surface & stormwater management performance audit final report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Surface & Storm Water Management Performance Audit Kitsap County, Washington Final Report Observation: Kitsap County’s SSWM maintenance expenses represent a higher percentage of the total SSWM expenditures compared to Pierce and Snohomish Counties, but Kitsap County’s SSWM Program includes costs not funded by these two county’s SSWM programs. Kitsap County’s SSWM maintenance budget for 2005 is approximately $822,500 compared to Clark County’s $1,041,600 maintenance budget, Pierce County’s $1,627,800, and Snohomish County’s is $801,000. Kitsap County’s maintenance budget represents almost 14% of the total budget, while Clark, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties spend 20%, 8.6% and 5.5%, respectively. When comparing expenditures, the different levels of service supported by each SSWM program must be considered. Snohomish County spends the least amount on its maintenance program, but the vast majority of comparable maintenance activities, such as cleaning catch basins, are funded and performed by other county departments (for example, the Roads Division). Likewise, Pierce County’s expenditures for maintenance costs are relatively low on a percentage basis because its Roads Department maintains a significant amount of the stormwater facilities. Clark County’s stormwater maintenance program is quite similar to Kitsap County’s, but includes ditches and culvert maintenance. Our analysis shows that it is spending a higher percentage of its budget on maintenance activities compared to Kitsap County. As shown in Exhibit 6, Kitsap County annually spends approximately $534 per pond, Clark spends $488 per pond, and Pierce spends $2,551 per pond. Page 15
Surface & Storm Water Management Performance Audit Kitsap County, Washington Final Report Exhibit 6 Comparison of SSWM Maintenance Costs 2005 Maintenance Cost Category Kitsap % of Total Clark % of Total Pierce % of Total Snohomish % of Total County Costs Budget County Costs Budget County Costs Budget County Costs Budget 2005 Budgeted Expenses $5,935,913 100% $5,214,277 100% $18,861,820 100% $14,457,753 100% Ponds 258,600 4.4% 229,254 4.4% Catch Basins (including Decant) 563,891 9.5% Maintenance Tracking 1,539 0.0% Ditches / Culverts 385,364 7.4% Spill Response -- Ponds & Streets 11,093 0.2% Swales 155,670 3.0% Creek maintenance 213,022 4.1% 194,430 1.0% Lakes management 0 Plat pond maintenance 400,580 2.1% Regional pond maintenance 400,580 2.1% Small works 542,130 2.9% Work on private land 90,000 0.5% Private Facility Inspect. 45,620 0.9% Drainage maintenance 800,998 5.5% Total Maintenance Expenses $822,491 13.9% $1,041,562 20.0% $1,627,720 8.6% $800,998 5.5% Facility Kitsap Co. Clark Co. Pierce Co. Snohomish Storm Water Ponds 484 470 314 Road & Other Catch Basins 9,905 9,623 Roads Dept Road Division Bio-Filtration Swales 79 1,122 Roads Dept Oil/Water Separators 183 36 Few Manhole Control Structures 262 389 250 Lineal Feet of Piping 1,180,118 2,384,000 Roads Dept Drywells 900 Expense Per Pond $534.30 $487.78 $2,551.46 N/A Expense Per Catch Basin $56.93 N/A N/A Conclusions and Recommendations Because Kitsap County’s SSWM program includes program elements not funded by other counties, cost comparisons are difficult to make. However, Kitsap County’s SSWM Program has the second lowest cost per capita, and if the cost is adjusted for the costs related to conservation and health district programs, Kitsap County has the lowest cost per capita of the four counties. For overhead and maintenance costs, Kitsap County has the lowest percentage of overhead costs compared to its total budget, while its percentage of maintenance costs to its total costs are the second highest of the four counties. Pierce and Snohomish Counties do not have as high a percentage of maintenance costs because their road departments fund maintenance for either catch basins, ponds, or swales. Page 16
Page 1 and 2: Kitsap County SURFACE & STORMWATER
Page 3 and 4: Surface & Storm Water Management Pe
Page 23: 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:
Required Versus Discretionary Progr
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?