assessing any fees based on Google Mapping or any other method that does not involve an actual walk around observation.

* The next respondent owns an industrial waste transportation business with ten acres of property. He fully understands the importance of a clean environment given his business. However he feels very unaware of these projects (the stormwater management fee and Project Clean Lake). He says he has heard of them but feels uninformed about the formula for calculating the fee, and timing of payments. He thinks that business owners should be much better informed by the Sewer District and given plenty of lead time before any fees are instituted.

* The respondent is very upset and negative about these projects. He thinks the Sewer District and the water department are a complete sham and should be outsourced. He is aware of the projects but not by name. He says the good guy pays for everything and the bad guy gets away with everything. He does not trust the Sewer District and does not think he gets any regular or meaningful communication from them. He was definitely the most negative of the business owners interviewed.

* The next respondent is the grounds supervisor for a large nonprofit organization. He is very Knowledgeable, and has high awareness of the NEORSD and how they work. He does not see them often unless he calls about a particular issue. The respondent is very aware of the Storm Water Management Program fee. He estimates the fee will be $18,000 per quarter for the property he manages. He knew the fee was started some time ago and then a city or two sued the District to stop the fee but the District had won the suit, so he knew the fee was coming back. He did not know when the fee was coming but knew it would. He thinks the homeowner fees are very reasonable but thinks the fees for businesses and organizations are not reasonable at all. He also knows all about Project Clean Lake and knew where some of the storage tanks were being built. He thinks the best way to communicate fees and project information is through the mail and on the news.

61

* The next two respondents had little time for the interview, but knew about the Storm Water management program fee. They estimated their fees would be reasonably small given square footage. They said statement stuffers are the best way to communicate rate changes and information.

* The last two respondents did not know about the Storm Water management fee. They said Their businesses each have several hundred thousand square feet of commercial buildings they have built, most of it in Cuyahoga County. Summary points:

Interviewees are very aware of the Stormwater management fee, but are not as familiar with Project Clean Lake. The business owners are very concerned about how the Stormwater management fee will be calculated and the timing of its assessment. Given that most businesses will be charged a substantial fee they don’t think it’s very fair that they feel so uninformed about the particulars of the fee. It appears that the larger the enterprise the more informed the owners/managers are. Smaller business owners are so busy running their businesses that this fee discussion is just another problem on their already over-crowded schedules. Communication appears to be a concern as well with most of these folks. They don’t feel particularly well informed, especially given the potential high fees that could be assessed. No one mentioned going to the website for information or actively seeking information. Most mentioned hearing news stories or seeing announcements via billing statements as their main sources of information about these projects.

Section 5: Elected Official Interviews

Interviews were conducted with elected officials or their staff representatives to gauge their perceptions of constituent experience with the Sewer District, and to determine if there were any particular issues of interest or concern to the officials. The initial list of officials to be interviewed was provided by the staff of the Sewer District. The list was supplemented with additional officials based on the number of responses provided by officials from the original list.

The interviews were primarily conducted by phone. Two individuals were interviewed in person, while two others responded to the survey questions with emailed responses. The interviews were conducted by Dr. Sutton and by a BW adult student, Evelyn Zwolinski. The interviews took place during the period of April 7th – 29th, 2016.

62

Section 5.A: Elected Official Interview Summaries

The results of each interview are summarized, including a list of officials who were contacted but did not respond.

1. Tanisha Briley, City Manager, Cleveland Heights, via phone interview with Evelyn Zwolinski, 4/7/16:

* Perceptions: well-run; helpful and competent staff. For these reasons, constituents are receiving high quality and efficient service.

* Role: Significant! Individual communities and local systems all end up at NEORSD. In that way, everyone has a role, but NEORSD’s is most significant.

* Cost: The cost of service due to laborious mandates affects rate increases. Also, safety, well-being/public good is necessary, and in order to provide this, service costs increase.

* We have challenged aspects of the program but elements of the system/new approach are beneficial. We would like to see more individual community control over funds and leverage funds as we see fit.

* We see the cost benefits of working together to manage storm water.

* Challenges: Beyond our control! Include climate change, excessive rain, age of community—significant challenges but must address in ways that are possible.

* Community awareness initiatives: Yes! Have met staff and seen much community outreach, whether it is through individual projects (i.e. our pipe project, which has been an excellent project) or broader community campaigning; very good communication with community.

* We have distributed postcards. Generally assume these are effective but have not followed up in any way to determine their actual influence on the public.

* Have seen the Road Show and picking a new set of communities each time = community awareness.

* We have the benefit of billing for them and enclose materials/direct content. This is a positive. Also, the website is very helpful.

* Overall, the NEORSD does a very good job.

63

2. Mike Dovilla, Ohio State Representative, District 7 (in person interview with Tom Sutton, 4-7-16)

Rep. Dovilla said that he does not hear a lot from constituents about the Sewer District, but rather from local elected officials in his district (e.g., Independence, Brecksville). Some are critical of the region having to bear the cost of what started as a problem in Cleveland when the District was created in the early 1970s. This is particularly an issue with the perception that fees paid by suburban communities are being used to repair older sewer lines in Cleveland, rather than these lines being covered by the City of Cleveland budget, as is the case in many suburbs. Rep. Dovilla said that the most vocal local official is Independence City Councilman Jim Trakas (also a former state representative).

Rep. Dovilla has visited the District’s offices a few times, and has been visited in Columbus occasionally by District officials. He perceives the District has working to modernize its staff training and hiring process. He thinks the District is more ‘outward facing,’ through efforts such as its website and signage at Progressive Field. The District is clearly making an effort to become better known by the public. He supports the idea of an educational role played by public agencies, and understands the need for community relations efforts. This understanding of a public agency’s role is different in northeast Ohio compared to other parts of the state, which are not as supportive of community relations efforts and the associated costs to public agencies.

Rep. Dovilla said that there has been concern raised about the new stormwater fees, particularly from businesses. There are also flooding concerns in his district. Rep. Dovilla discussed the big flood that occurred in Olmsted Falls two years ago, and the need for separating storm and sewer line tie-ins. He has not heard as much concern from communities such as Strongsville and North Royalton. However, Ward 4 in Strongsville has flooding during and after every major rain event.

