Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
16.b. Receive FY 2019-20 Benchmarking Study, comparing District performance to other agencies
Page 1 of 180 Item 16.b. CENTRALSAN Jdf A- hom CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT October 21, 2021 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: CHRISTINA GEE, MANAGEMENT ANALYST REVIEWED BY: PHILIP LEIBER, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION ROGER S. BAILEY, GENERAL MANAGER SUBJECT: RECEIVE BENCHMARKING STUDYCOMPARING CENTRAL SAN'S PERFORMANCE FROM FISCAL YEARS 2017-18, 2018-19, AND 2019-20 TO WATER/WASTEWATERAGENCI ES STATEWIDEAND NATIONWIDE I n the spirit of continuous improvement, Central San has continued its to commitment to benchmarking and is pleased to present the attached Benchmarking Study, which compares Central San's performance against itself in fiscal years (FYs) 2017-18 through 2019-20, and against sister agencies statewide (FYs 2018-19 and 2019-20) and nationwide (FYs 2017-18 and 2018-19). Data is provided for 40 performance indicators in strategic operational areas. Benchmarking is the practice of measuring performance for specified metrics against industry peers, and it is an ongoing cyclical process rooted in sound data collection and analysis. The purposes of performing this study at Central San are to present performance levels and trends, develop consistent and valid data reporting, encourage self-evaluation and objective performance assessment while taking into account the limitations of drawing direct conclusions or comparisons to other agencies, emphasize the importance of systematic continuous improvement, and articulate Central San's value to its stakeholders. Central San used the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Utility Benchmarking framework for this study, selecting relevant performance indicators and presenting Central San's performance in three- year trends against nationwide performance as collected and reported by AWWA in their 2019 and 2020 Utility Benchmarking books. In addition, Central San sourced one indicator (Digital Utility Initiative) and comparable nationwide data from a Black and Veatch publication, the 2020 Strategic Directions: Water Report. Central San also conducted its own survey of statewide agencies to produce a data set representing sister agencies within the state of California. Central San solicited data from 34 agencies in 16 performance indicators and received partial to full responses from ten agencies. The FY 2019-20 Benchmarking Study (Attachment 1) includes charts comparing the following performance data: • Central San from FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 • California agencies from FYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 • Nationwide agencies' performance from FYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, presented in the following categories October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 174 of 382 Page 2 of 180 of respondent agencies: • Wastewater-only utilities • Combined water/wastewater utilities o Utilities with a population of 100,001-500,000 • Utilities with a population of>500,000. This study was received by the Administration Committee on October 5. Central San will continue its benchmarking efforts to monitor its performance, continually improve and see positive trends, and foster consistent data gathering from participating agencies to build upon this study and strengthen the ability to produce more accurate benchmarking comparisons in the future. Strategic Plan re-In GOAL THREE: Fiscal Responsibility Strategy 1—Maintain financial stability and sustainability ATTACHMENTS: 1. FY 2019-20 Benchmarking Study 2. Presentation October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 175 of 382 Page 3 of 180 ZV11 � . W,7171 FY19 - 20 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT CENTRAL SAN BENCHMARKING STUDY October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 176 of 382 Page 4 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT............................................................16 ORGANIZATIONAL BEST PRACTICES........................................................................................................16 STAFFINGLEVELS ....................................................................................................................................19 TRAINING ................................................................................................................................................25 EMERGENCY RESPONSE READINESS TRAINING......................................................................................27 EMPLOYEE TURNOVER............................................................................................................................29 RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY.........................................................................................................................31 RECORDABLE INCIDENT RATE.................................................................................................................33 NEARMISSES...........................................................................................................................................35 STRATEGIC WORKFORCE PLANNING ......................................................................................................37 EMPLOYEE VACANCIES ...........................................................................................................................41 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: FINANCIAL STRENGTH................................................................................46 DEBTRATIO.............................................................................................................................................46 RETURN ON ASSETS ................................................................................................................................48 DAYS OF CASH ON HAND........................................................................................................................50 DEBT-SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO............................................................................................................52 DAYS OF WORKING CAPITAL/ FINANCIAL LIQUIDITY.............................................................................55 OPERATINGRATIO ..................................................................................................................................57 BONDRATING.........................................................................................................................................59 INSURANCE/CLAIMS..............................................................................................................................62 RISK AND RESILIENCY..............................................................................................................................64 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: CUSTOMER SERVICE...................................................................................68 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE CHARGES.............................................................................................................68 NONRESIDENTIAL SERVICE CHARGES.....................................................................................................71 SERVICE AFFORDABILITY.........................................................................................................................73 SERVICE COMPLAINTS.............................................................................................................................75 CUSTOMER SERVICE COST PER ACCOUNT..............................................................................................81 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH INDEX...........................................................................................................83 CUSTOMER SERVICE CONTACT...............................................................................................................85 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 177 of 382 Page 5 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Table of Contents WASTEWATER SERVICE DISRUPTIONS/ DISRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX.............................................88 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: PRODUCTIVITY AND PERFORMANCE.........................................................90 SYSTEMINSPECTION...............................................................................................................................90 SYSTEM RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT(R&R) FUND ALLOCATION/ CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TO DEPRECIATION RATIO.............................................................................................................................92 NON-CAPACITY AND CAPACITY SEWER OVERFLOW RATES....................................................................97 COLLECTION SYSTEM INTEGRITY..........................................................................................................101 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE..................................................................................................................103 CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS PER EMPLOYEE ...............................................................................................106 WASTEWATER PROCESSED PER EMPLOYEE..........................................................................................108 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR WASTEWATER SERVICES.................................................110 MAINTENANCE......................................................................................................................................122 ENERGY CONSUMPTION.......................................................................................................................131 ENERGY OPTIMIZATION PLAN...............................................................................................................135 NUTRIENT RECOVERY............................................................................................................................137 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................................................142 APPENDIX..................................................................................................................................................143 STAFFING LEVELS BY CATEGORY (% OF TOTAL FTEs)............................................................................143 MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING, CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND OTHER STAFFING LEVELS BY SUBCATEGORY (% OF TOTAL FTEs)................................................................................................................................145 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................163 2 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 178 of 382 Page 6 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Benchmarking is an ongoing, cyclical process rooted in sound data collection and analysis, which can help an agency understand how it is performing against itself and similar entities across the state and country. Central San recognizes this "fitness check" exercise as a useful tool in performance measurement to help gauge current performance, understand differences from peer water sector utilities, and set reasonable targets for the future. In 2019, Central San put forth its first Benchmarking Study, which compared Central San's performance over Fiscal Years (FYs) 15-16 through 18-19 against other agencies on a statewide and nationwide scale, using the data and framework of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Utility Benchmarking Program. This FY 19-20 report continues the FY 18-19 study by using performance data for FYs 17-18 through 19-20 to support Central San's commitment to its customers and affordability of service. The data can provide a window into potential opportunities that may save costs and serve Central San's culture of continuous improvement, innovation, optimization, and transparency. Central San has participated in the AWWA's Utility Benchmarking Survey every year since 2019 and has committed to benchmarking on an annual basis. REPORT OBJECTIVES • Share the findings of regular benchmarking initiatives • Build upon the initial FY 18-19 study by comparing Central San's performance against itself over the last three FYs (FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20), against sister agencies statewide (FYs 18-19 and 19-20), and against water/wastewater agencies nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19) • Develop consistent and valid data reporting • Encourage self-evaluation and internal dialogue to objectively assess performance against internal perceptions • 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 of this report, the project was executed in three phases. The implementation methodology of this phased approach is as follows: 1 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 179 of 382 Page 7 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Executive Summary Phase 1:Determine 14', For AWWA For California(CA) relevant sister agency(nationwide) (statewide) benchmarks comparison comparison kL Phase 2: Send definitions and Extract nationwide input forms to data from AWWA Perform quality Follow-up with data • • submitters as internalreview staff and Utility Benchmarking checks needed •' CA agencies books Participate in AWWA Produce Present to Phase 3: and Global Water Benchmarking Study Administration Share aggregated CA Share results I intelligence surveys with comparable Committee and agency data data Board RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS Central San's leadership team reviewed the results of this study and found some indicators to be more meaningful than others. One indicator, total operations and maintenance (O&M) cost per account (residential and nonresidential accounts), was of particular interest, given Central San's commitment to cost-effectiveness and ability to offer high-quality services at affordable rates. Below are the findings of Central San's performance over the last three FYs compared to the nationwide agencies in FYs 17-18 and 18-19 (first chart) and against the CA agencies in FYs 18-19 and 19-20 (second chart). Please see the O&M Costs for Wastewater Services indicator within the Productivity & Performance section of this report for more details on this benchmark and how it was calculated. TOTAL O&M COST PER ACCOUNT Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 700 598 fi00 583 566 551 571 0 544 527 y 500 499465 487 478 468 451 446 422 407 398 400 378 365 365 378 353 327 0 300 ?B4 248 242 0 u g zoo 0 C loo r 0 Nm ti� ti� 5 ° �ti�•�tia�tia• �lea 0,'.,l CENTP.ALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-19 FY 17-1B FY 18-19 FY 1&19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 wwanlYutilldes Combinedutilities Population Population WW-onlyutililies Combined ulilil Population Population (9 participants) (64partic;pants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (10 participants) (70 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 133 participants) (29 participants) (40 participants) 127 participants) 2 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 180 of 382 Page 8 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Executive Summary Central San vs. CA(FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 1,400 $ 1,200 1,148 1,142 1,000 a 800 677 600 459 489 460 440 497 u 400 358 383 ori 242 242 200 ' 0 e Cttnw!l5w CA WW-only and combined utilities CA WW-only and cc.bi..d utilities )10 participants) (10 participants) In completing this study, staff found that benchmarking can be a 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. Typically, these clearer definitions are arrived at over a period of time. The study also does not take into account more nuanced operational and historical 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 but has not yet become involved with the AWWA Utility Benchmarking Survey Advisory Committee to convey recommendations to improve the measurements on some of the benchmarks, as noted in this report. However, Central San remains engaged with AWWA in asking clarifying questions and recommending changes. While there are serious limitations to consider in making strict apples-to-apples comparisons when reviewing this report, this study can be a useful tool in identifying strengths and performance gaps, where they exist. Staff will continue to benchmark periodically to promote consistent and accurate data gathering both internally and from other CA agencies. Overall, given the limitations described above, it can be difficult to draw firm, immediately actionable conclusions from this study. The report 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 performing 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 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 181 of 382 Page 9 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction INTRODUCTION PROJECT PURPOSE The primary objectives of this study are to view levels and trends in Central San's performance over the past three FYs (17-18, 18-19, and 19-20); compare Central San's performance with California (CA) water/wastewater agencies over FYs 18-19 and 19-20; and compare Central San's performance with nationwide wastewater-only and combined water-wastewater utilities in FYs 17-18 and 18-19. This study is based upon the AWWA Utility Benchmarking Program, whose purpose is to provide objective performance measures for utility decision makers. Central San has participated in the AWWA Utility Benchmarking survey since 2019; therefore, its data is included in the nationwide data sets in this study, which were pulled from the 2019 and 2020 AWWA Utility Benchmarking books. This study is part of an ongoing effort to perform benchmarking regularly and share the results; develop consistency in data reporting; encourage self-evaluation and internal dialogue; identify opportunities for consideration in strategic planning; emphasize systematic continuous improvement; and articulate value proposition for stakeholders. METHODOLOGY _- The AWWA Utility Benchmarking survey serves as a framework ,AWWA Utility 01) for this study. Using the definitions and performance indicators Pefo meMa°agmen' helps ensure a fair comparison across the three sets of data for Watcrao✓Jastcwater (Central San, CA agencies, and nationwide agencies). This study includes the FY 18-19 and 19-20 nationwide data from the latest �\\ Pnfnnianr..M19ni.:pnn^• 2019 and 2020 AWWA Utility Benchmarking books (pictured), Wa. cVJ;vv rv_ and it includes CA agency data from Central San's statewide survey, which used AWWA methodology. The project was executed in three phases: Phase 1: Determine relevant benchmarks The benchmarks used in Central San's first benchmarking study were included in this study, along with three new benchmarks from the 2019 and 2020 AWWA books and one new benchmark taken from a survey report put forth by the engineering firm, Black and Veatch. From the AWWA book, staff selected benchmarks which were relevant to Central San and would provide meaningful comparable data. In total, 40 performance indicators (not including sub-indicators) are included in the study, compared to 36 in the previous study. The list of 40 performance indicators was further refined to 16 for inclusion in the CA agency comparison, compared to 14 in the previous study; thus, only 16 of the 40 performance indicators in this study include CA agencies data. Performance indicators that were included in the previous study and this study are shown in the following charts. 4 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 182 of 382 Page 10 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction Total Performance Indicators Included in FY 18-19 vs. FY 19-20 Studies 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 FY 18-19 Study FY 19-20 Study ■Nationwide Comparisons Only ■Nationwide and CA Comparisons Performance Indicators Included Performance Indicators Included in FY 18-19 Study by Category in FY 19-20 Study by Category 14 14 12 12 10 7 10 1 8 2 8 9 4 2 6 1 6 4 6 4 7 6 4 9 6 2 3 2 5 4 0 0 Organizational Financial Customer Productivity Organizational Financial Customer Productivity Development Strength Service and Development Strength Service and Performance Performance Nationwide and CA Comparisons Nationwide and CA Comparisons Nationwide Comparisons Only Nationwide Comparisons Only Phase 2: Solicit and review data Central San's subject matter experts filled out data input forms to yield the performance figures of each indicator. These forms included the AWWA definitions to ensure consistency with the AWWA aggregate data. Reference material was provided where applicable so the data could be verified and/or revisited in later years if needed. After gathering, calculating, and quality- checking the data, and verifying perceived outlying data as needed, staff provided the findings to data submitters for review. Commentary from staff is included in this report. Adjustments were made to some of the reported data to better align Central San with the agencies in the 5 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 183 of 382 Page 11 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction study. For example, in addition to its wastewater (WW) operations, Central San operates a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility (HHWCF) and a Recycled Water program, which other agencies presumably do not. Therefore, in answering the data prompts, Central San has taken into account the resources dedicated to those programs and adjusted its calculation methods to represent Central San's performance in each service-specific indicator as best and as accurately as possible. For the CA agency comparison, Central San requested FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data from 34 CA water/WW agencies in fall 2020, for 15 performance indicators. Statewide data for one indicator, Non-capacity and Capacity Sewer Overflow Rates, was obtained via the California Integrated Water Quality System. Partial to full responses were received from 10 agencies. Participation was encouraged but may have been limited by the consequences of COVID-19 on staffing and priorities at other agencies. For agencies that participated, Central San staff reviewed the data and worked with the agencies as needed to refine or correct their reported data. In performing quality checks on the CA agency data, both for data entry errors and use of AWWA methodology, various inconsistencies were found. Some agencies' data could not be applied to the calculations without producing an inaccurate result. For example, a "wholesale" agency who treats wastewater conveyed from pipes they do not own, operate, or maintain will have an inaccurately high total O&M cost per 100 miles of pipe. A "retail" agency, on the other hand, treats wastewater conveyed only from pipes they own, operate, and maintain, so their O&M cost will be accurately proportional to their miles of pipe. The quality check also found data entry errors and inconsistencies resulting from differing applications of AWWA's methodology. While some agencies submitted data based on strict definitions as provided, 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 from operating expenses). These shortcomings can 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. The only way to have a consistent set of data is for benchmarking to engage in a long-term effort with the full participation of participating agencies. Overtime, Central San will encourage and pursue opportunities to enhance the benchmarking effort through fuller participation and improved efforts to discuss inputs and results.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 and 2020, staff submitted Central San's FY 17-18 and 18-19 data respectively to the AWWA Utility Benchmarking surveys for inclusion in the 2019 and 2020 AWWA Utility 6 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 184 of 382 Page 12 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction Benchmarking books. Thus, Central San's data is factored into the 25th, median, and 75th percentile ("worst," median, and "best" as represented in the bar graphs respectively) nationwide data sets from AWWA. In 2021, Global Water Intelligence, a publisher and event organizer in the water industry, approached Central San to become part of their new cross-continental benchmarking initiative, focused on sustainability. As a member of their Leading Utilities of the World group, Central San provided feedback on performance indicators and completed the survey with four FYs of data. Once the results of that study are published by Global Water Intelligence, it will be as a useful supplement to this report. To produce this Benchmarking Study, staff produced charts to show the comparisons of Central San over FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20; CA agencies over FYs 18-19 and 19-20 (where included); and nationwide agencies over FY 18-19 and 19-20. The nationwide agency data is presented in "worst" (25th percentile), median, and "best" (75th percentile) values of different sub-categories of WW-only, Combined (utilities providing both water and wastewater services), Population 100,001-500,000, and Population >500,000 utilities. Two sets of population data are provided as Central San serves a population around the mid-point of those two bands. The statewide comparison produced a relatively small data set of only 11 participants (including Central San) at most for any given performance indicator. If an agency's data produced an outlier performance figure, that agency's data was omitted from the aggregate results. For example, a wholesale agency may have reported collection O&M costs, yet, because that cost does not represent the full cost of maintaining the collection systems that convey all the wastewater flow to the agency's treatment plant, their performance figure for Collection O&M as a Percentage of Total O&M Costs would be misleadingly low, so their figure would not be reflected in the statewide data set. These efforts to narrow the data set for accuracy further reduced the amount of data to be aggregated. Therefore, statewide data is presented with additional worst (minimum) and best (maximum) values, along with the worst (25th percentile), median, and best (75th percentile) values. For each performance indicator, this report states the AWWA definitions and calculation methods, staff's explanatory notes, and charts with the comparable data. Past years' data reported in Central San's previous Benchmarking Study may have changed while calculation methodologies have been refined internally and/or AWWA has changed the calculation methodology. Following the completion of this study, staff will share aggregate statewide results with the agencies solicited in the CA study. 