Agenda packet — Seal Beach City Council, July 27, 2026 (part 7 of 8)

TABLE: Element Forces - Frames
Frame Station OutputCase CaseType StepType P V2 V3 T M2 M3 FrameElemElemStation Text ft Text Text Text Kip Kip Kip Kip-ft Kip-ft Kip-ft Text ft 2 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -637.805 80.033 71.969 3.58E-15 0.00 0.00 2-1 02 9.8146 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -532.682 80.033 71.969 3.58E-15 684.25 1001.24 2-1 9.81462 9.8146 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -532.682 80.033 71.97 1.74E-14 684.25 1001.24 2-2 02 19.6291 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -427.559 80.033 71.97 1.74E-14 1368.50 2002.48 2-2 9.81462 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1078.01 -102.016 -69.718 2.40E-15 0.00 0.00 2-1 02 9.8146 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -972.886 -102.016 -69.718 2.40E-15 -706.34 -785.49 2-1 9.81462 9.8146 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -972.887 -102.016 -69.718 -1.81E-14 -706.35 -785.49 2-2 02 19.6291 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -867.764 -102.016 -69.718 -1.81E-14 -1412.66 -1570.99 2-2 9.81464 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -791.019 76.421 26.675 1.48E-15 0.00 0.00 4-1 04 14.1709 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -639.236 76.421 26.675 1.48E-15 559.19 1360.27 4-1 14.17094 14.1709 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -639.236 76.421 26.675 -2.09E-15 559.19 1360.27 4-2 04 28.3417 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -487.453 76.421 26.675 -2.09E-15 1118.37 2720.54 4-2 14.17094 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1251.49 -95.991 -39.46 1.48E-15 0.00 0.00 4-1 04 14.1709 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1099.71 -95.991 -39.46 1.48E-15 -378.01 -1082.95 4-1 14.17094 14.1709 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1099.71 -95.991 -39.46 -2.54E-15 -378.01 -1082.95 4-2 04 28.3417 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -947.922 -95.991 -39.46 -2.54E-15 -756.02 -2165.89 4-2 14.17096 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -864.01 277.972 67.163 4.69E+01 899.43 10411.47 6-1 06 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -760.227 277.972 67.163 4.69E+01 255.80 7730.61 6-1 9.68956 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -760.227 277.972 67.162 4.69E+01 255.80 7730.61 6-2 06 14.5342 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -708.335 277.972 67.162 4.69E+01 265.30 6390.19 6-2 4.84476 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -656.444 277.972 67.162 4.69E+01 386.19 5049.77 6-2 9.68956 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -656.444 277.972 67.163 4.69E+01 386.19 5049.77 6-3 06 29.0684 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -552.66 277.972 67.163 4.69E+01 1023.86 3714.78 6-3 9.68956 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1305.72 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -890.67 -8554.05 6-1 06 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1201.94 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -256.61 -6389.82 6-1 9.68956 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1201.94 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -256.61 -6389.82 6-2 06 14.5342 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1150.05 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -275.41 -5307.75 6-2 4.84476 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1098.16 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -405.58 -4225.69 6-2 9.68956 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1098.16 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -405.59 -4225.69 6-3 06 29.0684 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -994.374 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -1056.03 -3047.59 6-3 9.68958 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -847.012 73.879 52.878 1.31E+01 674.65 4106.41 8-1 08 9.7681 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -742.386 73.879 52.878 1.31E+01 162.01 3725.01 8-1 9.76818 9.7681 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -742.386 73.879 52.878 1.31E+01 162.01 3725.01 8-2 08 14.6522 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -690.074 73.879 52.878 1.31E+01 258.99 3535.45 8-2 4.88418 19.5362 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -637.761 73.879 52.878 1.31E+01 357.07 3345.90 8-2 9.76818 19.5362 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -637.761 73.879 52.878 1.31E+01 357.06 3345.90 8-3 0

Page 262 ends

8 29.3044 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -533.135 73.879 52.878 1.31E+01 871.96 3186.28 8-3 9.7681 8 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1301.46 -87.106 -52.882 -1.02E+01 -674.65 -4123.25 8-1 08 9.7681 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1196.83 -87.106 -52.882 -1.02E+01 -161.95 -3574.79 8-1 9.76818 9.7681 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1196.83 -87.106 -52.882 -1.02E+01 -161.95 -3574.79 8-2 08 14.6522 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1144.52 -87.106 -52.882 -1.02E+01 -258.95 -3301.87 8-2 4.88418 19.5362 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1092.21 -87.106 -52.882 -1.02E+01 -357.02 -3028.96 8-2 9.76818 19.5362 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1092.21 -87.106 -52.882 -1.02E+01 -357.02 -3028.96 8-3 08 29.3044 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -987.582 -87.106 -52.882 -1.02E+01 -871.84 -2495.95 8-3 9.768110 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -864.356 120.231 66.221 9.01E+00 896.46 4956.64 10-1 010 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -760.573 120.231 66.221 9.01E+00 258.72 4346.05 10-1 9.689510 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -760.573 120.231 66.221 9.01E+00 258.72 4346.05 10-2 010 14.5342 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -708.681 120.231 66.221 9.01E+00 275.99 4040.78 10-2 4.844710 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -656.79 120.231 66.221 9.01E+00 406.92 3735.51 10-2 9.689510 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -656.79 120.231 66.221 9.01E+00 406.93 3735.51 10-3 010 29.0684 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -553.006 120.231 66.221 9.01E+00 1060.95 3374.23 10-3 9.689510 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1305.48 -117.441 -67.531 -9.13E+00 -905.13 -4730.28 10-1 010 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1201.7 -117.441 -67.531 -9.13E+00 -256.69 -4016.87 10-1 9.689510 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1201.7 -117.441 -67.531 -9.13E+00 -256.69 -4016.87 10-2 010 14.5342 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1149.8 -117.441 -67.531 -9.13E+00 -265.24 -3660.95 10-2 4.844710 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1097.91 -117.441 -67.531 -9.13E+00 -387.44 -3305.02 10-2 9.689510 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1097.91 -117.441 -67.531 -9.13E+00 -387.44 -3305.02 10-3 010 29.0684 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -994.128 -117.441 -67.531 -9.13E+00 -1028.65 -2681.66 10-3 9.689512 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -791.054 74.117 39.517 1.80E-16 0.00 0.00 12-1 012 14.1709 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -639.271 74.117 39.517 1.80E-16 380.06 1323.50 12-1 14.170912 14.1709 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -639.271 74.117 39.517 -2.71E-16 380.06 1323.50 12-2 012 28.3417 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -487.488 74.117 39.517 -2.71E-16 760.13 2646.99 12-2 14.170912 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1250.83 -93.395 -26.82 -4.12E-16 0.00 0.00 12-1 012 14.1709 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1099.04 -93.395 -26.82 -4.12E-16 -559.99 -1050.30 12-1 14.170912 14.1709 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1099.04 -93.395 -26.82 -8.63E-16 -559.99 -1050.30 12-2 012 28.3417 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -947.26 -93.395 -26.82 -8.63E-16 -1119.97 -2100.60 12-2 14.170914 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -638.263 96.587 69.096 -3.70E-16 0.00 0.00 14-1 014 9.8146 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -533.14 96.587 69.096 -3.70E-16 703.23 1196.45 14-1 9.814614 9.8146 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -533.14 96.587 69.096 1.40E-15 703.21 1196.45 14-2 014 19.6291 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -428.017 96.587 69.096 1.40E-15 1406.64 2392.90 14-2 9.814614 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1078.73 -121.905 -71.66 -3.70E-16 0.00 0.00 14-1 014 9.8146 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -973.605 -121.905 -71.66 -3.70E-16 -678.15 -947.96 14-1 9.814614 9.8146 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -973.606 -121.905 -71.662 -9.65E-16 -678.15 -947.96 14-2 014 19.6291 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -868.483 -121.905 -71.662 -9.65E-16 -1356.30 -1895.91 14-2 9.8146

Page 263 ends

MaxMoment Axial V range
Kip-ft Kip Kip
1412.66 1078.01 71.97 4 111118.37 1251.49 39.46 12 191056.03 1305.72 67.16 20 33 871.96 1301.46 52.88 34 47
1060.95 1305.48 67.53 48 611119.97 1250.83 39.52 62 691406.64 1078.73 71.66 70 77 Pier 6Pier 7Pier 8Pier 4Pier 5
Strength I
Pier 2Pier 3

Page 264 ends

TABLE: Element Forces - Frames
Frame Station OutputCase CaseType StepType P V2 V3 T M2 M3 FrameElemElemStation Text ft Text Text Text Kip Kip Kip Kip-ft Kip-ft Kip-ft Text ft 6 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -864.01 277.972 67.163 4.69E+01 899.43 10411.47 6-1 06 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -760.227 277.972 67.163 4.69E+01 255.80 7730.61 6-1 9.68956 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -760.227 277.972 67.162 4.69E+01 255.80 7730.61 6-2 06 14.5342 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -708.335 277.972 67.162 4.69E+01 265.30 6390.19 6-2 4.84476 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -656.444 277.972 67.162 4.69E+01 386.19 5049.77 6-2 9.68956 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -656.444 277.972 67.163 4.69E+01 386.19 5049.77 6-3 06 29.0684 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Max -552.66 277.972 67.163 4.69E+01 1023.86 3714.78 6-3 9.68956 0 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1305.724 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -890.67 -8554.05 6-1 06 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1201.94 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -256.61 -6389.82 6-1 9.68956 9.6895 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1201.94 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -256.61 -6389.82 6-2 06 14.5342 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1150.049 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -275.41 -5307.75 6-2 4.84476 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1098.157 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -405.58 -4225.69 6-2 9.68956 19.379 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -1098.157 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -405.59 -4225.69 6-3 06 29.0684 StrI-Pier Lateral Combination Min -994.374 -224.175 -65.857 -3.75E+01 -1056.03 -3047.59 6-3 9.6895 Height Moment Axial V
ft Kip-ft Kip Kip

29.07 1056.03 552.66 67.1619.38 405.58 656.44 67.1614.53 275.41 708.34 67.16

9.69 256.61 760.23 67.160.00 899.43 864.01 67.16
Strength I Locd Combination DL+LL+Thermal
Pier 4

Page 265 ends

City of Seal Beach
Peer Review Memo
P A G E 1
Peer Review Memo
City of Seal Beach, CA

BRIDGE RATING REPORT
Prepared by: KLEINFELDER, May 6, 2025
For
College Park Drive Bridge
Bridge No. 53C0139
Date: 04/30/2026
Prepared for:

City of Seal Beach Department of Public Works
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Prepared By:

BKF Engineers
3850 Vine Street,
Riverside, CA 92507

City of Seal Beach
Peer Review Memo
P A G E 2
Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Technical Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 4

City of Seal Beach
Peer Review Memo
P A G E 3
Executive Summary
This memorandum documents an independent peer review of the Structural Analysis and Bridge Load Rating prepared by Kleinfelder (May 6, 2025). The review evaluates methodology, assumptions, calculations and conclusions regarding the addition of two utility pipelines to each side of the existing College Park Drive Bridge. The review included an evaluation of select calculations, results, and design assumptions for reasonableness, consistency, and general compliance with applicable provisions. It did not include independent reproduction of calculations, detailed analysis, or development of separate analytical models.

The peer review focuses on the following items:
• Review of analysis methodology and modeling approach
• Verification of load assumptions and code compliance
• Evaluation of structural capacity conclusions
• Assessment of bridge condition and associated risks
This peer review evaluates the structural analysis report in accordance with:
• Caltrans Bridge Load Rating Manual, 2nd Edition 2022
• AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE), 3rd Edition • AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition with CA Amendments Review comments are presented as red marks provided directly on the Load Rating Report in Appendix A.

Technical Findings
The analytical approach utilizing CSI Bridge and Load and Resistance Factor Ratings (LRFR) methodology in accordance with the before referenced Caltrans and AASHTO standards is appropriate.

The LRFR equation used is consistent with AASHTO MBE requirements. Load cases include dead load, utilities, HS20-44 design vehicle, and legal vehicles. However, dead load calculations need to be reviewed and not all live loads from Caltrans LRM Table 3.4A are included in the calculations.

Additionally, for negative moment demands and reactions at piers, confirm the provisions specified in AASHTO LRFD 3.6.1.3.1 and CA Amendments are applied as indicated in the review comments in Appendix A.

Operating and legal ratings are satisfactory; inventory ratings below 1.0, but it does not require posting.

City of Seal Beach
Peer Review Memo
P A G E 4
The addition of proposed pipelines results in a minimal increase in demand (≤ ~6%) and does not adversely impact bridge performance.

Bridge superstructure remains structurally adequate; however, review of bar reinforcing steel used in the capacity calculations is recommended as shown on the review comments in Appendix A.

Pier capacity evaluation, including conservative assumptions for corrosion, indicates adequate capacity. However, demand to capacity ratio (DCR) should be verified once the calculations are updated according to the review comments.

Seismic impact of added utilities is below thresholds requiring retrofit.

Conclusions
The report is technically acceptable with comments and recommendations provided as part of this review. The bridge can support the proposed pipeline additions with a minimal impact to the bridge load rating.

Complete review comments are shown directly in the report in Appendix A of this memo, but in general the following items need to be reviewed:
• Clarify rating vehicle selection (LRM Table 3.4A)
• Verify dead load calculations
• Verify live load application for negative moment demand and reactions at the piers (AASHTO LFRD 3.6.1.3.1)
• Verify utility weights
• Verify superstructure capacity as reinforcement varies along spans • Evaluate pier shear capacity

City of Seal Beach
Peer Review Memo
P A G E 5

APPENDIX A
BKF Review Comments
20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF COLLEGE PARK DRIVE BRIDGE

FOR PIPELINE ADDITION

BRIDGE RATING REPORT
KLEINFELDER PROJECT # 20233246.001A
May 6, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder
All Rights Reserved

ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.
20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
A Report Prepared for: City of Long Beach Utilities
Dennis Santos, PE
Manager of Engineering – Development Services
Long Beach Utilities
1800 E Wardlow Rd
Long Beach, CA 90807
Prepared by: Hao Xu, P.E.

Name
Project Professional
Reviewed by: Kelly Burnell, P.E.

Name
Senior Program Manager

KLEINFELDER
770 First Avenue, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-831-4600
May 6, 2025
Kleinfelder Project No: 20233246.001A

Page 1 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
___________________________________________________________________________________ The City of Long Beach Utilities requested a structural analysis of the existing College Park Drive Bridge to assess the feasibility of adding a pipeline on each side of the bridge overhang while maintaining the bridge’s structural integrity. The Kleinfelder team performed a field visit to confirm findings of the current Bridge Inspection Report and performed a load rating analysis with the intent of identifying potential deficiencies of the bridge. The bridge was analyzed using CSI Bridge software to reflect the overall performance in the bridge superstructure and piers.

The addition of the proposed pipelines does not significantly affect the bridge’s load carrying capacity nor push any components below load carrying requirements.

The site visit validated the information provided in the Bridge Inspection Report. The bridge condition was observed to be consistent with the findings of the inspection report. The site visit confirmed that rebar is exposed and corroded around the middle-lower surfaces of several piers. No immediate critical deficiencies were identified in the bridge superstructure. See Section 2 of this report for discussion of the site visit.

Based on the results of the load rating analysis, the bridge superstructure with the proposed pipelines added has sufficient capacity for the design operating rating and all legal vehicles. A rating analysis of the existing bridge prior to the addition of the pipelines was also performed, by comparing the two rating scores. The proposed pipe loading has a maximum impact of less than 6.2% on the exterior girder ratings. Table 1 summarizes the results of the final bridge condition with the additional pipelines as presented below:

Table 1: Load Rating Summary

Page 2 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Additionally, given the existing damage to the bridge piers, an analysis was performed to check the bending and axial capacity of the pier with the additional loads from the proposed pipelines. The analysis assumed the corroded rebars were ineffective. The analysis results show the damaged pier has sufficient structural capacity to resist the loading during the normal daily operation and vehicle travel with the proposed pipeline loads added.

Page 3 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
2 DOCUMENT REVIEW AND SITE VISIT
___________________________________________________________________________________ The College Park Drive Bridge is a reinforced concrete girder bridge spanning 350 feet and 6 inches across the San Gabriel River. Originally constructed in 1964, the bridge consists of eight spans and a superstructure measuring 39 feet and 11 inches in width. It accommodates two traffic lanes, one in each direction, a sidewalk on the north side, and a small curb along the south side with concrete railings on both sides of the bridge. The superstructure is comprised of six T-girders integrated with a 6 1/8-inchthick deck with overhangs. Seven symmetrically spaced pier walls support the bridge across the river.

These pier walls are fixed-fixed at pier 4,5&6 and are fixed-pinned at pier 2,3,7&8. Expansion bearings at the abutments provide support for each girder. In 2010, the abutments were modified to include shear keys on each girder as part of a seismic retrofit. There are two existing utilities suspended from the exterior bridge girders, a 12-inch water pipe on the north side and a 16-inch oil pipe on the south side.

It is our understanding that a bridge preventative maintenance plan to repair the spalling and corrosion of the piers is underway.

2.1 NEW PIPELINES TO THE BRIDGE
The Long Beach Water Department is proposing to install two new utility pipes above the existing utility pipes on both sides of the bridge. A 16-inch welded steel recycled water pipeline will be placed along the north edge, while an 8-inch sewer pipeline encased in a 16-inch casing will run along the south side.

Both pipelines will be supported by steel frames bolted to the bridge exterior girders and deck overhangs.

2.2 BRIDGE SITE VISIT
A field visit was conducted to evaluate the existing bridge condition. The site inspection included a visual assessment of the overall bridge, focusing on the superstructure, pier walls (observed from both sides of the river channel), and abutment shear keys. The purpose of the visit was to verify the condition assessment outlined in the Bridge Inspection Report and identify any new deficiencies, if present.

Page 4 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

2.2.1 Bridge Deck
The bridge deck and sidewalk exhibit aged concrete with signs of delamination and hairline cracks. There are multiple areas of spalled concrete on the deck surface, exposing underlying aggregate and potentially reinforcing steel (Figure 2). The deck overhang shows concrete loss along the edge corner, with exposed bottom rebar on the north side (Figure 6). Concrete corner damage is commonly observed on the bridge rails (Figure 3). Additionally, sections of the sidewalk and curbs have areas where the concrete cover has deteriorated, exposing the rebar to the surface (Figures 4 and 5). Although these types of damage are found on the bridge deck, they remain localized and are unlikely to compromise the overall performance of the bridge superstructure, confirming the deck condition is “Fair” as rated in the inspection report.

Figure 1: Bridge Looking West Figure 2: Bridge Deck Eastbound Figure 3: Bridge Rail Damage Figure 4: Bridge South Curb Surface

Page 5 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Figure 5: Bridge Sidewalk Damage Figure 6: Bridge North Overhang

2.2.2 Bridge Girders
No major damage was found on the bridge girders or deck soffit. Minor efflorescence and hairline cracks are present but do not pose a concern for structural integrity or load-bearing capacity. Overall, the girders remain in good condition.

Figure 7: Deck Soffit and Girder 1 Figure 8: Deck Soffit and Girder 2

2.2.3 Bridge Piers
The piers were observed from both ends of the riverbank. Rebar exposures were observed on both faces of pier 4,5,6 and 7. Pier 4 has significant signs of deterioration, particularly at the waterline and lower sections. There is visible concrete spalling, exposing vertical reinforcement bars, which suggests longterm water damage and corrosion. The concrete surface has cracks and delamination, further indicating material degradation (Figure 13,14). Per 5,6 and 7 all have similar deterioration but to a lesser scale at

Page 6 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
the edge of the pier (Figure 15,16). The bridge pier near the waterline undergoes a biological growth, with rough-textured layer of marine growth, likely mussels, or barnacles, having accumulated on the submerged portion of the pier. While not a hazard by itself, the biological growth can make inspection of the concrete at those locations difficult. The overall condition of the pier appears structurally intact, though the biological growth and water exposure indicate that continued routine inspections for potential deterioration over time are important (Figure 17). These routine inspections are currently performed by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

The pile cap and piles have been reported as exposed and affected by scour. Since the structure is submerged, the condition of these elements could not be assessed during the site visit.

Figure 9: Piers Looking Southwest Figure 10: Piers Looking Southeast Figure 11: Piers Looking Northwest Figure 12: Pier Looking Northeast

Page 7 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Figure 13: Pier 4 East Face Figure 14: Pier 4 East Face 2 Figure 15: Pier 5(Front) & 6 West Face Figure 16: Pier 5 East Face Figure 17: Marine Growth on Pier Figure 18: Pier 8 North

Page 8 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

2.2.4 Bridge Abutment
A seismic retrofit of the bridge abutment was completed in 2010. The newly poured concrete shear keys and the steel bearing plates attached to the girders are in good condition. Cracks were noted on the concrete shear key, and paint spalling on the steel plate indicating likely signs of stress concentration at the engaged faces. No damage was observed in the bearing assembly or anchor bolts. Overall, the abutments remain in good condition.

Figure 19: Bridge East Abutment
Figure 20: Bridge Shear Key Figure 21: Bridge Bearing

2.2.5 Existing Utilities and Other Considerations
The existing utilities on each side of the bridge are in good condition, with no visible deformation or damage to the pipes. The connection and support frames remain intact, with no signs of steel buckling or missing bolts observed during the site visit. However, at the northeast corner of the bridge, where the pipe is buried underground, a small water stream was noticed on the ground surface, indicating a potential underground leakage at this location (Figure24). It is our understanding that a repair of this leak is planned.

Page 9 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
A beehive was also observed at the northeast abutment, within the bridge expansion joint. The hive could pose environmental concerns and may require careful removal to prevent further issues. (Figure 25)

Figure 22: South Utility Pipe Figure 23: North Utility Pipe

Figure 24: Northeast Utility Pipe Figure 25: Beehive at East Abutment

2.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATION OF PIPELINE ADDITION
Caltrans Structure Technical Policy 16.1 provides guidance on seismic design considerations for bridge modification that add mass or increase demands on existing components.

For seismic evaluation and design, bridge modification is classified as Minor or Major modification. Only Major modification to the bridge requires seismic evaluation and retrofit of the structure. To satisfy Major modification, the increase in mass due to additions needs to exceed 20% of the existing

Page 10 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
superstructure mass. The calculation below shows the added weight of the proposed utilities, including the existing utility pipes previously installed and is determined to be less than 9 percent of the total superstructure weight. Therefore, seismic modifications are not required due to the pipeline additions.

Table 2: Superstructure Weight Comparison
The bridge underwent a seismic retrofit in the early 2000’s. The intention of this retrofit was to prevent collapse of the superstructure spans through the addition of shear keys and restrainers. The seismic retrofit did not upgrade the substructure of the bridge.

Page 11 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
3 BRIDGE LOAD RATING
___________________________________________________________________________________ To assess the feasibility and impact of adding two additional pipelines while maintaining the bridge’s structural integrity, a load rating analysis was performed. The load rating follows the Caltrans Bridge Load Rating Manual (Caltrans Rating Manual) 2nd edition 2022, which references to the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications with CA Amendments.

Load ratings provide a consistent method of analyzing the current condition of the bridge to safely carry expected vehicular loads. Load ratings are used to determine if a bridge needs to be posted for reduced loads.

3.1 LOAD RATING OVERVIEW
The bridge load rating follows the requirements specified in Section 3 of the Caltrans Rating Manual.

Per the Caltrans Rating Manual Section 2.8, only the primary superstructure element requires load rating. Also, the manual indicates the deck of conventionally reinforced concrete bridge supported on girders carrying normal traffic in good to fair condition need not be load rated. Therefore, for this structure the bridge girders are the only element requiring load rating. This is consistent with the pipelines being added to the exterior girder where their loading will have the primary impact.

Based on the Caltrans Rating Manual Section 3.7, reinforced concrete girder bridge should be load rated using the Load and Resistance Factor Ratings (LRFR) method. The Strength Limit States used for Design loading at Strength I (Inventory and Operating) and Strength II levels use the following load factors. Per Caltrans Rating Manual 3.7.4.1, the Service Limit State does not require evaluation for reinforced concrete girder bridges.

Table 3: Strength Level Load Factors

Page 12 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The Live Load for the loading rating includes the two Vehicle Classes. • Design Vehicle - HS20-44
• Legal Vehicles – Type 3, Type 3S2 and Type 3-3
It is noted on the As-Built Plans that H20-44 was used in the original bridge design, however, HS20-44 is used to be consistent with the load rating data shown on the Bridge Inspection Report. The Permit Vehicles were not rated in this bridge rating analysis.

The Load Rating Equation used is as follows,
• The C in the equation is the capacity of the bridge element expressed as C=φc x φs x φRn.

The φc is the Condition Factor defined in the MBE. Based on the Inspection Report and site visit observation, the bridge deck is in “fair” condition and the girder is ”Satisfactory,” therefore a Conditional Factor of 0.95 is used.

Table 4: Condition Factors
The φs is the System Factor defined in the MBE and represents the level of redundancy of the superstructure system, which for a multi-girder bridge, 1.0 is used.

Table 5: System Factors
φRn is the capacity of the bridge element with reduction factor. =
−
( +

)

Page 13 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
• The γD is the permanent load with Strength Level Load Factors. In this analysis, the self-weight of the bridge, including the existing and proposed utility pipes are considered. • The γ (LL+IM) is the Live Load with Strength Level Load Factors, including the Dynamic Allowance (IM) based on the AASHTO Caltrans Amendments which is taken as 33% for Strength I Design Vehicle and 25% for Strength II Legal Vehicles.

Table 6: Dynamic Allowance IM

3.2 BRIDGE MODEL AND DESIGN LOAD ASSUMPTIONS

3.2.1 Bridge Geometry
A 3D model was developed using the CSI Bridge software to model the entire bridge superstructure and piers to capture the Dead Load and Live Load condition of the bridge.

Figure 23: Bridge Model
The superstructure has eight continuous spans with pier walls. The pier walls are fixed-fixed at pier 4,5&6 and fixed at top and pined to the footing at pier 2,3,7&8. The abutments are modeled as roller bearing links.

Page 14 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The bridge deck and girders are modeled in the bridge cross section which includes the fillet on each side of the girders. The intermediate and end diaphragms are also modeled as part of the bridge superstructure.

Figure 24 Bridge Cross Section
The girder layout also includes variable web width at each end, modeled to capture the variable section values.

Figure 25: Typical Girder Plan View
The pier wall is modeled as a single frame element similar to a column, supporting the bridge at each span. The height of the pier is measured from the bottom of the girder to the top of the footing. Based on the as-built plans, the following pier height are used.

Page 15 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 7: Pier Height

3.2.2 Dead Load
The Dead Load of the Bridge Deck, Girder, Diaphragms and Piers are auto calculated in the CSI Bridge Software based on the geometry defined. There is no Wearing Surface on the Bridge. The Dead Load of the Sidewalk, Curb, Rails and Utilities on both sides of the Bridge are defined as user load inputs.

Per Caltrans Rating Manual Section 4.5.5.5, the weight of the Sidewalk, Curb and Rails are distributed evenly to all girders. In the model, the weight of those components is defined as surface load applied to the entire bridge deck area. The weight calculation for each component can be found in the attached calculations.

