Efficiency

Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD)

Cost per pound of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removed

About this performance measure: WTD measures efficiency in terms of operating costs per pound of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removed during the treatment process. BOD and TSS are the primary pollutants that the treatment process is designed to remove, and these pollutants are directly monitored in the plants' water quality permits.

2008 Results: $0.3537

2008 Target: (adjusted for inflation) = $0.3365

Influencing factors: Steps taken through the productivity initiative have helped WTD achieve operational efficiencies represented by this measure.

Strategy going forward: WTD will continue to seek reductions in operating costs through its productivity initiative while maintaining high quality standards and service delivery.

Solid Waste Division (SWD)

Transfer transport and disposal operating costs per ton of solid waste.

About This Performance Measure: This measure represents all operating costs for the Solid Waste Division, including eight transfer stations and two drop boxes, transportation of solid waste from the transfer facilities to the Cedar Hills Landfill and operation of the Cedar Hills Landfill, per ton of solid waste.

2009 Results: $43.17

2009 Target: Not applicable as this measure was rewritten at the end of 2009.

2010 Target: $43.48

Influencing Factors: A decline in the cost of diesel contributed to the decline of this measure in 2009.

Strategy Going Forward: Management will continue to control operating costs, while assuring the safety of employees and customers at solid waste facilities.

Technical Notes: This measure was rewritten from the 2008 measure which was: "Transfer station operating costs per ton of solid waste." The dollars are adjusted for inflation.

Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD)

Efficiency Measures

About this measure: Water and Land Resources administers programs funded from over forty different sources, making it impossible to quantify a single all-encompassing efficiency measure. These two measures address efficiency within two key revenue sources Ð surface water management and the noxious weeds program.

Noxious Weeds

About this measure: Over the past two years, the Noxious Weeds Program has seen a reduction in the cost per unit area of noxious weed infestations controlled. This is because a larger area of noxious weeds has been kept under control. Noxious Weed Program expenditures / area of infestations controlled = cost per unit area infestations controlled

2008 results: 11.55 cents per square foot of noxious weeds area controlled

2009 results: 14 cents per square foot of noxious weeds area controlled

2009 target: 12 cents per square foot of noxious weeds area controlled

2010 target: 12 cents per square foot of noxious weed area controlled

Influencing factors: There are significant fixed costs associated with visiting each noxious weed infestation, regardless of size. KCNWCP visited a larger number of infestations relatively efficiently ($177.1 per site in 2009 compared to $184.4 in 2008 and the second lowest site efficiency figure since 2004). Due to effective control and surveying processes, in 2009, more numerous, smaller, dispersed and fragmented infestations were found. As a result the trend towards reduced costs per infestation was maintained, however the cost per unit area of weeds controlled increased in comparison to previous years.

Strategy going forward: The program will continue to focus on prevention and early detection / rapid response to avoid or further minimize the costs of controlling new infestations. The program will aim to increase levels of voluntary compliance and minimize the use of expensive regulatory mechanisms. Effective stakeholder communications, education and citizen reports of infestations have much potential to help the program further gain efficiencies by increasing active community participation in noxious weed control. In addition, the program will continue to pursue new, more cost-effective weed control technologies, including biological control.

Surface Water Management -- Maintenance Cost per Facility:

About this measure: Maintaining surface water management facilities is one of the County's primary responsibilities funded by surface water fees. Costs used to calculate the efficiency of this activity include labor and mowing. Facility maintenance work is performed by King County's Roads Division in the Department of Transportation.

2009 Results: $1,255 per facility

2009 Target: $1,518 per facility

2010 Target: $1,334 per facility

Influencing factors: Negotiating labor practices, severe rain events, and annexations all influence cost of maintaining surface water management facilities. Additional factors include the availability of maintenance staff with the Roads Division at the Department of Transportation, since the alternative is contracting with vendors for this maintenance, which is more expensive. In 2009, the cost did not meet target due to higher amounts of debris and sediment created by severe rain events in the winter of 2008/2009.

Strategy going forward: This measure does not account for differences in maintenance schedules and demands that vary by facility type, age and design. Discussions will continue as to how a new measure or series of indexed measures could be developed to provide a more accurate picture of facility maintenance costs and efficiencies.

Parks Division

Ratio of employees to acres maintained

About this measure: This efficiency measure is a ratio of the number of acres in parks inventory maintained to the number of full-time employees in the Resource Section of the Parks Division.

Influencing factors: The division made an initial increase of employees in 2008 to improve maintenance to pre-2002 levels, which was a key policy direction with the 2008-2013 Parks Levy. Staffing levels and land inventory are fairly stable and predictable from year to year, there are several factors that impact the quality and type of maintenance Parks staff are able to perform. These include:

1. Public and employee safety (for example: injury may result if maintenance action not taken);
2. Mandated requirements subject to potential fines if not performed (for example: various required permits, sensitive areas protection, ESA, integrated pest management, drainage maintenance);
3. Scheduled and revenue generating use of park assets (athletic fields, picnic shelters, community centers for weddings & events) where revenue would be lost if maintenance action is not taken);
4. High community expectations or high visibility projects (heavily used trail corridor, new athletic fields or backcountry trailhead);
5. Storm damage and other natural event damage to the park system;
6. Preserve and protect projects that if not done, further damage occurs (roof repairs, culvert replacement, or field maintenance,); and
7. Unscheduled public use (for example: trail use, drop in athletic play, dog-off leash use).
8. The economy: Parks is hard hit by the current, unprecedented economic downturn. All Parks' funding sources are strained or threatened. In addition, more people use parks in economic down turns.

Strategy going forward: Under the guidelines of the levy that expires at the end of 2013, Parks will undertake key acquisitions with a very small increase in staffing. By increasing volunteer efforts through our programs, such as Park Ambassadors, Adopt-a-Park, and Community Partnership Grants, and continuing our partnerships with agencies, such as the Washington Trails Association and EarthCorps, we hope to improve our existing service levels. Staff will also expand its reach for grants and other revenue sources for natural lands. An acquisition strategy has been developed for identifying key properties for Parks that also includes identifying funding to support the annual cost of the land management plan. This type of pre-acquisition evaluation will avoid costly liabilities, such as environmental hazards (including mine shafts, methamphetamine labs, and noxious weed infestations), and recognize existing inappropriate public uses, which may require costly management.