surface & stormwater management performance audit final report

Surface & Storm Water Management Performance Audit
Kitsap County, Washington
Final Report
To implement these program elements, the SSWM Program has established a number of other
programs and supporting activities (See Exhibit 2 in Chapter I) that are either consistent with the
legislation’s purposes or good management practices.
The watershed planning element is one area where a question has been raised about using
SSWM revenues to support the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15 watershed plan.
Because it is considered a regional project that also includes cities and non-stormwater issues, a
stakeholder group believes that it is inappropriate to use SSWM funding to support County staff
time on the project. We did not specifically audit the WRIA 15 planning process or the
timekeeping process, but the following provides a context to determine if such spending is
inappropriate.
• The purposes of the SSWM Program are very broad, and to the extent that WRIA 15
planning efforts relate to any of the SSWM purposes, staff time could be considered
appropriate if the issues relate to watersheds affecting the County’s unincorporated
residents. Key purposes are protecting life and property from storm, waste, flood or
surplus surface waters; protecting water quality from siltation, contamination, and
erosions; protecting aquifers; and complying with federal and state surface water
management and water quality regulations and legislation. In the 1996 Value Analysis
Study performed for the SSWM Program, one of the value analysis concepts was to
coordinate planning and develop partnerships with the groundwater management plan,
state basin assessment program, watershed action plans, and others. According to the
study, such coordination would eliminate duplication and or enhance the results of all
plans and programs. Key questions are whether the Board of County Commissioners still
considers such planning consistent with the purpose of protecting aquifers and whether
the SSWM Program would send a representative to monitor the meetings and participate
even if the County was not the lead agency in this effort.
• The use of SSWM funding and Community Development’s role as it relates to the WRIA
15 planning has been documented in the Department’s scope of work since 2002. Two of
the objectives in the scope for watershed planning are to participate in the WRIA 15
planning process and to coordinate the different watershed planning efforts.
• Not all the time of SSWM funded staff and WRIA 15 costs are paid for by SSWM fees.
As lead agency for the project, the County received a grant to pay some of its costs for
coordinating the planning and conducting various studies. In 2004 the costs charged to
the grant totaled $161,514. Staff costs charged for salaries and benefits were $13,500,
while about $147,800 was charged for consulting and professional services. In 2005 the
costs charged as of the end of August were $71,107 with only about $1,800 charged to
salaries and benefits. Concerning SSWM expenditures for watershed planning in 2004,
salaries and benefits costs were less than budgeted at 74% and for 2005, the salaries and
benefits costs are running at 86% for the year. We did not determine what the
appropriate time allocation should have been.
• If the discussions and watershed planning efforts affect unincorporated County residents,
the fact that cities are involved in a project does not necessarily mean that SSWM funds
Page 9