He also mentioned the combined billing of Berea and the District, and thinks this is an improvement. He noted the meter transition work being done in communities in the district, and asked about online bill paying as an option.

Rep. Dovilla thinks the Sewer District has done better in its community relations efforts, but needs to be cautious in the levying of new fees for stormwater abatement projects, particularly in how these affect local businesses.

3. Zack Reed, Councilman, Ward 3, City of Cleveland (phone interview with Tom Sutton, 4/12/16)

Councilman Reed noted that while people like to complain about things, he has not heard any complaints about the Sewer District since beginning his work as a Cleveland Councilman in 2001. He likes the new direction of the District in its embrace of environmental concerns and going out into the community. Councilman Reed is especially appreciative of the District’s

64

sponsorship of kiddie park and provision of Sewer District coloring books as part of the annual Family Unity in the Park event.

Councilman Reed said that residents know that sewer rates are going up, but need to understand why. It’s important to lay out the case for increasing fees: what the reasons, and how will be funds be used. He appreciated the information about Project Clean Lake, and is supportive of the initiative to decrease the amount of raw sewage flowing into Lake Erie.

The councilman was also impressed with the Sewer District’s signage at construction sites, which he thinks is better than the signage used by the City of Cleveland. He said it is clean and clear, and delivers good information about the role of the Sewer District.

Councilman Reed discussed the importance of getting kids interested in the environment and connecting with Lake Erie. Efforts to help children understand the importance of Lake Erie, learning to swim and fish, to enjoy the Lake as a resource are needed in his neighborhoods. He also noted that many of his constituents watch TV, and get information in this way from programs like the Petittis ‘infomercials’ about gardening. Longer PSAs about the work of the District would be helpful to many of his constituents as a means of helping them to learn more about the work of the Sewer District. He also noted the value of cooking shows and classes as being important to his community, and thinks more should be done to connect residents to ways to be healthier in their daily lives.

The interview concluded with Councilman Reed noting his friendship with NEORSD Director Ciaccia, and that he has had conversations with the director about his concern regarding diversifying the District’s workforce and including more local residents in projects. He talked about the pride that residents would feel in seeing family members coming home from work wearing the Sewer District logo.

4. Kevin McDaniel, District Office Director, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (phone interview with Tom Sutton, 4/27/16)

Mr. McDaniel has been the District Office Director for four months. He checked with the staff, and said that there have not been any complaints about Sewer District service. The concerns expressed were about rate increases and the level of inclusion of residents of color in the NEORSD workforce. Mr. McDaniel said that the office is supportive of Project Clean Lake as a response to the combine sewer overflow problem and meeting the requirements of the EPA consent decree.

The Regional Stormwater Management Program is a benefit in providing funding to address problems of flooding and land corrosion through the 25% of funding for local projects, which help to address local issues. The challenge is the expense of the program to local residents and businesses. He said that Congresswoman Fudge is very concerned about the burden falling solely on her constituents and other Sewer District residents who are challenged in trying to

65

pay for higher fees. Mr. McDaniel urged that the Sewer District make every possible effort to find funding sources that could help to offset the cost burden on local residents.

Mr. McDaniel also asked if the window of ten years to raise revenue for projects was being too aggressive, and whether fee increases could be lowered by spreading over a longer time period. He also urged the District to be as transparent as possible with the public concerning fee changes, project plans, and how these efforts will produce real improvements in water quality.

Regarding communications, Mr. McDaniel said that summer open house events are well attended. He also thought that fliers and social media outreach are effective means of communication with constituents. The conversation concluded with emphasis on making the Sewer District workforce more inclusive. Perhaps new projects funded by revenue from the new fees are an opportunity to increase employment of local residents, particularly in low income neighborhoods in the region such as are found in parts of the Congresswoman’s district.

5. Georgine Welo, Mayor, South Euclid (phone interview with Evelyn Zwolinski, 4/11/16):

* Perceptions: NEORSD does great work that many do not understand. Constituents are receiving quality and efficient service. This is in part due to the cooperative, regional structure of the agency, which surpasses municipal and/or county structures. Examples of lower rate projects related to structure: Hillcrest and Green Creek.

* Role: this is a key role! Besides management of waste and storm water, Lake Erie and tributaries are the next major priority of NEORSD. In order to properly manage this responsibility, a larger (regional) government is required.

* Rates: totally EPA mandates! NEORSD is efficiently run—replacing old lines, managing storm water, mixed pipes all costs money to do well.

* Regional Storm Water Management Program: Just came through the courts in favor of NEORSD and involves a new management program, working side-by-side with municipalities on projects involving downspouts tied into sewers, resident grants, street sweepers, and credit for good water management

* Community awareness initiatives: Have not seen any for a long time; perhaps keeping quieter during suit.

* What did you see? One item noticed: Pick up the poop signs.

Most impact:

a. Do your own publication, because NEO Media Group has demolished local newspapers, which contain primarily negative material. Also, utilize publications of municipalities, such as South Euclid’s Come Together and Thrive, which is an informational, quarterly publication.

66

b. Utilize a media information packet in every community; download information regarding the credit program, rain guard, cross connections, etc.

* For better understanding of what NEORSD does: Utilize the media to inform the public regarding EPA mandates; outline them. Example: Remember the success of having politicians on the local level relay Save the Dream program details via radio and television? (Wolstein event extended to three days from one day, or something like that). Use of local elected officials is a novel approach. When Mayor Welo participated in this, she received a very surprising amount of feedback from constituents for 2 months, stating that they had seen or heard her on television or radio (PBS/cable, NPR) and that’s how they heard about a program.

* Suggestions to reach constituents: Tell your environmental story, and humanize it with faces! Using a communications company is okay, but hiring a 25-30 year old media specialist is extremely important and helpful. Use this avenue to spread your mission and focus.

Media examples: Facebook, Twitter, or an interactive website. The city is on FB and for an extra $20, FB reaches farther out by posting to anyone on FB in South Euclid or to anyone who posts to South Euclid residents’ pages.

Do a panel table talk on FB: go interactive! With just 2-3 people highly specialized (soil, water, flooding) local people, discuss a relevant issue.

