City of Lake Elsinore
Cost Allocation Plan
August 29, 2024
i Cost Allocation Plan
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................... ii 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: Administration – Public Works .............................................................................................................. 11 Section 2: City Attorney ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Section 3: City Clerk ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Section 4: City Council ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Section 5: City Manager ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Section 6: Finance .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Section 7: Human Resources ................................................................................................................................. 15 Section 8: Non-Departmental ................................................................................................................................ 16 Iterative Allocation ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
ii 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-1: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) ................................................................... 19 Table A-2: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) .................................................................... 20 Table A-3: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) ......................................................................... 21 Table B-1: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP) ............................................................................................. 23
1 Cost Allocation Plan
Certification of Cost Allocation Plan
This is to certify that I have reviewed the cost all ocation plan submitted herewith and to the best of my knowledge and belief:
(1) All costs included in this proposal 9/9/2024 to establish cost allocations or billings for Fiscal Year 2024- 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 a nd the Federal awards to which they are allocated i n 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 Lake Elsinore
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 Lake Elsinore, California (the “City”) to determine the appropriate allocation of costs from central service departments to the operating departments. The prima ry 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 jo int purpose benefiting more than one cost objective, an d (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 appr opriately allocated to the operating departments, Willdan analyzed the City’s cost code structure to determine which types of 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. Internal Service allocations to t he operating departments are not included in the total central service allocation column below and as such are not included in the indirect cost rates listed.
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 2024-2025
Direct Cost Base
Operating Department / Division / Fund Total Allocat ion Modified Total Direct
Cost
Indirect Cost
Rate
$12,786,442 $69,475,621 18%
100: ANIMAL CONTROL $34,484 $991,490 3%
100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $2,023,578 $7,276,870 28%
100: COMMUNITY SERVICES $1,173,286 $5,643,040 21%
100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT $253,400 $604,260 42%
100: EMERGENCY SERVICES $55,257 $431,460 13%
100: ENGINEERING $2,526,925 $4,133,950 61%
100: FIRE SERVICES $509,350 $13,031,350 4%
100: LAKE MAINTENANCE $621,798 $1,362,060 46%
100: PUBLIC SAFETY $630,392 $19,531,030 3%
100: PUBLIC WORKS $2,038,279 $4,031,600 51%
103: THE ANCHOR $435,656 $1,020,980 43%
105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS $2,175 $21,355 10%
106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING $1,537 $50,000 3%
107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT $75 $0
108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN $0 $0
109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT (SB1) $165 $ 0 110: GAS TAX $280,797 $622,000 45%
111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATON $0 $0
112: MEASURE A $150 $0
113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK $15 $0
114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROGRAM $45,255 $1,100 4114 % 116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES DIF $135 $0
117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES DIF $135 $0
118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF $135 $0
119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF $150 $0
121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM $0 $0
130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE $799,876 $1,863,250 43% 135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1 $391,945 $799,083 49% 140: GEOTHERMAL WELL $432 $14,339 3%
150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT $874 $29,000 3 % 155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM $130,829 $285,952 46% 160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMENT GRANT $60 $0
180: LAUNCH POINTE $478,548 $5,712,095 8%
203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEE $0 $0
205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE $165 $0
211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P. $45 $0
221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C.I.P. $30 $0
231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF $181 $0
232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF $135 $0
500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN $214,210 $0
510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III $56,000 $1,615,000 3%
540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM $15,810 $0
605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU $15 $0
606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION $3,306 $6,000 55%
617: HOUSING $6,678 $220,000 3%
631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $43,234 $103,977 42% 650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES $2,49 2 $29,880 8% 651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES $1,861 $9,430 20% 652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES $1,8 59 $9,390 20% 653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPACE,STREET LIGHT SERVICES $2,018 $14,140 14% 655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES $2,70 5 $11,540 23%
4 Cost Allocation Plan
Table 2: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (Full CAP)
Allocated Cost Summary Fiscal Year 2024-2025
Direct Cost Base
