HomeMy WebLinkAbout16.c. Receive Benchmarking Study comparing Central San's performance since 07-01-15 to sister agencies in CA and agencies nationwide Page 1 of 167
Item 16.c.
k�*k CENTRAL SAN
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
November 7, 2019
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: CHRISTINA GEE, MANAGEMENT ANALYST
REVIEWED BY: ANN SASAKI, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
ROGER S. BAILEY GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE BENCHMARKING STUDY COMPARING CENTRAL SAN'S
PERFORMANCE SINCE JULY 1, 2015 TO SISTERAGENCIES IN
CALI FORNIAAND AGENCIES NATIONWIDE
n the ongoing effort toward continuous improvement, Central San has benchmarked against itself over the
past four fiscal years (FYs), as well as against sister agencies statewide (FYs 2015-16, 2016-17, and
2017-18) and nationwide (FYs 2015-16 and 2016-17), in 36 performance indicators in strategic
operational areas.
Attached is the Benchmarking Study (Attachment 1) detailing the findings.
Despite the limitations of drawing direct comparisons and conclusions from the study, the Benchmarking Study
serves as guide in developing areas of focus in the Strategic Plan by providing additional measurement tools for
operational strength.
Michael Cunningham, Assistant Engineer, assisted in the benchmarking effort as his Mentorship
Program project with General Manager, Roger Bailey. He will present the performance data on selected
indicators.
This item was reviewed by the Administration Committee at its October 22, 2019 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Benchmarking Study for FYs 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19
2. PowerPoint Presentation
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 187 of 414
Page 2 of 167
I
CENTRAL SAN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
SANITARY DISTRICT
BENCHMARKING
STUDY
FYs 15 - 16 ,
16 - 17 ,
17 - 18 ,
and 18 - 19
n /
_ I
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 188 of 414
Page 3 of 167
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................4
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT...........................................................13
• Organizational Best Practices
• Staffing Levels
• Training
• Emergency Response Readiness Training
• Employee Turnover
• Retirement Eligibility
• Recordable Incident Rate
• Near Misses
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: FINANCIAL STRENGTH...............................................................................33
• Debt Ratio
• Return on Assets
• Days of Cash on Hand
• Debt Service Coverage Ratio
• Days of Working Capital
• Operating Ratio
• Bond Rating
• Insurance Average Severity/Claims
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:CUSTOMER SERVICE..................................................................................51
• Residential Service Charges
• Nonresidential Service Charges
• Service Affordability
• Service Complaints
• Customer Service Cost per Account
• Stakeholder Outreach Index
• Customer Service Contact
• Wastewater Service Disruptions
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: PRODUCTIVITY AND PERFORMANCE .......................................................77
• System Inspection
• System Renewal and Replacement
• Non-capacity and Capacity Sewer Overflow Rates
• Collection System Integrity
• Treatment Plant Regulatory Compliance
• Customer Accounts per Employee
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 189 of 414
Page 4 of 167
• Wastewater Processed per Employee
• Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs of Wastewater Services
• Maintenance
• Energy Consumption
• Energy Optimization Plan
• Nutrient Recovery
FYs 17-18 AND 18-19 STANDALONE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ........................................................121
CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................................................126
APPENDIX:STAFFING LEVELS BY CATEGORY(%OF TOTAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS).........................127
APPENDIX: ACRONYMS........................................................................................................................................146
1
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 190 of 414
Page 5 of 167
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Central San has a history of participating in benchmarking surveys such as the American Water
Works Association (AWWA) Rate Study and QualServe programs; however, it has not
undertaken a study of this scale, which takes a holistic look at its entire operation. Central San
recognizes that performance measurement is an essential management tool to use metrics to
gauge current performance, understand differences from peers, and set reasonable targets for
the future. This study will supplement Central San's commitment to its customers and
affordability of service by providing a window into potential performance enhancement
opportunities that will save costs and support Central San's culture of continuous improvement,
innovation, and optimization.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
• Conduct an initial baseline study to compare Central San's performance to itself over
four fiscal years (FYs), as well as to the performance of sister agencies statewide and
water/wastewater agencies nationwide
• Encourage self-evaluation and internal dialogue
• Establish a framework to perform benchmarking annually, with consistency in data
reporting
• Identify opportunities for consideration in strategic planning
• Emphasize the importance of systematic continuous improvement
• Articulate value proposition for stakeholders, including customers, businesses, and the
environment
APPROACH
To achieve the objectives, the project was executed in three phases with oversight from the
General Manager. The implementation methodology of this phased approach is as follows:
Phase 1:Determine For AWWA For California(CA)
relevant sister agency
(nationwide) (statewide)
benchmarks comparison
comparison
Phase 2: Send definiti Extract nationwide
inputki`s Solicit and forms to data from AWWA Perform quality Follow-up with data
submitters as
internal staff and Utility Benchmarking checks needed
review data CA agencies book
14
Participate in 2018 Produce Present to Share aggregated CA
Phase 3: AWWA Utility Benchmarking Study Administration agency data with
Share results Benchmarking with comparative Committee and participants
survey data Board (forthcoming)
2
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 191 of 414
Page 6 of 167
Executive Summary
RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS
In completing this study, staff found that benchmarking can be an extremely subjective exercise
as the definitions provided by AWWA are oftentimes vague and leave much room for
interpretation. This leaves both the nationwide data from AWWA and the CA agencies survey
data with some amount of uncertainty. The only way to truly have reliable results in
benchmarking is for all participating agencies to formally commit to the process and come to an
agreement on very clear definitions that are immune to misinterpretation. The study also does
not take into account more nuanced operational differences among the participating utilities,
so there should not be an expectation that differing agencies will show identical performance.
Staff has volunteered to serve on the AWWA Utility Benchmarking Survey Advisory Committee
to convey recommendations to improve the measurements on some of the benchmarks, as
noted in this report.
While there are serious limitations to consider in making strict apples-to-apples comparisons
when reviewing this report, overall, this initial benchmarking study could be a useful tool in
recognizing strengths and weaknesses and identifying steps to narrow performance gaps,
where they exist. The findings can be used to both celebrate successes and recognize
opportunities for improvement.
Staff will continue to benchmark periodically to continue to have consistent and accurate data
gathering both internally and from other CA agencies. Staff will also consider identifying similar
collection systems within CA to compare to Central San and finetune the comparisons with the
CA agencies surveyed for this report to account for operational differences.
Overall, given the limitations described above, it can be difficult to draw conclusions from this
initial study. This study is not intended to be an end-all, be-all nor a call to action; it is a
checkpoint to see how Central San compares against itself and its peers. Central San will
continue its efforts toward meeting its customers' expectations, replacing aging and inefficient
equipment, focusing on optimizations and efficiencies, and strategic planning for managerial
effectiveness, with the goal of seeing positive trends in performance against itself over the
years, as well as seeing favorable comparisons with other agencies.
3
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 192 of 414
Page 7 of 167
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT PURPOSE
The primary objective of this study is to view trends in Central San's performance over the past
four FYs (15-16, 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19); compare Central San's performance with CA
water/wastewater agencies' performance over FYs 15-16, 16-17, and 17-18; and compare
Central San's performance with nationwide wastewater-only and combined agencies'
performance in FYs 15-16 and 16-17. This study is based upon the AWWA Utility Benchmarking
Program, whose purpose is to provide objective performance measures for utility decision
makers. For the first time, Central San submitted data toward the AWWA Utility Benchmarking
survey, which will be included in the 2019 AWWA Utility Benchmarking book.
This is an initial baseline study to encourage self-evaluation and internal dialogue; establish a
framework to perform benchmarking annually; identify opportunities for consideration in
strategic planning; emphasize systematic continuous improvement; and articulate value
proposition for stakeholders, including customers, businesses, and the environment.
METHODOLOGY
The 2017 AWWA Utility Benchmarking
"""'��'==-"= ""•=="' book (pictured) served as the initial
2018 AWWA Utility framework for this study. Using the
2017 AWWA Utility ='.+ �..��.- .-. ° ' definitions and performance indicators
Beenchmarking r>:.;.,: t�<.�:;.�.;,::•,,.,.
PertormanceMana4ement p
from this book helps ensure a fair
for Water a rLd Wastewater
Mt., :==— comparison across the three sets of
—7- == 1: data (Central San, CA agencies, and
nationwide agencies). After the 2018
611 # AWWA Utility Benchmarking book (also
pictured) was released, the FY
— II 16-17 data was added to include two
FYs of comparative nationwide data.
To achieve its objectives, the project was executed in three phases with oversight from the
General Manager:
Phase 1: Determine relevant benchmarks
From the AWWA books, staff selected benchmarks which were relevant to Central San and
would provide meaningful comparative data. In order to represent a fuller spectrum of Central
San's operations, staff opted to add two performance indicators which were not included in the
AWWA study and thus do not have AWWA data available: Claims and Nonresidential Service
Charges. In total, 36 performance indicators are included in the study, as categorized in the
following chart. The list of 36 benchmarks was further refined to 14 for inclusion in the CA
4
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 193 of 414
Page 8 of 167
Introduction
agency comparison; thus, only 14 of the 36 performance indicators in the study include CA
agencies data.
Performance Indicators Included in the Study
14 12
In 12
10 g g g
_2 8
' 6
c
0 4
2
0
Organizational Financial Strength Customer Service Productivity and
Development Performance
Performance Indicator Category
Phase 2: Solicit and review data
Input forms were created for Central San staff to use to provide the data that would yield the
performance figures of each indicator. These forms included the AWWA definitions, to ensure
consistency with the AWWA aggregate data. Staff was asked to provide reference material
where applicable in addition to their completed forms so the data could be verified if needed.
After gathering, calculating, and quality-checking the data, staff met with the individual data
submitters to go over the results. At this time, feedback was collected to include in this report.
Adjustments were made to some of the reported data to better align Central San with the
agencies in the study. For example, in addition to its wastewater (WW) operations, Central San
operates a Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Facility and a robust Recycled Water
program, which other agencies presumably do not. Therefore, in answering the data prompts,
Central San staff removed the resources dedicated to those programs as best as possible.
For the CA agency comparison, Central San requested FYs 15-16, 16-17, and 17-18 data from 10
CA water/WW agencies in fall 2018. Partial to full responses were received from eight agencies.
Information gaps were filled as possible depending on online availability. Central San reviewed
the data and worked with the agencies as needed to refine or correct their reported data.
However, in performing quality checks on the CA agency data, both for data entry errors and
use of AWWA methodology, various inconsistencies were found. Some were simply data entry
errors (e.g., extra digits or transposed figures), and some resulted from differing applications of
AWWA's methodology. While some agencies submitted data based on face-value
interpretations, others appear to have included adjustments they believed were appropriate
for their entity. This happened because many of the AWWA definitions leave room for
interpretation or are inherently flawed (e.g., the AWWA methodology to calculate Debt Service
Coverage Ratio does not state whether or not to exclude depreciation). These shortcomings can
5
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 194 of 414
Page 9 of 167
Introduction
affect the accuracy of not only the AWWA nationwide data but especially the CA agency data,
which was not published through AWWA's Utility Benchmarking subject matter experts.
Staff endeavored to source the CA agencies' Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs)
online and calculate the financial benchmarks via an independent review, the idea behind this
being that one person at Central San would utilize the same interpretation of the AWWA
definitions in processing the financial data from each CAFR. It was soon found out that even this
was not a flawless method. Despite eliminating obvious errors, this was potentially sacrificing
deliberate agency-specific adjustments that were made to the CAFR figures by the responding
agencies to best follow the AWWA definitions.
Because every agency reports their data differently in financial documents, it was determined
that independent data gathering using publicly available documents was not an adequate
solution. An example of this was found in the calculation of the Days of Operating Cash on
Hand. Many entities report combined cash and investments in their CAFR; however, the AWWA
definition requests only "cash and cash equivalents." A more accurate measurement of an
entity's financial reserves would be to use cash and investments in this measure, yet, because
AWWA did not specifically state that investments should be included, there were
inconsistencies in how cash and cash equivalents were reported by different agencies.
The only way to have a consistent set of data is for benchmarking to be a long-term endeavor
with the full participation of participating agencies. The CA data presented in this report reflects
the agencies' submissions, rather than attempts to make substantial efforts to ensure the use
of consistent definitions. The only exception is where an agency's data reflects a clear
typographical or data input error, in which case the error was corrected.
Phase 3: Share results
In April 2019, staff submitted Central San's FY 17-18 data to the 2019 AWWA Utility
Benchmarking survey for inclusion in the 2019 AWWA Utility Benchmarking book.
To share the results via this study, staff synthesized the performance figures and aggregated
the data into 25t", median, and 75t" percentiles, which are presented in chart form to show the
comparisons of Central San over FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19; CA agencies over FYs 15-
16, 16-17, and 17-18; and nationwide agencies over FY 15-16 and 16-17. The nationwide agency
data is presented in sub-categories of WW Only, Combined, Population 100,001-500,000, and
Population >500,000. The charts with the comparative data are included along with definitions,
calculation methods, and explanatory notes in this report.
Following the presentation of this study to Central San's Administration Committee and Board
of Directors, staff will share aggregate statewide results with the participating agencies in the
CA study.
6
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 195 of 414
Page 10 of 167
Introduction
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
Statewide Comparison
Ten CA agencies were surveyed by Central San for their performance in 14 benchmarks. These
agencies were selected because they offer similar services, embody industry best practices, and
are located in the same state as Central San.
The surveyed agencies are characterized as follows:
• 6 from Northern CA and 4 from Southern CA
• 5 WW only and 5 combined utilities
• 4 wholesale agencies (excluded from collection system benchmarks)
Average annual treatment flow in million gallons per day (MGD):
• Median: 92 MGD
• Minimum: 10 MGD
• Maximum: 392 MGD
Length of collection system pipe:
• Median: 1,533 miles
• Minimum: 54 miles
• Maximum: 3,175 miles
Nationwide Comparison
A total of 77 combined utilities and 12 WW utilities participated in the 2017 AWWA
benchmarking survey. A total of 94 combined utilities and 11 WW utilities participated in the
2018 AWWA benchmarking survey. The number of participants for each of the performance
indicators for which AWWA nationwide comparative data exists varies and is noted in the
graphs.
7
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 196 of 414
Page 11 of 167
Introduction
BENCHMARKS INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY
The following chart lists the 36 benchmarks included in this study and whether comparative statewide
and/or nationwide data was included.
Comparative Data Available
Performance Indicator CA Agencies Nationwide Agencies
)
(sub-indicators not listed Central San
FYs 15-16-18-19 (Central San Survey) (AWWA Survey)
16— FYs 15-16 and 16
Organizational Best Practices x
Staffing Levels ✓ ✓
c v Training ✓ x ✓
E Emergency Response Readiness Training ✓ X ✓
Employee Turnover ✓ X ✓
0c Retirement Eligibility ✓ X ✓
Recordable Incident Rate* ✓ x FY 16-17 only via AWWA
Near Misses* ✓ x FY 16-17 only via AWWA
Debt Ratio ✓ ✓ ✓
Return on Assets41
to
✓ X ✓
c
Days of Cash on Hand41
✓ ✓ ✓
ar
L
Debt Service Coverage Ratio ✓ ✓ ✓
m Days of Working Capital ✓ x ✓
'u
cOperating Ratio ✓ X ✓
LL Bond Rating ✓ ✓ ✓
Insurance Average Severity*/Claims ✓ x FY 16-17 only via AWWA
Residential Service Charges ✓ ✓ ✓
Nonresidential Service Charges ✓ J x
u (not included in 2017 or 2018 AWWA Utility Benchmarking books)
Service Affordability ✓ x ✓
N
Service Complaints(Customer and Technical Service) J x ✓
E
Customer Service Cost per Account ✓ X ✓
...
Stakeholder Outreach Index J x ✓
Customer Service Contact ✓ x ✓
Wastewater Service Disruptions ✓ x J
System Inspection ✓ ✓ ✓
System Renewal and Replacement ✓ x ✓
From California Integrated
M Non-capacity and Capacity Sewer Overflow Rates ✓ Water Quality System
E Project(CIWQS)
L
0 Collection System Integrity ✓ x ✓
a0 Treatment Plant Regulatory Compliance ✓ ✓ ✓
Customer Accounts per Employee ✓ J ✓
Wastewater Processed per Employee ✓ ✓ ✓
2
O&M Costs of Wastewater Services ✓ J ✓
u
' Maintenance ✓ x ✓
0
L_ Energy Consumption ✓ ✓ ✓
Energy Optimization Plan ✓ X J
Nutrient Recovery ✓ x
J=comparative data is available for the performance indicator x=comparative data is not available for the
* =new to the 2018AWWA Utility Benchmarking book performance indicator
8
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 197 of 414
Page 12 of 167
Introduction
CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEWING THE RESULTS
In completing this study, Central San found that some of the definitions that provide the
foundation for this benchmarking effort could be improved upon, as they are subject to
interpretation by each participating utility. The only way to truly have reliable results is for all
participating agencies to formally commit to benchmarking and come to an agreement on clear
definitions that are immune to misinterpretation. This is an initial study that is not meant to be
a basis for action but an informational tool to make an effort to compare Central San's
performance to itself and other agencies.
AWWA normalized their benchmarks to provide the greatest general applicability to the utilities
contributing to the survey, and AWWA itself recognizes that the data collection process can
prove challenging as comprehensive utility benchmarking sometimes includes organization-
wide measurements. Numerous system-specific factors can influence performance, such as the
following variables that may be outside the control of a utility's management:
• Treatment plant and collection system size
• Geography, topography, environment of service area
• Age of infrastructure
• Local agency regulations
• Source of energy to power the plant
• Biological load of influent
• Level of WW treatment (nutrient removal, recycled water production)
Central San has benchmarked against nationwide data by AWWA sub-categories of WW only,
Combined, Population 100,001-500,000, and Population >500,000 utilities. However, there are
additional categories of agency types which are not benchmarked separately but should be to
account for operational differences. For example, WW enterprises who are part of a larger
operation such as a city would be expected to have lower personnel and costs associated with
WW treatment since staff are split over multiple agency/city departments. Furthermore,
wholesale agencies not operating their own collection system would possibly have lower
staffing counts, overflow rates, total 0&M costs, and customer accounts. These five categories
of agencies which are not separately benchmarked are as follows:
1) Independent WW enterprise that operates its own collection system (e.g., Central San)
2) Agencies who are part of a city
3) Wholesale WW only agencies
4) Wholesale combined (water and WW) agencies
5) Combined water-WW utilities.
Certain economic phenomena may further complicate utility-to-utility comparisons and
influence the observed levels of performance, including the following:
• Economies of scale (as system size increases, efficiency may improve)
9
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 198 of 414
Page 13 of 167
Introduction
• Economies of scope (diversification of services may lead to efficiencies)
• Economies of density (as population density increases, unit costs may decrease).
Additionally, Central San has characteristics which could affect the ability to compare directly
with other agencies statewide:
• On-site energy production to power the treatment process (leading to comparatively
higher energy consumption usage based on AWWA calculation methodology).
• Multiple hearth furnace solids handling, which requires Central San to purchase landfill
gas (increasing both costs and energy consumption). Central San, in fact, is the last
remaining agency with a furnace in the state of CA.
• Operation of its own collection and treatment plant and treatment provided to the cities
of Concord and Clayton by contract. Where applicable, Central San's data has been
adjusted to provide a comparable data set to other agencies.
• Collection of ad valorem taxes. These funds have been included where appropriate.
• Operation of an HHW Collection Facility and Residential Recycled Water Fill Station.
Related staffing and costs have been removed where possible.
To mitigate issues with normalizing the data, AWWA worked with participants to identify and
correct questionable information before it became part of the final nationwide data sets,
including conducting an analysis of outliers to confirm unusually high or low values. Because all
data is self-reported, the validity and accuracy of comparative measures depend on each
utility's consistent application of the definitions and accurate data collection. In corroborating
the data collected both internally from staff and externally from other agencies, Central San has
found that this is an imperfect process.
Overall, given the limitations described above, it can be difficult to draw high-confidence-level
conclusions from this initial study. Over time, as refinements to definitions are made, entities
improve their data validation, and, as a group, the participants work to ensure consistent
application of the definitions take place, the reliability of the results will improve. Even with
that, however, there are limitations to benchmarking. While benchmarking is a worthwhile
exercise to understand the metrics of industry peers, it is a relative comparison that does not
consider differences in operations, historical circumstances, or service areas in terms of density,
customer types, costs, etc. There should not be an expectation that different agencies will have
identical performance.
10
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 199 of 414
Page 14 of 167
Introduction
GUIDE TO INTERPRETING THE DATA AS PRESENTED
Each performance indicator presented in this report includes the relevant AWWA definitions
and the calculation method.
Maximum
Central San's performance is shown in the form
of a bar graph comparing the following:
3,1 Quartile[75%]
• Central San's FY 15-16, 16-17, 17-18,
and 18-19 performance Median(50%)
• CA agencies' FY 15-16, 16-17, and 17-18
aggregated performance (for some
11'Quartile[259'0)
benchmarks) 40
• Nationwide FY 15-16 and 16-17
Minimum
aggregated performance.
The aggregate data is presented within each FY by quartile: 25th Percentile, Median, and
75th Percentile. This is represented by the figure on the top right of this page.
The following page contains a sample of how each performance indicator's results are
presented in bar chart form with explanations of the components of the chart. The pictured
sample represents a performance indicator with CA agency survey results, though not every
performance indicator chart will have CA data included.
Charts with CA data are presented separately by FY nationwide data. In these charts, Central
San and CA agency performance are the same in the top and bottom charts; the only difference
is the nationwide FY data, boxed on the right.
11
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 200 of 414
Below is a sample of how each performance indicator's results are presented in bar chart form.
MT IT
Central San Survey (California) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY XX-XX data)
35.0
X2.0
.30.0 29_9
c
e
25.0 24.2
20.0 19.2 781 18.6
IL
16 16.0
= 15.0 113 14.3
m 13.2 73.4
11.1 9.9 9.7 10.7 [C71
9.6 11.4
10,1
in 70.0 9.1
a 7.8
w
4.5 5.0
= 5.0 4.2
0.0
I I
4{�NIP c �$^ �$ g �o � � ` Hyde ry �� sor 015 �e'06 A ry��e �c h�;a ry�; ��c hal
0,I CENTRAL SAN FY 15516 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-1 c rt
CA WW only and combined utilities WW Only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Populatior Q
(9 participants) (9 participants) (66 participants) 100.001-500,000 >500.000
(30 participants) (26 participants) r*.
data
12
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 201 of 414
Page 16 of 167
Organizational Development
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL BEST PRACTICES
This indicator summarizes how well a utility integrates 13 best practices, which are detailed in
the table on the next page, as scored on a scale of 1 to 5 as follows:
1. This practice is not practiced at our utility
2. This practice is implemented, but only occasionally or without uniformity
3. This practice is implemented, but there is room for substantial improvement
4. This practice is largely implemented, but there is room for improvement
5. This practice is fully implemented at our utility
The sum total scores of the 13 Management Practices were averaged and reported as a percent
of the total possible score of 55 for WW only utilities (including for Central San) and 65 for
combined utilities, as follows:
T
Organizational Best Practices Score = otal Points Awarded in 13 Categories
55 Total Points Possible
Central San Data Calculation Method
This type of self-assessment is necessarily subjective, so AWWA recommended soliciting a
collective view to offer as true an assessment as possible. Thus, for Central San's performance
figures, the four Executive Team Members were asked to score Central San in each of the 13
Management Practices.The scores are presented in the following table.
The FY 15-16 and 16-17 scores reflect the averages of the four individual scores from the
Executive Team members. The FY 17-18 scores were determined by the General Manager and
Deputy General Manager utilizing the average scores from the Executive Team. The FY 18-19
scores were agreed upon by the Executive Team members by consensus.
13
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 202 of 414
Page 17 of 167
Organizational Development
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY
Average Average Scores Scores
Management Practice Scores Scores Submitted
to AWWA
Strategic Planning—a plan is up to date and progress is 4.3 4.4 5 5
tracked and reported to the governing body at least
annually.
Strategic Plan Implementation—percent of annual goals 5 4.9 5 5
complete, mission/vision/values established.
Long-Term Financial Planning—annual projection at least 4.7 4.9 5 5
five years into the future; all funds are considered and
includes analysis of the financial environment, revenue
and expenditure forecasts, debt position, and affordability
analysis; transparent.
Risk Management Planning—foresee risks, estimate 3.3 4.1 4 4
impacts, and define responses to issues.
Performance Measurement System Integration -data is 3.3 4.3 5 5
collected,tracked, and evaluated and used to plan,
organize, coordinate, communicate, and control
performance at the strategic, operational, and individual
performance levels.
Optimized Asset Management Program—program output 3.3 3.9 4 4
meets a required level of service in the most cost-effective
manner through the management of assets for present
and future customers and driven by ongoing
understanding of condition, risk, and asset criticality.
Customer Involvement Program—effectively sharing 4.7 4.6 5 5
information that is important to the customer and utility,
compels positive behavior, and achieves common goals.
Governing Body Relations—both governing bodies and 4 4.6 5 5
staff are clearly acting in the public interest consistent
with the requirements of policies and avoiding self-
interest.
Succession Planning—a plan that increases the availability 3.7 4.4 4 4
of experienced and capable employees that are prepared
to assume these roles as they become available. Includes
collecting and securing vital institutional knowledge.
Continuous Improvement Program Participation—an 3.7 3.5 5 5
ongoing improvement program of processes, products,
services, or processes and includes management and staff
using a systematic approach to obtaining incremental and
breakthrough improvements.
Leadership Effectiveness—leadership engagement, ethical 4 4.3 5 5
climate, communication effectiveness, and management
system use/effectiveness.
of Possible Points(out of 55 points) 80.0% 87.1% 94.5% 94.5%
14
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 203 of 414
Organizational Development
ORGANIZATIONAL BEST PRACTICES
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) Aw1NA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
900.0 94.5 94.5
87.1 I 88.0 89.2 89.2
94.4 85.6 I 53.6 85.5 84,8 81.7
76.
CD 84.4 84.4 .9 7a' 76.9 76,9
.8 70.5 69,E 79.8 70.8 74.8 73,9
74.4
� O
CML 64.4
0 .2
-, -2 54,4
9 L 40.0
«.
34.4
rn
243
943
01 01 01,
D.0
OLCENTRALSkh FY 15-16 FY 155-1$ FY 15-10 FY 15-18 F',` 'ib-17 FY 19-17 FY 18-17 FY 1i3-17
WVWonly utilities Combined utilities Population Population 'd AIV only utilities Combined utiiilies Population Population
f9 partiicipants) (72 participants) 100,001—500,Ot30 >50UDD {11 partiicipentsl (83 participants) 100.001—500,00d >500,001)
(56 participants) (32 participants) (85 participants) (43 participants)
15
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 204 of 414
Page 19 of 167
Organizational Development
STAFFING LEVELS
This is a suite of sub-indicators measuring the number of employees in the utility. In an effort to
reduce bias in utility-to-utility comparisons, the AWWA survey instructed to include the hours
of contractor work if that work applies directly to necessary utility functions. Central San did
not include any contractor work in its full-time equivalent (FTE) calculations. AWWA provides
the following definition:
• FTE-Allocation of employee time equal to 2,080 hours per year based on 40
hours/week and 52 weeks/year. Part-time, temporary, and seasonal employees are
converted to FTEs based on their total number of compensated hours divided by 2,080
hours. Consultants are not included in these estimates, and employee time from
engineering and construction of new facilities is also not to be counted.