Stand in front of courthouse to do a video explaining EPA mandates. Video of nature people and/or Euclid Creek group or Chagrin River group walking

and explaining the topics related to managing the waterways. Utilize a consumerism approach: target Gen x’s and Gen y’s. Use social media for instructional purposes: example—house tips: what to not put

down the drain and why! Utilize Cuyahoga Heights facility and park: example—Camps: with a STEM

educational focus, have 6-10 interns. Also, use interns to coordinate with the Science Museum for a summer program geared toward different aged groups of children with a focus on water quality; take the kids out to the creeks, etc.

More on interns: have 6-10 interns spend the summer attending community events to do marketing.

Think of latest Samsung commercial, utilizing Lebron and factories…for the Sewer District, convert to information on water testing.

Spend money on a media specialist and get information and mission out via social media and an updated website (as noted above!).

6. Terrell Pruitt, Councilman, Ward 1, City of Cleveland (emailed response sent 4/14/16):

Perceptions of the work of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Do you think your constituents are getting high quality and efficient service? Why or why not?

Yes, I do. The area beaches as and lakefront are cleaner that they were years ago.

67

What role do you think the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District plays in keeping Lake Erie and local waterways clean?

Treatment and release of sewage, reduction of CSO, and storm water/watershed support and management.

What factors do you think affect rate increases for sewer service?

The two biggest factors are the consent decree and the new storm water program.

What do you know about the Regional Storm water Management Program? What benefits will this provide for your community? Will there be any challenges?

The initial benefits of the storm water program will be the reduction of street/basement flooding.

Have you heard or seen community awareness initiatives conducted by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District?

Yes, the Pick Up Poop campaign has been helpful.

If yes, what did you see? (e.g., event flyers or postcards, lawn signs, advertisements). Which do you think have the most impact on the public?

See answer to question 5.

What do you think could be done to help your community develop a better understanding of what Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District does?

Facility tours and interactive displays.

What suggestions do you have for ways can the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District can reach your constituents?

Radio Commercials

7. Stephanie Howse, Ohio State Representative, District 11, (in person interview with Evelyn Zwolinski, 4/21/16):

Perceptions: NEORSD is making great efforts to improve problems of sewer overflow. Also, they are doing outreach to ensure a fair share of minority participation.

Regarding high quality and efficient service, maybe; it depends on who you ask. I am not receiving calls of complaints.

Why or why not? It is just unknown probably due to disconnect between the constituents and NEORSD. Local marketing at the sports arena is a minimal connection between constituents and NEORSD.

68

Role: NEORSD plays a vital role in their job of ensuring that water going back into Lake Erie is clean and properly treated.

Rates: Crumbling infrastructure! Lack of long-term strategy for replacement reflects a lack of preparation. Previously they did not do the best job of planning for the breakdown of systems.

RSWMP: I do not know too much about this other than the rain barrel program and homeowners/businesses tax credit for proper/upgraded elimination of storm water.

Challenges: Failing infrastructure and how to create an awareness of this problem. Benefits: Improving infrastructure and increasing the safety and health of the

region’s population. Community awareness initiatives: Have not seen or heard anything in quite some

time. ~5-6 years ago I remember hearing things through my work with local government and colleagues.

Impact: Researching your customer base. Meet customers where they are (some social media, partnering with community events and having a presence there. Be clear on where people are.

Community understanding: It’s a huge region and research is required to determine how to reach the diverse communities. What is the end goal? Evaluate that. Also, a plain and direct approach is good—simply explain your role. However, try to make it less technical—given the subject matter, try to make it sexier and more fun! (laughs…)

My constituents: Multilayered approach here. Mixed: Word of mouth, snail mail, Internet, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, snapchat. Hone in on what people care about and send related message.

With new things/projects happening, utilize your State Representative and other local politicians as a resource and partner. I am happy to help.

8. Vic Collova, Mayor, Garfield Heights (emailed response sent 4/28/16 ):

Perceptions: The NEORSD does a great job. Service: Constituents are receiving high quality and efficient service, as the district

oversees water management and the cleaning of Lake Erie and stream water. Role: NEORSD plays a key role in water treatment plant management and

minimizing pollution. Rates: Consumption, aging infrastructure, required repairs, and the cost of

maintaining plants are reasonable factors playing into rate increases. Storm water management program: The city has received $250,000 for its’ residents,

to put toward various programs including rain barrels and other programs for hard surface water management.

Benefits: We have streams here and flooding problems are helped by such programs.

Challenges: Educating the public as to why rates are raised.

69

Initiatives: I am not personally aware of many initiatives, outside of seeing some flyers and postcards.

Impact: Face-to-face contact has the most impact upon the public. Understanding: NEORSD should have a presence at block watches, town hall

meetings, and council meetings. This face-to-face contact will help my community develop a better understanding of what the NEORSD does.

Suggestions: Constituents misguided perceptions of being taken advantage of must be eliminated. This is a difficult task, but these perceptions are widespread and must be tackled.

Comments: The Garfield Heights Community Picnic in August is very well attended. Attend, make face-to-face contact, and distribute literature. The NEORSD has the resources to reach citizens in the ways that they need to; it will just take time for it to be effective.

9. Richard Bain, Mayor, Pepper Pike (emailed response sent 5/6/16):

Perceptions: NEORSD is responsive and works well with the city.o Service: high quality and efficient service for reasons stated above

Role: NEORSD plays an extremely important role in keeping Lake Erie and local waterways clean.

Rate increases: Ongoing increasing costs (ex: $3 billion consent decree), EPA changes, and huge infrastructure maintenance and improvements.

Regional Storm Water Management Program: 25% of collected fees are distributed for larger waterways management.

o Benefits: Pepper Pike is dependent upon creeks for water evacuation and benefits from maintenance of these waterways.

o Challenges: Communication and education related to important programs that make a difference for local communities.

Initiatives: Tri C Challenge

Nothing except as noted above. Pepper Pike is posting information regarding the Tri C Challenge on the city website.

o Mailings to homes are the most efficient method but have little impact. Hearing/face-to-face is most effective in impacting the public.

70

Understanding: We are using emails to help with understanding in our community. Again, face-to-face contact is definitely most effective, but it is difficult and not necessarily efficient.

Suggestions: Attend community summer events. Pepper Pike has a health fair that draws ~500 people; set up a table!

