City of Barstow, CA
Cost Allocation Plan
i Cost Allocation Plan
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................... iii Certification of Cost Allocation Plan ................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Approach.......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Applications.................................................................................................................................................................. 7 OMB Super Circular and 2 CFR Part 200....................................................................................................................... 7 Central Service Departments........................................................................................................................................ 8 Distribution Bases......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Allocable Costs and Distribution Bases.......................................................................................................... 10 Allocable Costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 Central Service Allocation Methodology .................................................................................................................... 11 Section 1: Administrative Services HR ................................................................................................................... 11 Section 2: Administrative Services IT ..................................................................................................................... 11 Section 3: Building Maintenance Division.............................................................................................................. 12 Section 4: Central Services..................................................................................................................................... 12 Section 5: City Attorney Division............................................................................................................................ 12 Section 6: City Clerk Division.................................................................................................................................. 13 Section 7: City Council Division.............................................................................................................................. 13 Section 8: City Manager Division ........................................................................................................................... 14 Section 9: City Treasurer Division .......................................................................................................................... 14 Section 10: Finance Division .................................................................................................................................. 15 Section 11: Finance – Debt Service Division .......................................................................................................... 15 Section 12: Fleet Maintenance Division................................................................................................................. 16 Section 13: Insurance/Risk Management Division................................................................................................. 16 Section 14: Municipal Records Division ................................................................................................................. 16 Section 15: Transfers & Other................................................................................................................................ 17 Iterative Allocation..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A..................................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix B..................................................................................................................................................... 26 ii Cost Allocation Plan
iii Cost Allocation Plan
List of Tables
Table 1: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (OMB Compliant CAP).................................................... 3 Table 2: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (Full CAP)........................................................................ 4 Table 3: Allocable Cost Summary................................................................................................................... 10 Table A-1a: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP)................................................................. 20 Table A-1b: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) - continued.............................................. 21 Table A-2a: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) .................................................................. 22 Table A-2b: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) – continued .............................................. 23 Table A-3a: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) ....................................................................... 24 Table A-3b: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) - continued.................................................... 25 Table B-1a: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP)............................................................................................ 27 Table B-1b: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP) - continued ........................................................................ 28 1 Cost Allocation Plan
Certification of Cost Allocation Plan
This is to certify that I have reviewed the cost allocation plan submitted herewith and to the best of my knowledge and belief:
(1) All costs included in this proposal 2/3/2026 to establish cost allocations or billings for Fiscal Year 2025 are allowable in accordance with the requirements of this Part and the Federal award(s) to which they apply.
Unallowable costs have been adjusted for in allocating costs as indicated in the cost allocation plan. (2) All costs included in this proposal are properly allocable to Federal awards on the basis of a beneficial or causal relationship between the expenses incurred and the Federal awards to which they are allocated in accordance with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been treated as indirect costs have not been claimed as direct costs. Similar types of costs have been accounted for consistently.
I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Governmental Unit: City of Barstow
Signature: ___________________________________________________________________ Name of Official: ___________________________________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________________________________ Date of Execution: ___________________________________________________________________ 2 Cost Allocation Plan
Executive Summary
This cost allocation plan (“CAP”) summarizes a comprehensive analysis that has been completed for the City of Barstow, California (the “City”) to determine the appropriate allocation of costs from central service departments to the operating departments. The primary objective is to allocate costs from departments that provide services internally to operating departments that conduct the day-to-day operations necessary to serve the community. The internal service costs typically represent (a) incurred for a common or joint purpose benefiting more than one cost objective, and (b) not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. The term "indirect costs," as used herein, applies to costs of this type originating in the central service departments.
To ensure central service department costs are appropriately allocated to the operating departments, Willdan analyzed the City’s cost code structure to determine which types costs are allowable versus unallowable in accordance with standard and accepted cost allocation principles. The term “allocable costs” as used herein, applies to costs that are allowable for allocation.
The study is comprised of two separate allocation plans. Table 1 is the summary results of the allocation in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget Super Circular (the OMB Super Circular) and CFR Part 200 (Cost Principles). Table 2 that follows is the summary results of the full plan. The report below includes descriptions of the differences between the two plans, their separate purposes, and specific details of when the plans deviate from each other.
