2017 AWWA Utility Benchmarking

Performance Management for Water and Wastewater

Historical trends from previous AWWA utility benchmarking surveys

Aggregate data from 38 US states and territories

Benchmarking data from 2016 for 47 key performance indicators

iii

CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Water and Wastewater Utility Benchmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Utility Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1. Performance Indicators—Organizational Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2. Performance Indicators—Business Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3. Performance Indicators—Customer Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4. Performance Indicators—Water Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5. Performance Indicators—Wastewater Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

6. Performance Indicator Historical Trends, 2004–2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

Appendix A—Participant Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157

Appendix B—FY16 Performance Summary by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159

Appendix C—FY16 Performance Summary by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173

Appendix D—FY16 Performance Summary by Population Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197

Appendix E—2017 Utility Benchmarking Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241

v

FOREWORD

Everyday water and wastewater utility managers face challenges in running an effective and efficient organization. While, a variety of initiatives such as management systems, partner-ships, guidance books and manuals exist to improve utility performance, more and more utility practitioners are looking to benchmarking as a useful tool to provide a consistent framework to be used in a utility’s continual improvement process. Internally, benchmark-ing can be linked to an organizations strategic goals or performance management, while externally, benchmarking can provide the ability to report against customer and environ-mental targets, communicate with stakeholders, compare with peer organizations, and link to industry-wide frameworks such as Effective Utility management (EUM). By participating in the AWWA Utility Benchmarking Program and using the aggregated results as presented in this book, utilities can take the first step in tracking their performance, identifying areas for potential improvement, and developing goals for future action plans.

AWWA would again like to thank the industry professionals at water and wastewater utili-ties for the important jobs they do and all the benefits they provide to their communities and beyond. A special thanks to those who provided their utilities’ 2016 fiscal year data; this report represents the time and commitment of numerous organizations, utilities, and indi-viduals, and the water industry appreciates their participation and their overall commitment to improvement.

If you work for a water, wastewater, or combined utility that may be interested in participat-ing in future benchmarking efforts, please contact AWWA at benchmarking@awwa.org for more information about the AWWA Utility Benchmarking Program.

Stephanie Passarelli, PE Utility Benchmarking Program Manager

10

2017 AWWA UTILITY BENCHMARKING

Performance IndicatorsThis report categorizes performance indicators into five key areas of the utility structure: organizational development, business operations, customer relations, water operations, and wastewater operations. The full list of indicators in each category is as follows, and each per-formance indicator is fully defined in subsequent sections.

Organizational Development

yy Organizational best practices

yy Staffing levels

– Total FTEs

– FTEs by job category (%)

yy Training (hours per employee)

yy Emergency response readiness training (hours per employee)

yy Customer accounts (accounts per employee)

yy Employee turnover (%)

yy Retirement eligibility (%)

yy Employee health & safety severity rate

Business Operations

yy Debt ratio (%)

yy Return on assets (%)

yy Days of cash on hand

yy Debt–service coverage ratio

yy Days of working capital (new in FY16)

yy Operating ratio (%)

yy Bond rating

yy System inspection (%)

yy System renewal/replacement (%)

yy Triple bottom line index (%)

yy Sustainability

– Nutrient recovery (new in FY16)

– Biosolids reuse (%) (new in FY16)

– Nonpotable consumptive use (%) (new in FY16)

– Habitat/watershed protection goals (new in FY16)

– Green infrastructure planning (new in FY16)

– Energy optimization planning (new in FY16)

IntroductIon

11

Customer Relations

yy Service complaints

– Customer service complaints/1,000 accounts

– Technical service complaints/1,000 accounts

yy Call center indicators

– Average wait time (minutes)

– Average talk time (minutes)

– Abandoned call ratio (%)

– Average calls per call center representative

– First call resolution (new in FY16)

yy Residential service charges

– Residential cost of water service ($/month)

– Residential cost of wastewater service ($/month)

– Residential cost of stormwater service ($/month)

yy Customer service cost per account ($/account)

yy Billing accuracy (errors/10,000 billings)

yy Per capita consumption (gal/person/day)

yy Service affordability

– Water service affordability (%)

– Wastewater service affordability (%)