Comments: o Pepper Pike may be entirely unique in the region insofar as our landscaper’s

education program that is required in order for permit issuance. Other communities and their constituents could benefit greatly from this.

o Keep up the good work!

10. State Representative Bill Patmon (did not respond to request for interview)

11. Tom Perciak, Mayor, City of Strongsville (did not respond to request for interview)

12. Dona Brady, Councilwoman, Ward 11, City of Cleveland (did not respond to request for interview)

13. Tim DeGeeter, Mayor, City of Parma (serves on the NEORSD Board; cited conflict of interest as reason for not conducting interview)

14. Bobbie Beshara, Mayor, Village of Richfield (did not respond to request for interview)

15. Nick Molnar, President, City Council, City of Macedonia (did not respond to request for interview)

Section 5.B: Elected Official Interview Data Analysis

* generally positive views of the work of the Sewer District, with few if any complaints from constituents

* concern about effect of stormwater management program fees on businesses and residents; questions about whether suburban communities are ‘subsidizing’ the cost of work needed in Cleveland.

* are there alternative sources of funding available that could ease the financial burden on rate payers? Seeking such funding at the state and federal level was emphasized, as well as analysis of changes to schedules of work that might lower the rate of annual fee increases.

71

* supportive of community engagement efforts of the Sewer District, particularly in Cleveland neighborhoods; encourage this to continue and grow, particularly in work with children and youth.

* Community meetings and events continue to be popular as a means of communication and community engagement.

* Develop a local publication for residents, and/or use local independent papers to communicate information to residents.

* work with local elected officials to communicate information about the work of the Sewer District. Appearances at community meetings and on local media (e.g., public radio programs) of Sewer District officials with elected officials, and/or elected officials discussing the work of the Sewer District, help to build trust from local residents.

* Sponsorship of summer camps for kids was suggested, as well as using high school and college student interns to attend community meetings and help with marketing.

* One mention by Garfield Heights Mayor Collova of receiving funding from the Stormwater Management program for local projects. This kind of information needs to be communicated to the public so that they understand how the new fees are being used to help their communities.

* Pepper Pike landscaper education program should be analyzed for replication across the District.

72

Part III: Comparative Analysis of 2012 and 2016 Study Data

Section 6.A: Phone Survey Data Analysis

Keeping Lake Erie clean is a high priority for survey respondents. 93% of 2016 respondents rated ‘keeping Lake Erie clean for recreational use’ as ‘very important’ or ‘important,’ as did 92% of respondents in the 2012 survey. 96% of 2016 survey respondents listed these ratings for ‘keeping Lake Erie clean as a source of drinking water,’ as did 95% of respondents in the 2012 survey.

Rate affordability for sewer service continues as an area of high concern. 91% of respondents listed affordable sewer service as a ‘very important/important concern’ in 2012, while 90% gave the same ratings in the 2016 survey.

The EPA is the most recognized agency connected with keeping Lake Erie clean (unaided response questions in the 2016 survey). The EPA was mentioned by 50% of respondents, while 14% mentioned the NEORSD. The EPA was also chosen by 41% of respondents to the question, ‘which agency or agencies do you think are responsible for helping to keep polluted water from flowing into Lake Erie,’ followed by 26% mentioning the NEORSD.

There continues to be ambiguity among customers concerning the agency responsible for their water and sewer billing. 54% of respondents believe the water department issues the water bill, followed by 33% choosing local government, and 10% choosing the NEORSD. 47% of respondents said the NEORSD is responsible for issuing their sewer bill, followed by 29% who listed local government, and 20% who listed the water department.

The NEORSD was identified in the aided response question as being responsible for keeping Lake Erie and area rivers and streams clean by 73% of respondents in 2012 and 71% in 2016. The U.S. EPA was identified as responsible by 71% of respondents in 2012 and 76% of respondents in 2016.

The NEORSD was identified most often in the 2012 and 2016 surveys as responsible for several areas related to its core mission: o helping to maintain the quality of drinking water (70% in 2012 and 67% in 2016); o helping to prevent flooding of basements and streets (75% in 2012 and 71% in

2016); o cleaning wastewater (78% in 2012 and 79% in 2016).

Respondents are less positive in their perceptions of agency responsiveness in 2016 as compared to the 2012 data. The NEORSD declined 27 points from 45% in 2012 to 18% in 2016. The declines in choice as most responsive ranged from a 10 point drop for the U.S. EPA (24% in 2012; 14% in 2016) to a 33 point drop for ‘your city’s municipal

73

government’ (50% in 2012; 17% in 2016). ‘City Water Department’ declined from 49% in 2012 to 18% in 2016 (a 31 point drop), and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources declined 30 points from 38% in 2012 to 8% in 2016. The relative constancy of the level of change across these agencies may have been due to public perceptions influenced by news stories about water quality in Flint, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio.

Respondent perception that household wastewater returned to Lake Erie is ‘always treated’ or ‘mostly treated’ rose from 58% in 2012 to 65% in 2016.

Perceptions about the quality of water at Cleveland area beaches has not changed significantly from 2012 to 2016. While there was a net decline of 3 points in perceptions that water at beaches is always or mostly treated (35% in 2012; 32% in 2016), there was also a decline in the percentage of respondents who think beach waters are mostly or always untreated (54% in 2012; 50% in 2016).

Respondents who believe it is ‘always possible’ or ‘mostly possible’ to find information about Lake Erie recreational water quality declined from 74% in 2012 to 68% in 2016, while those who indicated they don’t know rose from 15% to 23%.

Respondents seeking information about Lake Erie water quality have decreased usage of Cleveland.com or the Cleveland Plain Dealer by half, from 32% in 2012 to 16% in 2016. Respondents are using websites more frequently to get this information. Usage of the Cleveland Metroparks website increased from 9% in 2012 to 25% in 2016, while usage of the Ohio State Parks’ website increased from 9% in 2012 to 16% in 2016.

There has not been much change in awareness of the four NEORSD awareness campaign programs since 2012. Survey participants who have heard of the ‘PUP, Pick Up Poop’ campaign increased from 32% in 2012 to 35% in 2016, while those that had heard of the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ campaign increased from 46% to 48%. The ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaign dropped a point in 2016 to 13%, while the Business Opportunity Program remained at 14% awareness. However, there was a significant increase in understanding of the PUP – Pick Up Poop campaign being the responsibility of the NEORSD, rising from 4% in 2012 to 21% in 2016. The ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaign had increased recognition of the NEORSD as the sponsoring agency, rising from 12% in 2012 to 26% in 2016. In contrast, the City Water Department’s credit for this campaign dropped from 61% in 2012 to 9% in 2016.

