Efficiency

Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD)

Cost per pound of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removed

About this measure: WTD measures efficiency in terms of operating costs per pound of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removed during the treatment process. BOD and TSS are the primary pollutants that the treatment process is designed to remove, and these pollutants are directly monitored in the plants' water quality permits.

2006 results: $0.3425

2006 target: (adjusted for inflation) = $0.3234

Influencing factors:

Strategy going forward: WTD seeks to reduce operating costs through its productivity initiative, an effort to improve the efficiency of the entire wastewater treatment program while maintaining high quality standards and service delivery.

Solid Waste Division (SWD)

Transfer station operating costs per ton of solid waste

About This Performance Measure: This measure represents the total operating costs of the Solid Waste Division's 10 geographically dispersed transfer facilities (eight transfer stations and two drop boxes) per ton of solid waste disposed.

2006 results: $11.02 per ton.

Influencing factors: Costs increased higher than projected in 2006 primarily due to higher labor costs following implementation of a labor agreement.

Strategy going forward: Management will continue to operate in the most efficient manner in order to control operating costs, including labor, wherever possible.

Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD)

Efficiency Measures

About this measure: The efficiency "sentinel" tasks as representative of three Water and Land Resources Division's principle revenue sources are measured here. Water and Land Resources administers a multitude of programs funded from over forty different sources, making it impossible to quantify a single all-encompassing "outcome" from which to derive efficiency of production.

Noxious Weeds

About this measure: Over the past two years, the Noxious Weeds Program has seen a reduction in the cost per unit area of noxious weed infestations controlled. This is because a larger area of noxious weeds has been kept under control.

Noxious Weed Program expenditures / area of infestations controlled = cost per unit area infestations controlled

2006 results: $10.68 per square foot

Influencing factors: Efficiency gains can be explained by increases in voluntary, citizen weed control compliance due in part to program education and outreach activities. Economies of scale contribute because it is cheaper to keep fewer, larger infestations under control than a multitude of smaller ones. In 2004, 3859 infestations covering an area of 6,688,651 square feet were controlled. In 2005, 3772 infestations covering an area of 9,872,000 square feet were controlled. So in 2004, there were fewer infestations covering a smaller area that were more expensive to control than more infestations covering a larger area in 2005.

Strategy going forward: The program will continue to look for and control large infestations but expects a fair amount of fluctuation in the efficiency of its control efforts over the next several years. Marketing, education and citizen reports of infestations have much potential to help the program gain efficiencies.

Hazardous Waste

About this measure: The EnviroStars Program is a customer incentive program that recognizes businesses that generate less hazardous waste. This measure provides a cost to the program for each business recognized in the program. Costs used to calculate this efficiency include salary and benefits, administrative, overhead and program costs such as advertising.

EnviroStars Program costs / number of EnviroStars-recognized businesses

2006 results: $499 per Enviro-Star recognized business.

Influencing factors: In 2005 the program was able to become more efficient and the per business cost of EnviroStar recognition decreased by $245 to $547 per recognized business.

Strategy going forward: These efficiency gains are expected to level off, as they were attributed to the program reaching maturity. The Seattle-King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program has recently conducted a strategic plan and is moving toward a new focus. As a result, this measure could be altered in the coming year to more accurately reflect effectiveness in delivering work in new program areas.

Surface Water Management

About this measure: Maintaining surface water management facilities is one of the primary responsibilities of surface water fees. Costs used to calculate the efficiency of this activity include labor and mowing. Facility maintenance work is performed by King County's Roads Division in the Department of Transportation.

Facility maintenance/mowing costs (WLR & Roads) / number of facilities maintained

2006 results: $769.07 per surface water management facility. 2005 results: $1,013 per surface water management facility.

Influencing factors: Negotiating labor practices, machine usage and maintenance schedules with the Roads Division at the Department of Transportation has a major influence over the efficiency of facility maintenance.

Strategy going forward: This measure will be refined over the next year to account for differences in maintenance schedules and demands that vary by facility type, age and design.

Parks Division

Ratio of employees to acres maintained

About this measure: This efficiency measure is a ratio of the number of full-time employees in the Resource Section to the total number of park acres maintained by these employees

Influencing factors: Because staffing levels and land inventory are fairly stable and predictable for the next year, the main influencing factors have to do with the quality and type of maintenance Parks staff are able to perform.

1. Public and employee safety (for example: injury may result if maintenance action not taken);
2. Mandated requirements subject to potential fines if not performed (for example: various required permits, sensitive areas protection, ESA, integrated pest management, drainage maintenance);
3. Scheduled (revenue generating) use of park assets (for example: athletic leagues, picnics, weddings, large special events, revenue would be lost if maintenance action is not taken);
4. High community expectations and visibility projects (for example: East Lake Sammamish Trail, new athletic fields or community centers);
5. Storm damage and other natural event problems to the park system;
6. Preserve and protect projects (for example: roof repairs or field maintenance, if not done, further damage occurs); and
7. Unscheduled public use (for example: trail use, drop in athletic play, dog-off leash use).

Strategy going forward: Under the constraints of the levy that expires at the end of 2007, Parks plans to acquire key properties while maintaining current staffing levels. By increasing volunteer efforts through our programs, such as Park Ambassadors, Adopt-a-Park, and Community Partnership Grants, and continuing our partnerships with agencies, such as the Washington Trails Association and Earthcorps, we hope to continue to improve our existing service levels. Prior to acquisitions, funding to support the annual cost of the land management plan will be identified. This type of pre-acquisition evaluation will avoid costly liabilities, such as environmental hazards (including mine shafts, methamphetamine labs, and noxious weed infestations), and recognize existing inappropriate public uses, which may require costly management.