7 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 185 of 382 Page 13 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction SURVEY PARTICIPANTS Statewide Comparison From fall 2020 to spring 2021, Central San reached out to 34 CA agencies for their performance in 15 benchmarks, and 10 agencies participated in the study by returning partial or full survey responses. As the survey collection timeframe was during the COVID-19 pandemic, this was a challenging time for agencies to participate, and it is Central San's hope that more agencies will be able to take part in future surveys. The agencies were selected because they offer similar services, embody industry best practices, and are located in the same state as Central San. Despite these similarities, each utility has nuances. In an effort to capture those nuances, below is information on the 11 responsive agencies (including Central San) that comprise the statewide data set. The 11 responsive agencies whose data is included in this study are characterized as follows: • 9 from Northern CA and 2 from Southern CA • 7 WW-only and 4 combined utilities • 6 "wholesale" utilities who treat wastewater from pipes not owned, operated, or maintained by them • 5 utilities who offer other services besides water and wastewater, including recycled water, stormwater, household hazardous waste, street sweeping, solid waste management, recycling, and power. These other services may skew the performance data in some indicators such as staffing levels and O&M costs, as "shared service" staff such as Finance and Human Resources may or may not have been allocated by service type to reflect staffing for only core wastewater collection and treatment services. Utility Characteristic FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum Average daily treatment flow in 6 13 417 5 13 414 million gallons per day(MGD) Length of collection system pipe 39 288 1,430 39 288 1,430 (miles) Customer accounts 30,454 58,619 1,303,787 22,332 58,976 1,305,855 Total O&M costs(in millions) $9.9 $19.9 $315.1 $10.6 $22.9 $316.0 Nationwide Comparison A total of 10 WW-only utilities and 89 combined utilities participated in the 2019 AWWA benchmarking survey from 38 states, two Canadian provinces, and two United States (U.S.) territories (including 15 utilities from CA). A total of 96 combined utilities and 11 WW-only utilities participated in the 2020 AWWA benchmarking survey from 35 states, two Canadian provinces, three U.S. territories, and Curacao. 8 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 186 of 382 Page 14 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction BENCHMARKS INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY The following chart lists the 40 benchmarks included in this study, whether comparable statewide and/or nationwide data was included, and which were new to the FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study. Comparable Data Available Performance Indicator Central San CA Agencies Nationwide Agencies (sub-indicators not listed) FYs 17-18,18-19, (Central San Survey) (AWWA Survey) and 19-20 FYs 18-19 and 19-20 FY 17-18 and 18-19 Organizational Best Practices J x J Staffing Levels ✓ ✓ CL Training ✓ x ✓ > Emergency Response Readiness Training ✓ x ✓ o Employee Turnover ✓ x ✓ c Retirement Eligibility J x J Recordable Incident Rate ✓ x ✓ N c Near Misses ✓ x ✓ M P Strategic Workforce Planning(new) ✓ x ✓ O Employee Vacancy Indicators(new) ✓ x ✓ Debt Ratio ✓ ,/ ✓ L Return on Assets ✓ x ✓ Days of Cash on Hand ✓ ✓ ✓ Debt-Service Coverage Ratio ✓ ✓ ✓ m Days of Working Capital/Financial Liquidity ✓ x ✓ Operating Ratio ✓ x ✓ M Bond Rating ✓ ✓ ✓ LL Insurance Average Severity/Claims J x J Risk and Resiliency(new) ✓ x ✓ Residential Service Charges ✓ ✓ ✓ Nonresidential Service Charges ✓ ✓ x v Service Affordability ✓ x ✓ Service Complaints(Customer and Technical Service) ✓ x ✓ L E Customer Service Cost per Account ✓ x ✓ N Stakeholder Outreach Index ✓ x ✓ 3 Customer Service Contact ✓ x ✓ Wastewater Service Disruptions/Disruption Frequency Index ✓ x ✓ System Inspection ✓ ✓ ✓ System Renewal and Replacement(R&R)Fund Allocation/ ✓ x J Capital Expenditures to Depreciation Ratio(new) From CA Integrated cNon-capacity and Capacity Sewer Overflow Rates ✓ Water Quality System ✓ f6 Project(CIWQS) E 0 Collection System Integrity ✓ ✓ ✓ Treatment Plant Regulatory Compliance ✓ ✓ ✓ a Customer Accounts per Employee ✓ ✓ ✓ Wastewater Processed per Employee ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 O&M Costs of Wastewater Services ✓ ✓ ✓ Maintenance ✓ x ✓ ° Energy Consumption ✓ J ✓ a` Energy Optimization Plan ✓ x ✓ Nutrient Recovery ✓ x ✓ Digital Utility Initiative(new) x J Mar.2020 Data via Black&Veatch J=comparable data is available x =comparable data is not available for the performance indicator for the performance indicator 9 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 187 of 382 Page 15 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEWING THE RESULTS Benchmarking is based upon the consistent collection of data that, when applied toward metrics, allow a utility to gauge performance levels and trends. A benchmark is the level or degree of a performance indicator that serves as a reference or target. 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 study is not meant to be a direct basis for action but an informational tool to make an effort to compare Central San's performance to itself and other agencies. AWWA generalized and 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 requirements • System age/materials • Topography/environment • Organizational vision and culture • Historical factors • Current strategic and operating plans • Budget • Customer base • Services from enterprise/corporate functions (finance, IT, Human Resources, etc.) • Regulations • Governance • Political environment 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. This report does not include Water and Stormwater utility data. While Central San is considered a WW-only utility, because relatively few WW-only utilities participated in the survey, Central San is presenting comparable data for both WW-only utilities and Combined utilities. A combined utility provides both potable water and wastewater services, potentially in addition to other services such as power, transportation, or electric. Data from the two population categories (100,001-500,000 and >500,000) are presented because Central San had a service area population between 488,900 and 494,300 during FYs 17-18 through 19-20. 10 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 188 of 382 Page 16 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction 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(particularly support) may be split over multiple agency/city departments. Furthermore, wholesale agencies not operating their own collection system would possibly have lower staffing counts, overflow rates, total O&M costs, and customer accounts. These five categories of agencies which are not separately benchmarked are as follows: 1) Independent WW-only agency 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 agencies. 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) • 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 a HHWCF and recycled water treatment, distribution, and other facilities such as the 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. AWWA has made some improvements to their survey; for example, for Debt-Service Coverage Ratio and other financial indicators, AWWA now asks for the values as reported in an agency's 11 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 189 of 382 Page 17 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction Comprehensive Annual Financial Report instead of asking for individual components of a formula that AWWA could use to calculate and independently report the Debt-Service Coverage Ratio. Because all data is self-reported, the validity and accuracy of comparable 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 actionable 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. Given these factors, there should not be an expectation that different agencies will have identical performance, even with similarly competent management approaches. GUIDE TO INTERPRETING THE DATA AS PRESENTED Each performance indicator presented in this report includes the relevant AWWA definitions, calculation method, and commentary. Some performance indicators contain a family of sub- indicators which help demonstrate a utility's performance within the greater indicator. Central San's performance is shown in the form of bar graphs comparing the following: • Central San's FY 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 performance • Nationwide FY 17-18 and 18-19 performance: aggregated as Worst quartile (the 25th Percentile), Median, and Best quartile (the 75th percentile) • CA agencies' FY 18-19 and 19-20 performance (for some benchmarks): aggregated as Minimum/Maximum value, Worst quartile (usually the 25th Percentile), Median, Best quartile (usually the 75th Percentile), and Maximum/Minimum. The Minimum/Maximum values provide a greater understanding of the spread of numbers given the relatively small data set. 12 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 190 of 382 Page 18 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction The nationwide aggregate data is presented within each FY by quartiles, as listed below and represented by the figure below on the right: • Worst (the worst quartile) _ the worst-performing 25% of agencies Best reported performance at or below that value (usually the AWWA results' 25th percentile) • Median = ~Medians the median performance value for all agencies • Best (the best quartile) _ the best-performing 25% of agencies Worst reported performance at or above that value (usually the AWWA results' 75th percentile) There are four sets of nationwide data presented within each of the two FYs: WW-only utilities (most comparable to Central San but often a relatively small data set), Combined utilities, utilities with a Population of 100,001-500,000, and utilities with a Population of>500,000 (Central San's total population including both retail and wholesale customers was 488,900, 494,300, and 483,630 in FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 respectively). Only 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile values were available for the nationwide data set. The CA aggregate data is presented within each FY by best or worst (25th or 75th percentile) values and the median, in addition to the maximum and minimum values, which are not available in the nationwide data set. This is further explained below and represented by the figure below on the right: • Maximum or Minimum = Maximum or Minimum the performance of the worst-performing agency in the data set • Worst (the worst quartile) = Best the worst-performing 25% of agencies reported performance at or below that value ~ Median • Median = the median performance value for all agencies • Best (the best quartile) = Worst the best-performing 25% of agencies reported 4 performance at or above that value Maximum or Minimum • Maximum or Minimum = the performance of the best-performing agency in the data set 13 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 191 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Introduction Below is a sample of how each performance indicator's results are presented in bar chart form in the nationwide comparisons. Central San's results •1 results fromnationwide 1 1 (headings . data is from1 II AWWA Survey iNativnwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 1zo.o Z7 m 100.0 94.5 94.5 96.4 93.2 83.6 86.8 86.2 85.5 86. 6 85.0 86.2 85.6 78.5 81.5 80.0 77.7 78.5 80.0 81.5 0 80.c 700 70.8 71.7 71.9 72.3 75.0 73,3 60.0 `5 m u a 40.0 a� 20.0 0 CL a.a 10, ,�e-1p 0 �ezop � 16- -t�e�\ao �e oi'��ea\a� <,,e �o�5ti tgea�mc �e �o&erea`ac �e e-e1`eaac �g _XII CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population (10 participants) (SO participants) 100,001-508,000 >500,000 (8 participants) (79 participants) 100,081-500,000 >500,000 (53 participants) (44 participants) (53 participants) (43 participants] .1 1 1 . •1 1Bars are colorcodedby 1Performancedata is represented as follows: Worst(the worst-performing reported performance 1 median. Median(the performance Best • best-performing 25%1 agencies reported performance at or belowpercentile)) d 14 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 192 of 382 Central San IFY • 1 Benchmarking Study •• • Below is a sampleof howperformance indicator'spresented in bar chart form • - comparisons. Aggregated results from the Central San Survey California agencies surveyed by Central San [headings within each box will indicate whether data is from FY 18-19 or FY 19-20] + data) + 1 1,400 1,329 1,316 1,200 ICentral 5an's results Central San's results 1,000 SDD 400 260 275 260 275 200 7S 43 79 43 28 27 .In,P--TP A L- CA WW-only and combined utilities Z�h_CENTRAL- CA WW-only and combined utilities (11 participants) (11 participants) from FY 18-19 from FY 19-20 Labels indicate how man CA utilities'data are Bars are color coded by utility type_Performance data is represented as follows: represented in the data set .Maximum or Minimum=the performance of the worst-performing agency in the data set 15 • Worst[the worst-performing 2596 of agencies reported performance at or below that value(usually the 25th percentile)] • Median[the median performance value for all agencies} • Best[the best-performing 2595 of agencies reported performance at or below that value[usually the 75th percentile]` • •Maximum or Minimum=the performance of the best-performing agency in the data set October2021 -• :•. • Meeting Agenda .•- 193 of 382 Page 21 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 • 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 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 Executive Team Members were asked to score Central San by consensus in each of the 13 Management Practices. The scores over the last three FYs are presented in the following table. 16 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 194 of 382 Page 22 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development Management Practice FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Scores Scores Scores Strategic Planning—a plan is up to date and progress is 5 5 5 tracked and reported to the governing body at least annually. Strategic Plan Implementation—percent of annual goals 5 5 5 complete, mission/vision/values established. Long-Term Financial Planning—annual projection at least 5 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 4 4 5 impacts, and define responses to issues. Performance Measurement System Integration -data is 5 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 4 4 5 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 5 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 5 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 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 5 5 4 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 5 5 5 climate, communication effectiveness, and management system use/effectiveness. of Possible Points(out of 55 points) 94.5% 94.5% 96.4% 17 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 195 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development ORGANIZATIONAL BEST PRACTICES Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 120.0 100.0 94.5 94.5 96.4 sa.z y 86 8 86.2 85.5 86.485.0 86.2 85.6 N 83.6 78.5 81.5 80.0 77.7 83.6 78.5 80.0 81.5 n- r- 80.0 70.0 70.8 71.7 71.9 72.3 75'0 73.3 0 n- m °1 60.0 - � N C G o n- n d 40.0 ep O 20.0 0.0 ' `yr. jai c y` �o dT'� yc" �C dT< `yc �< dati `y.. �<' y` ,j f7N,I_CEN7RAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 wW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (10 participants) (80 participants) 100,001-500,0110 x500,000 (8 participants) (79 participants) 100,001-500,000 >50u,uu0 ;53 participants) (44 participants) (53 participants) (43 participants) 18 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 196 of 382 Page 24 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development STAFFING LEVELS This is a family 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. AWWA notes that where responses from combined utilities can be segregated by service (water or wastewater), they are presented in comparison with the results of utilities providing the same single service. • 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 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW), 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. 19 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 197 of 382 Page 25 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development For reference, the following table shows the difference in the Central San FTE counts following AWWA methodology (rounded to whole numbers) and as shown in the Organizational Chart: Total FTE Methodologies FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 AWWA 258 260 260 Represented in the comparison bar chart.This FTE count follows the AWWA methodology,thus is the most comparable to the Total FTEs reported in the AWWA nationwide survey and in Central San's CA survey results. Average Positions Filled 278 282 277 Not represented in the comparison bar chart.These are the average number of District employees working throughout the FY. For some performance indicators where the data was only available for all District employees,these values were used as FTE counts to more accurately represent "per employee" benchmarks. As Shown in Organizational Chart 290 290 292 Not represented in the comparison bar chart.This information is provided to demonstrate the difference in following the AWWA methodology in Central San's counting staffing levels or using Average Positions Filled versus simply providing the total employees listed on the Organizational Chart. 20 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 198 of 382 Page 26 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development TOTAL FTEs Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) For comparison purposes, Central San's total FTEs using the AWWA calculation methodology is represented in these charts. AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-15 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 800 700 684 693 600 LL 500 479 463 0 N 400 � 329 324 317 291 300 258 260 260 248 257 ~ , , 197 208 200 I59 172 114 154 156 100 I 1 , I 1 0 ' 16 1 1 I 1 , 11 1 ' ti� 1°j ;1� c�5 Doc 0p o& aac Oe ots aac ed' 0�5�' aa- �p oil aac 0¢5 0�5 aac eo�ti aac 4e �yz s �e s �e C6MikAtSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17.18 FY 17-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities C—binedutilities Population Population wW-cnlyutilities Combined utilities Papulation Population (7 participants} (53 participants) 100,001-580,800 >500,000 (10 panicipoms) (86participeMs) 100,081-500,000 >500,No (41 participants( (33 particiPaM,) (44 p.dicipa Ms) (31 participants( Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 1,400 1,329 1,316 1,200 y 1,000 0 800 m 600 m H 400 260 275 260 275 200 78- 43 28 79 43 27 0 �,1°j °cam oysti �(� �d7 °� �'LO F ois �� �d7� �• ti +� y� cR ti Vic' � ma cF CA WW-only and combined utilities CA WW-only and combined utilities (11 participants) (11 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. 21 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 199 of 382 Page 27 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development FTEs— O&M FTEs— MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING, CUSTOMER SERVICE, OTHER The next sub-indicators break out the total FTEs into two categories: 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, 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, following AWWA methodology, provided as a reference: Central San # of FTEs in O&M FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 136.3 136.7 138.7 Central San # of FTEs in Management, Engineering, Customer Service, Other FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 121.4 123.0 121.4 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 and Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory sections. 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 O&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." 22 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 200 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 80.0 75.9 68.0 69.7 63.8 70.0 66.5 65.5 61.9 59,9 61.B 59.9 60.0 57.3 57.5 57.1 56.5 52.9 52.6 53.3 51.5 Aar 51.4 51.3 51.7 51,2 53.8 e50.0_ 'S 46.7 46.8 47.1 dS O 40.0 S w LL 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 ,e. -CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18.19 WW-only utilities Combined uti I Wes Papulation Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (10 partici pants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,01M (6 participants) (39 part!cipards) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (35 participants} (25 participants) (44 participants) (31 participants) 23 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 201 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 60.0 53.1 50.7 51.7 a8.9 49.3 49.1 = 50.0 47.1 47.446.7 45.9 46.6 45.4 46.8 44.7 a r al.s 393 34fi 395 I � V 38.1 39.0 39.6 s 40.0 . . . 34.5 35.3 W 33.0 30.5 3D.2 S 30.0 m m pq N 22.2 0 20.0 C N — 3 W ['� LL 10.0 0.0 a�a1 �< �d7 o�y� a�a� ��T O�y� a�ac �dPoc`' a�C ��7 oc`` a�C ��'� �y� arc ��'� ocy� 01 ��'r I_LEN7RAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001—500,000 >500,000 (6 participants) 139 participants] 100,001—500,000 >500,000 (33 participants) (23 participants) (33 participants) (20 participants) 24 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 202 of 382 Page 30 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development TRAINING This indicator measures the amount of training that employees receive, expressed as the annual number of training hours (hr) per FTE, as follows: hr Training ( ) employee Total training hr completed by all employees during the reporting period Total number of FTEs • 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 In the absence of a comprehensive learning management system, Central San data may be incomplete (e.g., may not include full Plant Operations training hours or training hours completed by Administration Department staff). The COVID-19 pandemic may have also impacted the FY 19-20 reported training hours as staff may not be manually logging all training hours. 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. A centralized system will provide more accurate training data once launched in FY 2021-22. 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 Average Positions Filled, not the number of FTEs reported in the Staffing Levels performance indicator using AWWA methodology. 25 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 203 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development TRAINING Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 45.0 40.0 39.1 36.0 35.0 30.5 31.3 ZY 1-- 30.0 28.6 29.1 N 25.2 25.8 26.9 25.0 23.5 S 19.6 m 20.0 18.2 18.2 18.3 16.2 14.5 15.0 12.5 12.8 12.7 13.4 10.0 9.1 9.3 9.5 10.5 6.4 6.8 6.9 5.0 I I I 1 OA 0e oe- _oO�wQCENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 Ww-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (8 participants) (52 participants) 100,001-500,000 7500,000 (9 participants) (46 participants) 100,DD1-500,000 >500,0D0 (31 participants) 116 participants] (31 participants) 117 participants] 26 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 204 of 382 Page 32 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 • 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. The FY 2019-20 hours reported include estimated hours spent on practical exercises in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that were not needed in previous years, including time spent by employees reading emailed directives, the Pandemic Preparedness Plan, and the COVID-19 Exposure Prevention Plan, as well as time spent by remote workers getting trained on teleworking practices. These hours spent by staff prepare Central San for another pandemic or a natural disaster requiring procedural changes or a significant transfer of staff to offsite locations. Because adjustments were not made to exclude emergency response readiness training hours completed by HHWCF, Recycled Water, Capital Projects, or construction of new facilities staff, the total number of FTEs used was the Average Positions Filled, not the number of FTEs reported in the Staffing Levels performance indicator using AWWA methodology. 27 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 205 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development EMERGENCY RESPONSE READINESS TRAINING Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 20.0 19.0 w 18.0 = 16.0 14.0 ~ 12.0 N 10.0 r a 8.0 7.1 7.2 a 5.8 6'2 6.4 a 6.0 4.4 4.4 Cr 3.8 3.5 >U' 4.0 3.3 2.9 1.8 1.81.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.4 uj 0.0 A I 0.5 0.I I I I I L8 0 4 yq vp cy` ac eyc t� ap �'� tyx ac ¢yc t� ap �� tyx ac ¢sc t� a� 19- ell � �- �- g o a� e o a� a� � o a� m o a� � o a� �e / Q1_CENTRAL$AN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 VVW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Cornbinedutilities Population Papulation (6participants) (46 participants) 100,001-5D0,000 >500,0DD {6participantsi (42participants) 100,D01-500,00D >500,000 (22 participants) (17 part!cipa Ms) (24 participants) (16 participants` 28 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 206 of 382 Page 34 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development EMPLOYEE TURNOVER This indicator quantifies annual employee departures per year normalized by the utility's workforce, expressed as the number of regular employee departures 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 • Regular employees—those who worked more than 1,000 hours during the reporting period, including 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 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Including Retirements 4.7% 5.7% 5.1% (comparable data for benchmarking and represented in bar charts) Excluding Retirements 1.1% 2.8% 0.7% (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 Average Positions Filled, 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, outside this study. 29 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 207 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development EMPLOYEE TURNOVER Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 12.0 11.1 11.1 10.5 10.5 10.2 10.0 9.3 8.4 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.9 0 8.0 7.2 7.2 6.4 6.8 fi.5 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.6 0 4.7 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.8 5.1 E 4.1 4.0 2.0 0.0 , i I CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined AIities Population Population WW-onlyutilities Combi nod uti I iti es Population Population (10 participants) (58 participants) 100,001-500,000 ]500,000 {8 pa rt id ps nts) (53 part!ci pants) 100,D01-500,000 >500,0D0 01 participants) (22participants) (30 pa rticipants) (17participauts) 30 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 208 of 382 Page 36 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 f ive years Total number of FTEs • 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, including 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 19-20, this means by June 30, 2025) • Age 62 with 10 years of service ("62/10") for Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) employees whose formula hit 2% (for FY 19-20, this means by June 30, 2025). 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 Average Positions Filled, 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. 