City of
Manhattan Beach
Cost Allocation Plan
FINAL REPORT
APRIL 2025
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: Accounting ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Section 2: City Attorney ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Section 3: City Clerk ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Section 4: City Council ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Section 5: City Manager ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Section 6: City Treasurer ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Section 7: Civic Engagement .................................................................................................................................. 15 Section 8: Community Development Administration ............................................................................................ 16 Section 9: Finance Administration ......................................................................................................................... 17 Section 10: Fire Administration ..................... ........................................................................................................ 17 Section 11: Human Resources ............................................................................................................................... 18 Section 12: Parking Citations ................................................................................................................................. 18 Section 13: Parks and Recreation Administration...... ............................................................................................ 18 Section 14: Police Administration .......................................................................................................................... 19 Section 15: Public Works Administration ............................................................................................................... 19 Section 16: Purchasing ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Section 17: Revenue Services ................................................................................................................................ 21 Section 18: Utility Billing ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Section 19: Depreciation ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Iterative Allocation ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
ii Cost Allocation Plan
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
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) ................................................................. 25 Table A-1b: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) - continued .............................................. 26 Table A-2a: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) .................................................................. 27 Table A-2b: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) – continued .............................................. 28 Table A-3a: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) ....................................................................... 29 Table A-3b: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) – continued ................................................... 30 Table B-1a: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP)............................................................................................ 32 Table B-1b: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP) – continued ........................................................................ 33
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 3/10/2025 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 Manhattan Beach
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 Manhattan Beach, California (the “City”) to dete rmine the appropriate allocation of costs from cent ral service departments to the operating departments. T he primary objective is to allocate costs from departments that provide services internally to ope rating 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 t he cost objectives specifically benefitted, without ef fort 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 Allocation Modified Total Direct
Cost
Indirect Cost
Rate
$28,873,759 $82,633,232 35%
100: Business Licensing $17,894 $136,696 13%
100: Community Development $1,899,540 $6,945,349 27%
100: Fire $5,382,665 $12,075,666 45%
100: Parks and Recreation $3,488,041 $7,275,018 48%
100: Police $12,033,667 $26,563,263 45%
100: Public Works $1,904,983 $8,762,509 22%
201: Street Lighting & Landscape Fu $58,352 $607,364 10% 205: Gas Tax Fund $53,152 $0
210: Asset Forfeiture Fund $2,421 $78,000 3%
211: Police Safety Grants Fund $9,826 $215,000 5%
220: Grants Fund $66,437 $0
230: Prop. A Fund $74,768 $741,634 10%
231: Prop. C Fund $34,437 $0
232: AB 2766 Air Quality Fund $611 $0
233: Measure R $24,723 $0
234: Measure M $99,923 $0
240: Measure W $11,818 $0
401: Capital Improvement Fund $94,574 $0
501: Water Fund $2,021,630 $13,391,830 15%
502: Storm Drain Fund $241,643 $1,495,912 16%
503: Sewer Fund $609,028 $1,789,854 34%
520: Parking Fund $553,744 $1,774,444 31%
521: County Parking Lots Fund $71,723 $243,444 29%
522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun $118,159 $537,249 22%
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 Allocation
Modified Total Direct
Cost
Indirect Cost
Rate
$35,994,782 $82,830,934 43%
100: Business Licensing $22,724 $136,696 17%
100: Community Development $2,382,192 $6,945,349 34%
100: Fire $6,963,860 $12,075,666 58%
100: Parks and Recreation $3,853,601 $7,275,018 53%
100: Police $15,808,183 $26,563,263 60%
100: Public Works $2,240,005 $8,762,509 26%
201: Street Lighting & Landscape Fu $67,805 $607,364 11% 205: Gas Tax Fund $55,350 $0
210: Asset Forfeiture Fund $3,105 $78,000 4%
211: Police Safety Grants Fund $11,775 $215,000 5%
220: Grants Fund $68,485 $0
230: Prop. A Fund $88,823 $769,417 12%
231: Prop. C Fund $36,825 $0
232: AB 2766 Air Quality Fund $631 $0
233: Measure R $26,035 $0
234: Measure M $103,958 $0
240: Measure W $12,378 $0
401: Capital Improvement Fund $99,403 $0
501: Water Fund $2,348,499 $13,482,702 17%
502: Storm Drain Fund $282,280 $1,508,618 19%
503: Sewer Fund $692,513 $1,831,055 38%
520: Parking Fund $610,228 $1,790,634 34%
521: County Parking Lots Fund $82,801 $248,543 33%
522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun $133,325 $541,100 25%
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, Accounting, 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 Police, Publi c Works, Community Development, and Parks and Recreation. The cost allocation plan allocates the costs of the central services to the operating departments 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 the City Treasurer. Th e function of the City Treasurer is identified, and t he reasonable distribution basis is determined to b e the total revenues per department and fund. The allowab le costs are then distributed to all City departmen ts and funds based on their proportional share of reve nues, including other central services. The costs allocated from central service to central service in the initial allocation are then allocated out using the same distribution methodology. This function is performed as many times as necessary until all costs for the City Treasurer 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
Nineteen (19) central service functions were identified for the purposes of this cost allocation plan:
Accounting
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Council
City Manager
City Treasurer
Civic Engagement
Community Development Administration
Finance Administration
Fire Administration
Human Resources
Parking Citation
Parks and Recreation Administration
Police Administration
Public Works Administration
Purchasing
Revenue Services
Utility Billing
Depreciation
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 2025 which excludes capital and debt, and transfers. Total Revenues – The total revenues for each department and fund for the Fiscal Year 2025 budget.
FY2324 Expenditure Actuals – The total allowable expenditures actuals for each department and fund for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.