TOTAL FTES
Central San Data Calculation Method
To follow the AWWA methodology, Central San totaled its FTEs with the following components:
• Budgeted District employees—tallied per the Organization Chart
• Non-District-employees—calculated by converting temporary employee, student, and
intern hours worked per payroll records to FTE equivalents
• Less any FTE equivalent time spent on the following:
o Recycled Water and HHW, in order to offer a fair comparison to other agencies,
assuming most others do not offer such services
o Construction of new facilities (Capital Projects and portions of Planning &
Development Services staff), per Central San's interpretation of AWWA methodology.
CA agency data was derived from 6 agency survey responses and online from 3 agencies. Those
3 agencies' numbers do not remove any time spent on construction of new facilities or
temporary part-time, temporary, or seasonal employee hours since they were sourced from the
agencies' CAFRs. For reference, the following is a table which shows the difference in the
Central San FTE counts following AWWA methodology (rounded to whole numbers) and as
shown in the Organizational Chart:
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Following AWWA Methodology 264 253 258 260
Comparable to 6 CA agencies who submitted responses in
the Central San survey and all agencies in the AWWA
nationwide survey
As Shown in Organizational Chart 287 291 291 291
Comparable only to 3 CA agencies whose CAFR figures
were used. Not represented in the comparison bar chart.
16
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 205 of 414
Page 20 of 167
Organizational Development
TOTAL FTES
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) �FAWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
700
sea
603
600 572 5T8
w 500 483 480 476
W
LL
`0 466 357
a
m 316
LL 300 264 253 258 260 257 275
r 203 201 205 203 216
F 200167
162 83 713
766 55 ' I I i
0
^H 6,�1 0 �� ydo a,1c X411 h01 a`1P 101 ryyl �`aZ dell h, aao 1��o ry�\o �,ac 1h`0 ry�ayo ��O �gl ryyl atao 14\1
,A �-1N �-1� 'ttse
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 16-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-16
(�.,I CENTRALSAN
CA'AM'only and combined utilities 6°AY'only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(1D participants] (0 participants) (72 participants) 100.091—5130.1300 >50Q,000
(37 participants) (25 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
aoo
T09
T00
N 600
572 5T8 603
W
v 500 483 480 476
0 438
x
w 400
W 298 287
1 300 257
203 207 205 210
200 �4r 157
700 96 9fi
50 59
0
& 1& '14'r0 a`°c 1`''0 ry`'1 a� 1�l `', arc �°',o ti°'to aac 1410 ry''�0 �+`°c 1`'1 ry`', a`aP 14�
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
ZI&CENTRALSAN
CA WAI only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(11 participants) (36 participants` 100,001—5130,1300 X500,000
10 participants] (47 participants) (30 participants)
*The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined
utilities),are retail agencies,or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could have an
impact on the number of FTEs. For example,wholesale utilities may not include FTEs of other agencies that
maintain the collection system which feeds their treatment plant,and WW enterprises that operate as part of a
larger agency may be undercounting the centralized administrative staff of the larger agency.
17
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 206 of 414
Page 21 of 167
Organizational Development
FTEs — O&M
FTEs — MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING, CUSTOMER SERVICE, OTHER
The next sub-indicators break out the total FTEs into categories of O&M and Management,
Engineering, Customer Service, Other. These indicators are expressed as a percentage of the
employees in those job classifications out of the total number of FTEs (the above indicator), as
follows:
FTEs (percentage of total FTEs) _ Number of FTEs in given category
Total number of FTEs
While this benchmark is expressed as a percentage, below are the number of FTEs in this
category, provided as a reference:
Central San # of FTEs
in O&M
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
136.0 134.7 136.3 136.7
Central San #of FTEs
in Management, Engineering, Customer Service, Other
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
127.7 118.2 121.4 123.0
Further data on staffing levels, including the percentages of total FTEs of employees dedicated
to each subcategory, can be found in the Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category (% of Total FTEs)
section.
Central San Data Calculation Method/Commentary
It should be noted that the definitions and categories for the staffing categories are somewhat
ambiguously written; that is, they are subject to interpretation which could lead to inconsistent
conclusions utility to utility. For example, it is unclear whether a Manager who works in WW
collection or treatment (which fall under the AWWA "O&M" category) should be counted in
0&M or the other category, which includes "Management" in its title. Central San counted
those Managers as partially (fraction of an FTE) "O&M" and partially "Management,
Engineering, Customer Service, Other."
18
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 207 of 414
Organizational Development
The chart below shows the percentage of FTEs dedicated to O&M, as opposed to the other category of Management, Engineering,
Customer Service, Other.
FTEs - O&M
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-16 data) AYWlA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
80.0 - - 74.9
70.0 71.6 70.9 69.Q 68.3
60.8 60.9 59.5 64,1 62.8
- 60.0 54.5 0.9 '58.1 �a9.2 54.1 59.8 �a0.9 64.4
51.6 53.3 52.9 52.6 X3.1 51.9
49.8
g 50.0 47A 44.9
06
40.0
C
uj 30.0 -
`- 20.0
10.0
0.111
1 C�N71L41$AN FY 15-16 Flf 15 16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 1Er17 IFY 1Er17 FY 16-17
VVW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(9 participants) (72 participants) 100,001-5130,000 >5D0,000 (11 participants) (86 participants) 100,001-50[},000 >500,400
(36 participants) (25 participants) (3S participants) {25 participants}
19
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 208 of 414
Organizational Development
The chart below compares the percentage of FTEs dedicated to Management, Engineering, Customer Service, Other, as opposed to
the other category of O&M:
FTEs - MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING, CUSTOMER SERVICE, OTHER
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AVWYA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-16 data) AWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
60.0
53.0
50.2 49.9
50.0 48.4 46.7 47.1 47.4 4$.9 49.9
.0
45.9 45.9 45.4
W 40.0 9.2 39.0 4Q,3 , 39.8 8.0 41.9 40,5 40.5 38.2 42,4
32.6
E 30.0 29.1 28.8
25.0 25.4
� L
20.0
� a
C
Lj 10.0
ILL I L
0.0
Ick
ZS CENTRaLSAN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-15 FY 16-17 FY 1 ir17 FY 1 C-17 FY 15-17
A'A only utilities Combined-.utilities Papulation Population W.°d only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(9 participants;, 1,72 participants) 100,001 -500,000 }500.404 (11 participants} (86 participants) 100,001 -5-Do,o4o >500 000
(35 participants) (25 participants) (33 participants) i25 participarts;-
20
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 209 of 414
Page 24 of 167
Organizational Development
TRAINING
This indicator measures the amount of training that employees receive, expressed as the
annual number of training hours per FTE, as follows:
hr
Training ( )
employee
Total training hr completed by all employees during the reporting period
Total number of FTEs
AWWA provides the following definitions:
• Training— meets at least one of the following descriptions:
o A professionally developed program or session with a fixed agenda that is offered
on- or off-site during compensated working hours
o The classroom and study portions of a formal apprenticeship program completed
during compensated work hours
o A compensated training or related educational program, including an apprenticeship
program, completed by an employee during nonwork hours. An apprenticeship
program is a formal program designed to prepare an individual for journeyman
status in any of several job categories.
• Training includes technical training, certification training, apprenticeship training,
employee skill and development training, attendance at professional seminars and
conferences, and college classes during the reporting period. Training is not limited to
events for which continuing education credits are awarded. Training does not include
initial on-the-job training for new hires and promotions.
• Total training time includes all hours spent at the event from opening to closing,
including all scheduled breaks. Travel time to and from the event and associated travel
planning are not included. The trainer's time is not to be included in estimates of total
training time.
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San did not track this data in FY 15-16. In the absence of a comprehensive learning
management system, FY 16-17 and 17-18 data may be incomplete (e.g., may not include Plant
Operations training hours or training hours completed by Administration Department staff).
Generally, the reported hours include technical training, certification training, skill and
development training, attendance at professional seminars and conference, Safety Tailgates,
and Human Resources (HR) Brown Bags. They do not include college classes. Central San is in
the process of procuring a centralized system which will provide more accurate training data in
the future. Because adjustments were not made to exclude training hours completed by HHW,
Recycled Water, Capital Projects, or construction of new facilities staff, the total number of
FTEs used was the budgeted FTE count per the Organization Chart, not the number of FTEs
reported in the Staffing Levels performance indicator using AWWA methodology.
21
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 210 of 414
Organizational Development
TRAINING
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
45.0
40.0 38.6
35.0 34.2
a 3U.0 28.7 28,0
u.
25.0 24.5 24.0 24,6
Q 7 22.7 22.
2
20.0
L
C
15.0 121 13,6
10.0 9.6 9.4 g g 8.2 9.2
B.5 5.5 6.5 6.5
0.2
Q.Q
fQ 1 {� Qko alo k1 0 al" �} p til" t+ pa tiS'
P, IV I=' � •4 ry5 � rte y<7 � Ali ,bs $�� A � •tib �� $� "4;j 'X� �� 'l� •y�? ia�� '��
l CENTRAL N fV 15-16 F1 15-i6 FY 15-16 FY 15-1 B FY 1 17 FY 16-17 FY 16r17 ='(10-17
WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population population ;&W only utilities Gombined utilities Population Population
(9 participants) (49 participants) 100,OU1—500,000 n509,000 (19 participants) (47 parlicipards) 100.001-5C0.000 >500,900
(24 participants) 09 participants] (26 participants} (20 participants)
22
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 211 of 414
Page 26 of 167
Organizational Development
EMERGENCY RESPONSE READINESS TRAINING
This indicator measures the amount of emergency response training, including safety training,
received by all employees, calculated as follows:
hr
Emergency response readiness training ( )
employee
Total emergency response readiness training hours completed
_ by all employees during the reporting period
Total number of FTEs
AWWA provides the following definition:
• Emergency response readiness training - includes formal training by all employees for
emergencies as defined by a utility's emergency response plan(s), including safety
training.
Central San Data Calculation Method
For Central San, the hours reported exclude preventive classes (e.g., the hours include fire
extinguisher training but not fire prevention) and represent trainings conducted by both the
Risk Management and Safety divisions.
Because adjustments were not made to exclude emergency response readiness training hours
completed by HHW, Recycled Water, Capital Projects, or construction of new facilities staff, the
total number of FTEs used was the budgeted FTE count per the Organization Chart, not the
number of FTEs reported in the Staffing Levels performance indicator using AWWA
methodology.
23
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 212 of 414
Organizational Development
EMERGENCY RESPONSE READINESS TRAINING
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) A WA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
8.0
7.0
= 7.0
F
yr -- 6.0 53.6
d �
n 5.0
ori CL 4.4
E
4.0 31 3,6
o C- 3.1
a 3.4
N i
W
V 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 9.5 � 1.G 2.1 I 1.8 2.1
m 1.3
1.4 0.7 0.8 d.7 d.7 0.5
w I0.3 1 1 6i 1 0_9 1
0.0
4b
N, ,% hlb
�,$ R, alo � �Z` Aq\0 ku l c � 1a �{yl �` N
{ I CENTRAL34N FY 155-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
Wow only utilities combined utilities Population Population WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(8 participants) (44 participants) 100,001—500,000 >500,000 (7 participants) (43 participants) 100,001—500,000 >500,00a
(20 participants) (,15participants) (20 participants) (18participants)
24
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 213 of 414
Page 28 of 167
Organizational Development
EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
This indicator quantifies annual employee departures per year normalized by the utility's
workforce, expressed as the number of regular employees who voluntary leave, retire, or are
let go as a percentage of total FTEs, calculated as follows:
Employee turnover (% of total employees)
Number of regular employee departures during the reporting period
Total number of FTEs
AWWA provides the following definitions:
• Regular employee-those who worked more than 1,000 hours during the reporting
period. Include contractor work if it applies directly to necessary utility functions in an
effort to reduce bias in utility-to-utility comparisons.
• Regular employee departures - includes employees who leave voluntarily, retire, or are
let go during the reporting period. Regular employees are those who worked more than
1,000 hours during the reporting period.
This benchmark prompts respondents to include retirements in employee departures. Below
are the turnover rates including and excluding retirements, provided as a reference:
Central San Turnover Rates
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Including Retirements 5.5% 6.2% 4.5% 5.5%
(comparable data for benchmarking)
Excluding Retirements 1.5% 1.7% 1.1% 2.8%
(provided as a reference)
Central San Data Calculation Method
Because adjustments were not made to exclude departing employees from HHW, Recycled
Water, Capital Projects, or construction of new facilities, the total number of FTEs used was the
number of budgeted employees, not the number of FTEs reported in the Staffing Levels
performance indicator using AWWA methodology. This also provides more alignment with how
Central San has reported this figure in the past.
25
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 214 of 414
Organizational Development
EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
16.0
1
14.0 4.0
12.0 i iA 11.3
9.7 10.5 10.3 14.1 10.2
m 10.0 - 9.1
8.5
S.0 7.6 7.9
6 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.5
C 6.0 '5. 5.5 5-7
4.5
3.6 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.7 3.9
4-.0 �
2.0
0.0
^aha, �fi � � �`�� � l � fi � 06�� � 0`3�� o
ICI 00 1
Z�4,CENTRAL SAN IFY 15-16 Fy 15-15 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 1fi-17 IFY 16-17 FY 16-17 IFY 16-17
Monly utilities Cornbined utilities Population Population Monty utilities combined utilities Population Population
{9 participants) (53 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500.000 (11 participants) (59 participants) 1K,0•D1-500.I~K ,EOC:0.00
{30 participants} (16 participants} {34 participants; {2.0 parT cipanta
26
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 215 of 414
Page 30 of 167
Organizational Development
RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY
This indicator measures the number of regular employees eligible for retirement normalized by
the utility's workforce, expressed as a percent and calculated as follows:
Retirement eligibility (% of total employees)
Number of regular employees eligible for retirement in the next five years
Total number of FTEs
AWWA provides the following definitions:
• Retirement eligibility—based on known eligibility from age and employment history
according to a utility's retirement program and policies. An individual's eligibility to
receive employer contributions is determined by whether he or she has satisfied the age
and service requirements, and both early and regular retirement are to be included.
• Regular employees—those who worked more than 1,000 hours during the reporting
period. Include contractor work if it applies directly to necessary utility functions in an
effort to reduce bias in utility-to-utility comparisons.
Central San Data Calculation Method
For Central San, the number of employees eligible for retirement in the next five years includes
the employees who meet the following parameters:
• Age 55 with 10 years of service ("55/10") (for FY 17-18, this means by June 30, 2023)
• Age 62 with 10 years of service ("62/10") for Public Employees' Pension Reform Act
(PEPRA) employees whose formula hit 2% (for FY 17-18, this means by June 30, 2023).
This percent is the age factor in the following equation used to calculate retirement
benefits: Final Average Salary X Years of Service X Age Factor.
Because adjustments were not made to exclude employees eligible for retirement in HHW,
Recycled Water, Capital Projects, or construction of new facilities, the total number of FTEs
used was the budgeted FTE count per the Organization Chart, not the number of FTEs reported
in the Staffing Levels performance indicator using AWWA methodology. This provides a more
accurate representation of Central San's workforce.
27
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 216 of 414
Organizational Development
RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-16 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
45.0 41.8
40.0
35.0 33.1
31-6 30.9 34.9 31.5 31.0 39,0
30.1E
24.5 25.9 24'.5
Em 25.0 22.5
W 21,4
= 20.0 79-4 18.7 78.9 17.6
m 16.1 16.0
14.4
10.5 11.7 11.5 10.5
tr 10.0 8.2 9.4 5.5
5.0
0.0
4v4- D +b SSR D � 495 3@ µ4 q4, , D +b _�y{W 6 D {� ,q 5m m T' ^.1-
I�j
Ali
^(r�M GENTRALSAN S Alb
FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
L_
WW only utilities Combined utilities Populalion Population WW only ulilities Combined ulilities Population Population
(S participants) (53 participants) 100:001-5010,000 X500,000 (10 participants) (56 participants) 144,001-50i).U00 X59{],004
(29 participants) (17participants) (34 participants) {19 participants)
28
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 217 of 414
Page 32 of 167
Organizational Development
RECORDABLE INCIDENT RATE
This indicator identifies the number of recordable incidents of injury or illness for a utility,
which can be useful to help determine potential problem areas and processes for preventing
work-related injuries and illnesses.
This was a new addition to the 2018 AWWA Utility Benchmarking book; thus, only FY 16-17
data is available from AWWA for comparison. This rate is calculated as follows:
Recordable Incident Rate = Number of recordable injuries and illnesses X 200,000
Employee hours worked
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides the following definition:
• Recordable incidents—work-related and resulting in death, loss of consciousness, days
away from work, restricted work activity or job transfer medical treatment (beyond first
aid), and significant work-related injuries or illnesses that are diagnosed by a physician
or other licensed health care professional.
Central San's number of recordable injuries and illnesses are as follows, provided as reference:
FY 1
20 11 111 7
Central San Data Calculation Method
No adjustments were made to remove recordable injuries and illnesses or employee hours
worked by employees in HHW, Recycled Water, Capital Projects, and construction of new
facilities. The total number of FTEs used was the budgeted FTE count per the Organization
Chart, not the number of FTEs reported in the Staffing Levels performance indicator using
AWWA methodology.
29
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 218 of 414
Page 33 of 167
Organizational Development
RECORDABLE INCIDENT RATE
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY15-16 Data) - Unavailable
FY 15-16 data nationwide data is unavailable as this indicator was a new addition to the 2018 AWWA
Utility Benchmarking book.
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
16.0
1
14.0 3.8
m
rs 12.0
10.0 10.0
10.0
a 8.6
= 8.0 7.6
m
6.0 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.5
0 4.2
4.5
4.0 _ 3.8
2.0
0.0
ryel
FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
_*i.I CENTR4LSAN WW only utilities Combined utilities Population PCpulation
(3 participants) {9 participantsy 100,001—500,008 >500.000
N+':4 only WW only
[4 participants] [5 participants]
30
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 219 of 414
Page 34 of 167
Organizational Development
NEAR MISSES
This indicator, along with Recordable Incident Rate, is a proactive means for utilities to
anticipate, respond to, and avoid problems at the utility. This indicator also aligns with the
Effective Utility Management (EUM) attribute on Enterprise Resiliency and provides an
opportunity to identify, assess, and establish tolerance levels to effectively manage business
risks and system reliability goals.
This was a new addition to the 2018 AWWA Utility Benchmarking book; thus, only FY 16-17
data is available from AWWA for comparison.
AWWA provides the following definition:
• Near miss—an unsafe situation or condition where no personal injury was sustained and
no property was damaged, but where, given a slight shift in time or position, injury
and/or damage could have occurred.
Central San Data Calculation Method
No adjustments were made to remove near misses reported by employees in HHW, Recycled
Water, Capital Projects, and construction of new facilities. The reported number of near misses
for Central San is the number of near miss reports filed.
This indicator was a new addition to the 2018 AWWA Utility Benchmarking book; thus, only FY
16-17 nationwide AWWA data is available for comparison in the chart on the following page.
31
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 220 of 414
Page 35 of 167
Organizational Development
NEAR MISSES
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY15-16 Data) - Unavailable
FY 15-16 data nationwide data is unavailable as this indicator was a new addition to the 2018
AWWA Utility Benchmarking book.
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
26.6
7 8.6 1 S.0
76.6
14.6
m 12.6
N
76.6
n
Z 6.0
6.0
6.0
4.0 3.5 3.5
2.0 2.0
2.0 1.0 7.0 I
E 1.0 I
E 1.0 1.0
6.0 0.0 a.o u_3
, , I M E 0.0
o.o
�',��^6 �',^6,�1 Fy k't��^A ��`�O -\ 1 ��`I` 1910 14, �gaQO �y'`a ryy�la �ga,Qc 1191,
/' O CENTRAL SAN FY 15-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
M onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population
(5 participants) {22 participants) 100,001—500,000 >500,006
AV"only M onh
(14 participants) {6 participants)
32
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 221 of 414
Page 36 of 167
Financial Strength
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
FINANCIAL STRENGTH
DEBT RATIO
This indicator quantifies a utility's level of indebtedness and is a measure of the extent to which
assets are financed through borrowing. The higher the debt ratio, the more dependent the
utility is on debt financing. Debt ratio is expressed as a percentage, calculated as follows:
Total liabilities
Debt ratio (%) = Total assets
AWWA provides the following definitions:
• Total liabilities—the entire obligations of the utility under law or equity, categorized as
such on a utility's financial statement. In essence, this is the aggregate of all debts owed
to others and includes outstanding bonds, outstanding long- and short-term debt,
payments owed to others, accounts payable, and deposits collected from customers.
• Total assets—the entire resources of the utility, both tangible and intangible, as
categorized on a financial statement. This includes the total value of properties and
claims against others that are owned by the utility as expressed at original cost unless
otherwise indicated and can also include accounts receivable, cash, inventories, service
delivery facilities (less depreciation), cost of easements, cost of water rights, and all
other items of value owned by the utility.
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San considers the AWWA definition of total liabilities to be a broader measure than is
typical when calculating Debt Ratio. For example, it includes items such as Accounts Payable
and Accrued Employee Liabilities. In calculating total liabilities for Central San for this study,
Deferred Inflows of Resources was excluded. In calculating total assets for Central San,
Accumulated Depreciation was included and Deferred Outflows of Resources was excluded.
Central San's FY 18-19 reported performance is based upon pre-audited figures. The Net
Pension Liability and Net Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Liability amounts have not
been updated for FY 18-19 since the actuarial report was not received at the time this study
was published. The FY 17-18 amounts were used in the total liabilities calculation.
CA Agency Data Independent Review Findings
Central San found the data reported by the participating agencies to be generally consistent
with the figures available online via each agency's CAFR. This is to be expected for this
indicator, as the data points of total liabilities and total assets are fairly straightforward. Major
differences in the results between agencies can be attributed to the age of their infrastructure
(and whether it was fully depreciated), where the agency was in their infrastructure's
replacement cycle, and the agency's reliance on debt financing.
33
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 222 of 414
Page 37 of 167
Financial Strength
DEBT RATIO
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey (California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
70 66
63
60 56 55 54 57
50 52 P 48
50 4�
0 39
46 37 35 38
32 34
31
n 30 28
22 22
20 19 16 20 20
10
0
h�� �ti1 1•� m�° tihl° �rti°o Hyl° 2`��° �+�ar 1h� 1'�� ati�o 1y°I° 41 ado 1`��° tiy� a��o �y°I ryh� aac 1y1 tiy1° a�°o Hyl
ZFY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-15
�i,l CENtIYALSAN
CA NIL",+only and combined utilities VNI only utilities Combined utilities Population Papulation
{10 participants) (9 participants) (35 participants) 100.001-500.000 >500,000
(21 participants) (12 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
70 orni
Central San Survey [Califa] AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
64
60 50 52 54 55
53
50 46 44 43 45
390
0 40 37 35 37 35
s 32 32
28
30 25
0 20 19 18 20 20 21 21
10
0
16 tied°
A ��ac 1h� I& atao 1ryg� �0 1Ilk& ago 1 1011 a�ac 1h1 tiy1° a�Qc Hyl
<1 bra Z^ <k �¢ ell eq'¢ le ea
Z_I CENtRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
CA 1,W only and combined utilities ;"JN'only utilities Combined utilities Population Papulation
{10 participants) (11 participants) (47 participants) 100.001—500.000 >500,000
(28 participants) (19 participants)
34
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 223 of 414
Financial Strength
RETURN ON ASSETS
This indicator is an estimate of a utility's financial effectiveness and is calculated as follows:
Net income
Return on assets (%) = Total assets
AWWA provides the following definitions:
• Net income—all revenues and gains minus expenses for the reporting period; it is titled as such on a utility's financial
statement.
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San does not have a line item on its Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position called "net income," so
Change in Net Position was used in its place. This figure is Operating Income/Loss, less matters such as taxes and interest, with
additional line items such as contributions towards capital costs. Including monies received for capital replenishment best follows
the AWWA definition and allows consistency as depreciation is included as an operating expense.
For total assets, the same definition and calculation method was used as in the preceding performance indicator for Debt Ratio,
where Depreciation was included and Deferred Outflows of Resources was excluded.
Central San's FY 18-19 reported performance is based upon pre-audited figures. The Pension Expense Adjustment and OPEB Expense
Adjustment have not been updated for FY 18-19 since the actuarial report was not received at the time this study was published.
The FY 17-18 amounts were used in the net income calculation.
35
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 224 of 414
Financial Strength
RETURN ON ASSETS
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-16 data) AVMA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
7.0
6.0
�.s
010 4,6
4.2
�0 � 3.4
a 3.2 .
0 3.4 2-s
E 2 2.3 2.3
2.o 2.0
z0 1.6 1.
13 1.0 0.9 1.0
10 I I � I
10 1; ell
OI CENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-17 IFY 16-17 FY 15-17 FY 1&-17
V4 only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Population VM only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(9 participants) {39 participants} 140,001 —500,040 X504;000 (11 participants) {47 participants} 100,001—500,000 >500,090
(21 participants) (13 participants) (28 participants} (24 participants}
36
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 225 of 414
Page 40 of 167
Financial Strength
DAYS OF CASH ON HAND
This indicator quantifies the number of days of available cash on hand as a measure of financial
liquidity. Days of cash on hand was directly reported by all participating utilities in the AWWA
study over the FY as reported directly from the utility's CAFR, annual information statement, or
calculated as follows:
Days of cash on hand (days)
(Undesignated cash &cash equivalents)
_
(Operating expenses excluding depreciation)
365 days
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San has included two sets of data: 1) abiding by the strict definition of cash and cash
equivalents and not including investments and 2) including investments.
The FY 18-19 reported performance is based upon pre-audited figures. The Pension Expense
Adjustment and OPEB Expense Adjustment have not been updated for FY 18-19 since the
actuarial report was not received at the time this study was published. The FY 17-18 amounts
were used in the operating expense calculation.
Commentary
It should be noted that AWWA does not specifically state whether to include treasuries and
investments in undesignated cash and cash equivalents. It is Central San's opinion that the
definition of this figure should be clarified and clearly state to include these, since they
represent funds that can be drawn as cash if needed.
CA Agency Data Independent Review Findings
Central San found the data reported by the participating agencies to be sometimes inconsistent
with the figures available online via each agency's CAFR. This is likely attributable to the AWWA
definition, which excludes "investments" from the numerator of the formula, despite many
agencies' practice of maintaining substantial short-term investments in lieu of cash.
Additionally, it is not clear whether all agencies are defining cash equivalents in the same
manner. These factors contribute to significant variances seen across agencies on this metric.
In its review of CA agency data by comparing the agencies' submissions with their CAFR figures,
Central San found that many agencies did include investments, which is consistent with Central
San's reporting method, but at least one participating agency in its CA agency survey did not
count their Local Agency Investment Fund monies as cash equivalents. It can thusly be
concluded that these figures do not represent an apples-to-apples comparison.