Operating Department / Division / Fund Total Allocat ion Modified Total Direct
Cost
Indirect Cost
Rate
$13,209,212 $69,475,621 19%
100: ANIMAL CONTROL $37,160 $991,490 4%
100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $2,095,830 $7,276,870 29%
100: COMMUNITY SERVICES $1,233,642 $5,643,040 22%
100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT $260,420 $604,260 43%
100: EMERGENCY SERVICES $58,855 $431,460 14%
100: ENGINEERING $2,581,421 $4,133,950 62%
100: FIRE SERVICES $547,666 $13,031,350 4%
100: LAKE MAINTENANCE $632,751 $1,362,060 46%
100: PUBLIC SAFETY $683,375 $19,531,030 3%
100: PUBLIC WORKS $2,087,843 $4,031,600 52%
103: THE ANCHOR $442,239 $1,020,980 43%
105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS $2,255 $21,355 11%
106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING $1,669 $50,000 3%
107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT $76 $0
108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN $0 $0
109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT (SB1) $168 $ 0 110: GAS TAX $285,046 $622,000 46%
111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATON $0 $0
112: MEASURE A $153 $0
113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK $15 $0
114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROGRAM $45,955 $1,100 4178 % 116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES DIF $137 $0
117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES DIF $137 $0
118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF $137 $0
119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF $153 $0
121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM $0 $0
130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE $811,965 $1,863,250 44% 135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1 $397,886 $799,083 50% 140: GEOTHERMAL WELL $470 $14,339 3%
150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT $950 $29,000 3 % 155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM $132,809 $285,952 46% 160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMENT GRANT $61 $0
180: LAUNCH POINTE $507,694 $5,712,095 9%
203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEE $0 $0
205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE $168 $0
211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P. $46 $0
221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C.I.P. $31 $0
231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF $183 $0
232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF $137 $0
500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN $217,522 $0
510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III $60,355 $1,615,000 4%
540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM $16,054 $0
605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU $15 $0
606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION $3,356 $6,000 56%
617: HOUSING $7,256 $220,000 3%
631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $43,887 $103,977 42% 650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES $2,59 5 $29,880 9% 651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES $1,910 $9,430 20% 652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES $1,9 08 $9,390 20% 653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPACE,STREET LIGHT SERVICES $2,079 $14,140 15% 655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES $2,77 2 $11,540 24%
5 Cost Allocation Plan
Introduction
In the early 1970s, the cost allocation plan concep t was introduced to many government agencies. The purpose of a typical cost allocation plan is to ide ntify costs related to rendering internal central s upport 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 th eir 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 Human Resources, C ity Manager, Finance, and City Council. Within thes e groups there are numerous functions performed that provide support to the direct cost centers. The direct cost centers, or departments and funds, that requir e support from Central Services and provide service s directly to the community through their day-to-day operations, are called operating departments. Examples of operating departments are Public Safety, Public Works, Community Development, and Community Services. The cost allocation plan allocates the co sts of the central services to the operating depart ments based on the nature of the functions of each centra l service, upon which the operating departments depend. This is done to determine the total cost as sociated with providing direct services. The overall goal of the cost allocation plan process is to allow cit ies to allocate a portion of the central service co sts 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 associat ed 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 sup port to the operating departments is determined in order to perform allocations in a manner consistent with the nature of that Indirect Service. This ens ures 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 servi ce 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 o r City function. This basis is then used to distrib ute costs that reasonably relate to the activity or City func tion that the basis represents. Some examples of distribution bases are salary and benefits costs, n umber of full-time equivalent employees, frequencie s of City council agenda items, and number of processed transactions. The data sets associated with these distribution bases for each department are 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 wi dely considered to be the most accurate. The iterat ive method utilizes a recursive application of central service cost distribution to allocate indirect cost s. 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 s ervices are utilized. This is repeated ad infinitum until all costs have been distributed to the operating de partments, and none remain with the central service departments.
As an example, consider the allocation of central s ervice costs associated with Human Resources. The function of Human Resources is identified, and the appropriate distribution basis is determined to be the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel and total salaries and benefits per department and fund .
The allowable costs are then distributed to all City departments and funds based on their proportional share of FTE’s and salaries and benefits, including other central services. The costs allocated from central service to central service in the initial allocation are th en allocated out using the same distribution method ology.
This function is performed as many times as necessa ry until all costs for Human Resources have been allocated.