3 Cost Allocation Plan
Table 1: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments
(OMB Compliant CAP)
Allocated Cost Summary Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Direct Cost Base
Operating Department / Division / Fund Total Allocation Modified Total Direct
Cost
Indirect Cost
Rate
$8,257,340 $41,842,408 20%
GENERAL FUND
100: Cannabis Regulation $185 $1,351 14%
100: Community Services Department $855,883 $2,328,917 37% 100: Communtiy Development Department $698,730 $3,139,788 22% 100: Park & Recreation Division $593,748 $1,278,294 46% 100: Police Department $2,209,176 $9,721,514 23%
Measure Q-102-Various
102: Measure Q-102-Various $884,146 $5,688,545 16%
Measure Q-103-Fire
103: Measure Q-103-Fire $764,226 $3,480,690 22%
General Fund II
104: General Fund II $3,456 $25,134 14%
COVID19
202: COVID19 $28 $0
Measure I-2010/2040
209: Measure I-2010/2040 $2,285 $0
Gas Tax210: Gas Tax- $14 $0
CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant215: CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant- $1,334 $16,051 8% Grants-Reimbursable217: Grants-Reimbursable- $11,974 $41,558 29% Grants-Prefunded
218: Grants-Prefunded $3,784 $0
Public Safety COPS Program
219: Public Safety COPS Program $7,951 $51,988 15%
Barstow Fire Protection District
225: Barstow Fire Protection District $796,724 $4,862,630 16%
WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
605: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION $959,116 $4,494,590 21%
SOLID WASTE
650: SOLID WASTE $464,578 $6,711,359 7%
4 Cost Allocation Plan
Table 2: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (Full CAP) Allocated Cost Summary Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Direct Cost Base
Operating Department / Division / Fund Total Allocation Modified Total Direct
Cost
Indirect Cost
Rate
$9,746,196 $41,842,408 23%
GENERAL FUND
100: Cannabis Regulation $203 $1,351 15%
100: Community Services Department $978,598 $2,328,917 42% 100: Communtiy Development Department $829,319 $3,139,788 26% 100: Park & Recreation Division $653,915 $1,278,294 51% 100: Police Department $2,630,823 $9,721,514 27%
Measure Q-102-Various
102: Measure Q-102-Various $1,064,951 $5,688,545 19%
Measure Q-103-Fire
103: Measure Q-103-Fire $898,927 $3,480,690 26%
General Fund II
104: General Fund II $4,204 $25,134 17%
COVID19
202: COVID19 $29 $0
Measure I-2010/2040
209: Measure I-2010/2040 $2,312 $0
Gas Tax210: Gas Tax- $14 $0
CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant215: CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant- $1,532 $16,051 10% Grants-Reimbursable217: Grants-Reimbursable- $12,807 $41,558 31% Grants-Prefunded
218: Grants-Prefunded $4,050 $0
Public Safety COPS Program
219: Public Safety COPS Program $8,927 $51,988 17%
Barstow Fire Protection District
225: Barstow Fire Protection District $980,898 $4,862,630 20%
WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
605: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION $1,111,954 $4,494,590 25%
SOLID WASTE
650: SOLID WASTE $562,732 $6,711,359 8%
5 Cost Allocation Plan
Introduction
In the early 1970s, the cost allocation plan concept was introduced to many government agencies. The purpose of a typical cost allocation plan is to identify costs related to rendering internal central support services and allocate those costs to operating departments or programs that utilize and benefit from them, in a fair and equitable manner.
Before indirect costs and central support service charges may be claimed for reimbursement by an operating department, there must be some formal means of identifying, accumulating and distributing these types of costs to all benefiting departments. Regardless of whether an agency has a formal comprehensive cost accounting system, the best method of accumulating, identifying, and determining a distribution of indirect costs is a cost allocation plan.
A City is made up of many departments, each with their own specific purposes or functions. Departments whose primary function is to provide support internally to other City departments are called central services.
Examples of central services are Administrative Services, Building Maintenance, Finance, and City Council.
Within these groups there are numerous functions performed that provide support to the direct cost centers. The direct cost centers, or departments and funds, that require support from Central Services and provide services directly to the community through their day-to-day operations, are called operating departments. Examples of operating departments are Community Services, Community Development, Parks and Recreation, and Police. The Cost Allocation Plan allocates the costs of the central services to the operating departments based on the nature of the functions of each central service, upon which the operating departments depend. This is done to determine the total cost associated with providing direct services. The overall goal of the cost allocation plan process is to allow cities to allocate a portion of the central service costs to the operating departments, thus 1) accounting for “all” costs, direct and indirect, for each operating department, and 2) facilitating the calculation of a fully burdened cost estimate of providing services to the public.
The purpose of this study is to:
▪ Identify the central support and operating departments in the City; ▪ Identify the functions and services provided by the central departments; ▪ Identify allocable and non-allocable costs associated with the City’s central service departments; and
▪ Distribute those costs to operating entities in a fair and equitable manner. 6 Cost Allocation Plan
Approach
Methodology
The way in which each Indirect Service provides support to the operating departments is determined in order to perform allocations in a manner consistent with the nature of that Indirect Service. This ensures that the costs can be allocated to each operating department in a fair and equitable way. The Cost Allocation Plan identifies the functions of each central service department, and then determines a methodology to allocate or spread the central service costs in a manner that best represents the nature of those functions.
The mathematical representations of central service functions used to allocate indirect costs are commonly called distribution bases. A distribution basis is a set of data displayed as the level of measure of each department’s participation in a specific activity or City function. This basis is then used to distribute costs that reasonably relate to the activity or City function that the basis represents. Some examples of distribution bases are salary and benefits costs, number of full-time equivalent employees, frequencies of city council agenda items, and number of processed transactions. The data sets associated with these distribution bases for each department is collected to facilitate the allocation of indirect costs.
The methodology used for this Cost Allocation Plan is the iterative method, which is one of the most equitable methods for allocating costs from central services to operating departments. While not used as prevalently as simpler allocation methods, it is widely considered to be the most accurate. The iterative method utilizes a recursive application of central service cost distribution to allocate indirect costs. In the first step, the allocable costs of central service departments are identified and distributed to all departments including the central service departments themselves, based on the appropriate allocation bases that were selected to represent the manner in which central services are utilized. This is repeated ad infinitum until all costs have been distributed to the operating departments, and none remain with the central service departments.