37
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 226 of 414
Page 41 of 167
Financial Strength
DAYS OF CASH ON HAND
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
900 -
823
800
7}8
700
a 626 631623
c
= 600
515 517
500 461 446
w 432
v 400 348 373 378 384
326
y 300 23 24
200 1 19 }59 185 172 183 175 214
295 281
100 I I I 122 I I
0
■excl.investments 9�
incl.investments FY 155-16 FY 16.17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
,el,el(:I CENTRALSAN CA WW only and combined utilities WWonly utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(10 participants) (9 participants) (27 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
(17 participants) {10 participants}
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
800
718
700 X57
600 626 631
597
v
b 515 517
= 474
c 500 446
b 400 348 373 378 386
[1 295 341 326 314
o775 1
�
300 23 2
1 185 191 181
200 15 138
100
0 I 1 I
^ R °j ryy�l� ac �hAo l �l�
ryy �c �g1 k� �c ^�� Wac Hyl tiy
�k"Y ���mc 1ge�e 1 a�`�c 1ya h�®atiao 1��
■excl.investments
FY 75-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-77 FY 16-17
incl.investments
Z'O,F_
CENTRALSAN CAVVW only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(10 participants) (11 participants) (34 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
(26 participants) {13 participants]
38
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 227 of 414
Page 42 of 167
Financial Strength
DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
Also known as debt coverage ratio, this indicator is the ratio of net operating income to total
debt service. It is the amount of cash flow available to meet interest, principal, and sinking fund
payments. The ratio is calculated as follows:
Total operating revenue — Total 0&M costs
Debt service coverage ratio =
Total debt service
AWWA provides the following definitions:
• Total operating revenue—revenue derived directly from sales plus other regular income
sources related to the normal business operations of the utility.
• Total O&M costs—costs for salaries, direct benefits, and all costs necessary to support
utility services. These include pumping costs associated with treatment and distribution
or collection, as well as supporting functions, such as any related portion of centralized
HR services, call center, health, safety, etc.
• Total debt service—the annual sum of principal and interest payments as required by
short- and long-term obligations.
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San's FY 18-19 reported performance is based upon pre-audited figures. Total operating
revenue for Central San includes City of Concord and ad valorem revenues. Total 0&M costs
include Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) costs. No adjustments were made to
exclude Recycled Water or HHW costs, as they would not materially affect the outcome of the
ratio. To align with how Central San typically reports its Debt Service Coverage Ratio, Central
San adjusted the formula provided by AWWA and added non-operating revenue to the
numerator, as follows:
Debt service coverage ratio (Central San Methodology)
Total operating revenue — Total Operations and Maintenance costs (excluding depreciation)
_ +non— operating revenue
Total debt service
Commentary
The AWWA definition does not state whether to include depreciation in the total O&M costs. It
is Central San's opinion that it should, in order to produce consistent data among the
participating agencies.
CA Agency Data Independent Review Findings
Central San found the data reported by the participating agencies to be sometimes inconsistent
with the figures available online via each agency's CAFR. Moreover, total debt service (principal
and interest) is calculated differently per each agency's bond covenants. Recent bond
refinancing can also distort the principal payments and produce an inaccurate picture of a
39
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 228 of 414
Page 43 of 167
Financial Strength
utility's overall debt service. In the end, each agency relies on debt differently, and the reported
results of this indicator do not necessarily speak to an agency's financial health or ability to
meet debt service obligations.
DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
9
8
8 7.75 .06
e7
6.72 6.88
m6
7 5
d-4
S 3.07
rn 3 2.33 2.56
2.25 2.27
2 1.81 1.85 1 11 1.34
1.85
1.39 1.45 1.51 1.34
0.77 0.78 0.75 .3 0.70
1 � 1 0■2 0■5 9, 1 I 11"' 11
D -
Z"'(:1 CENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
CA NMS`only and combined utilities WN only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(10 participants) (9 participants) (39 participants) 106,061-560,600 >500,000
(22 participants) (13 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
9
e.os
8 7.75
7 6.72 6.88
K
m6
e
a 5
V
d4
y 3
3.20
-07
w 3 2.33 2.46 2.64 270
2.13
0 2 181 1.65 1.51
0.77 0.78 I
1 0.32 0.35 0.52 G.01 0.02 0.03 0.28 0.53
0 ■ ■ ■
�d1h^FJ^�^Fy11.k 4%' e�®a`�c 01 IGII ea�c 1 a�c gal' 1
;11 aap 1411 01
a�p 1411 1;11
/- gl CENTRALSAN FY 15-15 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
CA WW only and combined utilities NM'only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(.10 participants) (16 participants) (30 participants) 106,061-500,000 >500,000
(19 participants) (15 participants)
* Because Central San has so little debt, its debt service coverage ratio is expected to be significantly higher than
others'.Over time, as debt is issued,Central San's ratio will become closer to the benchmarking peer data.
40
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 229 of 414
Page 44 of 167
Financial Strength
DAYS OF WORKING CAPITAL
This indicator refers to how many days it takes for a company to convert its working capital into
revenue, which measures how efficiently a company is functioning. It is calculated as shown
below:
Days of working capital
_ (Current unrestricted assets — current liabilities)
[(Operating expenses excluding depreciation/365 days a year)]
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San's FY 18-19 reported performance is based upon pre-audited figures. The Pension
Expense Adjustment and OPEB Expense Adjustment have not been updated for FY 18-19 since
the actuarial report was not received at the time this study was published. The FY 17-18
amounts were used in the current liabilities calculation.
41
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 230 of 414
Financial Strength
DAYS OF WORKING CAPITAL
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AVMA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
1244
1.071
1.012
1444
800 738
ca
576 616
600 521 .517
Q 478
412 428 433 455 463
400 335 3
305 i6
0 109
234
203 173 1g8
200 120 59 I 128 152 92
0 132 148
' � — ' '
�No SNA G �NIb ry �4a a'�(ti 40 �
Ell
[r',1ISE NTRAL SM IFY 15-16 FY 15-16 IFY 15-16 FY 15-16 IFY 16-17 FY 15-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
'Ara" Wa utilities Combined utilities Population Population AW only utilities ConibinedulJlities Papulation Population
(8 participants) (2a participants; 100,001—500.000 >E04,0-00 {1.0 participants; (35 participants) 1OL.0-01—50-0.L70L7 '500,040
,13 participants) H2 participants'. -'14 part cipants; i14 participants}
42
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 231 of 414
Page 46 of 167
Financial Strength
OPERATING RATIO
This indicator is a utility's operating expenses divided by operating revenue or net sales, taking
into account expansion or debt repayment. It is reported as a percentage and calculated as
follows:
Total 0&M costs
Operating ratio (%) = Total operating revenue
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San's FY 18-19 reported performance is based upon pre-audited figures. Recycled
Water and HHW costs were excluded from total O&M costs, and City of Concord and ad
valorem revenues were included in total operating revenue. In Central San's CAFR, Operating
Revenue includes City of Concord revenues for 0&M, but not capital revenues, and excludes
capacity fees.
To calculate the reported operating ratio, Central San calculated its Operating Ratio as it would
traditionally, which captures the fullest measure of costs and revenues:
Operating ratio (%) (Central San Methodology)
Total 0&M costs
Total operating revenues + Non Operating Revenues + Capital Contributions
Inputs FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Total O&M (exclusiveofdepreciation) $87,572,548 $88,119,374 $78,572,632 $74,907,487
Total Operating Revenue+
Non Operating Revenues
$157,997,802 $145,568,368 $134,531,374 $127,755,866
(including Ad Valorem taxes,permit fees)+
Capital Contributions
Reported Operating Ratio 55% 61% 58% 59%
Performing the simplest calculation following AWWA's methodology using the CAFR as another
agency would use their CAFR yields the ratios in the below table, provided as a reference:
Inputs FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Total O&M (inclusive of depreciation) $97,792,517 $101,464,785 $109,681,078 $108,551,901
Total Operating Revenue $87,734,536 $88,625,441 $92,496,435 $85,678,165
Operating Ratio Following o 0 0 0
AWWA's Methodology 111/ 114/ 119/ 127/
Commentary/CA Agency Data Independent Review Findings
Central San found the data reported by the participating agencies to be sometimes inconsistent
with the figures available online via each agency's CAFR. This is partly attributable to AWWA's
silence on whether to include depreciation in total O&M costs. Additionally, total operating
revenue can vary from utility to utility. Each agency has different revenue sources that they
43
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 232 of 414
Page 47 of 167
Financial Strength
allocate in some cases subjectively to support various service offerings. How they classify those
funds and the purposes for which they are used are different and can render the ability to make
apples-to-apples comparisons difficult.
OPERATING RATIO
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) FAWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
100 —
90 83
SO
70 _ 67 fib
c 61 53 59 60 62 59
60 55 54 55
50 51 50 52
48 48 d1 47
50 44
40 ii 36
r
O 30
20
10
II . .
�kv N�^ ^,�N ��^9 y9k���mc .1�i° ryh°�° a.Pc A�° to OIIN A�1° e � ° ry��`$6 A ry�l'gasc �ydw 0'3A°
�[.',1 CENTRRL SAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
CA VM only andcombined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
00 participants] [7 participants) 15p participants) 100,001–500,000 >500,000
[23 participants'. [18 participants'.
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) FAWMSurvey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
100
90 83 66 86 I
8D 72
a° 70 62 fi5 68 61
0 61 59 59 I 6058
60 55 54
51 50 53d8
47 47
50 43 41
e 4D
0 30
0 Ell
10 1
20
1
ZgPCENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-15 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
CA WW only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
{10 participants) [71 participants] i58 participants) 100,001–500,000 >500,000
[30 participants; (27 participants)
44
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 233 of 414
Page 48 of 167
Financial Strength
BOND RATING
This indicator is a grade that indicates a utility's creditworthiness as assigned by one or more of
the nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSOs) such as Standard & Poor's
(S&P), Moody's, and Fitch. These independent entities provide evaluations of a bond issuer's
financial strength based on its ability to pay a bond's principal and interest in a timely fashion,
and such ratings are viewed as an overall indicator of a utility's financial health and ability to
finance needed capital investments. AWWA categorized various bond ratings from the three
rating services as Prime, High Grade, Upper Medium Grade, and Low Medium Grade, as follows:
Bond Rating Rating Category
Moody's S&P Fitch
Aaa AAA AAA Prime
Aa1 AA+ AA+ High grade
Aa2 AA AA
Aa 3 AA- AA-
AI A+ A+ Upper medium grade
A2 A A
A3 B A-
Baa 12 3 BBB +/- B+/- Lower medium grade
Central San has received a consistent AAA rating (Prime) from S&P and an Aa1 rating (High
Grade) from Moody's for the last four FYs and has not applied for or received any ratings from
Fitch.
The following graphs show where Central San lies in the benchmarking comparison among CA
agencies surveyed by Central San, presented in groups of each rating service, and the aggregate
nationwide data from the AWWA survey for FYs 15-16 and 16-17. The AWWA data is presented
as one graph per FY, which only indicates the Rating Category and not indicating the rating
services.
45
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 234 of 414
Page 49 of 167
Financial Strength
BOND RATINGS FROM S&P
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)
7
s s s
s
5
,54
3
2 2 2
2
1 1 1
1
0 . . 0 6 0
Prime High Grade Upper Medium Grade Low Medium Grade
Rating Category
I CENTRALSM •I=Y 15-16 ■FY 16-17 FY 17-18
(9 participants (9 pafinparts, (9 participants,
Prime for FYs 15-16, not incl.Central San) not incl.Central San) not incl.Central San)
16-17,and 17-18
BOND RATINGS FROM MOODY'S
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)
9
S
8
T 7
7
6
N
a 4
3
2
1
1
0 0 0 ■ 0 0 0 0 0 6
Prime High Grade Upper Medium Grade Low Medium Grade
Rating Category
■FY 15-16 ■FY 16-17 FY 17-18
(7 participants, (3 participants, (8 participants,
not incl.Central San) not ind.Central San) not ind.Central San)
L4'L CEHTaar Snr+
Grade for FYs 15-16,
16-17,and 17-18
46
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 235 of 414
Page 50 of 167
Financial Strength
BOND RATINGS FROM ALL RATING SERVICES
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
45
40
40
36
35
30
N
d
25
0 20 18 17
15 13 12
10 7 7
6
5 2 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
VWV Only Utility Combined Utility Population 100,001-500,000 Population>500,000
FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-15 FY 15-16
(9 participants, (65 participants, (55 participants, (32 participants,
not ind.Central San) not incl.Central San) not incl.Central San] not incl.Central San]
Prime High Grade Upper Medium Grade Low Medium Grade
AV —��
ICENTRALSAN ZOO_CENTRAL SAN
Prime(S&P)for High Grade(Moody's)for
FYs 15-16,1617,17-18,arrd 18-19 FYs 15-16,16-17,17-18,and 18-19
BOND RATINGS FROM ALL RATING SERVICES
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
45 42
40
40
35
30 27
N
d
25
2
19
0
15 13
10 9
5 4 4
1 0 0 1 1 1 0
n ,o
WW Only Utility Combined Utility Population 100,001 500,000 Population>500,000
FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
(10 participants. (66 participants, (55 participants; (43 participants.
not incl.Central San) not incl.Central San) not incl.Central San] not incl.Central San]
Prime High Grade Upper Medium Grade Low Medium Grade
CFN rRAL Sr:N Z(i I CENTRAL SAN
Prime(S&P)for High Grade[Moody's)for
FYs 15-16,16-17,17-18,and 18-19 FYs 15-16,16-17,17-18,and 18-19
47
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 236 of 414
Page 51 of 167
Financial Strength
INSURANCE AVERAGE SEVERITY
This suite of insurance performance indicators is designed by AWWA to examine the number,
type, and severity of insurance claims to understand insurance coverage strength and
vulnerability. This indicator also aligns with the EUM attribute on Enterprise Resiliency and can
be used to anticipate and avoid operational challenges. The insurance-related measures, along
with other measures, can help utilities to plan for and maintain business continuity. In
determining total number of claims, AWWA instructed to include tort claims (claims that have
been filed against the utility) and exclude tort notices (notice to the utility of intent to file a
claim).
This indicator was a new addition to the 2018 AWWA Utility Benchmarking book; thus, only FY
16-17 nationwide AWWA data is available for comparison.
The sub-indicators are calculated as follows; however, the only sub-indicator with aggregate
data reported in the AWWA book is Severity per Claim.
NUMBER OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
Number of insurance claims
200,000 x (Number of general liability and auto insurance claims)
Total hours worked by all employees
SEVERITY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
Severity of insurance claims
200,000 x (Total dollar amount of general liablity and auto insurance claims)
Total hours worked by all employees
SEVERITY PER CLAIM
$ Reported severity
Average severity ( ) _
claim Reported number of claims
Central San Data Calculation Method
For FYs 15-16— FY 18-19, Central San had zero insurance claims to report as defined by AWWA
as there were none reported to the insurance carrier.
48
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 237 of 414
Page 52 of 167
Financial Strength
SEVERITY PER CLAIM
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY15-16 Data)—Unavailable
FY 15-16 data nationwide data is unavailable as this indicator was a new addition to the 2018 AWWA
Utility Benchmarking book.
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
12,000
10.344
70,000
E
R
8,000
6,541 6.580
v 6,000
`m
CL
4,000
2,553 2,260
w
2,000 L 1.583 1,903 1,377
r1 1 , 10
0 0 D 0 NA NA NA
0
til �w as c 1= l c 10 1 �a
14' 'L' �eaa 1g '�E' �ga�Q 1
Z11—CENTRAL SAN F1'15-17 FY 16-17 FY 15-15 FY 16-16
WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(5 participants) (26 participants) 100,ff01—500,000 >EKDO0
(14 participants) (7 participants)
49
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 238 of 414
Page 53 of 167
Financial Strength
CLAIMS (NOT INCLUDED IN AWWA UTILITY BENCHMARKING SURVEY)
Because Central San has zero insurance claims to report as defined by AWWA, provided for
reference below is the historical trend of Central San's total number of claims from third parties
both denied and processed, including overflows, professional liability, plumbing
reimbursements, general liability, and auto liability. These were self-insured losses that are not
considered "claims" by insurance industry standards.
Claims FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Paid 24 20 10 17
Denied 1 2 2 5
Tendered or Subrogated 0 1 4 0
Total 25 23 16 22
Central San Data
30
25 0
1
1 U
2
2U 3
N
r 75
L3 d
24
2
10 20
17
5 10
0
n6 n1 n�
Paid Denied Tendered or Subrogated
,er44110ENTRAL SAN
rumn
Commentary
To better capture the data intended to be captured, it is Central San's opinion that AWWA
should collect information on all insurance claims, including self-insured losses not reported to
the insurance carrier. This would better reflect costs to the utility from claims than the AWWA
methodology above, which only captures the cost of claims reported to the insurance carrier.
50
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 239 of 414
Page 54 of 167
Customer Service
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
CUSTOMER SERVICE
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE CHARGES
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL WW BILL AMOUNT FOR ONE MONTH OF SERVICE
This sub-indicator allows utilities to compare their residential charges for WW services based on
an average residential bill.
Below is a table showing how Central San's residential rates compare to other agencies in the
Bay Area, provided for reference:
San Francisco PUC
Berkeley(EBMUD for treatment)
Santa Rosa
Rodeo Sanitary District
Benicia
Petaluma
Richmond
Crockett Sanitary Department ,
Oakland(EBMUD for treatment)
San Leandro(EBMUD for treatment)
Napa Sanitation District
Average of Agencies Surveyed
Livermore
Brentwood
West County Wastewater District
Novato Sanitary District
Central San(FY 19-20)
Pittsburg(Delta Diablo for treatment)
Sunnyvale
Concord(CCCSD for treatment)
Mt View Sanitary District
Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control
Central San(FY 18-19)
Antioch(Delta Diablo for treatment)
Bay Point(Delta Diablo for treatment) ,
Stege SD(EBMUD for treatment)
Pleasanton(DSRSD for treatment)
Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District ,
San Jose
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Union Sanitary District
Castro Valley Sanitary District
Hayward
Oro Loma Sanitary District
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800
51
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 240 of 414
Page 55 of 167
Customer Service
Central San Data Calculation Method
To calculate this for Central San, the annual Sewer Service Charge (SSC) rate was divided by 12
to yield a monthly average. Ad valorem taxes collected were not included in the reported bill
amount because Central San did not benchmark against agencies that specifically collect ad
valorem and may use those funds to offset rates.
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL WW BILL AMOUNT FOR ONE MONTH OF SERVICE
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) �FAWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data}
s6.00
a
0.27 51.27
E Z 50.00 47.25 45.64
¢ 44.17 44.20 43.26 45.10
= v 41.92 4060
$ 40.00 39.25 8.47 36.66 34.02 34.93 33.67
29.fi6 29.62 2921 30.79 30.77
30.00 26.fi6
0 27.64 . 27.38 27.22
�
c�
m v
a
20.00
do
w 10.00
a o.00
4. hl= 1 gl �1� Sao gaa 0.�
�5 1 �� p6a ti 6a ro �a s zr 1 ro ti ti p
�Q,I CENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 15-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
NM'only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
CAN•Wonly and combined utilities (9partiapants) (71 participants) 100,001-590,000 >50a•000
(7 participants) (36 participants) (25 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(Californ�) [AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
w 50.00 44.17 47.251 44.20 33.21 43.10 43.53 44.59
45.00 41.92
40.80
39.25 38.47 38.58
a,40.00
E36.74
a� 35.00 1 11 34.2432.87
29.66 29.62 30.79 29.211 30.63 11m 30.00 26.66 27.64 27.59 2589
w 25.80
v 25.00
R L
a
0 20.00
15.00
yr
O 10.00
o:� II 1 1
^y,,`O �6^1 �1'I, A, �`ac ag�`0 P�e 1e ti0, �`�c 1y� � �`�c 0�, ��a �ti�o ��� ry�� �`�c 1141,.
_*w,'gj CENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
WW ornN utilities Combined utildies Population Population
CA VVW only and combined utilities (10 participants) (83 participants) 100,001-500,fl00 >500.000
(7 participants) (53 participants) (29 participants)
* Central San's reported bill amount does not include ad valorem taxes collected.The CA agency data makes no
distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined utilities), are retail agencies,or are agencies
that are part of a larger operation.These differences could all have an impact on rates.
52
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 241 of 414
Page 56 of 167
Customer Service
NONRESIDENTIAL SERVICE CHARGES-
AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL WW BILL AMOUNT FOR ONE MONTH OF SERVICE
(NOT INCLUDED IN AWWA UTILITY BENCHMARKING SURVEY)
The AWWA survey did not include an indicator for nonresidential service charges, so Central
San has benchmarked against itself and CA agencies.
Below is a chart showing how Central San's nonresidential rates compare to other agencies in
the Bay Area, provided for reference:
(*)Santa Rosa
(*)San Francisco PUC
Napa Sanitation District
Stege SD(EBMUD for treatment)
Petaluma
(*)Rodeo Sanitary District
West County Wastewater District
Mt View Sanitary District
(*)Benicia
(*)Brentwood
(*)Richmond
Central San(FY 19-20)
Average of Agencies Surveyed
Bay Point(Delta Diablo for treatment)
Concord 57R12 I
(*)Union Sanitary District q7 771; 1
Havward
Central San(FY 18-19)
Oakland(EBMUD for treatment)
Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District
Sunnyvale
(*)Livermore
Pleasanton(DSRSD for treatment)
Pittsburg(Delta Diablo for treatment)
Antioch(Delta Diablo for treatment)
San Jose
San Leandro � ]
Oro Loma Sanitary District
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Berkeley(EBMUD for treatment)
Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control 2
Castro Valley Sanitary District2
(*)Crockett Sanitary Department X24
$ $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000$10,000
*FY 19-20 rate
53
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 242 of 414
Page 57 of 167
Customer Service
Central San Data Calculation Method
The reported amounts for Central San are the average charges, derived from the tax roll, for all
non-residential customers. Ad valorem taxes collected were not included in the reported bill
amount. This is because Central San did not benchmark against agencies that specifically collect
ad valorem and may use those funds to offset rates.
AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL WW BILL AMOUNT FOR ONE MONTH OF SERVICE
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 and FY 16-17 Data)— Unavailable
AWWA Nationwide Data unavailable as this indicator was not included in AWWA's Utility
Benchmarking book.
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)
Central San Survey(California)
600.00
500.00 476.56 476.64
418.46 418.97
436.68 446.35 449.07
400.00
Fa ,300.00 261.61 272.51 287.03
N
Fax200.00
c 117.65 118.79
132.62
v
100.00 '
c d
0 0
2 0.00
a
a
,(.,I CENTRAL SAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-13
CA VVW only and combined utilities
(5 participants)
* Central San's reported bill amount does not include ad valorem taxes collected.The CA agency data information
makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined utilities), are retail agencies,or are
agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could all have an impact on rates.
54
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 243 of 414
Page 58 of 167
Customer Service
SERVICE AFFORDABILITY
This indicator measures the affordability of WW services as a percentage of local median
household income (MHI) and is calculated as follows:
Service affordability (% of MHI)
Average residential monthly wastewater bill x 12
Real median annual household income
Central San Data Calculation Method
To calculate this for Central San, the real median annual household income used was the
weighted average of annual household incomes of the cities in the service area, including
Concord and Clayton, according to the 2012-2016 American Community Survey (census) for
Contra Costa County.
Central San is presenting two sets of data: 1) including ad valorem taxes collected in the bill
amount and 2) excluding ad valorem taxes. It is important to note that Central San did not
benchmark against agencies that specifically collect ad valorem and may use those funds to
offset rates. This survey also does not make a distinction between agencies that provide dual
services (combined utilities), are retail agencies, or are agencies that are part of a larger
operation. These differences could all have an impact on rates.
55
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 244 of 414
Customer Service
SERVICE AFFORDABILITY
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15.16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
1.2 .12
1.09
1.05
99
1 0.94 0.96 0.98 0. 4.92 0.136 0.92
0.83 0.84 0.84 0.82
_ 0.8 0.79 0.78 0.75
0.69
i0 0 6a 0.61
`p 0.6 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.55 4.57 0.56 0.52 0,5
� 0.
Q 4 Q.
as
0.4
m
0.2
0 I '
Ali ,�c?l ���<' A 1° 1161� 411
% e
excl.ad
valorem taxes FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
incl.ad
valorem taxes WIN only utilities Combined utilities Population Population ti/y'IN only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Population
(8 participants) (65 participants) 100,001—500,000 >500,000 (10 participants) (75 participants) 100,001 —500,000 >500.000
(4�1_CENT RALSAW (32 participants) (23 participants) I41 participants) (27 participants)
"This information makes no distinction between agencies that are wholesale or retail agencies or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These
differences could all have an impact on rates.
56
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 245 of 414
Page 60 of 167
Customer Service
SERVICE COMPLAINTS
This suite of indicators provides the complaint frequency, expressed as the number of
complaints per 1,000 customer accounts. Two types of complaints are described by AWWA:
1) customer service (people related) and 2) technical (product related), and only those
complaints which are related to utility business and are logged, whether acted on or not, are to
be counted. AWWA provides the following definition:
• Complaint—an expression of dissatisfaction conveyed to a utility employee acting in his
or her official capacity. A complaint is a request for action, whereas an inquiry is a
request for information. Complaints may be communicated orally or in writing.
CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS
The customer service complaint frequency sub-indicator is expressed as the number of
complaints per 1,000 customer accounts, calculated as follows:
Customer service complaints / 1,000 accounts
_ Total number of customer service complaints x 1,000
Number of residential accounts + Number of nonresidential accounts
AWWA provides the following definition:
• Customer service complaint—refers to relationship factors, such as personal
appearance, courteousness, helpfulness, professionalism, responsiveness, adherence to
traffic laws while driving a vehicle, and timeliness. This also includes issues with
customer support services, such as billing, rate setting, and communication.
Central San Data Calculation Method
To calculate this for Central San, various customer-facing divisions were asked to submit data.
The number of accounts used does not include Concord and Clayton accounts. The Rates & Fees
and Environmental Compliance work groups were contacted, but neither tracks complaints. The
respondent work groups at Central San included the following:
• Risk Management, who track driving-related complaints
• Permit Counter, who track complaints via customer satisfaction surveys (but not prior to
March 2016)
• Collection System Operations (CSO), who perform service requests resulting from
customer service complaints (not tracked prior to FY 17-18)
• Front Desk (not tracked prior to FY 17-18)
• Secretary of the District, who track Proposition 218 protests to rate-setting (FY 15-16
and 16-17 only since Central San did not issue a Proposition 218 notice in FY 17-18).