All central service departments are treated equally . That is to say, this method is performed concurre ntly 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 allo cated 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 feder al 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 de termining 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 onl y identify the portion of central service costs tha t have not been reimbursed through other means (such as gr ants, 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, presen ted in text and tables in the below sections and in Append ix 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. Un less otherwise indicated, the details of this repor t and Appendix A contain the OMB compliant allocation plan. The Appendix B tables contain the full cost plan and utilizes the same distribution methodology as the OMB Compliant plan. While the overall methodology used for both plans is the same, there are specific guid elines that require additional cost exemptions for OMB Super Circular compliance outside of what was done for the full cost plan. Where such exemptions are done in the methodology has been explained below. Some c ommonly 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
Eight (8) central service functions were identified for the purposes of this cost allocation plan:
Administration – Public Works
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Council
City Manager
Finance
Human Resources
Non-departmental
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. Number of FTE Employees – The number of full-time equivalent personnel for each department and fund.
Modified Total Direct Cost – The total allowable expenditures budgeted for each department and fund for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 which excludes capital and debt., and non-operational transfers. 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 Receipts – The total number of receipts processed for each department and fund for a year. Total PO’s – The total number of purchase orders processed for each department and fund for a year.
Total Requisitions – The total number of requisitions processed for each department and fund for a year.
Total Salary and Benefits – The total salary and benefit expenditures for each department and fund for the fiscal year.
10 Cost Allocation Plan
Allocable Costs and Distribution Bases
Allocable Costs
Table 3 identifies the allocable cost of each centr al service department for the OMB compliant allocat ion plan, with the total allocable costs for this study being $12,786,442. The total expenditures from the central service departments were $13,918,690. However, $1,132,248 of the expenditures identified as unallowable by the 200 CFR Part 200 and have been excluded from allocation for the OMB compliant plan. The primary exclusions were related to the City Council, contri bution to other funds costs, the lobbyist and lobby ing organizations, external advertising, and 5% exclusion for fee activity as detailed in the methodology below.
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 th e 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 Yea r 2024-2025 Total Cost
Unallocable
Cost Allocable Cost
Summary 13,918,690 $ 1,132,248 $ 12,786,442 $
Central Service
100: ADMINISTRATION - PUBLIC W 4,808,110 - 4,808,110 100: CITY ATTORNEY 675,190 - 675,190 100: CITY CLERK 1,095,020 54,751 1, 040,269 100: CITY COUNCIL 354,770 354,770 - 100: CITY MANAGER 1,333,230 97,412 1,235,819 100: FINANCE 1,666,310 83,316 1,582 ,995 100: HUMAN RESOURCES 790,530 - 790,530 100: NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,195,530 542,000 2,653,530
11 Cost Allocation Plan
Central Service Allocation Methodology
The first step of the iterative allocation method i s to distribute the allocable costs of the central service departments to other central service departments an d operating departments based on the distribution methodology and bases that best represent the activ ity of the central service, and the functions it se rves.
The sections below describe each central service an d the methodology used to allocate their costs.
Corresponding tables detailing each distribution ar e 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: Administration – Public Works
The mission of the Public Works Department is to provide high-quality, responsive and cost-effective engineering and operational services that support current and future infrastructure and circulation improvements, public safety, and environmental assets within the City of Lake Elsinore. This is accomplished through oversight of private and public improvement projects, maintenance of the City’s public roadways and bike lanes, street lighting, traffic systems, sidewalks, public landscaping, graffiti control, and drainage facilities, implementation and regulation of water quality, pollution prevention and flood damage prevention measures designed for the protection of life, property, water courses and lake in the City. The measures include enforcement of higher construction standards, street sweeping, solid waste management, and recycling programs, public emergency response training, and responding to and aiding in recovery from earthquakes, storms and other emergencies. The Department provides a broad base of services through its six divisions: Administration, Streets, Parks and Streetscape, Lake Operations, Facilities, and Fleet. Each staff member is assigned to a specific division and corresponding supervisor.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Pub lic Works Administration 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 of each department and funds that Public Works Administration supports.
Section 2: City Attorney
The mission of the City Attorney’s Office is to pro vide the City with the highest quality, responsive and preventative legal services and to identify legal o ptions and strategies for implementing and achievin g the City Council’s goals, objectives and policies.
The City Attorney’s office provides a wide range of professional legal services from complex and sophisticated transactions and litigation to general matters of municipal law, including open meeting laws, conflicts of interest, public records, public contr acts, election laws, planning and zoning, water and 100: ADMINISTRATION - PUBLIC W
PW Admin MTDC 100%
12 Cost Allocation Plan
environmental laws, mining laws and redevelopment d issolution. The City Attorney’s Office strives to provide effective analysis and preparation/review o f resolutions, ordinances, contracts and other lega l documents necessary to accomplish the City’s municipal functions and City Council goals.