As an example, consider the allocation of central service costs associated with Building Maintenance Division. The function of Building Maintenance is identified, and the appropriate distribution basis is determined to be the total building and property square footage maintained per department and fund. The allowable costs are then distributed to all departments and funds based on total building and property square footage, including other central services. The costs allocated from one central service to another in the initial allocation are then reallocated using the same distribution methodology. This function is performed as many times as necessary until all costs for Building Maintenance have been allocated.
All central service departments are treated equally. That is to say, this method is performed concurrently for the allowable costs in each of the central service departments for each iteration until all costs associated with the central service departments have been allocated to each direct service department. The method is complete when the total amount of allocable costs remaining in the central service departments is equal to zero.
7 Cost Allocation Plan
Applications
Public agencies use cost allocation plans for many purposes such as internal accounting, the justification of user fees, application for reimbursement from federal programs or the determination of administrative effort associated with special districts and/or municipal service activities. In many of these cases, the agency will be required to certify that the costs identified are “reasonable”. Per the Code of Federal Regulations, a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when determining the amount that a public agency should be reimbursed for central service overhead activities associated with a federally funded program. Additionally, public agencies should consider special care to only identify the portion of central service costs that have not been reimbursed through other means (such as grants, user fee revenues, transfers from other departments or internal service funds) to avoid double-counting. These cost reductions are done before the allocation methodologies are used and are detailed within the model itself.
OMB Super Circular and 2 CFR Part 200
This report details the allocations for two separate cost allocation plans. The primary model, presented in text and tables in the below sections and in Appendix A, provides a plan that complies with the Office of Management and Budget Super Circular (the OMB Super Circular) and CFR Part 200 (Cost Principles) that are used to determine central overhead costs incurred while carrying out activities associated with Federal awards, cost reimbursement contracts and some other intergovernmental agreements (as required). The secondary model presented in Appendix B of this report is the full cost allocation plan, which the City should use for standard City operations and budgeting. Unless otherwise indicated, the details of this report and Appendix A contain the OMB compliant allocation plan. The Appendix B tables contain the full cost plan and utilize the same distribution methodology as the OMB Compliant plan. While the overall methodology used for both plans is the same, there are specific guidelines that require additional cost exemptions for OMB Super Circular compliance outside of what was done for the full cost plan. Where such exemptions are made, the methodology has been explained below. Some commonly encountered examples that are usually exempt under OMB Super Circular guidelines are:
▪ General Advertising
▪ Bad Debt
▪ Contingencies
▪ Litigation
▪ Debt Service
▪ Entertainment
▪ Capital
▪ Lobbying
▪ Legislative Body (City Council)
▪ Promotional Items
8 Cost Allocation Plan
Central Service Departments
Fifteen (15) central service functions were identified for the purposes of this cost allocation plan:
▪ Administrative Services HR
▪ Administrative Services IT
▪ Building Maintenance
▪ Central Services
▪ City Attorney
▪ City Clerk
▪ City Council
▪ City Manager
▪ City Treasurer
▪ Finance
▪ Finance - Debt Service
▪ Fleet Maintenance
▪ Insurance/Risk Management
▪ Municipal Records
▪ Transfers & Other
9 Cost Allocation Plan
Distribution Bases
Distribution bases are the allocation factors that may be used to distribute the allocable costs to all departments and funds. As discussed previously, distribution bases are measurable and readily available data that are utilized to represent activities or functions, and which are then used to distribute costs matching that activity or function. Below are the bases that were analyzed in this study and used to allocate Central Services costs to operating departments. ▪ Total Number of FTE Employees – The number of full-time equivalent personnel for each department and fund.
▪ City Council Agenda Frequency – City Council agendas spanning a 12-month period were used to determine the number of times each department and fund had matters brought before the City Council.
▪ Total Accounts Payable – The total number of accounts payable processed for each department and fund for a year.
▪ Total Building Square Footage – The total building square footage for each department and fund that is maintained by the Building Maintenance Division. ▪ Total Property Square Footage – The total property square footage for each department and fund that is maintained by the Building Maintenance Division. ▪ Total Fleet Units – The total number of vehicles and equipment for each department and fund that is maintained by the Fleet Maintenance Division.
▪ Total Information Technology Units – The total number of information technology units for each department and fund maintained by the Administrative Services IT division. ▪ Total Mileage – The total annual mileage incurred by each department and fund. ▪ Modified Total Direct Cost – The total allowable expenditure budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 which excludes capital, debt, non-operational transfers, and grant subawards costs greater than $25,000.
▪ Total Salaries and Benefits – The total salary and benefit expenditures for each department and fund for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
▪ Total FY 2025-26 Actuals – The total actual expenditures for each department and fund for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
10 Cost Allocation Plan
Allocable Costs and Distribution Bases
Allocable Costs
Table 3 identifies the allocable cost of each central service department for the OMB compliant allocation plan, with the total allocable costs for this study being $8,257,340. The total expenditure from the central service departments was $8,765,716. However, $508,375 of the expenditures identified as unallowable by the 200 CFR Part 200 and have been excluded from allocation. The primary exclusions were related to City Council, debt, capital, transfers, insurance claims, internal cost allocation and litigation costs. The remaining amount was distributed to the operating departments and the central services departments by distribution factor(s) that best represents the functions of each central service department and the demand placed on that central service by all City departments, as previously described in the Methodology section of this report. The allocation methodology for each central service is detailed in the following section of this report.
