Rio Vista committee trims and reframes rate survey, aims to boost outreach with email and text options

The Rio Vista Municipal Rates & Utilities Committee on Oct. 24 reviewed and revised a draft public survey about proposed storm‑drain, water and wastewater rate changes, deciding to keep the questionnaire short and optional while broadening its opening question to measure awareness of all pending rate evaluations.

Chair Edwin Okamura said the survey should use the opportunity to learn both how people prefer to be reached and, where possible, collect contact information on an opt‑in basis (emails and phone numbers without names). "We should be using this as an opportunity to figure out what methods or what mediums people like to be reached by," Okamura said during the discussion.

The committee agreed to a three‑part core: (1) a high‑level awareness question — "Are you aware the city has been evaluating rate increases for water, wastewater and storm drain?" — followed by (2) an optional item asking whether respondents supported or opposed the storm‑drain proposal and branch questions that ask the reasons for that choice, and (3) a question about the communication channels that influenced respondents (in‑person meetings, videos of meetings, social media, city website, etc.). Committee members favored ranking methods rather than allowing respondents to check all that apply, to better prioritize outreach choices.

Vice Chair Chris Armbrust supported the broader awareness approach as a better first question. "That tells us whether they were reached," Armbrust said, backing the change that would capture awareness across all three rate types rather than focus solely on storm‑drain mailings.

Members debated who received previous outreach material and noted a critical distinction: storm‑drain protest notices had been mailed to property owners, so renters may not have received the same mailings. A committee member emphasized that the survey should avoid producing misleading results by clarifying when a question applies only to property owners.

Privacy and anonymity were also discussed. A person from the audience expressed concern about asking how someone voted; the committee and staff clarified responses would be optional and the survey would include a "prefer not to say" or allow respondents to skip sensitive fields. Staff confirmed any email outreach would include unsubscribe/opt‑out functionality.

On communication channels, the committee added email and text messaging as options and discussed costs for direct mail. One member estimated a full‑city postcard mailing could run on the order of $3,000 per mailing, and members said the city should weigh cost against reach when selecting methods.

The committee asked staff to gather the edits made in the meeting, produce a revised draft and circulate it in advance of the November meeting, where the survey is expected to return for final approval.

The committee ended the discussion by directing staff to keep the survey concise (generally under 10 questions), make demographic questions optional, include neighborhood (not developer) selections, and add an opt‑in contact field for follow‑up outreach.