Jurisdictional Parterships

Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD)

Number of Signers/Partners to Salmon Recovery Inter-local Agreements

About this measure: This measure tracks the number of member governments (including jurisdictions, tribes and King County) that have signed inter-local agreements (ILAs) for salmon recovery plan implementation. Partners that sign inter-local agreements for salmon recovery are organized around state-defined geographical areas called Watershed Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs). ILA partners work together to implement salmon recovery in their river basins. They also cost-share on WRIA coordination services provided through King County. Some governments, including King County, span more than one WRIA and are thus party to more than one inter-local agreement. In such instances they are counted multiple times to reflect the number of agreements they participate in and pay into.

Status: There are 50 eligible ILA partners within King County's three participating WRIAs (WRIA8, WRIA9 and WRIA7/Snoqualmie Watershed). As of 2010, all 50 potential partners have signed inter-local agreements.

Target: We are currently at full participation. Our target going forward is to retain all 50 partners.

Influencing factors: King County's reputation as a service provider and partner in delivering services is crucial toward the success of this measure. Other jurisdictions and Indian Tribes are less likely to sign agreements to work with the county and cost share on salmon recovery coordination services if the county cannot deliver the services it has agreed to. Additionally, it is critical to have the continued regional political focus on the importance of salmon recovery and watershed protection in the Puget Sound region.

Strategy going forward: King County will continue to demonstrate quality service and success in delivering the cost-shared inter-local work. Future strategies include integrating with regional Puget Sound Partnership actions, advocating regional implementation of salmon recovery plans, and facilitating the development of funding sources for watershed protection and restoration activities.

---

Solid Waste Division (SWD)

Number of cities that are members of the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC)

About this measure: This committee advises the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) Solid Waste Division (SWD) on key regional issues.

2011 Results: 26

2011 Target: 22

2012 Target: 26

Influencing Factors: Cities and the county are in discussions to extend the solid waste Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) for 12 years beyond their current expiration date of 2028. Continuing the collaborative working relationship of the last six years, the cities on the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) will be providing input on a wide array of solid waste management issues.

Strategy Going Forward: SWD will continue to collaborate with MSMWAC in 2012. MSWMAC will be giving advising on SWD's Transfer Station Usage Analysis, the Northeast/South county transfer station siting process, and will review the amended and extended ILA. In particular, SWD will work with MSMWAC to ensure that the collaborative planning process established by the ordinance that created the committee is institutionalized in the new ILA.

Technical Notes: MSWMAC was created to advise the King County Executive, the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum and the King County Council in all matters relating to solid waste management and to participate in development of the transfer and waste export system plan.

---

Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD)

Local Jurisdiction Partnerships

Quality of Contract Services Rated by Local Agencies

About this measure: This measure tracks local sewer agency satisfaction with the quality of their contract services with WTD, as rated in the annual Customer Feedback Survey.

2011 results: 3.87

2011 target: > 4.0 on a 1-5 scale

2012 target: > 4.0 on a 1-5 scale

Influencing factors: Ratings for this measure have fluctuated from year to year since 2001; however, in the last four years the trend is upwards moving from a red rating of 3.31 in 2008 to the current yellow rating of 3.87.

In any particular year there may be specific factors or activities underway by the division that influence the local agencies' satisfaction with the contract services they receive from WTD. In 2006 a low score of 3.29 was received, which was likely attributed to the negotiations of contract extensions that were underway at the time with the local agencies. In 2007 the score rose to 3.62, which may have reflected the positive outreach efforts taken by the new Division Director, who visited individually with each of the local agencies to discuss their concerns and hear their ideas. In 2008 the low rating of 3.31 may be attributable to somewhat controversial program initiatives and projects that are underway, such as construction of the Brightwater Treatment Plant, and the development of a Reclaimed Water Comprehensive Plan.

Strategies going forward: While ratings of satisfaction with wastewater contract services fluctuates from year to year, WTD continues to maintain open dialog on all major projects and initiatives with the contract customer agencies via the Metropolitan Water Pollution Abatement Advisory Committee (MWPAAC) and its technical and financial subcommittees, which regularly meet with WTD staff and management to provide input to WTD operations, finances and capital programs and projects. WTD continually works to improve relationships, enhance trust and open communication with its customer agencies.

Local Agency Satisfaction with the MWPAAC (Metropolitan Water Pollution Abatement Advisory Committee) Process

About this measure: This measure provides feedback to WTD on the level of satisfaction among our local agency customers with their participation in MWPAAC, an advisory committee of local sewer agencies. Data for the measure comes from the annual Customer Feedback Survey, and the score is rolled up from several questions that gather feedback about the quality of meetings, the quality of information received from the WTD Director and staff, the opportunity to express opinions, needs and concerns, and the ability to obtain needed information from the division.

2011 results: 4.48

2011 target: > 4.0 on a 1-5 scale

2012 target: > 4.0 on a 1-5 scale

Influencing factors: This measure now has three years of data collected from the annual Customer Feedback Survey. The score increased from 3.44 for 2007 to 3.67 for 2008, increased again to 3.94 for 2009 and dropped slightly to 3.92, in 2010 and the current score of 4.48 demonstrates a steady and sustaining increase in overall satisfaction with the quality of MWPAAC meetings and the quality of information received from WTD's Director and staff on important programs, projects and initiatives. Factors such as the quality of Director's reports, the ability of the local agencies to express their opinions, needs and concerns, and the ability to get the information they need from WTD were rated the highest.

Strategies going forward: WTD continually seeks ways to improve MWPAAC meetings, to make them as productive, useful, informative and convenient as possible; and to provide reports and information in a timely and thorough manner to the local agencies. In the past two years, WTD has restructured the format of meetings and added a professional facilitator. In 2009 WTD changed the location, time, and duration of the monthly meetings to increase convenience for most attendees. Balancing a central location with traffic and parking concerns is a key consideration, as attendees must drive from all parts of the County's sewer service area, including some who come from Snohomish County in the north and as far south as Auburn and Algona, to attend the meetings.

Back to top