Efficiency

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.

2010 Results: $44.64

2010 Target: $43.31

2011 Target: $44.63

Influencing Factors: The amount of solid waste entering the County's system fell by 4%. Operating costs of transfer, transport and disposal of the Solid Waste Division waste fell by .35%.

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

Technical Notes: The 2010 and 2011 targets have been revised to reflect use of an alternative data source for tons of solid waste. The data used in 2009 was "Disposed Tons" and the data used in 2010 is "Grand Total — System." The latter includes yard waste, which the Solid Waste Division transports to or pays to have transported to and disposed at, a recycling facility. 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 — 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 are 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

2010 Results: $1,322 per facility

2011 Target: $1,225 per facility

Influencing factors: Severe rain events, annexations and availability of maintenance staff with the Roads Division at the Department of Transportation all influence cost of maintaining surface water management facilities. The alternative is contracting with vendors for this maintenance, which is more expensive. This measure does not account for differences in maintenance schedules and demands that vary by facility type, age and design.

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. For 2010, cost per facility was a better reflection of maintenance expenses due to less severe weather conditions.

Strategy going forward: 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.

Influencing factors: A key policy direction, the division increased levels of FTEs within the division in 2008 to dramatically improve levels of maintenance, as promised to the voters in the passing of the 2008-2013 Parks Levy. Consequently, budget cuts have meant lower staffing levels than anticipated, while Parks inventory has steadily grown due to the annual addition of lands, which are funded by the Parks Expansion Levy, the CFT fund, and other sources. These factors have caused a notable increase in the efficiency measure.

Other factors help determine the quality and type of maintenance that Parks staff are able to perform for different types of facilities. Influencing factors include:

• Public and employee safety;
• Mandated requirements subject to potential fines if not performed (e.g. various required permits, sensitive areas protection, integrated pest management, drainage maintenance);
• Scheduled, revenue-generating use of park assets, including athletic fields, picnic shelters, and other event facilities, where revenue would be lost if maintenance action is not taken;
• High community expectations or high-visibility projects (e.g. heavily-used trail corridor, new athletic fields or backcountry trailhead);
• Storm damage and other natural event damage to the park system;
• Preserve and protect projects that prevent other damage (e.g. roof repairs, culvert replacement or field maintenance);
• Unscheduled public use (e.g. trail-use, drop-in athletic play, dog off-leash use).
• The economy's slow recovery continues to strain Parks funds.

Strategy going forward: Under the guidelines of the levy that expires at the end of 2013, Parks will undertake key acquisitions with very modest increases in staffing. This will further decrease the efficiency measure and further diminish the division's abilities to properly maintain the open space and natural lands in the division's inventory. The division will work to add maintenance staff in the remaining years of the levy in order to increase maintenance levels, as is financially prudent.

An acquisition strategy has been developed for identifying key properties for Parks that includes identification of funding to support the annual cost of maintenance. 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.

By increasing volunteer efforts through Parks 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 and expand our reach for grants and other revenue sources for natural lands.

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.