New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
COE Road Fund Efficiency Review
COE
>
PW
>
Admin
>
Finance
>
Operating
>
2009
>
COE Road Fund Efficiency Review
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2010 12:54:13 PM
Creation date
11/18/2008 12:49:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Reports
Fiscal_Year
2001
PW_Division
Maintenance
GL_Fund
131
GL_ORG
9410
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
Administration <br /> Description of the function: <br /> Administration means different things to different people. It can include a variety of <br /> charges for costs not directly associated with providing service in the other Road Fund <br /> functions. It can include the costs associated with both clerical and administrative staff <br /> support for people working directly in a particular function or providing leadership and <br /> <br /> ~ support to several functions in the Road Fund. Division managers and functions such as <br /> dispatch are commonly charged as administration. <br /> In addition, if a Transportation Division is part of a Public Works Department, part of the <br /> Public Works Director's cost as well as that person's support staff can be prorated to the <br /> various divisions in public works. Further, citywide administrative expenses such as <br /> finance, law and others can be prorated to the various departments and divisions. Finally, <br /> general outside charges maybe charged as part of administration or as a line item under <br /> one of the functional budgets. <br /> Comparison to others: <br /> Every city surveyed had a slightly different practice in allocating overhead expenses. <br /> Analysis of the different approaches is interesting but not instructive. One common <br /> practice, however, is to charge enterprise funds the maximum amount of citywide <br /> overhead. Road funds that derive a majority of income from general revenues are not <br /> charged for general revenue, citywide administrative expenses because such charges <br /> would have to be paid by the general revenue fund from which they originated. <br /> Also, cities that have separate departments for utilities and transportation instead of <br /> combining both under a public works director don't allocate public works deparhnent <br /> administration because there is no such thing. <br /> Cost Factor Analysis: <br /> Almost all of the costs in this category are for labor. Eugene's cost of administration <br /> includes all four types of charges outlined in the description section. Basic functional <br /> office support charges are about 4% of the Road Fund budget, which is similar to what <br /> the other cities are experiencing. Charges for administrative support from the Public <br /> Works Director are fairly allocated to the Road Fund. Administrative review of this <br /> portion of general administrative expenses is an ongoing responsibility of the <br /> Administration Division Manager. <br /> Contracting Options: <br /> It's not feasible to contract for administrative services. In fact, each service contract <br /> requires some sort of administration. This added expenses should be included in each <br /> evaluation of private contracting. <br /> 13 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.