57
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 246 of 414
Customer Service
CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
1.2
1.6
� � 7
0.9 0.9
C ° 0.8
0.3
00 O-7
O1 �_ 0.6 0.6
} i 0.6
CL 0.5 0.5
m 0.4 OA 0.4
g
0.4
o 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 4.2
0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.1
O ' 0.:3 ' 0 ' 0 0 0 '
hfi "A ti� ti� eQ% '345e 4345eC, ��a �5�a li�a r'}O�a �(y l��c
le 0
�1ICENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-1'
WW only ulilities Combined utilities Population Population WW only utilities Gombined utilities Population Population
(7 participants) (14 parlicipanls) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (5 participants) (S participants) >500 000
(5 participants) (7 parlicipards) 'I:a tiviaantsi (6 participants 1
58
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 247 of 414
Page 62 of 167
Customer Service
TECHNICAL SERVICE COMPLAINTS
The technical service complaint frequency sub-indicator is expressed as the number of
complaints per 1,000 customer accounts, calculated as follows:
Technical service complaints / 1,000 accounts
Total number of technical service complaints x 1,000
Number of residential accounts + Number of nonresidential accounts
AWWA provides the following definition:
• Technical service complaint—directly related to core services of the utility. This includes
complaints associated with odor, sewage backups and overflows, disruptions of service,
disruptions of traffic, and facilities upkeep.
Central San Data Calculation Method
To calculate this for Central San, various customer-facing divisions were asked to submit data.
The number of accounts used does not include Concord and Clayton accounts. The internal
respondent divisions included the following:
• Communication Services, who receive construction project complaints
• CSO, who perform service requests in response to complaints and track odor complaints
related to the collection system (not tracked prior to FY 17-18)
• Plant Operations, for odor complaints related to the Plant.
59
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 248 of 414
Customer Service
TECHNICAL SERVICE COMPLAINTS
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
24
18.4
18
C 16 I 15.4
tG 4
E 14
U o 12 I I 11.8
1°
ss r 10 9.7
Q a
CO U) 8 I 6.6 7.1 I 7.2
C 6.2
.� 6
4.3 I 4.5 4.7
3.3
0 4 I �
2.6 3 I 2.3 2.1 2.2
1.0
_�
a
� 1.5 1.1
2 ° : ■ ■ 1 0.5 11I 1 ■
ka a4� At, ��o aha � o Eska .v#'ZI A6 ��o aha ho ��4ka
.IL CENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
VVW only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Population 1'"1y!'4'only utilities Combined utilities Population Papulation
(6 participants) (25 participants) 100,001 —500 000 55N,a0Q (7 participants) (25 participants) 10001—500;000 X500,000
X11 participants) (9 participants) (15 participants) (9 participants)
60
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 249 of 414
Page 64 of 167
Customer Service
CUSTOMER SERVICE COST PER ACCOUNT
This indicator measures the amount of resources a utility applies to its customer service
program over the course of a year, expressed as the cost of managing a single customer
account for one year, calculated as follows:
Customer service cost per account (annual $ / account)
Total annual customer service costs
Number of residential accounts + Number of nonresidential accounts
AWWA provides the following definition:
• Customer service costs—all direct salaries, employee benefits, and direct costs, including
contracts that are associated with providing the following services to customers, plus a
proportional share of total utility indirect costs, for the following services: bill
preparation and delivery; payment receipt and processing; records maintenance;
receipt, investigation, and resolution of complaints; and preparation and provision of
outreach and education materials, including the Consumer Confidence Report.
Central San Data Calculation Method
To calculate this for Central San, various divisions who perform the tasks delineated by the
AWWA definition were asked to submit data. The number of accounts used does not include
Concord and Clayton accounts. The respondents included the following:
• CSO, for costs of fulfilling service requests (not tracked prior to FY 17-18)
• Communication Services, for costs of producing the Pipeline customer newsletter,
Proposition 218 notices, and educational videos. Costs of student educational programs
(e.g., Delta Discovery Voyage and Sewer Science) and production of the Budget Book,
Strategic Plan, and Lateral Connection employee newsletter were excluded.
• Capital Projects, for costs of investigating and resolving customer complaints. It should
be noted that the costs reported are actual project costs not including employee
benefits. There is no tracking mechanism for actual labor costs including overhead.
• Rates and Fees, for costs of payment receipt/processing and records maintenance
associated with new account setup.
• Permit Counter, for costs of payment receipt/processing and records maintenance.
• Secretary of the District was contacted for costs related to processing Proposition 218
and Public Records Act (PRA) requests, but these are not tracked and time spent is
unquantifiable. The work group noted that other divisions also receive PRA requests
directly, and there would not be a way to calculate time spent by them.
61
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 250 of 414
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
CUSTOMER SERVICE COST PER ACCOUNT
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
45.44
40.9240.8 8
«- 44.44
39.96
= 36.82
a
35.44 32.77
4
`w 34.44
CL
025.44 22.09 23.97 23.66
22.35 22.49 20.99
*a 24.44 78.64 1} ag 19.74 19.33
16.38 15.40 14.9515.34
15.40 74.37
12.39 12.44 12.55 11.22
0 14.00 6.91 9.27
u«
7.15
ZP
5.00
O AO 55��
#L ' k' k � 5 y}ti (� n •4 r a'. �y r� Ae
I CENTRAL FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 13-17
LVW only utilities Combined utilities Populalion Population VIlW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(6 participants) (32 participants) 100,001-500,0100 >500,400 (9 participants) (33 participants) 100.001-500.0-DO >500,000
(17 parlicipanls) (12 participants) (25 parlicipants) 111 participants}
62
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 251 of 414
Page 66 of 167
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH INDEX
This indicator provides a measure of a utility's stakeholder outreach activities. It is calculated
based on self-assigned points found in the various categories in the stakeholder outreach
checklist. Utilities were asked to have senior management assign values to each statement
based on evidence that existed during the reporting period. The index is expressed as the total
score as a percentage of the maximum possible score of 12. The values are as follows:
• 2 -This practice is used at least annually by our utility
• 1 -This practice is used by our utility with less-than annual frequency
• 0 -This practice is not used at our utility
Central San Data Calculation Method
The Communication Services and Intergovernmental Relations Manager scored Central San as
follows:
Stakeholder Outreach Index Statement FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Score Score Score Score do
We conduct customer satisfaction surveys that 2 2 2 2
result in a statistically significant measure (or set of
measures) for customer satisfaction.
We use the results of customer satisfaction surveys 2 2 2 2
to improve our processes, practices and systems.
With three or more groups, we conduct interviews, 2 2 2 2
open forums, or focus groups with key stakeholders
such as public officials, regulators, community
representatives, special-interest groups,
developers, contractors, etc.
At three or more events, we provide open 2 2 2 2
stakeholder communication through publicly-
offered tours, speaking engagements, actively-
managed booths/kiosks, etc.
Through three or more outlets, we provide 2 2 2 2
outreach programs/products to targeted
stakeholders via the media, mailers, newsletters,
etc.
We regularly review all sources of stakeholder 2 2 2 2
feedback and develop actions to address areas of
dissatisfaction or opportunities for improvement.
of Possible Points(out of 12 points) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
63
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 252 of 414
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH INDEX
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AVVVVA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
720.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 104.0 100.0 10 0.0 10 0.0 100.0 104.0 100.0
700.0
91.7 91.7 92.0
_ 83.3 83.0 83.0
a
a 84.0 '6.F, 75.0 75.0 75.3
ti
66.7 66.7 67.0 67.0
63.0
00 84.4
L G�
a —
a ;g
= H 40.0
a �
� Q
20A
0.0
AID
FY 15-16 FY 15-15 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
I CENTRAL SAN
4YW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population W4M1f only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(9 participants) (70 participants) 100,001—500;,000 >500,000 (9 padid panis) (82 pariicipanis) 100 001—500,000 >500,000
(55 participants) (31 participants) {59 participants) (46 parlicipards)
64
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 253 of 414
Page 68 of 167
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
CUSTOMER SERVICE CONTACT
This benchmark was initiated by AWWA in its 2017 survey collecting FY 15-16 data. The purpose
of this indicator is to obtain a better understanding of how customers are reaching out to the
utility to address inquiries or resolve customer service issues. For each method identified,
utilities were asked to indicate the percentage of customers that use each method of
communication. The methods of customer service contact reflected in the FY data set include
the following:
• Phone
• In-person
• Email
• Social media
• Other.
Central San Data Calculation Method
To calculate this for Central San, various customer-facing divisions were asked to submit their
percentage breakdown of how customers contact them, and those responses were averaged.
The respondents included the following:
• Communication Services
• Front Desk (not tracked prior to FY 17-18)
• Permit Counter (not tracked prior to FY 17-18)
• Collection System Operations
• Secretary of the District.
65
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 254 of 414
Page 69 of 167
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
CUSTOMER SERVICE CONTACT
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY15-16 Data)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 Data)
sv
82 80
sv 7n
7D 67
ra 5g 57 60
V 60
0 54
U
y 50
E
N 40 38 36
V
0 30 26 25
21
20 17
70 12 78
Q 7 5 7 q 5 5
10 = O D = 1 1 1 1 t 1 — 0 , 0 1 3 ■ 1 0—
Central Ban FY 15-16 Central San FY 16-17 Central San FYI?-IS Central San FY1S-19 AWWA-Wastewater WWA-Combined AWWA-Population AWWA-Pop.b lion
Utility{FY 15-16]-7 Utility(FY 15-16146 100.001 500,000,Median -500,006,Median
Participants Participants Responses(FY 15-161 Responses(FY 15-16)-
234Pari pante 923 lo-ficp ants
(d rife re nt M per oalegoryl id iferent M per cateaurYl
■Phone min-Person Email Social Media ■Other
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 Data)
100
89
90 82
80 75 77
u
70
0 59 57 60
U 80 54
`m
0 50
U40 38 36
0 30 2625
20
77,
72
70 10
76 0 0 ._ 7 9 10— t 7 , 4 D . 5 1 7 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 :2 2 =
Central San FY15-16 Central San FY 16-17 Central San FY 17-18 Central San FY 18-19 AWWA-Waslewater AWWA Combined AWWA-Pop,lat on AWWA-Population
Utility(FY 16171-7 Utility(FY16-17) 4S 100,001-600,000,11Aedian 1500,006,Median
Participants Panicipa Res ponses(FY 18-17)- ResponsesIFY 16-17)-
10-47 Participants 10-27 Participants
id ff.rent4per [different#par
category] cat.G.ryl
■Phone min-Person Email Social Media ■Other
66
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 255 of 414
Page 70 of 167
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS
This suite of indicators quantifies the number of planned and unplanned WW outages
experienced by utility customers per 1,000 customer accounts and the time to address them.
Also included is the distribution of WW service disruptions, planned and unplanned, by event
duration.
AWWA provides the following definitions:
• Disruption of service—any event within treatment facilities or the distribution or
collection system under control of the utility whereby a customer loses service.
Disruptions are further sub-categorized as "planned" or "unplanned."
o Planned service disruptions— prior notice is given to all affected customers.
o Unplanned service disruptions—performed under emergency conditions when prior
customer notice is not possible.
The benchmarks associated with WW Service Disruptions are calculated as follows:
PLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS <4 HOURS, 4-12 HOURS, >12 HOURS
UNPLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS <4 HOURS, 4-12 HOURS, >12 HOURS
Disruptions of wastewater service (outages/1,000 accounts)
1,000 x total number of disruptions (planned or unplanned)
Number of active residential accounts + Number of nonresidential accounts
AVERAGE TIME TO ADDRESS PLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS
AVERAGE TIME TO ADDRESS UNPLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS
Average time to address wastewater service disruptions (hours)
Total time to address wastewater service disruptions
Total number of wastewater service disruptions
DISRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX— PLANNED AND UNPLANNED
DISRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX— PLANNED ONLY
DISRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX — UNPLANNED ONLY
Disruption frequency index
Total number of wastewater service disruptions x 1,000
Number of active residential accounts + Number of nonresidential accounts
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San has zero disruptions to service, planned or unplanned, for all three FYs in question.
Even in the cases of sanitary sewer overflows or lateral reconnections, customers do not lose
WW service.
67
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 256 of 414
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
PLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS <4 HOURS
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
2.50
us 2.06
o 2.00
2
V
V
c
0 1.50
CLC
3
rn
1.00
0.58
cc 0.50 0.34
0,15
0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 D,DU 0..i 0,02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.4
0,00 IL iL — —
J'_'�_'I CENTRAL Sr1N Fl 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 Ff 16-17
VVVV only utilities Combined utilities Population Populalion 41W only utilities Combined utilities popu ation POP ation
(5 participants) (46 padicipards) 100,001—500,000 >500,000 ('' participants;' (40 participants;' 100,001—500,000 >500,000
(20 participants) (16 participants} ;23 parlicipanis) ,13 padicipanis)
PLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS 4-12 HOURS AND >12 HOURS
0.0 across the board for both Central San and AWWA survey agencies (FYs 15-16 and 16-17).
68
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 257 of 414
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
AVERAGE TIME TO ADDRESS PLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
A WA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
16.D 15.2
14.D
c 12.0 91.6
c
pR 4
a-=
�1D.D
8.5 8.1 8.1
d
3 3.0
p yr 6.2 6.0
m 5.0 4.9 5.2
E_ s 4.6 4.3
a 3,5
m `m 4.0 3.3
ML4n
2.0 1.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 U.0 0.0 ' 0.D0 0.00 4.40
0.0
h" ^", %* ,, 0 'A" tel` A�o �y i C� A o Opti �$ e i- o0 0e #t o %* lr o�v t
# NSF 0�'�, OQ _* $ `? '�`7 "7 ,^7 `7 a j 4P 'k '� $ ' �r '` '
_!gO_CEr4TLkj-S,+N FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 F�16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16.17
VvW only ulildies Combined utilities Papulation Population 'MN aQ/ulililies ConlDined utilities Population Population
(6 parlicipanls) (as parlicipants) 100,001-500,000 >500.000 (2 pariicipanis) (7 participants) 100,001-500,000 }50U:000
;17 pariicipanis) f15 participants; (5 participants) (3 participants)
69
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 258 of 414
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
UNPLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS <4 HOURS
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data) A WA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
2.50
2.06
2.00
V
4A
1.50
CL
M
0
1.00 0.93 0.98
0.78
= 0.58
a 0.50 0,47 i 4,45
€ 0.27 0.34
:3 0.19
0.10 D,15 4.1�
0.04 0.07
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 E 0.00 0.40 4,00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00
0.00
, i1�i {.�° C" °,° q°- {,x°�° �a (4 {�°�° y,°�° (4
FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-10" FY 15-163 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
�11-CE"TPAL Sala
s"s�dJ only utilities combined utilities Populalion Population Lbti4'only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(A participants) f42 participants,, 100.401—501),040 X500,400 ;9 parlicipantsl (44 participants) 140,001 —500.000 >500,000
(20 parlicipanis) ,16 participants;• f24 participants) ,18 Participants'-
70
articipants;70
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 259 of 414
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
UNPLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS 4-12 HOURS
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-16 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
0.30
0.25
0 0.25
= 0.23
c
0.20
C
w
0.15
0.10 0.09 .09
0.07
c
0,05 0.03
4 41
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 4 01 0 02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d' I CFNTRALSAN FY 15-'6 FY 1.5-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 =r'16-17 FY 16-17 F`(16-17 FY 16-17
onl_:utilities Ccmo-ned utilities Population Population 'e& Only utildies Combined uiililies Population Papulation
(6 participants; (42 partic.pants',- 100.001-500.000 .504,000 lE participants) (42 participants) 100.001 -500.000 }500,000
(20 participants) (16 participants) (22parlicipaids) (17participwds)
71
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 260 of 414
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
UNPLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS >12 HOURS
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) A WhlA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
U.05
0.04 0.04
6- 0.04
0
2
0.04
A 0.03
0.03
0
w
C 0.03
u�
0 0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
N ak% .�i o�v {` �° p)o $ o ,{` h°R '•.' {, ';,, I m. ''" 4;+•:" ,tp Asko '•t, .x{` fsko {�° {�
!1 CENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 =r 16-17 FY '13-17
AW ulililies Combined utilities Populalian Papulation WN only utilities Combined utilities Pop419iicn Poo.datior
(6 parlicipanis) (41 participants) 100.001-500.000 >50fl.001) (S participants) (41 participants) 100 001-504 000 >500 000
(20 participants) 115 parkipantsif23 ja tic pants;• f18 participants:
72
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 261 of 414
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
AVERAGE TIME TO ADDRESS UNPLANNED WW SERVICE DISRUPTIONS
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
9.0 8.5
8.0 8.0
� s,o
m
c
7.0 6.6
n F 6.2 6.3
:3L 6.0
0
0
R35,0 4.5
a 3.9 4.0 4.0
o CL 4.0 3,4
3.3 3.5
41 M3.2
23,0 2.5 2.7 �'p
0
m 1 2.0 2.0
2.0 1.5
m
1.0 I 0 1.0
0.5 '0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 i Q.0 0.0
'(AQ CENTRAL SAN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-i'• FY 16-17
WAW only utiliiies Combined utilities Population Population VNV only utilities Combined udlKies Population Population
i7 participants'. (38 participants) 100,001—500,000 }500,000 '6 parlicipanlsl (�5 participants) 101},001—500,000 }500,000
(17 participanfs) (15 parlicipanls) (17 parlicipanls) (13 participants)
73
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 262 of 414
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
DISRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX — PLANNED AND UNPLANNED
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-16 data) AWVWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
3.44
2.54
2.44 2.49 2.42
x = .26
13m
2,aa
1,89 1,95
ao
7 = 0
or 1.50
= m
LLMa
o m = 1.04
= v 1.00 Q•$
CL= :+
UL
4.65
'A a 0.51
F3 4.54 0.42 0.41
0.24 4, U.
0,00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.02 ' 4.44 ,78 0.1 fi 0.14' 4.44 ,20 0.03 ' 0.0
4.76 a.7a 3
4.44 —
hGQ %A 490, 0
o�F 41 �\* -0 ,* .�F �41 a y{+ A- 'dna �� �o-� �a�E �C' •�clo �clo `��� �,o
KV hfa til' ^0" 1 `L �� 11 'Y Al 1 '1 'l '1 �
&F-RMAL SAN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
VOPY onhf utilities Combined utilities Population Populalion VAV only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(6 participants) (42 participants) 100,441—500,004 >500.000 (g participants) 1,25 participants) 100,001—544,000 >500.000
1'19 parlicipants (16 padicipanls! (17 participants) 03 participants!
74
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 263 of 414
Page 78 of 167
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
DISRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX - PLANNED ONLY
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY15-16 Data)
0.0 across the board for both Central San and the agencies in the AWWA survey
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
0.03
N
0.02
sC a0.02
� O
B [a
C [)
m p o 0.02
�d �
W C d
LL C N 0.01
oao
a
Z! 0.01
is N
0.00 a.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
l�A6 ^1 NA
��n ryy11 Qo �hla ryyl, a`,� Hyl ryhla a� ^y1� ryyl # 1yla
"I lop
Z�'CCENTR,44SAN FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
%A!W only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(7 participants) {41 participants) 100.001—500.000 X500,000
(24 participants) (13 participants)
75
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 264 of 414
Performance Indicators: Customer Service
DISRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX - UNPLANNED ONLY
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
2.54 AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16.17 data)
c
0
C 2.09
m 2.44 UL
1.95
= w
1.76
_ UL ul 1,54
:3 - c
4D or Z a 7.07
LL .01 1.07
U
d =
O
0,55 4.65 0.62
i = 0.50 0.41 6.41
F3 9 �.�
CL 0.12 4.15 0.16 4.16 0.49 0.14
4.04 0.4Q 4.00 U.40 . 0=' 4.44 , 0.04 , ' , ■ Il.44 , 4.03 0.43
4.44
F� Iy1 �J 4C` Q1" @ @k@ w5@ 4l- •' ~ Y- •' '�4@ y' T5@ OO �A �5@ @59 �' 4lA
NV A' ti11V � ��� %`i 11� �� A 11, �a:'b �� `P ��� 115 ��� A� rye � •l� 10 ��.� All, 11�5 �� A16
<11
_ " CENTRALShN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
VVW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population V4'A'only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(7 parlicipanis) (42 participants) 160,001 —500.000 >500.000 (9 par5cipanis; 146 participants'. 100,001—500 000 >500.000
(20 participants) (16 padid pards) (25 participants) f13 participants:
76
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 265 of 414
Page 80 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
PRODUCTIVITY AND PERFORMANCE
SYSTEM INSPECTION
This indicator is a measure of the amount of distribution system inspection accomplished over
the course of a year and is calculated as follows:
System inspection (% of total network) _ Length of pipe inspected
Total length of pipe network
AWWA provides the following definition:
• Total length of pipe network—the total length of the distribution or collection pipe
network in a service area in miles, including mains of all diameters but not including
lateral service lines.
Central San Data Calculation Method
While Central San performs some measure of inspection when cleaning pipes, length of pipe
cleaned is not included in the length of pipe inspected. Also, due to a software conversion in
November and December 2016, no data was available for those months.
77
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 266 of 414
Page 81 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
SYSTEM INSPECTION
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey (California) �F AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
35.0
32.0
36.0
25.D 24.2
c
Missing data from 79 2
0 20.0 Nov. Dec.2016 1g,7
a + 16.4
NY1 13.6 74.9 1
75 5.0 13.9
.0 13.2 73.
w 11.1
9.9 9.7 10.7 ' 9.6 9.0
m 7D.0 7.5 .6 7.0
5.03.6 R 4.2 ' 4.1 3.4
D.D
I
.6 w1 .'. ,o' �h aac Ch1 ryry
h1° attar 1gl gl
h' 0' 1'
I&I,I CENTRALSAN F'15-16 FY 16-11 FY 17-78 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
CAVAII only and combined utilities L".n,"J only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(7 participants in FYs 15-16 and 16-17, (9 participants) (65 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500.000
6 participants in FY 17-13) (55 participants) (32 participants}
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
35.0
32.11
2
30.0 9.9
25.0 24.2
G
o Missing data from 192
t5 20.0 Nov-&Dec.2016 18A 18.6
H r
16.0
75.0 13.213.4
13.8 14.3
E 11.1 10.7 11.4
,n 9.9 9.T 9.fi , 10.1 9.1
�70.0 75 78
4.
5.0
I I �
4.2
5.0
0.0 1
,fMi-CENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
CA'A'N+only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(7 participants in FYs 15-16 and 16-17. (11 participants] (55 participants) 100.001-500.000 =500,000
6 participants in FY 17-18) x;40 participants] (31 participants)
* The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services
(combined utilities), are retail agencies, or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.
78
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 267 of 414
Page 82 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
SYSTEM RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT (R&R)
This indicator quantifies the System R&R activities in the broad asset groups of WW Collection,
WW Pumping Stations, and WW Treatment, calculated as follows:
System renewal and replacement (%)
Total expenditures or amount of funds reserved for R&R of an asset group
Total present worth of R&R needs for that asset group
AWWA states that total present worth of R&R needs typically has to be estimated, mentioning
a two-step approach:
1) A simplified approach, based on the asset replacement cost, could start with historic
asset value and use the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (CCI)
(e.g., using the CCI, the complete replacement cost for a treatment facility constructed
in 1990 would be calculated by multiplying the 1990 cost by the CCI for the reporting
year divided by the CCI for 1990).
2) Another approach is to estimate the asset life spans. When a utility calculates its own
asset life spans and when asset groups have subcategories with different lives, a
weighted average should be calculated. Default values for asset-class life spans are
100 years for WW collection system components and SO years for WW treatment and
pumping facilities. An asset age factor (asset age/estimated life span) is then applied to
the total replacement cost to estimate the total present worth of R&R needs. If the
asset age exceeds the estimated life span, an asset age factor of 1.0 should be used. For
WW pipelines for which complete cost information is absent, it is permissible to simplify
calculations by ignoring the effects of relatively low-cost WW access holes and
cleanouts.
Central San Data Calculation Method
Staff worked with AWWA to clarify the methodology described in the Utility Benchmarking
books and is having ongoing discussions with AWWA regarding this performance indicator.
The three sub-indicators of this benchmark are as follows and charts for each sub-indicator are
provided on the following pages:
SYSTEM R&R: WW COLLECTION
SYSTEM R&R: WW PUMPING STATIONS
SYSTEM R&R: WW TREATMENT
79
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 268 of 414
Page 83 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
SYSTEM R&R: WW COLLECTION
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
8.0 - 7.4
t 7.1
7.0 -
6
F.o
.0 s.1
M
0 5.0 -
'M m 4.0
i 6 3.1
c 7s
3.0
2.7
27 2.1
2.0 7 7 2.0 1.B 1.8
E 7.4 1.4
m0.0 . � � � � LI � �
uT 0.3 0A
0.0
4
FtF� F�^�^������ ��gtt�Qc 1°j,� ~y10�eaao �� 0��gatiQc 1h1opy�c �g� ~y�o01ao
_,?",F_GENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 155-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
W1n1 only utilities Combined utilities Population Papulation
CA WW only and combined utilities
(7 participants) (34 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000
(5 participants) (16 participants) (15 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY16-17 Data)
Central San Survey (California) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
e.o
7.1
c 7.0
m
e 6.0 6.1
6.0 -
m�
a�
a 5.0 4.5
9 0
y 4.0
3
3.0 .3
Ld
3.0 2.4 2.3
d 2.0 12
E2.0 1.6 1.7 1.4 1A 1.3
1115
7.0 0-3 I 0.4 I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1
0.0
N':' N' -� ,
c�yN�~��� ry °` c h�� ryy�a�@a�° 1�� ry °�gac ry°�0�9c
I CENTRAL SAN F1'155-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-15 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 5-Y 16-17
NMI onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population
CA NMI only and combined utilities [9 participants} (39 participants) 10D,D01-SDO,OOD }500,000
(5 participants) (22 participants) {78 participants)
80
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 269 of 414
Page 84 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
SYSTEM R&R: WW PUMPING STATIONS
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) �F AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
74.0
12.3
m 12.0
mo
rs N 10.0
n r 8.7
0 8.0
n y 8.0
6 m 6.6 Ka 6.4
19
d6.0 �0 4.9
a
4.0 3.7 3.7
E 2.9
a
2.0 1.8 4 2.0 23 2.0 1.3 2.1
y 0. .0.8 3
0.1) I
F�^�^Q�^�w�NA�F�^� b�¢a�o 1f'�o �et°a,�r Alk ry� ��ar ^q, g�°��# ry�� ' h ryy o��aac �f'�a ryh1�eaao ENTRALSAN
/' Af'�o
y��►�,IFY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
_C
CA MV only and combined utilities 4V,N only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(2 participants) (7 participants) (27 participants) 100,001-500.000 >500.000
(13 participants) (12 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
14.0
12.3
m 12.0
mo
R ^ 10.0
n= 8.7
w"
=N 8.0 7s 8.0
m 5.9
R 6.0 5.7
w E 4.9
ll 3: 4.0 3.1
2.9 3 7 3.0 3.1 3.7
2.4
y2.0 01-3
0.0 .3 1 0.5
■ 1 I 1 ' 10 I
o ryg� ata a4'�' tNl a��c �4'�0 'LS''0 a0 '1�',' y�� �.�Q° ^gam tih1 a�,pC` 1y1 tih1� a��c 1y�'° ryht aa0 ��'�'
fg(_CENTRAL SAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
CA 1^1L"!only and combined utilities VPN only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(2 participants) {8 participants) (32 participants) 100.001-500.000 X500.000
(17 participants) (16 participants)
81
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 270 of 414
Page 85 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
SYSTEM R&R: WW TREATMENT
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY15-16 Data)
Central San Survey (California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
7.0
5.6
s.o
E
m
5.0 4.7
e' 4.3
c 3.9
E 4.0 3A 3A 3.fi
e E 32 3.2
3 F 3.0 2.5
2.3
c 7.9
18 2A
2.0 1A 1.5
E 1.3 12 1.0
1.1
Arn 1.0 I I I I
0.0
NV NV k"' NV ry A ry,Oe
('.,II CENTRAL SAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 1516 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
WWmrtyublities Combinedutilities Population Population
CA+Wf onlyand combined utilities (7 participants) (30 participants) 100,901-500,000 >500,000
4 part;cil;antT'n FY.5-16, (15 participants) (14 participants)
3liaitciliant ii FYs' -17a [I 17-18y
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
7.0s
d s.o
E
m
U
m
� c 3.9
9 m 4.0 - 3.5
e E 3.4 3.4 3.4
OW
3 H 3.0 2.5 2.6
"2.3 2.1
79 17 1.8 2.0� 2.0E7.3 � 7.20.13
1
0.9
1 CENTRAL SAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 1g_77 FY 1&17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
WW only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Population
CA WW only and combined utilities (g participants) (34 participants) 100.001-500,000 -500,000
t4 participants in FY 1516, (18 participants) (17 participants)
3 participants in FYs 16-17 and 17-18}
82
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 271 of 414
Page 86 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
NON-CAPACITY AND CAPACITY SEWER OVERFLOW RATES
This suite of sub-indicators measures the total number of non-capacity and capacity sewer
overflow events expressed as the ratio of the number of events per 100 miles of sanitary
collection system piping. They are intended to measure overflows created by conditions within
collection system components under control of the utility, such as overflows from sanitary
sewers and dry-weather overflows from combined sanitary/storm sewers. A dry-weather
overflow occurs when sanitary and storm sewers combine to overflow during weather
conditions when the portion attributed to stormwater is negligible. The non-capacity and
capacity sewer overflow rates are calculated as follows:
NON-CAPACITY SEWER OVERFLOW RATE
Non — capacity sewer overflow rate
Number of noncapacity sewer overflow events during reporting period X 100
Total miles of collection system piping
CAPACITY SEWER OVERFLOW RATE
Capacity sewer overflow rate
Number of capacity sewer overflow events during reporting period X 100
Total miles of collection system piping
AWWA provides the following definitions:
• Non-capacity overflow—a discharge related to maintenance issues. These include
grease buildup, root intrusion, and a need to clean and rod the system. Overflows
caused by limitations or problems within customer-controlled piping and facilities are
specifically excluded from this definition.