Table 3: Allocable Cost Summary
Allocable Cost Summary - Central Services Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Total Cost
Unallocable
Cost Allocable Cost
Summary $ 8,765,716 $ 508,375 $ 8,257,340
Central Service
100: Administrative Services HR 776,101 404,261 371,840 100: Administrative Services IT 893,647 - 893,647
100: Building Maintenance Division 981,495 153,191 828,304 100: Central Services 337,022 222,452 114,571
100: City Attorney Division 600,817 459,259 141,558
100: City Clerk Division 20,384 - 20,384
100: City Council Division 83,991 83,991 -
100: City Manager Division- 890,784 11,429 879,355
100: City Treasurer Division 29,644 - 29,644
100: Finance Division 1,229,048 - 1,229,048
100: Finance-Debt Service Division 328,781 201,226 127,554 100: Fleet Maintenance Division 613,442 - 613,442
100: Insurance/Risk Management Division 1,986,732 515,035 1,471,697 100: Municipal Records Division 417,166 - 417,166
100: Transfers & Other (423,337) (1,542,468) 1,119,131
11 Cost Allocation Plan
Central Service Allocation Methodology
The first step of the iterative allocation method is to distribute the allocable costs of the central service departments to other central service departments and operating departments based on the distribution methodology and bases that best represent the activity of the central service, and the functions it serves.
The sections below describe each central service, and the methodology used to allocate their costs.
Corresponding tables detailing each distribution are attached in the Appendices as tables A-1 through A-3 for the OMB compliant plan and B-1 for the full cost plan.
Section 1: Administrative Services HR
The Human Resources Division provides centralized personnel services to all City departments. Core responsibilities include recruitment and hiring, employee relations, labor contract administration, classification and compensation, benefits administration, performance management, training, risk coordination, and compliance with federal, state, and local employment laws. The division supports organizational effectiveness by ensuring a qualified workforce and consistent personnel policies.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Administrative Services HR Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. ▪ Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
▪ Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total salaries and benefits for each department and fund.
Section 2: Administrative Services IT
The Information Technology Division is responsible for the planning, implementation, maintenance, and security of the City’s technology systems. Services include network administration, hardware and software support, cybersecurity, system upgrades, data management, and user support for all departments. The division ensures reliable and secure access to technology necessary for efficient municipal operations and public service delivery.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Administrative Services IT Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. ▪ One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total IT units for each department and fund.
100: Administrative Services HR
Total FTE's 50%
Total Salaries and Benefits 50%
12 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 3: Building Maintenance Division
The Building Maintenance Division oversees the maintenance, repair, and operation of City-owned facilities.
Responsibilities include preventative maintenance, minor capital repairs, custodial coordination, safety inspections, and compliance with building and accessibility standards. The division supports City operations by ensuring facilities are safe, functional, and well maintained.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Building Maintenance Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. ▪ Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total building sq. footage maintained for each department and fund.
▪ Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total property sq. footage maintained for each department and fund.
Section 4: Central Services
Central Services provides internal support functions that serve multiple City departments. This includes citywide operational support, shared services, contractual services, supplies, communications, and administrative overhead not directly attributable to a single department. Central Services promotes efficiency through centralized coordination and cost control.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of Central Services, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
▪ One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
Section 5: City Attorney Division
The City Attorney Division provides legal counsel and representation to the City Council, City Manager, departments, boards, and commissions. Services include legal advice, contract review, ordinance and resolution preparation, litigation management, and compliance with state and federal law. The division safeguards the City’s legal interests and supports informed decision-making. 100: Administrative Services IT
Total IT Units 100%
100: Building Maintenance Division
Total Building Sq. Footage 50%
Total Property Sq. Footage 50%
100: Central Services
Modified Total Direct Cost 100%
13 Cost Allocation Plan
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Attorney Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Council agendas for each department and fund.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
Section 6: City Clerk Division
The City Clerk Division serves as the official record keeper for the City. Responsibilities include maintaining City records, agendas, minutes, ordinances, resolutions, election coordination, and compliance with public records and open meeting laws. The division supports transparency, public access, and legislative administration.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Clerk Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Council agendas for each department and fund.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
Section 7: City Council Division
The City Council Division supports the legislative and policy-making functions of the City Council.
Expenditures include council operations, stipends, meeting expenses, training, and community engagement activities. The division facilitates effective governance and representation of the community. 100: City Attorney Division
Total FTE's 33%
Total Agendas 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
100: City Clerk Division
Total FTE's 33%
Total Agendas 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
14 Cost Allocation Plan
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of City Council Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Council agendas for each department and fund.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
▪ For the OMB plan the costs of City Council are not allocated to ensure OMB compliance.
Section 8: City Manager Division
The City Manager Division provides executive leadership and administrative oversight for City operations.
Responsibilities include policy implementation, strategic planning, intergovernmental coordination, budget administration, organizational management, and community relations. The division ensures City departments operate efficiently and in alignment with City Council direction.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Manager Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Council agendas for each department and fund.
