Laserfiche WebLink
Exhibit B <br />to Administrative Order No. 58-21-22-F <br /> <br /> <br />City Manager’s Findings <br />Proposed Public Works Professional Services Fee Schedule Amendments <br /> <br />Pursuant to Section 2.020(2) of the Eugene Code, 1971, the City Manager has considered the <br />following factors in determining the proposed Public Works Professional Services fee amendments: <br /> <br />(a) Applicable policies, enactments and directives of the council. <br /> <br />Findings: The Professional Services Fund is an internal service fund that is required to set <br />rates to cover costs. <br /> <br /> <br />(b) The amount charged by the city in the past. <br /> <br />Findings: Reviewed in Administrative Order No. 58-19-16-F. <br /> <br /> <br />(c) The full costs of providing the service supported by the fee. <br /> <br />Findings: PSF rates are set using a rate model based upon billable hours by employee <br />classes. The 2% rate increase works out $49,828 loss for FY22. The fund is projected to be <br />under the recommended two-month operating reserve by the end of the fiscal year. <br /> <br /> <br />(d) The amounts charged by other comparable providers. <br /> <br />Findings: Below is the survey of comparable providers. The higher classifications are in the <br />mid-range for technicians and electricians. The City of Eugene’s rates are on the higher end <br />compared to private companies, but average with other public agencies. <br /> <br /> <br />COE Proposed  <br />FY22 Rate PEPI  <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />DOWL  <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />GeoEngineers  <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Thompson  <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />DKS  <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />PBS  <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Walker/Macy  <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />City of Hillsboro  <br /> <br />City of  <br />Beaverton  <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />City of Portland  <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Beacon  <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Builders <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />New Way <br /> <br />Lane County  <br />(FY21‐22)  <br />Engineering Tech 1 103 80 86 87  90 N/A 106 99 109  70.59  <br />Engineering Tech, Associate 133 100 N/A N/A N/A 120 N/A 137 135 138  95.78  <br />Engineering Tech 2 119 90 75 77 90 103 N/A 125 118 127  76.91  <br />Civil Engineer 2 153 110 140 112 184 151 N/A 162 159 162  109.34  <br />Civil Engineer 1 136 95 132 95 151 120 N/A 144 135 145  95.80  <br />Electrician 1 110 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 73.75  <br />Electrician 2 120 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 106 N/A 110 109 105 N/A  <br />Engineering Dev/Review Mgr 169 220 215 N/A 261 N/A N/A 199 N/A 201  119.42  <br />Traffic Engineering Tech 2 101 90 75 N/A 138 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A  N/A  <br />Landscape Architect 136 N/A N/A N/A N/A 141 152 133 129 135  N/A  <br /> <br /> <br />(e) The revenue needs of the city as determined by the adopted city budget. <br /> <br />Findings: The adopted budget has a 3% increase, but after comparing this year’s billable <br />hours and realistically expecting the trend to be the same, revenue will be close to <br />expenditures with only a 2% increase in fees. <br /> <br /> <br />Factors listed in (a) – (e) above that are irrelevant or inapplicable in determining the amount of <br />the fees, if any, are listed here: <br />Findings – Page 1