The City Attorney is appointed by the Lake Elsinore City Council. The City Attorney serves as legal advisor to the City Council, Successor Agency, City commission s, City Manager, City Clerk and City Departments. C ity Attorney services are performed under contract with the law firm of Leibold McClendon & Mann.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Cit y Attorney, it is reasonable to distribute the allo cable cost by using the method(s) described below.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated b ased on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated b ased on the total number of 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 3: City Clerk
The City Clerk compiles and maintains the official records of the City, making them readily accessible and ensuring transparency to the public. Appointed by the City Manager, the City Clerk is the local official who administers democratic processes by conducting fair and impartial municipal elections. Additionally, the City Clerk acts as the Compliance Officer for Federal, State and local statutes and prepares, certifies and/or adheres to public notice requirements with regard to legal documents, ordinances, resolutions, and public hearings. The City Clerk's department also codifies and disseminates the City's Municipal code, promotes public awareness of government processes, provides meeting, administrative, and legislative support to the Mayor, City Council Members, and Commissioners, and arranges for both ceremonial and official functions.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Cit y Clerk, it is reasonable to distribute the allocab le cost by using the method(s) described below.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated b ased on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
100: CITY ATTORNEY
Total FTE's 33%
Total Agendas 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
13 Cost Allocation Plan
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated b ased on the total number of 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 4: City Council
The City Council is elected by the voters of Lake E lsinore to establish and adopt overall policies, le gislative and otherwise, to give direction to the City Manager, to ensure effective and efficient operation of the City, and to identify the types and levels of programs and services to be provided to its residents. The Mayor and City Council serve to provide an overall quality of life in the City of Lake Elsinore by enhancing sec urity, recreation, and neighborhoods, delivering quality p ublic services, preserving and enhancing the City’s economic prosperity, and embracing the diversity of the citizens.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Council, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated b ased on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated b ased on the total number of 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 the City Council are not allocated to ensure OMB compliance.
100: CITY CLERK
Total FTE's 33%
Total Agendas 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
100: CITY COUNCIL
Total FTE's 33%
Total Agendas 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
14 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 5: City Manager
The City Manager is appointed by the City Council t o serve as the Chief Administrative Officer of the organization. The City Manager’s Office coordinates the implementation of policy and programs established by the City Council. The City Manager provides overall direction to the administration of City programs and services; coordinates economic development and mark eting activities; intergovernmental relations, lobbying, and public relations efforts; oversees in terdepartmental programs for strategic planning, emergency preparedness and animal control. The City Manager’s Office is committed to the policy of providing extreme customer services to the community and promoting overall safety to the staff and citizens of Lake Elsinore.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Cit y Manager’s Office, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated b ased on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated b ased on the total number of 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: Finance
The Finance Division develops fiscal policies to en sure a financially strong City government, provides finance- based services and facilitates growth in the City through the effective and efficient management of resources and processes.
The Finance Division administers the financial and treasury affairs of the City of Lake Elsinore. It s erves as an indispensable partner on topics requiring economic, financial and fiduciary inputs and expertise. As such, the division provides the City's departments and residents with dependable and efficient quality services in Cash Management, Accounting and Financial Reporting , Procurement, Grants and Contracts, as well as its internal and external audit partners.
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 all ocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
100: CITY MANAGER
Total FTE's 33%
Total Agendas 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
15 Cost Allocation Plan
Forty percent (40%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
Twenty percent (20%) of the allocable cost was allo cated based on the total number of purchase orders processed for each department and fund.
Fifteen percent (15%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of requisitions processed for each department and fund.
Ten percent (10%) of the allocable cost was allocat ed based on the total number of receipts processed for each department and fund.
Section 7: Human Resources
The Human Resources division is part of the Adminis trative Services Department, which also includes th e Finance Division. Its focus is on meeting the perso nnel and support needs of the City, according to al l applicable employment standards and labor laws. The goal of the division is to develop and manage a diverse and skilled workforce.
The division functions include recruitment, benefits, job descriptions, salary surveys, training, performance evaluations and labor relations. The division serves both the City’s employees and prospective employees.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Hum an Resources Division, it is reasonable to distribu te the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund.
Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of salaries and benefits for each department and fund.