The biggest surprise of the survey was the lack of recognition of the NEORSD as the agency responsible for the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ campaign. Only 7% of 2016 survey respondents chose the NEORSD, while 29% chose the Ohio EPA, 22% chose the U.S. EPA, and 19% chose the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The U.S. and Ohio EPA were also the lead choices in 2012, but at much lower levels of 7% and 14%, respectively. Similar to the results for the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ campaign, the Business Opportunity Program was not recognized as an NEORSD campaign in 2016.

74

Only 4% of respondents chose the NEORSD, compared to 23% who chose Cuyahoga County Government, 12% that chose Cleveland municipal government, and 10% that each chose city municipal government and the U.S. EPA.

The difference in recognition may be due to the nature of each of these campaigns. The PUP – Pick Up Poop’ campaign targets dog owners with a specific behavioral message, while the ‘Where Does It Go?’ campaign implies a connection with the NEORSD. In contrast, the ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ and ‘Business Opportunity Program’ campaigns do not reflect direct connection with the Sewer District. Communication strategies should be adjusted to find ways to overtly connect the Sewer District’s brand with these campaigns if seeking higher name recognition is a goal.

Ratings of the Sewer District’s service as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ rose from 53% in 2012 to 61% in 2016. Respondents who think they get their money’s worth from their sewer bills rose slightly from 38% in 2012 to 40% in 2016.

NEORSD customer media usage is shifting aware from print sources and towards social media and Internet websites. Respondent usage of regional newspapers such as The Plain Dealer dropped 15 points, from 69% in 2012 to 54% in 2016. Local community newspapers also dropped, from 47% in 2012 to 40% in 2016. In contrast, use of social media almost doubled from 29% in 2012 to 54% in 2016. Just over half of the respondents in 2016 use national and/or local news websites, and/or national or local radio programs. Television still leads by a wide margin over other media sources, holding steady at 81% of respondents in 2016, down one point from 2012 usage frequency.

The responsiveness of the Customer Service Department improved from 2012 to 2016. 78% of respondents thought that the customer service representative understood the reason for their call, down 3 points from 81% in 2012. Prompt resolution of issues increased from 56% in 2012 to 63% in 2016.

Ratings of the Customer Service Department improved from 2012 to 2016. Those rating their experience as ‘excellent’ increased from 21% in 2012 to 29% in 2016. Those that thought their experience with the NEORSD Customer Service Department was better than with other utility departments increased from 22% in 2012 to 26% in 2016.

Section 6.B: Focus Group and Business Interview Data Analysis

Ambiguity concerning sewer service billing continues, as was found in the 2012 study. Most participants have quarterly billing. Many noticed rate increases, but not to a significant degree.

75

Most participants feel the Sewer District is effective in its work. The only concerns raised were about particular instances of water shut-offs and flooding issues that were the purview of the local municipality. There were only two that contacted the Customer Service Department, which received mixed reviews in how these customers were treated.

Focus group participants believe that Lake Erie and area waterways and beaches are important economic resources for Northeast Ohio, and are willing to pay higher sewer fees to reduce sewage overflow through the Project Clean Lake initiative.

Sewer District communications play an important role in helping customers get information about water and beach quality. There was a strong emphasis in the focus groups on providing clear information about rate increases and the ways this revenue will be used to improve water quality. Project details, timelines, costs, and outcomes should be provided on a variety of platforms, including the NEORSD website, through social media, and in public meetings held in cooperation with local elected officials.

Other effective communication strategies include use of banner announcements on local news programs; radio announcements; subscriber emails and texts; locally distributed newsletters and/or articles in local independent publications (e.g., the Observer, Westlife).

The suggestion of a phone app to get information about beach conditions, water quality, rate changes, and project progress information was frequently offered.

Customers are skeptical about the effectiveness and cost of Sewer District promotions that are not directly related to specific projects or community awareness events. Examples such as seeing the Sewer District logo at Progressive Field were cited. However, communications that aim directly at customers with specific information were supported.

Supplemental information in bills is not popular, and usually is ignored. Instead, the District should develop its own billing system with bills designed to catch attention and provide simple, direct information on the bill (e.g., about water usage, rate changes and project progress), as well as through electronic payment platforms.

Community meetings are still considered important as a means of providing information about specific projects and rate changes. Working with local elected officials to hold public meetings is an effective way to build trust between community residents and the Sewer District.

The new Stormwater Management Program impervious surface fees were of strong concern to focus group participants, and the primary concern of business leaders. They are skeptical about how the fees will be used, and want to see new revenue stay in the

76

communities where it is paid. Some suggested phasing in the fees in pilot communities, including demonstration projects, before expanding across the entire service area. The cost of the new fees for larger property owners such as businesses and organizations is of deep concern to these individuals.

Participants feel strongly that fees should help residents by subsidizing the cost of rain barrels and other improvements to reduce stormwater runoff. Using fee credits as incentives to encourage reduction of stormwater runoff was also suggested.

The District needs to clearly align storm water runoff reduction strategies with local building and zoning codes. Municipalities will not allow standing water on properties, and are often strict about water diversion that may cause foundation and basement flooding problems.

Attending public meetings occurs as needed, usually if there is an issue of interest or concern to the participant. Ballot initiatives, rate changes, and projects with implications for local neighborhoods were examples of the kinds of issues that motivate participants to attend a public meeting.

Strong enthusiasm expressed for tours of sewage treatment plants! Several thought this was something worth attending, while others discussed as a good idea for school field trips.

Section 6.C: Comparative analysis of 2012 and 2016 elected official interview data

Generally positive views of the work of the Sewer District, with few if any complaints from constituents. This is consistent with the findings in the 2012 interviews, where public officials had generally positive views of the Sewer District and its work.

Perception found in the 2012 interviews that the Sewer District is a ‘hidden agency’ that needs to raise its profile was not mentioned in the 2016 interviews. The Sewer District is recognized as a positive presence in communities, both for its core function and for public outreach efforts such as sponsorship of community events.