Figure 26: Sidewalk Load on Deck
The existing and new proposed utility pipes are attached to the exterior girders and deck. There are two existing pipes: a 12 in. water pipe on the north side and an 18 in. oil pipe on the south side. The details of the existing pipes are not provided in the documents. With the absence of this information, the selfweight of the existing pipes and water inside are estimated based on the Memo to Load Raters 11-5. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

28.50 ft 29.49 ft 30.26 ft 30.51 ft 30.26 ft 29.49 ft 28.50 ft

3.50 ft -4.00 ft -4.00 ft -4.00 ft -4.00 ft -4.00 ft 3.50 ft

21.92 ft 30.41 ft 31.18 ft 31.43 ft 31.18 ft 30.41 ft 21.92 ft Note: Superstructure depth=37"
Deck Elev.

Pier Bottom Elev.

Pier Height
Bridge Pier #
Bridge Pier Wall Height

Page 16 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 8: Utility Weight Table
There two proposed utility pipes are taken from the design plans provided by the City and are a 16 in. welded steel water pipe on the north side and 8 in. encased sewer pipe on the south side. The selfweight of those pipes and support beams are calculated.

The utility load is concentrated at each connection support and the spacing varies along each side. In the model this is simplified as a line load applied on both sides of the bridge. The existing pipes’ self-weight are directly attached to the exterior girders, they are modeled with a 1 ft. offset from the edge of the deck. The new utility pipes self-weight is modeled at the edge of the deck.

Page 17 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Figure 27: Existing (Top) & New (Bottom) Pipe Loads
The self-weight of the pipes will be distributed to all girders based on the girder geometry within the model. Based on the model results, the dead load distribution from the exterior girder to the first and second interior girder is around 55%, 35%, and 10%, respectively. This is slightly different from the Memo to Load Raters Section 11-5 statement, which uses a more approximate method of 75% of the utility weight is distributed to the exterior girder and 25% to the first interior girder.

3.2.3 Live Load
The Live Load for the loading rating includes the two Vehicle Classes and four types of trucks. The Pedestrian Load on the sidewalk is not considered in this load rating analysis as per MBE Section 6A.2.3.4.
• Design Vehicle - HS20-44
Figure 28: HS20 Loading

Page 18 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
• Legal Vehicles – Type 3, Type 3S2 and Type 3-3
Figure 29: Legal Vehicles Loading
Based on the Bridge Cross Section the total roadway width is 36 ft. between the sidewalk and the curb and contains two traffic lanes. For load rating purposes, the traffic load is not considered to occur over the sidewalk. The lane limit in the bridge model is restricted between the sidewalk and curbs.

Figure 30: Live Load Lane Width

Page 19 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Two floating traffic lanes are defined in the model, each lane is considered 12 ft. wide containing a 10 ft. wide truck and can be placed side by side at any offset within the overall 32 ft. bridge width.

Figure 31: Lane Data
For each vehicle type, it is allowed to have up to two lanes on the bridge simultaneously, with the Multiple Presence Factor of 1.2 for one lane or 1.0 for two lanes. The dynamic allowance IM is applied to each type of vehicle, which for the Design Vehicle under Strength I, 33% is used, and for the Legal Vehicles under Strength II, 25% is used. The live load distribution to each girder is based on the geometry of the bridge and the lane location, as calculated by the software.

The lane load does not apply in general load cases. However, For the Type 3-3 vehicle, MBE Section 6A.4.4.2.1a requires that when analyzing the negative moment of the girder, a lane load of 0.2 klf combined with two Type 3-3 vehicles heading in the same direction separated by 30 ft. should also be considered. This is an additional load case defined in the bridge model.

Page 20 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Per MBE Section C 6A.2.3.1, the longitudinal load due to the truck braking force should only be considered when longitudinal stability of the structure is a concern. Since the stability of a multi-piers bridge is not an issue, the braking force is not considered in the bridge rating.

3.2.4 Environmental Load
The environmental load cases such as Wind Load, Seismic Load, Stream Load or Temperature, Creep and Shrinkage are not considered in the load rating per the MBE.

3.3 BRIDGE DEMAND AND CAPACITY
The factored moment and shear demand at the entire bridge section or at each girder are obtained from the modeled results. The maximum positive moment is taken as the maximum value near the middle span. The maximum negative moment is taken at the face of the pier wall, which is 9 in. away from the center of the pier. The Maximum shear force is taken as “D” away from the centerline of the pier, “D” is the superstructure depth, which is about 3 ft.

Figure 32: A Typical Loading Diaphragm (Strength I HS20, Entire Deck)

Page 21 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The summary of the maximum moment and shear demands for all spans is listed below.

Table 9: Summary of Maximum Moment and Shear Demand (Entire Bridge) In general, the bridge design uses the same rebar detail for the bottom longitudinal reinforcement and shear reinforcement. The top longitudinal reinforcement at Piers 2 and 8 are two rebar less than the typical interior piers. The reduced negative bending capacity at those two piers is also investigated. The interior girder negative moment rating was found to be governed by the bending at Pier 2. The summary of the negative maximum moment at Pier 2 & 8 is shown in the table below.

Table 10: Summary of Maximum Moment and Shear Demand (At Pier 2&8) The moment and shear capacities in the calculation package are based on the AASHTO Section 5.

Based on the as-built plans, the following material properties are used:

f`c=3.0 ksi Concrete Strength
fy=40.0 ksi Rebar Strength
The bridge girders are treated as T-beams with the effective flange width defined per Memo to Load Raters 11-6. In this case, since the Girder Spacing/Span ratio is less than 0.32, the full tributary width of

Page 22 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
the deck can be used as the effective flange width. Per the plan details, 5-#11 bars are placed at the bottom of the girder at middle span, 10-#10 bars are used at the top for negative bending at pier 3-7 and 8-#10 bars are used at pier 2&8. There are #4 continuous longitudinal bars at the bottom of the deck between each girder. Those bars are also considered contributing to the negative bending capacity.

The summary of factored girder moment capacity at the middle span and at the face of the pier wall are listed in the table below. The moment at location of where the longitudinal rebar terminates are also checked under the Strength I load combination to ensure the section capacity is sufficient.

Table 11: Girder Moment Capacity
The shear capacity is taken as the girder only section. The flange deck concrete is ignored in the shear capacity check. The shear stirrups near the middle piers use #5 @ 9 in., the stirrups spacing near Piers 2&8 are increased to #5 @ 12 in. The girder has horizontal flares at the last 5 ft. from the span end.

Since the critical shear location is at “D” away from the centerline of pier, the girder width is also taken at the same location which is about 3 ft. away at each end. The Shear Analysis Method is using the AASHTO Appendix B5 General Procedure with Tables as this is the recommended first alternative per the Memo to Load Raters Section 15-1.

The summary of factored shear capacity at “D” away from the pier is listed below. Notice that since the Appendix B5 General Procedure for Shear Design with Tables is used, the shear capacity is interactive with the moment demand at same location, resulting in the shear capacity varies slightly on each load case.

Table 12: Girder Shear Capacity
Kip-ft Kip-ft Kip-ft Kip-ft
778.1 -957.6 781.0 -1010.6
778.1 -759.6 781.0 -805.0
All Cases Pier 3-7
Girder Moment Capacity
Exterior Girder Interior Girder
Mid-Span
Moment
Negative
Moment
Mid-Span
Moment
Negative
Moment
All Cases Pier 2&8

Page 23 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

3.4 BRIDGE RATING RESULTS
The table below shows the final bridge rating factors for both exterior girders and the controlling interior girder. The rating results for the Design Vehicle Operating and Legal Vehicles are satisfactory for all girders. The rating results for the Design Vehicle Inventory Rating indicate the bridge interior girder and south exterior girder rate below 1.0 for the Design Vehicle Inventory case. This is reasonable because the original design vehicle for the bridge was a lighter truck than the HS20 and the safety factors used for Inventory rating are higher than normal operational rating factors. This rating factor under 1.0 for the Inventory condition does not result in a need to post or limit vehicular use of the bridge.

Table 13: Rating Scores Final Bridge
The current bridge, without the newly proposed pipe additions, was also rated and the results are provided in the table below. It shows the same pattern where the legal and operating ratings are satisfactory, but the inventory design vehicle rating is below 1.0.

Table 14: Rating Scores Existing Bridge
By comparing both tables, the rating result influenced by the additional weight of the proposed pipes for the north exterior girder is about 6.2% and 4.96% for the south exterior girder. The interior girder has less than 2% difference. These results suggest that the proposed utility pipelines should have a minimal impact on the structural integrity of the existing bridge.

Page 24 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
4 PIER CAPACITY CHECK
___________________________________________________________________________________ Based on the field visit and Bridge Inspection Report, the existing bridge piers show signs of deterioration at the waterline and lower sections. There is visible concrete spalling and exposed vertical reinforcement bars, which suggest long-term water damage and corrosion. The reduced capacity of the piers was investigated to assess the structure condition with the additional proposed pipeline weight considered.

Per the as-built plan, the pier vertical rebars are #8@12 inch spacing and they are not confined by the horizontal reinforcement. The piers are fixed at the top to the superstructure and pin connected to the foundation at Piers 2,3,7&8, and fix connected at Piers 4&5. In all eight piers, Pier 4 exhibits the most severe rebar exposure along the horizontal surface above the waterline height. The worst face is the east face of Pier 4, where 25 vertical exposed rebars were counted along a similar height. This constitutes about 2/3 of the total vertical reinforcement on one side of that cross-section. For that reason, the calculations focus on the Pier 4 capacity, assuming conservatively those bars are no longer effective under bending or axial loads.

Figure 33: Pier 4 Rebar Exposure
The structure analysis uses the LRFD method to determine the Demand / Capacity Ratio (DCR) of the pier under bending in the bridge longitudinal direction and concurrent axial force. The Strength I Limit State loading is considered. The pier bending in the bridge’s longitudinal direction is primarily controlled

Page 25 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
by the braking force of the design vehicles and the thermal expansion due to the temperature change.

The 3D model is utilized to obtain the Dead Load, Live Load, Braking, and Thermal forces from the bridge.

The moment demand due to the temperature change is based on the uniform temperature Procedure A per AASHTO Caltrans Amendments. The temperature change is taken as half of the total temperature range which is 35 F°+/-. The thermal coefficient per AASHTO is taken as 0.000006 in./in./F°. Since the bridge has symmetric span and substructure height configurations with roller bearings at the abutments, it is assumed that the expansion or contraction of the superstructure will be evenly distributed towards both abutments. Piers 2 and 8 will undergo the most top thermal demands, while Pier 5 will see negligible thermal loading.

The longitudinal load due to the truck braking force is also considered in the model. Since the lane load does not apply in general cases, 25% of the axle weight of the design vehicle is used to determine the braking force.

The maximum moment and the axial forces under Strength I from the 3D bridge model is tabulated below:

Table 15: Strength I Moment and Axial Demand
Since Pier 4 is the component under the investigation for condition reasons, the calculation checks the Pier 4 reduced capacity vs. the total demand of thermal, DL+LL, and braking. It is noticed that the cross section of where the exposed rebar is at the lower portion of the pier, and for a fixed-fixed pier, the moment demand is reduced at the middle height of the pier. Since the corrosion extension of the rebar is unknown, it is assumed that the critical moment section is taken at the waterline which is the lower 1/4 height of the pier. By visually counting the exposed rebar, the bending cross section assumes total 25 tension rebars are lost when calculating the reduced moment capacity. The bending capacity is checked utilizing the software SPColumn. Based on the calculation result, the DCR for the moment at Pier 4 is 0.92. The pier is determined to still be structurally sound despite the current levels of corrosion.

Page 26 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 16: Strength I Moment and Axial Demand Along the Height of Pier 4 Figure 34: SP Column Model
Table 17: Moment DCR
Our understanding is that a pier repair project is currently planned for the bridge. Repair of the deteriorated bridge pier walls to prevent further damage is recommended. The loose, delaminated concrete surface needs to be removed to expose the corroded reinforcing steel. The exposed rebar should be cleaned using abrasive blasting or wire brushing to remove rust and scale, followed by the application of surface sealer or coating. Severely corroded bars may be supplemented or replaced as needed to restore the original reinforcement configuration. High-performance, non-shrink repair mortar or shotcrete will be placed to rebuild the damaged concrete surface, followed by appropriate curing methods to ensure strength development.

Page 27 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
5 CONCLUSIONS
___________________________________________________________________________________

1. The addition of the proposed utility pipelines does not significantly affect the bridge’s load carrying capacity nor does it push any components below load carrying requirements.

2. The observations from the site visit confirmed the condition assessment in the Bridge Inspection Report.
• The bridge deck exhibits minor concrete damage, including efflorescence and hairline cracks. However, these do not affect structural integrity. The bridge girders remain in good condition with no major damage.
• The piers show varying degrees of deterioration, spalling and exposed rebar, with significant corrosion observed. The submerged portions of the piers also show biological growth, which may make inspection difficult.
• The abutments, retrofitted in 2010, are in generally good condition, with minor cracks in the shear key and paint spalling on the steel bearing plates observed. • Existing utility pipes are in good condition, though minor leakage may be occurring at the northeast corner of the bridge. A beehive was also observed at the east abutment.

3. Load Rating Results indicate that the Design Vehicle Operating and Legal Vehicles have satisfactory ratings for normal vehicle operation. The addition of the two proposed utility pipes has a minimal impact on the bridge’s structural integrity.

4. A capacity check of the piers, especially Pier 4, reveals the piers still meet structural requirements with reserve capacity despite the corrosion and loss reinforcement.

5. While the bridge remains structurally sound, the piers, particularly Pier 4, require monitoring and repair to arrest the deterioration. Continued regular inspection of the bridge as is currently underway by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and maintenance of the piers, deck, and utilities are recommended to ensure continued structural integrity. The addition of the pipes will not complicate the future repair of the pier damage and can reasonably be performed prior to the repair project.

6. The repairs outlined in the Inspection report on the bridge should be performed.

Page 28 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX A

PROJECT PLANS
___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 29 ends

Page 30 ends

Page 31 ends

Page 32 ends

Page 33 ends

Page 34 ends

Page 35 ends

Page 36 ends

Page 37 ends

Page 38 ends

Page 39 ends

Page 40 ends

Page 41 ends

SCALE:

FILE:
4 DETAIL
C07 1"=1'-0"
201326-C10.DWG
PROJECT NO.

LAST SAVED BY: FILE NAME:

DES
DWN
CHK C10 REO-0123
14 BRIDGE PIPE SUPPORT

DETAILS
201326-C10.dwg asimon
201326
1/22/2024 11:14:32 AM Plot Date:

DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING / CHIEF ENGINEER

MANAGER OF ENGINEERING

APPROVED

RECOMMENDED

DEPARTMENT DATE
BY CK'D.

CITY ENG.

VERIZON
EDISON CO.

LB ENERGY
FIRE

INPUT BY

AS-BUILT BY

POSTED GIS

CONSTRUCTED BY

GIS TILE
SPEC. NO

SECTION MAP

SERVICE ATLAS PAGE
GATE VALVES REC.

SCALE 1"= 40'
N/A
CONTRACT NO.

CHECKED BY

CORRECTED BY
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
__
DATE __/__/__

VARIOUS
REV. DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET OF SHEETS
DRAWING / FILE NUMBER:

FAMIS PROJECT: WAR86
DATE
DATE
CHRISTOPHER J. GARNER

GENERAL MANAGER

LADWP HAYNES GENERATING

STATION RECYCLED WATER PIPELINE
__/__/__
DRAFT 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
N/A
MUNIS PROJECT: 6005030010
47 No. 76961

LONG BEACH UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

SUPPORT LOCATION

SEE SECTION A
16" WELDED STEEL

PIPE (EL&C)
WEST
SCALE:

ELEVATION
A
-

FOR CONTINUATION,
SEE DWG C-07 FOR CONTINUATION,
SEE DWG C-07
78+00 77+00 76+00 75+00
STA 78+38.39
16" FORCE BALANCED

FLEXIBLE EXPANSION JOINT

BY EBBA IRON REFER TO
SPECIFIATION SECTION 33 05 35

FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
STA 75+01.88
16" FORCE BALANCED

FLEXIBLE EXPANSION JOINT

BY EBBA IRON REFER TO
SPECIFIATION SECTION 33 05 35

FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
EAST
CONSTRUCT 3" AV/AR
SEE DWG C17, TYPICAL
DETAIL P240

NO SCALE
COLB BRIDGE NO. 53C0139
NOTES:

1. ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHAPES AND PLATES SHALL BE ASTM A572 GR 50.

2. ALL WELDING ELECTRODES SHALL BE E70XX.

3. ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL, PLATES, AND C-CLAMPS SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED ACCORDING TO ASTM A153.

4. ALL ANCHORS SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED PER ASTM F1554 GR. 55.

5. PIPE SUPPORTS NEAREST FORCE BALANCED FLEXIBLE EXPANSION JOINT SHALL BE SHIMMED WITH STEEL WASHER PLATE TO PROVIDE 1/4" CLEARANCE BETWEEN PIPE AND CLAMP. 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 266'-8" 20'-0" 20'-0" SCALE:

FILE:

A SECTION
- 1"=1'-0"
201326-C10.DWG
5 -
6 -
(2) L4x3x1/2
1" DIA U-BOLT WITH 1-1/2" WIDE X 11/16"
THICK THERMOPLASTIC ISOLATOR. FIG
100-TPI BY PIPING TECHNOLOGY AND
PRODUCTS INC. OR APPROVED EQUAL
16" WELDED STEEL

PIPE (EL&C)
(1/2" WALL THICKNESS)
C15x40

EXISTING
12" WATER PIPE

PROTECT IN PLACE

EXISTING COLLEGE PARK

DRIVE BRIDGE STRUCTURE
(BRIDGE NO. 53C0139)
7 -
SCALE:

FILE:
5 DETAIL
- 3/16"=1'-0"
201326-C10.DWG
C15x40

1.25" MIN
(TYP)
24"Lx8"Wx5/8"
(6) 3/4"Ø ANCHORS W/6" MIN EMBEDMENT. USE
HILTI HIT-RE 500 V3 OR

APPROVED EQUAL
(TYP)
3/8
TYP
SCALE:

FILE:
6 DETAIL
- 3/8"=1'-0"
201326-C10.DWG
L4x3x1/2 C15x40
1" BOLT
2"
2"
3"
2" 6"
1-3/4"
3"

EXISTING

CONCRETE
L4x3x1/2 (TYP)
(2) 3/4"Ø ANCHORS W/ 6" MIN EMBEDMENT. USE
HILTI HIT-RE 500 V3 OR

APPROVED EQUAL
SCALE:

FILE:
7 DETAIL
- 3/8"=1'-0"
201326-C10.DWG
5'-0" 8'-0" 10'-11" 20'-0" 11'-6" 8'-0" 5'-0"

SUPPORT LOCATION

SEE SECTION A (TYP)

SUPPORT LOCATION

SEE SECTION A
Digitally signed by Matthew B. Huckaby
Contact Info: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Date: 2024.01.22 15:10:46-08'00'

Page 42 ends

EAST WEST 75+00 76+00 77+00 78+00 79+00 DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING MANAGER OF ENGINEERING APPROVED RECOMMENDED DEPARTMENT DATE BY CK'D. CITY ENG. VERIZON EDISON CO. LB ENERGY FIRE INPUT BY AS-BUILT BY POSTED GIS CONSTRUCTED BY GIS TILE SPEC. NO SECTION MAP SERVICE ATLAS PAGE GATE VALVES REC. SCALE NTS N/ACONTRACT NO. CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY DATE DATE CORRECTED BY DATE DATE DATE DATE __ DATE 09/18/23 VARIOUS REV. DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET OF SHEETS SC-0442 DRAWING / FILE NUMBER: FAMIS PROJECT: WASM-FB DATE DATE CHRISTOPHER J. GARNER GENERAL MANAGER LONG BEACH UTILITIES DEPARTMENT LADWP HAYNES GENERATING STATION SEWER FORCE MAIN PIPELINE PACKAGE 1 PH_. X_______ __/__/__ FILE NAME: SC0442.dwg DESIGN BY: PH N/A MUNIS PROJECT: 6007050019 1111 Corporate Center Dr, Suite 303 Monterey Park, CA 91754 8 10 BRIDGE PIPE SUPPORT DETAILS EXISTING COLLEGE PARK DRIVE BRIDGE STRUCTURE SUPPORT STRAP @ 12'-0" SPACING OFFSET FROM EXISTING 16" OIL PIPE SUPPORT SCALE: NTS ELEVATION STA 74+99.00 EXPANSION JOINT
STA 78+53.00 EXPANSION JOINT 16" STEEL CASING WITH 8" DIP SEWER FORCE MAIN A1 C-09B SCALE: FILE: NTS FILE SECTION - EXISTING EXISTING SUPPORT LOCATION (TYP) 2'-1" 4" 12" 0'-9 1/2" 1'-10" 1'-2 1/2" A2 C-09B SCALE: FILE: NTS FILE SECTION - NEW 16" CASING WITH 8" SEWER FM PIPELINE (2) L4x4x1/2 EXISTING COLLEGE PARK DRIVE BRIDGE STRUCTURE 2 x (4) 3/4" ANCHORS W/6" EMBEDMENT. USE HILTI HIT-RE 500 V3 OR APPROVED EQUAL 3" A1- 25' TYP 25' TYP EXISTING 16" OIL PROTECT IN PLACE C 15x40 FLATB C-10B 2 C-10B 1 C-10B3 C-10B EXISTING 16" OIL C-09B PROPOSED SUPPORT LOCATION (TYP) 12' TYP FOR CONTINUATION, SEE DWG C-07 B FOR CONTINUATION, SEE DWG C-07 B 3" 4 C-10B 5 C-10B A2- CONSTRUCT 2" AIR/VAC ASSEMBLY PER DETAIL WDS-212 1. DESIGN, FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO STANDARD OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION (AISC), AS CONTAINED IN THE 15TH EDITION OF "AISC MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION". 2. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL U.N.O.: a. ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHAPES, PLATES, ANGLES AND CHANNELS SHALL BE ASTM A36. b. MACHINE BOLTS SHALL BE ASTM A307. c. TREADED RODS FOR ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE ASTM F1554, GR. 36. 3. ALL STRUCTURAL AND MISCELLANEOUS STEEL SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED ACCORDING TO ASTM A153 AFTER FABRICATION. 4. WELDING OF STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE PERFORMED PER AWS D1.1 & D1.8 USING E70XX ELECTRODES UNLESS OTHERWISED NOTED. 5. TESTS AND SPEICAL INSPECTION: STRUCTURAL TESTS AND SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A QUALIFIED TESTING AND INSPECTION AGENCY AS REQUIRED BELOW AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE REUIREMENT OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CBC. TESTS: a. STRUCTURAL STEEL b. POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS (3/4" ROD: 7.2 K TENSION TEST LOAD U.N.O.) SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: a. SHOP & FIELD WELDING (CONTINUOUS) b. POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS (CONTINUOUS) 6. WHEN INSTALLING DRILLED-IN ANCHORS IN EXISTING NON-PRESTRESSED REINFORCED CONCRETE, USE CARE AND CAUTION TO AVOID CUTTING OR DAMAGING THE EXISTING REINFORCING BARS. WHEN INSTALLING THEM INTO EXISTING PRESTRESSED CONCRETE (PRE-OR POST-TENSIONED) LOCATE THE PRESTRESSED TENDONS BY USING A NON-DESTRUCTIVE METHOD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. EXERCISE EXTREME CARE AND CAUTION TO AVOID CUTTING OR DAMAGING THE TENDONS DURING INSTALLATION. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF ONE INCH BETWEEN THE REINFORCEMENT AND THE DRILLED-IN ANCHOR. 7. FIELD VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS & DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SHOP DRAWING PRODUCTION AND FABRICATION OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENT. 8. WHERE ALL OTHER EXISTING CONDITIONS VARY SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO SUBJECT CONDITIONS. NOTES TO CONTRACTOR: E N G I N E E R S I N C 2151 Michelson Dr. #240 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel. 949.679.0870 Fax. 949.679.9370 Project No.: J858 QualityV C A C I V I L Service Commitment S T R U C T U R A L MBE DBE SBE

Page 43 ends

20233246.001A May 6, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX B

LOAD RATING CALCULATIONS
___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 44 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #: 20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

SUMMARY RESULTS

1.82 1.82 2.56 1.20 0.98 0.99 1.23 1.00 1.062.36 2.35 3.21 1.55 1.37 1.30 1.59 1.29 1.513.68 4.10 6.64 2.23 2.13 2.15 2.41 2.23 2.823.96 3.68 6.08 2.38 1.91 2.21 2.61 2.25 2.784.41 3.27 6.63 2.72 1.83 2.42 2.90 1.97 3.021.77 1.70 2.44 1.18 0.98 0.98 1.19 0.95 1.022.29 2.21 3.20 1.52 1.35 1.29 1.55 1.23 1.463.57 3.85 6.62 2.19 2.12 2.14 2.34 2.12 2.733.85 3.43 6.06 2.34 1.90 2.20 2.54 2.13 2.694.28 3.07 6.61 2.67 1.80 2.40 2.82 1.87 2.93

2.89% 6.20% 4.39% 1.79% 0.47% 0.70% 2.70% 4.96% 3.64%
Rating Factor
Type 3-3 Vehicle
Rating Factor
Existing Bridge Without New Utility
Impact Due to New Pipes
Rating Vehicle
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
HS20 Vehicle Operating
Type 3 Vehicle
Type 3S2 Vehicle
Shear
V
MidSpan
Mome
End
Span
Mome
End
Shear
V
Type 3 Vehicle
MidSpan
Moment
North Exterior Girder Interior Girder South Exterior Girder End
Shear V
HS20 Vehicle Operating
End
Span
Moment
Interior Girder
MidSpan
Mome
End
Span
Mome
South Exterior Girder
Type 3S2 Vehicle
Type 3-3 Vehicle
Final Bridge With New Utility
Shear
V
MidSpan
Mome
End
Span
Mome
End
Shear
V
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
MidSpan
Momen
End
Span
Moment
End
Shear V
MidSpan
Mome
End
Span
Mome
Rating Vehicle
North Exterior Girder

Page 45 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #: 20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25
San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

DEAD LOAD
γconcrete = 150 pcf Unitweight of Concrete γwater = 62.4 pcf Unitweight of Water γsteel = 490 pcf Unitweight of Steel
Bridge Deck
ddeck = 6.125 in Bridge Deck Depth
dtotal = 37 in Total Typical Section Depth
wgirder = 14 in Typical Girder Width
bdeck.ext = 22.5 in Clear Deck Width at Overhang
bdeck.in = 35 in Clear 1/2 Deck Width Between Girder
Agirder.e = Exterior Girder Area
Aslab.e = Exterior Slab Area
Agirder.i = Interior Girder Area
Aslab.i = Interior Slab Area
Additional Concrete at Girder Flare
Girder End Flare: Girder-Deck Joint Fillet:

Exterior Girder Interior Girder Adeck.f = 31 in^2 Joint Fillet Both Sides Top Area at Flare: 360 in^2 720 in^2
Top Area Typ Girder: 8400 in^2 8400 in^2
Increase Percentage 4.3% 8.6%
(as additional weight of girder)
Adeck.e= 6.4 ft^2 Total Area of One Bridge Exterior Girder with Deck Adeck.i= 7.0 ft^2 Total Area of One Bridge Interior Girder with Deck wdeck.e = 0.96 klf Unit Weight of Exterior Girder and Deck wdeck.i = 1.06 klf Unit Weight of Interior Girder and Deck

3.0 ft^2

3.6 ft^2

3.0 ft^2

Page 46 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #: 20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25
San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

Sidewalk (North) Curb (South)
dsidewalk = 9 in Sidewalk Depth dcurb = 9 in Curb Depth bsidewalk = 72 in Sidewalk Width Bcurb = 23 in Curb Width Asidewalk = 4.5 ft^2 Area of Sidewalk Asidewalk = 1.4 ft^2 Area of Curb wsidewalk = 0.675 klf Unit Weight of Sidewalk wcurb = 0.216 klf Unit Weight of Curb Bridge Rail (North) Bridge Rail (South)
hrail = 36 in Height of Rail hrail = 28 in Height of Rail drail = 6 in Width of Rail drail = 6 in Width of Rail
hopening = 18.25 in Height of Rail Opening hopening = 20.25 in Height of Rail Opening wopening = 10 in Width of Rail Opening wopening = 6 in Width of Rail Opening Sopening = 17 in Opening Spacing Sopening = 17 in Opening Spacing hrail.eq = 25.26 in Equivalent Height of Rail hrail.eq = 20.85 in Equivalent Height of Rail (assume solid rail, 6" wide) (assume solid rail, 6" wide) Arail.n = 1.1 ft^2 Area of Rail Arail.s = 0.9 ft^2 Area of Sidewalk wrail.n = 0.158 klf Unit Weight of Rail wrail.s = 0.130 klf Unit Weight of Rail Per Caltrans Bridge Load Rating Manual 4.5.5.5, The dead load of the Barrier and Sidewalk(Curb) is distributed to all girders.