Warehouse Purchase Costs – The total expenditures for each department and fund under cost object 54102, Warehouse Inventory Purchases, for the Fiscal Year 2025 budget. Total Invoices – The total number of invoices processed for each department and fund for a year. Total Public Records Act Requests – The total number of Public Records Act requests for each department and fund for a year.
Total Purchase Orders– The total number of purchase orders processed for each department and fund for a year.
Total Contracts – The total number of contracts for each department and fund for a year. Total Bids – The total number of bids for each department and fund for a year. Total Number of Purchase Orders – The total number of purchase orders processed for each department and fund for a year.
Total Number of P-Card Transactions – The total number of P-Card transactions for each department and fund for a year.
Direct Allocations – Specific central service functions were identified by the City to be allocable directly to specific departments and funds they support. For direct allocations among multiple departments and funds, the allocation was split by a percentage, modified total direct cost was used, and/or the number of full-time equivalent personnel was used. Depreciation – The total annual depreciation of fixed assets for each department and fund. Assets included in the dataset only included those that do not have other funding sources.
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 $34,021,364. The total expenditures from the central service departments were $37,154,708. However, $3,133,344 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 City Council and the Civic Engagement support functions, litigation, election, debt service, employee awards, transfers, and capital projects and equipment 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 servi ce department and the demand placed on that central service by all City departments, as previously desc ribed in the Methodology section of this report. Th e 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 37,154,708 $ 3,133,344 $ 34,021,3 64 $ Central Service
100: Accounting 1,062,556 1,500 1,061,056 100: City Attorney 1,521,455 490,960 1,030,495 100: City Clerk 999,445 177,100 822,345 100: City Council 585,067 585,067 - 100: City Manager 1,370,489 - 1,370,489 100: City Treasurer 58,881 - 58,881 100: Civic Engagement 656,691 656,691 - 100: Community Development Admin 1,278,562 4, 000 1,274,562 100: Finance Admin 1,571,392 2,700 1,568,692 100: Fire Admin 5,654,335 79,500 5,574,835 100: Human Resources 2,032,287 35,000 1,997,287 100: Parking Citations 202,857 - 202,857 100: Parks and Rec Admin 3,300,162 477,500 2,822,662 100: Police Admin 11,269,933 260,030 11,009,903 100: Public Works Admin 3,383,835 362,096 3,021,739 100: Purchasing 494,623 1,200 493,423 100: Revenue Services 657,042 - 657,042 100: Utility Billing 208,628 - 208,628 Depreciation 846,468 - 846,468
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: Accounting
The Accounting Division's primary responsibilities are the maintenance and control of the general ledg er, accounts payable and payroll, and to ensure account ability as well as the timely provision of accurate financial information. The Division is the liaison between the City and its external auditors, and works closely with Finance Administration to prepare the City's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). The City has been the recipient of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) award for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting f or over 20 years. The Accounting Division also participates in budget development by providing historical and projected financial and payroll information, issues standard monthly revenue and expenditure rep orts for internal customers, and generates reports required by external customers, including other governmental agencies, rating agencies, and the public. In addition, the Division accounts for the City's gran ts and related projects in conjunction with other departments.
All City disbursements are the end product of accounts payable and payroll operations and are reflected by the weekly generation of vendor and employee checks . The accounts payable processes include:
maintenance of vendor files; disposition of purchase orders and coordination with the Purchasing Division; assisting departments with queries and payment setu p; and issuance of 1099 tax forms at calendar year end. Since the inception of the purchasing card (Pc ard) program, there has been a reduction in number of accounts payable checks issued. Payroll processes i nclude: monitoring of the Fair Labor Standards Act; Federal and State tax requirements; calculation of deductions and benefits; direct deposit of payroll; issuance of W-2 tax forms; and implementation of labor agreement provisions.
The Division's accounting function involves the mai ntenance of the City's general ledger, including th e generation and posting of journal entries, preparation of monthly and annual reports, and reconciliation of bank accounts. Specific responsibilities include pr eparation of State Controller Reports, Streets and Highways Report, MTA Reports, submission of direct assessments to the county, and bond/debt service accounting.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Acc ounting Division, it is reasonable to distribute th e 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 and with Police sworn full-time equivalents counted as double for each department and fund.
12 Cost Allocation Plan
Thirty percent (30%) of the allocable cost was allocated on the total number of invoices processed for each department and fund.
Twenty percent (20%) of the allocable cost was allo cated based on the amount of FY 2023-2034 expenditure actuals for each department and fund.
Section 2: City Attorney
The City Attorney’s Office consists of a contracted City Attorney who provides legal services on a flat retainer basis and who is admitted to practice law by the California Bar Association and experienced in the practice of Municipal Law. City Prosecution services are pro vided by the contracted City Attorney on an as-need ed hourly basis. Through contracted services, the City Attorney’s Office prosecutes violations of the Cit y Municipal Code. As required by state law, state mis demeanor and felony violations are prosecuted by th e Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
The City Attorney’s Office drafts ordinances, resol utions and agreements as well as provides general l egal services and advice, oral and written, to the City Councilmembers and City departments on a daily and routine basis. Attorneys specializing in areas of l itigation, land use, real estate, finance, Californ ia Environmental Quality Act, California Coastal Act, public works, labor and other specialties are all available to the City Manager, City departments and the City Council at any time. The City Attorney also oversee s outside counsel.
The City Attorney serves as advisor by providing legal representation at City Council meetings, and on an as- needed basis to other boards, committees and commis sions. The City Attorney also attends weekly City Manager Department Head meetings and other meetings as requested, and provides support to Risk Management in processing claims as well as other de partments as needed for legal services. Additionall y, the City Attorney assists the City Clerk’s office w ith the processing and management of Public Records Act requests.
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.