• Capacity overflow—discharge that is a direct result of rain events that generally occur as
a result of inflow and infiltration.
Below are the number of overflows reported for Central San, provided for reference:
Overflow Type FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Non-capacity overflows 47 39* 25 30
Capacity overflows 0 0 0 0
* 6 were contractor caused
Commentary
It should be noted that some participating agencies may be wholesale or have combined
sewers. It is Central San's opinion that AWWA should have separate benchmarks for retail and
wholesale agencies to the extent that wholesale agencies do not maintain their collection
83
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 272 of 414
Page 87 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
system. This would yield more meaningful results and the ability to directly compare similar
agencies.
The CA agency data from the Central San survey, which was calculated using data from the
five agencies who responded, has been replaced with data sourced by Central San from the
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS) for FYs 15-16 through 18-19. This
provides a more reliable comparison of Central San to CA agencies on both a statewide and
regionwide (Region 2, or the Bay Area) level. The CIWQS data makes no distinction between
capacity and non-capacity overflows; it is presented as the total number of overflows for all
agencies who reported spills divided by the total miles of collection system piping of all the
agencies who reported spills.
84
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 273 of 414
Page 88 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
NON-CAPACITY SEWER OVERFLOW RATES
Central San vs. CA(FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19 Data via CIWQS)vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Data Sourced via CIWQS AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
(Bay Area and Statewide)
6.0
7.0 7A
7.0
3 d 6.0 I 5.68 II
o _a I 5.2 II
t c 4.7 4.9
0 5.0
O w I 4.D 3.9II
d 4.0 3-7
v E3.1
I II 3.3
a
3.0 2.5 2.6 2.9
c m 2.0 I II
zo �-2.0 1.6 I II 1.6
I I 1.0 ' ■ 1.1
1.0 0.4 0.3 '
D.0 �
^1'
Z_ GENTRALSAN Region 211 Area Statewide FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
(109 agencies) (45C agenc.es)
WUV onl4 utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(9 participants) (67 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
Includes Capacity and Non-capacity Overflows (32 participants) (25 participants)
Central San vs. CA(FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19 Data via CIWQS)vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Data Sourced via CIWQS AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
(Bay Area and Statewide)
8.0
7A
7.0
7.0
3 d 6.0 5 9
o a 5.2
5.1
y w 5.0
4.7
y o
O ^ 4.0 3.9
4.0 3.7
n o 3.7 I 3.2 3.0
n 3.0 I 2.4
o a 20
z 2.0 1.6
1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2
1.0 '
0.0 I I ■ I
^h' yNW 1-A' ;^9S' <1'
1
^6 ;^1' 1
^9' 1 0 0^9' 1,
FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
,e"�&CENTRAL SAN Region 2 i i Area Statewide
(100 agencies) (460 agencies) IIAIV only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(11 participants) (81 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,C-00
Includes Capacity and Non-capacity Overnows (42 participants) (32 participants)
11
*The CA data from CIWQS makes no distinction between agencies that are wholesale or have combined sewers,
which can affect overflow numbers.The data also includes both capacity and non-capacity overflows.
85
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 274 of 414
Page 89 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
CAPACITY SEWER OVERFLOW RATES
Central San vs. CA(FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19 Data via CIWQS)vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Data Sourced via CIWQS AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
(Bay Area and Statewide)
0.0 7.4
7.a
7.0
5
„
6.0 .9
2- 5.2
° n 5.0
0
� d 4.0 3.9
0- 4.0
2"E
v o
a 3.0 2.6
M v
U '.2.0 1.7 1.5 1.9
1.1
1.0
0.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0 4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0 0.1
0.0
t- "6%r- A A A
' � ' ' 0 •� o� �6 � ' :w a° 1° a° 1° 1 ao 1° ao
sy �. ^�. �h. ��. 1. ^�. �;` �h1° ,tih gay tis by lea` �`'1° ,y`' 401a, 1h'1a
<1 <1 Fy F�^ F Ilk �k <k <1 F1 F'1^ Fy
Z'gi_CENTRALSAN Region 2;Bay Area Statewide FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
fl DO agencies) (460 agencies)
WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
[9 participants) (65 participants) 1000101-500,000 >500,000
Includes Capacity and Non-capacity Overtlovrs (27 participants) (20 participants)
Central San vs. CA(FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19 Data via CIWQS)vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Data Sourced via CIWQS AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
(Bay Area and Statewide)
12.0 11.4
10.0
N �
a
u'a 8.0 7.D 7d
y 0 6.4
> 5.9
O m 6.0 5.6 5
' E 4.7 4.7
o
A v 4.11 3.9 4.0
4.0
U a
2.0
1.8 1.9
0.7 1.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.3 0.0 ' 0-2
0.0 '
N" N\ N% N% N6 N% n$ s'� Nq' n\ N% yl "All�1° ti yl 1 hl°
N'1' ^m' S' ,eco' ed ma 1 `1• ea
�4 Fr 1 k t k", ,�l NV I'll�N4; t 111;11 ti F� �y !�
Zgl_CENTRALSAN Region 2,Bay Area Statewide FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
fl DO agencies) (460 agencies) My only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(10 participants) (71 participants) 100:001-500,000 >500.000
Includes Capacity and Non-capacity 0verFlows (34 participants) (28 participants)
*The CA data from CIWQS makes no distinction between agencies that are wholesale or have combined sewers,
which can affect overflow numbers.The data also includes both capacity and non-capacity overflows.
86
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 275 of 414
Page 90 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
COLLECTION SYSTEM INTEGRITY
This indicator quantifies the condition of a WW collection system expressed as the annual
number of failures per 100 miles of collection system piping, calculated as follows:
Collection system integrity Total number of failures * 100
100 miles of pipeline Total miles of collection system piping
AWWA provides the following definition:
• Collection system failure—A loss of capacity resulting from a flow restriction in gravity or
pressurized WW systems. Flow restrictions may be caused by deposition of foreign
materials; structural failures of pipes, appurtenances, or access holes; deterioration of
collection system materials; and root intrusion. Low spots in gravity sewers (sometimes
called swags) are failures if there is potential deposition and diminished sewer capacity.
Electrical and mechanical lift station failures unrelated to flow restrictions, electrical
power outages at lift stations, and failures that occur on customer properties should not
be considered collection system failures. Also excluded are any failures directly caused
by the action of a person authorized by the utility, such as failure caused by incidental
damage during construction or repair.
Collection system failures as defined above do not always result in an overflow for Central San.
Below are the number of failures reported for Central San, provided for reference:
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Collection System Failures 47 33 24 30
Central San Data Collection Method
When comparing to the statewide and nationwide data, it is important to note that a number
of factors may influence the ability to make an apples-to-apples comparison. Central San's
service area has experienced drought in recent years, which has created voluntary and
involuntary declines in potable water usage. Reduced influent flow in pipes can cause
unavoidable collection system failures. Topography may also cause additional failures; for
example, Central San's service area may have more plant life (i.e., roots) than other service
areas, causing more collection system failures due to unavoidable root intrusions. Infiltration
and inflow can also influence the number of collection system failures.
Commentary
Data for this indicator was collected in the CA agency survey; however, only five agencies,
including wholesale agencies, provided responses, not constituting a complete set of data. A
future more in-depth analysis could present more refined data beyond the scope of this study,
including exploring comparable CA agencies more closely to identify like-for-like agency
comparisons and understand how differences in the performance data can be explained.
87
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 276 of 414
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
COLLECTION SYSTEM INTEGRITY
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-16 data) A WA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
12.0 11.4
m 10.0
.= CL 6.7
�w
a o 8.4
_ 7.4
E 6.4
n o 6.0 5.8
4A5.1 4.7
c �
0 CL
dA 3.1 1.3 3.2 13.6
-6 .2 2 A 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9
1,21.0
0.7 0.5 0.0 ' 0.6 I I
0.2 0.2
0.4
1�� �� yLM �� 414 fi Ola g54 � 4l4 47- fi Olo 97- � 4�4 4�4 �M1 •3 W'O 1'W •3 J'.' \h 'S N'' \� S�4
FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY
�{:k CENTRALSAN
VAY only utilities comiDined utilities Papulation Papulation WVV only utilities Combined ulilities Population PaptdatiOn
f9 participants;• f36 parlicipantsj 100,001-500,000 X500,000 {9 parlicipanls) (71 participants) 100.001-506 NO :>5C0 X00
;26 participants} (20 participants) (34 participants) 179 participants)
88
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 277 of 414
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
TREATMENT PLANT REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Regulatory compliance for WW treatment is expressed as a percentage of the number of events per the facility's permit limit in
compliance to the summation of the total number of compliance events in the reporting period, calculated as follows:
Regulatory compliance — wastewater (%) _
Total number of compliance events per utility's permit —number of events out of compliance
Total number of compliance events per utility's permit
AWWA provides the following definition:
• Compliance event— For purposes of calculating the WW compliance rate, determine the total number of compliance events
reported by the facility per the facility's permit limits, including individual sample results and/or aggregated averages. For
example, if the facility reports parameter X as a daily, weekly, and monthly event over the
12-month reporting period, this would be a total of 429 events (determined by daily [365] +weekly [52] + monthly [12]).
Therefore, the total possible compliance events for parameter X would be 429. This calculation would be repeated for each
permit parameter with the total compliance events being the summation of all possible reported permit parameters.
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San's regulatory compliance as reported pertains to both the Treatment Plant air and WW liquid stream. It should be noted
that the number of compliance events related to air calculated with the AWWA methodology was about 360,000 per year for each
FY, versus approximately 1,800 compliance events related to the liquid stream.
89
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 278 of 414
Page 93 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
TREATMENT PLANT REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY15-16 Data)
Central San Survey (California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
100.0 1013.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.D 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10 0.0 100.j
100.0
999 99.9
99.9
3
R99.5
_ o
d � 99.7
m a 99.6
E p 99.6
U 99.5
c 99.5
m
99.4
99.3
99.2
�'g ^�NQy^�^ ,�^� ea�° ��� 1g���`�c 1ryh1��`mc 1��a ��Qc 4111 �`',, 0a��o 101, ~��+0 611
!' O",F_CENTRAL SAN FY 1576 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 1516 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
CA WW only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(5 participants) (9 participants) (38 participants) 100,001-500fl00 X500,000
(26 participants) (20 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY16-17 Data)
Central San Survey (California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100.0 900.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99 7 100.0 100.0 100.0
e? 98.9
3
99.0
3
c w 95.0 97.8
b �
a =
R
n
E 97_0 9fi.5
bU
c du
96.0
ca 95.0
m
94.0
wF ^ ^1 400 401g1�ma,Qc 1191, 151��� A4111 ��� 1b�*
,e�VI CENTRAL SAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
CA NM:1 only and combined utilities VVW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(5 participants) (9 participants) (65 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000
(33 participants) (23 participants)
*The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that are wholesale or retail.
90
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 279 of 414
Page 94 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS PER EMPLOYEE
This indicator measures employee efficiency in the form of the total number of active accounts
serviced by utility employees (FTEs) per year, calculated as follows:
Customer accounts per employee
Number of active residential accounts + number of active nonresidential accounts
Total number of FTEs
AWWA provides the following definitions:
• Active account— refers to a formal arrangement providing for regular services for some
or all of the reporting period.
• Customer—describes an individual service agreement for water or WW service at a
single property regardless of size or billing category. An individual may own more than
one property and be counted as a customer more than once.
• Nonresidential accounts—institutional, commercial, and industrial (ICI) customers,
including hotels/motels, schools/universities, restaurants, laundromats, car washes,
office buildings, hospital/medical offices, food stores, auto shops, and industries.
• Residential accounts—refer to single-family and multifamily customers.
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San provides WW treatment and trunk sewer service to the cities of Concord and
Clayton by contract. Two sets of data have been presented to exclude and include these
customer accounts (51,592 each FY, as referenced in Central San's 2014 Cost of Service Study).
To calculate the number of accounts most accurately for Central San, dwelling units—as
opposed to residential parcels—and commercial meters—as opposed to nonresidential parcels
(which may have more than one business or meter per parcel)—were used as the "active
residential accounts" and "active nonresidential accounts" respectively. Each unit of an
apartment or condominium complex was counted as a single dwelling unit or "active residential
account" (e.g., one 100-unit apartment complex was counted as 100 accounts, even though
these units may be billed to one property manager or owner). Each commercial meter was
counted as a single "active nonresidential account."
Commentary
It is unknown whether other agencies may have used Residential Unit Equivalents (RUEs) for
their nonresidential accounts, which would render their numbers incomparable to Central San's
number of commercial meters. It is Central San's opinion that AWWA should state that
nonresidential accounts should be reported as RUEs, so all agencies are using the same
calculation method.
91
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 280 of 414
Page 95 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS PER EMPLOYEE
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
1000
sop 908 896 880
d -
T
a 800 722 753 752 724
733 697 T05
694 693
E 700 673 622 615
NEpp 527 54 504 560
500 4196 459 426
a
a 400 I 341 750 333
300
E
j 200
v 70O ` I 11111 � - 111
416,KA NS KV a�^� 4� 0atiac 1`'1� ry�1° ���c 1g1 ryg°1° �`ar 1gd rygd Qac 1h1 ry�h �`�c 1�h 01 6atiao 1h1° ryyl �a`�c 1gl
FA
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
excl.Concord and
Clayton accounts CA VAN only and combined utilities WVV only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
incl.Concord and (7 participants) {9 participants) (73 participants• 100.001—500,000 X500.000
Clayton accounts (36 participants) (26 participants)
/'70F_CENTRAL SAN
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
9000
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)908 896 880
� 900
m
a 800 722 753 752 733
a 697 705 694
663
E 700 625 650 662 633
a 600 527 534 533
497
500 421 425
a 400 I 347 III 382 382
300
200
100
Ile, 10 a\Qc 141, 411 ay° 1� ,yd° `mac 01 101 ac 1911
1h1 a\Qc 1111 el` aec 1�
excl.Concord and FY 15-16 FY 15-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
Clayton accounts
CA VWonly and combined utilities VtM+only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Population
incl.Concord and (7 participants) (10 participants) (79 participants) 100.001—500:000 X500.000
Clayton accounts (44 participants) (27 participants)
�.I_CENTRALSAN
*The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined
utilities),are retail agencies,or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could have an
impact on both the number of customer accounts and the number of FTEs;for example,the total number of FTEs
reported by wholesale utilities may not include FTEs of other agencies that maintain the collection system which
feeds their treatment plant.
92
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 281 of 414
Page 96 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
WW PROCESSED PER EMPLOYEE
This indicator provides a measure of employee efficiency as expressed by the amount of WW
processed (in MGD) by utility employees (as FTEs) per year, calculated as follows:
Average MGD wastewater processed
MGD wastewater processed per employee =
Total number of FTEs
Central San Data Calculation Method
For Central San, average MGD of WW processed is the average sum of final effluent and applied
water treated daily.
Commentary
It is Central San's opinion that AWWA consider separate benchmarks for retail and wholesale
agencies to the extent that wholesale agencies do not maintain their collection system, so the
number of FTEs reported by those agencies may be undercounted as they may not be including
the FTEs of other agencies that maintain the collection system that feeds their treatment plant.
It should also be noted that because efficiency is directly tied to the amount of WW processed,
agencies may seem less efficient despite circumstances out of the agencies' control, such as
drought or water conservation efforts.
Furthermore, combined stormwater/WW treatment systems should be benchmarked in a
separate category from systems only treating WW. Collecting treatment plant influent organic
loading would be a helpful performance metric alongside flow; treatment plants in regions
where water conservation measures have been implemented would likely have a lower amount
of flow per unit of organic loading.
93
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 282 of 414
Page 97 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
WW PROCESSED PER EMPLOYEE
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey (California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
0.35
0.32
W
r 0.31
o D.3D
027 0.27
0.25
0.24 0.24
m 0.22
y, 0.21
° 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
a D.2D 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18
m 6.15 6.15 0 16 0.16 0.15
`m 0.75 0.14 0.14 _ 0.14
CL
v
v DAD
N
d
O
a 0.05
� D.DD � ■ ■
ry51^ '0p 'bA1 '0 a 11-11 1,;" a��c 11& 431" aa0 1h�
,e-'OLCENTRAL SAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
CA V iI only and combined utilities 4YL"d only utilities Combined utilities Population population
(9 participants) [9 participants} (66 participants) 100.001-500,000 X500.000
(30 participants) (26 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey (California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
_0.35
0.29 0.30 0.30
LL
0.30 0.28
027
� 0.26
D.25 02
m 0.22 023
T
O
a0.2D018 0.18 018 0.19 0.19 0.18
E 0.17 . .
w 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 D.1fi 0.14 0.14
X 0.75
v
a
u� 0.7 0
m
v
0
a 0.05
0.00
a��c 1y1 ryyl �ti 1yl° ryyl° a�ac 11° tiA1° aao 1y1
49
�1_GENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 15-17
CA VAII only and combined utilities 'r51L",+only utilities Combined utilities Population populaticn
(9 participants) [10 participants) (70 participants) 100.001-500.000 X500.000
(35 participants) (27 participants)
*The CA agency data makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined utilities), are
retail agencies,or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could have an impact on the
number of FTEs reported. For example,a utility that operates as part of a larger operation may be undercounting
the centralized staff that supports their enterprise as FTEs of their utility, leading to a lower FTE count that is not
reflective of the manpower that is needed to support just the WW operations.
94
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 283 of 414
Page 98 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
O&M COSTS FOR WW SERVICES
This suite of sub-indicators measures total O&M costs, collection O&M costs, and treatment
O&M costs in various forms. O&M costs can be compared between utilities once normalized by
WW processed rate, number of accounts served, or the length of collection system pipe. For
utilities following Governmental Accounting Standards Board or Financial Accounting Standards
Board practices, the required total O&M cost information was instructed to be found on the
audited financial statements, and depreciation was not to be included in the total O&M cost.
AWWA provides the following definition:
• Total O&M costs - include costs for salaries, direct benefits, and all costs necessary to
support utility services. They include pumping costs associated with treatment and
distribution or collection. They also include supporting functions, such as any related
portion of centralized HR services, call center, health and safety, etc.
The sub-indicators for Total O&M costs are calculated as follows:
TOTAL O&M COST PER ACCOUNT
Total 0&M cost of wastewater services ( $ )
account
Total 0&M cost
Number of residential accounts + number of non residential accounts
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San provides WW treatment to customers in the cities of Concord and Clayton by
contract but does not own, operate, or maintain their collection system. Two sets of Central
San data are presented for this benchmark: Total O&M Costs including Concord and Clayton
accounts and Total O&M Costs excluding Concord and Clayton accounts.
TOTAL O&M COST PER MG
Total 0&M cost
Total 0&M cost of wastewater services (�) :_MG Average daily production x 365 days
TOTAL O&M COST PER 100 MILES OF PIPE
Total 0&M cost of wastewater services ( )
100 miles of pipe
Total 0&M cost x 100
Total miles of collection system piping
95
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 284 of 414
Page 99 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
Commentary
It should be noted that it is possible that agencies who perform WW operations as part of a
larger enterprise may have submitted data for their Total O&M Costs that may not be
comparable to Central San's. For example, an agency may inadvertently exclude support service
costs which come from a centralized administrative office that does not provide exclusive
support to WW operations, whereas Central San has counted all support service costs that
support WW operations. Conversely, the responding agency could also be a smaller city that
spreads their costs around other departments beyond its WW enterprise.
Furthermore, combined stormwater/WW treatment systems should be benchmarked in a
separate category from systems only treating WW. Collecting treatment plant influent organic
loading would be a helpful performance metric alongside flow; treatment plants in regions
where water conservation measures have been implemented would likely have a lower amount
of flow per unit of organic loading.
The sub-indicators for Collection and Treatment O&M costs are calculated as follows:
WW COLLECTION O&M COST PER 100 MILES OF PIPE
Collection 0&M cost of wastewater services ( )
100 miles of pipe
Collection 0&M cost x 100
Total miles of collection system piping
Central San Data Calculation Method
For Central San, collection O&M cost is the sum of Collection System and Pumping Stations
O&M costs.
WW TREATMENT O&M COST PER MG
Treatment 0&M cost of wastewater services (-) = Treatment 0&M cost
MG Average daily production x 365 days
The sub-indicators for the percentage of O&M costs spent on collection, treatment, and
support services are calculated as follows:
WW COLLECTION AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL O&M COSTS
Collection 0&M cost
Wastewater collection as a percentage of total 0&M costs (%) = Total 0&M costs
WW TREATMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL O&M COSTS
Treatment 0&M cost
Wastewater treatment as a percentage of total 0&M costs (%) = Total 0&M costs
96
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 285 of 414
Page 100 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
WW SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY OTHERS
AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL O&M COSTS
AWWA defines support services provided by others as O&M costs that cannot be directly
allocated to collection or treatment O&M costs.
Wastewater support services as a percentage of total 0&M costs (%)
Wastewater support services 0&M cost
Total 0&M costs
Commentary
It should be noted that agencies may interpret the definitions of Treatment, Collection, and
Support Services Provided by Others differently; meaning, one agency may count the cost of
one service under Treatment, whereas another agency may count the same cost under Support
Services Provided by Others.
97
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 286 of 414
Page 101 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
TOTAL O&M COST PER ACCOUNT
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey (California] AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
$130
F 712 712
00 Ino 651
V
594 995
w 6130 578 539 558
492 52d 508 490
0
500
v 393 392 465
¢4013 353 355
m 327 317 31$ 312
300 258 258
0
O
2013
0 7013
M
� D
hNo co K1 4'�� �'�� h,� air 'lhto �I.h�o arc 1h�o h'0 a\�� 1�� 'Lg� �t\ac 1g� 'Lg� a\Oc
■exc1.Concord and FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-1G FY 15-16
Clayton accounts
incl.Concord and WW only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Papulation
Clayton accounts CAMAY only and combined utilities (7 participants) (55 participants) 100,001—500,000 X500,000
(9 participants) (26 participants) (19 participants)
,flloI CENTRALSAN
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey (California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
$1313
c 712 712
0 700 657
U
594 595
vs 600 578 524 539 558
492 491 493
500
o
o 372 393 d18 391 374 387 393
a 4130 353 325
`m 305
n 300
243 245
N
0
v 200
p 100
M
0 0
-'o
h• ra• 1• �. q1- a1hd,, 1011* 1h 4111 �c 14a ° 0c � iy1, a\a 1y y1^ asc A'11 Lt'1, hd,
S
■excl.Concord and FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-1$ FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
Clayton accounts
WW only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Population
incl.Concord and CA WN only and combined utilities (10 participants) (63 participants) 100:001-500.000 X500,000
Clayton accounts 0 participants) (34 participants) (28 participants)
_,#",I CENTlZ45AN
*The CA agency data makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined utilities),are retail agencies,
or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could have an impact on these results.For example,a
wholesale agency will have lower O&M costs since they do not maintain their collection system,yet they may still count the
same number of customers as a similarly sized agency who does maintain its collection system at additional O&M cost.
98
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 287 of 414
Page 102 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
TOTAL O&M COST PER MG
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
7,000
6,301 6,216
6,082
6,000
5,37D 5,376
5,00D 4,939 4,80 4.651
t7 4,280
„4,00D 3,855
n 3,39D 3,39 3,450
N 3,206
03,000 2,795 2,795
g 2.426 2.426 2,559
,p 2,18a 2,261
2,000 1,705 1,705 1,723
H 1,09 i
ID
IV ti �a0 1`' tia0 Atihl� A`'1. 0 r 1h�� ti�1� ° 1`'10 ry�`� ° 1`'1�
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
"(:l CENTRALSAN
CA VAY only and combined utilities 'rW?only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(7 participants for FYs 15-16 and 16-17, (7 participants) (56 participants} 100.001-500,001) >500.000
6 participants for FY 1718) (27 participants) (19 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey (California) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
7,000
6,301 6,216
6,082
6,000
0 5,37D 5,376
2 4,939 480
e 5 ,
5,DDD 4.651
0 4,280
a 4 3,581 DDD 3,855 3,742
3,390 3,390
N 3,206
v 3,666 2,778
2,463 2.318 2,5432,24624042,126
M 2,666 1,713 1,607 1,459
t I1,000
D
^6 ^6N1 ^1 N$ �aN'� tihl- �ti�r 1�'1- ll � ac "All ryhM �`�� �h�- ryy- �` 141,
1011 141, 1,44, ga` 11&
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
�.'•'.Oi'I_CEN7RA45AN 'A-W only utilities
CA Vati"J only and comhined utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(7 participants for FYs 15-16 and 16-17, (10 participants} (59 participants) 109,001-500,OD0 >500.000
6 participants for FY 17-18) (33 participants) (26 participants)
*The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined
utilities),are retail agencies,or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could have an
impact on both the total C&M costs and the number of FTEs.
