,, . THE GREAT TOLET REBATE PROGRAM for the City Of Tampa WaterDepartment h cooperation udtb tbe Southwest I?onda I#Mer Management Dktrkt with fundhg by the JUa#iaRiver Basin Boami Hillsbomugh River Bash Boati IVodhwest Hilkbomugh River Basin Boa& SMFWUD 423 . Final #?apoti 7995 for Kathy Fry City of Tampa Water Department 308 E. Jackson Street 5E Tampa, FL 33602 by Stuart Feinglas, Projeot Manager 1311 N. Vkstahore Btvd. Su”ti 214 Tampa, FL 33607 813-288-0792 JU~y28, 1895 &@?Iw@ -. -.. . n 02403 “-” .. ..-. . 0 Printed on recycled paper 1.
Transcript
,,
.
THE GREAT TOLET REBATE PROGRAM
for the City Of Tampa WaterDepartment
h cooperation udtb tbe
Southwest I?onda I#Mer Management Dktrkt
with fundhg by the
JUa#iaRiver Basin BoamiHillsbomugh River Bash Boati
IVodhwest Hilkbomugh River Basin Boa&
SMFWUD 423 .
Final #?apoti 7995
forKathy Fry
City of Tampa Water Department308 E. Jackson Street 5E
Tampa, FL 33602
byStuart Feinglas, Projeot Manager
1311 N. Vkstahore Btvd. Su”ti 214Tampa, FL 33607
813-288-0792
JU~y28, 1895
&@?Iw@
-. -.. .n 02403
“-”..
..-. .
0 Printedonrecycled paper
1.
CITY OF TANlpA water Department
August 14, 1996 Consumer Albirs Division
Mr. Will Miller, Resource Projects Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
,- i Southwest F!orida i ,Wa!er Manqemerit IMrici
RECE!‘/ED i 1 SEP 2 ti 1996
Re: Toilet Rebate Program; Project #423
1
1 Rescrbrce ,L-‘rojec!s Cepaftment i Brouksviile, Fiorida
Dear Mr. Miller: .,
We have reviewed the data diskette from Volt Viewtech and have identified the basin board information for Project #423, Toilet Rebate Program. The following are the results:
BASIN RECORD PERCENT ALLOCATED SWFWMD BOARD COUNT AMOUNT REIMBuRsEMENT50%
Alafia River 91 2.80 11809.16 5904.58
Hillsborough River 1,692 52.08 219,650.31 1(X,825.16
Enclosed is our Invoice #1%30 for $210,877.80, with a schedule and copies of Volt Viewtech invoices. The City greatly appreciates the assistance the Basin Boards of the SWFWMD have provided to promote the City of Tampa’s conservation efforts.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or corxerns.
Very truly yours,
Kathy M. Fry, Manager Water Conservation/Consumer Affairs
KMF:pg
Enclosures 306 E. Jackson Street, 5E l Tampa, Florida 33602 l 8 13I274-8762
1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW ........ . ........................................................................... 1
PROGRAM FUNDING ......................................................................................... 1 PROGRAM RESPONSft3lLlTlES.. .......................................................................... 1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES.. .................................................................................. 1 PROMOnON AND ADVERTISING.. ....................................................................... 2 PROGRAM SERVICE AREA ................................................................................ 2 PROGRAM QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................. 2
2. REBATE METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS .................................................... 4
REBATE DATA .................................................................................................. 6 BREAKDOW BY BASIN BOARD ......................................................................... 7 WATER SAVINGS ............................................................................................. 8
4. PROGRAM OBSERVAllONS ........................................................................... 9
. The City of Tampa’s “Great Toilet Rebate Program” was cooperatively funded by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The total project cost was %421,755.60. Without the generous support of The Hillsborough River Basin Board, the Northwest Hillsborough River Basin Board, and The Altia River Basin Board the impact this successful project has had on the water savings in the City of Tampa would have been far less. The City of Tampa contributed half of the funding for this project.
PROGRAM RESPONSIBILI~ES
. The City of Tampa contracted with Volt VIEWtech to provide the administration of the program and rebate fulfillment. Volt VIEWtech’s responsibilities included managing the day to day program operations, working with customers to guide them through the program, tracking all program activity after an application was received, inspecting 100% of Ultra-Low Volume Toilet (ULV) installations, and preparing and issuing all rebate checks. 4.
. The City of Tampa’s responsibilities included establishing program policy, providing program marketing and promotion, and final oversight of program operations.
PROGRAM OWECTNES
. The Great Toilet Rebate Program’s overall objective is to encourage the City of Tampa water customers to conserve water by replacing their existing high flow (over 1.6 gallons per flush) toilets with new ultra low volume toilets. Most customers with an operable high’flow toilet do not consider replacement until their existing unit fails. Offering customers a rebate covering a substantial portion of the replacement cost results in the replacement of many high flow units that would not normally be replaced until far in the future.
