1. www.emwd.org 1 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Fiscal Year 2015 / 16 First Quarter Enterprise Performance Measures Update John Ward Director of Engineering Services December 16, 2015

2. www.emwd.org 2 Enterprise Measures provide a summary of the District’s performance in a single graphic report. Twelve proposed measures organized by the following categories: Efficiency Reliability Service Safety Financial Performance Goal: Provide the Board of Directors critical and timely business and financial information and identify trends. Fiscal Year 2015-16 First Quarter Enterprise Performance Measure

3. www.emwd.org 3 Efficiency - Water Operating Cost per AF Delivered Metric: Monthly water operating cost per acre foot (AF) delivered per month during the previous six months. Specifically, it measures the operating cost for water, including purchased water cost, O&M, energy, support costs, and administration relative to total acre feet sold. Importance: This metric serves as an indicator of operational efficiency related to the purchase, treatment, pressurization, and distribution of potable water. Goal: The fiscal year goal is $1,325 / AF, which is the average water service operating cost per acre foot from the fiscal year 2015/16 budget ($115 million operating cost for 86,700 acre feet in sales). Results: Results are relatively favorable for the period given the 20 percent decline in water sales. Operating costs per acre foot were maintained by reduction in treated water purchases and lower energy costs.

4. www.emwd.org 4 Efficiency - Wastewater Treatment Operating Cost per MG Treated Metric: Monthly wastewater operating cost per million gallons (MG) treated per month during the previous six months. The costs include treatment, collections, recycled disposal, energy, sludge hauling, support costs, and administration. Importance: This metric is an indicator of wastewater system efficiency. Goal: The fiscal year goal is $3,492 / MG, which is the average wastewater service operating cost per million gallons from the fiscal year 2015/16 budget ($57.0 million operating cost for 44.69 MG over 365 days). Results: Performance is within one percent of goal.

5. www.emwd.org 5 Efficiency – Recycled Water Operating Cost per AF Delivered Metric: Monthly recycled water operating cost per acre foot (AF) per month during the previous six months. Specifically, it measures the total operating cost for recycled water, including transmission, pumping, energy, storage, and support costs relative to total acre feet sold. Importance: This metric provides the District with a long term indication of recycled water system efficiency. Goal: The fiscal year goal is $203 / AF, which is the average recycled water operating cost per acre foot from the fiscal year 2015/16 budget ($6.7 million operating cost for 33,000 acre feet in sales). Results: Trend remained below or near goal during Q1.

6. www.emwd.org 6 Efficiency – CIP Budget Execution Metric: Capital Improvement Program - Actual Project Expenditures versus Project Budget measures the District’s ability to implement the Planned CIP and adhere to schedule and cost commitments. The District score is presented as a rolling quarterly average. Importance: This metric tracks progress of CIP execution and allows for refinement of CIP budget estimates and project prioritization. Goal: The fiscal year goal is to spend 80 percent or more of the budgeted CIP projects. Results: Trend has been relatively stable for Q1.

7. www.emwd.org 7 Reliability– Customer Hours Out-of- Service Metric: Sum of the hours out of water multiplied by the number of water accounts affected per event divided by 1000. For example, if 100 customer accounts are out of water for ten hours, the measure would reflect one Out-of-Service hour per 1000 accounts for that event. Importance: This metric measures the District’s performance related to restoring water service to our customers. Goal: The fiscal year goal of six hours per 1000 accounts has been established based on 12- months of performance. Results: Performance in Q1 was below goal.

8. www.emwd.org 8 Reliability – Wastewater Treatment Reliability Metric: This metric is intended to measure the District’s performance related to Wastewater Treatment Facility Production Uptime. It represents the average uptime of various treatment processes. Importance: RWRF production affects the Recycled Water Supply. Goal: A goal of 98 percent uptime has been established based on twelve months of data. Results: The trend has remained favorable over Q1.

9. www.emwd.org 9 Reliability – Wastewater Spills of Collection and RWRF Systems Metric: Measures the number of spills in the Wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Within the treatment facilities, a spill is defined as raw or secondary sewage spills greater than 1,000 gallons, tertiary greater than 50,000 gallons, or any effluent that left the plant property. Importance: This metric measures the District’s compliance with regulatory requirements. Goal: The fiscal year goal of less than three spills per month has been established based on 24 months of data and industry benchmarks. Results: With the exception of one spill in August, the trend has remained favorable over Q1.

10. www.emwd.org 10 Service – Customer Satisfaction Score of Last Experience Survey Metric: Measures the weighted average score of the Last Experience Surveys received. The surveys include customer service call-ins as well as customers who have recently contacted the District regarding a system concern. Importance: This metric provides staff with a leading indicator of customer satisfaction related to recent customer contact. Goal: The fiscal year goal is to receive 90 percent Satisfaction of all survey responses. Results: Results remain favorable in Q1.

11. www.emwd.org 11 Safety – Injury and Illness Rate Metric: Measures the District’s Injury and Illness Rate as defined by OSHA (Annual Sum of recordable injury / illness multiplied by 200,000 and divided into the Annual Sum of Hours worked by all employees). The District score is presented as a rolling 12-month average. Importance: This metric measures the effectiveness of the District’s Total Safety Culture. Goal: The fiscal year goal of 4.25 has been established based on six months of data. Results: The trend has been favorable with performance exceeding the goal for Q1.

12. www.emwd.org 12 Financial – General and Admin. Costs as a Percent of Total Operating Cost Metric: Monthly non-allocated general and administrative (G&A) costs as percent of total operating costs (including the G&A costs) during the previous six months. The District score is presented as a rolling 12-month average. Importance: This metric measures the non- allocated G&A costs to support the general administrative facilities and operations of the District. Goal: The fiscal year goal is 9.4 percent, which is the level from the fiscal year 2015/16 budget ($19.9 million non-allocated G&A relative to $210.8 million cost; $19.9/$210.8 = 9.4 percent). Results: Results remain favorable in Q1.

13. www.emwd.org 13 Financial Performance – Net Operating Margin (Revenue Minus Cost) Metric: Monthly operating revenue (water, wastewater, and recycled) less operating costs during the previous six months. Importance: This metric measures the net operating margin of the District’s services. If margins are insufficient, net contributions to District reserves are impacted. Goal: The fiscal year goal is $1.86 million per month, which is from the fiscal year 2015/16 budget ($221 million in operating revenue less $198.4 million in operating cost = $22.3 million annual operating margin). Results: Results continue to remain favorable in Q1.

14. www.emwd.org 14 Financial – Investment Performance Compared to 3-Year Treasury Yield Metric: Annualized investment yield of District’s portfolio compared to the three-year US Treasury yield. Importance: This metric measures the investment performance of the funds managed by the District. Goal: The fiscal year goal is to exceed the three- year US Treasury yield benchmark each month, which varies. Results: Yields declined beginning in June as a result of an $80 million new money financing increasing the investment in the LAIF funds at ~0.30 percent. Funds remain liquid as this cash will be used to fund projects through March 2016. Treasury rates anticipated to escalate throughout the fiscal year.

15. www.emwd.org 15 For the first quarter of FY 2015-16, 11 out of 12 measures are performing better than the goal. One measure is not meeting the respective goal: Investment Performance Compared to three-year Treasury Yield Next quarterly report is scheduled for March of 2016. Summary

16. www.emwd.org 16 Contact Information EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT www.emwd.org John Ward Director of Engineering Services wardj@emwd.org