99
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 288 of 414
Page 103 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
TOTAL O&M COST PER 100 MILES OF PIPE
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) �FWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
45,000,000
L 40,000,000 39,068,683
L
35,000,000
N
d y^
C 30,000,000
0
25,000,000 23,673,671
21,582,824
E 211,000,0DD
N G
13,608,347
U o 15,000,000 11,497,000
2't' 5,373787
C69,176,460 9,066,672 9,246, 78 3,601,002
p 10,000,000 5.510
,700 7,502,476 fi 811,130 3,542.244 3,569,580
-° 5,230,394 4,532, 85 ' 2,440,313 2,593,715 2,900,000 2,440,313
5,000,000 I 2,100,486 1,821,849 1,922,201 1,820,687
D ■ ■ 1 ■ � 1 � ■ 1 ■ ■
yN6 6^\ �b m a�ac �`1 ry`Al mr Ohl^ ro`Al
ao �`Al ro`Al
FY 15-16 FY 19-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
�'�i!CENTRpI SAN
CAM only and combined utilities WAl only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(7 participants) (56 participants] 100,001—500,000 >50VOC
(4 participants] (27 participants) (15 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) �FWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
45,000,000
a 40,000,000 39,068,683
a
0 35,000,000
N
n 30,000,000
a
w 25,000,000 23,673,671
m 21,582,824
° E 20,000,000
N O
0 O
15,000,000 11,497,000
e0" 5,373,787
c , 5,51■0,700 9,176,460 9,066,672 9,246,8
I9,652,4400 7,502A76 6,811,130 4,298,59
73,6473,T37354
5,230,394 4,532, 85 ,2492,735515 2,47
46J5,3565,000,000 '257,353' 9150' 2.160
1,925,442
)r V A, 0hA tih�o aa0 1y1 ry�la aa0 �h� ry�p aac 1y,�, � a,Qp Ali '1�� ap Ay5 411 a�°c 16 `Lys
<1 -ice "I "A 10 �e �e ��
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
I CENTRAL SANC�NTRAL SnN
CA WW only and combined utilities V'only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(4 participants) (11 participants) (64 participants) 100,OQ1—500,000 X500,000
(34 participants) (27 participants`
*The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined
utilities),are retail agencies,or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could have an
impact on both the total O&M costs and the miles of pipe.
100
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 289 of 414
Page 104 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
WW COLLECTION O&M COST PER 100 MILES OF PIPE
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey (California) �FAWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
3,000,000
a
2,592,043 2,689,212 2,744,646
'a
° 2,500,000
m 2,251,181
E 2,127,610
a a 2,000,000 1,944,230
`m 1,65 338
n❑
0 m 1,500,000 1469,175
1,106,02696,216 1,213,756
06 1 1,039,406 1,034,179
07 000 940, 31 946,445
r« 1,000, 788,547 778,035
0
603,372 521,344 588.005
-6 500,000 373,51200,326 424,361 357,238 373,514
D
4, 41a^^N.�^V,sw `�o �hla Rh`�ga�ao 1��9 %16
Aoao 1h a ryga�ga`�c �yd� ryhV��ea®o �y4. ryy4.��tiao
E`ICENTRAL SAN F`15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 75-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
CA WAI only and combined utilities Wh only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
{d participants} I7 participants) {42 participants] 100,001—500,000 >500,000
(25 participants) (13 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey (California) �FAWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
3,a0D,aaa
a 2,592,043 2,689,212
2,744,646
° 2,500,000
ami
2,251.181
E 2,127,610
o a 2,000,000 1.944,230
a 1,469,175 7,658J$38
n o
0 w 1,500,0001,106,024
2 0 1,096,216 1,213,756 1,092,240
0 0 1,039,4061,005,607
v, 1,000,000 940,1 1
" 808,345 791,744
0
654,229654,229
d '515,023 501,026 515,023
c0i 500,000 382.900 416,319 398,483
� I I I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I I I
0
h^6 6ti1 NA,
4"9 ryg� a,,p0 14j10 `Lyra aac 1le1 tiy�0 a,�o � . o air agalo ^rhe a`ac 'lyal 4
1
lo a0 'lb�o 41
�o Qc ah�lo
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
ICENTRAL$AN
combined utilities
MI.-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
CA 1hM'only and c
{d particiombinpai (7 participants) [49 participants] 100.001—500,000 >500,000
27 participants) (21 participants)
*The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined
utilities),are retail agencies,or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could have an
impact on both the collection 0&M costs and the miles of pipe.
101
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 290 of 414
Page 105 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
WW TREATMENT O&M COST PER MG
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
5,660
4,500 4,345
3,933
4,000 3.853
3,450
3,500
a�
a
3,000
a
U
2 2,500
1,983 2,047 1,980 2'118
O
2,000 1,914
a 1,577 1,672 1,fi7D 7,599 1 7,385 7,378
1'500 1,176 1,0971,231 1,195
1,000 807
966
500 , 452
0 I
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15.-16
CA WW only and combined utilities UV4V only utilities Combined utlli0es Population Population
(8 participants) 8participants) 137 pat cipants) 1-O,001-50o.000 -800,000
X23 participants] (13 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
5,000
is 4,500 14,345
933 3.853
L7
3,500
`m
a
y 3,000
a
2,500 2.248
1,983 1,9147 1,980
2,000 rr 1,734
1,577 1612 1,610 1,599 1,59y 1.495 1.594
1,500
1,037 1,117 1,099
1,000 634 881 7C6 745 851 565
500 I I 1
0 �e
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 "(16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
����CENTR+LL SAN
C.A'•V-P.,only and combined utllities NN only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
'8 participants'. 7 participants] 47 part cipants) 100.001-500000 X500,040
(27participants) [21 participants'.
102
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 291 of 414
Page 106 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
WW COLLECTION AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL O&M COSTS
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey (California] AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
45.0
4
40.0 0.1
a
2 35.0 32.9
0 32.2
0
0 30.0 2T 5 27.1 27.7
26.3
° 25.0
24.5 25.0
CL 20.6 21.0 20.7 20.2 20.1
20.0 18.9
° 14.fi
15.6 15.2
Z; 15.0 - 12.6
m 12.0
0
3 10.0 T� 8.1 8.7
3
5.0
0.0
h:.6 N" �N" y1° aao 1�'�0 tib'° aao 1��° ryhl aao ���° yl° atiac Hyl° 1�'t° �`ac �y1° ryyl° ate �h° till° �`ac �h4°
"I ,^ tip ,A
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-15 FY 15-15 FY 15-113 FY 15-iG
ZgICENTRAL SAN VtM+only utilities Combined utilities population population
CA WW only and combined utilities [G participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500.000 >506,600
(3 participants) (21 participants) (23 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California] AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
40.0
35.8
35.0 32.6
e
2 30.8
0 30.0 275 263 27.1 '
r
F 25.6 24.6 24.3 23.4
° 20.6 21.0 20 9.4
20.6 18419.1
15.6 16.7
U14.6
0 15.012.8 12.4
� 11.fi
w
16.0 8.1 8.7
5.0 3.8
0.0 ■
^hN6 �6^� ^„a q'4°j rygk tea ` ^y4� ryh�m eaac 1y1. '0' �a,�c �y� h�° �aac �gl ryh�. eaaP 'C
FY
ryy\.
�, Fy kl �k
�A FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 15-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
/"®I_CENTRAL SAN
VM only utilities Combined utilities population Papulation
CA VNMI only and combined utilities {7 participants) (48 participants) 100.001-500.000 >600.000
(3 participants) (25 participants) (21 participants)
*The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined
utilities),are retail agencies,or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could have an
impact on both the collection 0&M costs and total 0&M Costs.
103
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 292 of 414
Page 107 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
WW TREATMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL O&M COSTS
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data)vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) �FAWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
96.0
eo.O
86.0 73.8
68.7 76.7
6 70.0 65'1
66.2 67.3
62.0 62.5 62.9
e 59.4 59.4 61'1 fi0.fi
F 60.0 53,9
° 50.0 48.7
50.3 52'0
M 39.4
N 40.0
31.5 31.9 30.8 33.6 30.5 32.6
30.0
F
20.0
� 10.0
D.D
�"h �;.1 ^;.� �;.°j �9c 14\' ��,al° ati$r ^yoga 'Lg1 �`ac 1gl tigla Qc ^<hla ti"'la a\Qc Ohl° ryyl° �\ac Ohl° ryyl a$c �hW
^ �-+^ �-+^
Z�I_CF9TOAL SAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
CA WIN only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(4 participants) (6 participants) (4D participants) 100,001-500,000 >50D,000
(23 participants) (13 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18 Data) vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
90.D
80.0
e 80.0 73.8
70.7
a 70.0 66.2 68.7
0 62.0 62.5
c 60.0 59.4 57.2 57.7 59.2
F 53.9 53.7
o 1 48.6 49.8
R 50.6 43.7 1
a
c40.0 31.5 31.9 3D g 33.6 34.3 36.5 35.1 33.6
30.6 '
F 20.6
10.0
D.D
y^b 6e1 A' �;.�' y�l° aaP �y1 'Lhl° a,�C Ayala ryyl �tiao Ayala y1° �`Qc 14j�° 'Lyl a�ac Ch1° 'Lyda ae 1;l '& a�,as, 1ya1°
11
ZI.O1 CENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
CA WIN only and combined utilities ',W,1 only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
[4 participants) (8 participants) (47 participants) 100 001-500.00D X500,000
(27 participants) (20 participants)
*The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined
utilities),are retail agencies,or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could have an
impact on the total 0&M costs.
104
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 293 of 414
Page 108 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
WW SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY OTHERS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL O&M COSTS
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18)vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
60.0
50.3
50.0 47.9 47.7 46.6
45.7
a 40.6
2 2 40.0 35.9 37.0
y�
`m Cl
N-
s 29.8
30.0 28.8
CL 25.6 25.0 25.6
w' 0 22.4 21.6 20.8
r
n 20.0 18.1 13.3 18.5
N
A
10.0 7.9 6.3 7.5 4.2
0.0 1 -tiI I lill
h�6 6^1 411 0�9 y& �`�c 1��� Hyl° `�c 1h& ryg� �`Qc ^�°� 1�° a��c 1 411& a�0 11& ryh& `�c 1& 91 c 1h&
�.',I_CENT-50 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
CA WN!only and combined utilities WW only utilities Ccmbined utilitles Population Population
(5 participants) (5 participants) (28 participants) 109,001-500,000 >500.000
(16 participants) (11 participants)
Central San vs. CA (FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18)vs. Nationwide (FY16-17Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
60.0
53.6
50.3 57.5
50.0 47.9 47.1 45.
42.4
N e
s'2 40.0 35.9 36.4 37.8
11 35A
a❑
N_
rs 29.8 29.3
aF 30.0 27.9
0 2d.4 L 22 5 21.3
c 20.0 18.1 r■` 19.2
N
R
10.0 6.3 7.5
4.2
0.0 I I
��.��^�.�,�$ ¢atimc� 115 4111��`�o �1d° ryyl°�eaao ��4° 4°'g�tia� .1'" 411&�g � 10 ryyaao 1%16 -115 `ar 415
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
[i,1 cfNTrtAL SAN
CA WN!only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Pcpulatlon Population
(5 participants) (6 participants) (36 participants) 109,001-500,000 >500,000
(20 participants) (17 pa rfici pants)
*The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that provide dual services(combined
utilities),are retail agencies,or are agencies that are part of a larger operation.These differences could have an
impact on both the support services costs and total O&M costs. For example,a WW enterprise operating as part of
a larger agency could be undercounting the support services from the centralized staff of the larger agency.
105
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 294 of 414
Page 109 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
MAINTENANCE
This suite of sub-indicators quantifies a utility's efforts regarding planned (proactive) and
corrective (reactive) WW maintenance. Time charged for maintenance work includes all time
spent responding to the maintenance work order, including travel, obtaining tools and parts,
and completing the work. Although maintenance time data specific to treatment or collection
was not collected in the AWWA survey, overall comparisons to production and pipe network
length are provided. Corrective and planned maintenance is separated as allocated to linear
resources (distribution and collection systems) and vertical resources (plants and pumping
stations).
AWWA provides the following definitions:
• Corrective Maintenance—all maintenance undertaken after asset failure. Corrective
maintenance is always responsive but may not necessarily result in service disruption.
Total time for corrective maintenance should include overtime attributed to these
activities, including contractor time.
• Planned Maintenance—comprises all regular maintenance undertaken in advance of
asset failure during the reporting period. Planned maintenance may be predictive or
preventative and may not necessarily result in service disruption. Preventative
maintenance is performed according to a predetermined schedule rather than in
response to failure. Predictive maintenance is initiated when condition-monitoring
signals from activities such as vibration and oil analysis indicate that maintenance is due.
The total time for planned maintenance includes overtime attached to these activities,
including contractor's time.
For the given reporting period, the sub-indicators are calculated as follows:
TOTAL PLANNED WW MAINTENANCE
Total planned maintenance (% of total maintenance time)
Total time for planned maintenance
Time for planned maintenance + Time for corrective maintenance
PLANNED VERTICAL WW MAINTENANCE
Planned vertical maintenance (% of total maintenance time)
Total time for planned WW maintenance
Time f or planned maintenance + Time f or corrective maintenance
106
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 295 of 414
Page 110 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
PLANNED LINEAR WW MAINTENANCE
Planned linear maintenance (% of total maintenance time)
Total time for planned linear maintenance
Time f or planned maintenance + Time f or corrective maintenance
CORRECTIVE VERTICAL WW MAINTENANCE TO TREATMENT
hr
Corrective vertical maintenance to treatment (MG)
Total time for corrective maintenance
Average system demand x 365 days
Central San Data Calculation Method
The average system demand figure used in this sub-indicator and the next was the average
treated WW figure (final effluent and applied water), which was also used to calculate the WW
Processed per Employee performance indicator results.
PLANNED VERTICAL WW MAINTENANCE TO TREATMENT
hr
Planned vertical maintenance to treatment (MG)
_ Total time for planned maintenance
Average system demand x 365 days
CORRECTIVE LINEAR WW MAINTENANCE TO COLLECTION SYSTEM
hr
Corrective linear maintenance to collection system ( )
100 miles of pipe
Total number of failures x 100
Total miles of collection system piping
PLANNED LINEAR WW MAINTENANCE TO COLLECTION SYSTEM
hr
Planned linear maintenance to collection system (MG)
_ Total time for planned maintenance x 100
Total miles of collection system piping
Central San Data Calculation Method
Planned vs. reactive (emergency) maintenance hours are tracked in Central San's computerized
maintenance management system (CMMS), which only has FY 17-18 and 18-19 data for
Treatment Plant and Collection System maintenance activity. Central San's Pumping Station
maintenance data is not tracked in the CMMS so is not included in these figures.
107
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 296 of 414
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
TOTAL PLANNED WW MAINTENANCE
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWwNA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
700
41
q^, 90 as 85 88 90 gp 81
79 79
SO �$ 7d TS5 75 }� 73 75 77
= 0' 70 I 83
= vi
C
fi0 I
5040 —
fs
O 30
a- ~ [FY 15-16 Comb,F IFY 16-17 0omhlnetl
p 0 uill MID e data nal utuHlea data not
.. a Inoludetl In Inoluded In
F ,fly, l0 2G17 A 4WlA L'L'.�I.Y 2016 A Y(WA+vey
smceimarmna haak) 5encrmarFrjrg hookl
4
O44
T46 1P 1� 10 � 1� V �� h� �h a� .ass 10 � A� ,P 6
I CENTRAL$hN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 1-5-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 10-17 FY JE-17
MIV onh}utilities Combined utilities Populaiion Population WN only utilities Go-mbined utilities Populalion Population
(6 participants) ;0 parlicipanis) 1000-Di-500.000 X500,600 (8 pariicipanis) (D participants) 100.001—500,000 =.500,000
,4 parlicipanis; (3 participants; {5 parlicipanls) l3 participanis;
*Central San's vertical maintenance hours exclude Pumping Station maintenance time.
108
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 297 of 414
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
PLANNED VERTICAL WW MAINTENANCE
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-16 data) AA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
700
8 86
90 9
_ 82so $1 82
y E SU 76 74 78 74
77
41 70 69 67 67 61
6a
62
£ 60 56
58 57 57 5S
ra
50 47
� 39 41 42
m 40
'
= r 00
� w
20
10 not
available
0
�.ro �k k <` yy�1° r mac` 1° �y'' �•� �y��° 0. mac` �y�1° S' 1° �
.�I CENTRAISAN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
MY only ulilities Comoined utilities Population Population VAO;r only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
i;5 participants) (35 participanlsj 100.601—500,06() >500.000 (5 participants'. 139 participants) 1()0.001 —500.000 >500.000
(15 p a rlici panis) f15 participants f18 participants; 1,20 parlicipanisl
*Central San's vertical maintenance hours exclude Pumping Station maintenance time.
109
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 298 of 414
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
PLANNED LINEAR WW MAINTENANCE
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AIAWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16.17 data)
100 94
90 88
10 83 82 82
U
s0 76 _ 77
m _ I s9
E 70 tid 62
r3zE 60
r- i= 60 55 57
—J 52
49
' 54
42 d2
adi w 40 38 78
31 32
2 3o 26 h
20
a
10 not h
available
0
Asap
i_CENTRgLSAN F1'15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 F1 16-17
NW oNY utilities combined utilities Population Population WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
not (5 participants) (39 parliaipants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (7 participants) (45 parlicipants) 100:601—500,000 >500,000
available (18 participants) (17 participants) (2¢participants) (20 participants)
110
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 299 of 414
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
CORRECTIVE VERTICAL WW MAINTENANCE TO TREATMENT
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
A WA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data}
1A
1.4 —
C
4r 1.2
r
1 0.9
0.8
0.8 I
0.6 0.6 0A 0.6
w 0.6 r 0.
>�— 4.4 0.4 U.4 0.4
o 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.2 0.1 ' 0.1
not
U 0 available -
fa ,,e ,h {6 �* A `4 {� �o {y° {y° 4se A
P
Fh m
'* 10
kCrnTRa.SnN F1' 15 6 Fv 15-16 F1'15-16 F, 15-16 F1'13-17 F/ 16-1 FY 18-17 F/16-1
VM only utilities Combined utilities Population Population `,`V',`1 cnlj ui Iii es Combined u-ili-ies Popula-ion POP LI ation
i6 participantsl 133 participantsl 100,001 –500,000 5500,000 t6 parl-cipants:, -'?? paricipan-s i '01000-500000 >500•3.3.3
X15 participants) ;14 pariicipanisl f 133 participants:: ;16 parii--ioa-iiai
*Central San's vertical maintenance hours exclude Pumping Station maintenance time.
111
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 300 of 414
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
PLANNED VERTICAL WW MAINTENANCE TO TREATMENT
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY15-16 and 16-17 Data)
A WA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-16 data) A WA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
2.5
0
m 2.1
1.9
r- 2 1.8
0 1.7
0 1.5 1.5
t 1.5 1.4
E 1.2 1.2 1.2
E
1 0.9 0.9
0.7 0.7 D.7
> 0.6 0.6 0.6
~ 0.5 0.4 0.4
not 0.1 I
I} available
�sA1 l '•' {,.y''t, �{l •,.. ,,t, {� ti� ,v t� �u •,o 4� :v •o � ` 'o
,,• ,, �• r< $ A oma` Y a A 4 0 A A
CENTP-SAN FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 6-17
Wfi only utilities Combined utilities Population Populalion 'J pi onh{ulililies GOm6ined utilities Population Poprdatior
f6 participants; (23 participants,' 100 001–500 000 >500,000 .16 pariicipanis) (33 participants'. 1i)'J.001–555.000 >500000
(15 participants) f14 participants; (18 Farticipanw f15 participants:
*Central San's vertical maintenance hours exclude Pumping Station maintenance time.
112
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 301 of 414
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
CORRECTIVE LINEAR WW MAINTENANCE TO COLLECTION SYSTEM
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
0
4504
Y
4000 3 79
c
3500
E O 3000
},W 11 2,401
m 2500
'0 0 2400 7,925 1,741 7,9U8
a o 1,595
J
1,473
1500 1,247
4 �
ar U :3904 I I 954
> 1000 1,162
V 044
237
0 534 540 455 554
500 not
1 202 254 291 334 181 '
available . , 3' 28 ■7 ■ ' II , 88 ■
0
C1��TRaL$AM F'115-116 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 F(15-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 F(18-17
VON only utilities Combined utilities Populalion Population W 'Ofl1}utililies Combined utilities Population Popula'icr
(6 participants) (40 participants) 100,401—500,044 >500,000 [7 participanis; f42 participants; 100:401—SG-O.00C -.50-3.00C
(17 parlicipanis) (17 participants) (23 parlicipar..s:: j 9 sari cipanis;
113
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 302 of 414
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
PLANNED LINEAR WW MAINTENANCE TO COLLECTION SYSTEM
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
14000
12000 77,74&
s�
c ..
� w
a E ' i 000o
m w-
y 8000
8000
c p 4,406 4,668
p 40003,116 3,796 3,308 3,173
2,674 29528 2,489
= I ,132
2000 1,644 1,679 1 3$4 7,330 7,2b7 7,460 1,329 $ 1,524
a not M4 1 I 2-9 1 �5 1 I 500■ 1 516■ 1 , 1
� 93
available
EN7RAL$AN FY 15-16 F`15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 F``16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
'41AV only utilities Combined utilities Population population WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
[7 participants] ;40 padicipanis; 180,001–500,000 >500 080 f'• participants) (47 participants) 1H.001-500000 �,500,000
f18 palioipanlsl f17 participants) (25 participants) f2D participants)
114
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 303 of 414
Page 118 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
This indicator quantifies the energy consumed to treat WW on an annual basis. Annual energy
consumption includes purchases of electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, propane, and other crude oil
derivatives.
For a given reporting period, this benchmark is calculated as follows:
Energy Consumption:Wastewater kBTU(—year * )
MG
Energy consumption based on purchases of electricity,natural gas,and other fuels (kBTU)
Average daily f low (MGD) * 365 days per year
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San's energy consumption data is comprised of the amount of fuels which come into
the treatment plant—electricity, natural gas and fuel oil (diesel). Solar was not included since
solar panels are only installed at the HHW Collection Facility and CSO, both of which are
separate from the WW treatment process.
Commentary
The AWWA calculation method involves estimating the total energy being used at the
treatment plant by converting each source to British thermal units (BTU). For example, one
kWh of electricity that flows from the electricity grid from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to the
treatment plant is converted to about 3,412 BTUs. The approximate amount of energy used for
the Central San WW treatment process per year is displayed below.
11 111 111
CENTPAL SAN
ENTRAL CONTRA • DISTRICT
: 111 111
kk
*Amount of Natural Gas(NG), Landfill Gas(LFG), Electricity, and Diesel used per year based on FY 15-16, 16-17,
17-18, and 18-19 data in kBTU (1,000 BTUs).
Central San purchases a significant quantity of NG to meet much of the treatment plant
electricity (-80%) demand using a cogeneration system (cogen) using combined heat and power
(CHP). Treatment plants like Central San that generate electricity with NG on site will have
higher consumption values using the AWWA calculation method because it counts the energy
lost during generation. Central San's cogen unit is —22% efficient (i.e., 100 kBTU of NG in the
generator produces about 22 kBTU of electricity). It should be noted that steam used for the
115
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 304 of 414
Page 119 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
aeration blowers and other processes is also beneficially recovered in the cogen system after
electricity production using waste heat boilers.
According to the AWWA calculation method, when a treatment plant purchases electricity from
the electrical grid, any energy lost during electricity generation at an off-site facility is not
included in the energy demand calculation (i.e., if the agency purchases 22 kBTU from the
electrical grid, the energy from the fuel (perhaps—100 kBTU of natural gas, coal, etc.) used to
produce this electricity is not included in the 22 kBTU counted in the performance indicator
calculation).
The AWWA benchmarking calculation also does not account for operating cost savings benefits
of generating electricity on site. The graph below shows the difference in price between Central
San's current strategy of producing electricity on site supplemented by grid electricity versus
purchasing all electricity from the electrical grid. Costs for the current strategy include
maintenance. These values are provided to the Board of Directors via monthly energy reports.
While the difference in prices changes by month, the overall trend suggests that the current
strategy is more cost effective than purchasing all electricity from the grid. Additionally, the
benefits for operational reliability of the on-site generation capacity of Central San's cogen unit
should be considered.
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20 AL
$0.10
$0.00
Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19
On-site generation and PG&E Purchased Exclusively from PG&E
Central San staff attempted to approximate the effect of energy loss during generation on the
performance indicator calculated with the AWWA methodology through a sensitivity analysis.
In the sensitivity analysis calculation, the electricity produced by cogen was instead imported
from the electrical grid, and the steam typically produced by cogen was instead produced in the
auxiliary boilers using NG. This calculation is an exercise to show the effect of energy lost during
electricity generation on results calculated with the AWWA method; this does not include a
cost analysis or the impact of energy recovery equipment capacity or redundancy. The results
of the calculation show a decrease in the amount of energy required for the treatment process
to approximately 22,500 kBTU/MG, which is near the 751h percentile in the agencies surveyed in
California and above the 75th percentile in AWWA survey participants. This is represented by a
dotted line in the graphs to follow.
116
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 305 of 414
Page 120 of 167
Performance Indicators: Productivity and Performance
An additional sensitivity analysis was performed to display the amount of energy recovered
through the Central San sewage sludge incinerator process. The energy in steam produced from
the waste heat boilers (which use heat produced in the sewage sludge incineration process)
was added to the amount of energy used for WW treatment calculated with the AWWA
methodology. The results are displayed in the figures below as "incl. steam" and "excl. steam."
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY15-16 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
_
60,000
ce
� 51,133
m 50,000 48,222
0,295 45,505
m 40,000 4a's1a 22,500 kBTUfyear"MG
x5640 (approximate energy used by Central San
,925 if electricity were imported)
.. 30,000 27,946
0 23,870 25,115
------------- - ----------------------------------
m 20,000- - - - 18,742 16 25
14,128 14,055 1 112,629 12,635 12,579
0
9
10,000 I I I SI1 I 7125' 5 I 8,946 9
6/21 6Ig51
LU 0 ■
4111 ,s1 n'b 49 y1° 8c Pi° y°1° p< gl° y^° opc �1° 1° �c �1°
�,NV l;^�.4111"�l„�� �a a `V a 1 ti �a 1 �a 1 `V �,a 1
■incl.steam
excl.steam CA VVW only and combined utilities FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
(9 participants)
CENTRAL SAN VJVJ only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(6 participants) (37 participants) 100.001-500,000 >500.000
(23 participants) (13 participants)
Central San vs. Nationwide (FY 16-17 Data)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
60,000
� 51,133
50,000482 x,50
40,295
::1 40,313
m 40,000
x 640 22,500 kBTLJfyear`MG
g x25 (approximate energy used by Central San
30,000 27
25,115 P
if electrics were imported)
23,e7a
__ 19978 .}861fi- -I�----------------------------------
Q29,000 - - - --- 74r-----
16,025
4,128 14,055 I 10,065 13,865 15,926
, 10,302
0 10,000 8,813 7 394 8115 7,270 7,852
5,445 I 4,959 9 I I '
a
a 0
W 4P 11 19 N% rygl° arc ^yl° ryyl° arc �1° y�l° a p 1e1° yl �� 14, ry�l° -4p ^0, eP
ryyl a�yr ��1° rygl° a�� ^
Na 1 <k NV a
■incl.steam
FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 15-17 FY 16-17
exeL steam CAVAN only and combined utilities
(9 part lcl pa nts) VJVJ only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
CENTRAL5AN f10 participants) (60 participants) 100,001-500,000 >530,000
(31 participants) (26 participants)
*The CA and nationwide agency information makes no distinction between agencies that have different treatment
processes(e.g., incineration, nitrification, etc.).The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies
that provide dual services(combined utilities),are retail agencies,or are agencies that are part of a larger
operation.