Wdeck = 39.92 ft Total Deck Width
wrail.tot = 0.007 ksf Weight of two Rails Uniformly Distribute to Entire Bridge Surface ws.walk.tot = 0.022 ksf Weight of Sidewalk+Curb Uniformly Distribute to Entire Bridge Surface

Page 47 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #: 20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25
San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

Intermediate Diaphragm
ddiaph.i = 24.88 in Intermediate Diaphragm Depth (Without slab) wdiaph.i = 10 in Intermediate Diaphragm Width
Ldiaph.i = 70 in Intermediate Diaphragm Length Between Girder Adiaph.i f = 4 in^2 Fillet 2"x2" Both Sides
Adiaph.i = 1.8 ft^2 Intermediate Diaphragm Area
Pdiaph.i = 0.8 k Point DL at Midspan of Girder
Pier Diaphragm
ddiaph.p = 30.88 in Pier Diaphragm Depth (Without slab) wdiaph.p = 18 in Pier Diaphragm Width
Ldiaph.p = 84 in Pier Diaphragm Length Between Girder
Adiaph.p f = 4 in^2 Fillet 2"x2" Both Sides
Adiaph.p = 3.9 ft^2 Pier Diaphragm Area
Pdiaph.p = 2.0 k Point DL at End Span of Girder
End Diaphragm
ddiaph.e = 32.88 in End Diaphragm Depth (Without slab)
wdiaph.e = 18 in End Diaphragm Width
Ldiaph.e = 84 in End Diaphragm Length Between Girder
Adiaph.e f = 2 in^2 Fillet 2"x2" One Sides
Adiaph.i = 4.1 ft^2 Intermediate Diaphragm Area
Pdiaph.i = 2.2 k Point DL at Abutment

Page 48 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #: 20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25
San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

Utility
In the absence of specific information of the existing pipe, the weight is estimated base on the Caltrans Memo to Load raters 11-5.

Existing Pipe North (12" Dia Water)
wpipe.n.e = 0.120 klf Unit Weight Existing Pipe North
Spipe.n.exi = 25 ft Support Spacing
Ppipe.n.exi = 3.0 k Total Wt. Per Support
New Pipe North (16" Weld Steel with 1/2" Wall Thickness) Pipe
Dod.s.new = 16.0 in Out Diameter of New Pipe
Did.s.new = 15.0 in Inner Diameter of New Pipe
Apipe.s.new = 24 in^2 Steel Pipe Area
Awater.s.new = 177 in^2 Pipe inside Area
wpipe.s.new = 0.159 klf Unit Weight New Pipe Filled with Water Spipe.s.new = 20 ft Support Spacing
Pipe Support
C 15x40 L= 48 in w= 40 plf Wt.= 160 lb
L 4x4x1/2 L= 30 in w= 12.8 plf No.= 2 Wt.= 63 lb
Total Wt.= 223 lb per support
Wt. including additional 10% for
Ppipe.s.new = 3.4 k Total Wt. Per Support at New Pipe strap and connection or 0.171 klf Uniformly Distributed along Deck Edge 11.15 ft Existing Pipe South (16" Dia Oil)
wpipe.s.exi = 0.193 klf Unit Weight Existing Pipe South Spipe.s.exi = 24 ft Support Spacing
Ppipe.s.exi = 5.1 k Total Wt. Per Support
Total Wt. including additional 10% for
connection and support

Page 49 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #: 20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25
San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

New Pipe South (16" Casing with 8" sewer FM Pipeline)
Pipe
Dod.s.new.c = 16.00 in Out Diameter of New Pipe Casing
Did.s.new.c = 15.25 in Inner Diameter of New Pipe Casing Apipe.s.new.c = 18 in^2 Steel Casing Area
Dod.s.new = 8.625 in Out Diameter of New Pipe
Did.s.new = 7.625 in Inner Diameter of New Pipe
Apipe.s.new = 13 in^2 Steel Pipe Area
Awater.s.new = 46 in^2 Pipe inside Area
wpipe.s.new = 0.126 klf Unit Weight New Pipe Filled with Water Spipe.s.new = 24 ft Support Spacing
Pipe Support
C 15x40 L= 48 in w= 40 plf Wt.= 160 lb
L 4x4x1/2 L= 30 in w= 12.8 plf No.= 2 Wt.= 63 lb
Total Wt.= 223 lb per support
Wt. including additional 10% for
Ppipe.s.new = 3.2 k Total Wt. Per Support at New Pipe strap and connection or 0.135 klf Uniformly Distributed along Deck Edge
Compare Weight of Utility V.S Weight of Superstructure

0.96 klf x2

1.06 klf x4

0.68 klf 0.12 klf

0.22 klf 0.19 klf

0.16 klf 0.17 klf

0.13 klf 0.14 klf

7.32 klf 0.62 klf

8.45%
Utility All
Weight Superstructure
Weight Utility
Utility/ Sup.structure
Rail S
Existing Utility N
Existing Utility S
New Utility N
New Utility S
Exterior Girder+Deck
Interior Girder+Deck
Sidewalk
Curb
Rail N
Superstructure

Page 50 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #: 20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25
San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

LIVE LOAD
Bridge is rated for four vehicles:

Design Vehicle: HS20
Legal Vehicle: Type 3, Type 3S3, Type 3-3
The above vehicles are defined in Bridge Model

Page 51 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #:20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

GIRDER CAPACITY
Effective Flange Width(Momo to Raters 11-6)Sgirder = 7 ft Girder spacing Lspan = 35.375 ft Shortest Span length
beff =
Since: Sgirder/Lspan= 0.20 <0.32 The effective flange is taken as tributary width of the deck X Y X+Y (1/2 girder spacing+overhang or girder spacing) 22.5 in 42 in 65 in 71.5 in 42 in 42 in 84 in 84 in
Material f`c= 3.0 ksi Concrete Strength β= 0.85
fy= 40.0 ksi Rebar Strength
Girder Positive Bending Capacity
Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder
Dgirder= 37 in 37 in 37 in 37 in Total girder depth
Bgirder = 14 in 14 in 14 in 14 in Girder width
Ddeck= 6.125 in 6.125 in 6.125 in 6.125 in Deck (flange) thickness beff= 71.5 in 84 in 71.5 in 84 in Effective flange width tcover = 1 in 1 in 1 in 1 in Clear coverAs = 7.8 in^2 7.8 in^2 4.7 in^2 4.7 in^2 Total tension rebar area Use #11x5 at girder middle and #11x3 at bundle bar endsa= 1.7 in 1.5 in 1.0 in 0.9 in Stress Block Depth As Fy/0.85f`cbf Inside Flange de.= 34.1 in 34.1 in 34.7 in 34.7 in Girder effective depth T= 312.0 k 312.0 k 187.2 k 187.2 k Atotal*fy
c= 2.0 in 1.7 in 1.2 in 1.0 in a/βMn= 864.5 k-ft 867.8 k-ft 532.8 k-ft 534.0 k-ft Moment capacity of Girder εc= 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 Compression strain limit
εs= 0.048 0.057 0.083 0.098 Tension strain > 0.005 Tension control φ= 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Reduction factorφMn= 778.1 k-ft 781.0 k-ft 479.6 k-ft 480.6 k-ft Nominal Capacity Mu= 171.7 k-ft 171.0 k-ft Strength I moment at location of interestDCR= - - 0.36 0.36 <1 See Bridge Rating
Exterior Girder
Interior Girder
bmin
Effective Flange Width
At Middle Span At Additional Rebar Ends

Page 52 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #:20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

GIRDER CAPACITY
Girder Negative Bending Capacity
Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder Dgirder= 37 in 37 in 37 in 37 in 37 in 37 in 37 in 37 in Total girder depth Bgirder = 17 in 20 in 17 in 20 in 14 in 14 in 14 in 14 in Girder width Ddeck= 6.125 in 6.125 in 6.125 in 6.125 in 6.125 in 6.125 in 6.125 in 6.125 in Deck (flange) thickness beff= 71.5 in 84 in 71.5 in 84 in 71.5 in 84 in 71.5 in 84 in Effective flange width tcover = 1 in 1 in 1 in 1 in 1 in 1 in 1 in 1 in Clear coverAs = 10.8 in^2 11.2 in^2 8.2 in^2 8.6 in^2 4.4 in^2 3.5 in^2 4.4 in^2 3.5 in^2 Total tension rebar area Use #10+#4a= 9.9 in 8.8 in 7.6 in 6.8 in 4.9 in 4.0 in 4.9 in 4.0 in Stress Block Depth As Fy/0.85f`cBgirder de.= 34.6 in 34.6 in 34.6 in 34.5 in 34.5 in 34.2 in 34.5 in 34.2 in Girder effective depth T= 430.4 k 446.4 k 328.8 k 344.8 k 176.4 k 141.6 k 176.4 k 141.6 k Atotal*fy c= 11.7 in 10.3 in 8.9 in 8.0 in 5.8 in 4.7 in 5.8 in 4.7 in a/βMn= 1064.0 k-ft 1122.9 k-ft 844.0 k-ft 894.4 k-ft 470.4 k-ft 379.9 k-ft 470.4 k-ft 379.9 k-ft Moment capacity of Girder εc= 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 Compression strain limit εs= 0.006 0.007 0.009 0.010 0.015 0.019 0.015 0.019 Tension strain > 0.005 Tension control φ= 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Reduction factorφMn= 957.6 k-ft 1010.6 k-ft 759.6 k-ft 805.0 k-ft 423.3 k-ft 341.9 k-ft 423.3 k-ft 341.9 k-ft Nominal Capacity Mu= 93.5 k-ft 148.7 k-ft 84.1 k-ft 113.1 k-ft Strength I moment at location of interestDCR= - - - - 0.22 0.43 0.20 0.33 <1 At Pier 3-7 At Pier 2&8 At Pier 3-7 At Pier 2&8
At End Span At Additional Rebar Ends
See Bridge Rating

Page 53 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #:20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

GIRDER CAPACITY
Girder Shear Capacity AASHTO Appendix B5
Kip-ft Kip Kip-ft Kip
938.7 136.3 935.1 153.9810.9 115.1 804.1 127.7629.2 82.3 642.8 93.2628.1 82.8 660.9 91.8662.9 79.7 694.6 87.3 Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder As= 10.8 in^2 11.2 in^2 11.2 in^2 11.2 in^2 11.2 in^2 11.2 in^2 11.2 in^2 11.2 in^2 11.2 in^2 11.2 in^2 Total longitudinal Rebar Provided:

Mu= 938.7 k-ft 935.1 k-ft 810.9 k-ft 804.1 k-ft 629.2 k-ft 642.8 k-ft 628.1 k-ft 660.9 k-ft 662.9 k-ft 694.6 k-ft Moment Demand at Location Checked:

Nu= 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k Factored Axial Force Tension (+):

Vu= 136.3 k 153.9 k 115.1 k 127.7 k 82.3 k 93.2 k 82.8 k 91.8 k 79.7 k 87.3 k Shear Demand at Location Checked:
θ= 33.9 deg 36.8 deg 36.5 deg 36.6 deg 36.4 deg 36.4 deg 36.4 deg 36.4 deg 36.4 deg 36.4 deg Guess value Es= 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi Modulus of Elasticity Es:εx X1000= 0.74 0.72 0.60 0.61 0.46 0.48 0.46 0.49 0.48 0.51 Longitudinal Strain at Middepth:

Sx= 15.6 in 15.6 in 15.6 in 15.6 in 15.6 in 15.6 in 15.6 in 15.6 in 15.6 in 15.6 in Crack Spacing Parameter ag= 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in Maximum Aggregate Size Sxe= 21.4 in 21.4 in 21.4 in 21.4 in 21.4 in 21.4 in 21.4 in 21.4 in 21.4 in 21.4 in Crack Spacing Parameter Adjusted by a g vu= 0.31 ksi 0.32 ksi 0.26 ksi 0.26 ksi 0.19 ksi 0.19 ksi 0.19 ksi 0.19 ksi 0.18 ksi 0.18 ksi Shear Stress in Concrete:
vu/f`c= 0.104 0.106 0.087 0.088 0.063 0.064 0.063 0.063 0.061 0.060 Demand at End of Girder
Strength Level Demand Summary
Exterior Girder Interior Girder
Moment Shear Moment Shear
Type 3 Vehicle
Type 3S2 Vehicle
Type 3-3 Vehicle
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
At Pier 3-7
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
HS20 Vehicle Operating
HS20 Vehicle Operating Type 3 Vehicle Type 3S2 Vehicle Type 3-3 Vehicle

Page 54 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #:20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

GIRDER CAPACITY
Ext. End Int. End Ext. End Int. End Ext. End Int. End Ext. End Int. End Ext. End Int. End β= 2.32 2.17 2.21 2.20 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.23
θ= 33.9 deg 36.8 deg 36.5 deg 36.6 deg 36.4 deg 36.4 deg 36.4 deg 36.4 deg 36.4 deg 36.4 deg λ= 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Normal concretef`c= 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi Concrete strength bv.girder= 15.7 in 17.3 in 15.7 in 17.3 in 15.7 in 17.3 in 15.7 in 17.3 in 15.7 in 17.3 in Girder width bv.slab= 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in Slab width(not used)d1= 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in Distance between T and a d2= 31.2 in 31.1 in 31.2 in 31.1 in 31.2 in 31.1 in 31.2 in 31.1 in 31.2 in 31.1 in 0.9de d3= 26.6 in 26.6 in 26.6 in 26.6 in 26.6 in 26.6 in 26.6 in 26.6 in 26.6 in 26.6 in 0.72Dgirderdv= 31.2 in 31.1 in 31.2 in 31.1 in 31.2 in 31.1 in 31.2 in 31.1 in 31.2 in 31.1 in Effective shear section depth 5.7.2.8 Taken max d 1,d2,d3dv.slab= 3.865 in 3.865 in 3.865 in 3.865 in 3.865 in 3.865 in 3.865 in 3.865 in 3.865 in 3.865 in Slab effective depth (not used) Vc= 61.9 k 63.9 k 58.9 k 64.9 k 59.5 k 65.7 k 59.5 k 65.7 k 59.5 k 65.7 k Shear concrete capacity db= 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in Diameter of shear reinforcement # 5 Bar n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Number of legsAv= 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 Area of reinforcementfy= 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi Shear reinforcement steels= 9.0 in 9.0 in 9.0 in 9.0 in 9.0 in 9.0 in 9.0 in 9.0 in 9.0 in 9.0 in Bar spacingVs= 126.2 k 113.5 k 114.7 k 114.4 k 115.3 k 115.1 k 115.3 k 115.1 k 115.3 k 115.1 k Shear reinforcement steel capacityφ= 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Resistance factor for shearVn= 188.1 k 177.4 k 173.5 k 179.3 k 174.8 k 180.7 k 174.8 k 180.7 k 174.8 k 180.7 k Total shear resistanceφVn= 169.3 k 159.6 k 156.2 k 161.4 k 157.3 k 162.7 k 157.3 k 162.7 k 157.3 k 162.7 k Factored shear resistance capacity

Page 55 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #:20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

GIRDER CAPACITY
Kip-ft Kip Kip-ft Kip
714.9 123.9 777.8 112.2583.7 98.9 621.2 89.0447.5 72.6 481.9 72.0460.6 69.3 510.8 68.8457.0 66.9 501.7 65.4 Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder Ext. Girder Int. Girder As= 8.2 in^2 8.6 in^2 8.6 in^2 8.6 in^2 8.6 in^2 8.6 in^2 8.6 in^2 8.6 in^2 8.6 in^2 8.6 in^2 Total longitudinal Rebar Provided:

Mu= 714.9 k-ft 777.8 k-ft 583.7 k-ft 621.2 k-ft 447.5 k-ft 481.9 k-ft 460.6 k-ft 510.8 k-ft 457.0 k-ft 501.7 k-ft Moment Demand at Location Checked:

Nu= 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k 0.0 k Factored Axial Force Tension (+):

Vu= 123.9 k 112.2 k 98.9 k 89.0 k 72.6 k 72.0 k 69.3 k 68.8 k 66.9 k 65.4 k Shear Demand at Location Checked:
θ= 34.5 deg 34.1 deg 32.2 deg 32.1 deg 30.1 deg 30.3 deg 30.1 deg 30.5 deg 30.0 deg 30.3 deg Guess value Es= 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi 29000 ksi Modulus of Elasticity Es:εx X1000= 0.80 0.78 0.63 0.64 0.49 0.51 0.49 0.52 0.49 0.51 Longitudinal Strain at Middepth:

Sx= 14.8 in 15.1 in 14.8 in 15.1 in 14.8 in 15.1 in 14.8 in 15.1 in 14.8 in 15.1 in Crack Spacing Parameter ag= 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in 0.375 in Maximum Aggregate Size Sxe= 20.4 in 20.7 in 20.4 in 20.7 in 20.4 in 20.7 in 20.4 in 20.7 in 20.4 in 20.7 in Crack Spacing Parameter Adjusted by a g vu= 0.30 ksi 0.24 ksi 0.24 ksi 0.19 ksi 0.17 ksi 0.15 ksi 0.17 ksi 0.15 ksi 0.16 ksi 0.14 ksi Shear Stress in Concrete:
vu/f`c= 0.099 0.080 0.079 0.063 0.058 0.051 0.055 0.049 0.053 0.046 Demand at End of Girder
Strength Level Demand Summary
North Exterior Girder Interior Girder
Moment Shear Moment Shear
At Pier2&8
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
HS20 Vehicle Operating
Type 3 Vehicle
Type 3S2 Vehicle
Type 3-3 Vehicle
HS20 Vehicle Inventory HS20 Vehicle Operating Type 3 Vehicle Type 3S2 Vehicle Type 3-3 Vehicle

Page 56 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #:20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

GIRDER CAPACITY
Ext. End Int. End Ext. End Int. End Ext. End Int. End Ext. End Int. End Ext. End Int. End β= 2.30 2.35 2.47 2.51 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.66 2.69 2.68
θ= 34.5 deg 34.1 deg 32.2 deg 32.1 deg 30.1 deg 30.3 deg 30.1 deg 30.5 deg 30.0 deg 30.3 deg λ= 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Normal concretef`c= 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi 3.0 ksi Concrete strength bv.girder= 15.7 in 17.3 in 15.7 in 17.3 in 15.7 in 17.3 in 15.7 in 17.3 in 15.7 in 17.3 in Girder width bv.slab= 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in Slab width(not used)d1= 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in Distance between T and a d2= 0.6 in 0.6 in 0.6 in 0.6 in 0.6 in 0.6 in 0.6 in 0.6 in 0.6 in 0.6 in 0.9de d3= 22.4 in 22.4 in 22.4 in 22.4 in 22.4 in 22.4 in 22.4 in 22.4 in 22.4 in 22.4 in 0.72Dgirderdv= 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in 29.7 in 30.2 in Effective shear section depth 5.7.2.8 Taken max d 1,d2,d3dv.slab= 28.9 in 28.9 in 28.9 in 28.9 in 28.9 in 28.9 in 28.9 in 28.9 in 28.9 in 28.9 in Slab effective depth (not used) Vc= 58.4 k 67.1 k 62.8 k 71.8 k 67.9 k 76.3 k 68.0 k 76.1 k 68.4 k 76.7 k Shear concrete capacity db= 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in 0.625 in Diameter of shear reinforcement # 5 Bar n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Number of legsAv= 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 0.6 in^2 Area of reinforcementfy= 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi 40.0 ksi Shear reinforcement steels= 12.0 in 12.0 in 12.0 in 12.0 in 12.0 in 12.0 in 12.0 in 12.0 in 12.0 in 12.0 in Bar spacingVs= 88.3 k 91.1 k 96.3 k 98.4 k 104.7 k 105.7 k 104.5 k 104.9 k 105.1 k 105.7 k Shear reinforcement steel capacityφ= 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Resistance factor for shearVn= 146.7 k 158.2 k 159.1 k 170.2 k 172.6 k 182.0 k 172.5 k 181.0 k 173.5 k 182.3 k Total shear resistanceφVn= 132.0 k 142.4 k 143.2 k 153.2 k 155.3 k 163.8 k 155.2 k 162.9 k 156.1 k 164.1 k Factored shear resistance capacity

Page 57 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #: 20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25
San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

PRIMARY GIRDER LOAD RATING
Demand Summary
Kip-ft Kip-ft Kip Kip-ft Kip-ft Kip Kip-ft Kip-ft Kip
197.2 -370.9 42.6 207.9 -362.3 39.4 198.9 -379.7 43.5
306.7 -316.3 42.8 454.3 -572.8 114.5 453.2 -559.0 92.9
236.6 -244.0 33.0 350.5 -441.9 88.3 349.6 -431.2 71.6
Type 3 Vehicle 151.6 -140.1 16.1 243.4 -280.5 53.8 230.4 -249.6 38.8 140.8 -146.2 17.6 228.1 -298.6 52.4 212.4 -248.4 39.3
126.5 -175.5 16.2 200.1 -332.3 47.9 191.4 -283.2 36.2
Kip-ft Kip Kip-ft Kip Kip-ft Kip
-251.3 35.7 -229.5 30.9 -255.8 36.4
-270.9 36.7 -548.3 81.3 -459.1 87.5
-193.5 26.2 -391.6 58.1 -327.9 62.5
Type 3 Vehicle -115.4 13.4 -252.3 41.1 -191.7 36.3
-137.2 12.5 -281.2 37.9 -204.8 32.9
-146.6 11.7 -272.2 34.5 -201.2 30.6
Capacity Summary
Kip-ft Kip-ft Kip-ft Kip-ft
778.1 -957.6 781.0 -1010.6
778.1 -759.6 781.0 -805.0
Kip Kip Kip Kip
169.3 159.6 132.0 142.4
156.2 161.4 143.2 153.2
157.3 162.7 155.3 163.8
157.3 162.7 155.2 162.9
157.3 162.7 156.1 164.1
Moment and Shear
at Span 1&8
Pier 3-7 Pier 2&8
Exterior
Girder
Interior
Girder
Girder Shear Capacity
Negative M
All Cases Pier 3-7
Girder Moment Capacity
Exterior Girder Interior Girder
Mid-Span
Moment
Negative
Moment
Mid-Span
Moment
Exterior
Girder
Interior
Girder
Dead
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
HS20 Vehicle Operating
Type 3S2 Vehicle
Type 3-3 Vehicle
All Cases Pier 2&8
Type 3 Vehicle
Type 3S2 Vehicle
Type 3-3 Vehicle
Negative
Moment
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
HS20 Vehicle Operating
Strength Level Demand Summary
North
Exterior Girder
Interior Girder South
Exterior Girder
Type 3S2 Vehicle
Type 3-3 Vehicle
Strength Level Demand Summary
HS20 Vehicle Operating
Max
Positive M
Max
Negative
Max
V
North Exterior Girder
Dead
Max
Negative
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
South Exterior Girder
Max
Positive M
Max
Negative
Max
V
Interior Girder
Max
Positive M
Max
V
Max Moment and Shear
at
All Span
Shear
V
Negative
M
Shear
V
Negative
M
Shear
V

Page 58 ends

Project: College Park Dr Bridge Load Rating Page:

Load Rating Project #: 20233246
770 First Ave, Suite 400 Designed: H Xu Date: Apr-25
San Diego, CA 92101 Checked:

PRIMARY GIRDER LOAD RATING

RATING FACTOR
Per MBE Equation 6A.4.2.1-1
φc = 0.95 Condition Factor φc φs= 0.95
φs
= 1 System Factor
C= φc
φs Rn Factored Capacity
γ D= Factored Permanent Load ( Bridge Selfweight+All Utilities) γ (LL+IM)= Factored Live Load at Each Limit States

1.77 1.70 2.44 1.18 0.98 0.98 1.19 0.95 1.02

2.29 2.21 3.20 1.52 1.35 1.29 1.55 1.23 1.46
Type 3 Vehicle 3.57 3.85 6.62 2.19 2.12 2.14 2.34 2.12 2.73

3.85 3.43 6.06 2.34 1.90 2.20 2.54 2.13 2.69

4.28 3.07 6.61 2.67 1.80 2.40 2.82 1.87 2.93

1.82 1.82 2.56 1.20 0.98 0.99 1.23 1.00 1.06

2.36 2.35 3.21 1.55 1.37 1.30 1.59 1.29 1.51
Type 3 Vehicle 3.68 4.10 6.64 2.23 2.13 2.15 2.41 2.23 2.82

3.96 3.68 6.08 2.38 1.91 2.21 2.61 2.25 2.78

4.41 3.27 6.63 2.72 1.83 2.42 2.90 1.97 3.02

2.89% 6.20% 4.39% 1.79% 0.47% 0.70% 2.70% 4.96% 3.64%

2.89% 6.20% 0.29% 1.79% 1.45% 0.69% 2.70% 4.96% 3.14%
Type 3 Vehicle 2.89% 6.20% 0.29% 1.79% 0.47% 0.69% 2.70% 4.96% 3.11%

2.89% 6.95% 0.29% 1.79% 0.47% 0.69% 2.70% 4.96% 3.11%

2.89% 6.20% 0.29% 1.79% 1.45% 0.69% 2.70% 4.96% 3.11%
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
HS20 Vehicle Operating
Type 3S2 Vehicle
Type 3-3 Vehicle
HS20 Vehicle Operating
Type 3S2 Vehicle
Type 3-3 Vehicle
Difference
Rating Vehicle
Rating Vehicle
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
Shear
V
Mid-Span
Moment
End Span
Moment
End Shear
V
Interior Girder
Shear
V
South Exterior Girder
Rating Factor
Mid-Span
Moment
End Span
Moment
Mid-Span
Moment
End Span
Moment
End Shear
V
Mid-Span
Moment
End Span
Moment
Rating Factor
North Exterior Girder Interior Girder South Exterior Girder North Exterior Girder
Mid-Span
Moment
End Span
Moment
End Shear
V
Existing Bridge without New Utility
Type 3S2 Vehicle
Type 3-3 Vehicle
HS20 Vehicle Operating
HS20 Vehicle Inventory
Mid-Span
Moment
End Span
Moment
End Shear
V
Final Bridge with New Utility
Difference %
North Exterior Girder Interior Girder South Exterior Girder Mid-Span
Moment
End Span
Moment
End Shear
V
Mid-Span
Moment
End Span
Moment
Shear
V
Mid-Span
Moment
End Span
Moment
End Shear
V

γ
γ

Page 59 ends

Agenda Item I

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager
FROM: Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer SUBJECT: Indirect Cost Allocation Plan
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:

That the City Council:

1. Receive and file Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Indirect Cost Allocation Plan prepared by ClearSource Financial Consulting; and,

2. Direct staff to utilize the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan, where appropriate, in future budget development, grant administration, fee studies, project accounting, cost recovery analyses, and other financial management activities; and,

3. Direct staff to periodically update the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan to ensure it continues to reflect the City's organizational structure and operational practices.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

As a best practice, the City should periodically prepare an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP), generally every three to five years, to identify the full cost of providing centralized administrative and support services throughout the organization.