Proposed rate increases related to Project Clean Lake and the Stormwater Management Program in 2012 elicited strong concerns from elected officials, who said there has been negative reaction from constituents, particularly related to the stormwater fee (a few suggested at that time that better community communications might have deflected the member community lawsuit challenging the stormwater management fees). Increasing sewer fees continues to be an issue in 2016. Elected officials are concerned about effect of stormwater management program fees on businesses and residents. Some also asked about the perception that suburban communities are ‘subsidizing’ the cost of work needed in Cleveland.

Three officials asked about alternative sources of funding available that could ease the financial burden on rate payers. Seeking such funding at the state and federal level was

77

emphasized, as well as analysis of changes to schedules of work that might lower the rate of annual fee increases.

The Sewer District is doing more to engage the community compared to comments by elected officials in 2012. They are supportive of community engagement efforts of the Sewer District, particularly in Cleveland neighborhoods; encourage this to continue and grow, particularly in work with children and youth. The 2012 suggestions of youth engagement were repeated in 2016, with ideas such as sponsorship of summer youth camps, swimming and fishing activities, and environmental education.

Community meetings and events continue to be popular as a means of communication and community engagement. Similar to the 2012 findings, elected officials emphasized the importance of transparency by the Sewer District. Clear information about rate increases, project costs, project timelines, and results should be shared as openly and frequently as possible, through all mediums used by the public (e.g., public meetings, radio and television, social media, and local print publications). Local community benefits from projects supported by locally paid fees is particularly important as an emphasis for public communications.

Section 6.D: Policy and Communications Strategic Recommendations

Continue to focus on the role of the Sewer District in maintaining and improving water quality. Customers value high quality drinking water and the recreational benefits of clean beaches and waterways.

Customers understand the need for investments to repair/replace older infrastructure, and support Project Clean Lake’s objective to significantly reduce the amount of sewage overflow into Lake Erie. They understand this is in part due to legal action by the federal EPA. More importantly, they accept and support the principle of maintaining and improving water quality. Water shortages and contamination incidents across the country reinforce the importance of the work of the Sewer District in preserving an increasingly valuable resource.

Customers are concerned about the use of impervious surfaces as the basis for calculating the Stormwater Management Program fees. They are also skeptical about how this money will be used to reduce flooding and improve water quality. The particular financial impact on businesses, nonprofits such as school campuses and churches, and residents with limited and/or fixed incomes is of deep concern. The Sewer District should consider:

Providing clear, detailed information for each community about specific projects and how these will reduce stormwater runoff and local flooding. Tying projects to flood reduction makes these projects more acceptable to residents by seeing direct benefits. Analysis of how such improvements affect property values is another way to demonstrate resident benefits.

Local revenue generated by the fees should be tied to local projects, so that residents can see how their money is being spent for their communities. If funds from

78

communities are needed for larger regional projects, provide a clear explanation of the indirect local benefit from regional work.

Provide regular, timely, understandable information to residents using a variety of communication strategies. Residents of the Sewer District are diverse in their media usage, which should be reflected in District communication efforts. A combination of social media, email and texting, radio and TV spots, paper newsletters, articles in local independent papers and the Plain Dealer, and community meetings are all necessary as part of an effective strategy that reaches the maximum range of customer audience.

Increasing advocacy with state and federal agencies for supplemental funding to help offset the local cost of the Stormwater Management Program

Sewer District campaigns, in particular ‘PUP-Pick Up Poop’ and ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ have been effective in different ways. ‘PUP – Pick Up Poop’ has raised awareness of the importance of individual efforts to keep waterways clean. ‘Keeping Our Great Lake Great’ has raised public awareness about the economic and social value of Lake Erie as a resource. It is not clear to what degree this campaign has influenced public perception, or whether it is building on an existing public value. What is clear is that the public is almost unanimous in its support for maintaining Lake Erie as a source of clean drinking water and recreational amenities such as swimming and fishing. Continued education of the public about their role in preserving this resource, and the work of the Sewer District in this effort, is strongly supported.

Elected officials’ support for the work of the Sewer District was steady in 2012, and has increased in 2016. It is clear that specific community engagement initiatives of the District are valued by these officials, who encourage this work to continue and expand. They echo the concern expressed in the survey, focus groups, and business interviews that justifications for rate changes need to be clearly explained and supported with tangible results.

Build on positive perceptions of local elected officials in efforts to leverage funding from state and federal sources. The burden of local fees was emphasized by Congresswoman Fudge’s office, Representative Dovilla, and Cleveland Councilman Reed. It is clear the individuals such as Councilman Reed, South Euclid Mayor Georgine Welo, and State Representative Stephanie Howse have very positive views of the work of the Sewer District. Use these relationships to expand advocacy for external funding.

Local officials are important to include in community meetings as co-sponsors and speakers. The Sewer District benefits from the presence of local mayors and council members at community meetings.

Continued efforts to include local residents in economically challenged neighborhoods as part of the workforce on Sewer District projects is a priority for Congresswoman Fudge and members of Cleveland City Council such as Mr. Pruitt and Mr. Reed. This is also an area where communication strategies informing the public about Sewer District workforce initiatives can improve public perception of the District as a positive community partner.

80

Appendix 1

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District2016 Household Customer Phone Survey Questions

The following questionnaire was used for each of the four landline phone surveys of customers served by the sewer authorities in Northeast Ohio 1. Introduction

Hello!

My name is ………….and I am a student at Baldwin Wallace University. I am participating in a research project for a non-profit organization. I am not selling anything. I would like to talk to a person who is older than 18 in your household. Are you older than 18?

Interviewer (if No)

Is there anyone older than 18 who can come to the phone now? Thank you.

Interviewer (repeat only if new person) I am a student at Baldwin Wallace University, and I am participating in a research project for a non-profit organization. I am not selling anything.

I would like you to help me by answering a few questions. Could I please ask you for about ten minutes of your time?

Thank you very much.

81

2. Respondent Priorities

Please indicate your level of concern for each of the following issues using one of the

following response choices: please answer using the following numbers:

1. a very important concern

2. an important concern

3. minor concern

4. not a concern

Keeping Lake Erie clean for recreational use.