117
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 306 of 414
Page 121 of 167
FYs 17-18 and 18-19 Standalone Performance Indicators
ENERGY OPTIMIZATION PLAN
This indicator asks utilities to self-assess and define their energy optimization plan, which is an
energy use plan that takes into consideration opportunities for energy conservation,
opportunities to produce energy, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and opportunities to
reduce energy costs. Utilities were asked to assign themselves one of the following levels:
1. No energy optimization plan has been developed approach defined or endorsed.
2. Plan has been somewhat defined and endorsed by few or no staff, stakeholders, and
decision-makers.
3. Plan has been moderately defined and endorsed by some staff, stakeholders, and
decision-makers.
4. Plan is well-defined and endorsed by most staff, stakeholders, and decision-makers.
5. Plan is well-defined and fully endorsed by staff, stakeholders, and decision-makers.
Central San gave itself a flat rating of Level 3 (highlighted columns below) for FYs 15-16, 16-
17, 17-18, and 18-19. Below is how that rating compares to how other utilities nationwide
rated themselves in the FY 15-16 and 16-17 AWWA Utility Benchmarking survey results:
Level (FY 15-16)
Well Number of
Utility Type Not defined Somewhat Mostly defined/ Well defined defined Participating
defined/few some endorsed(3) /mostly /fully UtIIIt12S
endorsed(2) endorsed(4) endorsed(S)
WW only 0% 0% 71% 29% 0% 7
Combined 15% 18% 40% 18% 9% 45
Population
Data not
100,001- 5.6% 22.2% 36.1% 25.0% 11.1%
provided
500,000
Population 8.0% 12.0% 52.0% 24.0% 4.0% Data not
>500,00 1 provided
Level (FY 16-17) Number of
UtilityT Somewhat Mostly defined/ Well defined well Participating
Type Not defined defined p g
defined/few some endorsed(3) /mostly
/not endorsed(1) I CENTRALSAN /fully Utilities
endorsed(2) endorsed(4)
endorsed(S)
WW only 23% 0% 33% 33% 11% 9
Combined 11% 20% 41% 15% 13% 61
Population
100,001- 6.8% 18.2% 40.9% 15.9% 18.2% 37
500,000
Population
>500,00 6.8% 17.6% 35.3% 23.5% 14.7% 33
118
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 307 of 414
Page 122 of 167
FYs 17-18 and 18-19 Standalone Performance Indicators
NUTRIENT RECOVERY
This indicator identifies the percent of WW treated that will eventually be used for nutrient
recovery; nutrient removal requirements are met through watershed processes rather than
treatment at the plant.
As defined by AWWA, examples could include land application, recovery of nitrogen or
phosphorus (if either is directly recovered from the WW treatment process), composting,
effluent reuse of reclaimed water for non-potable uses (e.g. irrigation), or indirect reuse (e.g.,
groundwater recharge). The focus of this question is on Watershed Sustainability.
Central San Data Calculation Method
Central San calculated the percent of WW treated which was distributed for irrigation purposes
(recovery of some nitrogen as a co-benefit of irrigating with recycled water) via its Zone 1
recycled water distribution system to various businesses and the Residential Recycled Water Fill
Station directly to residential customers. Central San tracks recycled water usage on a calendar
year basis. Central San also provides recycled water for Contra Costa Topsoil for dust control,
which will eventually make it into the soil for recovery.
It should be noted that, based on a limited data set, it is expected that the current WW
treatment, solids handling, and ash disposal practices at Central San result in some nutrient
recovery. Twice-weekly treatment plant influent and effluent liquid sampling during FYs 15-16,
16-17, 17-18 and 18-19 show that the Central San WW treatment process reduces the
concentration of phosphorous by—85%. The majority of this phosphorous is expected to be in
the primary and waste activated, which, in the current solids handling process, flow to the
multiple hearth incinerators and become ash. Very limited data suggests the ash produced in
the Central San incinerators has a high concentration of phosphorous (-12%). This ash is
ultimately transported off-site to be used as a soil amendment by a private company; it would
be expected that a fraction of the phosphorous in the soil amendment is ultimately accessible
for irrigation purposes.
119
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 308 of 414
FYs 17-18 and 18-19 Standalone Performance Indicators
NUTRIENT RECOVERY
Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 15-16 and 16-17 Data)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide 1=Y 1546 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
50.0
45-0
44.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
75.0
10.0
5.0 9.6 7.2 7.5 7.4
p.p ■ ■ ■ ■ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
{,�40 ya0. {.�°\° {.i b {� lb {u°�° �°�° {.a
'(r§i.CENTRAI S-N
FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 F`16-17 F`(18-17 FY 16-17
WX only utilities Combined utilities Population Population )only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(6 parlidpants) (40 participants) 100:001-500,000 X500,000 (6 parlicipanis) 1'43 parlicipants) 100 901-500,009 >500,000
(25 participants) (24 participants) (19 participants; f13 participants)
120
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 309 of 414
Page 124 of 167
FYs 17-18 and 18-19 Standalone Performance Indicators
FY 17-18 AND 18-19 STANDALONE
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
These indicators were new to the 2019 AWWA Utility Benchmarking survey. Thus, Central San's
data below does not have comparable data. Some past FY Central San data is provided for
comparison.
TOTAL WORKDAYS AWAY FROM WORK
The total workdays away from work are obtained directly from OSHA Form 300A Item K
Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illness. Central San's data for past FYs is included below:
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
249.0 16.0 164.0 0.0
WORKFORCE STRATEGIC PLANNING
This benchmark asks the utility to rate its level of involvement in establishing and enforcing
elements of a strategic plan focused on workforce development and maintenance, using the
rating system below. The practices are aimed at how well the utility has developed and
incorporated succession planning.
1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always
2. Not Often 4. Frequently
Below is how Central San rated itself for FYs 17-18 and 18-19:
Practice FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Scores
Succession planning is an integral part of our organization's 5 5
comprehensive strategic plan.
Our knowledge management process is up to date and one of our 4 4
most important staffing tools.
We gain commitment from decision-makers on succession planning. 5 5
We gather resources for developing and implementing succession 4 4
planning or collaborate with other agencies and programs (i.e.,
Baywork).
We value the role of succession planning in achieving the strategic 5 5
vision and goals of our organization.
Total 23 23
Score (out of 55 possible points) 92% 92%
121
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 310 of 414
Page 125 of 167
FYs 17-18 and 18-19 Standalone Performance Indicators
EMPLOYEE VACANCIES
The intent of this suite of sub-indicators is to record the utility's level of implementation of an
effective workforce plan focused on employee recruitment, development, and retainment, as
well as evaluating how well the utility has incorporated and uses an efficient workforce
succession plan. The focus of these indicators is on FTEs.
AVERAGE LENGTH OF EMPLOYEE TENURE
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
10 Years 10 Years
AVERAGE VACANCY RATE
This was calculated as follows:
Average number of positions open during the fiscal year
Vacancy Rate (%) = Total number of vacancies that were f illed
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
.98% .98%
AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME THAT EMPLOYEE POSITIONS REMAINED VACANT
This was the length of time from an employee's date of departure to the date of hire of their
permanent replacement.
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
68 Days 59 Days
TOTAL NUMBER OF FULL-TIME HIRES RESULTING FROM INTERNAL PROMOTIONS
AWWA instructed to include any hires of temporary employees to full-time status. The reported
numbers represent the number of promotions.
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Total Number of Full-Time Hires Resulting from 10 Promotions 9 Promotions
Internal Promotions
TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE POSITIONS FILLED
15 Positions 16 Positions
122
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 311 of 414
Page 126 of 167
FYs 17-18 and 18-19 Standalone Performance Indicators
RISK ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS
This benchmark asks the utility to indicate how well it has assessed their hazards (natural and
human-caused), vulnerabilities, and risks and made corresponding plans for critical needs, using
the options below. Risk assessment includes evaluation for potential power outages, lack of
access to chemicals, cybersecurity, extreme weather events, curtailed staff availability, etc.
• Not Applicable.
• No Assessment in fiscal year.
• Level 1 - Risks to high-consequence assets have been identified and risks reduced.
• Level 2— Increase utility capacity to understand and detect threats to the system, risks
to all major assets are identified and reduced, and all hazards risk management needs
are fully integrated into broader utility planning and investment activities.
• Level 3 - Emergent risks to all major assets are consistently addressed. Proactive and
specialized shifts in operational procedures and updated capital investment criteria are
changed when necessary.
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Levell Levell Leve12 Leve12
Development of an Enterprise Risk Management program and Continuity Plan are in progress,
after which Central San can rate itself at Level 3.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING
This benchmark asks the utility to indicate the level of complexity of its Emergency Response
Plan using the options below.
• Not Applicable.
• No Plan in place.
• Level 1: Emergency Response Plan is developed containing basic policies and
procedures.
• Level 2: The Emergency Response Plan is enhanced with additional capabilities and
supported through more structured relationships with potential response partners.
• Level 3: Emergency Response Plan is enhanced with incident-specific Emergency Action
Procedures (EAPs) for responding to a specific type of incident, and enhanced capability
to test, exercise, and to refine the Emergency Response Plan is in place. Ability to
respond to a full suite of unexpected events by implementing a comprehensive
Emergency Response Plan.
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Level2 Level2 Level2 Level2
123
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 312 of 414
Page 127 of 167
FYs 17-18 and 18-19 Standalone Performance Indicators
Central San did not produce any new emergency response planning documents this year;
however, significant strides were made on the Continuity Plan, which informs and aligns with
the Emergency Operations Plan. Once the Continuity Plan is complete, Central San will develop
a more operationally focused Emergency Response Plan.
RECOVERY AND MITIGATION PLAN
This benchmark asks the utility to rate its development and incorporation of a recovery and
mitigation plan using the options below.
• Not Applicable.
• No Plan in place.
• Level 1: General awareness of mitigation and recovery activities, projects, and funding
is in place for efficient system and services restoration.
• Level 2: Implementation of mitigation and recovery activities, projects, and funding is in
place.
• Level 3: Ability to recover from a full suite of incidents through implementation of
comprehensive mitigation and recovery activities, projects, and funding is in place.
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Levell Leve12 Leve13 Leve13
The Executive Team is currently identifying and prioritizing mitigations for strategic risks,
including emergencies/disasters.
CYBERSECURITY PREPAREDNESS
This benchmark asks the utility to rate its development and incorporation of a cybersecurity
plan using the options below.
• Not Applicable
• No Plan in place
• Level 1— Utility has identified and established a basic cybersecurity plan and is
minimally implemented.
• Level 2— Utility has developed a cybersecurity plan, that has been approved and
generally used throughout facility.
• Level 3— Utility has established and fully incorporated a detailed cybersecurity plan
which is routinely reviewed and implemented.
FY 17-18 FY 18-19
Leve12 Leve12
124
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 313 of 414
Page 128 of 167
FYs 17-18 and 18-19 Standalone Performance Indicators
FREQUENCY OF BILLING
This is the frequency at which the utility routinely performs billing of WW services for separate
billing categories. Central San's billing frequencies for FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19 are
indicated for each category below:
RESIDENTIAL: Less frequent than quarterly
COMMERCIAL: Less frequent than quarterly
WHOLESALE: Less frequent than quarterly
ESTIMATED BILLING
This is the percentage of bills issued during the FY for WW services that have been estimated.
Estimated billing percentage may be due to estimated meter readings, dispute resolutions, etc.
This is calculated as follows:
Estimated number of bills issued x 100
Estimated billing rate (%) = Number of bills issued
Central San's estimated billing rates for FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19 are indicated for
each category below:
RESIDENTIAL: 0.0%
COMMERCIAL: 1.0%
WHOLESALE: 0.0%
125
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 314 of 414
Page 129 of 167
Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS
While there are limitations to consider in making strict apples-to-apples comparisons when
reviewing the report, overall, this study is useful in identifying strengths and weaknesses and
identifying potential areas on which to focus for improving performance over time.
Central San will continue to participate in the yearly AWWA survey. Staff has volunteered to
serve on the AWWA Utility Benchmarking Survey Advisory Committee in the hopes of
potentially assisting with finetuning the survey by conveying the recommendations noted in
this report to remove the subjectivity in the data reporting, to make this a more useful tool for
performance measurement and make the valuable data AWWA collects more easily
interpretable. Separate benchmarks for retail and wholesale agencies would be a significant
step in creating groups of utilities that are more comparable. Over time, the value of the
benchmarking survey data may improve if the definitions are refined, participants commit to
data validation, and participants ensure consistent application of the definitions.
Staff will work on solidifying benchmarking practices by making benchmarking an annual event
and building relationships with CA agencies to continue to have consistent and accurate data
gathering. Benchmarking data will be used to celebrate successes and recognize opportunities
for improvement.
Staff will consider identifying more similar collection systems within CA to compare to Central
San and finetune the comparisons with the ten CA agencies surveyed for this report to account
for wholesale agencies.
Central San will continue its efforts toward meeting its customers' expectations, replacing aging
and inefficient equipment, focusing on optimizations and efficiencies, and strategic planning for
managerial effectiveness, with the goal of seeing positive trends in performance against itself
over the years, as well as seeing favorable comparisons with other agencies.
126
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 315 of 414
Nationwide AWWA Survey(FY 15-16 Data)
• ttkiRn [owra��osr�snwtuzrossrrncr WW Only Utility om me Utility Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
• 9 artici ants) FY 15-16(72 participantsj_ 500,000(36 participants) (25-26 participants)
_��_ 25% MediaA 5A 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
• ®��__-___ 54.5 59.5 71.6 51.9 60.1 70.9
collectionWW 23.9 32.1 39.7 22.3 28.9 34.5
WW treatment22.6 27.3 36.0 24.8 27.4 35.2
I-management,engineering, ®®®®--■.-� 25.3 40.3 45.5 29.1 39.8 48.1
customer service,other
Pretreatment programs 1.8 3.2 5.0 1.4 1.8 2.1
3.8 6.7 11.3 2.5 6.0 7.5
planningUtility 1.9 3.6 4.6 0.9 1.6 2.5
service/complianceLab 2.4 3.5 6.3 2.6 4.4 6.0
Customer ®®®®■-■■-. 3.5 6.0 9.7 4.2 7.0 13.0
call center
Customer billing 1.6 2.3 3.2 1.3 2.6 4.5
Public relations . 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.8
®===__F.4V1 1.7 I__ 1.2 2.7 4.6 1.6 2.2 4.1
1.2 1.4 0.17 0.9 1.3 1.9
TechnologyInformation 9 1.2 2.3 5.0 1.2 2.6 3.6
5 3.0 4.6 9.3 1.0 1.4 12.7
®=®®__-__& 2.2 2.7 3.1 0.8 1.2 1.5
Legal/administration1.7 3.0 4.6 1.2 2.1 2.8
0.5 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.8
Risks/claims0.7 1.1 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.7 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.8 1.1
5.3 6.4 13.8 1.7 4.5 9.7
• •- 1 • -• :•. • • �•- •. .•- . •
Nationwide AWWA Survey(FY 16-17 Data)
IFTE • Population of
Category WW Only Utilit ed Utility Population of>500,000
CENiRAt C6l1TRA LD1TA SANTAR'!FRSiRIC! 100,001-500,000
Subcategoryand (11 participants) FY 15-16(86 participants) (7-25 participants)
s (10-38 participants)
Medi 5% 25% Median 25% Median 750o
•: ®®�__-_ 54.1] 59.8 44.9 50.9 60.0
WW collection19.0 l 31.8 IM 16.2 23.6 32.4
WW 24.9 29.9
21.0 25.5 33.4
FTEs-management,engineering, ®®®®I3 0 IMMWMM 32.6 40.5 47.0 38.2 42.4 53.0
customer service,other
Pretreatment programs ��®®I1.8 '_12.40M_ 2�_ 1.0 2.3 5.0 1.7 2.3 2.8
Engineering ®®= 8.1 ,_L4M___ 6.6 8.9 13.5 5.0 8.1 11.2
planningUtility ==®® 2.4 _-___ 0.6 1.= 4.7 0.9 1 1.5 2.8
Lab service/compliance 2.8 4.5 5.1 2.8 4.8 6.5
Customercall center ®®®®■-■■-. 3.6 5.8 8.1 4.8 i 6.9 14.6
Customer billing 1.5 2.8 4.0 1.0 2.0 2.9
Public relations0.3 0.7 1.2 0.3 0.7 1.1
2.8 4.7 1.7 3.5 5.1
1.7 0.9 1.7 2.6
2.8 4.1 1.4 2.8 4.6
1.3 2.8 9.1 0.4 1.1 5.5
0.9 2.2 0.3 0.9 1.7
Legal/administration 1.8 4.2 6.9 0.9 2.1 3.8
0.8 0.3 0.4 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3
==='_-___ 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2
• ����__-___ 0.0 2.7 4.5 1.9 3.2 5.4
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
STAFFING LEVELS BY CATEGORY (% OF TOTAL FTEs) - GRAPHICAL COMPARISONS
Below are graphical representations of the above information for comparison of Central San's employees in different subcategories
over FYs 15-16, 16-17, 17-18, and 18-19 to the nationwide AWWA aggregate data for FY 15-16 and 16-17. p
Pretreatment Programs
6.0 5.2
5.0
j 5.0
F- 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9
LL 4.0 - - f
3.2
3.0
2.2 2.1
2.0 1.8 1.4 1.8
1.0 1 0
0.0 .0
,n�l,CENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Pretreatment Programs
6.0
5.0
LU
5.0
1- 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.1
LL 4.0
0 3.0 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.8
2.3 2.3
4.- 2.0 1.8 1.7
1.0
\ 0.0
1
_,Oro,fCENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (25 participants) (14 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
129
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 318 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Engineering
12.0 11.3
10.3
N 10.0 9.3
LU�
8.0 7.2 7.2 6.7 7.5
6.0
r 6.0
0 4.1 3.8
0 4.0 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.5
2.0 '
0
0.0 .0
�I_CENTRALSAH 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Engineering
16.0 14.1
14.0 13.5
12.3 11.8
W 12.0 11.2
LL_
10.0 8.1 8.2 8.9 8.1
ca 8.0 6.6
0
~ 6.0 4.7 5.0
0
4.0 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.8
2.0 ,
0.0
n4,ICENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (34 participants) (23 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
130
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 319 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Utility Planning
8.0 7.0 7.1
7.0
H6.0 4.9 5.3 5.5
LL 5.0 4.6c3.9
4.0 3.9 3.6
3.0 2.8 2.3 2.5
1.9 1.6
2.0 1.0 0.9
1.0 0.0 ■ '
0.0
,d!:j►�10ENIRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Utility Planning
8.0 7.0 7.1 7.4
7.0
H6.0 4.9 5.3 5.
LL 5.0 4.7
0 4.0 -
4- 3.0 2.8 2.8
2.0 1. 1.7 1.5
1.0 0.8 � 1
0.0
._,I,CENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (20 participants) (17 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
131
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 320 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Lab Service / Compliance
9.0 8.0
8.0
LU 7.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.0
LL 6.0 5.3
�a 5.0 4. 4.4
0 4.0 % 3.5
0 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.6
2.01.0 '
0.0
0.0
,fR 4LCENTRALSM 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Lab Service / Compliance
8.0 7.6
N 7.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.5
W 6.0 ; 4
LL 5.0 - 4.7 45 5.1 4.8
4.2 .
0 4.0 3.4
3.0 2.7 2.8 2.8
0
2.0
1.0
0.0
,ICENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (29 participants) (21 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
132
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 321 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Customer Service / Call Center
14.0 12.2 13.0
N 12.0
IW- 9.7
10.0
LL 7.6
8.0 7.0
r 6.0
H 6.0 4.6 4.2
.- 4.0 3.3 3.7 3.5
2.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 '
0.0
0.0
�',10ENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Customer Service / Call Center
16.0 14.6
14.0
w 12.0 11.0
H
LL 10.0 -
8.1
ca 8.0 6.9
0 5.8
~ 6.0 4.1 4.8
4.0 2.8 0 3.6
10
2.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.5 '
0.0 1 M M I 1 0
_[i,)CENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (27 participants) (20 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
133
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 322 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Customer Billing
5.0 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.5
4.5
W 4.0
H 3.5 3.1 3.2
LL
3.0 2.3 2.6
2.5
F- 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.3
0 1.5 0.8 0.9 0.9
1.0 , k 0.4 '
0.0
0.0
'
�[i,ICENTRALSM 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Customer Billing
5.0
4.5 4.3
4.0
N 4.0
LU 3.5
3.5
LL 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9
0 2.5 2.3
` 2.0
2.0 ! 1.5
0 1.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 1. 1.0
1.0 , , 0.4 _ 1
0.5
Wit
0.0
§10ENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (22 participants) (18 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
134
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 323 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Public Relations
1.6 1.4 1.4
1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2
LLJ 1.2 1.1 1.0
LL 1.0 0.8
0 0'8 0.6 0.6
w 0.6 0.5
0 0.4 0.3
0.2 0.0 ,
0.0
��CE. EWULSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Public Relations
1.6 1.4 1.4
1.4
1.2 1.2 13 1.2
W 1.2 1.1 1.1
1.0
LL 1.0 0.8
0 0.8 07 0.7 0.7
0.6
0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2
0.0
ICENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (20 participants) (21 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
135
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 324 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Finance
5.0 4.4 4.7 4.6
4.5 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.1
W 4.0
F- 3.5 2.8
3.0 2.7
2.4 2.2
0 2.5
H 2.0 1.7 1.6
0 1.5 1.2
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
,e't ycEWULSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Finance
6.0 5.6
5.0
4.8 5.1
Lu 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.7
4.0 3.5
LL
�a 2.8
0 3.0 2.
1.8
0 2.0 1.5 1.7
1.0
0.0
�4ICENTRAL SAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (29 participants) (21 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
136
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 325 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Human Resources (HR)
3.5
3.0 2.9
W 2.4 2.4 2'6 2.5
F- 2.5
LL 1.9
2.0 1.6
F0 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.3
1.0
0 1.0 0 '9
0.5 0.0 1
0.0
,�f{jCENTRAL SAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Human Resources
3.5 -
N 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6
LU H 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2
II_
2.0 1.7 1.7
41
�0 1.5 1.4 1.4
O 1.0 0.9
10
0.5
0.5 ' 0.5 . 1
0.0
Z,ICENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (21 participants) (20 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
137
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 326 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Information Technology (IT)
3.5
N 3.0 2.9
2.6 2.5
H 2.5 2.4 2.4
u_ 1.9
2.0 1.6
41
� 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.3
1.0 0.9
0 1.0
10
0.5 0.0 1
0.0
', CENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Information Technology
5.0 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.0 4.1
4.6
W 4.0 -
3.5
LL 3.0 2.8 2.8
2.4
0 2.5
H 2.0 1.7
0 1.5 1.4 1.4
1.0V 0.5
0.0
(,ICENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (27 participants) (21 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
138
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 327 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Facilities
14.0 12.7
N 12.0 10.5
LLJ
10.0 8.9 9.3
LL
8.0
6.0 4.8 4.6
4.0 2.4 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.03.0
1.5 1.4
10
2.0 - I 1.0
0.0 -1 , I 0.0 6 I M
'_(i,10ENTRALSAM 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Facilities
10.0 9.0 9.1
9.0
w 8.0
H 7.0
LL 6.0 5.5
4.8
0 5.0
4.0
0 3 .0 2.4 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.8
8-0 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.1
1.0 0.2 0.3 . 0.4 ■
0.0
,ICENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (19 participants) (16 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
139
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 328 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Fleet
4.0 3:7
3.5 3.1
H 3.0 2.5 2.7
LL 2.5 2.2 2.2
0 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.71.61.5
1.5 1.2
0 1.0 0.8
0.5 0.0 '
0.0
hCENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Fleet
2.5 2.2 2.1 2.2
W 2.0 1.8 1.9
1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
H
LL 1.5
� 1.1
0 1.0 0.9 0.9
0 0.6
0.5 0.3
0.0 0.0 .
,ICENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (14 participants) (15 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
140
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 329 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Legal / Administration
5.0 4.5 4.6
4.5
w 4.0
H 3.5 3.0
LL 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.9 2 2.8
0 2.5
H 2.0 � 1.517
0 1.5 1.2.
0.5 0.0 '
0.0
II CENTRAL SAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Legal / Administration
8.0 -
6.9
7.0 6.3
LU H 6.0 5.0
LL 5.0
4.2
0 4.0 3.2
3.8
3.0 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7
0 2.2A1.2
1.8 2.1
10
2.0 1.1 0.9
1.0
0.0
�ICENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (31 participants) (20 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
141
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 330 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Safety
4.0 3.5
W 3.5
H
u. 3.0 2.5
0 2.5
2.0
1.5
a) 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.8
a 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0
0.0
25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Safety
2.5
2.1
W 2.0
LL H
1.5 1.2
H 1.0 0.9
4-
0 0.5 0.5
0 0.5 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 '
0.0 0.0 0.0 .
0.0
25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (22 participants) (22 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
142
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 331 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Risks / Claims
2.0
1.8
W 1.6 1.4
H 1.4
LL
1.2
0 1.0
H 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0 5 0.6 0'7 0.6
0 0.6 0.4
0.4 0.3 0.2 ,
0.2 0.0 ■
0.0
, FCENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Risks / Claims
0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
0.6
LLIN
0.5
LL 0.4
0.4
r 0.3
H 0.3
,- 0.2 0.2
G 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
i
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
,e!§CENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (11 participants) (15 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
143
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 332 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Security
4.0 3.5
3.5
N
W 3.0
2.5
LL 2.5
0 2.0
1.5 1.2 1.1
0 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.8
0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0
0.0
dgf�O 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Security
2.5
2.1
N 2.0
W
H
1.5 1.2
0 1.0 0.9
4-
0.5 0.4
0.5 0.5
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 '
0.0 0.0 0.0 .