These services include functions such as City Management, Finance, Human Resources, Information Technology, City Clerk, Risk Management, Public Works Administration, and other citywide support activities that benefit operating departments and enterprise funds.

Although Indirect Cost Allocation Plans are typically developed as internal administrative and financial management tools, staff is presenting the analysis to the City Council to promote transparency and provide a publicly documented methodology for identifying and allocating citywide administrative and support costs. While ICAPs are not commonly presented to a governing body for formal consideration, staff believes publicly discussing the analysis provides the City

Page 2 ends

Council and community with a better understanding of how centralized administrative and support costs are allocated throughout the organization.

Receiving and filing this report does not establish or modify utility rates, approve changes to interfund reimbursements, or authorize any budget amendments.

Rather, it acknowledges receipt of an independently prepared financial analysis that will serve as a financial management tool for future budgeting, grant administration, fee studies, project accounting, and cost recovery efforts.

The City retained ClearSource Financial Consulting to prepare an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan using the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 adopted budget and organizational structure as the basis for analysis. The purpose of the study was to develop a comprehensive and objective methodology for identifying and allocating the cost of centralized administrative and support services throughout the organization. In addition to supporting interfund cost allocations, the study establishes formal indirect cost rates that may be used, where appropriate, for grant administration, fee studies, project accounting, cost recovery analyses, and other financial management activities.

The consultant's analysis also provides the City with an independently developed framework for evaluating indirect cost allocations using recognized governmental cost allocation methodologies. The analysis distinguishes between allocable administrative and support costs and non-allocable costs. Non-allocable costs generally represent activities that directly serve the public or otherwise do not provide centralized support to other City departments and, therefore, are excluded from the allocable cost pool.

The resulting indirect cost rates and maximum allowable interfund cost allocations are intended for application during Fiscal Year 2026-2027. Although the City has long recovered indirect costs through existing budget practices, this analysis provides a current, independently prepared methodology documenting the full cost of citywide support services and establishing formal indirect cost rates that can be consistently applied across a variety of financial management and cost recovery activities.

The study allocates approximately $12.9 million in citywide administrative and support costs to the departments and funds that benefit from those services using recognized governmental cost allocation methodologies and allocation factors that reflect the relative benefit received by each department and fund. These “indirect” costs – which may sometimes be referred to as citywide overhead – reflect legislative and general governmental activities such as the City Council, City Clerk, and City Attorney; organization-wide management and administration such as City Manager, Finance, and Human Resources; central support services such as risk management, information technology, fleet, and facilities maintenance; and department-specific administration and management for Public Works functions.

The updated plan serves several important purposes, including:
• Identifying the full cost of municipal services; and,

Page 3 ends

• Providing a consistent methodology for recovering administrative support costs; and,
• Establishing indirect cost rates for programs, fee studies, project accounting, and cost recovery analyses; and,
• Supporting interfund reimbursements between the General Fund and enterprise or special revenue funds; and,
• Enhancing financial transparency and consistency in budgeting.

The plan provides the City with a consistent and independently developed framework for allocating indirect costs across departments and funds while supporting greater transparency and accountability in the City's financial management practices.

The report also establishes departmental indirect cost rates ranging from 1.4 percent to 78.6 percent depending on the nature of services provided. The citywide composite indirect cost rate is calculated at 20.7 percent for Fiscal Year 2026- 2027. Indirect cost rates are a ratio describing a department’s Citywide overhead burden as a percentage of that department’s own costs. The citywide composite rate is presented for informational purposes only. Actual indirect cost rates vary by department based on the level of centralized support services received. These rates may be used, where appropriate, in future user fee studies, project accounting, direct billing needs, and other program-specific cost recovery efforts, such as Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) Measure M2 funding.

The study indicates that the City's existing reimbursement practices for the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds are generally consistent and do not exceed the maximum reimbursable indirect costs identified through the study. This demonstrates that the City's current methodology, including direct labor allocations and overhead reimbursements, appropriately reimburses the General Fund for support services without exceeding the maximum cost allocations supported by the study.

By receiving and filing the report, the City Council and community are informed of the methodology used to allocate indirect costs and the role the plan plays in supporting future budgeting, fee studies, and other cost reporting and cost recovery efforts. As the City continues to implement capital projects, organizational changes, new programs, and evolving service delivery responsibilities, the distribution of indirect costs among departments and funds will naturally change over time. Accordingly, staff intends to update the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan at the recommended interval to ensure the methodology and resulting cost allocations continue to accurately reflect the City's operations and the cost of providing centralized administrative and support services.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

There is no environmental impact related to this item.

Page 4 ends

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

No legal analysis is required for this item.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan. The plan serves as a financial management tool that establishes a methodology used to allocate citywide administrative and support costs to benefiting departments and funds. Implementation of the plan does not create new expenditures or revenues but provides a methodology for allocating existing administrative and support costs. The analysis will be used to support future budget development, grant administration, fee studies, project cost accounting, and interfund cost recovery. Any future adjustments to indirect cost allocations or interfund reimbursements resulting from implementation of the plan will be evaluated as part of the annual budget process or presented to the City Council for separate consideration, as appropriate.

The analysis indicates that the City's current reimbursement practices for the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds are generally consistent with the consultant's methodology and remain below the maximum reimbursable indirect costs identified through the study. Accordingly, the plan provides the City with an objective benchmark to support future financial planning and cost recovery efforts.

Because the analysis is based on the Fiscal Year 2025-26 adopted budget and organizational structure, future updates to the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan will incorporate changes in City operations, staffing, capital program implementation, and service delivery as they occur, ensuring the methodology continues to accurately reflect the City's cost of providing centralized support services.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Receive and file Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Indirect Cost Allocation Plan prepared by ClearSource Financial Consulting; and,

3. Direct staff to periodically update the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan to ensure it continues to reflect the City's organizational structure and operational practices.

Page 5 ends

SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:

Barbara Arenado Patrick Gallegos
Barbara Arenado, Director of
Finance/City Treasurer
Patrick Gallegos, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ClearSource Financial Consulting)

CITY OF

SEAL BEACH

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
BASED ON FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET EXPENDITURE
REPORT AS OF JULY 6, 2026

CONTENTS

REPORTING

1 EXECUTIV E SUMMARY
4 PROJECT INTRODUCTI ON
10 INDIRECT COST ALLO CATION PLAN
33 IMPLEMENTATION

EXHIBIT LISTING

E1 INDIRECT COST RATES FOR USE IN FY 2026-27
E2 MAXIMUM INTERFUND CHARGE FOR CENTR AL SERVICE IN FY 202 6-27 E3 COMPARISON OF TO TAL A LLOCATED COS TS TO EXISTING TO EXI STING REIMBURSEMENT FROM UTILITY ENTERPRISES IN TESTED FY 202 5-26

A ALLOCABLE I NDIR ECT COST POOLS

B SELECTED ALLOCATI ON BASES

C DISTRIBUTION OF ALLOCABLE COSTS TO DEPARTMENTS
D CITYWIDE COMPOSI TE INDIR ECT COST RA TES FOR FY 2026-27 E DEPARTMEN TAL INDIRECT COST RATES FOR FY 2026-27
F MAXI MUM INTERFUND CHARGES FOR CENTRAL SERVICE FOR FY 2026-27

APPENDICES

I INDIRECT COST A LLOCATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2 026-2027 (ANALYSIS)

II CITY OF SEA L BEACH ORGANIZATION CHAR T

III INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ORIENTATION
The City of Seal Beach has completed a new Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) for information and application as needed in Fiscal Year 2026-2027. This project is focused on identifying the costs of administrative, management, general governmental, and central support services within the municipal organization and analyzing the manner in which those costs relate to the array of outwardfacing direct services provided to the community.

The CAP yields overhead rates (i.e., indirect cost rates), interfund charges for service (i.e., interfund transfers), and other values that can represent or be applied to cost recovery opportunities for these central services. Currently, all services considered for cost recovery in the CAP reside in the General Fund 101; therefore, any recoverable costs reduce burden on General Fund revenues.

The City currently acknowledges and recovers these types of Citywide indirect costs in various applications, including direct labor allocations to funds outside the General Fund, additional distinct overhead charges on enterprise funds, and other sources where full cost recovery is targeted, such as user and regulatory fee-based services intended to be unsubsidized by general tax revenues. The City may also have use for the indirect cost rates produced by this plan in various other forms of periodic expenditure reporting for specific funding programs, project cost accounting, and direct billing. Because the City actively recovers indirect costs from a variety of sources, this report recommends update to the Cost Allocation plan no longer than every three to five years.

KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
1 | INDIRECT COST RATES EXPRESSING SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL FUND 101 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
EXHIBIT E1 lists the indirect cost rates attributable to each department or department classification found via Indirect Cost Allocation Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-27. These rates express each department’s share of Citywide overhead supportive to their individual outward-facing services.

EXHIBIT E1 | INDIREC T COST RATES FOR USE IN FY 202 6-27 Departmental Designation in the CAP
ICR on
Eligible Direct
Expense
Community Development 21.0%
Community Services 55.6%
Fire 1.4%
Marine Safety 47.3%
Police 26.2%
Public Works - Engineering 55.6%
Public Works - Maintenance 26.2%
Public Works - Refuse 11.6%
Public Works - Sewer 78.6%
Public Works - Water 19.8%
Composite for the City 20.7%

INDIRECT COST RATES
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 | INTERFUND CHARGES FOR INDIRECT SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL FUND 101 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
EXHIBIT E2 names those funds which have previously reimbursed the General Fund 101 for indirect services via different accounting methods and indicates the total costs allocated via CAP to those funds. This equals the maximum interfund charge for service supported by the plan in Fiscal Year 2026-27.

EXHIBIT E2 | MAX IMUM INTERFUND CHAR GES FOR CENTR AL SERVICE IN FY 2026-27 ( REI MB URSE MEN T T O TH E GE N E RA L F UN D 101 VI A V ARIOUS ACC OUN T I NG M E T HODS)

INFLUENCE OF INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
This Cost Allocation Plan is an independently prepared analysis that provides one method for determining Citywide overhead burden across the City’s departments. From its results, the City may determine how it influences cost accounting and cost recovery practices across multiple applications.

Many agencies with utility enterprise funds, for example, use a CAP to set a single interfund charge for service on those business activity funds to reimburse General Fund resources for central services provided to the enterprises. Alternatively, the City of Seal Beach uses two processes to accomplish similar reimbursement from enterprise and other special revenue funds for General Fund services:
direct allocations of labor costs from General Fund departments to benefiting non-General funds, as well as separate overhead charges. The combination of these two existing practices can be compared to the total allocated costs found by this CAP to the enterprise funds.

EXHIBIT E3 compares the total costs received by the utility enterprise funds via the Cost Allocation Plan to reimbursement planned in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget from both direct labor allocations and separate overhead charge. This demonstrates that the City’s existing practices are nearly equivalent and do not exceed the maximum allocated costs to the enterprises found by the CAP.

Maximum
Interfund Charge
in This Plan [a]
Distribution
of Outcomes
501 | Water 1,334,607 $ 10.4%
503 | Sewer 1,052,515 $ 8.2%
$ 18.5% 2,387,122
106 | Tidelands Beach 1,418,978 $ 11.0%
All Other Non-General Funds 604,333 $ 4.7%
100 | General Fund - Remaining Central Services Borne 8,479,416 $ 65.8% Total Central Services Allocated in this Plan 12,889,849 $ 100.0% [a] The City would need to evaluate eligibility and sufficiency of funding sources to accept the calculated charge from this Plan.

Fund Receiving an
Interfund Charge for Service and/or Direct Allocations
to Reimburse the General Fund
Total Allocated Costs
Maximum Reimbursement to the General Fund
for Allocated Central Services in this Plan
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXHIBIT E3 | C OM PARISON OF TOTAL ALL OCATED COSTS TO EXISTING REIMBURSEMENT FR OM UTILI TY ENTERPR ISES IN TESTED FY 2025-26 It should be noted that the results listed in EXHIBIT E3 represent a snapshot of current time, subject to change as conditions change. For example, the City’s utilities are expecting an imminent increase in activity within the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for both water and sewer infrastructure, enabled by recent adoption of a new five-year rate funding plan. The implementation of that CIP may influence the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan the next time it is updated, yielding a different comparative outcome than presented here and possibly necessitating change in General Fund reimbursement from the enterprise funds at that later time.

Directly Allocated
Labor from
Central Services
Processed in CAP
Additional
Overhead
Charge Total Contributions
from Enterprise Funds Maximum
Interfund
Charge
via CAP
Change from
Budgeted
Contributions
501 | Water 846,293 $ 440,000 $ 1,286,293 $ 1,334,607 $ 48,314 $ 503 | Sewer 736,204 $ 293,000 $ 1,029,204 $ 1,052,515 $ 23,311 $ $ 733,000 1,582,496 $ 2,315,496 $ 2,387,122 $ 71,625 $
Fund Receiving an Interfund Charge for Service
and Direct Allocations to Reimburse
the General Fund
Comparison to Total
Allocated Costs in this CAP
Reimbursement to the General Fund
for Allocated Central Services in this Plan
General Fund Contributions
in FY 2025-26 Budget
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 4

PROJECT INTRODUCTION

1.A | PROJECT INITIATION
In Fiscal Year 2025-26, the City of Seal Beach (City) initiated a project to complete a Citywide Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (Cost Allocation Plan or CAP). The intent of the project was to develop outcomes applicable during development of the City’s annual budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

The City engaged ClearSource Financial Consulting (ClearSource) to develop this Citywide Indirect Cost Allocation Plan and provide consultative advice associated with its future implementation.

1.B | TERMINOLOGY
Throughout this report, certain terms will be used repeatedly, as follows.

ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT
An “organizational unit” can represent any formal expression of a program area within the City. It can be a department, division, business unit, or project/program recognized in the accounting system.

For purposes of the Cost Allocation Plan, the lowest organizational unit ever expressed is the series of “programs” reflected in the City’s chart of accounts. These organizations can be whole departments, such as Finance. They also can reach deeper into a department such as Public WorksStreet Maintenance.

DIRECT COST / PROGRAM / SERVICE
When referencing a cost, program, or service of the City, “direct” refers to something provided to the community as part of the underlying mission and purpose of the City. A direct program is therefore a service readily identified by a community member as a service expected of the City. Examples of direct programs include Police Field Services, Building and Code Enforcement, Sports Leagues, and Water Maintenance and Operations. The costs of these programs are “direct costs.”

INDIRECT COST / PROGRAM / SERVICE / POOL / FUNCTION
When referencing a cost, program, or service of the City, “indirect” refers to something which supports or is necessary to ensure the accomplishment of the mission and purpose of the City. An indirect program is not something a community member would identify as the reason for the City’s existence but is an essential function in delivering service. Examples of indirect programs include City Manager, Human Resources, and Building Maintenance. The costs of these readily identifiable programs are “indirect costs” and are also commonly labeled “Citywide overhead.” Indirect services and costs can also be embedded with direct services in the form of administration, management, and supporting materials and supplies.

1.C | PURPOSE OF THE COST ALLOCATION PLAN

PURPOSE AND OUTCOMES
The purpose of a Citywide Indirect Cost Allocation Plan is to distribute the costs of general management, administration, and support services that are not already directly budgeted and billed to benefiting direct service organizations across the City’s departmental and fund structure.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 5

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Cost Allocation Plan identifies and processes Citywide indirect costs for potential cost recovery.

The outcomes of the Cost Allocation Plan can inform:
 Interfund charges for services (e.g., a transfer to the General Fund as reimbursement for these central services)
 Indirect cost rates applicable to direct billing scenarios (e.g., a percentage rate attached to labor charges to recover associative central support services)  Indirect cost rates applicable to programmatic cost recovery opportunities, such as external funding sources (e.g., a percentage rate attached to eligible direct program costs to recover associative central support services)
 Assumptions used by other analyses which define full costs of service eligible for whole or partial cost recovery through other mechanisms, including City user fees, charges, and rates.

IDENTIFYING COSTS
Costs identified to be processed through a Cost Allocation Plan of this nature and therefore eligible for potential recovery through these types of mechanisms tend to have the following characteristics:
 They are not feasibly identified directly for a single program area.  They are not already directly billed via an alternate mechanism, such as an internal service fund, direct budget allocation, or direct charging.1
 They originate in a department or other organizational unit of Citywide reach.  They reasonably relate indirectly to the ability of the receiving organization to provide its service.
 They comply with the principles in OMB 2 CFR 200 for federal reimbursement of indirect costs if the CAP is intended for cost recovery from federal programs.2 (Note that this CAP has not produced federally compliant indirect cost rates and instead reflects “full cost” allocation.)
Costs not processed through the CAP are those which are:
 Readily identifiable with a single program area and relate directly to the purpose of that program area.
 Easily and regularly budgeted within that single program area. (These are the typical costs of an organizational unit.)
1 Note that the City extensively utilizes direct labor allocations across the entire organizations. In order to generate a total overhead figure, this Cost Allocation Plan first restored all budgeted labor allocations from organizational units flagged as central services eligible for processing via CAP before applying the CAP methodology to distribute central services differently. 2 Office of Management and Budget 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 6

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
 Directly allocated or directly charged to the single program area through the budget process and/or ongoing cost accounting practices.3
 Directly billed to the single program area via a separate mechanism, such as an internal service fund rate.

These distinctions are important particularly in agencies where a mixture of budget allocation, cost accounting, and other cost allocation practices is utilized to associate agency costs as closely as possible to the direct services provided within the organizational structure. To avoid the appearance or actual practice of duplicative application of costs, the agency must be very clear on how and why it manages its costs. It should be able to explain:
 When is a cost item directly budgeted and directly charged to an organizational unit?  If a cost item is allocated to an organizational unit during the budget process outside of a CAP, what is the purpose of the service being allocated? Does it represent direct or indirect service?
 Furthermore, if a cost item is partially allocated during the budget process, does the remaining unallocated portion of that cost yield Citywide benefit that can be subsequently processed through a CAP? In other words, was the original value partially direct to the charged service and the remaining value indirect to all, including that same service?

FULL COST VERSUS FEDERAL PLAN
This report documents a “Full” Cost Allocation Plan. This means that with respect to identifying and distributing the City’s indirect costs of service for its potential cost recovery applications, it is not restricting itself entirely to certain external rules if the CAP was to be applied to programs requiring a “Federal” Indirect Cost Allocation Plan.

This project is conducted with awareness of the Office of Management and Budget 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

As a “Full” Cost Allocation Plan, it should be noted that while federal guidelines represent an industry perspective – indeed, a mandate in certain federal and state settings –they do not represent current restrictions on the City’s practices for cost recovery applications that are entirely within the City’s control and discretion. Currently, the City of Seal Beach does not apply indirect rates to programs or projects requiring a federally approved indirect cost allocation plan. Therefore, the City’s rationale for allocable expenditures within this CAP relies more heavily on the cost of service ethics embedded in California State code. (See additional information under “Methodology” later in this section.) Should the City pursue cost recovery from programs with sources requiring a federally approved indirect cost allocation plan, this Full Cost Allocation Plan should be revised and issued as a separate iteration to accommodate federal standards. Methodologies employed, treatment of allocable expenditures for central services, and information summarized and retained should be developed to satisfy the principles and requirements of indirect cost allocation when applied outside local agency discretion.
3 Note that the City extensively utilizes direct labor allocations across the entire organizations. In order to generate a total overhead figure, this Cost Allocation Plan first restored all budgeted labor allocations from organizational units flagged as central services eligible for processing via CAP before applying the CAP methodology to distribute central services differently.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 7

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
At the City’s scale, pursuit of a “Federal” plan would be decision that includes a balance of level of effort to manage ongoing versus additional cost recovery achieved. In any federal award, the City would likely make the following decisions:
 Accept the ineligibility for or limitations of existing or future awards with respect to indirect cost recovery.
 Maximize cost recovery of direct costs from the award. Often, direct costs eligible for an award exceed the amount of the award; therefore, undertaking a process to support indirect cost recovery is not additive to the recipient.
 Accept a stipulated indirect cost rate from the granting agency. Many awards may grant the predetermined De minimis indirect cost rate which the recipient can use to recoup a share of its overhead costs. Accepting this rate, rather than attempting to replace it with a Federal indirect cost allocation plan is often more efficient for many agencies. As of October 2024, the De minimis rate is 15% of the program’s separately calculated direct cost basis.  If the previous steps are not applicable, develop a federally compliant indirect cost allocation plan and update it annually for application to eligible grants.

1.D | METHODOLOGY

ANALYSIS
This Indirect Cost Allocation Plan has been structured as a two-step allocation method. 4 In a twostep method, indirect costs are first allocated to all organizational units Citywide, both direct and indirect. After this first allocation, the remaining costs attributed to indirect organizational units are allocated only to direct organizational units in the second step. This two-step method acknowledges the sometimes disproportionate benefit of some central services to indirect organizational units, which can then be passed along to direct organizational units in proportion to benefit received from that second indirect service.

In the two-step allocation method, the analysis undertakes the following steps:

1. Identify the basis year for the Cost Allocation Plan: Which fiscal year will serve as the basis for costs and organization to generate outcomes from the CAP?

2. Gather detailed expenditure data for the basis year, identifying costs at the object level by fund and organizational unit in the accounting structure. Summarize gross expenditures by fund and organizational unit. Determine the level of organizational detail to which costs will be allocated in the CAP. For example, if costs will be allocated to departments, roll up expenditure detail to the departmental level in a secondary schedule.

3. Identify organizational units to be considered as allocable indirect services. Express organizational units within functions of service provided through line-item expenditure analysis and/or staff time estimates applied to cost items within the unit. Remove from consideration any functional service that is actually a direct service or otherwise nonallocable. This step forms allocable indirect cost pools. 4 In a one-step allocation method, after allocable indirect costs are identified by indirect function, they are distributed by function only to direct organizational units in one allocation. A more formal two-step method was selected because of the City’s “full service” organization, managing comprehensive services to its community.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 8

PROJECT INTRODUCTION

4. Identify any cost items from the indirect cost pools that should not be allocated. In a “Full” Cost Allocation Plan, this would be specific items that simply do not reasonably support or benefit the City’s direct organizational units. (In a “Federal” Plan, this would additionally include specific items or whole functions that are unallowed by the directive.)

5. Gather data sets which will be used as bases for distributing indirect cost pools to direct organizational units. Calculate allocation factors from these data sets, which is the percentage share attributable to each organizational unit of the whole data set to support the first-step allocation and the percentage share attributable to each direct organizational unit to support the second-step allocation.

6. Assign an allocation basis to each allocable indirect cost pool: How will each function of indirect service be distributed to benefiting direct services?

7. Allocate each indirect cost pool to direct organizational units only. (This is a two-step allocation: All indirect costs are stepped down by function first to all organizational units and second to the final direct organizational units.) Identify total allocated costs attributed to each direct organizational unit.

8. Calculate various indirect cost rates. From the grand total of all allocable indirect costs, express Citywide indirect costs as a percentage rate on direct salary expenditures or direct expenditures. From the subtotals of indirect costs specifically allocated to organizational units, express indirect costs attributable to each as a percentage rate on that unit’s direct salary expenditures or direct expenditures.

9. Calculate interfund charges for service. From the indirect cost rates derived by organizational unit, apply the rate to the chosen rate basis (either direct salary or direct expenditure) recorded for each organizational unit in each fund. Sum these values for all organizational units in each fund to determine each fund’s total share of indirect costs.

10. Document and preserve any outcomes to be formally utilized.

DELIVERABLE TOOL
The Indirect Cost Allocation Plan developed by ClearSource specifically for the City of Seal Beach’s organizational structure and described in this report has been separately delivered to the City in Microsoft Excel format for its ownership and use. This spreadsheet-based model is fully accessible to and editable by City staff. It should be viewed as a supporting tool for its budget development process akin to other analyses performed by City staff to build the annual budget.

The model can be used by personnel skilled in the spreadsheet environment. Inputs are clearly identified through the use of blue font. Formulas are formatted in black font. Inputs are easily changed, while modifications to formulas should be undertaken carefully with efforts to validate outcomes after modification. Space has been provided within input areas to accommodate moderate change in the organization without the necessity of changing tables and formulas.

If the City uses the model to generate new outcomes separate from this report, ClearSource recommends that City staff preserve prior iterations of the model, particularly if those iterations informed any budget management practices implemented.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 9

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
City staff should feel comfortable contacting ClearSource at any time with questions that arise during any future in-house updates of the model.

INFLUENCE OF STATE COST RECOVERY ENVIRONMENT
The methodology used to complete the Cost Allocation Plan and the formulation of outcomes and recommendations for future consideration were significantly influenced by Article XIIIC of the California Constitution and Section 66014 of the California Government Code. While Article XIIIC does not directly address Cost Allocation Plans, it is acknowledged that outcomes presented here may substantively impact the City’s establishment and modification of non-tax revenue sources.

Article XIIIC states that the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. Additionally, Article XIIIC identifies the following as items that are not defined as taxes:
 A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.  A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.  A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.  A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
 A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law.
 A charge imposed as a condition of property development.  Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 10

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN

2.A | FOUNDATION
The following report describes the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-27 for the City of Seal Beach. As described in the preceding section, this Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) has been prepared to inform budget development process and subsequent decision-making.

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
The purpose of this Indirect Cost Allocation Plan is to distribute the City’s costs of Citywide central services to its direct organizational units for purposes of various cost recovery applications. This Cost Allocation Plan is a supporting tool to the City’s budget management and cost accounting practices.

The CAP generates the following outcomes:
 Total allocated indirect costs to benefiting direct organizational units.  Indirect cost rates for application to direct charges for service to eligible projects or programs.
 Interfund charges for service for reimbursement to the General Fund as feasible and allowed.

The Indirect Cost Allocation Plan outcomes described in this document and accompanying appendices are intended for application in Fiscal Year 2026-27.