31 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 209 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 45.0 41.9 40.0 35.0 33.4 34.4 30.9 30.5 30.0 29.1 27.1 26.4 25.5 'm 25.0 23.2 w +� 19.9 E20.0 17.1 17.3 15.9 18.4 17.2 18.3 15.1 14.5 14.3 15.0 13.0 12.4 12.1 10.8 10.2 9.6 10.0 9.2 5.0 0.0 Y°j tip Qct` a`a� �ey� Qcy` a\a� �ey� ocy� a\a� fey` ayt a�a� 0ey� o� a�ac @ey` Oct` a`ar @may` ocy` \a� �c ocy` �\a� fey` y. �y$/ �if J�CgiICEN MA15AN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17.18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 1&19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Population VOW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (8participants[ (60 participants) 100,001-500,000 7500,000 [7 participants) (52 participants) 100,001-500,000 7500,000 (32 participants) (21 participants) (30 participants) (15 participants) 32 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 210 of 382 Page 38 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 is calculated as follows: Number of recordable injuries and illnesses x 200,000 hours Recordable Incident Rate = Total hours worked by all employees The 200,000 hours in the formula represents the equivalent of 100 employees working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, and provides the standard base for the incidence rates. Central San Data Calculation Method Central San used the following Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) definition in calculating its recordable incidents: • 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. 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. Central San's numbers of recordable injuries and illnesses are as follows, provided as reference: 11 7 8 33 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 211 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development RECORDABLE INCIDENT RATE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 12.0 10.0 9.5 9.6 9.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.9 6.9 6.6 0 6.1 i 6.0 5.2 4.9 4,7 72 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.4 3.6 3.6 2.8 2.9 a 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.1 2.5 Cj 2.0 0.8 0.0 , L qtio oil a\a� ��a\a� ��� �o�y� ac dey� �o4-�ea\a� 6�y� ok5w \a� ��� �o��. rrea\a� ��� �oyw rrea`ar 0ey� �o�5w et`ea\a� ���� QI CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17.18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only uti I Ries Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (8 participants) (41 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 {]participants) (34participaMs) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (22 participants) (16 participants) (21 participants) (10 participants) 34 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 212 of 382 Page 40 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development NEAR MISSES This indicator, along with Recordable Incident Rate, is a proactive means for utilities to anticipate, respond to, and avoid problems. 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. • 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 The reported number of near misses for Central San is the number of near miss reports filed District wide. No adjustments were made to remove near misses reported by employees in HHW, Recycled Water, Capital Projects, and construction of new facilities. 35 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 213 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development NEAR MISSES Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data] AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 18.0 16.0 15.5 14.0 12.0 10.0 w 8.0 7.0 fi,8 z 6.3 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2 5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.01.5 0.8 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1 1 1 I 1 0.0 1 ■ ■ 1 1 I . 0.0 1 , 0.0 1 ■ 0.0 a\a� �e oty� a�ac ��� Q& a��c ��� qi9 a\ae �e q{� a`ac ��� 4& a`ac ��� o& -1§1 4e�� 4, s� 4e �e age � 4e QI CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17.18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 19-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (5 participants) (25 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,ODD 14 participants) (25 part!ci pents) 10D,DD1-500,000 x500,000 (14 participants) (7 participants) (14 participants) (10 participants) 36 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 214 of 382 Page 42 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development STRATEGIC WORKFORCE PLANNING The following family of sub-indicators provides a measure of a utility's ability to prepare for the changing workforce—particularly, how well a utility has developed and incorporated succession planning. These sub-indicators were identified by industry leaders as fundamental factors that a utility could use to help define their level of performance, ability to maintain a qualified workforce, and continue to provide efficient operations. For the sub-indicators, the following levels of performance were identified, with Level 5 being the greatest level of utility support provided. • Level 1—This activity is never practiced at our utility. • Level 2—This activity is implemented infrequently. • Level 3—This activity is implemented sometimes. • Level 4—This activity is implemented frequently. • Level 5—This activity is implemented always. Central San Data Calculation Method Central San was scored by the Deputy General Manager in FYs 17-18 and 18-19 and by the Human Resources and Organizational Development Manager in FY 19-20. Central San's performance over the last three FYs in each of the sub-indicators is below: Z'gL CENTRALSAN Strategic Workforce Planning Sub-Indicator FY FY FY 17-18 18-19 19-20 Level of Strategic Workforce Planning: Succession plan is an 5 5 5 integral part of our organization's comprehensive strategic plan. Level of Current Plan Implemented: Knowledge management 5 4 4 process is up to date and most important staffing tool. Level of Decision-Maker Commitment: There is a commitment 4 5 5 from decision makers on succession planning. Level of Resources and Collaboration: Gather resources for developing and implementing succession planning; collaborate 5 4 5 with other agencies and programs. Role in Strategic Vision and Goals: Value the role of succession planning in achieving the strategic vision and goals of our 4 5 5 organization. The following are explanations of the sub-indicators and the nationwide performance in FYs 17-18 and 18-19 (percentage of participants reporting the levels as indicated in the charts), with Central San's performance for that FY noted for reference. 37 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 215 of 382 Page 43 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development LEVEL OF STRATEGIC WORKFORCE PLANNING Succession plan is an integral part of the organization's comprehensive strategic plan. Central San (FY 17-18)vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 data) FY 17-18 Utility Type Level 5 Participants Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 � WW-only 0% 0% 20% 50% 30% 10 Combined 0% 11% 33% 33% 23% 64 Population 100,001-500,000 0% 0% 32% 34% 34% 41 Population >500,000 2% 10% 26% 36% 26% 39 Central San (FY 18-19)vs. Nationwide (FYs 18-19 data) FY 18-19 Utility Type Level 5 Participants Md 7 Level Level Level Level Z,%CEWZALSA,11 WW-only 0% 0% 37% 38% 25% 8 Combined 0% 7% 33% 33% 27% 67 Population 100,001-500,000 0% 2% 36% 32% 30% 44 Population >500,000 0% 12% 22% 37% 29% 41 Zg performance for FY 19-20: Level 5 LEVEL OF CURRENT PLAN IMPLEMENTED Knowledge management process is up to date and the most important staffing tool. Central San (FY 17-18)vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 data) FY 17-18 Utility Type Level4 Participants Level Level Level {,�ICE�TRALSAV Level WW only 0% 10% 30% 40% 20% 10 Combined 0% 21% 43% 26% 10% 61 Population 100,001-500,000 0% 13% 41% 33% 13% 41 Population >500,000 0% 22% 46% 27% 5% 39 Central San (FY 18-19)vs. Nationwide (FYs 18-19 data) FY 18-19 Utility Type Level 5 Participants Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 ���;��cErrrRuyw WW-only 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 8 Combined 4% 14% 45% 28% 9% 64 Population 100,001- 0% 14% 43% 31% 12% 44 500,000 Population >500,000 1% 18% 53% 23% 5% 41 �� performance for FY 19-20: Level 4 38 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 216 of 382 Page 44 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development LEVEL OF DECISION-MAKER COMMITMENT There is a commitment from decision makers on succession planning. Central San (FY 17-18)vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 data) FY 17-18 Utility Type Level Participants Level Level Level Z-'q ICFN7RALSAN Level WW only 0% 0% 10% 50% 40% 10 Combined 11% 13% 32% 31% 23% 62 Population 100,001- 0% 5% 39% 20% 37% 41 500,000 Population >500,000 8% 24% 22% 32% 14% 39 Central San (FY 18-19)vs. Nationwide (FYs 18-19 data) FY 18-19 Utility Type Level 5 Participants Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 -'g LCENTRAI SAU m WW-only 0% 0% 37% 13% 50% 8 Combined 0% 6% 37% 30% 27% 67 Population 100,001- 0% 2% 41% 25% 32% 44 500,000 Population >500,000 2% 10% 29% 27% 32% 41 gicErrrRa<SON performance for FY 19-20: Level 5 LEVEL OF RESOURCES AND COLLABORATION The organization gathers resources for developing and implementing succession planning and collaborates with other agencies and programs. Central San (FY 17-18)vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 data) FY 17-18 Utility Type Level 5 Participants Level Level Level Level r,'gLCR,7RAL SAV WW only 0% 20% 30% 40% 10% 10 Combined 6% 23% 33% 25% 13% 61 Population 100,001- 5% 21% 36% 28% 10%° 41 500,000 Population >500,000 8% 24% 22% 32% 14% 39 Central San (FY 18-19)vs. Nationwide (FYs 18-19 data) FY 18-19 Utility Type Level 4 Participants Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 �'{;�i CENrRAL$AV Level 5 WW-only 0% 12% 50% 25% 13% 8 Combined 7% 23% 32% 23% 15% 66 Population 100,001- 5% 23% 37% 23% 12% 44 500,000 Population >500,000 7% 17% 32% 27% 17% 41 performance for FY 19-20: Level 5 39 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 217 of 382 Page 45 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development ROLE IN STRATEGIC VISION AND GOALS The organization values the role of succession planning in achieving the strategic vision and goals of the organization. Central San (FY 17-18)vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 data) FY 17-18 Utility Type Level 4 Participants Level Level Level °(I CELTRALSAV Levels WW only 0% 0% 10% 40% 50% 10 Combined 2% 5% 32% 27% 34% 62 Population 100,001- 1% 2% 29% 24% 44% 41 500,000 Population >500,000 2% 3% 21% 29% 45% 39 Central San (FY 18-19)vs. Nationwide (FYs 18-19 data) FY 18-19 Utility Type Level 5 Participants Leven Level Level Level 'LI CELTRALSAd WW-only 0% 0% 25% 25% 50% 8 Combined 1% 5% 30% 22% 42% 67 Population 100,001-500,000 0% 7% 32% 18% 43% 44 Population >500,000 2% 5% 15% 29% 49% 41 1r'L�ICELTRALSA4 performance for FY 19-20: Level 5 40 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 218 of 382 Page 46 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development EMPLOYEE VACANCIES The health of a utility's workforce is an important factor and essential to run an efficient utility. The following family of sub-indicators evaluates how well the utility has established, incorporated, and maintained an effective workforce succession plan. Industry experts, including members of the AWWA Workforce Planning committee, look to several key indicators to evaluate workforce health: AVERAGE LENGTH OF EMPLOYEE TENURE (in years) AVERAGE VACANCY RATE This provides a snapshot of the number of vacancies open at the time of reporting relative to total budgeted FTEs at the utility. It is a useful measure to track the overall health of an organization by monitoring trends in the organization's operations and the market in general. The average vacancy rate is calculated by taking the number of vacant budgeted positions divided by the total number of budgeted positions in the organization. AVERAGE LENGTH OF POSITION VACANCIES This is the average length of time (in days)that employee positions remained vacant. EMPLOYEE INTERNAL PROMOTION RATE This is the total number of full-time hires resulting from internal promotions relative to the total number of positions filled during the FY. Central San Data Calculation Method Central San included all full-time permanent employees in calculating the data for these sub- indicators (i.e., this data includes HHW and Recycled Water staff). To calculate the Average Vacancy Rate, Central San calculated the average of the number of vacant budgeted positions divided by the budgeted positions for each quarter of the FY. To calculate the Employee Internal Promotion Rate, Central San counted only non-entry level positions in the total number of positions filled. 41 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 219 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development AVERAGE LENGTH OF EMPLOYEE TENURE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 16.0 14.0 12.7 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.2 - 13.4 13.0 12.0 11.6 12.0 12.0 c° 12.0 11.3 11.0 11.0 11.4 11.5 � 10.2 10.0 9.9 10.3 10.0 10.0 10.4 10.3 10.2 1C.0 9.0 9.3 m w 8.0 o' CL E 6.0 LU m na 4.0 a' 2.0 o.o � 6' t otyw a�ac 1< F,ti$ s, �e OI,CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17.18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-onlyutilities Combined uti I ities Population Population ww-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (9 participants) (62 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (7 participants) (65 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (40 participants) (38 participants) (40 participants) (37 participants) 42 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 220 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development AVERAGE VACANCY RATE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) (AWWA reported nationwide data in whole numbers. Central San's data is presented with the tenth decimal point for clarity.) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 16.0 is 14 14.0 13 13 12 12.0 a 11 a 10 10 10 10 10.0 9 u $ $ C 8.0 7 7 7 6 ID 6.0 5.1 5.4 5.3 5 5 IF 5 Q 4.0 3 3 3 3 3 2.0 10 do o�y� a\41 ��w o�y� a\ap 0��� o�y� a\a� ��Sw o�y� aap �¢Sw o�yw a`ac 6¢S� o�yw a\ac 414- o�y� a\ac Oey� o�yw aac OeS� QCENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WWbnly utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (9 participants) (61participants) 100,001-5D0,000 a500,OD0 Q pa rt ici pa nts) (54participerr[s) 100,D01-500,000 >500,OD0 (33 participants) (41 participants) (34 participants) (34 participants) 43 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 221 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development AVERAGE LENGTH OF POSITION VACANCIES Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) (AWWA reported nationwide data in whole numbers. Central San's data is presented with the tenth decimal point for clarity.) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 180.0 159.8 160.0 m O 140.0 c 120.0 ❑° 120.0 M 7 0 100.0 95.5 90.0 90.0 95.0 90.0 90.0 N $5.$ 82.5 0 a 80.0 68.0 73.3 73.3 69.0❑ 63.3 61.0 60.0 64.D t 59.0 54.0 60.0 59.6 58.5 60.0 46.5 47.5 40.6 39.2 40.0 t Q 20.0 0.0 1$�y�ti�i�y��0 o`y~ ��c ��� �o`y`�ea`41 ��� �Oty���a�� ��~ �O�yw�Qa`ac ��� ocy���a`�� ��� �O�yw��a�c � � erea`ac Z10I_LEN7RAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-119 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-onlyutili[ies Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (9 participants) (55 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (7 participants) (53 participants) 100,001-500,()00 x500,000 (36 participants) (33 participants) (36 participants) (29 participants) 44 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 222 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Organizational Development INTERNAL PROMOTION RATE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 80 70 67 69 67 — 6D 60 59 56 57 54 52 c 3ti 49 Y 50 4fi ,544 44 41 40 42 I 40 WC 40 44 _ 34 Za p ❑ 31 30 28 29 w E 30 26 I a 20 10 I 0 t� 1°7 yp �yti `�� �ti ywC �ti yc �C �� `y. �p �ti y� �� �ti yc �C �� ty� �p �c y� `�� Ile ti <kN <k", �� �� e �� a o yap �¢a e �� a o yap �¢a yah a Z40I_CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population VL(W-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (9 participants) (55 participants) 100,001-5w,000 x500,000 (7 participants] 153 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (36 participants) (33 participants) (34 participants) (34 participants) 45 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 223 of 382 Page 51 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 • 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. In the U.S., liabilities are defined and designated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) or Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASB) as applicable to a specific utility. • 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. In the U.S., assets are defined and designated by the GASB or FASB as applicable to a specific 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 the 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. CA Agency Data Commentary 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. The low debt burden reflected by Central San's figures is indicative of the historical pay-as-you go approach to funding capital expenditures, and the timing of the capital replacing cycle, with Central San's investment in capital assets (some financed by debt) increasing in the coming years. 46 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 224 of 382 Page 52 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength DEBT RATIO Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 80 70 66 68 60 54 55 S0 48 49 49 45 46 48 I 42 43 43 42 39 � 40 33 29 O 30 23 25 20 20 20 20 18 16 10 I I I 0 try�lz �9 e -e Ifa,ac 'e // eg /ilp-iyFlCENTRA1SAH FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY M19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (10 participants) I.participants) 100,001-500,000 1500,008 (9 Perim pants) (46 participants) 100,001-500,000 1500,000 (27 participants) (19participants) (26 participants) (17 participants) Central San vs. CA(FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) so 69 70 65 6 61 2 60 50 0 39 41 40 av 30 20 21 22 20 13 13 10 7 0 0e`'` cco C'ei trn'a�_SaN CA VM-on IV an d combined utiIit!es 1°'u L" y [A WW-only and combined utilities (10 participants) (10 participants) 47 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 225 of 382 Page 53 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength RETURN ON ASSETS This indicator is an estimate of a utility's financial effectiveness. Investor-owned and enterprise- fund utilities are particularly interested in this indicator, seeking higher ratios when possible and allowable. Some publicly owned utilities may find value in this indicator when seeking justification for improvements. Return on Assets is calculated as follows: Net income Return on assets M = Total assets • Net income—all revenues and gains minus expenses for the reporting period; it is titled as such on a utility's financial statement. In the U.S., net income is defined and designated by the GASB or FASB as applicable to a specific utility. Central San Data Calculation Method / Commentary 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. The relatively high Return on Asset figures are reflective of the pay-as-you go approach to funding most capital expenditures, as well as setting rates to provide funding for such capital expenditures. 48 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 226 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength RETURN ON ASSETS Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 8.0 7.2 7.0 5.9 5.9 6.0 ' 5 4.9 .2 5.0 4.6 4.5 4.3 a 4.0 3,7 a 3.2 5.3 � 2$ 3.0 3.Q 2.6 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.Q ' 0.6 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I Q.Q ��y�,y%�,y$tiq��yq-6p ea\a� ��� wok,;- ea`�, 0ey� �o& ea\a, ��� oty� U`�r Oey� o�y� . K, ��� o` U`ac 0e�� oiy� a`a� ��� o` 11§1 0�'y� e� rs rle le - rre Sti �e Sa le CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17d8 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY IS 39 FY 18-19 WW-only uti I iti as Combined utilities Population Population only utilities Combined utilities Population Papulation (10 participants) (46participantsi 100,001-5DD,000 >500,000 (9 participants) (43participants) 10D,DDI-500,000 >500,000 (26 participants} (20 participants) (25 participants) (18 participants} 49 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 227 of 382 Page 55 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 is calculated as follows: Days of cash on hand (days) _ (Undesignated cash &cash equivalents) (Operating expenses excluding depreciation) L 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 treasuries and investments and 2) including treasuries and investments. In its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Central San utilizes the latter definition in reporting its days of cash on hand and includes investments in its calculation. This formula, which uses 365 days, was adjusted to use 366 days in calculating the FY 19-20 data, since 2020 was a leap year. 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 Commentary Some factors contribute to variances seen across agencies on this metric. The AWWA definition provided to the participating agencies excludes "investments" from the numerator of the formula, despite many agencies' practice of maintaining substantial short-term investments in lieu of cash. Central San added a note to the instructions that cash equivalents should include treasuries and investments. Additionally, it is not clear whether all agencies are defining cash equivalents in the same manner. 50 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 228 of 382 Page 56 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength DAYS OF CASH ON HAND Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-16 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 1200 1000 960 928 800 = 667 685 ° 607 585 N 600 515 510 V 461 469 432 427 410 400 378 337 388 362 349 307 0 291 279 237 240 237 212 242 222 200 I I 11 I � ■ ■ I I I I I ll7 I 1I4 0 "Jti° FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 1519 FY 1649 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 L"M_C WIN-only utilities Combined utilities Population papulation wwanly utilities Combined utilities Population population (19paricipants) (31 participants) 1oa,an' -500,000 >500,000 {6 participants) (33 parti ipants) 100,001-500,600 >500,000 (21 participan[sl (13 participants) (20 participants) (12 participants) 1'F'Lcrurrasw [:] Excl.Treasuries and Investments El Incl.Treasuries and Investments Central San vs. CA(FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 1,400 1,329 1,200 1,000 = 795 0 800 622 607 643 600 ° 461 476 414 382 0 400 240 272 244 200 0 61r �sav CA WW-onl and combined utilities Z-i CENtR - CA WW-ant y y and combined utilities (11 participants) ill participants) ElExcl.Treasuries and Investments Incl.Treasuries and Investments 51 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 229 of 382 Page 57 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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. A debt-service coverage ratio of less than one indicates a negative cash flow, meaning a utility is not generating enough income to pay its debt obligations strictly through operations. It is the amount of cash flow available to meet interest, principal, and sinking fund payments. Days of cash on hand is calculated as follows: Debt — service coverage ratio = Total operating revenue — Total 0&M costs 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 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 Total operating revenue —Total 0&M costs (excluding depreciation) +non— operating revenue Total debt service The following compares Central San's debt-service coverage ratios using the AWWA calculation methodology and the Central San methodology: FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 AWWA Methodology 6.88 6.72 11.57 (represented in bar chart) Central San Methodology 14.72 101.60 30.87 52 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 230 of 382 Page 58 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength Commentary The AWWA definition does not state whether to include depreciation in the total 0&M costs. It is Central San's opinion that it should, to produce consistent data among the participating agencies. CA Agency Data Commentary The AWWA definition was provided to the participating agencies, so, in calculating their debt- service coverage ratios, the AWWA formula was used (not adding non-operating revenue to the numerator and potentially not excluding depreciation from their total O&M costs). However, it is unclear whether agencies took the liberty of amending the AWWA formula as Central San did in reporting their data. Elements of both the numerator and denominator of this calculation may be calculated differently per each agency's bond covenants. Use of pension obligation bonds is another example of a financial practice that could distort comparability of results. 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. 53 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 231 of 382 Page 59 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength DEBT-SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO For comparison purposes, Central San's debt-service coverage ratio using the AWWA calculation methodology is represented in these charts. Central San* vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-1S data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 14 13.04 12 11.57 ■ 0 o' 10 m 8.06 S o 6.88 6.72 U 6 5.72 n 4.29 m 4 3.20 8.01) 9.22 O 2.50 2.55 I I I 1 JS � 1 11 1Il ' 1 23 1 2I I7 I 1 21 � 1 2' I 1 I .00 2 1.43 1.49 I 3 1.55 1.61 1.73 0 , d' 9c 0 o` arc 0d'z \a� 0� 05� arc F�ti a'Y el'0 � � 3� � S� tie 0� l_CENTRAL SAN C� FY 17-IS FY 17-18 FY 17-18 C,FY 17-IA FY IS19 C,FY 19 19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-ly utilities Combined utilities Population Population ISO participards) (31 participants) 100,001-500,006 >500,6o0 (9 participants) 132 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (19 participants) (15 participants) (22 participants) (12 participants) Central San* vs. CA (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 16.00 14.01 14.00 ° 11.57 11.57 c 12.00 s m 10.00 `m 8.00 6.72 m 6.00 4.00 2.59 1.18 2,08 2.04 1.73 2.00 0.50 . . D.60 ■ . , 0.00 Qax F� ti _�� boy eat me �at 0a?I.c1uisnrse j'@t cumuvra CA WW-only and combined utilities CA WW-only and combined utilities (10 participants) (10 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. 54 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 232 of 382 Page 60 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength DAYS OF WORKING CAPITAL/ FINANCIAL LIQUIDITY Days of working capital is also referred to as financial liquidity and indicates the relatively liquid portion of total enterprise fund capital, which constitutes a margin or buffer for meeting obligations. It is important for utilities to maintain adequate levels of working capital in their enterprise funds to mitigate current and future risks (e.g., revenue shortfalls and unanticipated expenses) and to ensure stable services and fees. Working capital is a crucial consideration in long-term financial planning. Credit rating agencies consider the availability of working capital in their evaluations of continued creditworthiness. Likewise, laws and regulations may speak to appropriate levels of working capital for some enterprise funds. 