▪ A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
Section 9: City Treasurer Division
The City Treasurer Division oversees the safeguarding, investment, and reporting of City funds in accordance with legal and policy requirements. Duties include cash management, investment oversight, and financial reporting to ensure fiscal accountability and transparency. 100: City Council Division
Total FTE's 33%
Total Agendas 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
100: City Manager DivisionTotal FTE's 33%
Total Agendas 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
15 Cost Allocation Plan
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Treasurer Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
▪ One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
Section 10: Finance Division
The Finance Division manages the City’s financial operations, including budgeting, accounting, financial reporting, payroll, accounts payable and receivable, grants accounting, and internal controls. The division ensures compliance with accounting standards and supports fiscal stability through accurate financial management.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Finance Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
▪ Fifteen percent (15%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
▪ Thirty five percent (35%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of accounts payable processed for each department and fund.
▪ Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
Section 11: Finance – Debt Service Division
The Debt Service Division accounts for and administers the City’s long-term financial obligations.
Responsibilities include managing debt service payments, tracking bond and lease obligations, ensuring compliance with debt covenants, and coordinating required financial reporting.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Debt Service Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
▪ One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 actual expenditures for each department and fund.
100: City Treasurer Division
Modified Total Direct Cost 100%
100: Finance Division
Total FTE's 15%
Total Accounts Payable 35%
Modified Total Direct Cost 50%
16 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 12: Fleet Maintenance Division
The Fleet Maintenance Division is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement planning of the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet. Services include preventative maintenance, diagnostics, repairs, and fleet safety compliance, supporting reliable transportation for City operations.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Fleet Maintenance Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. ▪ Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of vehicles and equipment for each department and fund.
▪ Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total annual mileage for each department and fund.
Section 13: Insurance/Risk Management Division
The Insurance and Risk Management Division manages the City’s risk exposure through insurance programs, claims administration, loss prevention, safety training, and regulatory compliance. The division works to minimize financial risk and protect City assets, employees, and the public.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Insurance/Risk Management Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. ▪ Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
▪ Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total salaries and benefits for each department and fund.
Section 14: Municipal Records Division
The Municipal Records Division manages the storage, retention, and retrieval of official City records.
Responsibilities include records management compliance, document retention schedules, and public access 100: Finance-Debt Service Division
Total FY 2025-26 Actuals 100%
100: Fleet Maintenance Division
Total Number of Fleet 50%
Total Number of Mileage 50%
100: Insurance/Risk Management Division
Modified Total Direct Cost 50%
Total Salaries and Benefits 50%
17 Cost Allocation Plan
coordination. The division supports transparency and legal compliance across all departments.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Municipal Records Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. ▪ One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
Section 15: Transfers & Other
Transfers & Other accounts for interfund transfers, internal cost allocations, and expenditures not directly attributable to a specific operating division. This category supports citywide financial balancing, shared costs, and administrative adjustments required for budgetary and accounting purposes.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the costs of Transfers & Other, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
▪ One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total salaries and benefits for each department and fund.
100: Municipal Records Division
Modified Total Direct Cost 100%
100: Transfers & Other
Total Salaries and Benefits 100%
18 Cost Allocation Plan
Iterative Allocation
The total allocable expenditures of each central service department were allocated to other departments (including both operating departments and other central service departments) based on the individual methodologies outlined above in Sections 1 through 15 of the Allocation Percentages chapter. Any cost allocated from central service to central service is then reallocated out using the same methodology. This operation is done iteratively until all allocable cost is received by the operating departments and funds, and none remain with the central services. After completion of the iterative allocation method, a total combined allocable cost of $8,093,494 was distributed to all departments and funds until the allocable cost remained only in the operating departments and funds, and the amount of allocable costs remaining in central service departments was equal to zero.
The full cost plan follows the same methodology with the exception that all costs that were excluded solely for OMB compliance, but were reasonable for the full plan, were made allowable and included in the allocation. See Table B-1 for additional details for the full cost plan.
After implementing the iterative allocation methodology, all allocable central service costs have been distributed to the operating departments and funds. Table 1 in the Executive Summary of this report summarizes the distribution of the total allocable cost of $8,093,494 to each recipient department for the OMB compliant CAP. Table 2 summarizes the distribution of the total allocable cost of $9,582,350 to each recipient department for the full cost CAP.
19 Cost Allocation Plan
Appendix A
Appendix A lists the tables detailing the allocation methodology performed in allocating central service costs for the OMB compliant cost allocation plan.