100: FINANCE
Total FTE's 15%
Modified Total Direct Cost 40%
Total PO 20%
Total Requistions 15%
Total Receipts 10%
100: HUMAN RESOURCES
Total FTE's 50%
Total Salaries and Benefits 50%
16 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 8: Non-Departmental
The Non-Departmental Division is a cost center for general administrative expenditures such as CalPERS Replacement Benefit, County Property Tax Administration Fees, and various Trustee Fees and Costs. It also reflects the Debt Service payment for the 2013 Recreation Authority Lease Revenue Bonds.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Non -Departmental Division, it is reasonable to distrib ute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below based on what the budgeted expenditures support.
Three percent (3%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
Ninety seven percent (97%) of the allocable cost wa s allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents of each department and funds in City Hall.
100: NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Modified Total Direct Cost 3%
City Hall Department FTE's 97%
17 Cost Allocation Plan
Iterative Allocation
The total allocable expenditures of each central se rvice department were allocated to other department s (including both operating departments and other cen tral service departments) based on the individual methodologies outlined above in Sections 1 through 8 of the Allocation Percentages chapter. Any cost allocated from central service to central service i s then reallocated using the same methodology. This operation is done iteratively until all allocable c osts are received by the operating departments and funds, and none remain with the central services. After co mpletion of the iterative allocation method, a tota l combined allocable cost of $12,786,442 was distribu ted to all departments and funds until the allocabl e 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 ful l 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 methodo logy, all allocable central service costs have been distributed to the operating departments and funds. Table 1 in the Executive Summary of this report summarized the distribution of the total allocable cost of $12,786,442 to each recipient department for the OMB compliant CAP. Table 2 summarized the distribution of the total allocable cost of $13,209,212 to each recipient department for the full cost CAP.
18 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.
19 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-1: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP)
First Iteration
Central Service/Operating Departments
100:
ADMINISTRATION -
PUBLIC W
100: CITY
ATTORNEY
100: CITY
CLERK
100: CITY
COUNCIL
100: CITY
MANAGER
100:
FINANCE
100:
HUMAN
RESOURCES
100: NON-
DEPARTMENTAL
100: ADMINISTRATION - PUBLIC W 0.0% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 4 .9% 13.1% 0.2% 100: CITY ATTORNEY 0.0% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100: CITY CLERK 0.0% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 1.6% 2.3% 3.0% 100: CITY COUNCIL 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.9% 1.8% 5.0% 100: CITY MANAGER 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 1.9% 3.9% 4.0% 100: FINANCE 0.0% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 4.3% 6.1% 10.7%
100: HUMAN RESOURCES 0.0% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 1.2% 2.7% 4.7 % 100: NON-DEPARTMENTAL 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2.5% 0.0% 0. 0% 100: ANIMAL CONTROL 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0.0% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 9 .4% 21.5% 37.1% 100: COMMUNITY SERVICES 0.0% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 8.6% 18.6% 11.1% 100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.7% 2.5% 5 .0% 100: EMERGENCY SERVICES 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 0.0% 100: ENGINEERING 29.1% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 4.4% 10.1% 15.1% 100: FIRE SERVICES 0.0% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 7.5% 0.6% 2.5% 100: LAKE MAINTENANCE 9.6% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.7% 1.3% 0. 1% 100: PUBLIC SAFETY 0.0% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 11.0% 0.0% 0.8% 100: PUBLIC WORKS 28.3% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 5.4% 7.6% 0.2% 103: THE ANCHOR 7.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0. 0% 0.0% 108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0. 0% 0.0% 109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT (SB1) 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 110: GAS TAX 4.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%
111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATON 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 112: MEASURE A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROGRAM 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE 13.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 2.0% 0.0% 0.1% 135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1 5.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 140: GEOTHERMAL WELL 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0. 0% 150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 2.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMENT GRANT 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 180: LAUNCH POINTE 0.0% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 8.4% 7.0% 0.2% 203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C.I.P. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9. 2% 0.0% 0.0% 510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 1. 1% 0.0% 0.1% 540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 617: HOUSING 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 0.7% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPACE,STREET LIGHT SERVICES 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Central Service Departments