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. Days of Working Capital is calculated as follows: Days of working capital (Current unrestricted assets — current liabilities) [(Operating expenses excluding depreciation/365 days a year)] Central San Data Calculation Method This formula, which uses 365 days, was adjusted to use 366 days in calculating the FY 19-20 performance, since 2020 was a leap year. 55 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 233 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength DAYS OF WORKING CAPITAL/ FINANCIAL LIQUIDITY Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 1DDD 933 -C� 9DD 872 830 Cr 8DD J c 683 v 700 597 ii 600 521 511 512 521 6 500 433 449 477 434 417 409 389 4DD 359 = M z9s Y 0 300 231 192 215 193 1m p 200 ]3B 117 100 p 100 1 42 0 � 0 I N%�y11; �ygryp etyma��a�c ��ti ��yc. �� ��w ��y�.�¢a�� ��c �otyc����c Qj �yc.���c ��ti ��y�. a`a� 0I_CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (10 participants) (28 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (8 participants) (30 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (18 participants) (13 participants) (19 participants) (12 participants) 56 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 234 of 382 Page 62 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 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 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 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 CA Agency Data Commentary Because the AWWA methodology is silent on whether to include depreciation in total 0&M costs, there may be some difference in how agencies have chosen to report their total O&M. Additionally, total operating revenue can vary from utility to utility. Each agency has different revenue sources that they 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. 57 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 235 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength OPERATING RATIO Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 90 79 80 75 72 72 73 70 67 62 60 60 58 59 5756 57 0 52 SO 53 50 T, 45 45 cc 44 48 42 41 44 42 ,�— 40 m m 0 30 20 10 0 • ,S� 'tifli ,yp yc. �� �l� moi• �''�. `yti ��• eT y` �� Aja" ty` fit. qk, �ti� �,� yap �Qa o �� a �o ��a e yap ��a o �� yao ��b yap ,eI91_CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY H-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combinedutilities Population Population (10 participants) (28 participants) 100,001-500,000 5500,0o0 (8 participants) (30 participants) 100,001—500,000 5500,000 (18 participants) (13 participants) (19 participants) (12 participants) 58 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 236 of 382 Page 64 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength BOND RATING This indicator is a grade that indicates a utility's creditworthiness. Private, independent rating services such as Standard & Poor's (S&P), Moody's, and Fitch 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. These 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 Aa a 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 three FYs and has not applied for or received any ratings from Fitch, as shown in chart form below: oijCENTRAL SAN Bond Ratings from FYs 17-18 through 19-20 Moody's S&P Fitch Aa1 (High Grade) AAA (Prime) No rating The following graphs show where Central San lies in the benchmarking comparison against the aggregate nationwide data from the AWWA survey and the CA agencies data from Central San's survey. The AWWA data is presented as one graph per FY, indicating only the rating category and not which rating services issued the ratings. The CA agency data is shown as one graph per rating service, demonstrating the number of participating agencies who received a specific rating category from each rating service. Central San's rating category is indicated in each chart for comparison purposes. 59 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 237 of 382 Page 65 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength BOND RATINGS FROM ALL RATING SERVICES Central San vs. Nationwide (FY 17-18 data) All Rating Services 45 41 40 35 30 30 25 25 21 Z) 20 16 14 0 15 4 10 6 5 5 3 0 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population>500,000 (9 participants) (68 participants) 100,001-500,000 (43 participants) (47 participants) Prime( "Ce"' L5'" rating from S&P for FYs 17-18, 18-19,and 19-20) High Grade rating from Moody's for FYs 17-18,and 18-19,and 19-20) Upper Medium Grade Low Medium Grade Central San vs. Nationwide (FY 18-19 data) All Rating Services 45 41 40 35 32 v 30 25 21 20 20 15 18 ° 15 10 4 4 4 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population>500,000 (8 participants) (67 participants) 100,001-500,000 (39 participants) (49 participants) Prime( "`s"n"L5'"rating from S&P for FYs 17-18, 18-19,and 19-20) High Grade rating from Moody's for FYs 17-18,and 18-19,and 19-20) Upper Medium Grade Low Medium Grade 60 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 238 of 382 Page 66 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength BOND RATINGS FROM S&P Central San vs. CA(FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) S&P 6 5 5 5 v 4 3 0 2 2 3x 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Prime( ._C8''� .rating High Grade Upper Medium Grade Low Medium Grade for FYs 17-18,18-19,and 19-20) Rating Category from S&P ■FY 18-19 Data(7 participants) ■FY 19-20 Data(7 participants) BOND RATINGS FROM MOODY'S Central San vs. CA(FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) Moody's 7 6 6 5 5 v *—' 4 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prime High Grade( � �. Upper Medium Grade Low Medium Grade rating for FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20) Rating Category from Moody's ■FY 18-19 Data(6 participants) ■FY 19-20 Data(5 participants) 61 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 239 of 382 Page 67 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength INSURANCE / CLAIMS The insurance family of sub-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 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). The sub- indicators are calculated as follows. 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 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. Central San Data Calculation Method For FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20, Central San had zero insurance claims to report as defined by AWWA as there were none reported to the insurance carrier, since Central San is self-insured up to $500,000. Differing levels of insurance deductibles and interpretation of whether to report in this measure any losses or just claims covered by insurance make this performance indicator as written by AWWA less than entirely reliable for purposes of comparisons. 62 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 240 of 382 Page 68 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength Because Central San's FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 performance figures for the above sub- indicators are zero, comparable nationwide data is not presented in the interest of brevity. However, Central San's claims totals are included below to provide a window into the agency's performance in Insurance. 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. No comparable nationwide or CA data is available. Claims FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Paid 10 17 20 Denied 2 5 1 Tendered or Subrogated 4 0 1 Total 16 22 22 25 0 1 20 1 5 15 N E V 2 10 20 17 5 10 0 'Nob N111j tiri Nob ��I�CENTRALSAN Paid Denied ■Tendered or Subrogated 63 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 241 of 382 Page 69 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength RISK AND RESILIENCY The following family of sub-indicators aims to look at a utility's readiness for emergencies. With new requirements in place as a result of the America's Water Infrastructure Act, the following metrics help provide a utility with a starting point on its current plan and upcoming needed changes to meet compliance. The following are explanations of the sub-indicators and the nationwide performance in FYs 17-18 and 18-19 (percentage of participants reporting the levels as indicated in the charts), with Central San's performance for that FY in each chart for reference, and Central San's FY 19-20 performance below each chart. Performance levels differ for each sub-indicator, but generally Level 3 is the best available ranking. Central San's performance over the last three FYs in each of the sub-indicators is below: Z'gI CENTRALSAN Risk and Resiliency Sub-Indicators FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Risk Assessment and Response Preparedness 1 2 3 Emergency Response Planning 2 2 2 Recovery and Mitigation Plan 3 3 3 Cybersecurity Preparedness 2 2 2 Central San Data Calculation Method For each sub-indicator, the subject matter expert at Central San assigned the level. RISK ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) This sub-indicator evaluates whether a utility has assessed its all-hazards (natural and human- caused) vulnerabilities and risks and made corresponding plans for critical needs. Risk assessment includes evaluation for potential power outages, lack of access to chemicals, cybersecurity, extreme weather events, curtailed staff availability etc. Utilities were asked to rate themselves based on which of the following performance levels best applied to them: • 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. • 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. • No Plan— No assessment was conducted in fiscal year. • Not Applicable (percentage of utilities who responded with this are not represented in the chart) 64 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 242 of 382 Page 70 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength FY 17-18 Utility Type Level 1 Participants Level Level ,�'{;ICELTRALSAV No Plan WW-only 30% 20% 40% 10% 6 Combined 18% 29% 27% 20% 66 Population 100,001-500,000 22% 24% 33% 18% 46 Population >500,000 16% 24% 32% 21% 40 FY 18-19 Utility Type Level z Participants Level 3 _XAt CENTRAL SAV Level 1 No Plan WW-only 22% 45% 22% 11% 5 Combined 26% 39% 8% 27% 68 Population 100,001-500,000 24% 48% 9% 20% 46 Population >500,000 32% 26% 11% 34% 38 performance for FY 19-20: Level 3.This increasing trend was in part due to the development of the risk inventory and evaluation of such under the Enterprise Risk Management program. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) This sub-indicator evaluates if a utility has in place an Emergency Response Plan at one of the following levels of complexity: • 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. • Level 2—The Emergency Response Plan is enhanced with additional capabilities and supported through more structured relationships with potential response partners. • No Plan in Place • Not Applicable (percentage of utilities who responded with this are not represented in the chart) FY 17-18 Utility Type Level z Participants Level 3 �-�;�j cErrrRuyua Level 1 No Plan WW-only 40% 40% 10% 10% 6 Combined 36% 36% 20% 6% 66 Population 100,001-5001000 35% 39% 17% 7% 46 Population >500,000 44% 26% 26% 5% 40 65 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 243 of 382 Page 71 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength FY 18-19 Utility Type Level z Participants Level 3 ,-8Rj CEW;MLSaN Level 1 No Plan WW-only 33% 45% 11% 11% 9 Combined 37% 24% 10% 29% 70 Population 100,001-500,000 42% 35% 6% 17% 46 Population >500,000 33% 13% 10% 44% 38 "0ceNrRA1S4N performance for FY 19-20: Level 2 RECOVERY AND MITIGATION PLAN This sub-indicator assesses if a utility has in place a Recovery and Mitigation Plan at one of the following levels: • 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. • Level 2— Implementation of mitigation and recovery activities, projects, and funding is in place. • Level 1—General awareness of mitigation and recovery activities, projects, and funding is in place for efficient system and services restoration. • No Plan in Place • Not Applicable (percentage of utilities who responded with this are not represented in the chart) FY 17-18 Utility Type Level 3 Participants Z. I CENTRALSAN Level 2 Level 1 No Plan WW-only 20% 30% 40% 10% 6 Combined 16% 34% 28% 15% 66 Population 100,001-500,000 20% 39% 20% 9% 46 Population >500,000 13% 28% 43% 15% 40 FY 18-19 Utility Type Level 3 Participants _'L, CENTRAL SAV Level 2 Level 1 No Plan WW-only 34% 22% 11% 33% 9 Combined 28% 22% 19% 31% 68 Population 100,001-500,000 26% 30% 21% 23% 46 Population >500,000 36% 21% 10% 33% 38 1r'g CENTRALSA4 performance for FY 19-20: Level 3 66 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 244 of 382 Page 72 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Financial Strength CYBERSECURITY PREPAREDNESS This sub-indicator evaluates a utility's development and incorporation of an established cybersecurity plan at the following levels of complexity: • 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. • No Plan in Place • Not Applicable FY 17-18 Utility Type Level 2 Participants Level 3 _XAt CEN7RALSAV Levell No Plan WW-only 11% 44% 44% 0% 6 Combined 18% 40% 28% 9% 66 Population 100,001-500,000 13% 48% 22% 9% 46 Population >500,000 24% 27% 36% 9% 40 FY 18-19 Utility Type Level 2 Participants Level3 '(��LCEN7RALSAV Levell No Plan _rte, WW-only 25% 25% 25% 25% 8 Combined 37% 30% 13% 20% 71 Population 100,001-500,000 37% 29% 10% 25% 46 Population >500,000 39% 24% 12% 24% 38 performance for FY 19-20: Level 2 67 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 245 of 382 Page 73 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: CUSTOMER SERVICE RESIDENTIAL SERVICE CHARGES This indicator allows utilities to compare their residential charges for WW services based on an average residential bill. Participants included any additional costs added to the bill for residential service, such as taxes, fees, and/or surcharges. If there was more than one rate zone, utilities were instructed to calculate the weighted average of charges of all zones. • Bill—a periodic statement of charges (volumetric, surcharges, and taxes) for utility services. For purposes of benchmarking, multiple-service utilities that send a single bill count each service as a single bill (e.g., if water and wastewater services are combined, this is counted as two bills). 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. 68 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 246 of 382 Page 74 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service Below is a table showing how Central San's annual residential rates compare to other agencies' annual rates in the Bay Area, provided for reference. Other agencies' rates may be either FY 18- 19 or 19-20 rates. The rates presented in the nationwide comparison charts are monthly rates. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission(PUC) $1,525 Berkeley(East Bay Municipal Utility District 1.379 (EBMUD)for treatment) Santa Rosa 1.330 Rodeo Sanitary District 996 Benicia 954 Petaluma 953 Richmond 880 Crockett Sanitary Department 789 Oakland(EBMUD for treatment) 767 San Leandro(EBMUD for treatment) 733 Napa Sanitation District 710 Average of Agencies Surveyed 694 Livermore 676 Brentwood 673 West County Wastewater District 639 Novato Sanitary District 636 Central San(FY 19-20)* 598 Pittsburg(Delta Diablo for treatment) S597 Sunnyvale S592 Concord(Central San for treatment) 592 Mt View Sanitary District 591 Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control 9584 Central San(FY 18-19) 567 Antioch(Delta Diablo for treatment) 567 Bay Point(Delta Diablo for treatment) 549 Stege SD(EBMUD for treatment) 549 Pleasanton(DSRSD for treatment) 480 Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District 468 San Jose 467 Dublin San Ramon Services District 423 Union Sanitary District 421 Castro Valley Sanitary District 419 Hayward 394 Oro Loma Sanitary District 275 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000$1,200$1,400$1,600$1,800 *The FY 19-20 rate adjustment from$567 per year to$598 per year went into effect legally,but,in light of the COVID-19 pandemic,Central San did not collect on the increase. 69 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 247 of 382 Page 75 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL WW BILL AMOUNT FOR ONE MONTH OF SERVICE Central San* vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 60.00 49.83 48A45130 5a.00 o 45,50 45.64 45.41_ 44.17 44.23 44.50 ¢ 43.27 43.22 42.87 m 6.6 40.00 3 7 35.44 35.55 37.60 35.41 35.44 34.45 34.91 0 29.16 29,16 30.36 30.56 30.90 31.24 s 30.00 m o a, 0 2a.o0 ¢ 10.00 a.Do �eZ a o5 sops gym, 1 e;3�o�5 , 1�- ,`p eyeaa� 0�` 5�zaa� des�0�5�maa� �e5 a�oc`'�eaa° ��`�o`� a� FY � EJ _--'OI CENTRALSAN F11718 FYI7-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WWanlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (9 participants) (80participants) 100,001-saa,000 >500,aao (a participants) [79wtiapants] 100,001-500,o00 >500,000 (41 participants) {31 participants) (43 pan1dpants) (28 participants[ Central San* vs. CA (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 300.00 o_250.00 242.29 246.19 E� ¢ m 200.00 $i 0 R L 150.00 129.85 m 112.45 73 100.00 W � 0 47.25 38.66 4U.67 49.41 49.83 52.74 50.00 ' 21.33 � ' , 22.15 0.00 5, GLamNusW �NtCarlraSau CA WW-only and combined utilities CA WW-only and combined utilities (11 participants) (11 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. 70 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 248 of 382 Page 76 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service NONRESIDENTIAL SERVICE CHARGES (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 of annual standard commercial SSC rates for Bay Area agencies including Central San, based on average water consumption (475 hundred cubic feet (HCF) per year). Agencies' rates are FY 18-19 rates unless noted as FY 19-20. To estimate these commercial rates, staff used an "average" non-residential water consumption of 475 HCF per year, multiplied by the "standard commercial" or "low strength" billing rates for each agency. (*)Santa Rosa 9c :Gi (*J San Francisco PUC Napa Sanitation District Vii■ Stege SD(EBMUD for treatment( Petaluma LiF1 (*)Rodeo Sanitary District West County Wastewater District # SFS Mt View Sanitary District DSII (*)Benicia � ! (")Brentwood (*)Richmond 'ki M Central San(FY 2019-20( Average of Agencies Surveyed Bay Point(Delta Diablo for treatment) Concord 1'(Union Sanitary District � y Hayward �J�L?• Central San(FY 2018-19( Oakland(EBMUD for treatment) Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Sunnyvale 7 (*�Livermore Pleasanton(DSRSDfor treatment) Pittsburg(Delta Diablo for treatment� Antioch(Delta Diablo for treatment� ;J�iig3F� San Jose San Leandro Oro Loma Sanitary District ;*LI•■ Dublin San Ramon Services District Berkeley(EBMUD for treatment( ��� {'�)=FY 2019-20 rate Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control Ilpffk3Y. Castro Valley Sanitary District � [ ("(Crockett Sanitary Department $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,OD0 $10,000 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. 71 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 249 of 382 Page 77 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service AVERAGE NONRESIDENTIAL WW BILL AMOUNT FOR ONE MONTH OF SERVICE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data)— Unavailable AWWA Nationwide Data unavailable as this indicator was not included in AWWA's Utility Benchmarking book. Central San* vs. CA (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 1000.00 948 39 � 900.00 867.98 'o F L, aoo.o0 m � 700.00 3 � en 600.00 574.73 475.56 510.22 s 500.00 424.53 � o � g 400.00 m z 300.00 234.23 219.68 ° 200.00 148.03 151.75 130.00 100.00 0.00 109.00 �F� s, ¢a¢c �¢5 \��� i/tiQ J� c5 614, Il o �o ¢ rY�!cenrA.s"" CAWW-only and combined utilities L�9l cenr:n.saH CA WW-only and combined utilities (10 participants) (10 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. 72 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 250 of 382 Page 78 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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, which was the latest census data available at the time of the study. Ad valorem taxes collected were not included in the reported bill amount. This is because the nationwide agencies included in the AWWA study do not all collect ad valorem taxes. Commentary 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. 73 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 251 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service SERVICE AFFORDABILITY Central San vs. Nationwide* (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 1S-19 data) 1.20 1.11 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 0.93 1.00 0.91 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.80 0.73 0.76 0.75 Z- 0.67 0.69 0.64 0.64 o 0.60 0.58 0.50 0.53 0.53 0.50 D.53 0.50 a 0.45 n 0.40 0.20 D.DD �yIbr �yNtio oty`�Qa`ac ��� �o`y`��a�c ��� �O`yr erea`ao ��� �oty� �Qa`ac ��� o`yy��a�c � �O`y~�ea`a� �oty� [�Qa`ac �o�5w 4ea`z� ,e!f44I_CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (8 participants) (69 participants) 100,001-500,000 xS00,000 (37 participants) (29 participants) (37 participants) (25 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. 74 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 252 of 382 Page 80 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service SERVICE COMPLAINTS This family of sub-indicators provides the complaint frequency related to customer service or core utility services, expressed as the number of complaints per 1,000 customer accounts. Two types of complaints are measured: 1) customer service (people related) and 2) technical (product related). Only those complaints which are related to utility business and are logged, whether acted on or not, are to be counted. • 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 in two ways: 1) as the number of complaints per 1,000 customer accounts and 2) as the number of complaints per population served, 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 Customer service complaints /population served Total number of customer service complaints x 1,000 Population served • 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 tally customer service complaints for Central San, various customer-facing divisions were asked to submit data. Given that Central San's services to the residents of Concord and Clayton are partial, the number of accounts or population served used does not include those cities. The Financial Planning (Rates & Fees) and Environmental Compliance work groups do not track complaints. The respondent work groups at Central San included the following: • Risk Management, who tracks driving-related and other miscellaneous complaints • Permit Counter, who tracks complaints via customer satisfaction surveys • Collection System Operations (CSO), who performs service requests resulting from customer service complaints • Front Desk, who fields miscellaneous complaints • Secretary of the District, who tracks Proposition 218 protests to rate-setting 75 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 253 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS PER 1,000 ACCOUNTS Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 9.0 8.1 8.0 7.3 7.0 k � 6.0 5.6 n � V o � 5.0 a 4.3 H 4.0 E a i 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 I0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 4.4 0.3 0.4 O.D 0.2 0.0 4.3 0.F 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 - 1 ■ ■ 1 1 1 ■ . 1 ■ . yam, fi y� c a �� ZQI CEIRMALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 1&19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 LVW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population MM-onlyutilities Combined utilities Papulation Papulation (6 participants} (10 participants) 100,001-500,004 >500,000 (6 participants) (ii participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (6 participants) (4 participants) (7 participants} (7 participants) 76 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 254 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS PER POPULATION SERVED Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 3.0 2.6 2.5 " 2.0 a N 2.0 1.9 E O V � v C n 1.5 1.3 v y 1.0 E c3 0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 Q.3 0.2 0�0 0.1 0.0 ■ ■ D.0 I D.D 0.0 ' 0.1 D.1 0.0 , ■0.1 0.0 I ■ 0.1 0.0 — W11 ,tiot 1q,L4 4�y \a� ��w�bty y ,e'0�—CENTRAL5AN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 VVW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-onlyutilities Combined utilities Papulation Papulation (6 participants) (10 participants) 100,001—500,004 >590r000 (6 participants) (10 participants) 100,001—500,000 >500,000 (5 participants) (4 participants) (7 participants) (7 participants} 77 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 255 of 382 Page 83 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service TECHNICAL SERVICE COMPLAINTS The technical service complaint frequency sub-indicator is expressed in two ways: 1) as the number of complaints per 1,000 customer accounts and 2) as the number of complaints per population served, 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 Customer service complaints /population served Total number of customer service complaints x 1,000 Population served • 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 tally technical service complaints for Central San, various customer-facing divisions were asked to submit data. Given that Central San's services to the residents of Concord and Clayton are partial, the number of accounts or population served used does not include those cities. The respondent work groups at Central San 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 • Plant Operations, who record odor complaints related to the Plant. 78 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 256 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service TECHNICAL SERVICE COMPLAINTS PER 1,000 ACCOUNTS Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 18.0 16.0 15.3 14.0 N c � 12.0 10.811.1 10.7 E U t' 10.0 9.3 r a a � O �] N 8.0 C 6.7 ] N s 6.0 5.1 $ 4.4 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.3 z.s z.s 1.6 1.5 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.9 1.3 1.4 , 1 4.6 I � 1 1 � � � � 1 ■ I ■ 0-1 0.0 I CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17.18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (5 participants) (24 participants) 100,OD1-5DD,000 75DD,000 (6 participants) (29 participants) 100,DD1-500,000 >50D,DDO (12 participants) (9 participants) (17 participants) (11 participants) 79 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 257 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service TECHNICAL SERVICE COMPLAINTS PER POPULATION SERVED Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey (Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 6.0 5.6 5.0 c 4.0 a 4.0 3.8 Q � o 3.2 m 3.0 'a a 3.0 w a 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 s -a 2.0 1.7 a E F- a V 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 . S I E I I I ` I 1 1 1 - aa F�y�y�ay�y��y��o oth �a\ar ��y�Doty r���\a� � ~ o° �.