– Stormwater service affordability (%)

yy Delinquency rate (new in FY16)

yy Low-income billing assistance rate (new in FY16)

yy Stakeholder outreach index

yy Customer service contact (new in FY16)

yy Water service disruptions

– Disruptions of water service (outages/1,000 accounts) � Planned by event duration (<4 hr, 4–12 hr, >12 hr) � Unplanned by event duration (<4 hr, 4–12 hr, >12 hr)

– Average time to address water service disruptions (hr)

– Disruption frequency of water service

yy Wastewater service disruptions

– Disruptions of wastewater service (outages/1,000 accounts) � Planned by event duration (<4 hr, 4–12 hr, >12 hr) � Unplanned by event duration (<4 hr, 4–12 hr, >12 hr)

– Average time to address wastewater service disruptions (hr)

– Disruption frequency of wastewater service

12

2017 AWWA UTILITY BENCHMARKING

Water Operations

yy Regulatory compliance—water (%)

yy Water produced (MGD per employee)

yy Water supply

– Current water demand (%)

– Available water supply (years)

yy Water distribution system integrity

– Leaks/100 miles of pipe

– Breaks/100 miles of pipe

– Combined leaks and breaks

yy Hydrant effectiveness / out of service rate (new in FY16)

yy O&M costs for water services

– ($/account)

– ($/MG)

– ($/100 miles of pipe)

– Treatment O&M costs

– Distribution O&M costs ($/100 miles of pipe)

– O&M percentage of water services

yy Maintenance—water

– Planned maintenance (%)—linear and vertical

– Corrective vertical maintenance to production (hr/MG)

– Planned vertical maintenance to production (hr/MG)

– Corrective linear maintenance to distribution system length (hr/100 miles of pipe)

– Planned linear maintenance to distribution system length (hr/100 miles of pipe)

– Total planned maintenance ratio

yy Energy consumption—water (kBTU/year/MG)

yy AWWA Water Audit—summary of results

Wastewater Operations

yy Regulatory compliance—wastewater (%)

yy Wastewater processed per employee

yy Noncapacity sewer overflow rate (per 100 miles of pipe)

yy Capacity sewer overflow rate (per 100 miles of pipe)

yy Collection system integrity (failures/100 miles of pipe)

yy O&M costs for wastewater service

– ($/account)

– ($/MG)

13

– ($/100 miles of pipe)

– Collection O&M costs ($/100 miles of pipe)

– Treatment O&M costs ($/MG)

– O&M percentage of wastewater services

– O&M percentage of stormwater services

yy Maintenance—wastewater

– Planned maintenance (%)—linear and vertical

– Corrective vertical maintenance to treatment (hr/MG)

– Planned vertical maintenance to treatment (hr/MG)

– Corrective linear maintenance to distribution (hr/100 miles of pipe)

– Planned linear maintenance to distribution (hr/100 miles of pipe)

yy Energy consumption—wastewater (kBTU/year/MG)

DefinitionsThe performance indicators used in AWWA’s Utility Benchmarking Program are based on the following definitions and were identified in the FY16 survey.

Active account: An active account refers to a formal arrangement providing for regular ser-vices for some or all of the reporting period.

Actual maximum daily production: Actual maximum daily production refers to the observed maximum production of all treatment plants in a system over the reporting period in million gallons per day (MGD).

Average annual available water supplies based on current yields: The average available water supply is the annual water volume available based on current yield within regulated, autho-rized withdrawals and delivery system or infrastructure limitations.

Average daily production: Average daily production refers to the production per day from all of a utility’s water or wastewater treatment plants averaged over the reporting period in MGD.

Average total time per call: The average total time per call or talk time is the average time spent on the phone with a customer by an agent or customer service representative (CSR).

Average wait time per call: The average wait time per call refers to the average time a caller must wait on hold before he or she can speak to an agent or CSR during the reporting period. It does not include time spent navigating through computerized menu options.

Apparent losses: Apparent losses consist of unauthorized use and inaccuracies associated with metering. Apparent losses consist of unauthorized consumption, customer metering inaccura-cies, and systematic data-handling errors.

Bill: A bill refers to 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).

IntroductIon