20 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-2: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP)
Central Service/Operating Departments
100:
ADMINISTRATION -
PUBLIC W
100: CITY
ATTORNEY
100: CITY
CLERK
100: CITY
COUNCIL
100: CITY
MANAGER
100:
FINANCE
100: HUMAN
RESOURCES
100: NON-
DEPARTMENTAL
100: ADMINISTRATION - PUBLIC W 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: CITY ATTORNEY 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: CITY CLERK 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: CITY COUNCIL 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: CITY MANAGER 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: FINANCE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100: HUMAN RESOURCES 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 100: NON-DEPARTMENTAL 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0. 0% 100: ANIMAL CONTROL 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.1% 0.2% 100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0.0% 17.9% 17.9% 17.9% 17.9% 1 2.4% 24.4% 41.7% 100: COMMUNITY SERVICES 0.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 10.6 % 21.0% 15.0% 100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT 0.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 2.8% 5 .6% 100: EMERGENCY SERVICES 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.1% 0.3% 100: ENGINEERING 29.1% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 7.6% 15.9% 1 8.3% 100: FIRE SERVICES 0.0% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 8.5% 1.8% 4.5% 100: LAKE MAINTENANCE 9.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 3.0% 0. 8% 100: PUBLIC SAFETY 0.0% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 12.3% 1.7% 3.6% 100: PUBLIC WORKS 28.3% 12.2% 12.2% 12.2% 12.2% 8.1% 13.1% 3.2% 103: THE ANCHOR 7.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.2% 0.5% 105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0. 0% 0.0% 108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0. 0% 0.0% 109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT (SB1) 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 110: GAS TAX 4.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.6% 0.8% 0.4%
111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATON 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 112: MEASURE A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROGRAM 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0 .2% 2.0% 0.1% 0.2% 116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE 13.1% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 3.0% 2.2% 0.9% 135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1 5.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 3.5% 1.1% 0.6% 140: GEOTHERMAL WELL 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0. 0% 150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 2.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% 160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMENT GRANT 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 180: LAUNCH POINTE 0.0% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 9.3% 8.3% 2.4% 203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C.I.P. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 9. 7% 0.7% 1.2% 510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1. 2% 0.2% 0.3% 540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 617: HOUSING 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 0.7% 0.2 % 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPACE,STREET LIGHT SERVICES 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Central Service Departments
21 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-3: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP)
Department Classification Department 100: ADMINISTRATION -
PUBLIC W
100: CITY
ATTORNEY
100: CITY
CLERK
100: CITY
COUNCIL
100: CITY
MANAGER 100: FINANCE 100: HUMAN
RESOURCES
100: NON-
DEPARTMENTAL
Total
Allocation
4,808,110 675,190 1,040,269 0 1,235,819 1,582,995 790,530 2,653,530 12,786,442 Operating Department 100: ANIMAL CONTROL - 3,775 5,816 - 6,909 12,068 741 5,175 34,484 Operating Department 100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - 120,920 186,302 - 22 1,323 195,829 192,712 1,106,491 2,023,578 Operating Department 100: COMMUNITY SERVICES - 101,095 155,758 - 185,0 38 167,583 166,325 397,487 1,173,286 Operating Department 100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT - 11,853 18,262 - 21,69 5 32,144 22,079 147,367 253,400 Operating Department 100: EMERGENCY SERVICES - 5,924 9,127 - 10 ,843 13,797 8,479 7,088 55,257 Operating Department 100: ENGINEERING 1,396,806 91,000 140,203 - 166,559 120, 808 125,363 486,186 2,526,925 Operating Department 100: FIRE SERVICES - 55,237 85,104 - 101,101 133,868 14,314 119,726 509,350 Operating Department 100: LAKE MAINTENANCE 460,222 17,558 27,052 - 32,137 39,613 24,004 21,212 621,798 Operating Department 100: PUBLIC SAFETY - 74,907 115,410 - 137,105 195,236 13,322 94,412 630,392 Operating Department 100: PUBLIC WORKS 1,362,224 82,195 126,639 - 150,444 128 ,713 103,765 84,299 2,038,279 Operating Department 103: THE ANCHOR 344,975 10,302 15,872 - 18,855 24,0 79 9,381 12,192 435 ,656 Operating Department 105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS - 119 184 - 219 1,283 51 318 2,175 Operating Department 106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 185 285 - 3 39 465 32 232 1,537 Operating Department 107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT - 2 3 - 4 54 2 11 75 Operating Department 108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN - - - - - - - - - Operating Department 109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILIT ATION ACT (SB1) - 4 7 - 8 118 4 24 165 Operating Department 110: GAS TAX 210,165 6,686 10,301 - 12,237 25,66 4 6,096 9,647 280 ,797 Operating Department 111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MIT IGATON - - - - - - - - - Operating Department 112: MEASURE A - 4 6 - 7 107 4 22 150 Operating Department 113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK - 0 1 - 1 11 0 2 15 Operating Department 114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROG RAM 372 1,204 1,855 - 2,204 32,026 1,121 6, 474 45,255 Operating Department 116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FAC ILITIES DIF - 4 6 - 7 97 3 20 135 Operating Department 117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIE S DIF - 4 6 - 7 97 3 20 135 Operating Department 118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF - 4 6 - 7 97 3 20 135 Operating Department 119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF - 4 6 - 7 107 4 22 150 Operating Department 121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PRO GRAM - - - - - - - - - Operating Department 130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINT ENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE 629,567 18 ,929 29,163 - 34,645 47,388 17, 239 22,945 799,876 Operating Department 135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINT ENANCE DIST - NO. 1 269,999 9,42 1 14,514 - 17,243 55,267 8,60 6 16,895 391,945 Operating Department 140: GEOTHERMAL WELL - 53 81 - 9 7 127 9 65 432 Operating Department 150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOC K GRANT - 107 165 - 196 257 18 132 874 Operating Department 155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHAR GE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 96,619 3, 120 4,807 - 5,711 13,040 2,846 4,686 130,829 Operating Department 160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMEN T GRANT - 2 2 - 3 43 1 9 60 Operating Department 180: LAUNCH POINTE - 45,870 70,672 - 83,957 147,548 65,677 64,825 478,548 Operating Department 203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC IN FRASTRUCTURE FEE - - - - - - - - - Operating Department 205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE - 4 7 - 8 118 4 2 4 165 Operating Department 211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P. - 1 2 - 2 32 1 7 45 Operating Department 221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C .I.P. - 1 1 - 1 21 1 4 30 Operating Department 231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF - 5 7 - 9 129 4 26 181 Operating Department 232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF - 4 6 - 7 97 3 20 135 Operating Department 500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - 5,706 8,792 - 10,445 153,054 5,312 30,901 214,210 Operating Department 510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III - 6,144 9,467 - 11,246 19,535 1,202 8,405 56,000 Operating Department 540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM - 421 649 - 771 11,296 392 2,281 15,810 Operating Department 605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU - 0 1 - 1 11 0 2 15 Operating Department 606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCT ION 2,027 80 124 - 147 674 74 179 3,306 Operating Department 617: HOUSING - 812 1,251 - 1,486 1, 982 140 1,008 6,678 Operating Department 631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 35,132 1,019 1,570 - 1,865 1,643 927 1,078 43,234 Operating Department 650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARA MEDIC SERVICES - 152 235 - 279 1,402 58 366 2,492 Operating Department 651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPA CE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES - 77 118 - 140 1,210 45 270 1, 861 Operating Department 652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PAR AMEDIC SERVICES - 77 118 - 140 1,209 4 5 270 1,859 Operating Department 653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPAC E,STREET LIGHT SERVICES - 94 146 - 173 1,262 48 294 2,0 18 Operating Department 655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PAR AMEDIC SERVICES - 105 162 - 193 1,786 66 393 2,705 Central Service Departments Central Service Departme nts
22 Cost Allocation Plan
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 reasonable and represents how indirect suppor t 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.
23 Cost Allocation Plan
Table B-1: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP)
Department Classification Department 100: ADMINISTRATION -
PUBLIC W
100: CITY
ATTORNEY
100: CITY
CLERK
100: CITY
COUNCIL
100: CITY
MANAGER 100: FINANCE 100: HUMAN
RESOURCES
100: NON-
DEPARTMENTAL
Total
Allocation
