surface & stormwater management performance audit final report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Surface & Storm Water Management Performance Audit Kitsap County, Washington Final Report Exhibit 5 Comparison of Annual Residential Stormwater Fees in the Puget Sound Region Conclusions and Recommendations Residential Agency Rate Island County -- Marshall Drainage Basin only $ 285 University Place 148 Seattle 122 Pierce County Group 5 - Base Service and CIP Level II 119 Group 3 - Base, CIP Level I, and River Maint. 96 Group 4 - Base Service and River Maintenance 87 Group 2 - Base Service and CIP Level I 35 Group 1 - Base Service 26 Olympia 114 King County 102 Mukilteo 91 Poulsbo 90 Edmonds 86 Marysville 84 Federal Way 79 Bainbridge Island 78 Lacey 78 Bremerton 72 Stanwood 72 Everett 69 Snohomish County Urban Growth Areas 65 Snohomish and South County Watersheds 33 Stillaguamish Clean Water District 33 Tacoma 59 Kitsap County 48 Thurston County 38 Kitsap County has not raised its annual $45 SSWM fee for 10 years, and its 2005 increase to $47.50 per year represented a 5.6% increase. At the same time inflation in the Seattle area for the past ten years increased prices by almost 28%. Because of inflation, the current fee has only 83% of the buying power that the fee had when the program initially started, and because the fee revenues are the primary source of funding for the SSWM program, the real value of program expenditures have also been reduced over time. Even if the fee had kept pace with inflation, Kitsap County’s SSWM fee would still be one of the lowest in the Puget Sound Region. Although changes in the fee should not be solely related to inflation, the fee revenue needed to sustain a set level of service will eventually need to increase. To assure that SSWM fee revenue keeps pace with the program and capital costs, we recommend the following: • The SSWM Program should continue to develop a five year financial forecast and propose rates that will support the programs, activities, and projects during the five year period. The Board of Commissioners should review the forecast and adopt rates and expenditures for the five year period. Page 13
Surface & Storm Water Management Performance Audit Kitsap County, Washington Final Report IV. OPERATING COST COMPARISONS In addition to comparing the SSWM fees charged by the three other counties (Pierce, Clark, and Snohomish), the SSWM operating costs were also analyzed and compared to the three other counties. The cost comparison included three key areas. • Overall cost per capita, • Overhead costs, and • Maintenance expenses. Observation: Despite significant costs for other agencies that are not incurred by the three other comparison counties, Kitsap County’s SSWM Program has the second lowest per-capita cost compared to programs in Clark, Pierce, and Snohomish County. Kitsap County’s SSWM program has a per capita cost of approximately $36.00 compared to Clark County’s $28.00, Pierce County’s $55.50, and Snohomish County’s $46.75 per capita. Included in Kitsap County’s total is approximately $8.50 per-capita cost for activities conducted by the Department of Community Development, the Kitsap County Health District, and the Kitsap Conservation District. Clark County’s stormwater utility does not fund comparable activities. Removing the $8.50 per-capita cost from Kitsap County’s expenses lowers its overall per-capita cost to $27.50, which is less than Clark County’s cost. Pierce County’s stormwater program utility does contribute funds for its County’s Health Department, but does not fund any of the Conservation District’s activities. Meanwhile, Snohomish County does the reverse: it contributes funding to its Conservation District but does not fund the Health District. As a result, the equivalent per-capita cost of the Pierce and Snohomish stormwater utilities would be higher than $55.50 and $46.75, respectively. For example, in place of stormwater funding, the Pierce Conservation District has an annual assessment of $5 per parcel. Observation: As a percentage of total expenses, overhead costs charged to the Kitsap County SSWM program are consistent, with those charged to two of the three other Puget Sound stormwater utilities. For the year 2005, the Kitsap County SSWM program is to be charged $200,000 for its allocation of County Administration costs, which is approximately 3.5% of its $5.9 million in budgeted expenses; Clark County is charged $205,000, which is approximately 4% of its $5.2 million budget; and Snohomish County is charged approximately $830,000, which is approximately 5.75% of its $14.5 million budget. A budgeted amount for allocated indirect cost was not available for Pierce County. Kitsap County’s SSWM program is allocated indirect costs from several county departments, based on SSWM’s number of vouchers, checks, cash receipts, positions, and total budget. Comparable allocation information was provided by Clark County only. Clark County’s indirect costs are similarly allocated using a variety of methods, as well as through service charges assessed by individual county departments. Page 14
Page 1 and 2: Kitsap County SURFACE & STORMWATER
Page 3 and 4: Surface & Storm Water Management Pe
Page 21: Surface & Storm Water Management Pe
Page 69 and 70: APPENDIX A
Page 71 and 72: Focus Projects Bidding Results Proj
Page 73 and 74:
Required Versus Discretionary Progr
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
APPENDIX C
Page 91 and 92:
Washington County, Oregon Review of
Page 93 and 94:
Washington County, Oregon Review of
Page 95 and 96:
2005-2010 Financial Forecast Summar
show all

surface & stormwater management performance audit final report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?