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 modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
100: Accounting
FTE's (2x PS) 50%
Total Invoices 30%
FY2324 Expenditure Actuals 20%
13 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 3: City Clerk
The City Clerk's Office is dedicated to collaborating with City officials and the public to ensure that open and effective government standards are in place to secure the public trust, and provide a system of transparency, public participation and accountability. The City Clerk serves as the greatest resource of information for the public, City Council, City staff and other governmental agencies; manages legal requirements for public notices and the filing of referendums and initiatives; and keeps complete and accurate records of City Council proceedings.
The City Clerk's Office works diligently with the City's Information Technology Department to provide broadcasting of City Council and Planning Commission meetings on Manhattan Beach Local Community Cable, Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Communications Channel 35, and the City Website Live Streaming Video, and YouTube to ensure access to public information and the local government process. As the custodian of the City's official records, the office maintains all official City archives and legislative history, and ensures the preservation, protection and integrity of the public records.
The City Clerk is also the City's Election Officer, and as such, conducts and certifies the City's municipal elections for six elected offices (5 City Council and 1 City Treasurer).
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.
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 total number of public records acts for each department and fund.
100: City Attorney
Total FTE's 50%
Modified Total Direct Cost 50%
100: City Clerk
Total FTE's 50%
Total PRA 50%
14 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 4: City Council
The City of Manhattan Beach is a general law City a nd operates under the Council-Manager form of government. The five-member City Council is elected at-large to serve four-year terms. The Mayor’s off ice is rotated among all Councilmembers which provides approximately nine and one-half months of service as Mayor during each Councilmember’s four-year term of office. As elected officials, the City Councilmembers represent the citizens of Manhattan Beach in the go verning process and act on their behalf with regard to regional and local, as well as State and Federal issues.
The City Council is the legislative authority and s ets the policies under which the City operates.
Responsibilities of the City Council include enacting legislation such as local laws and ordinances; approving City programs; adopting the City’s capital improvem ent plan and operating budget; and appropriating th e funds necessary to provide services to the City’s residents, businesses and visitors. The City Council provides leadership through policy development regarding the current practices and future direction of the City. The City Council convenes regular meetings on the first and third Tuesday of each month and holds occasion al special meetings. The City Council appoints the City Manager and City Attorney, as well as the members of the City’s six advisory boards and commissions.
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.
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 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 5: City Manager
The City Manager is appointed by the City Council to carry out its policies and to ensure that the community is served in a responsive manner. The City Manager's office is responsible for providing support and advice to the City Council, offering leadership and legisl ative policy support for all departments, fostering community partnerships and interagency collaboratio n, championing efforts to increase civic engagement efforts and ensuring organizational development and resiliency.
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.
100: City Council
Total FTE's 50%
Modified Total Direct Cost 50%
15 Cost Allocation Plan
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 modified total direct cost for each department and fund.
Section 6: City Treasurer
The City Treasurer is elected at-large and serves a four-year term. Along with Finance staff, the Trea surer administrates all City funds and provides accountability to the citizens of Manhattan Beach. The Treasurer’s responsibilities include investment of idle funds; reporting such activities to the City Council; and serving as Chair of the Finance Subcommittee.
The Treasurer oversees the City’s $115 to $135 mill ion investment portfolio. The investment portfolio contains instruments such as Federal Agencies, high-grade corporate bonds and Treasury notes. The State’s Local Agency Investment Fund is also used to ensure proper cash flow and liquidity. While investment yields have dropped to some of the lowest levels in histor y, the City’s investment strategy continues to plac e emphasis on safety and liquidity.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Cit y Treasurer, it is reasonable to distribute the all ocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of revenues for each department and fund.
Section 7: Civic Engagement
The City's Civic Engagement Division is a critical component of strengthening the City's relationship with the residents, businesses, and the community as a whole . Through strategic initiatives and innovative approaches, the Civic Engagement Division aims to e nhance public participation, promote civic pride, a nd ensure that residents are well-informed about city programs, services, and policies.
The Division proactively informs stakeholders of what the City is doing to meet their needs and to improve and expand employee, resident, and business engagem ent through multiple channels. The Division administers Citywide internal and external strategi c outreach via digital and print media, manages med ia relations and outreach, covers special events, main tains the City's website, advances the City's brand identity, and produces City videos. The Division is inclusive of graphic design, television, print, we b 100: City Manager
Total FTE's 50%
Modified Total Direct Cost 50%
100: City Treasurer
Total Revenues 100%
16 Cost Allocation Plan
advertising, marketing, public and community relati ons, as well as citizen and employee participation and outreach.
The Division is responsible for: managing the City' s social media channels (Facebook, Twitter, Instagr am, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Nextdoor), developing mercha ndise for purchase, writing press releases, and producing and editing video content. The Division a lso manages special projects involving internal and external surveys, and employee and resident engagem ent. Additionally, the Civic Engagement Division seeks to promote and market the City's activities, beach life style and family friendly environment.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Engagement, 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 number of full-time equivalents cost 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.
For the OMB plan the costs of Civic Engagement are not allocated to ensure OMB compliance.
Section 8: Community Development Administration
The Administration Division of the Community Development Department manages and provides operational support to the Planning, Building and Safety, Traffic Engineering, and Environmental Sustainability Divisions. Administration guides the Department’s staff members and interns to ensure collaborative work internally among staff and externally with the public. Additionally, Administration oversees time cards/payroll, accounting, policy development, budget preparation and management, operational needs, communications, reporting, intra-departmental projects and studies, and supports the Planning Commission, Parking and Public Improvements Commission, and Board of Building Appeals.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Com munity Development 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 wa s allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents of each department and funds that Community Development Administration supports.