. Program staff provided complete Great Toilet Rebate program information to a.ll interested residential water customers of the City of Tampa Water Department.
. Rebates were budgeted for up to 5000 Ultra Low Volume toilets purchased and installed by residential water customers of the City of Tampa Water Department. 1666 rebates were targeted for single family customers. 3334 rebates were targeted for multi-family customers.
7 Cify Of Tampa
. On-site inspections, for verification of installations, were provided for one hundred percent (1000/o) of toilets rebated through the Great Toilet Rebate program.
. At the customers request, all replaced toilets were picked up and transported for recycling to the City Of Tampa’s road materials recycling center.
PROMOTION AND ADVERTISING
. A mailing speci&ally designed to explain and encourage participation in the rebate program, was sent to over 325 licensed plumbers registered with the City if Tampa. The mailing was also sent to local retailers who sell plumbing supplies and toilets. A response form was included in the mailing so interested “Trade Partners” could request additional program literature, applications, and other necessary forms. As in the past the plumbers response to the invitation to participate was very low. Only 23 plumbers responded over the course of the year.
. Additional contacts with “Trade Partners” occurred throughout the program using both phone and field contacts.
PROGRAM SERWCEAREA
. The City of Tampa Water Department serves customers within the City of Tampa city limits. Additional customers are Hillsborough County residents provided water service by the City of Tampa, and provided sewer service by Hillsborough County. Please find attached map in the appendix area which defines the City of Tampa Service Area.
PROGRAM QUUIFEA~~~N~
. The program was open to all residential customers of the City of Tampa Water Department.
. Single Family customerrebate levels were as follows:
1 st Toilet up to $100 or cost, whichever was less.
2nd Toilet up to $80 or cost, whichever was less.
Additional toilets up to $50 or cost, whichever was less.
. Multifamily customer rebate levels were as follows:
Per toilet up to $50 or cost, whichever was less.
. There is no limit on the number of toilets rebated per customer.
2 City Of Tampa
. Single Family Customer Classifications were as follows:
Single Family.Home (includes individually owned condominiums, and mobile homes)
Duplex homes
. Customers were considered Multifkmily if there were three (3) or more living units for a water account.
. Duration: May 26, 1995 until all funds were expended. The &al funds were expended on March 29,1996.
. The original purchase receipt was required to have been dated on, or after, November 15, 1994. Original receipts were required to be submitted for each toilet rebated to prevent fraud.
. Rebate applicable customer costs were:
The ULV toilet
The toilet seat
Parts required for the installation of the ULV toilet.
. Installation charges were not applicable.
. Customers had a choice of either sell%stalling or contracting with a licensed plumber for the installation of the Ultra Low Volume toilets.
. Funds were budgeted for rebating up to 5,000 ULV toilets on a first-come I first-served basis.
3 Cify Of Tampa
. Interested customers would call the rebate hotline at (8 13) 288-8805. They were asked
ifthey were a customer of the City of Tampa Water Department and sent an application and program guidelines.
. Plumbers, at their option, had rebate applications available to them directly. Those plumbers with rebate applications in stock (23) were able to provide the customer with forms at the time of installation. This encouraged toilet replacement over toilet repair and removed high volume flush toilets Tom the private sector.
. Applications were also made available at plumbing outlets and home centers to promote the replacement of high volume toilets.
. Customers were asked to complete the installation and return the program application with the original sales receipt.
. Upon receipt of the complete customer application and original sales receipt the customer information was data entered into the program software. A customer application number was automatically assigned by the system.
. The original receipt was stamped with the program stamp to eliminate the possibility the receipt would be reused in the program. At the customer’s request the original receipt was returned to the customer with a copy placed in the customers file.
. To eliminate the tracking of customers who did not participate in the program, customers were tracked upon receipt of a completed application. Many applications reached customers through sources other than the program staff. Both plumbers and retailers regularly distributed program literature and applications to their customers. Therefore any tracking of applications sent out, compared to applications received, would not have resulted in usable data.
. Once all data was entered into the program software the customer was assigned to a program inspector. An office-based scheduler would schedule an inspection time at the customer’s convenience.
. Ah inspections were performed by Volt VIEWtech inspectors. All inspectors hired had a background in customer service and familiarity in construction. Inspectors were trained in program procedures, water conservation techniques and policy, and City of Tampa permitting requirements. Training occurred in both the office &ssroom, and the field.
4 City Of Tampa
. During the inspection the. inspector would:
Verity the ULV installation
Complete a customer survey
Complete an inspection checklist
Indelibly mark all toilet tanks with the reservation number and year of program participation.
Install up to one low flow showerhead per toilet replaced at the customer’s request where a low flow showerhead did not already exist.
Put customers requesting toilet pick up on a pick up list to be picked up after the inspection.
. Customers failing an inspection were told how they could come into compliance. When completed, a follow up inspection was performed.