BASIS YEAR
The basis year for expenditures and organization in the Cost Allocation Plan is budgeted expenditure from Fiscal Year 2025-26. This means that indirect cost rates, interfund charges for service, and other expressions of allocated indirect costs are based on planned financial data one year behind the application year of these outcomes.

The raw data exported from the City’s accounting system can be viewed in the digital workbook of the analysis otherwise published with this report in Appendix I. (The raw data is contained in Workspace 1 but summarized by organizational unit and viewable in Exhibit 2a of Appendix I to this report.) For additional documentation of the basis year, the City’s published budget documents and City Council meetings at which budgets are considered and approved are archived on its website.5

2.B | CENTRAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS
This Indirect Cost Allocation Plan allocates the costs of various support service and administrative programs to the direct organizational units that benefit from the central services provided. A description of the originating organizational unit for each allocable central service considered in this plan, sourced from the previously published City of Seal Beach Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Adopted Budget, is as follows.6 Additionally, departmental organizational chart(s) are available in that same comprehensive budget document. These organizational units originate in the City’s General Fund (101).
5 Budget Document Archives: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Finance/Budget City Council Meeting Archives: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-MeetingVideos/Council-Commission-Meetings 6 Adopted Operating & Capital Improvement Budget Fiscal Year 2025-26: See Note 5 for archives.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 11

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
CITY COUNCIL (101-1000010)
“The City Council reviews and sets policy on issues affecting the City; enacts laws and directs actions as required to provide for the general welfare of the community through programs, services, and activities; creates sustainable revenue for essential City services; provides policy guidance to City staff; adopts and monitors the annual operating and capital improvement budgets; makes appointments to vacancies on various commissions and committees; monitors legislative activity that has a financial impact on the City; provides City policy and input on local, state, and federal matters affecting Seal Beach.”
MANAGER – CITY MANAGER (101-1100011)
“The City Manager’s Office provides the administration of municipal services by effectively directing all City activities, finances, and personnel. Contract administration, risk management, legislation, advocacy activities, public information and community engagement, personnel services, City Council agenda review and finalization, website operation, grant applications, refuse franchise agreement management, property management, and workers compensation administration are direct functions of this office.”
MANAGER – HUMAN RESOURCES (101-1100014)
“Human Resources provides the full range of traditional and core human resources services for all full-time and part-time employees and include: recruitment and selection, classification and compensation systems, employee development and training, and labor/employee relations.

Responsibilities include: administer group health and welfare benefits and retirement plans for active employees and retirees; make recommendations regarding the enforcement and administration of Personnel Rules, Memorandum of Understanding policies, and state and federal employment legislation; onboard and offboard employes and process required paperwork; and complete required reporting and documentation.”
MANAGER – RISK MANAGEMENT (101-1100018)
“The City’s Risk Management Program includes administration of the City’s insurance programs through use of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) as well as the coordination of claims processing between the City and CJPIA. Responsibilities include: administer comprehensive loss prevention programs that incorporate current practices and philosophies most effective in preventing injuries, liabilities and damage to City equipment, vehicles, and materials; identify and minimize exposures that could result in financial loss to the City; and provide City representation in claims litigation. Worker’s compensation insurance reflects cost of insurance premiums, claims administration and claims settlement. Public liability covers insurance costs, claims administration and claims settlement for any liability incurred against the City.” CLERK – CITY CLERK (101-1200012)
“The City Clerk manages all activities in the clerk's office; attends all meetings of the City Council, Planning Commission and other meetings as requested by the City Manager. The City Clerk is also responsible for maintaining an accurate record of the actions from the meetings; maintains all meeting minutes and official documents, including ordinances, resolutions, contracts/agreements, written public comments, speaker cards and documents recorded with the County. Additionally, the CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 12

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
City Clerk processes amendments to the Municipal Code; certifies official and legal documents; manages legal publications; receives/opens bids; administers oaths; custodian of the official City seal; receives, reviews and processes Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) forms; receives claims against the City, subpoenas and summons; fulfills requests for information to the public; and provides notary services for equivalents.”
CLERK – ELECTIONS (101-1200013)
“As the local elections official, the City Clerk conducts all activities associated with municipal elections in accordance with the City Charter and State law.”
CITY ATTORNEY (101-1300015)
“The City Attorney provides legal counsel and advice during official meetings and study sessions of the City Council and Planning Commission; serves as a legal advisor to City staff; prepares and reviews City ordinances, resolutions, contracts and legal documents; represents the City in civil and criminal litigation; oversees the work of outside private counsel when hired to assist in specialized matters; and reviews claims filed against or for the City.” FINANCE (101-1400017)
“Finance advises the City Manager and City Council, and performs the following activities: accounts payable, accounts receivable, citywide cash receipting, payroll, business licensing, utility billing, general ledger maintenance, timely financial reporting in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, fixed asset recording, budgeting, grant administration, assessment district administration, debt administration, and cash and investment management. The department also monitors compliance with Utility Users Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Business Licenses, and many others.”
NON-DEPARTMENTAL (101-1500019)
For accounting and budgeting purposes only, Non-Departmental serves as a cost center to house charges and appropriations that are not assigned or chargeable to a specific department or function.

It is categorized as a general government support function.” NON-DEPARTMENTAL – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (101-15020XX SERIES) “Information Systems is responsible for network administration; software development and installation; maintenance of hardware and software, including upgrade and replacement; and the support and oversight of all technology-related products and services for all departments, including the Police Department. Information Systems is a joint effort between City staff and an IT contract provider. Information Systems manages the networking resources of the City and also operates and monitors computer equipment in support of both Public Safety and general City services. The City’s IT contract provider also coordinates systems implementations, maintenance, and processing solutions for ad hoc data processing requests in networked client-server and internet environments.” PUBLIC WORKS – ENGINEERING (101-5000042)
“The Engineering Division oversees the overall administration and engineering functions of the department, including contract management, grant management, finance and budgeting, CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 1 3

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
development services, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), environmental, traffic/transportation, construction management/inspection, tidelands management, intra/interagency coordination and compliance, ADA compliance, and provides general coordination with the other Public Works divisions.”
PUBLIC WORKS – AUTO MAINTENANCE (101-5000050)
“The Operations & Maintenance Division is responsible for the repair, maintenance, procurement, and asset management of City vehicles and motorized equipment. The Division maintains a fleet of over 100 City vehicles, including heavy and light-duty trucks, police interceptors, motorcycles, tractors, backhoes, watercraft, and specialized equipment. A preventative maintenance program is used to minimize vehicle downtime, increase vehicle performance, and control overall fleet maintenance costs.”
PUBLIC WORKS – BUILDING MAINTENANCE (101-5000052)
“The Operations & Maintenance Division is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the City’s buildings and facilities through routine & preventative maintenance, and larger-scale capital improvement projects. Maintenance activities include general internal and external upkeep, such as janitorial services, elevator and HVAC maintenance, pest control, mechanical, electrical & plumbing repairs, and landscape maintenance at buildings/facilities.”

2.C | FUNCTIONAL INDIRECT SERVICE AREAS
Where the organization or functional complexity of a central services organizational unit necessitates it, the unit’s budget has been broken down into cost pools to better determine allocable central services expenditures more reflective of different functions of service provided or to allow multiple allocation metrics to influence the total allocation of the unit. The purpose of this additional step is to enable more reasonable allocation decisions for different indirect services provided by a single central service organizational unit.

The following central services organizational units have been broken into indirect cost pools as follows.

CITY COUNCIL (101-1000010)
The City Council organizational unit has been divided into three functional service areas:
• City Council – Governmental Oversight (Workforce)
• City Council – Governmental Oversight (Operations)
• City Council – Governmental Oversight (Infrastructure) This breakdown is based on commonly applied industry metrics to rationally reflect emphasis areas for governmental oversight and to allow for multiple allocation factors to influence this single function.

Allocable and allowable cost items in the unit’s expenditure reporting have each been distributed among the functions of service following this general common portrayal. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 3 for the functional distribution. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the distribution of cost items.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 14

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
MANAGER – CITY MANAGER (101-1100011)
The City Manager organizational unit has been divided into three functional service areas:
• City Manager – Agency Management (Workforce)
• City Manager – Agency Management (Operations)
• City Manager – Agency Management (Infrastructure)
This breakdown is based on commonly applied industry metrics to rationally reflect emphasis areas for agency management and administration and to allow for multiple allocation factors to influence this single function. Allocable and allowable cost items in the unit’s expenditure reporting have each been distributed among the functions of service following this general common portrayal. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 3 for the functional distribution. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the distribution of cost items.

MANAGER – RISK MANAGEMENT (101-1100018)
The Risk Management organizational unit has been divided potentially into six functional service areas:
• Agency Risk, General Fund
• Agency Risk, Citywide
• Facilities Risk, General Fund
• Facilities Risk, Citywide
• Workforce Risk, General Fund
• Workforce Risk, Citywide
This breakdown is based on line-item analysis of expenditures associated with each descriptor and further delineating costs as needed which may have already been accounted to non-General Funds.

Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 3 for the functional distribution. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the distribution of cost items.

CLERK – CITY CLERK (101-1200012)
The City Clerk organizational unit has been divided into three functional service areas:
• City Clerk – Governmental Administration (Workforce)
• City Clerk – Governmental Administration (Operations) • City Clerk– Governmental Administration (Infrastructure) This breakdown is based on commonly applied industry metrics to rationally reflect emphasis areas for governmental administration and to allow for multiple allocation factors to influence this single function. Allocable and allowable cost items in the unit’s expenditure reporting have each been distributed among the functions of service following this general common portrayal. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 3 for the functional distribution. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the distribution of cost items.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 1 5

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
CITY ATTORNEY (101-1300015)
The City Attorney organizational unit has been divided into two functional service areas:
• City Attorney – General Counsel
• City Attorney – Workforce Support
• City Attorney – Direct Service (Not Allocable)
This breakdown is based on line-item analysis of expenditures associated with each descriptor. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the distribution of cost items.

FINANCE (101-1400017)
The Finance organizational unit has been divided into seven functional service areas:
• Accounting / Financial Reporting
• Budget / Financial Planning
• Payroll
• Accounts Payable
• Accounts Receivable and Counter
• Utility Customer Service and Analysis
• Purchasing
This breakdown is based on an informal survey of staff to estimate annual time across broad categories of service. Categories reflect those listed above plus General Administration. During the processing of staff time estimates, values assigned to Administration were reallocated to all other functions proportionately.

Cost items in the unit’s expenditure reporting have each been distributed among the functions of service either by direct, whole assignment to one category or following the breakdown of staff time among all categories. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 3 for the distribution of staff time. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the distribution of cost items.

NON-DEPARTMENTAL (101-1500019)
The Non-Departmental organizational unit has been divided potentially into six functional service areas:
• Workforce Support, Citywide
• Workforce Support, General Fund
• Facilities Support, Citywide
• Facilities Support, City Hall
• Financial / Administrative Support, Citywide
• Financial / Administrative Support, General Fund
This breakdown is based on line-item analysis of expenditures associated with each descriptor and further delineating costs as needed which may have already been accounted to non-General Funds.

Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 3 for the functional distribution. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the distribution of cost items.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 1 6

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
PUBLIC WORKS – ENGINEERING (101-5000042)
The Public Works – Engineering organizational unit has been divided into five functional service areas:
• Department Administration, Workforce
• Department Administration, Operations
• Department Administration, Infrastructure
• Public Projects and Infrastructure
• Direct Service (Not Allocable)
This breakdown is first based on direct assignment of certain positions to traditional engineering and excluded direct service functions (e.g., permitting, review, inspection, etc.) drawing upon documentation from other financial and fee studies. For positions of an administrative nature, positions were next distributed to the administrative functions based on commonly applied industry metrics to rationally reflect emphasis areas for departmental administration and to allow for multiple allocation factors to influence this single function of administration. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 3 for the distribution of staff time. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the distribution of cost items.

PUBLIC WORKS – AUTO MAINTENANCE (101-5000050)
The Public Works - Auto Maintenance organizational unit has been divided into two functional service areas:
• Fleet Support, Citywide
• Fleet Support, Non-Utility
This breakdown is provided to enable exclusion of labor items from allocation to utilities, which already bear direct allocations of labor in their enterprise funds. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 3 for the distribution of staff time. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the distribution of cost items.

PUBLIC WORKS – BUILDING MAINTENANCE (101-5000052)
The Public Works – Building Maintenance organizational unit has been divided into five functional service areas:
• Building Maintenance – City Hall
• Building Maintenance – Police Facilities
• Building Maintenance – Community Centers and Facilities • Building Maintenance – Marine Safety Facilities
• Building Maintenance – Pier Facilities
This breakdown is provided to enable line-item and area-based distribution of cost items to different buildings and beneficiaries of service. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 3 for the distribution of staff time.

Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the distribution of cost items.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 17

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN

2.D | ALLOCABLE INDIRECT COST POOLS
EXHIBIT A lists the indirect cost pools allocated in this Cost Allocation Plan. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 3 for the identification of indirect cost pools by name, as well as any applicable labor or other functional distributions to those cost pools. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 4 for the line-item detail of allocable central services expenditures by organizational unit and distributed to the identified indirect cost functions.
(This section continues on the next page.)
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 1 8

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
EXHIBIT A | ALL OCABLE INDIREC T COST POOLS (PAR T 1 OF 2) FY 2025-26
Budget
Expenditure
less: NonAllocable
and/or Direct
Service
Allocable
Cost Pool
1000010 | City Council - City Council 205,547 $ (100,000) $ Governmental Oversight 52,773 $
Governmental Oversight 26,387 $
Governmental Oversight 26,387 $
1100011 | Manager - City Manager 1,234,205 $ (43,943) $ Agency Management 595,131 $
Agency Management 297,565 $
Agency Management 297,565 $
1100014 | Manager - Human Resources 558,136 $ - $
Workforce Support 558,136 $
1100018 | Manager - Risk Management 3,162,913 $ - $
Agency Risk, General Fund - $
Agency Risk, Citywide 1,238,524 $
Facilities Risk, General Fund - $
Facilities Risk, Citywide 536,568 $
Workforce Risk, General Fund - $
Workforce Risk, Citywide 1,387,821 $
1200012 | Clerk - City Clerk 367,491 $ - $
Governmental Administration 183,745 $
Governmental Administration 91,873 $
Governmental Administration 91,873 $
1200013 | Clerk - Elections 4,000 $ - $
Governmental Oversight 4,000 $
1300015 | City Attorney - City Attorney 592,000 $ (85,000) $ General Counsel 354,000 $
Workforce Support 153,000 $
1400017 | Finance - Finance 1,810,771 $ (169,955) $
Accounting / Financial Reporting 572,683 $
Budget / Financial Planning 285,523 $
Payroll 212,322 $
Accounts Payable 146,188 $
Accounts Receivable & Counter 168,944 $
Utility Customer Service & Analysis 227,054 $
Purchasing 28,101 $
1500019 | Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 1,058,820 $ (48,000) $ Workforce Support, Citywide 833,500 $
Workforce Support, General Fund - $
Facilities Support, Citywide - $
Facilities Support, City Hall - $
Financial / Admin. Support, Citywide 177,320 $
Financial / Admin. Support, General Fund - $
(Table continues on the following page.)

ALLOCATED ORGANIZATIONS
Central Services Department/Division
and Functional Cost Pool Created by the Plan
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 1 9

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
EXHIBIT A | ALL OCABLE INDIREC T COST POOLS (PAR T 2 OF 2) FY 2025-26
Budget
Expenditure
less: NonAllocable
and/or Direct
Service
Allocable
Cost Pool
1502011 | Non-Departmental - IT CM 9,934 $ - $
City Manager Support 9,934 $
1502012 | Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk 48,500 $ - $ City Clerk Support 48,500 $
1502017 | Non-Departmental - IT Finance 88,516 $ - $
Finance Support 88,516 $
1502020 | Non-Departmental - IT Citywide 781,822 $ - $
Citywide Support 781,822 $
1502023 | Non-Departmental - IT PD 259,730 $ - $
Police Support 259,730 $
1502028 | Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety 16,620 $ - $ Marine Safety Support 16,620 $
1502030 | Non-Departmental - IT CD 1,720 $ - $
Community Development Support 1,720 $
1502042 | Non-Departmental - IT PW 31,950 $ - $
Public Works Support 31,950 $
1502070 | Non-Departmental - IT CS 21,390 $ - $
Community Services Support 21,390 $
5000042 | Public Works - Engineering 1,146,929 $ (139,880) $ Department Administration, Workforce 261,793 $
Department Administration, Operations 163,347 $
Department Administration, Infrastructure 228,247 $
Public Projects & Infrastructure 353,662 $
5000050 | Public Works - Auto Maintenance 851,642 $ - $ Fleet Support, Citywide 554,200 $
Fleet Support, Non-Utility 297,442 $
5000052 | Public Works - Building Maintenance 1,673,991 $ (450,000) $ City Hall 441,471 $
Police Facilities 522,028 $
Community Centers & Facilities 216,784 $
Marine Safety Facilities 19,979 $
Pier Facilities 23,729 $
Total Allocable Central Services Cost 13,926,626 $ (1,036,778) $ 12,889,849 $

ALLOCATED ORGANIZATIONS (CONTINUED FROM PRIOR PAGE)
Central Services Department/Division
and Functional Cost Pool Created by the Plan
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 20

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN

2.E | BENEFITING DIRECT SERVICE ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS
This Indirect Cost Allocation Plan allocates the previously identified central services to direct services that benefit from the services provided. A list of direct organizational units receiving allocable expenditures in this plan follows, organized by “departmental” classifications under which costs are distributed within the analysis. These departmental classifications loosely follow the City’s departments, but in some cases, reflect a distinct fund. The classifications are for analytical purposes, so that allocations and resulting outcomes can be generated in a manner meaningful to their likely applications. Note that the organizational units listed below were present in the fiscal year basis for this iteration of the CAP, may or may not have a direct cost basis capable of receiving indirect costs in the fiscal year basis, and may or may not be present in future fiscal year bases.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT
( I NCLUDI N G N ON -AL LO CA B LE PORT IONS OF CE N TR AL SE RV I CE S UNI T S) This class represents portions of indirect service organizational units previously identified that may be classified through this analysis as providing direct service, as well as additional whole units identified through the City’s accounting structure and budgeted in various City funds which provide direct service, as follows:
• 1000010 City Council - City Council
• 1100011 Manager - City Manager
• 1100014 Manager - Human Resources
• 1100018 Manager - Risk Management
• 1100211 Manager - Centennial
• 1200012 Clerk - City Clerk
• 1200013 Clerk - Elections
• 1300015 City Attorney - City Attorney
• 1400017 Finance - Finance
• 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental
• 1500053 Non-Departmental - Seal Beach Cable
• 1502011 Non-Departmental - IT CM
• 1502012 Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk
• 1502017 Non-Departmental - IT Finance
• 1502020 Non-Departmental - IT Citywide
• 1502023 Non-Departmental - IT PD
• 1502028 Non-Departmental - IT Marine
Safety
• 1502030 Non-Departmental - IT CD
• 1502042 Non-Departmental - IT PW
• 1502070 Non-Departmental - IT CS
POLICE
Organizational units classified under the Police category are budgeted in various City funds and are as follows:
• 2100021 Police - Emergency Operations Center
• 2100022 Police - Police Field Services
• 2100023 Police - Police Support Services
• 2100025 Police - Parking Enforcement
• 2100035 Police - West-Comm
• 2100036 Police - Animal Control
• 2100111 Police - Federal Asset Forfeiture
• 2100223 Police - Special Projects
• 2100371 Police - OCATT
• 2100442 Police - Bulletproof Vest
Partnership
• 2100472 Police - Office of Traffic Safety
Grant
• 2100474 Police - Tobacco Tax Act 2016
• 2100478 Police - 2021 OPSG
• 2100479 Police - Hazard Mitigation Plan
• 2100600 Police - SLESF Grant
• 2100825 Police - Parking Enforcement
FIRE
Organizational units classified under the Fire category are budgeted in various City funds and are as follows:
• 2200026 Fire - Fire and Paramedic Services
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 21

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN

MARINE SAFETY
Organizational units classified under the Marine Safety category are budgeted in various City funds and are as follows:
• 2300073 Marine Safety - Aquatics
• 2300828 Marine Safety - Lifeguard

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Organizational units classified under the Community Development category are budgeted in various City funds and are as follows:
• 3000030 Community Development - Planning
• 3000031 Community Development - Building
and Code Enforcement
• 3000231 Community Development - Special
Projects
• 3000331 Community Development - Local
Coastal Plan
• 3000377 Community Development - Wireless
Attorney

COMMUNITY SERVICES
Organizational units classified under the Community Services category are budgeted in various City funds and are as follows:
• 4000016 Community Services - Senior Bus
Program
• 4000070 Community Services - Recreation
Administration
• 4000071 Community Services - Sports
Leagues
• 4000072 Community Services - Leisure
Classes
• 4000074 Community Services - Tennis Center
PUBLIC WORKS – ENGINEERING
Organizational units classified under the Public Works – Engineering category are budgeted in various City funds and are as follows:
• 5000042 Public Works - Engineering
PUBLIC WORKS – MAINTENANCE
Organizational units classified under the Public Works – Maintenance category are budgeted in various City funds and are as follows:
• 5000043 Public Works - Storm Drains
• 5000044 Public Works - Street Maintenance
• 5000049 Public Works - Park Maintenance
• 5000050 Public Works - Auto Maintenance
• 5000052 Public Works - Building Maintenance
• 5000090 Public Works - SB1 Program
• 5000099 Public Works - Measure M2
• 5000242 Public Works - Special Projects
• 5000244 Public Works - Special Projects
• 5000370 Public Works - County GF ED Grant
• 5000377 Public Works - Wireless Attorney
• 5000450 Public Works - CFD Landscape
Maintenance
• 5000460 Public Works - CFD Heron Pointe
• 5000470 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway
• 5000480 Public Works - CFD Pacific
Gateway
• 5000500 Public Works - Street Lighting
• 5000700 Public Works - Air Quality
Improvement
• 5000863 Public Works - Beach Maintenance
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 22

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
PUBLIC WORKS – REFUSE
Organizational units classified under the Public Works – Refuse category are budgeted in various City funds and are as follows:
• 5000051 Public Works - Refuse
PUBLIC WORKS – WATER
A single organizational unit classified under the Public Works – Water category is budgeted in the Water Fund 501 only and is as follows:
• 5000900 Public Works – Water Maintenance and Operations PUBLIC WORKS – SEWER
A single organizational unit classified under the Public Works – Sewer category is budgeted in the Sewer Fund 503 only and is as follows:
• 5000925 Public Works – Sewer Maintenance and Operations

TIDELANDS/BEACH
Organizational units classified under the Tidelands/Beach category would be any not stemming from previous departmental classifications but accounted for in the Tidelands Beach Fund 106.

UNCLASSIFIED
This class represents all other organizational units encompassing capital funds and interfund transactions, most of which are not recipients of central services via the mechanism of this Cost Allocation Plan. (Indirect cost recovery is potentially available through the practice of assessing indirect cost rates on labor or costs directly charged to these projects/programs.) Note that organizational units in the above lists may also have been treated in a similar manner due ultimately to be found wholly accounting for items such as capital expenditures or interfund transactions.

2.F | ALLOCATION BASES
A variety of data sets have been used in this Cost Allocation Plan as bases for distributing allocable indirect cost pools to benefiting organizational units. These data sets are used to derive allocation factors which determine the proportionality of expense received by each unit. A description of the data sets follows.

NET OPERATING EXPENSES (CITYWIDE OR SPEC IFIC TO D EPARTMENT OR F UND) A common allocation basis is to distribute costs based on expenditures by organizational unit.

However, a pure “gross expenditures” value often can lead to a disproportionate outcome relative to the nature and benefit of indirect service being allocated. For this reason, adjustments to gross expenditures are devised to create a metric labeled “net operating expenses,” which is defined in this CAP as follows: expenditures in each applicable organizational unit, excluding debt service and other obligations; capital expenditures and depreciation; pass-through transactions; and transfers and other financing uses. (Refer to Appendix I Exhibit 2a-Supplemental for this data.) Expenditures are derived from the fiscal year basis for the CAP.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 23

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN

MODIFIED OPERATING EXPENSES (CITYWIDE OR SPECIFI C TO DEPARTMENT OR FUND)
For certain allocation applications, an alternative expenditure-based metric was deemed appropriate.

Additional adjustments to the previously described net operating expenses metric was devised to create a metric labeled “modified operating expenses,” which is defined in this CAP as follows:

Expenditures in each applicable organizational unit, excluding debt service and other obligations; capital expenditures and depreciation; pass-through transactions; transfers and other financing uses; and certain individual outlays found to be distorting to the allocation, such as significantly contracted services. (Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 2a for a summary of this data.) Expenditures are derived from the fiscal year basis for the CAP.

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES (CITYWIDE OR SPECIFIC TO DEPARTMENT

OR F UND)
Another common allocation basis is to distribute costs based on the size of workforce in receiving units. Full-time equivalent employees (FTEEs) is defined as the number of employees accounted for in whole or part to an applicable organizational unit, weighted by their individual equivalency relative to 1.0 equaling a standard full-time work schedule. This workforce count is inclusive of all full- and part-time employees using that equivalency method and are derived from the fiscal year basis for the CAP. (Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 2a-Supplemental for this data.) Expenditures are derived from the fiscal year basis for the CAP.

ALL TO A SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT OR FUND
Based on the function of an allocable organizational unit, some indirect services can be assigned directly to a single receiving department or fund, as named in the analysis when used. (Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 5 to view the expression of this metric.)

AS ALL ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT ALLOCATIONS
This metric represents a weighted average calculation to express the composite distribution of an allocable organizational unit across all its functions of service modeled in the analysis. This is deployed at times in the analysis to capture any general or remaining costs from an allocable cost pool during the two-step allocation process. (Refer to Appendix I, Workspace 5 for calculation of these metrics.)

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) EXPENDITURES
CIP expenditures are those expressed by infrastructure type in the budget document for the fiscal year basis of the CAP. (Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 5 to view the data used for this metric.)

CAPITAL ASSET VALUE
Capital asset value references total capital assets reported by fund in the most recent Annual Comprehensive Financial Report available during the preparation of this CAP. (Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 5 to view the data used for this metric.)
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 24

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN

CASH AND INVESTMENTS
Cash and investments are reported by fund in the most recent Annual Comprehensive Financial Report available during the preparation of this CAP. (Refer to Appendix I, Workspace 4 to view development of this data.)

SERVICES AND SUPPLIED EXPENSES
A subset of expenditures to capture activity in purchased services and supplies is used in lieu of transactional workload for certain allocable cost pools. (Refer to Appendix I, Workspace I for this data.) Expenditures are derived from the fiscal year basis for the CAP.

RECEIPTED REVENUES
Receipted revenues references non-tax, non-earnings revenue amounts estimated in the fiscal year basis for the CAP. (Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 5 to view the data used for this metric.)

UTILITY SALES AND SERVICE CHARGES
Utility sales and service charges references those reported revenue amounts reported in the most recent Annual Comprehensive Financial Report available during the preparation of this CAP. (Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 5 to view the data used for this metric.)

BUILDING AREA OCCUPIED
Building area represents approximate space used by City departments across facilities and references information published in a previous facilities condition assessment. (Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 5 to view the data used for this metric.)