100: Civic Engagement
Total FTE's 50%
Modified Total Direct Cost 50%
100: Community Development Admin
CD Admin FTE 100%
17 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 9: Finance Administration
The Administration Division of Finance safeguards a nd accurately accounts for City assets, prepares th e annual City Budget, financial reports, and completes special financial projects, such as bond issuance, while ensuring compliance with municipal finance regulati ons and maintaining the City’s financial policies.
Administration staff also manages the investment of City funds in conjunction with the elected City Treasurer, debt issuance and management, and assist s with the creation of the annual financial report in cooperation with the Accounting Division. Additiona lly, Administration oversees and supports the other divisions in the Finance Department.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of Finance Administration Division, it is reasonable to distr ibute 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 alloc ated based on the amount of FY 2023-2034 expenditure actuals for each department and fund.
Section 10: Fire Administration
Fire Administration's function is to assist Department Divisions in achieving their respective budgeted objectives. The Fire Chief manages the Administrative Division and is responsible for providing leadership and support to all staff and personnel. This is accomplished through personnel support services, staff training and development, procurement, budgetary control, information and data management, strategic planning, supporting volunteer programs, and emergency management of major local and regional incidents.
Annual priorities are established in conjunction with the City Manager's office in order to maximize operational efficiencies. Fire Administration works closely with the Finance Department to minimize any fiscal impact to the community while simultaneously improving community services. The Fire Department continues to be the lead Department for emergency response training, including the federally mandated National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) training. Our Emergency Operations Center procedures will continue to be improved and updated.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Fir e Administration Division, it is reasonable to dist ribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost wa s allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents of each department and funds that Fire Administration supports. 100: Finance Admin
Modified Total Direct Cost 50%
FY2324 Expenditure Actuals 50%
18 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 11: Human Resources
The Human Resources Department supports the City’s most valuable resource and strives to create a safe and collaborative working environment in which empl oyees can maximize their potential. The Human Resources (Administration) and Risk Management divi sions work together to mitigate City liability and enhance employee engagement and commitment. The services for employees and City departments include recruitment and selection, benefits administration, classification and compensation, employee and labo r relations, training and safety training, leadership development, employment/labor legal compliance, ri sk management, wellness initiatives, and workers’ compensation.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Human Resources Department, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost wa s allocated based on the number of full-time and part time equivalents for each department and fund.
Section 12: Parking Citations
The Parking Fund is used to account for the general operations and maintenance of City parking lots an d spaces. The Parking Fund also accounts for the reve nue generated by City parking lots and spaces. The Parking Fund contains reserves for the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) to be used for their approved activities.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of Parking Citations, it is reasonable to distribute the allo cable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated directly to the Parking Fund.
Section 13: Parks and Recreation Administration
The Administration Division oversees all operating functions of the Department including administration of capital improvement projects; coordination of the Parks & Recreation Commission, Library Commission, 100: Fire Admin
Fire Admin FTE's 100%
100: Human Resources
FTE's & Part time @ .50 FTE 100%
100: Parking Citations
Direct to Parking Fund 100%
19 Cost Allocation Plan
Cultural Arts Commission, and ad-hoc committees; budget development; film permits, activity registration and facility reservations, department marketing and coordination of Citywide community events. This division provides vision, direction, and support resources to Department staff.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Par ks and Recreation 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 wa s allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost of each department and funds that Parks and Recreation Administration supports.
Section 14: Police Administration
The Police Administration & Investigations Bureau functions include Personnel and Training, Professional Standards, Technical Support Services, Property and Evidence, Dispatch Services, Community Affairs, and Investigations.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Police 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 wa s allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents of each department and funds that Police Administration supports.
Section 15: Public Works Administration
The Administrative Division is responsible for determining the policies and programs of the Public Works Department. Specifically, planning, organizing, directing and coordinating operations. The department work plan, operational budget, and Capital Improvement Plan are managed by the Administrative team.
Additional core tasks include payroll, purchasing, HR-supported functions, solid waste program management, and public records requests.
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. Fifty percent (50%) 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. 100: Parks and Rec Admin
Parks and Rec Admin MTDC 100%
100: Police Admin
Police Admin FTE's 100%
20 Cost Allocation Plan
Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents of each department and funds that Public Works Administration supports.
Section 16: Purchasing
The Purchasing Division is responsible for procurin g and managing the acquisition of materials and contracted services while ensuring the judicious ut ilization of public funds through competitive proce sses and cooperative purchasing agreements. Additionally , the Division provides assistance to departments i n monitoring spending on executed contracts, tracking departments' small-dollar expenditures, managing the City's Purchasing Card program, maintaining an inve ntory of high-use items such as paper, building maintenance, and custodial supplies to fulfill City wide department needs, assisting City staff in deve loping specifications for competitive bids, and obtaining the best return for surplus property.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions the Purchasing Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
Five percent (5%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of purchase orders processed for each department and fund.
Twenty five percent (25%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of contracts for each department and fund.
Thirty percent (30%) of the allocable cost was allo cated based on the total number of P-Card transactions for each department and fund.
Twenty percent (20%) of the allocable cost was allo cated based on the amount of warehouse purchase costs for each department and fund.
Twenty percent (20%) of the allocable cost was allo cated based on the total number bids for each department and fund.
100: Public Works Admin
PW Admin MTDC 50%
PW Admin FTE's 50%
100: Purchasing
Total POs 5%
Total Contracts 25%
# of P-Card Transactions 30%
54102 Warehouse Purchase Costs 20%
Total Bids 20%
21 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 17: Revenue Services
The primary goals of the Revenue Services Division are to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of all revenue programs; to provide exemplary customer service to the public; to develop and analyze measures that promote fiscal sustainability; and to increase City revenues where possible. The Revenue Division administers utility billing for water and sewer ser vice, business & animal license issuance, miscellan eous accounts receivable, parking and administrative cit ation payments, ambulance and fire inspection payments, residential and commercial parking pass d istribution, lease and franchise agreement maintenance, transient occupancy tax collection from hotels and short-term rentals, and central cashiering including: daily deposits, collections, and reconciliation.