4,808,110 675,190 1,040,269 354,770 1,261,819 1,582,995 790,530 2,695,530 13,209,212 Operating Department 100: ANIMAL CONTROL - 3,775 5,817 1,984 7,055 12,075 741 5,713 37,160 Operating Department 100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - 120,910 186,287 63,531 22 5,961 195,623 192,704 1,110,813 2,095,830 Operating Department 100: COMMUNITY SERVICES - 101,093 155,755 53,118 188,9 26 167,538 166,324 400,888 1,233,642 Operating Department 100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT - 11,852 18,260 6,227 22,1 49 32,113 22,078 147,741 260,420 Operating Department 100: EMERGENCY SERVICES - 5,924 9,127 3,113 1 1,071 13,799 8,479 7,342 58,855 Operating Department 100: ENGINEERING 1,396,806 90,996 140,198 47,813 170,057 120, 738 125,361 489,452 2,581,421 Operating Department 100: FIRE SERVICES - 55,241 85,110 29,025 103,236 133,949 14,317 126,789 547,666 Operating Department 100: LAKE MAINTENANCE 460,222 17,559 27,053 9,226 32,814 39,623 24,005 22,249 632,751 Operating Department 100: PUBLIC SAFETY - 74,914 115,421 39,363 140,002 195,377 13,327 104,971 683,375 Operating Department 100: PUBLIC WORKS 1,362,224 82,197 126,641 43,189 153,612 128 ,742 103,766 87,473 2,087,843 Operating Department 103: THE ANCHOR 344,975 10,302 15,872 5,413 19,253 24, 088 9,381 12,954 44 2,239 Operating Department 105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS - 119 184 63 223 1,283 51 330 2,255 Operating Department 106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 185 285 97 346 465 32 259 1,669 Operating Department 107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT - 2 3 1 4 54 2 11 76 Operating Department 108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN - - - - - - - - - Operating Department 109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILIT ATION ACT (SB1) - 4 7 2 8 118 4 24 168 Operating Department 110: GAS TAX 210,165 6,686 10,301 3,513 12,495 25,6 69 6,097 10,119 285 ,046 Operating Department 111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MIT IGATON - - - - - - - - - Operating Department 112: MEASURE A - 4 6 2 7 107 4 22 153 Operating Department 113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK - 0 1 0 1 11 0 2 15 Operating Department 114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROG RAM 372 1,204 1,855 633 2,250 32,024 1,121 6,496 45,955 Operating Department 116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FAC ILITIES DIF - 4 6 2 7 97 3 20 137 Operating Department 117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIE S DIF - 4 6 2 7 97 3 20 137 Operating Department 118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF - 4 6 2 7 97 3 20 137 Operating Department 119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF - 4 6 2 7 107 4 22 153 Operating Department 121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PRO GRAM - - - - - - - - - Operating Department 130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINT ENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE 629,567 18 ,929 29,164 9,946 35,376 47,404 17 ,239 24,338 811,965 Operating Department 135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINT ENANCE DIST - NO. 1 269,999 9,42 1 14,515 4,950 17,606 55,272 8,6 06 17,516 397,886 Operating Department 140: GEOTHERMAL WELL - 53 81 28 99 127 9 73 470 Operating Department 150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOC K GRANT - 107 165 56 200 257 18 148 950 Operating Department 155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHAR GE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 96,619 3, 120 4,807 1,639 5,831 13,043 2,846 4,903 132,809 Operating Department 160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMEN T GRANT - 2 2 1 3 43 1 9 61 Operating Department 180: LAUNCH POINTE - 45,871 70,674 24,103 85,726 147,582 65,679 68,058 507,694 Operating Department 203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC IN FRASTRUCTURE FEE - - - - - - - - - Operating Department 205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE - 4 7 2 8 118 4 24 168 Operating Department 211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P. - 1 2 1 2 32 1 7 46 Operating Department 221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C .I.P. - 1 1 0 1 21 1 4 31 Operating Department 231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF - 5 7 3 9 129 4 26 183 Operating Department 232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF - 4 6 2 7 97 3 20 137 Operating Department 500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - 5,706 8,791 2,99 8 10,664 153,048 5,312 31,003 217,522 Operating Department 510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III - 6,145 9,468 3,22 9 11,484 19,547 1,203 9,280 60,355 Operating Department 540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM - 421 649 221 787 11,296 392 2,288 16,054 Operating Department 605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU - 0 1 0 1 11 0 2 15 Operating Department 606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCT ION 2,027 80 124 42 150 674 74 184 3,356 Operating Department 617: HOUSING - 812 1,251 427 1,517 1,983 140 1,127 7,256 Operating Department 631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 35,132 1,019 1,570 535 1,904 1,643 927 1,155 43,887 Operating Department 650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARA MEDIC SERVICES - 152 235 80 285 1,402 58 382 2,595 Operating Department 651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPA CE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES - 77 118 40 143 1,210 45 276 1,910 Operating Department 652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PAR AMEDIC SERVICES - 77 118 40 143 1,210 45 276 1,908 Operating Department 653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPAC E,STREET LIGHT SERVICES - 94 146 50 177 1,262 48 302 2,079 Operating Department 655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PAR AMEDIC SERVICES - 105 162 55 197 1,786 66 400 2,772 Central Service Departments Central Service Departments
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-4856
800.755.6864 | Fax: 888.326.6864
951.587.3500 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com