ASSIGNED VEHICLES
Assigned vehicles represents fleet and equipment used by City departments and references information recorded in the City’s most recent fleet replacement schedule. (Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 5 to view the data used for this metric.)

COMBINATION METRICS
Some allocable cost pools benefit from allowing multiple data sets to influence the derived allocation factor for the function, most significantly in financial management functions. In this analysis, two combination metrics have been deployed:
• Net Operating Expenses, Cash Balance, and CIP Expenditures: An equal one-third share of each of these three named metrics previously described above. • Net Operating Expenses and CIP Expenditures: An equal one-half share of each of these two named metrics previously described above.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 25

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
EXHIBIT B lists the selected allocation basis used to distribute each indirect cost pool to benefiting organizational units. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 5 to view the complete data sets with notes and accompanying allocation factors used in this Cost Allocation Plan. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 6 to view a summary of the allocation decisions made in the quantitative analysis.  FUTURE CONSIDERATION: PLANNED OR UPDATED ALL OCATION METR ICS As the City intends to update its Cost Allocation Plan on a regular basis, it will have ongoing opportunities to deploy additional, alternative, or refined allocation metrics to those used in this current plan, as practices change organizationally, issues arise in applying key CAP outcomes, and/or additional data sets are found to be tracked and prove reliable when applied in the CAP. Examples of additional data sets which – while not required – may be useful in refining future outcomes include: claims history for certain insurance coverages, transaction counts for certain financial functions, and device inventories, work orders, or tickets tracked for information services.
(This section continues on the next page.)
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 26

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
EXHIBIT B | SELECTED ALLOCATION BASES (PART 1 OF 2)
Allocable
Cost Pool Allocation Basis
1000010 | City Council - City Council 105,547 $
Governmental Oversight 52,773 $ FTEEs, Citywide
Governmental Oversight 26,387 $ Modified Operating Expenses, Citywide Governmental Oversight 26,387 $ CIP Expenditures, Citywide 1100011 | Manager - City Manager 1,190,262 $
Agency Management 595,131 $ FTEEs, Citywide
Agency Management 297,565 $ Modified Operating Expenses, Citywide Agency Management 297,565 $ CIP Expenditures, Citywide
1100014 | Manager - Human Resources 558,136 $
Workforce Support 558,136 $ FTEEs, Citywide
1100018 | Manager - Risk Management 3,162,913 $
Agency Risk, General Fund - $ Modified Operating Expenses, General Fund Agency Risk, Citywide 1,238,524 $ Modified Operating Expenses, Citywide Facilities Risk, General Fund - $ Modified Operating Expenses, General Fund Facilities Risk, Citywide 536,568 $ Modified Operating Expenses, Citywide Workforce Risk, General Fund - $ FTEEs, General Fund
Workforce Risk, Citywide 1,387,821 $ FTEEs, Citywide
1200012 | Clerk - City Clerk 367,491 $
Governmental Administration 183,745 $ FTEEs, Citywide
Governmental Administration 91,873 $ Modified Operating Expenses, Citywide Governmental Administration 91,873 $ CIP Expenditures, Citywide 1200013 | Clerk - Elections 4,000 $
Governmental Oversight 4,000 $ All to City Council
1300015 | City Attorney - City Attorney 507,000 $
General Counsel 354,000 $ Modified Operating Expenses, Citywide Workforce Support 153,000 $ FTEEs, Citywide
1400017 | Finance - Finance 1,640,817 $
Accounting / Financial Reporting 572,683 $ Net Oper. Exp, Cash Balance, CIP Expend.

Budget / Financial Planning 285,523 $ Net Operating Expense, CIP Expenditures Payroll 212,322 $ FTEEs, Citywide
Accounts Payable 146,188 $ Services & Supplies Expenses Accounts Receivable & Counter 168,944 $ Receipted Revenues Utility Customer Service & Analysis 227,054 $ Utility Sales and Service Charges Purchasing 28,101 $ Modified Operating Expenses, Citywide 1500019 | Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 1,010,820 $ Workforce Support, Citywide 833,500 $ FTEEs, Citywide
Workforce Support, General Fund - $ FTEEs, General Fund Facilities Support, Citywide - $ Building Area Occupied, Citywide Facilities Support, City Hall - $ FTEEs, City Hall Occupants Financial / Admin. Support, Citywide 177,320 $ Modified Operating Expenses, Citywide Financial / Admin. Support, General Fund - $ Modified Operating Expenses, General Fund (Table continues on the following page.)
Central Services Department/Division
and Functional Cost Pool Created by the Plan
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 27

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
EXHIBIT B | SELECTED ALLOCATION BASES (PART 2 OF 2)
(Continues table from the preceding page.)
Allocable
Cost Pool Allocation Basis
1502011 | Non-Departmental - IT CM 9,934 $
City Manager Support 9,934 $ All to City Manager
1502012 | Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk 48,500 $
City Clerk Support 48,500 $ All to City Clerk
1502017 | Non-Departmental - IT Finance 88,516 $
Finance Support 88,516 $ All to Finance
1502020 | Non-Departmental - IT Citywide 781,822 $
Citywide Support 781,822 $ FTEEs, Citywide
1502023 | Non-Departmental - IT PD 259,730 $
Police Support 259,730 $ All to Police
1502028 | Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety 16,620 $
Marine Safety Support 16,620 $ All to Marine Safety
1502030 | Non-Departmental - IT CD 1,720 $
Community Development Support 1,720 $ All to Community Development 1502042 | Non-Departmental - IT PW 31,950 $
Public Works Support 31,950 $ All to Public Works
1502070 | Non-Departmental - IT CS 21,390 $
Community Services Support 21,390 $ All to Community Services 5000042 | Public Works - Engineering 1,007,049 $
Department Administration, Workforce 261,793 $ FTEEs, Public Works Programs Department Administration, Operations 163,347 $ Net Operating Expense, Public Works Programs Department Administration, Infrastructure 228,247 $ CIP Expenditures, Public Works Programs Public Projects & Infrastructure 353,662 $ CIP Expenditures, Citywide 5000050 | Public Works - Auto Maintenance 851,642 $
Fleet Support, Citywide 554,200 $ Assigned Vehicles, Citywide Fleet Support, Non-Utility 297,442 $ Assigned Vehicles, Excluding Utilities 5000052 | Public Works - Building Maintenance 1,223,991 $ City Hall 441,471 $ FTEEs, City Hall Occupants
Police Facilities 522,028 $ All to Police
Community Centers & Facilities 216,784 $ All to Community Services Marine Safety Facilities 19,979 $ All to Marine Safety
Pier Facilities 23,729 $ All to Tidelands/Beach
Total Allocable Central Services Cost 12,889,849 $
Central Services Department/Division
and Functional Cost Pool Created by the Plan
CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 28

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN

2.G | ALLOCATION RESULTS BY DEPARTMENTAL CLASS
EXHIBIT C summarizes the total costs allocated in this CAP, distributed among the departmental classes defined in this analysis. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 9 to view the allocation results detailed by allocable indirect cost pool to each benefitting direct service department.

EXHIBIT C | DISTRIB UTION OF ALLOC ABLE COSTS TO DEPAR TMEN TS From these allocation results, two key outcomes useful to City cost recovery applications are derived:
indirect cost rates and interfund charges for service.

2.H | INDIRECT COST RATES
Indirect cost rates are percentage values added to charges of either direct labor cost or total direct cost for recovery to the General Fund of Citywide indirect services benefiting the program or project charged. For example, if a City staff member charges time to an eligible capital project with adequate funding, an indirect cost rate can be applied to the salary dollars charged, thus reflecting that when that staff member works on the project, they are naturally supported by the central services reflected in the indirect cost rate.

The Cost Allocation Plan has generated rates at two different levels:
 Citywide Composite Indirect Cost Rate: a uniform rate applicable to all personnel or activity Citywide, regardless of originating department.
 Departmental Indirect Cost Rates: rates varying by originating department and reflecting the proportionality of central service benefit achieved through the cost allocation plan process. (In other words, different departments benefit from Citywide central services to varying degrees, not uniformly as implied by the Citywide composite approach.) Departmental Designation in the CAP
Received
Indirect Costs
via Allocation
Share of
Total
Police 4,934,586 $ 38.3%
Public Works - Maintenance 1,369,008 $ 10.6%
Public Works - Water 1,334,607 $ 10.4%
Marine Safety 1,148,523 $ 8.9%
Public Works - Sewer 1,052,515 $ 8.2%
Community Services 908,188 $ 7.0%
General Government & Unclassifed 781,445 $ 6.1%
Community Development 515,832 $ 4.0%
Tidelands/Beach 504,630 $ 3.9%
Public Works - Refuse 152,412 $ 1.2%
Fire 110,386 $ 0.9%
Public Works - Engineering 77,718 $ 0.6%
Total Received Indirect Costs 12,889,849 $ 100.0%

INDIRECT COSTS BY DEPARTMENTAL CLASSIFICATION IN THIS PLAN CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 29

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Furthermore, indirect cost rates are calculated two ways depending on the type of cost to which the rate is applied:
 Indirect Cost Rate on Direct Labor Cost: The percentage rate is applied only to direct salary cost charged.
 Indirect Cost Rate on Total Direct Cost: The percentage rate is applied to total eligible direct costs charged.

CITYWIDE COMPOSITE INDIRECT COST RATE
EXHIBIT D summarizes the Citywide Composite Indirect Cost Rate under both direct labor cost and total direct cost bases. At 73.5% on direct salary cost, for every $1 in salary charged, 74-cents can be added for Citywide central services support. At 20.7% on total direct cost, for every $1 in direct cost to the program, 21-cents can be added for Citywide central services support. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit 10 to view the detail of this rate calculation.

EXHIBIT D | CITYWID E COMPOSITE INDIR ECT COST RATES FOR FY 2026-27

DEPARTMENTAL INDIRECT COST RATES
EXHIBIT E summarizes the Departmental Indirect Cost Rates under total direct cost bases. The variation between departmental classes is the intended result of the allocation of indirect cost pools to departmental classes under the selected allocation bases, thus reflecting the different benefit or proportion received by each. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibits 11a and 11b to view the detail of this rate calculation.
(This section continues on the next page.)
Summary Rate Calculation on Direct Labor Charges Amount Cost Basis: Total Citywide Indirect Costs [a] $ 10,541,815 Rate Basis: Salary Expense in Direct Operating Organizations 14,351,912 $ Citywide Indirect Rate on Direct Salary Charges 73.5%
Summary Rate Calculation on Direct Expense Amount
Cost Basis: Total Citywide Indirect Costs [a] $ 10,541,815 Rate Basis: Direct Operating Expense in Direct Service Organizations 50,905,121 $ Citywide Indirect Rate on Direct Expenditure 20.7%

CITYWIDE COMPOSITE INDIRECT COST RATE OPTIONS
[a] This subtotal of indirect costs excludes services not applicable to a Citywide basis in this charge setting, such as services benefiting one or a subset of departments.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 30

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
EXHIBIT E | DEPAR TMENTAL INDIRECT COST R ATES F OR F Y 202 6-27

APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST RATES
Formally implementing indirect cost rates will require a series of deliberate measures and time in order to achieve accuracy, provide for efficient cost accounting, and ensure sufficient funding resources for both direct cost recovery and newly pursued indirect cost recovery.  FUTURE CONSIDERATION: CH OOSING AN INDIRECT COST RATE Determining which rate or rates to implement will depend on the capabilities of cost accounting systems available and business practices at the City in the future if and when it chooses to utilize indirect cost rates. At the City’s current scale and known applications for a potential indirect cost rate, either approach is reasonable.

However, before first applying an indirect cost rate to a specific project or program, it will be important to review underlying conditions, rules, regulations, contracts, and/or other provisions of the project or program to ensure compliance with any particular requirement attached to it, both in terms of allowed rate basis and allowed indirect costs. This is especially important for state or federal funding programs that require an OMB 2 CFR 200 compliant indirect cost plan on file, which this current plan is not. Furthermore, some programs may simply offer a pre-negotiated indirect cost rate (i.e., de minimis rate) that will suffice for the City or may impose a maximum indirect cost rate.
 FUTURE CONSIDERATION: APPLICATION OF AN INDIRECT COST R ATE Misapplication of indirect cost rates is a common error when accessing varied rates bases.

When the City reaches the point where it begins using indirect cost rates, it is recommended Departmental Designation in the CAP
ICR on
Eligible Direct
Expense [a]
Community Development 21.0%
Community Services 55.6%
Fire 1.4%
Marine Safety 47.3%
Police 26.2%
Public Works - Engineering 55.6%
Public Works - Maintenance 26.2%
Public Works - Refuse 11.6%
Public Works - Sewer 78.6%
Public Works - Water 19.8%
Composite for the City 20.7%

INDIRECT COST RATES
[a] Direct expense refers to net operating costs only: gross expenditures net of capital outlay, debt service, depreciation and amortization, transfers and financing uses, and any cost item ineligible for recovery in the application under consideration.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 3 1

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
that the City create a formal procedure, if not policy, on how and when to apply its indirect cost rates. For example, the City needs to ensure that personnel from central services organizations not charge time to projects/programs, as their costs are embedded in the indirect cost rates that will follow either direct charges of personnel to those projects or the direct expenditures themselves, depending on the rate method chosen for the project/program. Alternatively, if those personnel must charge time to projects/programs, the CAP will need to be revised to remove actual or expected direct billings of those costs, so they do not flow through the Cost Allocation Plan and contribute to its resultant rates and charges.

Further preventing mistakes in the application of these rates, for each project or program where the City intends to apply an indirect cost rate, it is recommended that one method be selected: either recover indirect costs on direct charges of City personnel time or recover indirect costs on direct expenditures of the project/program. To avoid easily duplicating cost recovery, the City should not apply both rates in the context of a single project/program. A formal policy delineating how to make that decision for each project could assist. Such a policy would typically set a threshold on the project/program. For example, on projects whose costs are driven substantially by City labor, the indirect rate on personnel time should apply. Conversely, for projects driven substantially by external costs, the indirect rate on direct expenditures should apply.
 FUTURE CONSIDERATION: BUDGETING FOR IN DIRECT C OST REC OVER Y Including indirect cost recovery in projects or programs will require internal education at the City and long-term planning to ensure both adequacy of funding available and avoidance of eroding resources optimally spent on the direct costs. This is particularly important in the capital improvement program. Near-term projects likely will not have been budgeted to include indirect cost recovery; therefore, if systems and practices are implemented to enable indirect cost rates on direct charges to those projects, funding may not be available. If the City intends to implement indirect cost recovery widely, capital improvement program planners in the City will be a critical partner in its realization.

2.I | MAXIMUM INTERFUND CHARGES FOR SERVICE
Interfund charges for service are transfers to the General Fund expressed as annual dollars for recovery of Citywide central services from eligible funds outside the General Fund.

In this Cost Allocation Plan, interfund charges for service are derived from the departmental indirect cost rates applied to eligible departmental costs reported to each fund. Funds can be comprised of expenditures originating from varying departments. In this methodology, applying a departmental indirect cost rate to a department’s reported costs creates a strong linkage for purposes of reasonable central services cost recovery from City funds. This is particularly the case for funds accounting for services or any future revenue measures which are intended to fund costs from multiple operating departments.

EXHIBIT F summarizes the maximum interfund charges for service informed by the results of the Cost Allocation Plan. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibits 12a and 12b to view the detailed calculation.

CLE ARSOU RCE RE PORT T O TH E CI T Y OF SE AL B E ACH | 32

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
EXHIBIT F | MAXIMUM INTERFUND CHARGES FOR CENTRAL SERVICE FOR FY 2026-27  FUTURE CONSIDERATION: RESOURCE SUFFICIENCY AND ELI GIBILITY Calculated interfund charges may not be immediately applicable depending on current capacity of available resources in each fund, sufficiency of prevailing funding sources comprising the majority of a fund’s revenues, degree of flexibility of contractual arrangements and program funding, or restriction/limitations from funding agency. However, these results can and should inform future negotiations; rate, fee, or funding analysis; and processes that seek to modify incoming revenue streams in these funds.

IMPLEMENTATION

3.A | APPLICATION TO BUDGET YEAR
The preceding report describes the complete Indirect Cost Allocation Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

This plan was prepared during the 2025-26 fiscal year and used same year’s adopted budget expenditure as the basis for allocation. This means that the outcomes of a plan generated to support application in a given year are based on estimated costs one year past. This lag is a common structure for full cost indirect allocation plans.

3.B | UPDATE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR
As the City intends to apply the results of this Indirect Cost Allocation Plan in assorted applications where indirect cost recovery is enabled with documented substantiation, the City should intend to update the CAP on a reasonably regular basis. The City has received the non-proprietary, fully open and self-contained, spreadsheet-based Plan, able to be updated by a user comfortable in that accessible platform. The City owns the complete tool. Additionally, the City is welcome to contact ClearSource for questions, advice, or additional consulting on this topic as it seeks to apply and maintain its Cost Allocation Plan.

It is recommended that the City embark on its Plan update at least two months prior to needing outcomes for its budget development process. This will ensure that Cost Allocation Plan outcomes can be finalized and flow into the budget development cycle without workload conflict for staff or circularity in the construction of the new budget.

In future years, if the City implements interfund charges consistent with those calculated in this report, the City may be able to implement a semi-regular updating schedule of the full Plan. This can be accomplished in one of three different ways:
• Hold interfund charges fixed between Plan updates.
• Apply a Consumer Price Index factor or similar inflationary metric applied in other City budgeting to interfund charges between Plan updates.
• Apply the Indirect Cost Rates (ICRs) derived by this Plan to current expense profiles in receiving funds to calculate an interfund charge consistent with this Plan’s outcomes. (The City may need to engage a minor degree of consulting the first time it attempts this to ensure applicability and accuracy.)
The City should endeavor to conduct a comprehensive Cost Allocation Plan with similar documentation as this report no longer than every three to five years consistent with reporting obligations it has with revenue streams impacted by these results.

APPENDIX I

INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
BASED ON FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET EXPENDITURE
Table of Contents
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Model Exhibits
No. Function
1 Management Brief
2a All Expenditures Detail
2b All Expenditures Classified
3 Central Services
4 Allocable Expense
5 Allocation Metrics
6 Allocation Decisions
7 First Allocation
8 Second Allocation
9 Total Allocation
10 Indirect Rates
11a Rate Basis by Org
11b Indirect Rates by Dept
12a Interfund Charge Basis
12b Interfund Charges Summary
W1 General Ledger
W2 Chart of Accounts
W3 Labor
W4 Data Development
W5 Data Development
W6 Labor Restoration
W7 Direct Labor Allocation
Workbook Exhibit
Calculates indirect rates by department. This result captures proportionate outcomes by department resulting from Exhibits 6 through 9.

Develops a basis for calculating potential interfund charges for service depending on departmental make-up within funds.

Calculates potential interfund charges for service by fund.

Presents the data source for expenditures processed in the analysis.

Determines eligible indirect expenditures for central services departments and apportions expenditures to allocable indirect cost pools where relevant.

Lists data sets available as allocation bases and calculates allocation factors applied in Exhibits 7 and 8.

Summarizes the allocable central services costs by indirect cost pool and assigns the basis for allocating each pool in Exhibits 7 and 8.

Allocates central services indirect cost pools to all benefitting units Citywide, according to their share of the chosen allocation metric.

Description
Summarizes key outcomes of the CAP, including indirect rates and potential interfund charges.

Illustrates relevant chart of accounts information and determines expense data used in the development of the Modified Operating Expenditures allocation basis. Demonstrates reconciliation to the financial records data source.

Summarizes Exhibit 2a into the shortened list of departments to which indirect costs are allocated in subsequent exhibits.

Names functional indirect cost pools within central services organizations. Analyzes personnel in central services organizations to develop bases for indirect cost pools developed in Exhibit 4.

Reallocates indirect costs received by central services in Exhibit 7 to direct benefitting units only, according to their share of the chosen allocation metric.

Sums the outcomes of Exhibits 7 and 8 to yield a total allocation to direct benefitting units Citywide.

Calculates Citywide composite indirect rates. This result does not capture proportionate outcomes by department resulting from Exhibits 6 through 9.

Develops a basis for calculating indirect rates by department.

Provides a workspace for developing other information used in the analysis, such as allocation metrics.

Presents the City’s Chart of Accounts.

Presents a listing of all labor positions in the City.

Provides a workspace for analyzing direct labor charges by position across all City programs and funds. Allows for "restored" expenditures used to develop allocable indirect cost pools.

Summarizes directly allocated labor positions in certain non-General Funds from expenditure data source.

Provides a workspace for developing other information used in the analysis, such as allocation metrics.

Page 1 of 157 ends

Table of Contents
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Data Sources (Not Printed -- Reference Workbook for Detailed List)

Page 2 of 157 ends

Exhibit 1a
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Management Brief
The following key highlights represent maximum recommendations generated by this Cost Allocation Plan.

A1. Indirect Rates for Allocated Central Services, Citywide Composite

73.5% on direct salary expense
Apply this rate to billed salary expenses as a mark-up for central overhead.

20.7% on direct expenditure
A2. Indirect Rates for Allocated Central Services, Departmental on Direct Salary
Expense
on Direct
Expense
Police 64% 26.2%
Fire 0% 1.4%
Marine Safety 72% 47.3%
Community Development 67% 21.0%
Community Services 140% 55.6%
Public Works - Engineering 0% 55.6%
Public Works - Maintenance 242% 26.2%
Public Works - Refuse 0% 11.6%
Public Works - Water 336% 19.8%
Public Works - Sewer 313% 78.6%
Tidelands/Beach 0% 0.0%
Note: Do not use rates in A1 and A2 in the same application. Choose one method when recovering Citywide overhead.

Apply this rate to direct project expenditures as a mark-up for central overhead. Do not apply this rate if the indirect rate on billed labor has been applied. Choose one method per application.

Broad Department Designation [b]
[b] "Department" descriptions are classifications for Cost Allocation Plan purposes and may not match organizational charts.

Page 3 of 157 ends

Exhibit 1b
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Management Brief
The following key highlights represent maximum recommendations generated by this Cost Allocation Plan.

B1. Grand Total Cost for General Fund for Central Services in this Plan Total Allocated
Costs [d]
Distribution of
Allocated
Costs
Amount Eligible
for Directly
Allocated Labor
Charges
Remaining
Amount Eligible
for an
Interfund
Charge
501 | Water 1,334,606 $ 10.4% - $ 1,334,606 $ TBD
503 | Sewer 1,052,512 $ 8.2% - $ 1,052,512 $ TBD
Maximum Transfers from Utilities to the General Fund for Recovery of Central Services [d] $ 18.5% - 2,387,117 $ 2,387,117 $ 106 | Tidelands Beach 1,418,984 $ 11.0% - $ 1,418,984 $ TBD All Other Non-General Funds [e] $ 4.7% 604,332
Remaining Central Services in the 101|General Fund [f,g] 8,479,415 $ 65.8% Total Central Services Allocated in this Plan 12,889,849 $ 84.3% C1. Comparison to Transfers Calculated in Current Year Budget Directly
Allocated Labor
from Central
Services
Programs [h]
Additional
Transfer to the
General Fund
for Overhead
Total Charges
Received in
Current Year
Budget
Change
in This Plan
(B1-C1)
501 | Water $ 440,000 846,293 $ $ 48,313 1,286,293 $
503 | Sewer $ 293,000 736,204 $ $ 23,308 1,029,204 $
Total Transfers from Utilities to the General Fund for Recovery of Central Services 1,582,496 $ 733,000 $ 2,315,496 $ 71,621 $ 106 | Tidelands Beach $ - 269,494 $ $ 1,149,490 269,494 $ All Other Non-General Funds $ - - $ $ 604,332 - $
Fund Expected to Receive an Interfund Charge for Service (Reflected as Both Direct Labor Allocation and an Interfund Charge for Service) [d] Values listed are maximum outcomes calculated by this Cost Allocation Plan. Actual charges will be dependent on eligibility for indirect cost (overhead) recovery and/or resource sufficiency in the fund or its revenue streams.
[g] This amount may be reduced for any additional opportunities for indirect cost (overhead) recovery from other applications, such as direct billing of labor to eligible projects and programs. [f] This amount includes central services attributed to direct services within the General Fund. [h] Extracted from the data source replicated in Workspace 6 for positions charged to the fund whose program of origin has been treated as an allocable indirect cost center in this plan. See Workspace 7 for excerpted list of positions and estimated costs currently charged. [e] This amount includes central services allocable to other funds but unrecovered by an interfund charge for service by practice, eligibility, and/or resource sufficiency.

Fund Receiving an Interfund Charge
and/or Direct Labor Allocations for General Fund Central Services

Page 4 of 157 ends

Exhibit 1c
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Management Brief
The following key highlights represent maximum recommendations generated by this Cost Allocation Plan.