��`a� �e�o`y�� to <`'��a\a� ,e s,°� �.��\�� ����oc� a\a� to Doty �I-CENTRALSM FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17.18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18.19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Papulation (5 participants) (23 participants) 100,0D1-5DD,000 >50D,000 {6partici pants) (25 participants) 10D,DD1-500,00D >500,OD0 (12 participants) (9 participants) (16 participants) (1D participants) 80 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 258 of 382 Page 86 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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. Given that Central San's services to the residents of Concord and Clayton are partial, the number of accounts used does not include those cities. The Secretary of the District work group does not track costs related to processing Proposition 218 and Public Records Act (PRA) requests and noted that other divisions receive PRA requests directly, and there would not be a way to calculate time spent by them. The respondent work groups at Central San included the following: • CSO, for costs of fulfilling service requests • Communication Services, for costs of producing the Pipeline customer newsletter, Proposition 218 notices, and educational videos. Costs of student educational programs (e.g., Pipe Protectors, 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. • Financial Planning (Rates & 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. 81 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 259 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service CUSTOMER SERVICE COST PER ACCOUNT Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 45.00 41.88 41.70 y 40.00 O 35.00 H 30.00 27.49- 27.19 25.25 23.94 25,79 23.05 23.96 25.00 a 21.16 18.90 18.92 0 20.00 17.15 m 15.31 16.13 15.9416.72 15.00 13.41 12.61 11.32 11.48 11.34 11.42 a 9.35 9.78 5 10.00 U 5.00 0.00 N% NY QM CENTRALSAN rY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 1&19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 f W-onlyutilities Combinedutilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (8 participants) (32 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (8 participants) (28 participants) 106,001-500,000 x500,000 121 participants) {12 participants) (19 participants) {10 participants} 82 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 260 of 382 Page 88 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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—At least annually • 1— Less than annual frequency • 0— Never/rarely Central San Data Calculation Method The Communication and Intergovernmental Relations Manager scored Central San as follows: Stakeholder Outreach Index Statement FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20Score Score Score We regularly conduct customer satisfaction surveys that 2 2 2 result in a statistically significant measure (or set of measures) for customer satisfaction. We use the results of customer satisfaction surveys to 2 2 2 improve our processes, practices, and systems. We regularly conduct a series of interviews or open 2 2 2 forums with key stakeholders such as public officials, regulators, community representatives, special-interest groups, developers, contractors, etc. (if"at least annually" /score of 2, must be for at least three of these groups) We provide numerous channels and interactions (two- 2 2 2 way) with stakeholders through publicly offered tours, speaking engagements, actively managed booths/kiosks, etc. on a regular, periodic basis (if score of 1 or 2, must be for at least three of these groups or channels/interactions) We provide numerous outreach programs/products on a 2 2 2 regular basis to targeted stakeholders via the media, mailers, newsletters, etc. (if score of 1 or 2, must be for at least three of these groups or programs/products) We regularly review all sources of stakeholder feedback 2 2 2 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% 83 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 261 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH INDEX Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 120 100 ioo 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 soo �a 94 92 83 33 79 83 83 33 33 83 79 80 r 2L 67 67 67 ro a 58 58 0 60 O � a y L O 401 m 20 0 111 1 0� �ti yti `�� 4� r le 01 IM CENTRALSAN FY 17-1S FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 +NW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population ww-onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population (9 participants) (77 participants) 100,001-50,006 a5W,000 (8 participants) (77 participants) 100,001-500,000 >S90,000 152 participants) (44 participants) (51 participants) (42 participants) 84 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 262 of 382 Page 90 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service CUSTOMER SERVICE CONTACT The purpose of this indicator is to obtain a better understanding of how customers are reaching out to a 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 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 estimated percentage breakdown of how customers contact them, and those responses were averaged. The respondents included the following: • Communication Services • Front Desk • Permit Counter • Environmental Compliance • Collection System Operations • Secretary of the District 85 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 263 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service CUSTOMER SERVICE CONTACT Due to the amount of data presented, each of the following charts shows Central San data over the last three FYs against only one set of nationwide data per graph. Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 Data Only) Central San vs.AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) 90 AWWASurvey 79 80 76 76 70 62 63 60 60 A 54 L w 50 v AWWASurvey m N 40 E 33 o � 30 V --_0 "T"""" AWWASurvey 26 25 20 — 17 12 L."`"'"°`�°" AWWA Survey L�-�"'°us°" AWWASurve 10 11 10 y 10 6 O NJ 1� 2 ■ 5 .A 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 D 1 0 5 1 1 Phone In-Person Email Social Media Other Method of Contact I Central San 17-18 Central San 18-19 ■Central San 19-20 ■WW-only utilities(9 participants) ■Combined utilities(56 participants) ■Population 100.500k(9.39 participants(varied by method of contact)) ■Population>500k(17-18 partidpants{varied by method of contact]) 86 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 264 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service Central San vs. Nationwide (FY 18-19 Data Only) AWWA Su rvey Central San vs.AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 90 80 82 80 75 76 770 60 62 60 c 0 u50 E°1CkN10."5""' AWWA Survey v 40 33 AWWA Survey 30 26 0 25 u 17 " AWWA Survey 20 10 10 10LS"" AWWA Survey 10 4 6 3 S 6 7 5,_ .■■. 1 - 1 3_= 4 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 Phone In-Person Email Social Media Other Method of contact Central San 17-18 ■Central San 18-19 ■Central San 19-20 ■WW-only utilities(8 participants) ■Combined utilities(56 participants) ■Population 100.500k(11.40 participants(varied by method of contact)) IN Population>500k(15-34 participants(varied by method of contact)) 87 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 265 of 382 Page 93 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service WASTEWATER SERVICE DISRUPTIONS / DISRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX The WW service disruptions family of sub-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. The benchmarks associated with WW Service Disruptions are 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 • 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. Central San Data Calculation Method Even in the cases of sanitary sewer overflows or lateral reconnections, Central San customers do not lose WW service. Because there were zero disruptions to service, planned or unplanned, between FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20, comparable nationwide data is not presented for the seven sub-indicators above in the interest of brevity, except for Disruption Frequency Index— Planned and Unplanned, which provides a window into Central San's performance against other utilities in the realm of WW service disruptions. 88 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 266 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Customer Service DISRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX— PLANNED AND UNPLANNED Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 7.aa 6.37 g 6.00 V C 5.00 L O L 4.00 V a ' V 3.00 s 1a rg c� 2.00 1,55 0 1.25 1.33 1.28 1.28 a 1.16 1.00 1.00 0.41 0.39 Q.37 0A0 0.00 OAO , 0.14 0:5 0.00 , D. , 0-3 ' O.G6 0.01 0:5 0.00 O�13 OAO 0.22■ 4.02 0.00 — y� t4- e �►I GENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 15-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-onlyutil"dies Combined utilities Population Population (7 participants) (43 participants) 109,001–500,040 >500,000 (7 participants) (45 participants) 100,401–500,000 >500,444 (21 participants) (16 participants) (34 participants) (14 participants) 89 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 267 of 382 Page 95 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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. 90 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 268 of 382 Page 96 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance SYSTEM INSPECTION Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 45.0 41.6 40.0 35.0 0 0 30.0 � 3 a v 25.0 - 20.7 E v 20.0 m o 16.0 14.8 16.0 15.314.6 0 16.2 vyi 15.0 13.4 12.7 11.5 9.9 9.8 9.9 10.5 10.3 10.0 7.5 1 4.5 7.9 8.0 7.0 5.0 I 4.2 0.0 r e�w h� 0 CENTRALSAN FY 17-10 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 1&19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-onlyutilities Combinedutilities Population Population WW-onlyutilRies Combined utilities Papulation Population (6 participants) (55participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,00o (ltlp-likipants) (71 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 [39 participants[ (32 ParTicipants) (40 participants) (28 participants} Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 50.0 45.0 44.3 40.13 38.2 s `0 35.0 0 3 2 30.0 n v 25.3 .�25.c 22.5 E- ;; 0 20.0 15.0 13.4 13.4 `^ 0 - 9.8 9.8 10.0 5.0 2.9 0.7 0.0 a~$� c\�aF �eyw aac F qg. ere �a "A ere �a CA WW-only and combined utilities _PV L-AS$P'° CA WW-only a nd combined utilities (9 participants} (9 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. 91 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 269 of 382 Page 97 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance SYSTEM RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT (R&R) FUND ALLOCATION / CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TO DEPRECIATION RATIO SYSTEM RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT (R&R) FUND ALLOCATION In the AWWA survey, the System R&R Fund Allocation indicator quantifies the percentage of funds allocated for R&R activities in the broad asset groups of WW Collection, WW Pump 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 • To estimate the total present worth of R&R, based on the asset replacement cost, 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). • To estimate asset life spans, 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 50 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. The three sub-indicators of this benchmark are as follows: SYSTEM R&R: WW COLLECTION SYSTEM R&R: WW PUMP STATIONS SYSTEM R&R: WW TREATMENT Central San Data Calculation Method Staff has worked with AWWA to clarify the methodology in the past, and it remains unclear. Staff has followed the AWWA guidance as closely as possible to produce the performance figures for Central San. 92 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 270 of 382 Page 98 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance SYSTEM R&R: WW COLLECTION Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) e.o 0 7.0 d 7.0 n 6.1 6.0 s.o 0 3.9 3.7 m 4.0 0 3.2 3.3 3.3 C 3.0, 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 LL 2-C'2 2.0 1.4 L7 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 r 1.2 1 1 0.4 4P d9 yti &� 10- ♦s �51 e t5� �1�• �y�• rya• a gra e �� �o dab w �o ,e".)CENTRAL5AN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-0nlyutilities Cumbinedutilities Population *Population Ww-onlyutililies Combined utilities (Population *Population (8 participants) [39 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 [3 participants) (43 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (18 participants) (20 participants) (25 participants) (18 participants) *Central San does not maintain the collection system for Concord and Clayton. Without Concord and Clayton, the service area population is below 500,000; therefore, this data set is not as comparable to Central San but provided for reference. 93 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 271 of 382 Page 99 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance SYSTEM R&R: WW PUMP STATIONS Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 9.0 C 8.0 7.7 v. E 7.0 6.3 d 6.0 6.0 0 5.0 4.8 0 4.3 4.4 0 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 � 1.0 101.4 � o.o o ac 0- �5 .ac d7� �5 �c $ �° ¢' c5 aC `y` c5 aC ¢5� c5 ac P`l� ♦5 ac d7` 4� ©�CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-1S FY 17-18 FY 17-19 FY 19 19 FY 19 19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WWanlyutilities Combined utilities Population *Popul aticn WW-onlyutil Ries Combined utilities Population *Population (7 participants) (34participants) 180,001-500,000 -500,00o (7 partici pants) (38 participants) Io0,o01-500,000 >500,000 (16 participants} 117 participants) (22 participants) (16 participants) *Central San does not maintain the pump stations for Concord and Clayton's collection system. Without Concord and Clayton, the service area population is below 500,000; therefore, this data set is not as comparable to Central San. 94 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 272 of 382 Page 100 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance SYSTEM R&R: WW TREATMENT Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 9.0 8.2 E 8.D F TD 6.6 5.D 5 5.3 .4 5.0 0 s.D 4s a 0 4.D 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.6 rc 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.0 1'8 1.7 1.7 N 1.D D.D 4- pyo �i—CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY]5-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WWanlyutilities Combtnedutilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population 17 participants} (34participants) 100,001-500,000 >soo,occ Qparticipants) (38 participants) 10,001-s00,1100 >soo,000 (16 participants} [17participants) (22 participants) (16 participants) 95 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 273 of 382 Page 101 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TO DEPRECIATION RATIO Because the AWWA performance indicator of System R&R Fund Allocation bears such complexity and room for interpretation, Central San has added this indicator to this report, which attempts to capture and better demonstrate the intent of the System R&R Fund Allocation. Central San included this indicator in its CA survey to obtain comparable data. This indicator is calculated as follows: Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures to Depreciation Ratio = Depreciation • Capital expenditures—any type of expenses that a utility capitalizes, or shows on its balance sheet as an investment, rather than on its income statement as an expenditure. Capitalizing an asset requires the utility to spread the cost of the expenditure over the useful life of the asset. • Depreciation expense—this represents the current year amortization of fixed assets over their expected useful life. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TO DEPRECIATION RATIO (NOT INCLUDED IN AWWA UTILITY BENCHMARKING SURVEY) Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data)— Unavailable AWWA Nationwide Data unavailable as this indicator was not included in AWWA's Utility Benchmarking book. Central San vs. CA(FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) o 40.0 2 35.0 33.5 0 m 30.0 y 25.0 O O N 20.0 m 15.0 I 12.2 0 x 10.0 w $.9 4.2 5.01.5 2.2 2.2 2.$ 2.0 2.$ , ■ s 1.0o 0.0 ■ . ■ oma ■ ti� ti°' J� oho e� eyti o� ,ti0 �F ocy` x� Oeya ��� �!terrsu.Sx CA WW-only and combined utilities 1_�t0sna W CA WW-only and combined utilities (11 participants) (11 participants) 96 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 274 of 382 Page 102 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance NON-CAPACITY AND CAPACITY SEWER OVERFLOW RATES This family 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 non — capacity 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 • Sewer overflow—A discharge from a sewer through a manhole, cleanout, pumping facility, customer floor drain, or the drain in a fixture if that discharge is related to limitations or problems with collection or treatment system components under the control of the utility. Overflows caused by limitations or problems within customer- controlled piping and facilities are specifically excluded from this definition. • 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 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Non-capacity overflows 25 30 22 Capacity overflows 0 0 0 97 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 275 of 382 Page 103 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance Commentary It should be noted cities and states may have overflow reporting requirements that may be more stringent than one another. Additionally, 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 since wholesale agencies do not maintain their collection system. This would yield more meaningful results and the ability to directly compare similar agencies. CA Agency Data Commentary CA agency data was sourced by Central San from the California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS). This provides a 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. It also makes no distinction between wholesale and combined sewers, which can affect overflow numbers. 98 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 276 of 382 Page 104 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance NON-CAPACITY SEWER OVERFLOW RATES Central San vs. CA* (FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 Data via CIWQS) vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 Data Only) Data Sourced via CIWQS AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) (Bay Area and Statewide) zo 5.9 a 6.0 0 'E 5.0 3 0 ` 3,9 4.0 3,9 4.1 o«4.0 3 3.4 .5 v 3.2 3.2 2 0 3.0 2.5 t 2A 1.9 V z a 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.0 e e �+1+- �Jtiv �+tis .� �,1� ��1a �.,� �,.,� �y.,a• y�� lea e y�o lea yap ��a o �o lea o /'('.I CENTRALSAN agion 2/Bay Area Statewide FY 17-18 FY 17-16 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 (92 agencies) (394 agencies) Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities P Papulation (10 participants) (75 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 Includes Capacity and Non-capacity Overflows (35 participants) (33 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 Data via CIWQS) vs. Nationwide (FYs 18-19 Data Only) Data Sourced via CIWQS AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) (Bay Area and Statewide) 9.0 a 7.0 6.7 w ° 5.9 d 6.0 5.6 3 £ 1E o ^' 9.0 4.0 3.7 3 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.4 1 2.5 t t 2-0 2.0 i a 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.1 �ool � CENT LSAN Region 2/Bay tir. Statewide FY 16-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 (92 agencies) (394 agencies) VM-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (9 participants) (76 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 Includes Capacity and Non-capacity Overf- (37 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. 99 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 277 of 382 Page 105 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance CAPACITY SEWER OVERFLOW RATES Central San vs. CA* (FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 Data via CIWQS) vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 Data Only) Data Sourced via CIWQS AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) (Bay Area and Statewide) 7.0 5.9 _6.0 5. 5.0 3 E °0 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 o'9 3.4 v 3 3.0 r 2.0 1'8 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 , 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 I , 0.0 0.0 �& oar ��' Ori a'aC �� fly a'eC 0ey ��y a2C bei �yti �Jti �yti ti �y1 �b'ti �y1 �yti �a1 �e S� �¢ � �e sy dye /r01 CENTRALSAN Region 2/Bay Area Statewide FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 (92 agencies) (394 agencies) WW_onlyutilities Combined utilities Population population (9 partici pants) (66 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 Includes Capacity and Non-capacity Overflows (31 participants) (29 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 Data via CIWQS) vs. Nationwide (FYs 18-19 Data Only) Data Sourced via CIWQS AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) (Bay Area and Statewide) z0 5.9 a 6.0 5.6 a 5.0 0 0 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.7 p' 3.4 n" 3 3.0 2.4 2.0 1.s 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3■ 0.0 0.0 �;y4 �ti9 ��O 1'ti4' $ti0 �.LO ^ti0 �1� �ry0 oc5 aao �� 0�5 Dao fie" o�fi Dao �� ot5 aac �e5 )CENTRALSAN Region 2/Bay Area Statewide FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 (92 agencies) 394 agencies)agencies) (394 ) WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (9 participants) (62 participants) 100,001-500,000 >SDDDDD I ncludes Capacity and Non-capacity Overflows (34 participants) (26 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. 100 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 278 of 382 Page 106 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 x 100 100 miles of pipeline Total miles of collection system piping • 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 (stoppages and sanitary sewer overflows), provided for reference: FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Collection System Failures 38 49 32 Commentary 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. 101 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 279 of 382 Page 107 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance COLLECTION SYSTEM INTEGRITY Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 9.0 7.9 8.0 7.5 7.6 7.0 6.6 6.5 6.7 a 6.0 � o 8 m 5.0 N o 3.9 4.0 3.6 o N 3.2 2.9 v m 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 V„ 2.1 2.1 2.1 7.0 1.4 1.0 � 0.4 0.6 0.0 1 y� y� ti� ♦y 3c c5` y qac ecy a� fi` cy �c o5w c ac e� y �c 6w 4 `ac cy ac �w CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19 19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-onlyutil"dies Combined utilities Population Population [7 participants) (64 participants] 1W,001-500,000 >SCC,000 (9 participants) (67 participants) 100,W1-500,000 >500,000 (29 participants) (27 participants] (37 participants) [28 participantsi Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 30.0 25.0 25.0 a a ° 20A .ep a c 0 20.0 E .v 7.of 15.0 c v 9.3 10.0 7.6 u° T 5.0 3.2 2.1 2.2 0.7 0.5 0.00'7 0.0 F� 40 @Ic�.ca_s<H CA WIN-only and combined utilities _--ti•�e�:•.-s:._� CAWW�onlyandcombined utilities [8 participants} --' [7 participants) *The CA data makes no distinction between agencies that are wholesale or have combined sewers. 102 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 280 of 382 Page 108 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance 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. This measure assesses compliance as related to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and any other relevant federal (Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, etc.) or state statute/regulations and permit requirements. The scope can include the quality of all related products, including drinking water, fire suppression water, treated effluent reused water, and biosolids (Environmental Protection Agency 503 Regulations), as well as quality related to operating requirements such as pressure and number of sewer overflows. These indicators report compliance related to the utility's wastewater treatment operations and wastewater collection system operations and are calculated as follows: Regulatory Compliance (%) _ Total number of compliance events per utility's permit —number of events out of compliance Total number of compliance events per utility's permit This formula is applied to the following two sub-indicators: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE — WW TREATMENT REGULATORY COMPLIANCE — COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS Central San Data Calculation Method / Commentary There is some confusion associated with how this indicator should be interpreted. AWWA provides the formula above which utilizes the number of compliance events to calculate performance; however, the outputs are reported as "% days in compliance." In the online survey portal, AWWA asks for the number of days out of compliance. Central San utilized days out of compliance in calculating the performance figures, converting events out of compliance into partial days (reflecting the amount of time Central San was out of compliance). In Central San's statewide survey, Central San asked agencies to provide the "number of days that the utility was in full compliance with all applicable regulations," which resulted in all agencies reporting in whole numbers, but still yielding similar performance figures to Central San's. 103 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 281 of 382 Page 109 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance REGULATORY COMPLIANCE - WW TREATMENT Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 120.0 - - 100-0 99.9 99.9 99.7 100.0 100.0 99.7 100.0 99.2 100.0 100,0 98.4 100.0 98.9 100-0 100.0 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 100.0 100.0 0 91.8 m v 80.0 76.3 79.6 c c 60.0 40.0 n: `- 20.0 0.0 ^y� a��� ao, lea �2 �y2 $� �e CENTRAL5AN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WWanlyutilities Comhined utilities Population Populaticn WW-onlyutilam ies Cobinedutilities Population Population (8 participants) (SS participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (9 participants) (70p-likipanis) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (26 participants) (24 participants) (38 participants) (24participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 Data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 101.0 99,9 99,9 100.0 100.0 100.0 99,9 99,9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 m 98.0 0 97.0 a E n o E o 96.0 0 W y 95.o 7T 94.0 }y v 94.0 v e 93.o 92.0 91.0 90.0 CA WW-only and combined utilities CA CA WW-only and combined utilities (8 participants) (7 participants) *The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that are wholesale or retail. 104 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 282 of 382 Page 110 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance REGULATORY COMPLIANCE - COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONS Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 date) 105.11 X91 992 0 99.8 100.0100.0 100. 