Revenue Services staff are responsible for the anal ysis and creation of the Citywide user fees and cos t allocation plan. The Division prepares the annual p ossessory interest report to the Los Angeles County Assessor. Additionally, the Division oversees the administration of the City’s short-term rental program and Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) client and cust omer portal. Revenue Services strives to improve an d streamline productivity, and continually looks for opportunities to enhance the customer experience through service improvements and online technology.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Revenue Services 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 budgeted revenues for each department and fund.
Section 18: Utility Billing
The Revenue Division administers utility billing for water and sewer service.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of Utility Billing, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost wa s equally allocated to the Water and Sewer Funds.
100: Revenue Services
Total Revenues 100%
100: Utility Billing
50/50% Water Sewer 100%
22 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 19: Depreciation
Depreciation is the yearly cost of included depreci able assets for the City that do not have alternati ve funding mechanisms for replacement. These allocatio ns are included to recover a portion of the cost of eventual replacement for such capital assets. While depreciation is not included in the budget for the City, it does represent a real cost that will need to be expended in the future as capital replacement is re quired for proper operations of the City and its departments and funds.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of costs of Depreciation, i t is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
To tie to the cost of depreciation, the total depreciation for fixed assets per department and fund was used to allocate this cost. So, the cost allocated under Depreciation is specifically equal to the depreciation for included assets for the utilizing entities.
Depreciation
Depreciation 100%
23 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 19 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 $34,021,364 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 $34,021,364 each recipient department for t he OMB compliant CAP. Table 2 summarized the distribution of the total allocable cost of $35,994,782 to each recipient department for the full cost CAP.
24 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.
25 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-1a: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP)
First Iteration
Central Service/Operating Departments 100: Accounting 100: City Attorney 100: City Clerk 100: City Council 100: City Manager
100: City
Treasurer
100: Civic
Engagement
100: Community
Development Admin
100: Finance
Admin 100: Fire Admin
Central Service Departments
100: Accounting 1.1% 1.4% 0.9% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 100: City Attorney 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 100: City Clerk 0.8% 0.9% 1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 100: City Council 1.3% 1.0% 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 100: City Manager 1.6% 1.2% 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 100: City Treasurer 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Civic Engagement 0.6% 0.7% 1.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 100: Community Development Admin 1.4% 1.3% 2.9% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 100: Finance Admin 1.4% 1.3% 1.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 100: Fire Admin 1.9% 2.9% 1.8% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 100: Human Resources 1.7% 1.6% 0.9% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 100: Parking Citations 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100: Parks and Rec Admin 2.1% 1.9% 0.7% 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 100: Police Admin 5.7% 6.4% 43.6% 6.4% 6.4% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 100: Public Works Admin 2.3% 2.6% 1.3% 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 100: Purchasing 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 100: Revenue Services 0.8% 0.9% 0.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 100: Utility Billing 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% Depreciation 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 100: Business Licensing 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 100: Community Development 6.5% 8.1% 5.2% 8.1% 8.1% 8.7% 8.1% 100.0% 5.3% 0.0% 100: Fire 8.4% 10.7% 5.6% 10.7% 10.7% 3.1% 10.7% 0.0% 9.9% 100.0% 100: Parks and Recreation 8.0% 5.3% 2.3% 5.3% 5.3% 7.2% 5.3% 0.0% 5.8% 0.0% 100: Police 29.3% 27.5% 16.4% 27.5% 27.5% 4.3% 27.5% 0.0% 21.1% 0.0% 100: Public Works 7.4% 8.2% 4.5% 8.2% 8.2% 1.4% 8.2% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 201: Street Lighting & Landscape Fu 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 205: Gas Tax Fund 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 210: Asset Forfeiture Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 211: Police Safety Grants Fund 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 220: Grants Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 230: Prop. A Fund 0.7% 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 1.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 231: Prop. C Fund 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 232: AB 2766 Air Quality Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 233: Measure R 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 234: Measure M 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 240: Measure W 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 401: Capital Improvement Fund 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 501: Water Fund 6.5% 8.1% 2.4% 8.1% 8.1% 25.8% 8.1% 0.0% 11.5% 0.0% 502: Storm Drain Fund 0.9% 1.0% 0.4% 1.0% 1.0% 3.4% 1.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 503: Sewer Fund 2.0% 1.8% 1.1% 1.8% 1.8% 6.6% 1.8% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 520: Parking Fund 1.5% 1.2% 0.5% 1.2% 1.2% 6.7% 1.2% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 521: County Parking Lots Fund 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 1.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
26 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-1b: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) - continued
First Iteration
Central Service/Operating Departments 100: Human
Resources
100: Parking
Citations
100: Parks and Rec
Admin 100: Police Admin 100: Public Works
Admin 100: Purchasing 100: Revenue Services 100: Utility Billing Depreciation Central Service Departments
