national multiple family submetering and allocation billing program ...

for analysis. The usable site visits fell short of the goal because a number of property managers
declined to cooperate with the site visits. Although alternate properties were available it was not
always possible to schedule a visit at the last minute. Table 3.6 shows the number of site visits
conducted in each study site and the billing methodology used at these properties.
Table 3.6 Number of site visits conducted in each study city
Usable Site Visits
Total
Utility
In-rent Hot Water
Complete
Submetered* RUBS Total Usable
or HOA Hybrid*
Site Visits
San Antonio 2 0 1 1 4 4
Tucson 3 1 2 2 8 8
Phoenix 2 1 1 1 5 6
Oakland 3 0 2 1 6 7
Denver 3 1 0 3 7 7
Portland 3 1 0 2 6 7
Austin 1 0 1 1 3 6
Indianapolis 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irvine 2 1 1 0 4 7
Las Vegas 3 1 1 1 6 7
Seattle 3 1 2 1 7 8
Hillsborough Co. 2 0 2 0 4 5
San Diego 2 0 1 1 4 5
TOTAL 29 7 14 14 64 77
* Hot water hybrids and submetered properties were ultimately grouped together for this analysis.
Initially, hot water hybrids were excluded from being chosen in a matched pair.
However, it was discovered during the initial site visits that some of the hot water hybrids were
mistakenly labeled by manager survey respondents as submetered properties. Because the
sampling was already limited and the visits had been completed, it was decided to include any
hot water hybrids with the submetered properties. In addition, a few correctly labeled hot water
hybrids were later chosen as alternates when a submetered property was not available.
QAQC – EVALUATION OF WATER USE FROM SURVEY SAMPLES
Important quality assurance and control tests were conducted to compare the water use of
the survey respondents with the population from which they were drawn. In order for results
from this study to be broadly applicable it is important that the samples investigated be
48