100.0 100.0100.0 10000A.01100.0100.0 100.6100.0 100,0100.0 99.5 100.0 100.0 98.6 97.8 98.4 96.7 9fi7 o m 95.0 9 a m E O E J v °u 90.0 gg,; = o � v v 85.0 84.1 V 80.0 75.0 y� y� tip ti 1 � ti c c C ti c ti ti ti 0d7 , le 10 'p le 411 e "' t5 4o 0fii CENPAL$AN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19 19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-0nlyulilities Combinedutilities Population Population wW-onlyutilRies Combined utilities Population Population (8 participants) (47 participants) 100,001-5011,000 '500,000 (9 parlkipants) (60 participants) 100,001-500,000 '500,000 (23 participants) (18 participants) (38 participants) (24 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) I Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 100.5 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99. 0 99.5 99.1 99.2 99.2 99.1 u e d � 99.0 a 0 98.4 a O a 98.5 EE U° a $ 98.0 ry i� ° 97.5 97.3 o m a 97.0 ° m o 96.5 96.0 ' 95.5 �,y� FBF 1115` aao 0ey� ��F q1p `c°F °t5` aac Oey" <c°F �41 Cormuvar CA WW-only and combined utilities __�]i c:vraarsza CA LVW-only and combined utilities (10 participants) (9 participants) I *The CA agency information makes no distinction between agencies that are wholesale or retail. 105 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 283 of 382 Page 111 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study 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 • 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 reported its numbers of residential parcels and nonresidential parcels as the "active residential accounts" and "active nonresidential accounts" respectively. 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. Commentary It should be noted that not all customer accounts are created equal; for example, one nonresidential account could be a large hospital or a single retail business. Simply counting the parcels does not account for these potential discrepancies. An alternative and perhaps more preferable way to measure customer accounts would be by Residential Unit Equivalents (RUES), which will help normalize the data. It is unclear whether all agencies reported their customer accounts in the same way as Central San's, or by RUEs or some other method, since there is some room for interpretation in the AWWA methodology. 106 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 284 of 382 Page 112 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS PER EMPLOYEE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 800 734 728 716 700 680 677 700 658 655 656 655 552 593 0 600 555 555 538 528 505 EH 488 500 453 451 452 436 453 460 395 400 350 347 361 360 0 334 300 E 0 200 J 100 0 I I Qy1�,1�ay�'y°jay��o oty�eDac fey�ocy��aac 0d'4Oty�eaac 0z� �Qaac oty�eDac fey�ocy��aac e�': to�eaac �eS'�'o`y�eaac '0 f'41411-CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-58 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 VM-onlyutilitim Combined utilities Population Population WW,only utilities Combinedutilities Population Population �Excl.Concord and Clayton (9 participants) (77 participants) 100.()01-500,00() >sao,0ao (10 participants) (75partic1pants) 100,001-500,00() >500,GDD ❑Incl.Concord and Clayton (37 participants) (30 participants) (44 participants) (27 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 2,000 1,800 1,7 1,734 0 1,600 E 1,400 n 1,200 1,059 967 1,000 C 828 $00 655 656 733 E 600 451 491 452 494 360 357 400 u 200FM 0 �a �'F?lcervmusu+ �'F?6crnraarsw CA WW-only and combined utilities CA WW-only and combined utilities ❑Excl.Concord and Clayton (11participants) (11 participants) ❑Incl.Concord and Clayton *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 FES;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. 107 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 285 of 382 Page 113 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance WASTEWATER 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: MGD wastewater processed per employee = Average MGD wastewater processed 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. For comparison's sake, the total number of FTEs used follows AWWA's methodology of subtracting HHW, Recycled Water, Capital Projects, or construction of new facilities staff. For reference, below is Central San's average MGD wastewater processed (average-day flow) for the last three FYs: FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Average-Day Flow (MGD) 36.6 39.7 36.4 Commentary It is Central San's opinion that AWWA consider separate benchmarks for retail and wholesale agencies. 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. 108 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 286 of 382 Page 114 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance WW PROCESSED PER EMPLOYEE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 0.40 0.37 035 0.32 u 0.30 0 0,30 0.28 � 0.27 0.27 v 0.25 0.23 0'24 0.23 a 0.21 0.21 w 0.20 D.19 1.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.17 a 0 14 D. 0.]4 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 N 0.15 a a a 0.10 3 0.05 o ac a � -,11"'471 CEN7RALSAN FY L7-1S FY 17-1d FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 lV-only Lit I'ties COmhin=d Lit I'ties Population Population Ww-onlyutilities Combined utilities Papulation Population ;10pa particpa•d5l 100,001-500,000 >500,aa0 (10 participants) (66 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,010 (34 participants) (28 participants) (33 participants) (20 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 0.40 0.34 0.35 LL 0.35 D � 0.29 2 0.30 0.27 0 0.25 Q w 0.20 0.19 a 0.15 0.16 0.16 -o 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.12 v 0.10 0 a` 0.05 0.00 Ile Z1C-1--CSdN CA WW-onlyand combined utilities CAWW-only and combined utilities (11 participants) (11 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. 109 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 287 of 382 Page 115 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR WASTEWATER SERVICES This family of sub-indicators measures total 0&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 GASB or FASB 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. • Total O&M cost— 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. 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. The City of Concord reimburses Central San with flow proportional share costs for treatment, based on the percentage of the Central San net influent flow volume every year. Central San adjusted for this in calculating performance data by factoring in the following for Concord and Clayton: • Their treatment cost (the amount reimbursed by City of Concord) • Their collection cost (the amount they spend in owning, operating, and maintaining their collection system) • Their support services cost (WW O&M costs not attributable to collection or treatment) • The number of residential and non-residential accounts served by Central San Factoring this data allows Central San to present performance data that includes Concord and Clayton in all the O&M Costs for WW Services sub-indicators. The sub-indicators for Total O&M costs are 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 nonresidential accounts Central San Data Calculation Method The total 0&M cost is the cost of treating WW from the service area, including Concord and Clayton (i.e., it includes the 0&M cost for treatment which is reimbursed by the City of Concord), as well as Concord and Clayton's collection and support services costs. The accounts served by Central San in Concord and Clayton are included in the number of accounts. 110 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 288 of 382 Page 116 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance TOTAL O&M COST PER MG Total 0&M cost of wastewater services ( $ ) — Total 0&M cost MG Average daily production x 365 days Central San Data Calculation Method The total O&M cost is the cost of treating WW from the service area, including Concord and Clayton (i.e., it includes the 0&M cost for treatment which is reimbursed by the City of Concord), as well as Concord and Clayton's collection and support services costs. No adjustments were made to the average daily production figure, which includes the WW from Concord and Clayton. This formula, which uses 365 days, was adjusted to use 366 days in calculating the FY 19-20 data, since 2020 was a leap year. For reference, below is Central San's average daily production (average-day flow) for the last three FYs: FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Average-Day Flow (MGD) 36.6 39.7 36.4 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 Central San Data Calculation Method The total O&M cost is the cost of treating WW from the service area, including Concord and Clayton (i.e., it includes the O&M cost for treatment which is reimbursed by the City of Concord), as well as Concord and Clayton's collection and support services costs. The total miles of collection system piping comprise of piping owned, operated, and maintained by Central San and by Concord and Clayton. 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. 111 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 289 of 382 Page 117 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance Furthermore, Central San believes that 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 The Collection O&M cost includes Central San's as well as Concord and Clayton's collection costs. The total miles of collection system piping comprise of piping owned, operated, and maintained by Central San and by Concord and Clayton. 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 Central San Data Calculation Method The Treatment O&M cost includes the cost of treating WW from the service area, including Concord and Clayton (i.e., it includes the O&M cost for treatment which is reimbursed by the City of Concord). No adjustments were made to the average daily production figure, which includes the WW from Concord and Clayton. This formula, which uses 365 days, was adjusted to use 366 days in calculating the FY 19-20 data, since 2020 was a leap year. For reference, below is Central San's average daily production (average-day flow) for the last three FYs: FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Average-Day Flow (MGD) 36.6 39.7 36.4 112 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 290 of 382 Page 118 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance 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 cost Central San Data Calculation Method The collection O&M cost and total O&M cost include Concord and Clayton's collection cost. The total 0&M cost also includes the O&M cost for treatment which is reimbursed by the City of Concord, as well as Concord and Clayton's WW support services cost. 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 cost Central San Data Calculation Method Both the treatment O&M cost and total O&M cost include the cost of treating WW from the service area, including Concord and Clayton (i.e., it includes the O&M cost for treatment which is reimbursed by the City of Concord). The total O&M cost also includes Concord and Clayton's collection and WW support services costs. 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 cost Central San Data Calculation Method The total O&M cost include the cost of treating WW from the service area, including Concord and Clayton (i.e., it includes the O&M cost for treatment which is reimbursed by the City of Concord), as well as Concord and Clayton's collection and WW support services 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. Central San's support services O&M cost includes UAAL costs for the entire workforce, and it is unclear whether other agencies allocated their UAAL costs similarly. 113 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 291 of 382 Page 119 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance TOTAL O&M COST PER ACCOUNT Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) ioo 598 600 583 560 551 571 0 544 527 T?500 454 465 487 478 468 451 v 440 422 407 N400 390 378 365 365 a78 353 327 0 300 276 284 242 ■ 248 0 1 u � 200 0 O a 100 0 ,Y� 10' ,ti0 sy as y a y C w y C yc p w yc C w y a x. yc a K. Fy,�, ��� �,�, o lea �dT mac �aaa 0 dot ��aa 0� hoc �aa3 0� z ��aa 0� hoc �Qaa �' "0 '� 0� - 6o CE97RALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY I9 19 FY 13-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Populaticn WW-onlyutifities Combined utilities Population Populaticn (9 participants) (64 pa rticipants) 108,001-500,000 a500,a00 (10 participants} (70 participants) 100,081-500,000 X500,000 (33 participants} (29 participants) (40 participants) 127 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 1,400 ° 1,200 1,]98 1,142 m 1,000 y 800 677 600 a 459 489 4630 449 497 400 358 383 242 242 200 0 <a 4a` ZfI,cEnrxu say CA WW-only and combined utilities Z-4-I.cerrrx SnN CA WW-only and combined utilities (10 participants) (10 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 these results. For example, a wholesale agency will have lower 0&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. 114 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 292 of 382 Page 120 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance TOTAL O&M COST PER MG Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 8,000 6,908 7,000 .moi.6,000 5,631 5,382 5,121 5,000 4,632 4,487 3,953 4,034 3 4,000 Y3,282 39 2,85D 2,821 ,082,892 8 3,000 2,439 2,489 2,541 2,703 2,447 2 2,074 2,167 2,116 1,961 0 2,000 1,691 1,679 1,517 1,619 1,472 0 ~ 1,000 I I I 0 CEN7RAL5AN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY I9-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WWanlyutilities Combinedutilities Population Population WAN-onlyutil'rties Combined utilities Population Population 19 participants) (63 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 110 participants) (65 participants) 100,001-566,000 X500,000 (32 participants) (29 participants) (36 participants) (26 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) >0,000 8,933 �q 9,000 - v 8,000 7,505 92 v .2 7,000 6,356 �+ 6,000 5,382 5,631 5,631 5,000 4,601 6 4,122 4,000 3,338 0 3,000 2,068 2,084 0O 2,000 m 1,000 ■ 0 ti° Jc i5` ac e5` cc yo of t5 xo e5` mac` 4a ��o `� 40 L�ttamu Au CA WW-only and combined utilities CA WW-only and combined utilities (10 participants) (9 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 number of FTEs. 115 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 293 of 382 Page 121 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance TOTAL O&M COST PER 100 MILES OF PIPE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 14,000,000 v a 11,700,581 e 12,000,000 E c 10,000,000 v 8,000,000 7,232,158 6,232,600 6,000,000 5,675,887 4,793,961 Y 4,532,965 3,542,412 4,435,528 4,319,857 31542 Ib¢34,601 3,816,008 3,834,601 V 4,000,000 3,341,854 fi813,063,964 2,814,345 3,411,552 13,164,097 12,985,495 12,868,:513'91" 1,9732,198,301 2,,678N934,060 907 2,231,352 2,026,812 O 2,000,000I 1".9"5, I I I I ~ o 'e5 l 'ew 's,���0 0��3�p`y��ea�c e��4 e�0 0�� �0- -)e CENTR.ALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WIII—I fili5es Combinedutilifies Population Population MAN only util-rties Combined utilities Population Population (Ioparticipants) (66 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,ee0 fillparbcipan[s} (70parriciparrts) 100,1>o1-s00,o00 >500,0o0 (27 participants) (29 participants] (37 participants) (29 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 10,000,000 9,00o,coo 8,825,523 s,aoo,coc 7,671,479 7,313,506 7,000,000 0 6,000,000 5,182,537 5,415,843 o 4,834,788 8,000,000 4,430,755 3,820,485 " 0 4,000,000 3,542,412 3,542,412 3,341,854 3,341,854 ca p v 3,000,000 0 2,coo,coo 1,000,000 0 F�1$ CA WW-only and combined militias CA WW-only and combined utilities (5 participants} (5 participants) *Ten CA agencies provided data; however,that data produced performance figures ranging from$20 million per 100 miles of pipe to$213 million per 100 miles of pipe.Outlier data from wholesale agencies and agencies that provide other services in addition to WW collection and treatment were removed to produce the data set shown above from five agencies. Differences from agencies being wholesale vs. retail and combined vs.WW only could have an impact on both the total 0&M costs and the miles of pipe, producing outlier performance figures which do not accurately depict accurate total 0&M cost per 100 miles of pipe. 116 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 294 of 382 Page 122 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance WW COLLECTION O&M COST PER 100 MILES OF PIPE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,945,246 .2 1,828,256 3 'a 1,500,000 1,126,671 1,D76,151 ° N 1,091,331 1,117,276 1,115,492 993,874 1,032,237 1,009,023 1,D49,933 965,314 0 0 1,000,000 ' 918,8221 925,088 977,967 - X074 632,284 55D,368 622,878 669,826 513,1911 394,379 567,669 ' I � I 4301 426,288 468,444 500,060 425,028 0 CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW,unlyutilifies Cumblinedutilill Population Population WIN only utilities Cumbinedutilifies Population Population (6 participamsf (46 pa rticipants) 188,001-500,000 >500,000 (7 participants) (48 paritil ts) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 126 participants} (20 participants] (25 participants) (22 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 4,500,000 � 4,000,000 3,877,844 4,027,954 i 3,500,000 3¢3,000,000 2,831,190 2,500,000 2,386,463 o— E 2,OOQ000 �a o 1,500,000 1,177,875 1,190,201 o-- 1,076,151 947,305 1,091,331 937,757 v 1,000,000 o ' ' 490,208 ' 641,672 � 500,000 0 ay�tio F rra rhe �c L"c�i cssrF�s.r, G�tcn+rxus.0 CA WW-only and combined uliliki¢s CA WW-only and combined utilities (8 participants) (8 pencil *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. 117 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 295 of 382 Page 123 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance WW TREATMENT O&M COST PER MG Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 2,500 1,950 N 1,765 1,738 1,612 1,664 1,555 1,497 i' 1,477 1,468 1,464 %1,5c0 1,251 31,211 1,170 1,176 8 1,125 987 1,000 890 784 881 958 819 892 660 717 706 743 728 500 c �� �y �c dT y� tac �'� t`' ac pyo' ♦y Tc �7� �ti�• 16%11 • �Qa e �� �¢a a y,� a o �� �Qa o �� � I�CEN7RALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WWonly utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-onlyutili[ies Combined utilities Papulation Population (7participants) (45 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (7 participants) (45paticipants) 106,001-500,000 >500,000 (27 participants} (19 participants) (25 participants) (20 participants) Central San vs. CA(FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 6,000 , � 5171 5,235 N 5,000 v 2 4,000 3 3,274 2,712 2,960 0 3,000 2,451 2,000 1,612 1,802 1,765 1,%9 0 1,089 1,158 1,000 � 0 41 e5w Jty` 40le g L'4?I_cEnreetssn CA WW-only and combined utilities L'4tl cturFLs,a CA WW-only and combined utilities 110 participants) (10 participants} 118 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 296 of 382 Page 124 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance WW COLLECTION AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL O&M COSTS Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 40.0 35.3 34.3 35.0 32.6 33.0 31.2 31.9 29.4 D30.0 28.0 28.6 26.6 25.5 26.0 25.1 24.9 24,5 24-9 � 25.0 23.5 24.1 2a.4 21.1 21.0 m 9 20.0 17.9 18.7 19.1 18.0 m 16.8 a 15.1 a 15.0 0 10.0 I U 5.0 0.0 K. fid! °t`' CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 19 19 FY 1&19 FY 18-i9 FY 18-19 WW-onlyr ilities Combinedutilities Population Pnpulaticn WW-only utilRies Combined utilities Populatian Population (6 participants) (46 participants[ 100,001-500,000 �500,oco [7 participants) (48 participants[ 1.00,001-500,000 X500,000 [24 participants) [21 participants) 126 participants) (22 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 150.0 u 50.5 50.7 50.o 0 40.0 0 30.0 26.6 2&0 28.0 28.8 25.6 a v 21.3 20.0 16.1 16.7 c 12.8 14.0 a 10.0 � I 0.0 �LCENiAu$nN CAWW-onlyand-n ined utilities CA wW-only and combined utilities (9 participants) (9 participants) * One wholesale CA agency's data was removed as an outlier.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. One participating agency noted that support services were included in their reported Collection costs. 119 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 297 of 382 Page 125 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance WW TREATMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL O&M COSTS Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 70.0 e 58.6 60.1 57.9 SS 60.0 55.3 53.1 0 50.0 50.2 49.0 49.0 46.6 47,6 46.3 44.6 44.2 43 0 38.8 0y 40.0 36.5 36.0 37.7 37.5 36.5 38.2 m 31.4 33.1 33.9 30.0 30.0 6 20.0 E F 10.0 3 0.01 I ■ ■ 1 1 0X5 4900° �6`-e 40 �d 011 ����5��ayo �dT`-op 1p a' 4¢0001 CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 19 19 FY 19 19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WWanlyutilities Combinedutiiities Population Population WW-onlyutil Ries Combined utilities Population Population (7 participa nh) (46 participants) let, ,001-soo,wo >5oo,000 (7 participants) (so participants) tt1o,001-5001,0110 >5oo,00o (26 participants) (29 participants} (26 participants) 122 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 0 100.0 90.0 86.4 86.0 80.0 ° 65.6 68.7 70.0 59.1 57.7 0 60.0 50.5 50.5 50,0 40.0 3 30.0 30.0 1.4 31.4 30.0 20.0 10,0 3 7 0.0 1'6 ,LCEHrsA-SAN �?L[ENi6n_SAn - CA 1hfVJ-only and combined utilities �� CA WW-only and combined utilities {10 participants) [10 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. One participating agency noted that support services were included in their reported Treatment costs. 120 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 298 of 382 Page 126 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance WW SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY OTHERS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL O&M COSTS Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) sa.a 50.3 1p 50.0 48.3 45.9 46.6 °i 43.5 44.5 42.8 p y 40.6 40.2 39.3 tj 40.0 38.7 37.5 36.5 i 10 33.5 -y 0 32.0 32.0 31.3 o_ 29.2 29.7 a o 30.0 27.7 v 23.5 21.6 21,1 18.7 18.5 19.6 20.3 20.0 „ `o a u 2 v 71 10.0 3 o.o � 44e lea o yo lea o o 4eo �,o 4ear o �,o lea o �o lea o CENTRALSAN FY 17-19 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 1849 FY 1&19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 .NWanly utilities Combined utilities Population Pcpulaticn WW only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Population (Sparticipards) (39 participants) 188,001-500,000 >500,000 (6 participants) (42 participants) 100,OOL-500,000 X500,000 (20 participants) [19 participants} (26 participants) [22 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 60.0 i SO.D 47.8 48.2 43.5 O 40.6 n o " 40.0 33.0 43.0 >o a " F 30.0 25.2 o N R 20.D `o v 12.8 12.6 a u10.7 a 10.0 ' 5.7 0.0 Ile �� 4e} ccs L"i?I_cncrs.a CA WW-only and combined utilities CA WW-only and combined utilities (9 participants) (9 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 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.One agency did not provide data for this indicator, noting that support services were included in the Treatment and Collection costs. 121 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 299 of 382 Page 127 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance MAINTENANCE This family 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 are separated as allocated to linear resources (distribution and collection systems) and vertical resources (plants and pump stations). • 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 f or planned WW maintenance Time for planned maintenance + Time for corrective maintenance PLANNED LINEAR WW MAINTENANCE Planned linear maintenance (% of total maintenance time) Total time for planned linear maintenance Time for planned maintenance + Time for corrective maintenance 122 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 300 of 382 Page 128 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance 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. This formula, which uses 365 days, was adjusted to use 366 days in calculating the FY 19-20 data, since 2020 was a leap year. PLANNED VERTICAL WW MAINTENANCE TO TREATMENT hr Planned vertical maintenance to treatment (MG) Total time f or Planned maintenance Average system demand x 365 days Central San Data Calculation Method This formula, which uses 365 days, was adjusted to use 366 days in calculating the FY 19-20 data, since 2020 was a leap year. 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 Central San's computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) does not yet track Pump Station maintenance data, so both planned and corrective maintenance data for the Pump Stations is not included in the vertical maintenance figures. 123 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 301 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance TOTAL PLANNED WW MAINTENANCE Central San* vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 100 90 86 88 87 82 8D 78 74 75 77 74 76 76 77 c 71 71 F 70 66 67 c59 56 59 58 54 56 v 52 C 47 48 SD c 40 36 35 2 31 a w 30 o 20 10 p , L pati• Faye F��� lea � �o �ea� � �o �ea� � hyo lea o o �ea� � �o ��,a� m �o lea � �o �ea� � ©`CENTRAL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18.19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population 5NW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Papulation (8 participants) (52 participants) 100,001—500,000 7500,000 (8 participants) (57 participants) 100,001—500,000 X500,000 (26 participants) (25 participants) (34 participants) (24 participants) *Central San's vertical maintenance hours exclude Pump Station maintenance time. 124 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 302 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance PLANNED VERTICAL WW MAINTENANCE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 100 90 88 90 82 84 as a 80 75 75 75 77 v 71 71 70 67 65 67 64 Qj 62 g 50 a 50 50 48 52 S 50 43 44 � � M 40 o y o 30 � 25 25 ii 20 10 0 C6 C,yo 4yti ,#qr'j.jM CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population AAM-onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population (7 participants) (46 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (6 participants) (51-participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (21 participants) (23 participants} (34 participants) (22 participants) *Central San's vertical maintenance hours exclude Pump Station maintenance time. 125 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 303 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance PLANNED LINEAR WW MAINTENANCE Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 100 98 89 88 90 85 79 82 so 80 =r�746 7 E 70 71 m 70 65 54 v 61 F- 60 G2 60 57 m 52 .S 50 45 48 a40 37 Ir J 0 a o 30 25 � � ICL 20 10 0 L iyc `m� �� `yti �c ti y� �� yti �� tyti ��. &ti y �, o a a yah a yap s � a yaa Z ICENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 uVW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population Ww-onlyu#il'ities Combined utilities Population Population (8 participants) (47 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (8 participants) [55 participants) 104,001-500,000 X500,000 (25 participants) (22 participants) (34 participants) (22 participants) 126 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 304 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance CORRECTIVE VERTICAL WW MAINTENANCE TO TREATMENT Central San* vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 m U 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.