100: Accounting 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 100: City Attorney 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Clerk 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 100: City Council 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 100: City Manager 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 100: City Treasurer 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Civic Engagement 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Community Development Admin 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 100: Finance Admin 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Fire Admin 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 100: Human Resources 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 100: Parking Citations 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Parks and Rec Admin 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Police Admin 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 90.8% 100: Public Works Admin 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 100: Purchasing 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Revenue Services 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 100: Utility Billing 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Depreciation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Business Licensing 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Community Development 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 8.7% 0.0% 2.0% 100: Fire 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Parks and Recreation 10.3% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6% 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Police 30.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 6.4% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Public Works 8.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.2% 9.9% 1.4% 0.0% 1.8% 201: Street Lighting & Landscape Fu 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 205: Gas Tax Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 210: Asset Forfeiture Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 211: Police Safety Grants Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 220: Grants Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 230: Prop. A Fund 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 231: Prop. C Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 232: AB 2766 Air Quality Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 233: Measure R 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 234: Measure M 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 240: Measure W 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 401: Capital Improvement Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 501: Water Fund 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.7% 4.6% 25.8% 50.0% 0.0% 502: Storm Drain Fund 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 0.8% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 503: Sewer Fund 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 4.3% 6.6% 50.0% 0.0% 520: Parking Fund 0.8% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 2.3% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 521: County Parking Lots Fund 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 5.2% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%
27 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-2a: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP)
Central Service/Operating Departments 100:
Accounting
100: City
Attorney
100: City
Clerk
100: City
Council
100: City
Manager
100: City
Treasurer
100: Civic
Engagement
100: Community
Development
Admin
100:
Finance
Admin
100: Fire
Admin
Central Service Departments
100: Accounting 0.0% 0.0% 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% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Clerk 0.0% 0.0% 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% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Manager 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Treasurer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Civic Engagement 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Community Development Admin 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Finance Admin 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Fire Admin 0.0% 0.0% 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% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Parking Citations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Parks and Rec Admin 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Police Admin 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Public Works Admin 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Purchasing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Revenue Services 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Utility Billing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Depreciation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Business Licensing 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 100: Community Development 9.0% 10.4% 9.1% 10.4% 10.4% 8.7% 10.4% 100.0% 7.1% 0.0% 100: Fire 11.7% 14.9% 8.7% 14.9% 14.9% 3.1% 14.9% 0.0% 15.2% 100.0% 100: Parks and Recreation 11.1% 8.2% 3.9% 8.2% 8.2% 7.2% 8.2% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 100: Police 38.7% 37.9% 63.8% 37.9% 37.9% 4.3% 37.9% 0.0% 32.8% 0.0% 100: Public Works 9.2% 10.2% 6.0% 10.2% 10.2% 1.4% 10.2% 0.0% 8.6% 0.0% 201: Street Lighting & Landscape Fu 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 205: Gas Tax Fund 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 3.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 210: Asset Forfeiture Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 211: Police Safety Grants Fund 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 220: Grants Fund 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 8.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 230: Prop. A Fund 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 1.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 231: Prop. C Fund 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 232: AB 2766 Air Quality Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 233: Measure R 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 234: Measure M 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 10.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 240: Measure W 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 401: Capital Improvement Fund 1.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2.6% 0.1% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 501: Water Fund 8.7% 10.3% 4.1% 10.3% 10.3% 25.8% 10.3% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0% 502: Storm Drain Fund 1.1% 1.3% 0.6% 1.3% 1.3% 3.4% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 503: Sewer Fund 2.6% 2.5% 1.6% 2.5% 2.5% 6.6% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 520: Parking Fund 2.1% 1.8% 0.9% 1.8% 1.8% 6.7% 1.8% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 521: County Parking Lots Fund 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 1.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun 0.6% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 1.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0%
28 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-2b: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) – continued
Central Service/Operating Departments 100: Human
Resources
100: Parking
Citations
100: Parks and
Rec Admin
100: Police
Admin
100: Public
Works Admin
100:
Purchasing
100:
Revenue
Services
100: Utility
Billing Depreciation
Central Service Departments
