6.4. SR 02-14-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The issue then must be analyzed from the perspective of who actually pays for these costs and what benefit do the city and developer receive from having the full-time city staff. To compare with a consultant, the issue must be analyzed as to what level of service is necessary from the consultant and how the elements of timing, technical expertise, and fluctuating workloads all are taken into consideration. To further analyze the issue of cost, the time spent for each level of service on "chargeable" functions must be analyzed. A summary table of the three levels of service and who would benefit is estimated as follows, based on my experience: Level 1 Service City staff/city council Developers Public Level 2 Service City staff/city council Developers Public Level 3 Service City staff/city council Developers Public 60% 30% 10% 20% 50% 30% 10% 50% 40% Looking at the level 1 service which could be provided by a city engineer, of the 40% time that would benefit developers and the public, approximately only half of that could be charged back. For the city engineer, the net cost to the City would be $90,000 less amounts charged back of $18,000, or $72,000. For level 2 services of the full-time technician, of the 80% which would benefit developers and the public, only half or 40% could be charged back. Of the $55,000 cost, only $22,000 could be charged back. The net cost to the City would be $33,000. In summary, the actual cost to Elk River of providing these two functions would be approximately $105,000 annually. This must be compared with the current charge by MSA to Elk River for general engineering services in the range of $40,000 to $50,000 annually. This leads us to conclude that for similar engineering services, it would be twice as expensive 230/000-3001.mar