national multiple family submetering and allocation billing program ...

survey. Service companies that provided this information included National Water and Power,
Viterra, and Archstone. The web information was provided by a Texas utility registry
(http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/index.html) and was only applicable to San Antonio and Austin.
The number of properties identified through each source can be seen in Table 3.3. All in all,
about 15% of all the surveys sent were obtained from sources other than the postcard survey.
Table 3.3 Manager survey properties identified through service companies and a Texas
web site registry
Properties Identified
Through:
Total
Service Web
City
Companies* Registry †
Austin 15 142 157
Denver 23 - 23
Oakland 17 - 17
Hills 8 - 8
Indianapolis 5 - 5
Irvine 18 - 18
Las Vegas 9 - 9
Phoenix 35 - 35
Portland 11 - 11
San Antonio 4 79 83
San Diego 35 - 35
Seattle 9 - 9
Tucson 31 - 31
Total 220 221 441
* Service companies include National Water and Power, Archstone, and Viterra
†
Web properties are only for Austin and San Antonio
Since a lower percentage of impact properties were identified than originally anticipated,
a saturation sampling technique was chosen for the manager survey so that every identified
impact property received a manager survey. Within each city, impact properties were placed into
bins according to number of units. The bin ranges for each city were determined by ordering all
units in descending order and dividing them equally into thirds. Then, a stratified random
sample of in-rent properties was drawn from corresponding bins. The goal was that for
approximately every 1.2 impact surveys sent, 2 in-rent surveys would be sent. For example, if a
city had 24 impact properties identified in its lowest bin (10 – 100 units), then about 40
properties would be picked from the in-rents that fell within the same bin range. If there were
41