. Upon passing an inspection the paperwork was processed and the customer was issued a rebate check.
5 City Of Tampa
REBATE DATA
Total Rebates Processed * 3249
Single Family Rebates Processed 2891
Single Family Units 2289
Multi-family Rebates Processed 358
Multi-family Units 334
I Total Rebate Dollars Expended $284,895.06
I Total Single Family Rebate Dollars Expended $266,996.87
Total Multi-family Rebate Dollars Expended $17,898.19
Average Single Family Rebate Per Toilet
Average Multi-family Rebate Per Toilet
$92.35
$49.99
I Percentage Single Family Toilets
I Percentage Multi-family Toilets
I Percentage Single Family Rebate Dollars
I Percentage Multi-family Rebate Dollars 6%
* Program goals of 5,000 rebates predicted more participation in the multifamily sector than occurred.
6 City Of Tampa
BRMKDOWU BY BASIN BOARD
I Alafia River Basin Board Toilets Rebated
1 Alafiia River Basin Board Rebate Dollars Istied 1 $8,042.32
Hillsborough River Basin Board Toilets Rebated 1692
1 Hillsborough River Basin Board Rebate Dollars I $151,756.81 Issued
Northwest H&borough River Basin Board Toilets Rebated
1466
Northwest Hillsborough River Basin Board Rebate Dollars Issued
$125,095.93
7 City Of Tampa
WATER SAMNGS
The total number of toilets replaced was 3,249. The total number of living units where toilets were replaced was 2,623. A recent study performed for the City of Tampa (Wafer Savings and Participant satisfaction Realized: City of Tampa Toilet Rebate Program Evahtion, Ayres Associates study, Nov. 1994) showed an average savings of 38 gallons per day per household. Based on this study total water savings per day is calculated to be 99,674 gallons (i.e. 38 gallons x 2623 households). The total yearly water savings is calculated to be 36,381,OlO gallons (i.e. 99,674 gallons daily x 365 days). The lifespan of a toilet is assumed to be 20 years. The savings for the fixture life is calculated to be 727,620,200 gallons (i.e. 36,381,OlO gallons yearly x 20 years).
8 City Of Tampa
I “’ ” 4. Program Observations
The rebate program was modified coinciding with the kickoff of the FY95 Great Toilet Rebate Program. Program applications were simplified allowing one application to replace several preceding forms. The program procedures were streamlined to operate on a first come ti serve process. These modifications were well received by the program participants. They made participation easier and shortened the time between application and rebate fulfillment.
While marketed by the City of Tampa and Volt VIEWtech, the bulk of the program’s advertising was supplied by several installation contractors focusing on toilet replacement. This provided the rebate program with a high level of customer recognition and saved the City of Tampa a substantial sum of advertising dollars. Unfortunately, some of these installation contractors, using questionable advertising and sales practices, created confusion as to whether these private installers were or were not City of Tampa employees.
Several joint efforts in marketing were coordinated with the HiIlsborough County Toilet Rebate Program. These efforts provided the.public with a cost effective way to get the word out on toilet rebates and water savings.
The multi-family sector has not reached the goal of 66% of total installations. This is mainly due to the fact that the rebates are considerably lower than for single family and the state law requirement that all multi-family units be installed by a state certified or licensed plumber This requirement substantially increases costs for multi-family buildiig owners who typically rely on general maintenance staff for this type of work. Additionally, the necessity of building owners to fund projects through a fiscal year budget process has increased their timeline for participation. This has increased the number of single family rebates completed in FY95. During the last month of the FY95 program a substantial number of multi-family applications were received. Unfortunately, the FY95 funds were already committed and the applications were put on hold until the kickoff of the FY96 program. It appears that multi-family building owners are finally budgeting and moving forward with commitments to participate in the toilet rebate program.
9 City Of Tampa
The City of Tampa currently requires an inspection of 100% of toilets installed. To this point cases of fraud have been mmimal, probably less than 10 a year. The City of Tampa might consider reducing the inspection percentage required, to speed the check process and reduce the City’s cost.
Toilets currently on the market deliver a wide range of operation quality. Some toilets perform very well while others perform poorly. The quality of operation does not always
5 reflect price but isinherent in the design. The City of Tampa accepts all toilets listed as 1.6 gallons or less per flush in their rebate program. It is possible to include or exclude toilets on a list based on their performance. The few complaints received about toilet operation could be reduced by maintaining a quality based list of acceptable toilet models. This type of listing is maintained by the Los Angeles Water District in California. The list is maintained through a testing procedure and available for purchase. This list would not eliminate quality problems, as the perception of quality is subjective, but it might reduce the number of complaints.
Another avenue available for entry into the rebate program is upon the sale of a home. Other communities have mandated toilet retrofit at the sale of any home. With available rebates this mandate would cause little expense to the seller and over the period of several years it could be expected that a large percentage of existing toilets would be replaced.