20 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-1a: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) First Iteration
Central Service/Operating Departments
100:
Administrative
Services HR
100:
Administrative
Services IT
100: Building
Maintenance
Division
100: Central
Services
100: City
Attorney
Division
100: City Clerk
Division
100: City Council
Division
100: Administrative Services HR 0.4% 1.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 100: Administrative Services IT 2.1% 14.7% 1.0% 1.7% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 100: Building Maintenance Division 1.8% 0.0% 6.7% 1.6% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 100: Central Services 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 100: City Attorney Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 100: City Clerk Division 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 100: City Council Division 0.0% 12.2% 0.9% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 100: City Manager Division- 2.6% 0.5% 0.3% 1.7% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 100: City Treasurer Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Finance Division 4.2% 4.6% 0.2% 2.4% 11.4% 11.4% 11.4% 100: Finance-Debt Service Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 100: Fleet Maintenance Division 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 100: Insurance/Risk Management Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 100: Municipal Records Division 1.1% 3.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 100: Transfers & Other 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 100: Cannabis Regulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Community Services Department 8.0% 1.5% 30.2% 4.5% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 100: Communtiy Development Department 7.9% 14.2% 0.5% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 100: Park & Recreation Division 1.6% 5.6% 33.6% 2.5% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 100: Police Department 28.9% 18.8% 2.8% 18.8% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 102: Measure Q-102-Various 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 103: Measure Q-103-Fire 8.3% 9.6% 5.4% 6.7% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 104: General Fund II 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 202: COVID19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
209: Measure I-2010/2040 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 210: Gas Tax- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
215: CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 217: Grants-Reimbursable- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 218: Grants-Prefunded 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 219: Public Safety COPS Program 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 225: Barstow Fire Protection District 12.3% 3.0% 0.0% 9.4% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 605: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION 6.0% 7.6% 18.2% 8.7% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 650: SOLID WASTE 1.3% 1.5% 0.0% 13.0% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3%
Central Service Departments
21 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-1b: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) - continued First Iteration
Central Service/Operating Departments 100: City
Manager Division-
100: City
Treasurer
Division
100: Finance
Division
100: FinanceDebt Service
Division
100: Fleet
Maintenance
Division
100:
Insurance/Risk
Management
Division
100: Municipal
Records Division
100: Transfers &
Other
100: Administrative Services HR 0.5% 1.5% 0.8% 1.2% 0.0% 1.2% 1.5% 0.8% 100: Administrative Services IT 1.9% 1.7% 2.2% 1.3% 0.0% 1.9% 1.7% 2.0% 100: Building Maintenance Division 2.2% 1.6% 1.7% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5% 1.6% 1.4% 100: Central Services 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 100: City Attorney Division 0.4% 1.2% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.6% 1.2% 0.0% 100: City Clerk Division 11.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 100: City Council Division 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 100: City Manager Division- 7.2% 1.7% 1.4% 1.3% 0.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.9% 100: City Treasurer Division 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 100: Finance Division 11.4% 2.4% 2.0% 1.8% 0.0% 3.0% 2.4% 3.5% 100: Finance-Debt Service Division 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 100: Fleet Maintenance Division 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 0.9% 2.8% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 100: Insurance/Risk Management Division 1.3% 3.9% 1.9% 3.0% 0.0% 1.9% 3.9% 0.0% 100: Municipal Records Division 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 100: Transfers & Other 0.7% 2.2% 1.1% -0.6% 0.0% 3.1% 2.2% 4.0% 100: Cannabis Regulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Community Services Department 4.8% 4.5% 5.4% 3.6% 17.4% 5.2% 4.5% 6.0% 100: Communtiy Development Department 6.1% 6.1% 4.6% 4.7% 9.3% 6.5% 6.1% 6.8% 100: Park & Recreation Division 3.3% 2.5% 1.5% 1.9% 3.1% 2.0% 2.5% 1.6% 100: Police Department 16.3% 18.8% 14.9% 16.3% 58.3% 23.3% 18.8% 27.8% 102: Measure Q-102-Various 6.5% 11.0% 18.8% 19.0% 0.0% 11.2% 11.0% 11.4% 103: Measure Q-103-Fire 4.1% 6.7% 7.0% 6.9% 4.5% 8.9% 6.7% 11.1% 104: General Fund II 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 202: COVID19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
209: Measure I-2010/2040 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 210: Gas Tax- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
215: CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 217: Grants-Reimbursable- 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 218: Grants-Prefunded 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 219: Public Safety COPS Program 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 225: Barstow Fire Protection District 6.8% 9.4% 9.9% 8.6% 0.0% 11.4% 9.4% 13.4% 605: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION 7.9% 8.7% 15.2% 8.2% 4.7% 6.7% 8.7% 4.8% 650: SOLID WASTE 5.3% 13.0% 7.5% 10.5% 0.0% 7.0% 13.0% 1.1% Central Service Departments
22 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-2a: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) Final Iteration
Central Service/Operating Departments