100: Accounting 0.0% 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% 0.0% 100: City Clerk 0.0% 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% 0.0% 100: City Manager 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: City Treasurer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Civic Engagement 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Community Development Admin 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Finance Admin 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Fire Admin 0.0% 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% 0.0% 100: Parking Citations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Parks and Rec Admin 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Police Admin 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Public Works Admin 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Purchasing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Revenue Services 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Utility Billing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Depreciation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Business Licensing 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100: Community Development 12.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.2% 8.7% 0.0% 2.5% 100: Fire 12.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 3.1% 0.0% 0.3% 100: Parks and Recreation 12.6% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.9% 7.2% 0.0% 0.1% 100: Police 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 17.5% 4.3% 0.0% 91.4% 100: Public Works 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.2% 12.3% 1.4% 0.0% 3.3% 201: Street Lighting & Landscape Fu 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 205: Gas Tax Fund 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 210: Asset Forfeiture Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 211: Police Safety Grants Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 220: Grants Fund 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 230: Prop. A Fund 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 231: Prop. C Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 232: AB 2766 Air Quality Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 233: Measure R 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 234: Measure M 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 240: Measure W 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 401: Capital Improvement Fund 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 501: Water Fund 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.7% 7.3% 25.8% 50.0% 1.4% 502: Storm Drain Fund 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 1.1% 3.4% 0.0% 0.2% 503: Sewer Fund 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 5.0% 6.6% 50.0% 0.4% 520: Parking Fund 1.5% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 2.8% 6.7% 0.0% 0.2% 521: County Parking Lots Fund 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.1% 1.7% 0.0% 0.1% 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 5.4% 1.3% 0.0% 0.1%
29 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-3a: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP)
Department Classification Department 100:
Accounting
100: City
Attorney
100: City
Clerk
100: City
Council
100: City
Manager
100: City
Treasurer
100: Civic
Engagement
100:
Community
Development
Admin
100:
Finance
Admin
100: Fire
Admin
1,061,056 1,030,495 822,345 0 1,370,489 58,881 0 1,274,562 1,568,692 5,574,835 Operating Department 100: Business Licensing 2,566 2,366 1,416 - 3,147 0 - - 1,965 - Operating Department 100: Community Development 95,323 107,047 74,513 - 142,365 5,124 - 1,274,562 111,585 - Operating Department 100: Fire 124,204 153,234 71,586 - 203,791 1,810 - - 237,950 5,574,835 Operating Department 100: Parks and Recreation 118,002 84,240 32,216 - 112,033 4,260 - - 148,946 - Operating Department 100: Police 410,960 390,624 524,844 - 519,503 2,555 - - 513,778 - Operating Department 100: Public Works 97,964 104,897 49,039 - 139,505 836 - - 134,654 - Operating Department 201: Street Lighting & Landscape Fu 4,194 3,284 403 - 4,367 353 - - 8,855 - Operating Department 205: Gas Tax Fund 3,785 719 486 - 957 1,748 - - 8,135 - Operating Department 210: Asset Forfeiture Fund 150 368 26 - 489 38 - - 893 - Operating Department 211: Police Safety Grants Fund 879 1,059 101 - 1,408 171 - - 2,206 - Operating Department 220: Grants Fund 917 985 759 - 1,309 4,848 - - 806 - Operating Department 230: Prop. A Fund 7,864 6,568 2,533 - 8,735 892 - - 10,423 - Operating Department 231: Prop. C Fund 6,384 410 272 - 545 725 - - 16,600 - Operating Department 232: AB 2766 Air Quality Fund 13 9 7 - 12 43 - - 25 - Operating Department 233: Measure R 2,979 321 222 - 427 871 - - 7,105 - Operating Department 234: Measure M 5,580 1,406 1,048 - 1,870 5,877 - - 12,914 - Operating Department 240: Measure W 1,208 156 105 - 208 371 - - 2,640 - Operating Department 401: Capital Improvement Fund 11,973 1,204 763 - 1,601 1,548 - - 25,863 - Operating Department 501: Water Fund 91,949 105,695 33,542 - 140,567 15,195 - - 208,893 - 20,109 -
Operating Department 503: Sewer Fund 28,075 25,718 12,780 - 34,203 3,857 - - 39,917 - Operating Department 520: Parking Fund 22,116 18,917 7,557 - 25,158 3,961 - - 35,549 - Operating Department 521: County Parking Lots Fund 5,076 3,405 1,718 - 4,529 1,003 - - 4,339 - Operating Department 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun 6,883 4,857 1,740 - 6,460 786 - - 14,542 - Central Service Departments
Operating Department 502: Storm Drain Fund 12,013 13,007 4,671 - 17,298 2,011 - -
30 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-3b: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) – continued
Department Classification Department
100:
Human
Resources
100:
Parking
Citations
100: Parks
and Rec
Admin
100: Police
Admin
100: Public
Works
Admin
100:
Purchasing
100:
Revenue
Services
100: Utility
Billing Depreciation Total
Allocation
1,997,287 202,857 2,822,662 11,009,903 3,021,739 493,423 657,042 208,628 846,468 34,021,364 Operating Department 100: Business Licensing 5,903 - - - - 945 0 - 28 18,335 Operating Department 100: Community Development 240,798 - - - - 50,464 57,177 - 20,869 2,179,826 Operating Department 100: Fire 254,953 - - - - 36,967 20,194 - 2,570 6,682,094 Operating Department 100: Parks and Recreation 250,983 - 2,822,662 - - 78,386 47,531 - 1,220 3,700,478 Operating Department 100: Police 748,010 - - 11,009,903 - 86,390 28,511 - 773,564 15,008,642 Operating Department 100: Public Works 207,424 - - - 1,215,308 60,731 9,328 - 27,606 2,047,292 Operating Department 201: Street Lighting & Landscape Fu 1,281 - - - 31,893 3,202 3,938 - 344 62,114 Operating Department 205: Gas Tax Fund 1,817 - - - - 16,772 19,501 - 76 53,996 Operating Department 210: Asset Forfeiture Fund 62 - - - - 28 421 - 3 2,479 Operating Department 211: Police Safety Grants Fund 290 - - - - 1,934 1,904 - 13 9,965 Operating Department 220: Grants Fund 2,575 - - - - 152 54,093 - 176 66,620 Operating Department 230: Prop. A Fund 23,806 - - - - 5,912 9,958 - 116 76,806 Operating Department 231: Prop. C Fund 915 - - - - 2,060 8,087 - 46 36,045 Operating Department 232: AB 2766 Air Quality Fund 23 - - - - 2 478 - 2 614 Operating Department 233: Measure R 774 - - - - 2,966 9,719 - 41 25,426 Operating Department 234: Measure M 3,566 - - - - 3,218 65,585 - 228 101,292 Operating Department 240: Measure W 385 - - - - 2,848 4,145 - 17 12,084 Operating Department 401: Capital Improvement Fund 2,919 - - - - 33,903 17,268 - 97 97,138 Operating Department 501: Water Fund 133,516 - - - - 140,251 5,613 22,437 - 1,528 258,804 Operating Department 503: Sewer Fund 53,472 - - - 272,157 24,551 43,044 104,314 3,004 645,092 Operating Department 520: Parking Fund 30,077 202,857 - - 170,002 13,611 44,198 - 1,950 575,951 Operating Department 521: County Parking Lots Fund 6,943 - - - 37,363 518 11,193 - 431 76,518 Operating Department 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun 6,930 - - - 46,647 26,435 8,769 - 523 124,571 Central Service Departments
1,108,118 35,815 169,560 104,314 12,015 2,159,182 Operating Department 502: Storm Drain Fund 19,866 - -
31 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.
