surface & stormwater management performance audit final report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Surface & Storm Water Management Performance Audit Kitsap County, Washington Final Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of its proposed budget for 2005, the Kitsap County Surface and Stormwater Management (SSWM) Program in the County’s Department of Public Works proposed an increase in its rates. After a review of the proposed rate increases, the County Board of Commissioners determined that a comprehensive performance audit was needed to determine if the SSWM Program functions in a way that is consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies and to determine whether the stormwater utility is operating effectively, efficiently and economically. The County Board of Commissioners identified the following specific tasks to be conducted: • Review SSWM program activities for consistency with policy direction provided by the County's Board of Commissioners, • Compare Kitsap SSWM fees and expenses to other like stormwater utilities, • Determine required and discretionary programs, • Review opportunities for outsourcing/privatization, • Conduct a fiscal review, and • Review performance measures. SSWM Program & Policies The legislation establishing the SSWM Program’s purposes and program elements has not changed since the Program’s inception. The SSWM Program remains broad in its purposes and has developed a comprehensive set of programs and activities that address the concerns of the legislation. The planning for Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15 is an activity where additional policy guidance might be useful. Because the Board of Commissioners approves the inter-local agreements with the Conservation and Health Districts, more specific policy guidance is adopted through the scopes of work approved with the agreements. These more specific policies and guidelines can change as the scopes of work change. In contrast, the scopes of work for Public Works and Community Development do not go through a formal process to be approved by the Board of Commissioners. We recommend the following: • The SSWM Program scopes of work for County departments should be reviewed and adopted as part of the Board of Commissioner’s budget process. • To resolve the appropriateness of the funding used to support the WRIA 15 planning, Community Development should show specifically how such planning relates to the purposes of the SSWM Program and unincorporated residents, how much estimated time is needed to fulfill any programmatic and monitoring role, and how much estimated time is needed to administer and coordinate the planning effort. • If grant funds are not able to cover the WRIA 15 administrative costs, the County should identify other funding sources (including funding from other jurisdictions) that may be more appropriate than SSWM funding. If the County’s SSWM Program participates, it should only, however, bear its fair share of the administrative costs. i
Surface & Storm Water Management Performance Audit Kitsap County, Washington Final Report Fee Comparisons 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. 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. Operating Cost Comparisons 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 the Conservation and Health Districts’ 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, and/or swales. Capital Cost Comparisons Based on five sample projects, the capital construction processes for Kitsap County’s SSWM Program have resulted in an effective bidding process, reliable engineering estimates, few significant change orders, and on time and on budget construction. Compared to the other counties, Kitsap County has had less variation among its engineering estimates, bids, and construction costs, and fewer change orders. Mandatory Versus Discretionary Programs The SSWM Program has made progress in implementing the R.W. Beck study regarding its NPDES permit, but until the final permit is actually issued, the SSWM Program does not know what other improvements or actions may be required. The SSWM Program’s broad purposes contained in its originating ordinance as well as other requirements from the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan add program elements that are not necessarily required by the NPDES permit. Most of the discretionary program elements are performed by the Conservation District and the Health District. While a number of program elements are not mandatory, the SSWM ii
Page 1 and 2: Kitsap County SURFACE & STORMWATER
Page 3: Surface & Storm Water Management Pe
Page 7 and 8: Surface & Storm Water Management Pe
Page 55 and 56:
Surface & Storm Water Management Pe
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
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?