$ 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 b.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0,5 } 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 } 0.4 V 41 S 0.2 '4'y� �'ti� ��O �y� a�a� 0�� o�y� a�atr ��� oty� �`a� ��ti a�yr �`ar ���. a�ys a�a� ��� o�y� a�a� ��� o�y� a�a� ��� ❑ty� a��\ ��� CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-19 FY 1&19 FY 19-19 FY 15-19 FY 18-19 WW-.only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population (S participants) (40 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,00a (7 participants) (44 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,aao (1S participants) )23 participants) (25 participants) (21 participants) *Central San's vertical maintenance hours exclude Pump Station maintenance time. 127 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 305 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance PLANNED VERTICAL WW MAINTENANCE TO TREATMENT Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 3.0 2.6 m 2.5 2.4 a ° 2.0 1.9 1.3 1.8 1.8 C: - 1.6 t 0 1.5 1.5 1.5 -:2 1.5 1,3 � 1.1 0 1.0 1.0 .9 d.9 a.8 a 0.7 o.7 0.7 0.7 > 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 a 0.0 k ■ 0.0 ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ 1 �c,1Z irrl,�u5ru, FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-19 FY 17-18 FY 19-19 FY 1&19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population (6 participants) (40 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (7 participants) (44 participants) 100,001-500,000 3500,000 (15 participants} (23 participants) (25 participants) (22 participants) *Central San's vertical maintenance hours exclude Pump Station maintenance time. 128 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 306 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance CORRECTIVE LINEAR WW MAINTENANCE TO COLLECTION SYSTEM Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 3,000 a t 2,512 2,539 a 2,500 0 U � O 2- v i1 c o 2,000 A 1,672 1,479 1,500 1,433 1,231 1,162 u 1,059 1,061 965 944 F 1,000 658 611 635 659 674 534 540 goy 516 576 494 500 378 (! 237 0 I 1■ 1 249 5 ��� 0�5 ��a ��tity �,a� Inco`y � oiy�4Pa\�� Z01 CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 1W-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population VIWV-onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population 7 participants) (46 participants) 100,001—500,000 >5W,004 (8 participants) (50 participants) 100,001—540,000 X500,900 (23 participants) (22 participants) (31 participants) (21 participants) 129 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 307 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance PLANNED LINEAR WW MAINTENANCE TO COLLECTION SYSTEM Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 5,000 4,724 E v M 4,500 4,115 4,052 4,000 w U �. 3,500 o a 3,055 3,044 a a 3,000 2,515 2,367 2,326 v 2,019 Q z,0aa 1,6441,fi79 1,455 1,597 1,599 1,675 1,645 1,623 1,500 1,132 931985 1,000 647 882 757 C: 355 375 381 500 I I d 382 I I I a 0 ��,,1' �ti� �,,�• �Qa � y,4 lea � �o �Qa � �,� lea � o �Qa � �° ��a � �o �Qa � �° ��a � Z01 CENTRAL5AN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 rY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-onlyutil'dies Combined utilities Population Population (8 participants) (47 participants) 100,001—500,000 X500,000 (8 participants) (50 participants) 100,001—500,000 X500,000 (25 participants) (22 participants) (31 participants) (21 participants) 130 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 308 of 382 Page 136 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance ENERGY CONSUMPTION This indicator quantifies the energy consumed to treat WW on an annual basis. Annual energy consumption fuel categories as listed by AWWA are electricity, natural gas, fuel oil #2, propane, renewable energy, resource recovery, and other.This benchmark is calculated as follows: Energy Consumption: Wastewater kBTU (year x MG Energy consumption based on purchases of electricity,natural gas,and other fuels (kBTU) Average daily f low (MGD) x 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 (purchased from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and, starting in FY 18-19, also from Marin Clean Energy (MCE)), natural gas (NG), diesel (fuel oil), and landfill gas (resource recovery). It excludes the steam usage; however, energy consumption including steam has been provided for reference in the comparable graphs. Pump Stations are on a separate meter from the main treatment plant, so Pump Stations electricity usage is not counted. Solar energy was not analyzed because the panels are only installed at the HHWCF and Collection System Operations offices, both of which are on a separate meter from the main plant. Cogeneration energy was not included as it is already counted under the NG usage. Similarly, stand-by power is counted with diesel. Landfill gas energy is used twice in Central San's processes: 1) to incinerate the sludge and 2) to create the steam, so steam recovered from the waste heat boilers (a.k.a., furnace steam) is not included to avoid double counting energy. Central San did not analyze propane usage. Renewable energy is used in the form of renewable electricity imported from MCE, starting in mid-2018. For the purposes of reporting renewable energy amounts, it was estimated that 50% of total imported electricity in FY 18-19 and 60% of total imported electricity in FY 19-20 was from MCE instead of PG&E. MCE is a public, not-for-profit electricity provider that gives PG&E customers the choice of having 60%to 100% of their electricity supplied from clean, renewable sources such as solar, wind, bioenergy, geothermal, and hydroelectric at competitive rates. This formula, which uses 365 days, was adjusted to use 366 days in calculating the FY 19-20 data, since 2020 was a leap year. 131 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 309 of 382 Page 137 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance Commentary Average amounts of energy used for the Central San WW treatment process in FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 is displayed below in kBTUs (1,000 BTUs). ' " ' _ I CENTRALSAN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT � 111 Diesel: 369,000 kBTU • 1 111 111 "`` * It is estimated that 50% of total imported electricity in FY 18-19 and 60% of total imported electricity in FY 19-20 is considered renewable as it was purchased from MCE. Central San purchases a significant quantity of NG to meet a large portion of the treatment plant electricity demand (-95%) to feed the cogeneration system (cogen), which uses combined heat and power. 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% electrically efficient (i.e., 100 kBTU of NG in the generator produces about 22 kBTU of electricity) and is —50% efficient if steam generated is included. Steam used for the 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). Thus, energy from the fuel used to generate Central San's purchased energy is not counted. For example, any inefficiencies PG&E has when generating electricity does not affect Central San's benchmarking calculations. The AWWA benchmarking calculation also does not account for operating cost savings benefits of generating electricity on site. The graph that follows shows the difference in price between 132 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 310 of 382 Page 138 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance Central San's current strategy of producing electricity on site supplemented by grid electricity versus purchasing all electricity from the electrical grid. $0.25 — $0.20 — AL L $0.15 Y $0.10 $0.05 — Apr-17 Oct-17 May-18 Nov-18 Jun-19 Dec-19 Jul-20 Jan-21 On-Site Generation and PG&E Purchased Exclusively from PG&E 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 month to 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. Also, while incineration is energy intensive, it reduces the volume of sludge to be trucked and hauled away by over 90%, since the volume of sludge is reduced significantly by turning it to ash. Central San 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 23,189 kBTU/MG, 23,173 kBTU/MG, and 24,517 kBTU/MG in FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 respectively. The average of those figures (23,626 kBTU/MG) is represented by a dotted line in the graphs to follow. To display the amount of energy recovered through the sewage sludge incinerator process, two sets of Central San energy consumption data are presented in the graphs to follow: 1) including the energy in steam produced from the waste heat boilers (which use heat produced in the sewage sludge incineration process), and 2) excluding steam (the figure reported to AWWA). 133 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 311 of 382 Page 139 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance ENERGY CONSUMPTION Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 60,00D 50,000 46,745 49,652 � 45,034 m >-40,000 37,745 38,736 r 35,169 23,626 kBTU/year/MG m (average approximate energy used by Central San ,`o- 30,00D in FYs 17-18 through 19-20 If electricity were Imported) - - - - ------------------------------ ------------------------------- `o 20,000 14,784 14,108 15,971 14,223 14,601 14,362 13,629 12,539 10,916 12,777 = 8,857 8,531 9,420 8,772 8161 9,566 1o,011 8,910 _. 10,000 5,690 I 6+I 5 I I 6 17 I I 6,I 8 I 6 I 0 I 15,4213 0 CENruLSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY L7-18 FY 18-19 FY 19 19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 wwanly utilities Comhined utilities Population Pupulaticn MM onlyutilaies Cumbined utilities Population Population ❑Excl.Steam [10participants) (64participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (9 participants) (57 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 ❑Incl.Steam (32 participants [27 part!cipantsl (30 participants) 124 participants) Central San vs. CA* (FYs 18-19 and 19-20 data) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) w,000 49,052 50,000 45,034 38,736 38,736 23,626 kOTU/year/MG m 40,000 35,169 35,169 (average approximate energy used by .� Central San in FYs 17-18 through 19-20 0 30,000 if electricity were imported) o-E __________ ________29,922__________________ __ -----_ ------- - 22,216 -- 20,000 17,267 11,087 8,499 °c 10,000 ' -1,4111 g 6,659 0 ■ ,!!nO4)I CENTRALSVJ �(�I_CENTRALSAN CA WW-only and combined utilities CA WW-only and combined utilities (7 participants) [6 participants] u ■ Excl.Steam Incl.Steam *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. 134 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 312 of 382 Page 140 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance 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: • Level 5— Plan is well defined and fully endorsed by staff, stakeholders, and decision- makers. • Level 4— Plan is well defined and endorsed by most staff, stakeholders, and decision- makers. • Level 3— Plan has been moderately defined and endorsed by some staff, stakeholders, and decision-makers. • Level 2— Plan has been somewhat defined and endorsed by few or no staff, stakeholders, and decision-makers. • Level 1— No energy optimization plan has been developed approach defined or endorsed. Central San rated itself as follows over FYs 17-18 through FY 19-20: Y 19-20 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 13S October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 313 of 382 Page 141 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance The following charts show the nationwide performance in FYs 17-18 and 18-19 (percentage of participants reporting the levels as indicated in the charts), with Central San's performance for that FY in the chart for reference. FY 17-18 Well defined Mostly defined/ Somewhat Not defined Utility Type /fully Well defined/ some endorsed defined /not Participants endorsed mostly endorsed (Level 3) /few endorsed endorsed (Level 4) Z'(`!�I CENTRALSAN (Level 5) (Level 2) (Level l) WW-only 22% 33% 33% 0% 11% 9 Combined 18% 23% 37% 17% 5% 60 Population 17% 20% 39% 20% 4% 41 100,001-500,000 Population 23% 25% 33/ 10% 9/° 41 >500,000 FY 18-19 Well defined Mostly defined/ Somewhat Not defined Utility Type /fully Well defined/ some endorsed defined /not Participants endorsed mostly endorsed (Level 3) /few endorsed endorsed (Level 5) (Level 4) Z'4+O CENTRpLyAN (Level 2) (Level 1) WW-only 13% 50% 25% 12% 0% 9 Combined 16% 22% 42% 15% 5% 60 Population 11% 26% 41% 13% 9% 40 100,001-500,000 Population 26% 26% 31% 8% 9% 36 >500,000 136 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 314 of 382 Page 142 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance 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. 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 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 shows that the treatment process reduces the concentration of phosphorous by—85%. The majority of this phosphorous is expected to be in the primary and waste activated sludge, 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. 137 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 315 of 382 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance NUTRIENT RECOVERY Central San vs. Nationwide (FYs 17-18 and 18-19 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 120,0 99.0 100.0 v 82.0 78.D 67.0 0 3e 57.0 58.D 60,0 a 40.0 40.0 C a 26.0 z 20.0 1.5 1.4 =7 3.0 D.D D.D 0.0 D.D 0.0 0.0 1-D D.0 0.0 . 0.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0,0 y� N `14 & & .ate �� `'` .�� �` {yam .mt el & )CENTRALSAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 15-19 FY 18-19 MW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population WW-onlyutilities Combined utilities Population Population [S participants) (45 participants) 100,001-500,00a >5oo,000 (7 participants) (40 participants) 100,001—500,000 >500,o00 (1S participants) (24 participants) (19 participants) (22 participants) 138 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 316 of 382 Page 144 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance DIGITAL UTILITY INITIATIVE This performance indicator is meant to measure how widely different elements of a digital utility are used. It was not included in the AWWA Utility Benchmarking survey; however, Central San is including it in this study to help assess its activities toward becoming a smarter utility. This indicator comes from the 2020 Strategic Directions: Water Report published by Black & Veatch, downloadable at https://www.bv.com/reports.The explanation and analysis in italics below appear on page 13 of the report. The nationwide data taken from that report for inclusion in this study represents responses from 300+ entities in the water sector nationwide, as surveyed by Black &Veatch during a three-week survey ending on March 30, 2020. To obtain comparable statewide data in its CA agency survey, Central San provided the explanation and analysis of this indicator, along with a chart of the elements of a Digital Utility Initiative. The agencies were asked to indicate whether each element is currently used and whether it is included in a future initiative as of the end of FY 19-20. The Elements of Digital Water When asked which functions or elements they see as being included in a digital water initiative, few commonalities exist. The "digital water"definition seems to be unclear for many. Some of the best-established systems that are widely utilized — such as Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), Geographic Information System (GIS),flow and water quality data, and CMMS — were less likely to be considered as part of a digital water initiative. This may be partly because they have been in use for a long time already, but it also may be that these systems are viewed as important for a particular "silo"in the organization. In practice, each of these systems are data-rich and are important foundational elements for a digital water utility. The top systems identified as part of a digital water initiative were also some of the least widely utilized systems, such as energy management, document management, business intelligence and enterprise resource management. This may reflect an understanding that a digital water initiative is an effort to implement new systems. While this may be true — and some new systems may be required — integration of existing systems is also a key element in optimizing a digital utility. Central San Data Calculation Method A chart with the elements of a Digital Utility Initiative was filled out by Central San's Information Technology (IT) Manager. The chart was shared with the Operations and Engineering &Technical Services Managers for further comment. Other related activities not measured by this indicator include Central San's Optimizations Program, which tracks and reports innovative initiatives, and the Smart Initiative Steering Committee, made of senior staff that shepherd digital utility projects. Central San is also developing a Technology Plan which also organizes and coordinates these types of efforts. 139 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 317 of 382 Page 145 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance DIGITAL UTILITY INITIATIVE Central San (FY 19-20 Data)vs. Nationwide (March 30, 2020 Data) vs. CA(FY 19-20 Data) Element of Digital Utility Status as of March 30,2020 Nationwide �r CA WW-only and (Nationwide)or June 30, (300+ f•_0i_CFNTRALSAN combined utilities Initiative 2020(Central San and CA) participants) (11 participants) SCADA Included in Future Initiative 19.1% Yes 45.5% (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition)system Currently Used 83.8% Yes 100.0% GIS(Geographic Included in Future Initiative 19.1% Yes 36.4% Information System) Currently Used 82.4% Yes 81.8% Flow and/or water quality Included in Future Initiative 20.6% Yes 27.3% data Currently Used 77.9% Yes 81.8% CMMS(Computerized Maintenance Included in Future Initiative 17.6% Yes 45.5% Management System)or Operations Management Currently Used 69.1% Yes 100.0% System(OMS) Included in Future Initiative 17.6% No 27.3% Customer information Currently Used 69.1% No 81.8% Static datasets Included in Future Initiative 20.6% No 27.3% (in-house Excel models) Currently Used 63.2% Yes 90.9% Computer models and Included in Future Initiative 29.4% Yes 45.5% other assessment/ predictive software Currently Used 63.2% Yes 72.7% Automated Meter Reading(AMR) Included in Future Initiative 25.0% No 9.1% or Advanced Metering Currently Used 63.2% No 45.5% Infrastructure(AMI) Mobile workforce Included in Future Initiative 22.1% Yes 18.2% solutions Currently Used 61.8% Yes 72.7% Weather data Included in Future Initiative 26.5% Yes* 27.3% (rainfall,temperature etc.) Currently Used 58.8% No 54.5% LIMS Included in Future Initiative 19.1% Yes 18.2% (Laboratory Information Management System) Currently Used 57.4% Yes 54.5% Dashboards and tools for Included in Future Initiative 26.5% Yes 36.4% accessing/displaying info (PowerBl,Tableau,etc.) Currently Used 51.5% Yes 54.5% *Weather data from Central San's weather station is fed into Dynac and used by Operations and the Laboratory to track odors,annual rainfall,etc. 140 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 318 of 382 Page 146 of 180 Central San FY 19-20 Benchmarking Study Productivity and Performance Element of Digital Utility Status as of March 30,2020 Nationwide CA WW-only and (Nationwide)or June 30, (300+ iceNrea sn" combined utilities Initiative 2020(Central San and CA) participants) (11 participants) Document Management System(DMS) Included in Future Initiative 27.9% Yes 27.3% or Information Management Systems Currently Used 48.5% Yes 63.6% (IMS) Energy management Included in Future Initiative 29.4% Yes** 9.1% systems Currently Used 41.2% No 27.3% Data analytics and/or Included in Future Initiative 27.9% Yes 45.5% business intelligence systems Currently Used 35.3% No 45.5% ERM (Enterprise Resource Included in Future Initiative 25.0% Yes 18.2% Management System) Currently Used 29.4% No 45.5% **Staff has met with a Strategic Energy Management consultant.Solar Turbines' Insight remote monitoring provides some data analytics for the cogeneration system. 141 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 319 of 382 Page 147 of 180 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 nationwide survey and will continue working with Global Water Intelligence on their new benchmarking initiative. Staff will work on solidifying benchmarking practices through annual benchmarking and the building of relationships with CA agencies to foster consistent and accurate data gathering. Benchmarking data will be used to celebrate successes and recognize opportunities for improvement. Staff has volunteered to serve on the AWWA Utility Benchmarking Survey Advisory Committee in the hopes of potentially assisting with fine-tuning 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. 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. 142 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 320 of 382 Appendix: Staffing Levels by Category APPENDIX STAFFING LEVELS BY CATEGORY (% OF TOTAL FTEs) This chart shows how Central San's employees are categorized in FY 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20, compared to the nationwide AWWA aggregate data for FY17-18. `'CENTRALSAN r FTE Category .. go .. . and Subcategory Wi .. FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19.20 FTEs-O&M 52.9 52.6 53.3 WW Collection 23.2 22.8 22.0 WW Treatment 29.7 29.8 31.3 � FTEs-Management,Engineering, Customer Service,Other 47.1 47.4 46.7 Pretreatment Programs 3.9 3.9 3.8 Engineering 2.7 2.8 2.3 Utility Planning 5.3 5.5 4.4 Lab service/Compliance 6.0 6.0 6.0 Customer Service/Call Center 1.2 1.0 1.6 Customer Billing 0.9 0.4 0.4 Public Relations 1.2 1.4 1.3 Finance 4.0 4.0 3.8 Human Resources 2.4 2.6 2.5 Information Technology 4.3 4.3 4.3 Facilities 2.3 2.4 3.0 Fleet 1.7 1.7 1.7 Legal/Administration 2.7 2.7 2.7 Safety 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 Risks/Claims 0.6 0.6 0.6 i 0 . Security 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 Other 6.6 6.5 6.8 143 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 321 of 382 Nationwide AWWA Survey(FY 18-19 Data) _CENTRAL SAN Combined Population of 100,001- Population of>500,000 • CFNTRaI CON TRACOSTaSnNITnRY615TRICT WW-only(7 participants) • (53 participants) 500,000(5-44 participants) (10-31 participants) W�,Xedian,fest Worst Median ,- Worst Median Best Worst Median Best •: �®_f 1 51.2 59.9 75.9 47.1 53.8 63.8 122.3 31.8 40.7 17.6 26.2 35.7 WW Treatment22.3 29.6 46.8 25.6 30.5 34.3 FTEs-Management,Engineering, ® 2.2 39.6 46.8 35.3 44.7 51.7 Customer Service,Other mpm�q Pretreatment • .: .ms 2.1 4.8 1.1 2.8 4.2 '7M_jV 9.8 3.6 6.8 11.2 5.4 8.8 10.7 Utility Planning ®®�_0'8 J-_05 4.M 2.2 4.6 5.6 0.7 1.7 3.7 • Compliance ®®®F2_]:_ 2 J--OM� 3.2 4.5 1 5.6 3.1 4.9 7.1 Customer Service/Call Center ®�MM&A--_ 3.5 5.5 7.6 5.1 8.0 12.9 Customer Billing ®��__-__ 1.4 2.9 4.1 1.3 2.0 2.2 Public . ®�®__-__ 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.7 1.1 ®__-__ 2.0 3.2 4.6 2.0 2.8 3.4 Human • 1.2 1.6 2.0 1.4 1.7 2.0 TechnologyInformation 1.4 2.4 4.6 2.0 3.6 4.4 1.7 3.8 7.8 0.4 1.0 2.2 1.7 2.3 2.9 0.2 0.7 1.5 Legal Administration 1.8 2.9 5.4 1.0 1.5 4.5 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.8 ���_r 0.7,_1 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 ��� .0.4 O"M54 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.9 ���� 19.8 13.0 .f.6 3.4 7.0 3.3 5.8 7.5 2.2 3.2 6.7 Page 150 of 180 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING, CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND OTHER STAFFING LEVELS BY SUBCATEGORY (% OF TOTAL FTEs) The following are graphical representations of the bottom section of the above charts. The graphs compare Central San's FYs 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 staffing levels to the nationwide FYs 17-18 and 18-19 staffing levels in the following subcategories of the "Management, Engineering, Customer Service, Other" staff: • Pretreatment Programs • Engineering • Utility Planning • Lab service/ Compliance • Customer Service/ Call Center • Customer Billing • Public Relations • Finance • Human Resources • Information Technology • Facilities • Fleet • Legal /Administration • Safety • Risks/Claims • Security • Other Below is a sample graph and guide to interpreting the results: Pretreatment Programs 8.0 7.1 7.0 6.0 w 5.1 LL 5.0 3.9 3.9 3,8 4.1 e 4.0 o 3.0 2. 3.3 7 2.9 2.9 � 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.5 1 � � 1 1.0 0.0 al_cEHrneSeH Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19- WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Papulation 10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (28 participants) )11 participants) AW WA Survey[Nationwide FY 17-18 Da • • 145 •' October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 323 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Pretreatment Programs 8.0 7.1 7.0 6.0 K 5.1 W LL 5.0 R 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.1 S 4.0 3.3 2.9 2.9 a 3.0 2'7 � 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 jicEN aAcsrw Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (28 participants) (11 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Pretreatment Programs 6.0 5,0 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.2 r 4,0 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 LL 0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.1 0 2.0 0 9 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.0 • ' , , ,-'."0,LrEN-MALsAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) 139 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (18 participants) (10 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 146 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 324 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Engineering 14.0 11.9 12.4 12.3 11.7 12.0 10.9 r 10.0 8,7 8.2 LL 8.0 6.6 a 6.3 5.7 6.0 4.6 4.7 a 4.0 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.0 , 0.0 �4,10ENTRAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (28 participants) (23 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Engineering 14.0 12.6 12.0 11.2 10.7 10.0 9.8 LU 10.0 - 8.8 H R 8.0 7.1 6.8 0 6.0 5.3 5.4 4.4 0 3.6 4.0 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.0 , ' I ' o.o Z OO CENTRAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500jOOO (26 participants) (20 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 147 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 325 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Utility Planning 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.1 w 6.0 5.3 5.5 5.1 LL 5.0 4.4 4.3 4.3 R 3.9 0 4.0 2.7 0 3.0 2.3 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.00.8 ' . 0.0 -yy !]LCE NTRAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (14 participants) (17 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Utility Planning 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.0 N F 7.0 LL5.4 5.8 5.6 6.0 5.3 5.5 i° 4.4 4.5 4.6 0 5.0 ~ 4.0 3.i 0 3.0 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.00.7 0.0 �4,LCEWMAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (15 participants) (16 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 148 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 326 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Lab Service Compliance 8.0 7.4 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.3 6.6 6.0 5.6 5.6 Uj U. 