32 Cost Allocation Plan
Table B-1a: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP)
Department Classification Department 100:
Accounting
100: City
Attorney
100: City
Clerk
100: City
Council
100: City
Manager
100: City
Treasurer
100: Civic
Engagement
100:
Community
Development
Admin
100:
Finance
Admin
100: Fire
Admin
1,061,056 1,521,455 999,445 585,067 1,265,063 58,881 656,691 1,020,709 1,424,142 4,331,200 Central Service Departments
Operating Department 100: Business Licensing 2,568 3,540 1,723 1,361 2,943 0 1,528 - 1,827 - Operating Department 100: Community Development 95,361 159,002 90,598 61,143 132,208 5,124 68,629 1,020,709 102,193 - Operating Department 100: Fire 124,080 223,159 86,878 85,815 185,553 1,810 96,320 - 213,154 4,331,200 Operating Department 100: Parks and Recreation 118,081 126,357 39,234 48,590 105,064 4,260 54,538 - 137,068 - Operating Department 100: Police 410,661 569,299 637,574 218,921 473,362 2,555 245,721 - 459,514 - Operating Department 100: Public Works 98,087 157,364 59,713 60,514 130,846 836 67,922 - 124,562 - Operating Department 201: Street Lighting & Landscape Fu 4,203 5,034 498 1,936 4,186 353 2,173 - 8,212 - Operating Department 205: Gas Tax Fund 3,785 1,074 591 413 893 1,748 463 - 7,396 - Operating Department 210: Asset Forfeiture Fund 151 568 33 218 472 38 245 - 834 - Operating Department 211: Police Safety Grants Fund 882 1,633 125 628 1,358 171 705 - 2,068 - Operating Department 220: Grants Fund 918 1,474 924 567 1,225 4,848 636 - 750 - Operating Department 230: Prop. A Fund 7,866 9,757 3,081 3,752 8,113 892 4,211 - 9,518 - Operating Department 231: Prop. C Fund 6,384 606 331 233 504 725 262 - 15,070 - Operating Department 232: AB 2766 Air Quality Fund 13 13 8 5 11 43 6 - 23 - Operating Department 233: Measure R 2,980 477 270 184 397 871 206 - 6,453 - Operating Department 234: Measure M 5,581 2,099 1,275 807 1,746 5,877 906 - 11,745 - Operating Department 240: Measure W 1,208 232 128 89 193 371 100 - 2,399 - Operating Department 401: Capital Improvement Fund 11,974 1,791 927 689 1,489 1,548 773 - 23,492 - Operating Department 501: Water Fund 92,080 159,417 40,899 61,303 132,553 15,195 68,808 - 192,781 - Operating Department 502: Storm Drain Fund 12,026 19,556 5,690 7,520 16,261 2,011 8,441 - 18,585 - Operating Department 503: Sewer Fund 28,071 38,217 15,535 14,696 31,777 3,857 16,495 - 36,471 - Operating Department 520: Parking Fund 22,133 28,412 9,202 10,926 23,624 3,961 12,263 - 32,724 - Operating Department 521: County Parking Lots Fund 5,076 5,062 2,088 1,946 4,209 1,003 2,185 - 3,971 - Operating Department 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun 6,888 7,311 2,120 2,811 6,079 786 3,155 - 13,332 -
33 Cost Allocation Plan
Table B-1b: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP) – continued
Department Classification Department
100:
Human
Resources
100:
Parking
Citations
100: Parks
and Rec
Admin
100: Police
Admin
100: Public
Works
Admin
100:
Purchasing
100:
Revenue
Services
100: Utility
Billing Depreciation Total
Allocation
2,032,287 202,857 2,822,662 11,026,003 3,026,739 493,423 657,042 208,628 846,468 35,994,782 Operating Department 100: Business Licensing 6,007 - - - - 945 0 - 28 22,724 Operating Department 100: Community Development 245,017 - - - - 50,464 57,177 - 20,869 2,382,192 Operating Department 100: Fire 259,421 - - - - 36,967 20,194 - 2,570 6,963,860 Operating Department 100: Parks and Recreation 255,381 - 2,822,662 - - 78,386 47,531 - 1,220 3,853,601 Operating Department 100: Police 761,118 - - 11,026,003 - 86,390 28,511 - 773,564 15,808,183 Operating Department 100: Public Works 211,059 - - - 1,217,319 60,731 9,328 - 27,606 2,240,005 Operating Department 201: Street Lighting & Landscape Fu 1,303 - - - 31,946 3,202 3,938 - 344 67,805 Operating Department 205: Gas Tax Fund 1,849 - - - - 16,772 19,501 - 76 55,350 Operating Department 210: Asset Forfeiture Fund 63 - - - - 28 421 - 3 3,105 Operating Department 211: Police Safety Grants Fund 295 - - - - 1,934 1,904 - 13 11,775 Operating Department 220: Grants Fund 2,621 - - - - 152 54,093 - 176 68,485 Operating Department 230: Prop. A Fund 24,223 - - - - 5,912 9,958 - 116 88,823 Operating Department 231: Prop. C Fund 931 - - - - 2,060 8,087 - 46 36,825 Operating Department 232: AB 2766 Air Quality Fund 24 - - - - 2 478 - 2 631 Operating Department 233: Measure R 788 - - - - 2,966 9,719 - 41 26,035 Operating Department 234: Measure M 3,628 - - - - 3,218 65,585 - 228 103,958 Operating Department 240: Measure W 391 - - - - 2,848 4,145 - 17 12,378 Operating Department 401: Capital Improvement Fund 2,970 - - - - 33,903 17,268 - 97 99,403 Operating Department 501: Water Fund 135,856 - - - 140,483 5,613 22,437 - 1,528 282,280 Operating Department 503: Sewer Fund 54,409 - - - 272,607 24,551 43,044 104,314 3,004 692,513 Operating Department 520: Parking Fund 30,604 202,857 - - 170,283 13,611 44,198 - 1,950 610,228 Operating Department 521: County Parking Lots Fund 7,065 - - - 37,425 518 11,193 - 431 82,801 Operating Department 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun 7,051 - - - 46,725 26,435 8,769 - 523 133,325 Central Service Departments
1,109,951 35,815 169,560 104,314 12,015 2,348,499 Operating Department 502: Storm Drain Fund 20,214 - - -
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