Performance Measures
Related Information
Rates and Fees
About this measure: DNRP seeks to minimize rates and fees while maximizing value of service. Major programs track rates and fee against the level of inflation and benchmark against similar service providers. For inflation, we look at changes in the consumer price index over a 10 year time horizon.
Because benchmarking against similar service providers and jurisdictions is time intensive, this is done only every other year for most of our programs. Comparative programs are selected for proximity, range of services, and relative cost of doing business.
Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD)
Monthly residential wastewater service fee increases vs. Consumer Price Index increases
2008 Wastewater Rate: $27.95
2008 Target: rate if it had risen by rate of inflation from the 1998 rate: $25.60
Difference: 9.2 percent
Influencing factors: WTD is in a period of major construction activity as it invests in future service, including construction of the Brightwater treatment plant and its conveyance system.
Strategy going forward: WTD has been implementing a productivity initiative to reduce operating costs and reduce future rate pressure. The rate was held at $27.95 for 2007 and 2008. The new two-year rate for 2009-2010 will be $31.90.
WTD Rate vs. comparable agencies (grey)
Rate comparisons provide qualitative information. There are no targets established for this measure. The wastewater service rate in 2008 was lower than the average of fees from other jurisdictions but higher than the median.
There are significant differences among these utilities in the extent and level of services they provide. For example, some may not provide full secondary treatment or recycle biosolids as extensively as King County does. Additionally, the division is in a period of major construction activity as it invests in future service, including construction of the Brightwater treatment plant and its conveyance system.
WTD has implemented a productivity initiative program aimed at reducing operating costs and increasing savings to ratepayers. The productivity initiative allows employee flexibility to apply business practices used in private industry to cut operating costs, increase productivity, and continue a high level of service and environmental protection for county residents.
Solid Waste Division (SWD)
Solid Waste Division tip fee compared to rate of inflation
2008 Results: The Solid Waste Division tip fee was lower in 2008 than if it had risen at the rate of inflation over the last 10 years.
2008 Target: For SWD rates to be lower than if they had risen at the rate of inflation over the last 10 years.
2009 Target: For SWD rates to be lower than if they had risen at the rate of inflation over the last 10 years.
Influencing Factors: The tip fee was $95.00 in 2008 (as this was the first year in the new three-year rate period approved in 2007 by the Metropolitan King County Council) but the rate was still lower than if it had risen at the rate of inflation over the last 10 years.
Strategy Going Forward: The tip fee is currently expected to remain at $95.00 through 2010. Tons processed are expected to remain low over the next several years compared with 2007, partly due to the Division's success in promoting recycling, and partly due to the declining economy.
Comparison of fees and rates with other agencies that provide comparable services
2008 Results: As of December 2008, the King County solid waste tip fee of $95.00 per ton was below the mean ($104.54) and the median ($102.05) of the tip fees of seven comparable jurisdictions (including King County).
2008 Target: For the solid waste tip fee to continue to be below the mean and the median of other, comparable jurisdictions.
2009 Target: For the solid waste tip fee to continue to be below the mean and the median of other, comparable jurisdictions.
Influencing Factors: SWD rates increased in 2008, but stayed low, relative to the rates of other jurisdictions.
Strategy Going Forward: The solid waste tip fee is currently expected to remain at $95.00 through 2010.
Technical Notes: The mean and median for this measure were calculated using the flat, base rate without fees and taxes. In addition, the residential and not the commercial or non-resident rates were used.
Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD)
Comparison of surface water management fees with inflation
About this measure: This measure tracks compares surface water management fees compared to inflation rates over the last 10 years.
2008 Results: Surface Water Management fees have risen less than the rate of inflation. In 2007, the King County Council approved an increase to the surface water management fee, bringing up the annual charge to $111 per residential parcel. The increase raised revenue to compensate for the eroding effects of inflation. Since 2002, inflation based on CPI has increased by an estimated 15%. King County Office of Management and Budget projections suggest that inflation will rise by another 5.4% through 2009.
2008 target: Increase surface water management fees at a rate commensurate or no more than inflation. No rate increase has been proposed since 2007.
Influencing factors: Many factors drive changes to rates and fees, including storm events that induce flooding and other natural disasters, changes in the economy, additional development, demands for natural resource management services, increased regulatory requirements and changes to the rate base.
Strategy going forward: Surface Water Management Fees were raised in 2007 to meet impacts of inflation however regulatory costs (related to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit) are increasing while Surface Water Fee revenue is decreasing due to annexations and incorporations. Making surface water activities more efficient while prioritizing how surface water revenues are spent will be important tasks for the Water and Land Resources Division over the next several years.
Surface water rate vs. comparable agencies
2007 Results: King County's surface water management fees are less than both the average and the median of what other incorporated, cities and towns, in King County charge.
Influencing factors: King County offers one of the most robust surface water management programs in the region. As a large jurisdiction it is governed by Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit by the State Department of Ecology to comply with the federal, Clean Water Act. Permit requirements this and for the next six years are more stringent as the state is grappling with declines in the health of its surface waters and the Puget Sound.
Strategy going forward: Much work is being done to determine how to comply with regulatory requirements amidst dramatic declines in revenue. Stormwater services will look to making its operations more efficient and King County managers, the Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council will be faced with finding alternative funding sources or eliminating programs previously funded by the surface water management revenues.
Technical Notes
For definitions and more detail.