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.1 4.1 m 0 4.0 2.9 2.8 2.9 0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 _A410L[.EWMA[SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) )84 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (26 participants) (20 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Lab Service Compliance 8.0 7.1 7.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 LU 6.0 5.2 5.6 LL 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.5 4.2 R F 4.0 3.2 3.2 3.1 0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 ��^^llyy ,•O,L_GEWMALUN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (25 participants) (18 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 149 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 327 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Customer Service / Call Center 16.0 14.3 14.0 12.6 12.0 w LL 10.0 8.7 9.0 0 8.0 7.2 F 6.2 a 6.0 5.1 5.1 'e 4.0 3.2 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.4 2.0 I 0.0 M ■ M &CENTRALUN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (20 participants) (21 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Customer Service f Call Center 14.0 12.9 12.0 w 10.0 9.4 LL 7.6 $.0 R 8.0 6.8 0 6.0 4.7 4.8 5.5 5.1 0 ;2 4.0 3.5 2.5 2.6 2.0 0.0 E M 16 1 , 1 �..•': &CENTRAL&AN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (22 participants) (18 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 150 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 328 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Customer Billing 6.0 4.9 5.0 LU 4.0 3.s 3.6 LL 0 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.1 02.0 14 1.7 IR 1.3 . 0 g 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.0 �4,10ENTRAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (16 participants) (17 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Customer Billing s.0 7.0 6.7 W 6.0 LL 5.0 4.1 F4.0 3.3 3 7 2.9 0 3.0 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.2 'R 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.0 1.0 0 II. II. 1 CEMM LSAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (15 participants) (13 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 151 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 329 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Public Relations 2.5 2.3 2.0 Uj W 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 a 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 ° 0.6 'R 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 , . ' 0.0 ZT'OL[ENiRAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (16 participants) (20 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Public Relations 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 W LL 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0 0.8 0.7 F 0.6 0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 'R 0.4 0.2 0.0 rryy �!:lr,I[.EN-MAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (16 participants) (15 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 152 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 330 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Finance 8.0 6.9 7.0 CA 6.0 5.6 LU LL 5.0 4.5 4.9 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.0 2.9 2.8 3.2 0 3.0 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 gQCENTMSAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (21 participants) (21 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Finance 6.0 5.4 5,2 5.0 4.6 La 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.9 F- 4.0 U- 3.2 3.2 3.4 R 2.8 a 3.0 2.4 4- 1.9 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 IR 1.0 0.0 ,e0_CENTRALUN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (22 participants) (18 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 153 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 331 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Human Resources 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.5 3.2 N LL 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2 2.2 ro .1 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.5 a 1.5 1.3 IR 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.0 �^y LCE NTRAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (14 participants) (19 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Human Resources 3.0 - 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.5 y 2.0 2.0 2.0 LL 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.4 1,4 0 1.5 1.2 0 1.0 0.5 0.0 ,"&CEN-M LSAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (15 participants) (13 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 154 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 332 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Information Technology 6.0 5.2 5.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.2 r 4.0 3.5 LL R 0 3.0 2.5 - 2.4 2.1 0 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.0 ' 0.0 y �0LCEN-MAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100.001-500,000 X500,000 (22 participants) (18 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Information Technology 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.6 . 4.4 4.6 4.4 H 3.6 3.3 LL 4'0 3.3 3.3 R 0 3.0 2.4 2.0 0 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.0 ' 0.0 L. &CEWMALSAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (21 participants) (16 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 155 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 333 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Facilities 12.0 9.9 10.0 9.1 LUN 8,0 LL a 6.0 4.2 04.0 3.0 2.8 � 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.1 1.0 10.4■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■o.o ■ I yy !]LGENTRAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (13 participants) (14 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Facilities 9.0 7.8 8.0 7.3 7.0 7.0 LU 6.0 LL IE 5.0 W 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.0 3.1 0 3.0 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.7 2.0 . ' , 1.0 1.0 0.0 � ■ ' ArALc.EMMALsw Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (17 participants) (11 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 156 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 334 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Fleet 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 LL 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 a 1.5 1.4 1.5 ~ 1.0 0 1.0 IR 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.0 F,0C,ENTRAL$AN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (9 participants) (14 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Fleet 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 LOU 2.5 2.4 2.3 r LL R 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 0 1.5 1.5 0 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 ' 0.2 ' 0.0 F&CEWMALUN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (12 participants) (13 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 157 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 335 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Legal Administration 8.0 7.6 7.0 6.4 6.7 6.0 w LL 5.0 F 4.0 3.1 3.2 a 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 1.$ 1.9 'e 2.0 1,1 1.0 0.0 1 1 9 1 1 1 M 0 Zr o&CEWMALUN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (25 participants) (17 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Legal Administration 6.0 5.5 5.4 5.0 4.5 En LU 4.0 3.2 0 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9 ~ 1.9 0 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.5 '� 1.0 1.0 0.0 Zr°o&CENTRAL$AN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (22 participants) (16 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 158 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 336 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Safety 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 w 1.0 0.9 LL 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 a 0.6 0 0.6 0.5 0.5 a 0.4 0.4 ae 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 ,",LCENTRALUN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (3 participants) (15 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-1S Data) Safety 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 LU 1.2 1.0 LL 1.0 0.8 0 0.8 0.7 0.7 F 0.6 0 0,6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 A 0.4 0.2 0.0 Z� 0[ENTRALUN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (5 participants) (12 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 159 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 337 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Risks Claims 1.2 1.0 1.0 N LU 0.8 0.7 LL R 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 ~ 0.4 0 0.4 0.3 - 'R 0.2 0.10.1 0.2 ■ ■ , 0.0 �4,10ENTRALSAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (4 participants) (12 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-1B Data) Risks Claims 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 Lu 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 00.1 .2 ' 0.1 ■ ' 0.0 Z"F11C,EWMAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (9 participants) (10 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 160 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 338 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Security 3.0 2.5 2.5 N F 2.0 LL 0 1.5 0.9 e 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.50.2 0.2 0.0 . . . ■ 1 1 . 1 1 ■ 1 . 1 1 Z�V&CEWMALUN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Papulation (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (3 participants) (15 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Security 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 N F 0.7 " 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 R 0 0.5 0.4 D.4 0.4 D.4 0 0.4 D.3 D.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 00.1 .0 &CENTRALUN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (5 participants) (12 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 161 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 339 of 382 Appendix: Management, Engineering, Customer Service, and Other Staffing Levels by Subcategory Other 9.0 8.2 8.0 7.5 7.3 7.2 N 7.0 fi.fi 6.5 6.8 6.4 r 6.0 5.3 - 5.2 LL 4.7 Fa 5.0 4.1 - 0 4.0 2 9 3.3 a 3.0 2.6 IR 2.0 1.0 0.0 �I CENTRAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (10 participants) (84 participants) 100,001-500,000 x500,000 (16 participants) (14 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 Data) Other 14.0 13.0 12.0 10.8 LU 10.0 8.7 r ;a 8.0 6.6 6.5 6.8 7.0 5.8 7.5 6.7 6.0 0 3.4 3.3 3.2 4.0 2.6 2.2 0.0 1 , 1 2.0 Z•O CENTRAL SAN Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best Worst Median Best FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 WW-Only Combined Utilities Population Population (6 participants) (39 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (11 participants) (13 participants) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 Data) 162 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 340 of 382 Page 168 of 180 Appendix: Acronyms and Abbreviations ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym Definition AWWA American Water Works Association BTU British Thermal Unit CA California CCI Construction Cost Index CIWQS California Integrated Water Quality System Project CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System CSO Collection System Operations DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District EAP Emergency Action Procedures EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EUM Effective Utility Management FASB Federal Accounting Standards Board FTE Full-Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GASB Governmental Accounting Standards Board HCF Hundred Cubic Feet HHW Household Hazardous Waste HHWCF Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility HR Human Resources ICI Institutional,Commercial,and Industrial IT Information Technology MCE Marin Clean Energy MGD Million Gallons per Day MHI Median Household Income 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 PUC Public Utilities Commission R&R Renewal and Replacement RUE Residential Unit Equivalents S&P Standard & Poor's SSC Sewer Service Charge UAAL Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability U.S. United States WEF Water Environment Foundation WW Wastewater 163 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 341 of 382 Page1l@Oa 2021 FISCAL YEAR 19-20 BENCHMARKING STUDY Board Meeting October 21, 2021 Christina Gee, Management Analyst 1 WHAT IS BENCHMARKING? 1 . The practice of measuring performance in metrics for comparison to industry peers. • A benchmark is the level or degree of a performance indicator that serves as a reference or target. 2. An ongoing cyclical process rooted in sound data collection and analysis. 3. A continuous improvement exercise to help identify potential performance gaps and set reasonable targets for the future. } CFNTPAISAN 2 1 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 342 of 382 Page ll0OUX2®21 OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY • Present performance levels and trends • Develop consistent and valid data reporting • Encourage self-evaluation and objective performance assessment • Emphasize the importance of systematic continuous improvement • Articulate value proposition for stakeholders (e.g., customers, businesses, and the environment) 3 ' 3 METHODOLOGY Imb Phase 1: U Determine For.'IA- For California(CA) rel evant (nationwide) sister agency benchmarks comparison (statewide) comparison Send definitions and Extract nationwide Follow-up with data input forms to data from AWWA Perform quality submitters as P, review data ',A internal staff and Utility Benchmorking checks needed CA agencies books Participate in AW WA Produce Presentto Share aggregated CA Phase 1: and Global Water Benchmarking Study Administration agency data Board data ! results Intelligencesuryeys with comparable Committee and (forthcoming) *AWWA=American Water Works Association 4 ' CFNTPAISAN 4 2 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 343 of 382 Page IlOja12021 COMPARISONS • Central San FY 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20 data in 40 performance indicators • California (CA) FY 18-19 and 19-20 aggregate data (via independent survey for 16 performance indicators) • Nationwide FY 17-18 and 18-19 aggregate data (via AWWA survey) • Wastewater(WW)-only utilities • Combined water-WW utilities • Utilities with a population of 100,001-500,000" • Utilities with a population of>500,000* *Central San's service area population ranged from 488,900 and 494,300 from FYs 17-18 through 19-20. 5 I 5 PARTICIPANTS • 11 CA agencies (out of 34 agencies solicited) provided data for 16 benchmarks in Central San's survey • 9 of these 11 are in the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Managers' Roundtable group • 10 WW-only and 89 combined utilities participated in the 2019 AWWA survey (FY 17-18 data) • 11 WW-only and 96 combined utilities participated in the 2020 AWWA survey (FY 18-19 data) 6 -�j_ NEW-- CFNTPAISAN 6 3 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 344 of 382 Page 1lQJUX2®21 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BY CATEGORY 14 12 10 1 8 6 4 2 0 Organizational Financial Strength Customer Service Productivity and Development Performance ■Nationwide Comparisons Only ■Nationwide and CA Comparisons 7 ' 7 LIMITATIONS TO DRAWING DIRECT COMPARISONS • Definitions in AWWA methodology subject to interpretation • Diligence in following prompts not guaranteed • Potential data entry errors • Differences in cost of living and local economies • Varying levels of WW treatment • Nutrient removal • Recycled water production • Stormwater services ,k 8 1 CFNTPAISAN 8 4 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 345 of 382 Page 1l0ja12021 LIMITATIONS TO DRAWING DIRECT COMPARISONS (CONTINUED) • Participants not separately benchmarked by operating type • Independent WW-only agency that operates its own collection system (e.g., Central San) • Agencies who are part of a larger operation (e.g., a city) • Wholesale WW-only agencies • Wholesale combined (water and WW) agencies • Combined water-WW agencies CENTPALSAN 9 I 9 LIMITATIONS TO DRAWING DIRECT COMPARISONS (CONTINUED) • Central San's operational differences • On-site energy production to power treatment process • Solids handling process requires purchase of landfill gas • Treatment provided to the cities of Concord and Clayton by contract • Collection of ad valorem taxes • Operation of a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility and Recycled Water Program y' 10 ' CFNTPAISAN 10 5 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 346 of 382 Page ll04UX2®21 TRAINING PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. NATIONWIDE DATA AW W A Su rvey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 45.0 40.0 39.1 36.0 35.0 30 5 31.3 Z7 30.0 28.6 29.1 25.2 25.8 26.9 25.0 19.6 20.0 18.2 18.2 18.3 14.5 H 15.0 12.5 12.8 12.7 13.4 10.0 9.1 9.3 9.5 10.5 ' I I 66 I I 165.0 0.0 6 9 O G"�i)CEµTWLL SAN FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17.18 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 36-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities Popula4on Popula4on WW-only utilities Combined utilities Papulation Population )e participants) )52 participants) 100,001-500,000 -,.. (9 participants) (46 participants) 100,001-500,000 '00"'0 )31 participants) u6participants) (31 participants) (17 participants) hr Training(employee) Total training hr completed by all employees during the reporting period 11 ' Total number of FTEs 11 EMPLOYEE TURNOVER PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. NATIONWIDE DATA AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-I8 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18.19 data) 12.0 11.1 11.1 10.5 10.2 10.5 10.0 - 9.3 8.4 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.9 � 8.0 7.2 ].2 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.6 5.1 5.0 - 4.8 5.1 5.3 4.7 4.1 � 4.0 2.0 0.0 01^"// o�e ac o¢`�e/ ,e��e 'e ���e ac e¢ ���ac esV�o``�Dac 'e���aaa �e���e ac o¢` C8a'BK SAa FY 17-18 FY 17-11 FY 17-18 FY 17-I8 FY 16-19 FY 18-19 FY 1&19 FY 18-19 WWanly utilities -bi-utilities P-1.... Popula4on only utilities -biped utilities Population Population )10 participants) )SBparticip-) 100,001-500,000 -'a. IB participants) (53 participants) 100,001-500,000 X500,000 (31 participants) (22 participants) (30 participants) (17 participants) Employee turnover(4/0 of total employees) _Number of regular employee departures during the reporting period Total number of FTEs 12 ' 12 6 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 347 of 382 Page llQ�UX2®21 EMPLOYEE INTERNAL PROMOTION RATE PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. NATIONWIDE DATA AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 80 70 67 69 67 60 59 60 56 51 ' 56 57 5 52 4 m e 49 w 50 44 44 46 41 40 02 40 0 40 34 0 31 E o 30 26 28 30 25 28 29 20 10 I 0 �~ L_(il(yEµlggt Spry FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY IB-19 FY IB-19 fY 18-19 ` WW-only u0lities Combined utilities Population Population WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (9 participants) (55 partiripants) 100,001-500,000 -o 000 (7 participants) (53 partieipants) 100,001-500,000 -,000 (36 par4ripants) (33 p-ipants) (34 partieipants) (34participants) Employee Internal Promotion Rate(%)= Full time non entry level hires Non entry level positions filled 13 ' MCI. 111111W11% 13 RECORDABLE INCIDENT RATE PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. NATIONWIDE DATA AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 12.0 c 10.0 9.5 9.6 9.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 - 6.9 6.9 6.6 6.1 6.0 5.2 4.9 4.] 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.4 3.6 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 0.8 I I 1 ■ 0.0 4 9 O 0`64�a0c �e�c doµ` bac �s �0 ��ac 0¢` O`i`��9c X06`�e�c 'e "'e/ 'i "'e�a9c eS` FY 17-18 117-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 rY 18-19 FY 1&19 FY 18-19 fY 18-19 CFNFRILSW WW-only utili- combined utilities PnPYla4on PDPYla40n WW-only u4lities -biped utilities Pppula4on PUPYla4on (8 participants) (41 participants) 100,001-500,000 -,0. V participants) (34 p-dpants) 100,001-500,000 >500,ON (22 participants) (lIp.nmpants) (21 partiripants) (10 participants) Number of recordable injuries and illnesses x 200,000 hours Recordable Incident Rate= Total hours worked by all employees (The 200,000 hours in the formula represents the equivalent of 100 employees working ' 40 hours per week,50 weeks per year,and provides the standard base for the incidence rates.)14 CFNTPAISAN 14 7 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 348 of 382 Page ll0OUX2®21 DEBT RATIO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. NATIONWIDE DATA AW W A Su rvey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) so 70 66 68 60 54 55 5`50 48 49 99 45 46 48 42 43 43 42 - 40 39 40 33 29 28 a 30 2 23 5 20 20 20 20 16 10 0 Cla4tpaL4u1 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 H 17-18 --a N 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 WW-only utilities Combined utilities P.P.I.— P.P.I.— WW-only utilities Combined utilities Population Population (10 P.nmpants) (45 p--pants) 100,001-500,000 >500,0. (9 participants) (46 pankipants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 (27p nwpants) I. participants) (26 partidpants) (17 pardripants) Total liabilities Debt ratio(%) — ' Total assets 15 15 DEBT RATIO PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. CA DATA) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 80 69 70 65 62 61 60 950 1 39 41 40 0 30 20 21 22 l0 13 ' 13 7 jaw_-- CAWW-onlyandcombinetl utilities CA WW-only and combined utilities (10 participants) (10 participants) Total liabilities Debt ratio(%)— Total assets . . 16 ' CFNTPAISAN 16 8 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 349 of 382 Page 1lQ/UX2®21 SERVICE AFFORDABILITY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. NATIONWIDE DATA AW W A Su rvey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AW WA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) 1.20 - 1.11 2.04 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.01 1.01 0.98 1.00 0.91 0.80 0.80 0.78�0.80 0.]3 0.76 0.75 0.69 Z 0.64 0.67 0.64 0 0.600.58 0.50 0.53 0.53 0.50 0.53 0.50 v 0.45 2 x o.ao 0.20 I 0.00 ti� do ,yo t c g fi c a;` c t c g fi c f; c "e�,4 FY 1748 FY 1]-18 FY 17-18 FV 1)-18 FY 10-19 FY IB-19 FY IB-19 FY 18-19 *Not including ww-r.n,.dInm, W binedutilides PaPulau.n PUPuladon ww-enlYutilides co,nbined utilities P.Pulatinn Pupulatien ad valorem tax (9 participants) (]3 pa ipams) .."I-500,000 500,000 (8 participants) (69 participant,) IOQ001-500,000 > owo (37 p.rumpanb) (29 partidpann) (3]participant,) (25 par pams) Service affordability(p/o of MHl) Average residential monthly wastewater bill x 12 Real median annual household income 17 ' 17 NON-CAPACITY OVERFLOWS PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. CA VS. FY 17-18 NATIONWIDE DATA Data Sourced via CIWQS* AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) (Bay Area and Statewide) 7.0 - 5.9 6.0 5.6 E 5.0 6'$ E 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.1 o>p 4.0 ' 3.4 3.5 � 3.2 3.2 E3.0 2.5 5 2.0 1.9 L 2.0 1.6 1.2 z 1.0 I , 0.5 I 0.0 Ile0a,' *CIWQS= ���c ��ac ��ac CA Integrated FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FV 17-I8 FV 17-I8 Water Quality Region 2/Bay Area Statewide System Project (92 agencies) (394 agencies) WW-only utilities Combined utilities population Population (10 participants) (]5 participants) 100,001-500,000 >500,000 Includes Capacity and Non-capacity0verflows (35 participants) (33 participants) Non-capacity sewer overflow rate Number of non-capacity sewer overflow events during reporting period x 100 - Total miles of collection system piping 18 ' TFNTPAI SAN 18 9 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 350 of 382 Page llQ�UX2®21 NON-CAPACITY OVERFLOWS PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. CA VS. FY 18-19 NATIONWIDE DATA Data Sourced via CIWQS AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18-19 data) (Bay Area and Statewide) n 7.0 6.7 A a 6.0 5.6 59 3 E 5.0 — o➢ 3.9 4.0 3.9 33 — y, o t 3.0 z.a zs 2.5 5°� a 2.0 2.0 A 2.0 1.6 1.4 I 1.6 1.3 1.0 z�l.o ,,0'10,1SENTRAL SAN Region 2/Bay Area Statewide FY 18.19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 FY 18-19 (92 agencies) (394 agencies) WW-only utilities Combined utilities population population (9 participants) (76 participants) 100,001-500,000 '500,000 Incl udes Capacity and Non-capacity Overflows (37 participants) (28participants) Non—capacity sewer overflow rate Number of non—capacity sewer overflow events during reporting period x 100 Total miles of collection system piping 19 ' 19 TOTAL O&M* COST PER ACCOUNT PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. NATIONWIDE DATA AWWASurvey(Nationwide FY 17-18 data) AWWA Survey(Nationwide FY 18.19 data) 700 — 583 598 600 560 — 551 571 544 527 500 465 487 478 468 451 440 422 m 407 z 400 390 378 365 365E 379 353 3 327 *0&M= 3 app 76 284 242 248 Operations& 3 Maintenance 200 m 0 o loo Total O&M cost includes City of 0 Concord's treatment, L 's '� collection,and support ,ypservices costs. �CE 4nf LSAN7-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY18-19 FY18-19 GY 18-19 FY 18-19 Number of accounts Populatlon WW-onlyutilities Wmbinedutilities Population Populationicipanu) too,001-Soo,0o0 'So0,000 (10participams) (70partinpams) 100,001-500,000 '500,000 includes Concord and I33partmpantsl (29 parti[ipantt) I40p.rompanbl (27 participants) Clayton. S Total O&M cost of wastewater services( ) account Total O&M cost Number of residential accounts+number of nonresidential accounts 20 ' 20 10 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 351 of 382 Pag000a$ 2021 TOTAL O&M COST PER ACCOUNT PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (VS. CA DATA) Central San Survey(CA 18-19 data) Central San Survey(CA 19-20 data) 1,400 1,200 1,148 1,142 1,000 800 677 3 3 600 459 489 460 440 497 400 358 383 7 242 242 1 I 1 0 200 Total O&M cost 0 includes City of Concord's treatment, collection,and support, �ya services costs. � CA WW-only and combined utilities !anal Lx CA WW-only and combined utilities (10 participants) (10 participants) Number of accounts includes Concord and $ Total 0&M cost of wastewater sernClayton. ( ) accoiiut Total 0&M cost Nmnber of residential accounts+nu-rnber of nonresidential accounts 21 - 21 CONCLUSIONS • Benchmarking is subjective with an imperfect framework • This study can still be a tool to recognize strengths and identify potential performance gaps • Over time, the value of benchmarking survey data may improve if • Definitions are refined • Participants ensure consistent application of the definitions • Participants commit to data validation • Central San will continue to benchmark • To foster consistent data gathering • To see positive trends in performance compared to itself over the years • To see favorable comparisons with other agencies 22 CFNTRAISAN 22 11 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 352 of 382 Pagell@Oar 2021 QUESTIONS? 23POW ' -- 23 12 October 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 353 of 382