C1. Costs Received by Department from Allocated General Fund Cost Centers (Two-Step Allocation Method Applied) Receiver
Broad Department Designation [i]
GRAND TOTAL:

All Allocated
Cost Centers
101-1000010
City Council -
City Council
101-1100011
Manager - City
Manager
101-1100014
Manager -
Human
Resources
101-1100018
Manager - Risk
Management
101-1200012
Clerk - City
Clerk
101-1200013
Clerk -
Elections
101-1300015
City Attorney -
City Attorney
101-1400017
Finance -
Finance
101-1500019
NonDepartmental -
NonDepartmental
101-1502011
NonDepartmental -
IT CM
101-1502012
NonDepartmental -
IT City Clerk
101-1502017
NonDepartmental -
IT Finance
Total Expenditures: Budget 2025-26 [j] 13,926,626 $ 205,547 $ 1,234,205 $ 558,136 $ 3,162,913 $ 367,491 $ 4,000 $ 592,000 $ 1,810,771 $ 1,058,820 $ 9,934 $ 48,500 $ 88,516 $ less: Non-Allocable Costs (1,036,778) $ (100,000) $ (43,943) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (85,000) $ (169,955) $ (48,000) $ - $ - $ - $ less: Costs Allocated to Central Services Cost Centers (2,294,082) $ (16,167) $ (182,313) $ (119,930) $ (622,928) $ (56,289) $ (4,000) $ (97,633) $ (181,269) $ (211,537) $ (9,934) $ (48,500) $ (88,516) $ Total Cost Pools for First Allocation 10,595,767 $ 89,380 $ 1,007,949 $ 438,206 $ 2,539,985 $ 311,202 $ - $ 409,367 $ 1,459,548 $ 799,283 $ - $ - $ - $ Unclassified for Indirect Costs 533,867 $ 11,844 $ 133,570 $ - $ - $ 41,239 $ - $ - $ 188,463 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ General Government 45,133 $ 381 $ 4,296 $ 726 $ 22,817 $ 1,326 $ - $ 4,389 $ 6,998 $ 3,183 $ - $ - $ - $ Police 4,257,979 $ 30,822 $ 347,586 $ 221,682 $ 1,214,632 $ 107,316 $ - $ 193,071 $ 267,212 $ 397,322 $ - $ - $ - $ Fire 85,371 $ 270 $ 3,047 $ - $ 18,177 $ 941 $ - $ 3,625 $ 57,494 $ 1,816 $ - $ - $ - $ Marine Safety 982,084 $ 8,948 $ 100,909 $ 81,193 $ 287,400 $ 31,155 $ - $ 39,310 $ 56,532 $ 129,792 $ - $ - $ - $ Community Development 428,711 $ 3,366 $ 37,962 $ 22,043 $ 141,056 $ 11,721 $ - $ 23,242 $ 56,654 $ 41,534 $ - $ - $ - $ Community Services 769,737 $ 4,196 $ 47,323 $ 35,343 $ 145,371 $ 14,611 $ - $ 21,153 $ 42,385 $ 58,522 $ - $ - $ - $ Public Works - Engineering 60,813 $ 434 $ 4,893 $ 3,815 $ 14,408 $ 1,511 $ - $ 2,027 $ 2,289 $ 6,189 $ - $ - $ - $ Public Works - Maintenance 1,082,813 $ 6,419 $ 72,383 $ 38,980 $ 280,774 $ 22,348 $ - $ 47,350 $ 86,879 $ 76,576 $ - $ - $ - $ Public Works - Refuse 122,036 $ 684 $ 7,716 $ - $ 46,031 $ 2,382 $ - $ 9,180 $ 39,451 $ 4,598 $ - $ - $ - $ Public Works - Water 1,012,567 $ 8,693 $ 98,037 $ 19,141 $ 189,455 $ 30,269 $ - $ 33,538 $ 301,894 $ 42,755 $ - $ - $ - $ Public Works - Sewer 830,767 $ 6,989 $ 78,821 $ 15,283 $ 179,863 $ 24,336 $ - $ 32,480 $ 254,995 $ 36,995 $ - $ - $ - $ Tidelands/Beach 383,889 $ 6,332 $ 71,404 $ - $ - $ 22,046 $ - $ - $ 98,303 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Total Allocated, First Allocation 10,595,767 $ 89,380 $ 1,007,949 $ 438,206 $ 2,539,985 $ 311,202 $ - $ 409,367 $ 1,459,548 $ 799,283 $ - $ - $ - $ Received in First Allocation for Second Allocation 2,294,081 $ 216,865 $ 286,472 $ 95,803 $ 23,051 $ 174,205 $ 298 $ 31,496 $ 541,264 $ 64,553 $ 731 $ 3,547 $ 6,469 $ Unclassified for Indirect Costs 194,865 $ - $ 32,148 $ - $ - $ 19,549 $ 39 $ - $ 69,708 $ - $ 97 $ 470 $ 835 $ General Government 7,583 $ 1,751 $ 1,275 $ 159 $ 204 $ 775 $ 1 $ 334 $ 2,689 $ 252 $ 3 $ 15 $ 31 $ Police 676,594 $ 104,453 $ 105,220 $ 48,465 $ 11,034 $ 63,985 $ 103 $ 14,867 $ 103,827 $ 32,107 $ 252 $ 1,223 $ 1,184 $ Fire 25,014 $ 1,359 $ 898 $ - $ 162 $ 546 $ 1 $ 276 $ 21,364 $ 142 $ 2 $ 11 $ 255 $ Marine Safety 166,445 $ 26,484 $ 30,762 $ 17,751 $ 2,637 $ 18,706 $ 30 $ 3,058 $ 22,581 $ 10,530 $ 73 $ 355 $ 251 $ Community Development 87,125 $ 11,902 $ 11,464 $ 4,819 $ 1,278 $ 6,971 $ 11 $ 1,786 $ 21,878 $ 3,351 $ 28 $ 134 $ 251 $ Community Services 138,457 $ 13,044 $ 14,391 $ 7,727 $ 1,329 $ 8,751 $ 14 $ 1,638 $ 16,413 $ 4,742 $ 34 $ 167 $ 188 $ Public Works - Engineering 16,905 $ 1,312 $ 1,490 $ 834 $ 132 $ 906 $ 1 $ 157 $ 923 $ 502 $ 4 $ 17 $ 10 $ Public Works - Maintenance 286,192 $ 23,390 $ 21,820 $ 8,522 $ 2,540 $ 13,269 $ 21 $ 3,633 $ 34,801 $ 6,170 $ 52 $ 255 $ 385 $ Public Works - Refuse 30,374 $ 3,441 $ 2,273 $ - $ 411 $ 1,382 $ 2 $ 698 $ 14,968 $ 359 $ 6 $ 27 $ 175 $ Public Works - Water 322,038 $ 15,342 $ 26,221 $ 4,185 $ 1,707 $ 15,945 $ 29 $ 2,566 $ 114,155 $ 3,433 $ 71 $ 345 $ 1,338 $ Public Works - Sewer 221,745 $ 14,388 $ 21,326 $ 3,341 $ 1,618 $ 12,968 $ 23 $ 2,482 $ 82,241 $ 2,964 $ 57 $ 277 $ 1,130 $ Tidelands/Beach 120,743 $ - $ 17,186 $ - $ - $ 10,451 $ 21 $ - $ 35,717 $ - $ 52 $ 251 $ 436 $ Total Allocated, Second Allocation 2,294,081 $ 216,865 $ 286,472 $ 95,803 $ 23,051 $ 174,205 $ 298 $ 31,496 $ 541,264 $ 64,553 $ 731 $ 3,547 $ 6,469 $

Page 5 of 157 ends

Exhibit 1c
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Management Brief
The following key highlights represent maximum recommendations generated by this Cost Allocation Plan.

C1. Costs Received by Department from Allocated General Fund Cost Centers (Two-Step Allocation Method Applied) Receiver
Broad Department Designation [i]
GRAND TOTAL:

All Allocated
Cost Centers
101-1000010
City Council -
City Council
Total Expenditures: Budget 2025-26 [j] 13,926,626 $ 205,547 $ less: Non-Allocable Costs (1,036,778) $ (100,000) $
less: Costs Allocated to Central Services Cost Centers (2,294,082) $ (16,167) $ Total Cost Pools for First Allocation 10,595,767 $ 89,380 $ Unclassified for Indirect Costs 533,867 $ 11,844 $
General Government 45,133 $ 381 $
Police 4,257,979 $ 30,822 $
Fire 85,371 $ 270 $
Marine Safety 982,084 $ 8,948 $
Community Development 428,711 $ 3,366 $
Community Services 769,737 $ 4,196 $
Public Works - Engineering 60,813 $ 434 $
Public Works - Maintenance 1,082,813 $ 6,419 $
Public Works - Refuse 122,036 $ 684 $
Public Works - Water 1,012,567 $ 8,693 $
Public Works - Sewer 830,767 $ 6,989 $
Tidelands/Beach 383,889 $ 6,332 $
Total Allocated, First Allocation 10,595,767 $ 89,380 $ Received in First Allocation for Second Allocation 2,294,081 $ 216,865 $ Unclassified for Indirect Costs 194,865 $ - $
General Government 7,583 $ 1,751 $
Police 676,594 $ 104,453 $
Fire 25,014 $ 1,359 $
Marine Safety 166,445 $ 26,484 $
Community Development 87,125 $ 11,902 $
Community Services 138,457 $ 13,044 $
Public Works - Engineering 16,905 $ 1,312 $
Public Works - Maintenance 286,192 $ 23,390 $
Public Works - Refuse 30,374 $ 3,441 $
Public Works - Water 322,038 $ 15,342 $
Public Works - Sewer 221,745 $ 14,388 $
Tidelands/Beach 120,743 $ - $
Total Allocated, Second Allocation 2,294,081 $ 216,865 $ 101-1502020
NonDepartmental -
IT Citywide
101-1502023
NonDepartmental -
IT PD
101-1502028
NonDepartmental -
IT Marine
Safety
101-1502030
NonDepartmental -
IT CD
101-1502042
NonDepartmental -
IT PW
101-1502070
NonDepartmental -
IT CS
101-5000042
Public Works -
Engineering
101-5000050
Public Works -
Auto
Maintenance
101-5000052
Public Works -
Building
Maintenance
$ 259,730 781,822 $ 16,620 $ 1,720 $ 31,950 $ 21,390 $ 1,146,929 $ 851,642 $ 1,673,991 $ $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (139,880) $ - $ (450,000) $
$ - (167,995) $ - $ - $ (31,950) $ - $ (118,258) $ (57,908) $ (278,955) $ $ 259,730 613,827 $ 16,620 $ 1,720 $ - $ 21,390 $ 888,791 $ 793,734 $ 945,036 $ $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 158,750 $ - $ - $
$ - 1,016 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ 259,730 310,526 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 386,050 $ 522,028 $ $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ - 113,733 $ 16,620 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 96,513 $ 19,979 $ $ - 30,878 $ - $ 1,720 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 58,534 $
$ - 49,507 $ - $ - $ - $ 21,390 $ - $ 19,303 $ 310,634 $ $ - 5,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,770 $ - $ 10,131 $
$ - 54,602 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 242,083 $ 154,420 $ - $
$ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,992 $ - $ - $
$ - 26,812 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 213,781 $ 48,191 $ - $
$ - 21,409 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 167,548 $ 12,048 $ - $
$ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 84,866 $ 77,210 $ 23,729 $
$ 259,730 613,827 $ 16,620 $ 1,720 $ - $ 21,390 $ 888,791 $ 793,734 $ 945,036 $ $ 18,970 57,092 $ 1,219 $ 131 $ 2,338 $ 1,567 $ 456,858 $ 155,286 $ 155,864 $ $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 72,019 $ - $ - $
$ - 95 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ 18,970 28,882 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 75,545 $ 66,476 $ $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ - 10,578 $ 1,219 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 18,886 $ 2,544 $
$ - 2,872 $ - $ 131 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,248 $
$ - 4,605 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,567 $ - $ 3,777 $ 60,070 $
$ - 497 $ - $ - $ 43 $ - $ 6,571 $ - $ 3,505 $
$ - 5,079 $ - $ - $ 1,058 $ - $ 134,979 $ 30,218 $ - $
$ - - $ - $ - $ 52 $ - $ 6,579 $ - $ - $
$ - 2,494 $ - $ - $ 655 $ - $ 124,153 $ 9,400 $ - $
$ - 1,991 $ - $ - $ 531 $ - $ 74,057 $ 2,350 $ - $
$ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 38,500 $ 15,109 $ 3,022 $
$ 18,970 57,092 $ 1,219 $ 131 $ 2,338 $ 1,567 $ 456,858 $ 155,286 $ 155,864 $

Page 6 of 157 ends

Exhibit 1c
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Management Brief
The following key highlights represent maximum recommendations generated by this Cost Allocation Plan.

C1. Costs Received by Department from Allocated General Fund Cost Centers (Two-Step Allocation Method Applied) Receiver
Broad Department Designation [i]
GRAND TOTAL:

Unclassified for Indirect Costs 5.7% 3.9% 12.8% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 13.3% 0.0% 12.9% 0.0% 13.3% 13.3% 12.9% General Government 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 0.9% 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% Police 38.3% 44.2% 35.0% 50.6% 47.8% 35.3% 34.5% 47.2% 18.5% 49.7% 34.5% 34.5% 18.3% Fire 0.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% 3.9% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 3.9% Marine Safety 8.9% 11.6% 10.2% 18.5% 11.3% 10.3% 10.0% 9.6% 4.0% 16.2% 10.0% 10.0% 3.9% Community Development 4.0% 5.0% 3.8% 5.0% 5.6% 3.9% 3.8% 5.7% 3.9% 5.2% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% Community Services 7.0% 5.6% 4.8% 8.1% 5.7% 4.8% 4.7% 5.2% 2.9% 7.3% 4.7% 4.7% 2.9% Public Works - Engineering 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% Public Works - Maintenance 10.6% 9.7% 7.3% 8.9% 11.1% 7.3% 7.2% 11.6% 6.1% 9.6% 7.2% 7.2% 6.0% Public Works - Refuse 1.2% 1.3% 0.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.8% 0.8% 2.2% 2.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 2.7% Public Works - Water 10.4% 7.8% 9.6% 4.4% 7.5% 9.5% 9.7% 8.2% 20.8% 5.3% 9.7% 9.7% 20.7% Public Works - Sewer 8.2% 7.0% 7.7% 3.5% 7.1% 7.7% 7.8% 7.9% 16.9% 4.6% 7.8% 7.8% 17.5% Tidelands/Beach 3.9% 2.1% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 7.1% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 7.1% 7.1% 6.7% Total Allocation of Cost Centers 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% [i] "Department" descriptions are classifications for Cost Allocation Plan purposes and may not match organizational charts. Classifications are intended to group functionally similar activities for purposes of receiving allocated indirect service. [j] Total expenditures include labor charges accounted in non-General Funds, restored to this "home" cost center for purposes of complete allocation following the methodology employed in this Plan.

Page 7 of 157 ends

Exhibit 1c
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Management Brief
The following key highlights represent maximum recommendations generated by this Cost Allocation Plan.

C1. Costs Received by Department from Allocated General Fund Cost Centers (Two-Step Allocation Method Applied) Receiver
Broad Department Designation [i]
GRAND TOTAL:

All Allocated
Cost Centers
101-1000010
City Council -
City Council
Grand Total Costs Allocated in Two Steps 12,889,848 $ 306,245 $ Unclassified for Indirect Costs 728,732 $ 11,844 $
General Government 52,716 $ 2,131 $
Police 4,934,573 $ 135,275 $
Fire 110,385 $ 1,629 $
Marine Safety 1,148,529 $ 35,432 $
Community Development 515,835 $ 15,269 $
Community Services 908,194 $ 17,240 $
Public Works - Engineering 77,718 $ 1,746 $
Public Works - Maintenance 1,369,005 $ 29,809 $
Public Works - Refuse 152,410 $ 4,126 $
Public Works - Water 1,334,606 $ 24,036 $
Public Works - Sewer 1,052,512 $ 21,377 $
Tidelands/Beach 504,633 $ 6,332 $
Grand Total Received Indirect Costs 12,889,848 $ 306,245 $ Percent of General Fund Cost Center Received:

Unclassified for Indirect Costs 5.7% 3.9%
General Government 0.4% 0.7%
Police 38.3% 44.2%
Fire 0.9% 0.5%
Marine Safety 8.9% 11.6%
Community Development 4.0% 5.0%
Community Services 7.0% 5.6%
Public Works - Engineering 0.6% 0.6%
Public Works - Maintenance 10.6% 9.7%
Public Works - Refuse 1.2% 1.3%
Public Works - Water 10.4% 7.8%
Public Works - Sewer 8.2% 7.0%
Tidelands/Beach 3.9% 2.1%
Total Allocation of Cost Centers 100.0% 100.0%
[i] "Department" descriptions are classifications for Cost Allocation Plan purposes and may not match organizational charts. Classifications are intended to group functionally similar activities for purposes of receiving allocated indirect service. [j] Total expenditures include labor charges accounted in non-General Funds, restored to this "home" cost center for purposes of complete allocation following the methodology employed in this Plan. 101-1502020
NonDepartmental -
IT Citywide
101-1502023
NonDepartmental -
IT PD
101-1502028
NonDepartmental -
IT Marine
Safety
101-1502030
NonDepartmental -
IT CD
101-1502042
NonDepartmental -
IT PW
101-1502070
NonDepartmental -
IT CS
101-5000042
Public Works -
Engineering
101-5000050
Public Works -
Auto
Maintenance
101-5000052
Public Works -
Building
Maintenance
$ 278,700 670,919 $ 17,839 $ 1,851 $ 2,338 $ 22,957 $ 1,345,648 $ 949,021 $ 1,100,900 $ $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 230,769 $ - $ - $
$ - 1,111 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ 278,700 339,408 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 461,595 $ 588,504 $ $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ - 124,311 $ 17,839 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 115,399 $ 22,524 $ $ - 33,750 $ - $ 1,851 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 78,783 $
$ - 54,112 $ - $ - $ - $ 22,957 $ - $ 23,080 $ 370,704 $ $ - 5,841 $ - $ - $ 43 $ - $ 16,342 $ - $ 13,636 $
$ - 59,680 $ - $ - $ 1,058 $ - $ 377,063 $ 184,638 $ - $ $ - - $ - $ - $ 52 $ - $ 18,571 $ - $ - $
$ - 29,306 $ - $ - $ 655 $ - $ 337,934 $ 57,591 $ - $
$ - 23,400 $ - $ - $ 531 $ - $ 241,605 $ 14,398 $ - $
$ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 123,366 $ 92,319 $ 26,750 $
$ 278,700 670,919 $ 17,839 $ 1,851 $ 2,338 $ 22,957 $ 1,345,648 $ 949,021 $ 1,100,900 $

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.1% 0.0% 0.0%

0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

50.6% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 48.6% 53.5%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

18.5% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.2% 2.0%

5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.2%

8.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 2.4% 33.7%

0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 1.2%

8.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.2% 0.0% 28.0% 19.5% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.0% 0.0% 25.1% 6.1% 0.0%

3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.7% 0.0% 18.0% 1.5% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.2% 9.7% 2.4%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Page 8 of 157 ends

Exhibit 2a
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Fund Structure and Expenditure Basis
Labor Labor
No. Title No. Title No. Title Total Budget
2025-26
Adjustment Expense Basis FTEs by Org
(Restored, W3)
FTEs, Gen.

Fund Only
Central Services in the General Fund
101 General Fund 1000010 City Council - City Council 1 Allocated Central Services 205,547 $ (100,000) $ $ 105,547 5.00 5.00 101 General Fund 1100011 Manager - City Manager 1 Allocated Central Services 1,234,205 $ (43,943) $ $ 1,190,262 4.22 4.22 101 General Fund 1100014 Manager - Human Resources 1 Allocated Central Services 558,136 $ - $ $ 558,136 1.45 1.45 101 General Fund 1100018 Manager - Risk Management 1 Allocated Central Services 3,162,913 $ - $ $ 3,162,913 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1200012 Clerk - City Clerk 1 Allocated Central Services 367,491 $ - $ $ 367,491 2.50 2.50 101 General Fund 1200013 Clerk - Elections 1 Allocated Central Services 4,000 $ - $ $ 4,000 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1300015 City Attorney - City Attorney 1 Allocated Central Services 592,000 $ (85,000) $ $ 507,000 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1400017 Finance - Finance 1 Allocated Central Services 1,810,771 $ (169,955) $ $ 1,640,817 8.46 8.46 101 General Fund 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 1 Allocated Central Services 1,058,820 $ (48,000) $ $ 1,010,820 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502011 Non-Departmental - IT CM 1 Allocated Central Services 9,934 $ - $ $ 9,934 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502012 Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk 1 Allocated Central Services 48,500 $ - $ $ 48,500 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502017 Non-Departmental - IT Finance 1 Allocated Central Services 88,516 $ - $ $ 88,516 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502020 Non-Departmental - IT Citywide 1 Allocated Central Services 781,822 $ - $ $ 781,822 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502023 Non-Departmental - IT PD 1 Allocated Central Services 259,730 $ - $ $ 259,730 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502028 Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety 1 Allocated Central Services 16,620 $ - $ $ 16,620 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502030 Non-Departmental - IT CD 1 Allocated Central Services 1,720 $ - $ $ 1,720 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502042 Non-Departmental - IT PW 1 Allocated Central Services 31,950 $ - $ $ 31,950 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502070 Non-Departmental - IT CS 1 Allocated Central Services 21,390 $ - $ $ 21,390 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 5000042 Public Works - Engineering 1 Allocated Central Services 1,146,929 $ (139,880) $ $ 1,007,049 6.96 6.96 101 General Fund 5000050 Public Works - Auto Maintenance 1 Allocated Central Services 851,642 $ - $ $ 851,642 2.00 2.00 101 General Fund 5000052 Public Works - Building Maintenance 1 Allocated Central Services 1,673,991 $ (450,000) $ $ 1,223,991 2.05 2.05 Direct Services in the General Fund
101 General Fund 1000010 City Council - City Council 2 General Government - $ 100,000 $ $ 100,000 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government - $ 43,943 $ $ 43,943 0.20 0.20 101 General Fund 1100014 Manager - Human Resources 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1100018 Manager - Risk Management 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1200012 Clerk - City Clerk 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1200013 Clerk - Elections 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1300015 City Attorney - City Attorney 2 General Government - $ 85,000 $ $ 85,000 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1400017 Finance - Finance 2 General Government - $ 169,955 $ $ 169,955 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 2 General Government - $ 48,000 $ $ 48,000 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502011 Non-Departmental - IT CM 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502012 Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502017 Non-Departmental - IT Finance 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502020 Non-Departmental - IT Citywide 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502023 Non-Departmental - IT PD 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502028 Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502030 Non-Departmental - IT CD 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502042 Non-Departmental - IT PW 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502070 Non-Departmental - IT CS 2 General Government - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 5000042 Public Works - Engineering 8 Public Works - Engineering - $ 139,880 $ $ 139,880 1.04 1.04 101 General Fund 5000050 Public Works - Auto Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ $ - 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 5000052 Public Works - Building Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ 450,000 $ $ 450,000 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1500053 Non-Departmental - Seal Beach Cable 2 General Government 90,000 $ $ - $ 90,000 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1500080 Non-Departmental - Transfers 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs 14,622,008 $ $ - $ 14,622,008 0.00 0.00 Fund Organization (Department and Program) Classification for Indirect Rates [a] Expenditure Basis

Page 9 of 157 ends

Fund Only
Fund Organization (Department and Program) Classification for Indirect Rates [a] Expenditure Basis 101 General Fund 2100021 Police - Emergency Operations Center 3 Police 414,619 $ $ - $ 414,619 1.00 1.00 101 General Fund 2100022 Police - Police Field Services 3 Police 11,668,169 $ $ - $ 11,668,169 35.50 35.50 101 General Fund 2100023 Police - Police Support Services 3 Police 1,941,456 $ $ - $ 1,941,456 10.09 10.09 101 General Fund 2100025 Police - Parking Enforcement 3 Police 1,698,298 $ $ - $ 1,698,298 9.50 9.50 101 General Fund 2100035 Police - West-Comm 3 Police 981,632 $ $ - $ 981,632 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 2100036 Police - Animal Control 3 Police 489,454 $ $ - $ 489,454 2.00 2.00 101 General Fund 2200026 Fire - Fire and Paramedic Services 4 Fire 7,851,403 $ $ - $ 7,851,403 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 2300073 Marine Safety - Aquatics 5 Marine Safety 349,379 $ $ - $ 349,379 4.40 4.40 101 General Fund 3000030 Community Development - Planning 6 Community Development 721,685 $ $ - $ 721,685 3.15 3.15 101 General Fund 3000031 Community Development - Building and Code Enforcement 6 Community Development 1,093,916 $ $ - $ 1,093,916 2.45 2.45 101 General Fund 4000016 Community Services - Senior Bus Program 7 Community Services 232,000 $ $ - $ 232,000 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 4000070 Community Services - Recreation Administration 7 Community Services 543,352 $ $ - $ 543,352 3.54 3.54 101 General Fund 4000071 Community Services - Sports Leagues 7 Community Services 83,093 $ $ - $ 83,093 1.25 1.25 101 General Fund 4000072 Community Services - Leisure Classes 7 Community Services 185,100 $ $ - $ 185,100 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 4000074 Community Services - Tennis Center 7 Community Services 515,425 $ $ - $ 515,425 4.83 4.83 101 General Fund 5000043 Public Works - Storm Drains 9 Public Works - Maintenance 564,818 $ $ - $ 564,818 0.50 0.50 101 General Fund 5000044 Public Works - Street Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance 1,953,519 $ $ - $ 1,953,519 4.29 4.29 101 General Fund 5000049 Public Works - Park Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance 739,180 $ $ - $ 739,180 1.05 1.05 101 General Fund 5000051 Public Works - Refuse 10 Public Works - Refuse 1,310,300 $ $ - $ 1,310,300 0.00 0.00 Direct Services in Other Funds
102 Leased Facilities 1500802 Non-Departmental - Annex Building 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs 78,700 $ $ - $ 78,700 0.00 0.00 102 Leased Facilities 1500803 Non-Departmental - Annex 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 102 Leased Facilities 1500804 Non-Departmental - Rivers End 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 102 Leased Facilities 1500805 Non-Departmental - Ironwood 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 103 Special Projects 1100211 Manager - Centennial 2 General Government - $ $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 103 Special Projects 2100223 Police - Special Projects 3 Police 61,250 $ $ - $ 61,250 0.00 0.00 103 Special Projects 3000231 Community Development - Special Projects 6 Community Development 367,366 $ $ - $ 367,366 0.40 0.00 103 Special Projects 4000074 Community Services - Tennis Center 7 Community Services 4,000 $ $ - $ 4,000 0.00 0.00 103 Special Projects 5000242 Public Works - Special Projects 9 Public Works - Maintenance 757,469 $ $ - $ 757,469 0.00 0.00 103 Special Projects 5000244 Public Works - Special Projects 9 Public Works - Maintenance 235,000 $ $ - $ 235,000 0.00 0.00 104 Waste Management Act 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government 111,478 $ $ - $ 111,478 0.00 0.00 106 Tidelands Beach 2100825 Police - Parking Enforcement 3 Police 340,658 $ $ - $ 340,658 1.25 0.00 106 Tidelands Beach 2300828 Marine Safety - Lifeguard 5 Marine Safety 2,229,699 $ $ - $ 2,229,699 17.70 0.00 106 Tidelands Beach 4000072 Community Services - Leisure Classes 7 Community Services 130,000 $ $ - $ 130,000 0.00 0.00 106 Tidelands Beach 5000863 Public Works - Beach Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance 3,381,432 $ $ - $ 3,381,432 4.52 0.00 201 Supplemental Law Enforcement 2100600 Police - SLESF Grant 3 Police 220,390 $ $ - $ 220,390 0.00 0.00 204 Air Quality Improvement District 5000700 Public Works - Air Quality Improvement 9 Public Works - Maintenance 33,200 $ $ - $ 33,200 0.00 0.00 205 Asset Forfeiture - Federal 2100111 Police - Federal Asset Forfeiture 3 Police 208,000 $ $ - $ 208,000 0.00 0.00 209 SB1 RMRA 5000090 Public Works - SB1 Program 9 Public Works - Maintenance 1,597,168 $ $ - $ 1,597,168 0.00 0.00 210 Gas Tax 5000090 Public Works - SB1 Program 9 Public Works - Maintenance 1,585,169 $ $ - $ 1,585,169 0.00 0.00 211 Measure M2 5000099 Public Works - Measure M2 9 Public Works - Maintenance 1,673,383 $ $ - $ 1,673,383 0.00 0.00 214 Seal Beach Cable 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 2 General Government 190,000 $ $ - $ 190,000 0.00 0.00 215 Community Development Block Grant 3000030 Community Development - Planning 6 Community Development 180,000 $ $ - $ 180,000 0.00 0.00 216 Police Grants 2100371 Police - OCATT 3 Police 230,207 $ $ - $ 230,207 1.00 0.00 216 Police Grants 2100442 Police - Bulletproof Vest Partnership 3 Police 10,000 $ $ - $ 10,000 0.00 0.00 216 Police Grants 2100472 Police - Office of Traffic Safety Grant 3 Police 282,610 $ $ - $ 282,610 0.00 0.00 216 Police Grants 2100474 Police - Tobacco Tax Act 2016 3 Police 59,798 $ $ - $ 59,798 0.00 0.00