100:
Administrativ
e Services HR
100:
Administrativ
e Services IT
100:
Building
Maintenan
ce Division
100:
Central
Services
100: City
Attorney
Division
100: City
Clerk
Division
100: City
Council
Division
100: Administrative Services HR 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Administrative Services IT 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Building Maintenance Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Central Services 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Attorney Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Clerk Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Council Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Manager Division- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Treasurer Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Finance Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Finance-Debt Service Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Fleet Maintenance Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Insurance/Risk Management Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Municipal Records Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Transfers & Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Cannabis Regulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Community Services Department 9.7% 4.1% 32.6% 6.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 100: Communtiy Development Department 9.2% 19.0% 0.9% 7.7% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 100: Park & Recreation Division 2.9% 7.8% 36.2% 3.7% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 100: Police Department 32.9% 29.3% 3.7% 23.9% 25.4% 25.4% 25.4% 102: Measure Q-102-Various 11.7% 3.5% 0.3% 13.1% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 103: Measure Q-103-Fire 9.7% 13.4% 6.0% 8.5% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 104: General Fund II 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 202: COVID19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
209: Measure I-2010/2040 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 210: Gas Tax- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
215: CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 217: Grants-Reimbursable- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 218: Grants-Prefunded 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 219: Public Safety COPS Program 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 225: Barstow Fire Protection District 13.6% 6.4% 0.2% 11.3% 10.7% 10.7% 10.7% 605: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION 8.0% 12.5% 19.9% 10.9% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 650: SOLID WASTE 2.2% 4.0% 0.2% 14.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1%
Central Service Departments
23 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-2b: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) – continued Final Iteration
Central Service/Operating Departments
100: City
Manager
Division-
100: City
Treasurer
Division
100:
Finance
Division
100:
FinanceDebt
Service
Division
100: Fleet
Maintenan
ce Division
100:
Insurance/
Risk
Managem
ent
Division
100:
Municipal
Records
Division
100:
Transfers
& Other
100: Administrative Services HR 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Administrative Services IT 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Building Maintenance Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Central Services 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Attorney Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Clerk Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Council Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Manager Division- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Treasurer Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Finance Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Finance-Debt Service Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Fleet Maintenance Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Insurance/Risk Management Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Municipal Records Division 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Transfers & Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Cannabis Regulation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Community Services Department 8.4% 6.4% 6.9% 5.0% 17.9% 7.0% 6.4% 7.6% 100: Communtiy Development Department 9.3% 7.7% 5.9% 5.8% 9.6% 8.0% 7.7% 8.2% 100: Park & Recreation Division 5.8% 3.7% 2.7% 2.9% 3.2% 3.2% 3.7% 2.6% 100: Police Department 25.4% 23.9% 18.7% 19.6% 60.0% 28.0% 23.9% 32.1% 102: Measure Q-102-Various 11.5% 13.1% 20.2% 20.4% 0.0% 13.1% 13.1% 13.2% 103: Measure Q-103-Fire 7.2% 8.5% 8.3% 8.1% 4.6% 10.5% 8.5% 12.6% 104: General Fund II 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 202: COVID19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
209: Measure I-2010/2040 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 210: Gas Tax- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
215: CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 217: Grants-Reimbursable- 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 4.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 218: Grants-Prefunded 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 219: Public Safety COPS Program 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 225: Barstow Fire Protection District 10.7% 11.3% 11.2% 9.8% 0.0% 13.2% 11.3% 15.0% 605: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION 13.3% 10.9% 16.9% 9.8% 4.8% 8.8% 10.9% 6.7% 650: SOLID WASTE 8.1% 14.1% 8.3% 11.4% 0.0% 8.0% 14.1% 1.9% Central Service Departments
24 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-3a: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) Department
100:
Administra
tive
Services HR
100:
Administra
tive
Services IT
100:
Building
Maintenanc
e Division
100:
Central
Services
100: City
Attorney
Division
100: City
Clerk
Division
100: City
Council
Division
371,840 893,647 828,304 114,571 141,558 20,384 0
100: Cannabis Regulation 1 4 0 3 2 0 -
100: Community Services Department 36,068 36,881 269,852 7,345 11,950 1,721 - 100: Communtiy Development Department 34,184 169,577 7,704 8,815 13,166 1,896 - 100: Park & Recreation Division 10,598 69,772 299,676 4,291 8,164 1,176 - 100: Police Department 122,516 261,591 30,880 27,433 35,910 5,171 - 102: Measure Q-102-Various 43,368 30,975 2,080 14,999 16,282 2,345 - 103: Measure Q-103-Fire 36,016 119,460 49,892 9,726 10,165 1,464 - 104: General Fund II 180 75 5 65 39 6 -
