My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009-09-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2009
>
2009-09-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2010 3:18:40 PM
Creation date
3/23/2010 2:40:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/22/2009
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City of Roseville, Minnesota <br />September 8, 2009 <br />Page 2 <br />Methodology <br />The process used to determine the cost of services involved a number of steps. The first was a review of <br />the City's 2009 adopted budget for each department. This included both the dollar amounts budgeted in <br />each category and the number and types of positions in the department. Actual 2008 expenditures were <br />also reviewed when that information became available. <br />Job descriptions For each position wore reviewed and a matrix developed that listed the duties included in <br />each jab descril~tion. The matrix was used to Compare the Common duties across ail departments and io <br />identify rrnique duties. This matrix ~~~as reviewed with City managers and department heads. Using the <br />matrix as a guide, a position profile was developed for each position in the departments included in this <br />study. The profiles listed each task in the position job description and provided spaces «~here additional <br />tasks could be entered. Each department was asked to review their position profiles and to indicate the <br />percentage of tune spent on each task, and the number of full-time-employees and part-time employees in <br />each position. They were also asked to indicate the percentage of tune spent on non service-related <br />activities like internal meetings, vacation, sick leave, etc. An example of a position profile is shown in <br />Appendix A. <br />The completed position profiles were reviewed for completeness by each department head and additional <br />data was collected as needed. The completed position profiles were used to develop the list of services <br />provided by each department and the budgeted cost for each. The budgeted cost for each service was <br />determined using a computer model developed within Microsofi«Excel. Personnel-related costs were <br />allocated to each service based on the percentage of time for each position from the position profiles. <br />Non-personnel costs were allocated directly to a service where those costs could be identified as directly <br />related to that service. For example, street centerline pavement painting costs were allocated 100% to the <br />traffic Controllmanagement/signs service. Costs that could not be specifically identified as directly <br />relating to a specific service were allocated proportionately to those services where those costs would be a <br />part of the cost of the service. For example, utilities in the skate center budget were allocated to the six <br />services identified in the employees' position profiles. <br />The list of services developed for each department was submitted to the City for review and feedback. ]t <br />was requested that bath the fist of services and the cost allocated to each service be reviewed for <br />completeness and accuracy. Discussions were held with department heads and staff to clarify cost <br />allocations and services to insure the costs were within acceptable ranges of accuracy based on the data <br />available. <br />Budgeted Cost of Services <br />The budgeted Cost of services provided by each department within the genera] fund and/or by tax- <br />suppor-ted funds was developed. ]t is important to understand the cost of e-ach service is reflective of the <br />data used to determine the cost. The accuracy is limited by the following factors: <br />Th.e cost of each service is based on the City's 2009 approved budget so that the accuracy of the <br />costs is reflective of the accuracy of the budget in terms of how actual costs wits Compare to <br />budgeted costs at the end of the fiscal year. <br />• The personnel-related costs are projected based on the time spent profiles completed for each <br />position in each department. Personnel costs make up the majority of the costs in each department's <br />budget so that the accuracy of the costs is ]united by the accuracy of the time spent profiles. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.