My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2017-06-26 Closed and Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
AgdaPkt 2017-06-26 Closed and Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/21/2017 12:53:14 PM
Creation date
6/22/2017 4:17:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
6/26/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
646
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA <br />Cost of Services (User Fee) Study <br />Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 <br />Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the <br />total “full” cost of providing any particular service, whether a fee for that service is <br />charged or not. <br /> The work accomplished by the Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the <br />proposed fees for service involved the following steps: <br />• Divisional Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed staff in each Division <br />regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items, or for <br />addition of new fee items. <br /> <br />• Data Collection: Data was collected for each item, including time estimates and <br />volume of activity. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal <br />Year 16/17 were entered into the Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software <br />model. <br /> <br />• Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis <br />was established. Cross-checks including allocation of not more than 100% of <br />staff resources to both fee and non-fee related activities assured the validity of <br />the data used in the Study. <br /> <br />• Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department and City <br />management have reviewed and approved these documented results. <br /> <br />A more detailed description of user fee methodology, as well as legal and policy <br />considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report. <br />3. CURRENT COST RECOVERY <br /> When comparing Fiscal Year 16/17 fee-related costs with revenue generated in <br />Fiscal Year 15/16 the City is under-recovering its costs by approximately $176,000. The <br />following table presents a summary of results by Department / Division: <br />Department / <br />Division <br />FY16 Fee-Related <br />Revenue1 <br />FY17 Annual Fee- <br />Related Cost2 <br />Surplus / <br />(Deficit) <br />Current Cost <br />Recovery <br />Percentage <br />City Clerk & Finance $4,451 $6,567 $(2,116) 68% <br />Library $33,457 $243,028 $(209,571) 14% <br /> <br />1 This is the total revenue for fee-related services and has been calculated utilizing workload and volume statistics provided by the <br />Department and current fee information. <br />2 Fee-related annual costs for providing services includes direct and indirect costs (from the Citywide Cost Allocation Plan). <br />7.A. - Page 14
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.