202: COVID19 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
209: Measure I-2010/2040 1 6 0 5 3 0 -
210: Gas Tax- 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
215: CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant- 6 42 3 39 23 3 -
217: Grants-Reimbursable- 59 278 18 121 113 16 -
218: Grants-Prefunded 41 156 10 9 46 7 -
219: Public Safety COPS Program 74 340 22 135 134 19 -
225: Barstow Fire Protection District 50,752 57,142 2,054 12,978 15,155 2,182 - 605: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION 29,880 111,427 164,625 12,451 18,892 2,720 - 650: SOLID WASTE 8,095 35,920 1,484 16,155 11,513 1,658 - Central Service Departments
25 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-3b: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) - continued Department
100: City
Manager
Division-
100: City
Treasurer
Division
100:
Finance
Division
100:
FinanceDebt
Service
Division
100: Fleet
Maintenanc
e Division
100:
Insurance/
Risk
Manageme
nt Division
100:
Municipal
Records
Division
100:
Transfers &
Other
879,355 29,644 1,229,048 127,554 613,442 1,471,697 417,166 1,119,131 100: Cannabis Regulation 13 1 20 105 - 23 13 1
100: Community Services Department 74,235 1,901 85,248 6,347 109,529 103,064 26,746 84,995 100: Communtiy Development Department 81,788 2,281 72,212 7,377 58,670 117,051 32,096 91,915 100: Park & Recreation Division 50,715 1,110 32,632 3,752 19,724 46,980 15,625 29,534 100: Police Department 223,075 7,098 230,386 25,037 367,877 412,666 99,886 359,649 102: Measure Q-102-Various 101,146 3,881 247,701 26,059 - 193,269 54,611 147,432 103: Measure Q-103-Fire 63,148 2,517 102,397 10,282 28,142 154,951 35,415 140,652 104: General Fund II 240 17 359 76 - 1,108 237 1,049
202: COVID19 0 0 1 27 - 0 0 0
209: Measure I-2010/2040 20 1 43 2,147 - 35 19 3
210: Gas Tax- 0 0 0 13 - 0 0 0
215: CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant- 144 10 218 425 - 262 142 17 217: Grants-Reimbursable- 699 31 3,409 5,758 - 877 440 155 218: Grants-Prefunded 285 2 2,755 208 - 127 33 106
219: Public Safety COPS Program 833 35 4,352 323 - 996 493 193 225: Barstow Fire Protection District 94,144 3,358 137,401 12,528 - 193,799 47,253 167,978 605: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION 117,354 3,222 207,675 12,548 29,499 128,967 45,337 74,518 650: SOLID WASTE 71,518 4,180 102,239 14,542 - 117,520 58,821 20,934 Central Service Departments
26 Appendix B
Appendix B provides the table detailing the allocation performed in allocating central service costs for the full cost allocation plan. The methodology for the full plan is the same as for the OMB compliant plan, as it is the most reasonable and represents how indirect support is provided in the City. The difference between the two plans, as has been described in this report, is in the costs that can be allocated. 27 Cost Allocation Plan
Table B-1a: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP)
Department
100:
Administra
tive
Services HR
100:
Administra
tive
Services IT
100:
Building
Maintenanc
e Division
100:
Central
Services
100: City
Attorney
Division
100: City
Clerk
Division
100: City
Council
Division
776,101 893,647 828,304 146,460 595,237 20,384 83,991
100: Cannabis Regulation 1 4 0 4 9 0 1
100: Community Services Department 75,281 36,881 269,852 9,390 50,250 1,721 7,091 100: Communtiy Development Department 71,349 169,577 7,704 11,268 55,362 1,896 7,812 100: Park & Recreation Division 22,121 69,772 299,676 5,486 34,329 1,176 4,844 100: Police Department 255,715 261,591 30,880 35,068 151,000 5,171 21,307 102: Measure Q-102-Various 90,517 30,975 2,080 19,173 68,466 2,345 9,661 103: Measure Q-103-Fire 75,173 119,460 49,892 12,434 42,745 1,464 6,032 104: General Fund II 376 75 5 83 162 6 23
202: COVID19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
209: Measure I-2010/2040 2 6 0 7 14 0 2
210: Gas Tax- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
215: CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant- 13 42 3 50 97 3 14
217: Grants-Reimbursable- 124 278 18 154 473 16 67
218: Grants-Prefunded 85 156 10 11 193 7 27
219: Public Safety COPS Program 155 340 22 173 564 19 80 225: Barstow Fire Protection District 105,929 57,142 2,054 16,590 63,726 2,182 8,992 605: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION 62,365 111,427 164,625 15,917 79,437 2,720 11,209 650: SOLID WASTE 16,895 35,920 1,484 20,651 48,411 1,658 6,831 Central Service Departments
28 Cost Allocation Plan
Table B-1b: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP) - continued Department
100: City
Manager
Division-
100: City
Treasurer
Division
100:
Finance
Division
100:
FinanceDebt
Service
Division
100: Fleet
Maintenanc
e Division
100:
Insurance/
Risk
Manageme
nt Division
100:
Municipal
Records
Division
100:
Transfers &
Other
Total Allocation
879,355 29,644 1,229,048 127,554 613,442 1,986,732 417,166 1,119,131 9,746,196 100: Cannabis Regulation 13 1 20 105 - 31 13 1 203
100: Community Services Department 74,235 1,901 85,248 6,347 109,529 139,132 26,746 84,995 978,598 100: Communtiy Development Department 81,788 2,281 72,212 7,377 58,670 158,013 32,096 91,915 829,319 100: Park & Recreation Division 50,715 1,110 32,632 3,752 19,724 63,421 15,625 29,534 653,915 100: Police Department 223,075 7,098 230,386 25,037 367,877 557,083 99,886 359,649 2,630,823 102: Measure Q-102-Various 101,146 3,881 247,701 26,059 - 260,906 54,611 147,432 1,064,951 103: Measure Q-103-Fire 63,148 2,517 102,397 10,282 28,142 209,177 35,415 140,652 898,927 104: General Fund II 240 17 359 76 - 1,496 237 1,049 4,204 202: COVID19 0 0 1 27 - 1 0 0 29
209: Measure I-2010/2040 20 1 43 2,147 - 47 19 3 2,312
210: Gas Tax- 0 0 0 13 - 0 0 0 14
215: CDBG/Comm Dev Block Grant- 144 10 218 425 - 353 142 17 1,532 217: Grants-Reimbursable- 699 31 3,409 5,758 - 1,184 440 155 12,807 218: Grants-Prefunded 285 2 2,755 208 - 172 33 106 4,050 219: Public Safety COPS Program 833 35 4,352 323 - 1,345 493 193 8,927 225: Barstow Fire Protection District 94,144 3,358 137,401 12,528 - 261,621 47,253 167,978 980,898 605: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION 117,354 3,222 207,675 12,548 29,499 174,101 45,337 74,518 1,111,954 650: SOLID WASTE 71,518 4,180 102,239 14,542 - 158,648 58,821 20,934 562,732 Central Service Departments
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
800.755.6864 | Fax: 888.326.6864
951.587.3500 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com