Keeping Lake Erie clean as a source of drinking water.

Minimizing the chance of street flooding in my neighborhood.

Minimizing the chance of basement flooding in my neighborhood.

Keeping sewer rates/service affordable.

Keeping water rates/service affordable.

Maintaining the quality of our drinking water.

Keeping area rivers and streams clean for recreational use (e.g., Cuyahoga River, Rocky River, Mill Stream Run).

3. Unaided Government recall questions

Which agency or agencies do you think is responsible for keeping Lake Erie clean?

First response:Second response: Don’t know:

82

Which agency or agencies do you think is responsible for helping to keep polluted waterfrom flowing into Lake Erie?


Which agency or agencies do you think is responsible for preventing neighborhoodflooding?


Which agency or agencies do you think is responsible for keeping local streams free frompollution?


Which agency or agencies do you think is responsible for issuing your water bill?


Which agency or agencies do you think is responsible for issuing your sewer bill?


83

4. Government agencies aided recallA list of the following agencies was provided for each of the questions in this section. Respondents were asked to identify which agency was responsible for handling the specific issue identified in the question.

US Environmental Protection Agency

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

City Water Department

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

Your city's Municipal Government

Cleveland's Municipal Government

Cuyahoga County's Government

Which of the following agencies are responsible for helping to keep Lake Erie and arearivers and streams clean? Please answer with YES or NO for each agency listed.

Which of the following agencies are responsible for helping to maintain the quality of ourdrinking water? Please answer with YES or NO for each agency listed.

Which of the following agencies are responsible for helping to prevent flooding ofbasements and streets? Please answer with YES or NO for each agency listed.

Which of the following agencies are responsible for cleaning water AFTER we use it(wastewater)?

Which agency impresses you as being most responsive to customers’ needs?

84

5. Specific questions about the cleanliness of Lake Erie

I am going to ask you a few questions about the cleanliness of Lake Erie.

Stormwater (rain water that runs off roofs and streets) often flows into stormdrains connected to local streams and ultimately Lake Erie. Based on your understanding, is that water…?

Always Treated Mostly Treated Mostly Untreated Always Untreated Don't Know

Based on your understanding, would you say the dirty water your household uses goes into Lake Erie is…

Always Treated Mostly Treated Mostly Untreated Always Untreated Don't Know

Based on your understanding, would you say that recreational-water quality at Cleveland beaches like Edgewater Beach is…

Always Safe Mostly Safe Mostly Unsafe Always Unsafe Don't Know

Based on your understanding, if you wanted to find information about Lake Erie’s recreational water quality during beach season, finding what you need is…?

Always Possible Mostly Possible Mostly Impossible Always Impossible Don't Know

Which media do you or would you use to get information about Lake Erie water quality?

EPA website

Cleveland.com or Cleveland Plain Dealer

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's website

Cleveland Metroparks' website

Ohio State Parks' website

Other (please specify)

85

6. Unaided Recall about NEORSD Educational Initiatives

I am now going to ask you about a few programs. Could you please tell me whether you have heard of them? If yes, what entity is responsible for them (from provided list)?

PUP or Pick Up Poop

Where Does It Go?

Keeping our Great Lake great

Business Opportunity Program

Agency choices:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

City Water Department

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

Your city’s municipal government

Cleveland municipal government

Cuyahoga County government

8. Specific Questions about sewer district performance

I am now going to ask you your opinion about a few of the agencies in Northeast Ohio and their performance.

Please choose from the following ratings: Very poor, poor, fair, good, excellent.

Overall, how would you rate your water department's job in providing drinking water?

Very poor poor fair good excellent

Overall, how would you rate your sewer district's performance in treating wastewater?

Very poor poor fair good excellent

Do you feel you are getting your money's worth when you pay your water bill?

Mostly no in between mostly yes Don’t know

86

Do you feel you are getting your money's worth when you pay your sewer bill?

Mostly no in between mostly yes Don’t know

9. Questions about media usage

I am going to ask you a few questions about the type of media you use each week.

Could you tell me whether you use or read (yes, no, which one):

A regional newspaper print edition, such as the Plain Dealer or the Akron Beacon Journal?

A local community newspaper print edition, such as the Sun Newspaper or Westlife?

A regional printed publication such as Cleveland Magazine, Crain's, or Lake Erie Living?

A national news website, such as CNN.com?

A national or local radio program?

A local news website, such as Cleveland.com or Ohio.com?

A television station?

Social media (Such as Facebook or Twitter)?

I will list these types of media again, and ask you to identify which one you would consider your primary media source:

Newspaper

Web

Television

Radio

Social media (such as Facebook or Twitter)

In your view, which station, paper or website is the most trustworthy?

First response Second response Don’t know

87

10. Demographic questions

We are almost finished with the survey. I am now going to ask you a few questions about yourself. Please know that this information is kept confidential, and will only be used in group form to analyze the demographics of responses to the survey:

In which city do you live?

In which zip code do you live?

Which best characterizes your current situation? Are you a homeowner, are you renting,or are you living with a parent, relative or friend?

How many other people live in your household?

Number of adults:Number of children (under 18):

What is your gender?

What is your level of education?

Did not finish high schoolHigh school diploma / G.E.D.Some college or technical schoolBachelor’s degreeGraduate or professional degree

What range best characterizes your annual household income?

Less than $ 20,000 a yearBetween $ 20,000 and $ 40,000Between $ 40,000 and $ 60,000Between $ 60,000 and $ 80,000Between $ 80,000 and $ 100,000More than $ 100,000

What best characterizes your ethnic background?

African – AmericanAsian – AmericanCaucasianHispanicOther or more than one of the other choices

88

Are you a registered voter? Yes No Don’t Know

(for NEORSD landline phone survey): Finally, would you be willing to participate in a focus group on the sewer district’s role in reducing the pollution in Lake Erie? This would take about an hour. You would becompensated $50 for your time. You will be contacted later with the specifics. Contact information if yes or maybe.

Interviewer: if respondent wants more information, or someone to speak to about the survey, please ask them to contact Tom Sutton, Director, Baldwin Wallace University Community Research Institute, at [email protected], or by phone at 440-826-2460.