0.0
,)CENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 500,000 >500,000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (10 participants) (15 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
144
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 333 of 414
Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category
Other
16.0
13.8
14.0
N 11.2 11.0
H 12.0 9.7
LL 10.0
M 8.0 7.3
6.3 6.5 66 6.5 6.4
0
0 6.0 5.4 5.3 4.5
0
4.0 2.0 1.7
2.0 0.1 ■ '
0.0
ZO CeNTRALSw 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 500,000 (26 participants)
(9 participants) (72 participants) (36 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
Other
7.0 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.5 -
6.0 5.7 5.4
LU
5.0 4.5
LL
r 4.0 2.9 2.9 3.2
O 3.0 2.7
2.1
o 2.0 1.8
1.9
1.0 0.3 0.0 '
0.0
�4,F_CENTRALSAN 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75% 25% Median 75%
FY FY FY FY WW Only Utilities Combined Utilities Population of 100,001- Population of
15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 5005000 >5005000
(11 participants) (86 participants) (19 participants) (15 participants)
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
145
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 334 of 414
Page 149 of 167
Appendix: Acronyms
APPENDIX: ACRONYMS
Acronym Definition
AWWA American Water Works Association
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CCI Construction Cost Index
CHP Combined Heat and Power
CIWQS California Integrated Water Quality System Project
CSO Collection System Operations
EAP Emergency Action Procedures
EUM Effective Utility Management
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
HHW Household Hazardous Waste
HR Human Resources
ICI Institutional,Commercial,and Industrial
IT Information Technology
MHI Median Household Income
MGD Million Gallons per Day
NRSRO Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization
O&M Operations&Maintenance
OPEB Other Post-Employment Benefits
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PRA Public Records Act
R&R Renewal and Replacement
RUE Residential Unit Equivalents
SSC Sewer Service Charge
S&P Standard &Poor's
UAAL Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability
WEF Water Environment Foundation
WW Wastewater
146
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 335 of 414
Page 150 of 167
10/22/19
OA
BENCHMARKING STUDY
FYs 2015-16 THROUGH 2018-19
Board Meeting
November 7, 2019
Christina Gee, Management Analyst
Michael Cunningham, Assistant Engineer
Ni
OBJECTIVES
• Conduct an initial baseline study to compare Central San's
performance to itself and sister agencies statewide and
nationwide
• Encourage self-evaluation and internal dialogue
• Establish a framework to perform benchmarking annually,
with consistency in data reporting
• Identify opportunities for consideration in strategic planning
• Emphasize the importance of systematic continuous
improvement
• Articulate value proposition for stakeholders, including residents,
businesses, and the environment
1-01V)
1
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 336 of 414
Page 151 of 167
10/22/19
STUDY COMPARISONS
• Central San FY 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 data
• California (CA) FY 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 aggregate data
(via independent survey for 14 benchmarks)
• Nationwide FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 aggregate data
(via American Water Works Association (AWWA))
• Wastewater(WW)only
• Combined water-WW
• Population 100,001-500,000
• Population >500,000
14
,2
12
70 8 8 8
8
v
c 6
z
B
.. Organizational Financial Strength Customer Service Productivity and
Development Performance
Performance Indicator Category `
r
CENTRALSAN
Central San CA Agencies Nationwide Agencies
PERFORMANCE FYs 1516-1819 (Central San Survey) AWWA Survey)
Fys 15-I6-17-I8 FYs IS-I6 and 16-17
INDICATORS Organizational Best Practices
Staffing Levels ✓
INCLUDED INTraining ✓
Emergency Response Readiness Training ✓ ✓
THESTUDY Employee Turnover
Retirement Eligibility ✓
Recordable Incidents of Injury or Illness* • FY 16-17onlyv1a AWWA
Near Misses' + • FY 16-17 only via AWWA
✓=comparative data Debt Ratio
is available for the Return on Assets
performance indicator Days of Cash on Ratio
Days
p Debt Service Coverage tio + + +
Days of Working Capital
*=new to the 2018 Operating Ratio
BondRating ✓ + +
AWWA Utility Insurance Average Severity*/Claim s ✓ • FY 16-17only via AW WA
Benchmarking book Residential Service Charges ✓ ✓
Nonresidential Service Charges ✓ + ,
(not included In 2017 or 2018AW WA utility Benchmarking books)
x=comparative data Service Affordability +
is not available for the Service Complaints(Customer and Technical Service) ✓
performance indicator Customer Service Cost per Account
Customer service Contact
Stakeholder Outreach Index
Wastewater Service Disruptions
System Inspection ✓ ✓ ✓
System Renewal and Replacement ✓ • ✓
Non-capacity and Capacity Sewer Overflow Rates ✓
Collection System Integrity ✓
Treatment Plant Regulatory Compliance V ✓
Customer Accounts per Employee +
Wastewater Processed per Employee +
O&M Costs of Wastewater Services + ✓
Maintenance
Energy Consumption ✓
Energy Optimization Plan
Nutrient Recovery
2
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 337 of 414
Page 152 of 167
10/22/19
METHODOLOGY
'I AW WA U ull[y
cnehmarlung waaa�avr'mrAiW'
Phas
"arm ne For AWWA For CA agency
relevant (nationwide) (statewide)
benchmarks comparison comparison
Phase Send definitions Extract nationwide Follow-up with
Solicit ar� and input forms to data from Perform quality data submitters
F review data imental staff and AWWA Utility checks as needed
CA agencies Benchmarking book
Participate in 2018 Produce Present to Share aggregated
Phase 3: AWWA Utility Benchmarking Administration CA agency data
Share results Benchmarking Study with Committee and with participants
survey comparative data Board (forthcoming)
i
3CENTRALSAN.
PARTICIPANTS
•Ten CA agencies were surveyed by Central San
for their performance in 14 benchmarks
•77 combined water-WW utilities and 12 WW-only
utilities participated in the 2017 AWWA
benchmarking survey (FY 2015-16 data)
•94 combined water-WW utilities and
11 WW-only utilities participated in the 2018
AWWA benchmarking survey (FY 2016-17 data)
s
CENTRALSAN
3
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 338 of 414
Page 153 of 167
10/22/19
LIMITATIONS TO COMPARISON
• Definitions in AWWA methodology subject to interpretation
• Diligence in following prompts not guaranteed
• Case study: independent review of CA agency financial data
R
Source Check CAFR data Produce a set of data
Annual Financial Reports against reported figures under one consistent
(CAFRs)for all for four financial interpretation ofAWWA
r CA agencies performance indicators methodology
• Data entry errors by respondents
• Reported data point(s) based on respondents' internal definition
rather than adjusting data to follow AWWA's definition
• Agencies report financial data differently in their CAFRs
CENTRALSAN
- .
LIMITATIONS TO COMPARISON
(CONTINUED)
• Participants not separately benchmarked by
operating type
• Independent WW enterprise that operates its own
collection system (e.g., Central San)
•Agencies who are part of a city
•Wholesale WW-only agencies
•Wholesale combined (water and WW) agencies
• Combined water-WW utilities
CENTRALSAN1
4
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 339 of 414
Page 154 of 167
10/22/19
LIMITATIONS TO COMPARISON
(CONTINUED)
•Operational differences
• Central San
• On-site energy production to power treatment process
(energy consumption is comparatively higher based on AWWA
calculation methodology)
• Multiple hearth furnace solids handling process, requiring
purchase of landfill gas (increases costs and energy
consumption)
•Varying levels of wastewater treatment
• Nutrient removal?
• Recycled water production?
AA
ADJUSTMENTS MADE
TO CENTRAL SAN DATA
• Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Recycled
Water staffing and costs have been removed where
possible
• Concord and Clayton customer accounts and costs
have been included where appropriate
•Ad valorem taxes collected have been included where
appropriate
CENTRALSAN1
5
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 340 of 414
Page 155 of 167
10/22/19
EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
16.0
1
14.9 4.0
12.0 11.1 11.3
10.5 10.3 10.1 10.2
y 10.0 9.7
8.5
8.0
7.6 7.9
6.2 I 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.5
6.0 5.2 5.5 5.7
4.5 4.7
3.5 3.9 3.9 3.8 ' 3.9
2.0 I l
9.9
10, ryy�a�so^yds
f
`',F�I CENTRAL SAN FV 1616 FY 15-16 FV 15-16 FV 15-16 FV 16-17 FV 16-17 FY 16-17 FV 16-17
W W only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(9 participants) (53 pteticipants) 100,001-500,000 >.o.000 (11 participants) (59 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
(30 participants) (16 participants) (34 participants) (20 participants)
Employee turnover(%o f total employees)
_Number of regular employee departures during the reporting period
Total number of FTEs 11
OPERATING RATIO
(vs. FY 15-16 DATA)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
100
90 83 86 B6I
80
e 70 67 68
80 55 61 58 59 59
60 52 I
IIA44
55
50 51 50 48
. 50 c40
d
O 30
20
100
c�^�^�^�^c�^1^�^B^o ry�\oga� 1yp ry�p�a`0C 16\o ry�\o�a`�c 1��• y\,�a\sC 1�\o ryyp�`�C 1yM ry�\o�a`c 16\o ryy\o�a� hyo
/',' I-CLMRAL5PN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FV 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
CA WW only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(10 participants) (7 participants) (50 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
(23 participants) (18 participants)
Tota!O&M costs
Operating ratio(%)=Tata!operating revenue- 13
6
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 341 of 414
Page 156 of 167
10/22/19
OPERATING RATIO
(vs. FY 16-17 DATA
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
100
90 83 8
80 72
68
70 62 85 61
S
60 61 58 59 80 58
�5 53 5q
K 50 51 50 48 47 47
c 50 43 — 41
40
30
20
10
0
41^0^e ryyde�`0o 1y\e ryy\eg��mo 1yM ryywga\ao 1yew ryy\ega\so 15\e ry5de�a�oo Aide tih <A arc ^y., ryy.,og Ja 1y\o
/'O I_CENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
CA WW only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(10 participants) (11 participants) (58 participants) 111,011-111,101 1500,000
(30 participants) (27 participants)
Total O&M costs
Operating ratio(95)=Total operating revenue 14
DEBT RATIO
r (vs. FY 15-16 DATA
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
70 66
63
60 56 5557
52 54
5
50 46 0 48
0 4U 39 37 8 34
I
35
32 31
30 28
25
20 20 22 22
19 18 ,
20
10 I I I I
0
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
leyil. ruuSAN
CA WW only and combined utilities W W only utilities Combined utilitiesPopulation Population
(10 participants) (9 participants) (35 participants) 100,001—500,000 1500,000
(21 participants) (12 participants)
Total liabilities
Debt ratio(%)_
Total assets 13
7
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 342 of 414
Page 157 of 167
10/22/19
DEBT RATIO
(vs. FY 16-17 DATA
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
70
64
60
50 52
54 55 53
50 46 h35
43 45
0 40 39 37 35Y28
3232
30 25191620 20 ' 21
0
�nh^�s�^�^1��^m„e ht'�a�mc 1h�' ryy�p�a`0o 1y�` tihp�s�0c 1yw yw�a�ec 15t` ryyp�'�`so 1yt` ryyt baa 1ht` ryy��'a`„ 1h�`
/�01-CENTRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
CA WW only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(10 participants) (11 participants) (47 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
(28 participants) (19 participants)
Total liabilities
Debt ratio(%)_
Total assets 14
SERVICE AFFORDABILITY
AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
1.2 1.12
1.09
1.os
1 0.94nos 0.96 0'99 092 0.96 0,92
0.83 o.aa p.aa 0.82
0.70 0.78
0.8 0.75
0.69
n 62
0.61
0.6 0.52 0.5605090.0.55 0.57 0,52 0.5
a 0.44 0.47
U 0.4
t
N
0.2
0
'$I' Doc 1y\^ `� 1s'`4° ';]d• �®�15d,. hy.S. a`gc 151 `'ya `pc 1�
d°
•
e=l.ad FY 1616 FY 15-16 FY 1616 FY 15-16 FV 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 1617 FY 16-17
valorem taxes
incl.ad W W only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
valorem taxes (8 participants) (65 participants) 100.001-500,000 -500.000 (10 par8cipants) (75 pticip
arants) 100,001-500,000 -500,000
(32 participants) (23 participants) (41 participants) (27 participants)
L'L•t_C6N1Ru6AN
Service o f fordability(%of MNl)
Average residential monthly wastewater bill x 12
MHI=Median Household Income Real median annual household income 15
8
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 343 of 414
Page 158 of 167
10/22/19
NON-CAPACITY OVERFLOWS
(vs. FY 15-16 DATA
Data Sourced via CIWQS AW
8.0 (Bay Area and Statewide) WA Survey(N
5.0ationwide FY 15-16 data)
7.0o
z4
zg
3 y 6.0 ��5.9 II
o A.
m G 4.7 4.9
On
=4.0
E3.1 3.3 2.9
3.0 2.5 2.6
O Wn 2.0
Z 2.0 .61.6
1.0 1.1 1.1
0.0 1 I 1 1
Region 2/Bay Area Statewide FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
d�CENTRAL SAN (1 00 agencies) (460 agencies)
W W only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(9 participants) (67 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
Includes Capacity and Non-capacity Overnows (32 participants) (25 participants)
Non-capacity sewer overflow rate
_Number of noncupucity sewer overflow events daring reporting period X 100
Total miles of collection system piping
CIWQS=CA Integrated Water Quality System Project 17
NON-CAPACITY OVERFLOWS
(vs. FY 16-17 DATA)
Data Sourced via CIWQS AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
(Bay Area and Statewide)
8.0
7.4
7.0
7.0
6.0 I 5.9
O C 5.0 i 5.2 4.7 II 5.1
:`r 4.0 4.0 3.9
U E 3.2
0 3.0
3.0ki
2.4
2.0
= 2. 1.2 1
0.0 I 1.0 I 1 -
0.3 0.2 0.2
" w'� ^6 �1 n$ n, 41, `so y\° y°^\° ,eo
+.°1'"+.�0'<+.�eY�.�'b'<k <k 4ea 1 ry Petr
Region 2/Bay Area Statewide FY i 6-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
,0' I CFNTRALSAN (100 agencies) (460 agencies)
WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
Includes Capacity and Non-capacity Overflows (11 participants) (81 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
(42 participants) (32 participants)
Non-capacity sewer overflow rate
_Number of noncupucity sewer overflow events during reporting periorl X 100
Total miles of collection system piping
18
9
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 344 of 414
Page 159 of 167
10/22/19
CAPACITY OVERFLOWS
(vs. FY 15-16 DATA
Data Sourced via CIWQS AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
(Bay Area and Statewide)
6.o 7.47.0
7.o
6.0 5.6 5.9
a I 5.2
rt 6 5.0 4.7
i y I 4.0 3.9
0E 4.0
n 3.0 2.6
U a 2.0 I 1.7 1.5 1.9
1.1
1.0 0.4 114
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I ' 0.0 I . 0.0 I . 0.1
ye\° ye\° `so y\° y\° `ao y\° y\° aP 5\°
1 �D` 1
F F F F F F F F F F F F
�,,,ACENTRAI,_ Region 2/Bay Area Statewide FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
(100 agencies) (460 agencies)
WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(9 participants) (65 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
Includes Capacity and Non-capacity Overflows (27 participants) (20 participants)
Capacity sewer overflow rate
Number of capacity sewer overflow events during reporting period X 100
Total miles of collection system piping 19
CAPACITY OVERFLOWS
(vs. FY 16-17 DATA
Data Sourced via CIWQS AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
(Bay Area and Statewide)
12.0 11.4
10.0
c n 8.0 7.0-7.4
t o 6.4
Om 5.9
. 6.0 5.2
4.7 4.7
4.0 3.9 4.0
4.0
U a
1.8 1.9
2.0 1.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 ' 0.3 0.0 ' 0.2 '
0.0
/1(ji 1_CENTRAL SAN Region 2/Bay Area Statewide FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
(100 agencies) (460 agencies)
WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(10 participants) (71 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
Includes Capacity and Non-capacity Overflows (34 participants) (28 participants)
Capacity sewer overflow rate
Number of capacity sewer overflow events during reporting period X 100
Total miles of collection system piping 20
10
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 345 of 414
Page 160 of 167
10/22/19
COLLECTION O&M COST PER 100 MILES OF PIPE
(vs. FY 15-16 DATA)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
3,000,000
A. 2,689,212 2,744,646
- 2,592,043
G 2,500,000 -
` 2,251,181
' ■ 2,127,610
0 0.2,000,000 1,944,230
'a
M H11,411.,M
1,658 38
u-1,500,000
1,1
c 11,096,216 1,213,756
.5 a 1,039,406 1,034,179
0 1,000,000 940,131 946,445
788,547 778,035
= 603,372 521344 588,005
U 500,000 373128'26 142 61 13538 173,114
p - ■ L
,h^6 10�a o\.bac 1y\o ryyp�`sc 1yd. ryy\o aac ^y\. y\.ea`ao ^yW ryyd.eaao 1y\ ryy\.aaeo �y\o ryy\.bac ^y\o
�-1 �i QJ QJ tt' lA lCe l`' tt` lt` lt'
,e��q1-CENTRa15AN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
CA WW only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(4 participants) (7 participants) (42 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
(25 participants) (13 participants)
Collection t7&M cost of wastewater services( $ )
100 miles of pipe
_ Collection O&M cost x 100
O&M=Operations and Maintenance Total miles of collection system piping 21
COLLECTION O&M COST PER 100 MILES OF PIPE
(vs. FY 16-17 DATA
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
3,000,000
S 2,689,212 2,744,646
n 592,043
C 2,500,000
2,251,181
2,127,.10
0 2,000,000 1,944,230
`v o. 1,658,x38
a N 1,469,175
V m
"500'0001,106,024
c 1,096,216 1,213,756
ai o 1,039,406 1,005,607 1,092,240
0 w 1,000,000 I 940,131
808,345 791,744
654,229 654,229
515,023 501,02fi 515,023
500,0000 � I 1382,900 416,319 I I 1391 83
_0�0lCINfRALSAN FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
CA WW only and combined utilities WW only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(4 participants) (7 participants) (49 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
(27 participants) (21 participants)
Collection 0&M cost of wastewater services( S )
100 miles of pipe
_ Collection O&M cost x 100
Total miles of collection system piping 22
11
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 346 of 414
Page 161 of 167
10/22/19
TREATMENT O&M COST PER MG
(vs. FY 15-16 DATA
5,000 AW
Central San Survey(California) WA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
V,^4,500 14,345
w 4,000 3,933 3,853
3
�3,500 ,450
n 3,000
0
0 EU 2,500112,249 2,118
1,983 1,914 2,047 1,960
2,000
>= 1,577 1 1,612 1,610 1,599 1,590
E
1,500 1,395 1,378
1,176 1,097 1,231 1,195
H 1,000 I 966 807
3
500 I I I I
o
6^6 6^1 1^b $^A \^ eD00 14" 101'/
14
w 101,100*
14
w y=\. D00 110 101' D00 1y^\. ry4\a a`,Dc 1y\o ryy\. a`,Dc 1y\o
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
.ICE-M SAN WWonl utilities Combined utilities Population Population
CA W W only and combined utilities Y Pu
(8 participants) (8 participants) (37 participants) 100,001-500,000 1500,000
(23 participants) (13 participants)
Treatment O&M cast of wastewater services($M ]=Treatment 0&M cost
G Average daily production x 365 days
MG=Million Gallons 23
TREATMENT O&M COST PER MG
(vs. FY 16-17 DATA
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
5,000
,j 4,500 14,345
9 4,000 3,933 3,853
3,500
a 3,000
0
2,500 , 1,980 2,248
°4 1,983 1,914 2047
�2,000 1,734
1,577 1,6121 1,810 1,599 1,590 I' 1,495 1,594
E
1,500 1,087 1,117 1,099 851
1,000 634 881 706 I 715
500
0
h^6 ^6^1 ^1^0 ^0^9 yao D0C 1y\. ryy\. a\0c 1y\o ry�\o a0c 1y\. y\. a00 1y\. ryy\. D00 1y\a ryy\. a0c 1y\e ryy\o Doc 1y\.
�-1^ QJ QJ QJ � to e1e e1e
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
ICENiOUSW
CA WW only and combined utilities W W only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(8 participants) (7 participants) (47 participants) 100,001-500,000 1500,000
(27 participants) (21 participants)
Treatment 0&M cast of wastewater services(M ]= Treatment 0&M cost
G Average daily production x 365 days
24
12
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 347 of 414
Page 162 of 167
10/22/19
ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT:
HOW IS IT CALCULATED?
• Based on fuels which come into the treatment plant i?AWWA uW;ty
-.enchmarking
• Natural Gas
• Electricity =T 1=
• Landfill Gas
• Diesel
• Challenging to compare between plants with and without on-site
electricity generation using natural gas
• With and without waste heat boiler scenario tries to account for
energy recovered from sludge
25
FUEL INTO TREATMENT PLANT UNDER
TWO SCENARIOS: CURRENT
CONTRALFG:-90,000,( DCENTRALSAN
kCENTRAL •
3%�1-<t i
Total = -530,000,000 kBTU/year
Benchmark: --36,000 kBTU/MG •NG
•LFG
Electricity(imported)
Fuel Oil
NG=Natural Gas 40
LFG=Landfill Gas 26
13
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 348 of 414
Page 163 of 167
10/22/19
FUEL INTO TREATMENT PLANT UNDER
TWO SCENARIOS: IMPORT ALL ELECTRICITY
0,000,000 kBTU
-90,000,000 kBTIJ m
DICENTRALSAN
CONTRACENTRAL •
•0
- e��
<1%
Total=—320,000,000 kBTU/year
Benchmark: —22,500 kBTU/MG -NG
LFG
Electricity(imported)
Fuel Oil
NG=Natural Gas
LFG=Landfill Gas 27
MOTIVATION FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY
ON-SITE
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19
t On-site generation and PG&E Purchased Exclusively from PG&E
PG&E=Pacific Gas and Electric '1 $
14
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 349 of 414
Page 164 of 167
10/22/19
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
(vs. FY 15-16 DATA)
Central San Survey(California) FAMA Survey(Nationwide FY 15-16 data)
60,000
51,133
n 50,000 48,222
v 295 45,505
22,500 kBTU/year*MG
m40,373 (approximate energy used by Central San
2x 40,000 ,42 '64(8 if electricity were imported)
s 925
>�30,000
0 23,347 23,835 24,664
S
E - -4Q964_____ 18.742____ _18,318___ ____/______________________________
m 20,000
18,025
14,120 14,0I55 12,629 12,635 12,579
I 1 9,i88�1 17�2 5'�5 I 8I 6,1 2 9I 6 6,914
rI 4 5r1
21 10,000 I
W
0
9^0 6,*1 1.�4 0,a o\o a`ao 1r'\o tis\. Jso 15•\^ o-
a`ac 1h\o h\e a`ao 1h\. 1h\. a`ac 1h\. tib\o aao 1h\o 4y\e Jao 1y\o
11° tt° e1° is as
•ncl.steam FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16 FY 15-16
o'cl.steam
CENTRAL SAN CA W W only and combined utilities W W only utilities Combined utilities Population Population
(9 participants) (8 participants) (37 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
(23 participants) (13 participants)
Energy Cansulriprion:Wastewater� kBTtl
1 yea r•MG
Energy consu mption(rased an purchases of electricity,n a t urnigas,rind other fuels(k8TU)
Average daily flow(MGR)•365 25
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
(vs. FY 16-17 DATA)
Central San Survey(California) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 16-17 data)
60,000
F
� 51,133
`m 50,000 48222
T 295 45,505
� 22,500 kBTU/year*MG
Y 40,000 40,313 426 (approximate energy used by Central San
,64d if electricity were imported)
925
30,000
Ij 23,347 23,835 24,664
n
m20,000 _19,98t____ -19742____ _.,91816,025 ___________________________________
14,120
0 14,055 10,065 13,865 13,926
10.000 I �BI 3 T,I 4 I 8'�5 5 i5 I 7 0 4'910 27�2 1,903w 0 L
�+^y,E�+^6,��,^1,��,^$,tea .p�`sp 1yb ryy\.�aao 1y\a ryy\a�ea`Bo 1y\a y.��a`0o 1y\o ryy\o�aac 1y\o ryy\o�Dac 1y\o ryy\=�Dac 1y\=
•incl.steam FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17 FY 16-17
excI.steam
CA WW only and combined utilities W W only utilities Combined utilities PopulationPopulation
/ .I CENTRALSAN (9 participants) (10 participants) (60 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000
(31 participants) (26 participants)
Energy Cansutnpiion:Wastewate+•r k8TU
1 yea r•MG
Energy cansu mptian based an purchases of electricity,Ti mural gag.and other fuels(k8TU)
Average daily flow(MGD)•365 30
15
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 350 of 414
Page 165 of 167
10/22/19
STEPS TOWARD BENCHMARKING STUDY
IMPROVEMENTS
• Engage with AWWA Utility Benchmarking Survey
Advisory Committee
• Refine into a more useful tool for performance measurement
• Make the valuable data AWWA collects more interpretable
• Benchmark periodically to for consistent data gathering
both internally and from other CA agencies
• Consider identifying similar collection systems within CA
to compare to Central San and expanding list of
benchmarks
CONCLUSIONS
• Benchmarking is subjective with an imperfect framework
•This study can still be a tool to recognize strengths and
weaknesses
• Over time, value of benchmarking survey data may improve if
• Definitions are refined
• Participants commit to data validation
• Participants ensure consistent application of the definitions
• In the meantime, Central San will keep striving for excellence
• To see positive trends in performance compared to itself over the years
• To see favorable comparisons with other agencies
..; CENTRALSAN
16
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 351 of 414
Page 166 of 167
10/22/19
QUESTIONS?
CENTRALSAN
WATER CONSUMPTION DATA
Average monthly resldential gall—per capita dally Strlewlde urban Wa[er Preduetl- 14.1hl.6ht data
_ p
1506
S�Jucl inonih
we,n 2014
A�— ]IX
HydrPl.gic RegiPn 20M MIS ]016 M17 1018 2x19 1019
CertralCPaft '1 76 80 M 85 67 1017
Colorado Rirer 232 172 197 197 201 709 1508 -11
97
riylh Cgxrt >b 97 8l 7g SS 1018
Nath L*2. 131 118 1" 196 153 145 6
$4Crsm llv 111r 185 147 M 190 13'5 177 � 1008 2016
S."..lsea Ery91 77 82 H6 96 97
WO J0.4—River 171 122 150 156 156 152 b
Ct 111 96 103 106 108 101
$aid lr I.ihonL n 179 146 167 151 1w 165
W.,,lske11 164 188 191 191 195
Stat.Aktt{ . 11] 102 114 119 112 111 W
tM 1r6 r✓lar Apr—y tun tul au8 Sep Ott rrav Ott
hdos:l/ww -teftards.ca.PoWwater issues/Prooramslconservation Portal/conservation mportinc html
17
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 352 of 414
Page 167 of 167
10/22/19
WATER CONSUMPTION BY STATE
40AW Mgal/d 12,000 ga Vd
35,000 Me.Vd Which States Use the Most Water?
Total Withdrawals tap00gaVd
30,OW Mga Vd
11I —Total Withdrawals Per 8000galld
25,000 MFF/A Capita
20,000 Mga Vd- 6,000 ealJd
15,000 Mgal/d
—g,1/d
IOI000 Mgal/tl
5,000Mga1/d 2,000ga1/d
0 Mea Vda Oga1/d
Q A30+5E"=.gait II ofl yl8 e'"e_e��`"o S`afiw2.r:v
Sad 'F � 5c"�€DiEzfB�ad`d8 'Esw1
BQ
E 3N 33
SourceUMS Water-U-dato,Stote f.-12010
htt ss://knowledaecenter.csa.ora/kc/content/which-states-use-most-
water-d ifferences-water-use-amona-states-0
18
November 7, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 353 of 414