89

Appendix 2

Questions for Customer Service User Phone SurveyNortheast Ohio Regional Sewer District Study – 2016

Hello!

My name is ………….and I am a student at Baldwin Wallace University. I am participating in a research project for Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. I am not selling anything.

I would like to talk to a person who is older than 18 in your household. Are you older than 18?

In the past two months, you called the sewer district’s customer service center. Do you recall making this phone call?Yes No

If Yes, continue with question 1.

If No. Do you know if anybody else in your household made a phone call to the Sewer District’s Customer Service Center?

Yes No

If Yes. Is that person here tonight? Could I talk to him or her?

If No to either question. Thank you very much. Have a pleasant evening.

1. Do you recall what your reason was for calling customer service at the sewer district? Could you tell me what it was?

2. Did the customer service representative understand the reason for your call?Yes Only partially No I don’t know

3. Was the issue you called about resolved right away? Yes No

90

4. Did you have to call back to get it resolved?

Yes No

If yes, How many times?

Once Twice more than twice It’s still not resolved

5. Were you directed to the appropriate entity to help you with your issue?

Yes No

6. Was the problem resolved to your satisfaction?

Yes No Not yet I have given up

7. If you had to leave a message and wait for a call back from a Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District rep, were you called back promptly?

Yes No Not really Have not been called back yet

8. How would you rate your experience with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District customer service department?

Excellent Good Fair Poor

9. How do you feel that Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District customer service department rates in comparison to the customer service department of other utility services that you have had experience with?

Better than other utility services

About the same as other utility services

Worse than other utility services

I have not had experience with other utility services

91

11. Now, please think about the best customer service that you have ever received, from any company, as receiving a grade of A. How would you grade your overall experience with the sewer district customer service?

A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- F

12. Do you have any suggestions for ways to improve services of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District? (open-ended response)

13. Before contacting the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District customer service department, did you attempt to find an answer to your question online using neorsd.org, social media such as facebook or Twitter, or email?

Yes No

If YES, what led you to your call?

If NO, would you visit neorsd.org in the future, or would you attempt to resolve your issues via email?

14. Did you know the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District is active on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media?

If YES, do you follow them?

If NO, what would make you follow a utility on any social media?

92

Appendix 3

Focus Group Questions for household survey respondents Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Study– 2016

1. Which agency is responsible for sending your water and sewer bill? How often are you billed? Have you noticed changes to your billing amounts?

2. Have you ever called the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Customer Service Department for assistance? If so, what was your experience? Courteous? Responsive? Helpful?

3. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District is responsible for providing your sewer services. How effective do you think the Sewer District is in their work?


5. What do you think are the most effective ways to communicate with the public about sewer rate increases needed to pay for the untreated water storage system?


7. Maintaining and monitoring water quality are a focus of the Sewer District’s work, including collecting data about the quality of water at Cleveland’s recreational beaches during the summer months. What would be the best ways for the Sewer District to provide information about beach and water quality to the public?

8. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District manages a Regional Stormwater Management Program that will charge an average fee of $5.15/month to household customers starting later this year based on the square footage of hard surfaces on their property. The funds will be used reduce stormwater runoff in the region served by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, thereby reducing regional problems like stream erosion, flooding, and debris problems caused by stormwater. The Sewer District had suspended this program following a 2013 Cuyahoga County court ruling, but the Ohio Supreme Court authorized the program in September of 2015. Once the program relaunches and fees begin to be charged, the Sewer District believes that the program will act as encourage property owners to find ways to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff on their property. What are your thoughts about this initiative?

93

9. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District wants to help customers get a better understanding of its work. What suggestions do you have for helping people learn more about the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District? For instance, would you notice the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District logo as a sponsor of local weather broadcasts? Or do you follow any Sewer District accounts on social media like Twitter or Facebook?



12. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District offers free tours of its treatment plant and laboratory to educate customers about their work. Would you attend a tour? (Have you attended?)

94

Appendix 4

Focus Group Questions for business and nonprofit representatives Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Study– 2016

1. Which agency is responsible for sending your sewer bill? How often are you billed? Have you noticed changes to your billing amounts?

2. Have you ever called the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Customer Service Department for assistance? If so, what was your experience? Courteous? Responsive? Helpful?

3. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District is responsible for providing your sewer services. How effective do you think the District is in their work?


5. What do you think are the most effective ways to communicate with the public about sewer rate increases needed to pay for the wastewater collection system and treatment?


7. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District manages a Regional Stormwater Management Program that will charge an average fee of $5.15/month to household customers starting later this year based on the square footage of hard surfaces on their property. The funds will be used reduce stormwater runoff in the region served by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, thereby reducing regional problems like stream erosion, flooding, and debris problems caused by stormwater. The Sewer District had suspended this program following a 2013 Cuyahoga County court ruling, but the Ohio Supreme Court authorized the program in September of 2015. Once the program relaunches and fees begin to be charged, the Sewer District believes that the program will act as encourage property owners to find ways to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff on their property. What are your thoughts about this initiative?

8. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District wants to help customers get a better understanding of their work. What suggestions do you have for helping people learn more about the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District? For instance, would you notice the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District logo as a sponsor of local weather broadcasts? Or do you follow any Sewer District accounts on social media like Twitter or Facebook?

95



96

Appendix 5

Elected Official Interview QuestionsNortheast Ohio Regional Sewer District Study - 2016

1. Please tell me your perceptions of the work of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Do you think your constituents are getting high quality and efficient service? Why or why not?

2. What role do you think the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District plays in keeping Lake Erie and local waterways clean?

3. What factors do you think affect rate increases for sewer service?

4. What do you know about the Regional Storm water Management Program? What benefits will this provide for your community? Will there be any challenges?

5. Have you heard or seen community awareness initiatives conducted by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District?

6. If yes, what did you see? (e.g., event flyers or postcards, lawn signs, advertisements). Which do you think have the most impact on the public?

7. What do you think could be done to help your community develop a better understanding of what Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District does?

8. What suggestions do you have for ways can the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District can reach your constituents?

9. Any other suggestions or comments?

civicinsights.orgcivicinsights.org/sites/default/files/NEORSD 2016 report 2… · Web...

Documents

Transcript of civicinsights.orgcivicinsights.org/sites/default/files/NEORSD 2016 report 2… · Web...