Page 10 of 157 ends

Fund Only
Fund Organization (Department and Program) Classification for Indirect Rates [a] Expenditure Basis 216 Police Grants 2100478 Police - 2021 OPSG 3 Police 207,032 $ $ - $ 207,032 0.00 0.00 216 Police Grants 2100479 Police - Hazard Mitigation Plan 3 Police 100,000 $ $ - $ 100,000 0.00 0.00 217 Citywide Grants 3000331 Community Development - Local Coastal Plan 6 Community Development 370,000 $ $ - $ 370,000 0.00 0.00 217 Citywide Grants 3000377 Community Development - Wireless Attorney 6 Community Development 25,000 $ $ - $ 25,000 0.00 0.00 217 Citywide Grants 5000361 Public Works - OCTA 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs 166,845 $ $ - $ 166,845 0.00 0.00 217 Citywide Grants 5000366 Public Works - OCTA Co-Op 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs 279,193 $ $ - $ 279,193 0.00 0.00 217 Citywide Grants 5000370 Public Works - County GF ED Grant 9 Public Works - Maintenance 150,034 $ $ - $ 150,034 0.00 0.00 217 Citywide Grants 5000375 Public Works - PW NPDS 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs 438,787 $ $ - $ 438,787 0.00 0.00 217 Citywide Grants 5000377 Public Works - Wireless Attorney 9 Public Works - Maintenance 165,482 $ $ - $ 165,482 0.00 0.00 217 Citywide Grants 5000378 Public Works - 2024 Environ Clean Up - Galleon Way - Grant Match (20/80) 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs 584,940 $ $ - $ 584,940 0.00 0.00 217 Citywide Grants 5000380 Public Works - North SB Comm Ctr Phase 2 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs 250,000 $ $ - $ 250,000 0.00 0.00 280 Street Lighting District No. 1 5000500 Public Works - Street Lighting 9 Public Works - Maintenance 266,500 $ $ - $ 266,500 0.00 0.00 281 CFD Landscape Maintenance District 2002-01 5000450 Public Works - CFD Landscape Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance 123,995 $ $ - $ 123,995 0.15 0.00 282 CFD Heron Pointe 2002-01 5000460 Public Works - CFD Heron Pointe 9 Public Works - Maintenance 252,264 $ $ - $ 252,264 0.00 0.00 283 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 5000470 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance 557,051 $ $ - $ 557,051 0.00 0.00 284 CFD Heron Pointe 2002-01 - Admin 5000460 Public Works - CFD Heron Pointe 9 Public Works - Maintenance 11,900 $ $ - $ 11,900 0.00 0.00 285 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 - Admin 5000470 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance 73,064 $ $ - $ 73,064 0.10 0.00 285 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 - Admin 5000480 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance 18,254 $ $ - $ 18,254 0.00 0.00 301 Capital Improvement Projects 5000333 Public Works - Capital Projects 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs 11,767,750 $ $ - $ 11,767,750 0.00 0.00 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water 12,935,644 $ $ - $ 12,935,644 5.21 0.00 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer 5,950,141 $ $ - $ 5,950,141 4.16 0.00 601 Vehicle Replacement 5000980 Public Works - Vehicle Replacement 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs 406,800 $ $ - $ 406,800 0.00 0.00 Restoration of Labor Costs to be Allocated in this Plan which are Accounted in Other Funds Above:
501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - (1,850) $ $ (1,850) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - (1,850) $ $ (1,850) 104 Waste Management Act 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government $ - (81,154) $ $ (81,154) 106 Tidelands Beach 2300828 Marine Safety - Lifeguard 5 Marine Safety $ - (58,624) $ $ (58,624) 106 Tidelands Beach 5000863 Public Works - Beach Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - (64,630) $ $ (64,630) 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - (151,789) $ $ (151,789) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - (151,789) $ $ (151,789) 104 Waste Management Act 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government $ - - $ $ - 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - (47,951) $ $ (47,951) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - (21,722) $ $ (21,722) 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - (319,342) $ $ (319,342) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - (237,864) $ $ (237,864) 106 Tidelands Beach 5000863 Public Works - Beach Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - (132,401) $ $ (132,401) 281 CFD Landscape Maintenance District 2002-01 5000450 Public Works - CFD Landscape Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ $ - 285 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 - Admin 5000470 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ $ - 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - (288,006) $ $ (288,006) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - (279,776) $ $ (279,776) Grand Total Expenditure 109,204,339 $ - $ 109,204,339 $ 151.92 117.43 [a] This column classifies each Organizational Unit to an overall "Department" for purposes of setting department-specific indirect rates. A classification may references a Reconciles to Workspace 1? Yes Reconciles to Workspace 3? Yes department, grouping of like services, or fund.

Page 11 of 157 ends

Exhibit 2a-Supplemental
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Derivation of Allocation Factors: Net Operating Expenses and Modified Operating Expenses No. Title No. Title No. Title Debt Service Capital Depreciation Transfers & Financing Uses
Other
Adjustment
Central Services in the General Fund
101 General Fund 1000010 City Council - City Council 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 105,547 101 General Fund 1100011 Manager - City Manager 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,190,262 101 General Fund 1100014 Manager - Human Resources 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 558,136 101 General Fund 1100018 Manager - Risk Management 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 3,162,913 101 General Fund 1200012 Clerk - City Clerk 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 367,491 101 General Fund 1200013 Clerk - Elections 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 4,000 101 General Fund 1300015 City Attorney - City Attorney 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 507,000 101 General Fund 1400017 Finance - Finance 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,640,817 101 General Fund 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,010,820 101 General Fund 1502011 Non-Departmental - IT CM 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 9,934 101 General Fund 1502012 Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 48,500 101 General Fund 1502017 Non-Departmental - IT Finance 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 88,516 101 General Fund 1502020 Non-Departmental - IT Citywide 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 781,822 101 General Fund 1502023 Non-Departmental - IT PD 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 259,730 101 General Fund 1502028 Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 16,620 101 General Fund 1502030 Non-Departmental - IT CD 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,720 101 General Fund 1502042 Non-Departmental - IT PW 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 31,950 101 General Fund 1502070 Non-Departmental - IT CS 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 21,390 101 General Fund 5000042 Public Works - Engineering 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,007,049 101 General Fund 5000050 Public Works - Auto Maintenance 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 851,642 101 General Fund 5000052 Public Works - Building Maintenance 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,223,991 Direct Services in the General Fund
101 General Fund 1000010 City Council - City Council 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 100,000 101 General Fund 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 43,943 101 General Fund 1100014 Manager - Human Resources 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1100018 Manager - Risk Management 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1200012 Clerk - City Clerk 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1200013 Clerk - Elections 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1300015 City Attorney - City Attorney 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 85,000 101 General Fund 1400017 Finance - Finance 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 169,955 101 General Fund 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 48,000 101 General Fund 1502011 Non-Departmental - IT CM 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1502012 Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1502017 Non-Departmental - IT Finance 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1502020 Non-Departmental - IT Citywide 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1502023 Non-Departmental - IT PD 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1502028 Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1502030 Non-Departmental - IT CD 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1502042 Non-Departmental - IT PW 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 1502070 Non-Departmental - IT CS 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 5000042 Public Works - Engineering 8 Public Works - Engineering $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 139,880 101 General Fund 5000050 Public Works - Auto Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 101 General Fund 5000052 Public Works - Building Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 450,000 101 General Fund 1500053 Non-Departmental - Seal Beach Cable 2 General Government - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 90,000 101 General Fund 1500080 Non-Departmental - Transfers 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ (14,622,008) $ - $ $ - Fund Classification for Indirect Rates Deductions to Expense Basis to Derive Allocation Factor Organization (Department and Program) Net Operating
Expenses

Page 12 of 157 ends

Exhibit 2a-Supplemental
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Derivation of Allocation Factors: Net Operating Expenses and Modified Operating Expenses No. Title No. Title No. Title Debt Service Capital Depreciation Transfers & Financing Uses
Other
Adjustment
Fund Classification for Indirect Rates Deductions to Expense Basis to Derive Allocation Factor Organization (Department and Program) Net Operating
Expenses
101 General Fund 2100021 Police - Emergency Operations Center 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 414,619 101 General Fund 2100022 Police - Police Field Services 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 11,668,169 101 General Fund 2100023 Police - Police Support Services 3 Police - $ (5,000) $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,936,456 101 General Fund 2100025 Police - Parking Enforcement 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,698,298 101 General Fund 2100035 Police - West-Comm 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 981,632 101 General Fund 2100036 Police - Animal Control 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 489,454 101 General Fund 2200026 Fire - Fire and Paramedic Services 4 Fire - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 7,851,403 101 General Fund 2300073 Marine Safety - Aquatics 5 Marine Safety - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 349,379 101 General Fund 3000030 Community Development - Planning 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 721,685 101 General Fund 3000031 Community Development - Building and Code Enforcement 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,093,916 101 General Fund 4000016 Community Services - Senior Bus Program 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 232,000 101 General Fund 4000070 Community Services - Recreation Administration 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 543,352 101 General Fund 4000071 Community Services - Sports Leagues 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 83,093 101 General Fund 4000072 Community Services - Leisure Classes 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 185,100 101 General Fund 4000074 Community Services - Tennis Center 7 Community Services - $ (55,000) $ - $ - $ - $ $ 460,425 101 General Fund 5000043 Public Works - Storm Drains 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 564,818 101 General Fund 5000044 Public Works - Street Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,953,519 101 General Fund 5000049 Public Works - Park Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 739,180 101 General Fund 5000051 Public Works - Refuse 10 Public Works - Refuse - $ - $ - $ (2,000) $ - $ $ 1,308,300 Direct Services in Other Funds
102 Leased Facilities 1500802 Non-Departmental - Annex Building 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ (78,700) $ $ - 102 Leased Facilities 1500803 Non-Departmental - Annex 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 102 Leased Facilities 1500804 Non-Departmental - Rivers End 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 102 Leased Facilities 1500805 Non-Departmental - Ironwood 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 103 Special Projects 1100211 Manager - Centennial 2 General Government - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 103 Special Projects 2100223 Police - Special Projects 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ (53,134) $ $ 8,116 103 Special Projects 3000231 Community Development - Special Projects 6 Community Development - $ (25,000) $ - $ - $ (281,725) $ $ 60,641 103 Special Projects 4000074 Community Services - Tennis Center 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ (4,000) $ $ - 103 Special Projects 5000242 Public Works - Special Projects 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ (152,469) $ - $ - $ (605,000) $ $ - 103 Special Projects 5000244 Public Works - Special Projects 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ (175,000) $ - $ - $ (60,000) $ $ - 104 Waste Management Act 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 111,478 106 Tidelands Beach 2100825 Police - Parking Enforcement 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 340,658 106 Tidelands Beach 2300828 Marine Safety - Lifeguard 5 Marine Safety - $ (90,050) $ - $ - $ - $ $ 2,139,649 106 Tidelands Beach 4000072 Community Services - Leisure Classes 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 130,000 106 Tidelands Beach 5000863 Public Works - Beach Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ (2,138,000) $ - $ $ 1,243,432 201 Supplemental Law Enforcement 2100600 Police - SLESF Grant 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 220,390 204 Air Quality Improvement District 5000700 Public Works - Air Quality Improvement 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 33,200 205 Asset Forfeiture - Federal 2100111 Police - Federal Asset Forfeiture 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 208,000 209 SB1 RMRA 5000090 Public Works - SB1 Program 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ (1,597,168) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 210 Gas Tax 5000090 Public Works - SB1 Program 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ (1,551,669) $ - $ (30,000) $ - $ $ 3,500 211 Measure M2 5000099 Public Works - Measure M2 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ (1,673,383) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 214 Seal Beach Cable 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 2 General Government - $ (160,000) $ - $ - $ - $ $ 30,000 215 Community Development Block Grant 3000030 Community Development - Planning 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 180,000 216 Police Grants 2100371 Police - OCATT 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 230,207 216 Police Grants 2100442 Police - Bulletproof Vest Partnership 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 10,000 216 Police Grants 2100472 Police - Office of Traffic Safety Grant 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 282,610 216 Police Grants 2100474 Police - Tobacco Tax Act 2016 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 59,798

Page 13 of 157 ends

Exhibit 2a-Supplemental
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Derivation of Allocation Factors: Net Operating Expenses and Modified Operating Expenses No. Title No. Title No. Title Debt Service Capital Depreciation Transfers & Financing Uses
Other
Adjustment
Fund Classification for Indirect Rates Deductions to Expense Basis to Derive Allocation Factor Organization (Department and Program) Net Operating
Expenses
216 Police Grants 2100478 Police - 2021 OPSG 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 207,032 216 Police Grants 2100479 Police - Hazard Mitigation Plan 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 100,000 217 Citywide Grants 3000331 Community Development - Local Coastal Plan 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 370,000 217 Citywide Grants 3000377 Community Development - Wireless Attorney 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 25,000 217 Citywide Grants 5000361 Public Works - OCTA 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ (166,845) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 217 Citywide Grants 5000366 Public Works - OCTA Co-Op 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ (279,193) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 217 Citywide Grants 5000370 Public Works - County GF ED Grant 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ (150,034) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 217 Citywide Grants 5000375 Public Works - PW NPDS 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ (438,787) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 217 Citywide Grants 5000377 Public Works - Wireless Attorney 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ (165,482) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 217 Citywide Grants 5000378 Public Works - 2024 Environ Clean Up - Galleon Way - Grant Match (20/80) 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ (584,940) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 217 Citywide Grants 5000380 Public Works - North SB Comm Ctr Phase 2 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ (250,000) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 280 Street Lighting District No. 1 5000500 Public Works - Street Lighting 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 266,500 281 CFD Landscape Maintenance District 2002-01 5000450 Public Works - CFD Landscape Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ (31,400) $ - $ $ 92,595 282 CFD Heron Pointe 2002-01 5000460 Public Works - CFD Heron Pointe 9 Public Works - Maintenance (237,264) $ - $ - $ (15,000) $ - $ $ - 283 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 5000470 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance (532,051) $ - $ - $ (25,000) $ - $ $ - 284 CFD Heron Pointe 2002-01 - Admin 5000460 Public Works - CFD Heron Pointe 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ (1,600) $ - $ $ 10,300 285 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 - Admin 5000470 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ (15,000) $ - $ $ 58,064 285 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 - Admin 5000480 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ (11,000) $ - $ $ 7,254 301 Capital Improvement Projects 5000333 Public Works - Capital Projects 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ (11,767,750) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water - $ (4,961,817) $ - $ (440,000) $ - $ $ 7,533,827 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer - $ (3,625,133) $ - $ (293,000) $ - $ $ 2,032,008 601 Vehicle Replacement 5000980 Public Works - Vehicle Replacement 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ (406,800) $ - $ - $ - $ $ - Restoration of Labor Costs to be Allocated in this Plan which are Accounted in Other Funds Above:
501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (1,850) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (1,850) 104 Waste Management Act 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (81,154) 106 Tidelands Beach 2300828 Marine Safety - Lifeguard 5 Marine Safety $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (58,624) 106 Tidelands Beach 5000863 Public Works - Beach Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (64,630) 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (151,789) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (151,789) 104 Waste Management Act 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (47,951) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (21,722) 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (319,342) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (237,864) 106 Tidelands Beach 5000863 Public Works - Beach Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (132,401) 281 CFD Landscape Maintenance District 2002-01 5000450 Public Works - CFD Landscape Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 285 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 - Admin 5000470 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (288,006) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (279,776) Grand Total (769,315) $ (28,281,520) $ - $ (17,624,008) $ (1,082,559) $ 61,446,936 $

Page 14 of 157 ends

Exhibit 2a-Supplemental, Continued
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Derivation of Allocation Factors: Net Operating Expenses and Modified Operating Expenses No. Title No. Title No. Title Overhead
Charge ISF Charges Large Payments
Distorting
Expense
Extraordinary
Expense
Central Services in the General Fund
101 General Fund 1000010 City Council - City Council 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 105,649 101 General Fund 1100011 Manager - City Manager 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,190,364 101 General Fund 1100014 Manager - Human Resources 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 558,238 101 General Fund 1100018 Manager - Risk Management 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ (3,162,913) $ - $ $ 102 101 General Fund 1200012 Clerk - City Clerk 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 367,593 101 General Fund 1200013 Clerk - Elections 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 4,102 101 General Fund 1300015 City Attorney - City Attorney 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 507,102 101 General Fund 1400017 Finance - Finance 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,640,919 101 General Fund 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,010,922 101 General Fund 1502011 Non-Departmental - IT CM 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 10,036 101 General Fund 1502012 Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 48,602 101 General Fund 1502017 Non-Departmental - IT Finance 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 88,618 101 General Fund 1502020 Non-Departmental - IT Citywide 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 781,924 101 General Fund 1502023 Non-Departmental - IT PD 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 259,832 101 General Fund 1502028 Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 16,722 101 General Fund 1502030 Non-Departmental - IT CD 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,822 101 General Fund 1502042 Non-Departmental - IT PW 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 32,052 101 General Fund 1502070 Non-Departmental - IT CS 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 21,492 101 General Fund 5000042 Public Works - Engineering 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,007,151 101 General Fund 5000050 Public Works - Auto Maintenance 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 851,744 101 General Fund 5000052 Public Works - Building Maintenance 1 Allocated Central Services $ - - $ - $ (500,000) $ - $ $ 724,093 Direct Services in the General Fund
101 General Fund 1000010 City Council - City Council 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 100,103 101 General Fund 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 44,046 101 General Fund 1100014 Manager - Human Resources 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1100018 Manager - Risk Management 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1200012 Clerk - City Clerk 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1200013 Clerk - Elections 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1300015 City Attorney - City Attorney 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 85,103 101 General Fund 1400017 Finance - Finance 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 170,058 101 General Fund 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 48,103 101 General Fund 1502011 Non-Departmental - IT CM 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1502012 Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1502017 Non-Departmental - IT Finance 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1502020 Non-Departmental - IT Citywide 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1502023 Non-Departmental - IT PD 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1502028 Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1502030 Non-Departmental - IT CD 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1502042 Non-Departmental - IT PW 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 1502070 Non-Departmental - IT CS 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 103 101 General Fund 5000042 Public Works - Engineering 8 Public Works - Engineering $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 139,989 101 General Fund 5000050 Public Works - Auto Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 110 101 General Fund 5000052 Public Works - Building Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 450,110 101 General Fund 1500053 Non-Departmental - Seal Beach Cable 2 General Government - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 90,103 101 General Fund 1500080 Non-Departmental - Transfers 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 101 Modified
Operating
Expenses
Fund Organization (Department and Program) Classification for Indirect Rates Deductions to Expense Basis to Derive Allocation Factor

Page 15 of 157 ends

Exhibit 2a-Supplemental, Continued
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Derivation of Allocation Factors: Net Operating Expenses and Modified Operating Expenses No. Title No. Title No. Title Overhead
Charge ISF Charges Large Payments
Distorting
Expense
Extraordinary
Expense
Modified
Operating
Expenses
Fund Organization (Department and Program) Classification for Indirect Rates Deductions to Expense Basis to Derive Allocation Factor 101 General Fund 2100021 Police - Emergency Operations Center 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 414,723 101 General Fund 2100022 Police - Police Field Services 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 11,668,273 101 General Fund 2100023 Police - Police Support Services 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,936,560 101 General Fund 2100025 Police - Parking Enforcement 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,698,402 101 General Fund 2100035 Police - West-Comm 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 981,736 101 General Fund 2100036 Police - Animal Control 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 489,558 101 General Fund 2200026 Fire - Fire and Paramedic Services 4 Fire - $ - $ - $ (7,334,771) $ - $ $ 516,737 101 General Fund 2300073 Marine Safety - Aquatics 5 Marine Safety - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 349,485 101 General Fund 3000030 Community Development - Planning 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 721,792 101 General Fund 3000031 Community Development - Building and Code Enforcement 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,094,023 101 General Fund 4000016 Community Services - Senior Bus Program 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 232,108 101 General Fund 4000070 Community Services - Recreation Administration 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 543,460 101 General Fund 4000071 Community Services - Sports Leagues 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 83,201 101 General Fund 4000072 Community Services - Leisure Classes 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 185,208 101 General Fund 4000074 Community Services - Tennis Center 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 460,533 101 General Fund 5000043 Public Works - Storm Drains 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 564,928 101 General Fund 5000044 Public Works - Street Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,953,629 101 General Fund 5000049 Public Works - Park Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 739,290 101 General Fund 5000051 Public Works - Refuse 10 Public Works - Refuse - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,308,411 Direct Services in Other Funds
102 Leased Facilities 1500802 Non-Departmental - Annex Building 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 102 102 Leased Facilities 1500803 Non-Departmental - Annex 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 102 102 Leased Facilities 1500804 Non-Departmental - Rivers End 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 102 102 Leased Facilities 1500805 Non-Departmental - Ironwood 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 102 103 Special Projects 1100211 Manager - Centennial 2 General Government - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 105 103 Special Projects 2100223 Police - Special Projects 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 8,222 103 Special Projects 3000231 Community Development - Special Projects 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 60,750 103 Special Projects 4000074 Community Services - Tennis Center 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 110 103 Special Projects 5000242 Public Works - Special Projects 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 112 103 Special Projects 5000244 Public Works - Special Projects 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 112 104 Waste Management Act 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 111,584 106 Tidelands Beach 2100825 Police - Parking Enforcement 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 340,767 106 Tidelands Beach 2300828 Marine Safety - Lifeguard 5 Marine Safety - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 2,139,760 106 Tidelands Beach 4000072 Community Services - Leisure Classes 7 Community Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 130,113 106 Tidelands Beach 5000863 Public Works - Beach Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,243,547 201 Supplemental Law Enforcement 2100600 Police - SLESF Grant 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 220,594 204 Air Quality Improvement District 5000700 Public Works - Air Quality Improvement 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 33,413 205 Asset Forfeiture - Federal 2100111 Police - Federal Asset Forfeiture 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 208,208 209 SB1 RMRA 5000090 Public Works - SB1 Program 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 218 210 Gas Tax 5000090 Public Works - SB1 Program 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 3,719 211 Measure M2 5000099 Public Works - Measure M2 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 220 214 Seal Beach Cable 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 2 General Government - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 30,216 215 Community Development Block Grant 3000030 Community Development - Planning 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 180,221 216 Police Grants 2100371 Police - OCATT 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 230,426 216 Police Grants 2100442 Police - Bulletproof Vest Partnership 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 10,219 216 Police Grants 2100472 Police - Office of Traffic Safety Grant 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 282,829 216 Police Grants 2100474 Police - Tobacco Tax Act 2016 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 60,017

Page 16 of 157 ends

Exhibit 2a-Supplemental, Continued
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Derivation of Allocation Factors: Net Operating Expenses and Modified Operating Expenses No. Title No. Title No. Title Overhead
Charge ISF Charges Large Payments
Distorting
Expense
Extraordinary
Expense
Modified
Operating
Expenses
Fund Organization (Department and Program) Classification for Indirect Rates Deductions to Expense Basis to Derive Allocation Factor 216 Police Grants 2100478 Police - 2021 OPSG 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 207,251 216 Police Grants 2100479 Police - Hazard Mitigation Plan 3 Police - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 100,219 217 Citywide Grants 3000331 Community Development - Local Coastal Plan 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 370,223 217 Citywide Grants 3000377 Community Development - Wireless Attorney 6 Community Development - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 25,223 217 Citywide Grants 5000361 Public Works - OCTA 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 217 217 Citywide Grants 5000366 Public Works - OCTA Co-Op 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 217 217 Citywide Grants 5000370 Public Works - County GF ED Grant 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 226 217 Citywide Grants 5000375 Public Works - PW NPDS 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 217 217 Citywide Grants 5000377 Public Works - Wireless Attorney 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 226 217 Citywide Grants 5000378 Public Works - 2024 Environ Clean Up - Galleon Way - Grant Match (20/80) 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 217 217 Citywide Grants 5000380 Public Works - North SB Comm Ctr Phase 2 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 217 280 Street Lighting District No. 1 5000500 Public Works - Street Lighting 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 266,789 281 CFD Landscape Maintenance District 2002-01 5000450 Public Works - CFD Landscape Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 92,885 282 CFD Heron Pointe 2002-01 5000460 Public Works - CFD Heron Pointe 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 291 283 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 5000470 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 292 284 CFD Heron Pointe 2002-01 - Admin 5000460 Public Works - CFD Heron Pointe 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 10,593 285 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 - Admin 5000470 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 58,358 285 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 - Admin 5000480 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 7,548 301 Capital Improvement Projects 5000333 Public Works - Capital Projects 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 301 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 7,534,339 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 2,032,523 601 Vehicle Replacement 5000980 Public Works - Vehicle Replacement 0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 601 Restoration of Labor Costs to be Allocated in this Plan which are Accounted in Other Funds Above: 0 0 0 0 0 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (1,338) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (1,335) 104 Waste Management Act 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (81,048) 106 Tidelands Beach 2300828 Marine Safety - Lifeguard 5 Marine Safety $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (58,513) 106 Tidelands Beach 5000863 Public Works - Beach Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (64,515) 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (151,277) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (151,274) 104 Waste Management Act 1100011 Manager - City Manager 2 General Government $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 106 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (47,439) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (21,207) 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (318,830) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (237,349) 106 Tidelands Beach 5000863 Public Works - Beach Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (132,286) 281 CFD Landscape Maintenance District 2002-01 5000450 Public Works - CFD Landscape Maintenance 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 290 285 CFD Pacific Gateway 2005-01 - Admin 5000470 Public Works - CFD Pacific Gateway 9 Public Works - Maintenance $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 294 501 Water 5000900 Public Works - Water Maintenance and Operations 11 Public Works - Water $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (287,494) 503 Sewer 5000925 Public Works - Sewer Maintenance and Operations 12 Public Works - Sewer $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ (279,261) Grand Total - $ - $ - $ (10,997,684) $ - $ 50,472,702 $

Page 17 of 157 ends

Exhibit 2b
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Fund Structure and Expenditure Basis
Labor Labor
No. Title No. Title No. Title Total Budget
2025-26
Adjustment Expense Basis FTEs by Org FTEs by Org
Central Services in the General Fund
101 General Fund 1000010 City Council - City Council 1 Allocated Central Services 205,547 $ (100,000) $ $ 105,547 5.00 5.00 101 General Fund 1100011 Manager - City Manager 1 Allocated Central Services 1,234,205 $ (43,943) $ $ 1,190,262 4.22 4.22 101 General Fund 1100014 Manager - Human Resources 1 Allocated Central Services 558,136 $ - $ $ 558,136 1.45 1.45 101 General Fund 1100018 Manager - Risk Management 1 Allocated Central Services 3,162,913 $ - $ $ 3,162,913 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1200012 Clerk - City Clerk 1 Allocated Central Services 367,491 $ - $ $ 367,491 2.50 2.50 101 General Fund 1200013 Clerk - Elections 1 Allocated Central Services 4,000 $ - $ $ 4,000 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1300015 City Attorney - City Attorney 1 Allocated Central Services 592,000 $ (85,000) $ $ 507,000 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1400017 Finance - Finance 1 Allocated Central Services 1,810,771 $ (169,955) $ $ 1,640,817 8.46 8.46 101 General Fund 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 1 Allocated Central Services 1,058,820 $ (48,000) $ $ 1,010,820 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502011 Non-Departmental - IT CM 1 Allocated Central Services 9,934 $ - $ $ 9,934 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502012 Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk 1 Allocated Central Services 48,500 $ - $ $ 48,500 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502017 Non-Departmental - IT Finance 1 Allocated Central Services 88,516 $ - $ $ 88,516 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502020 Non-Departmental - IT Citywide 1 Allocated Central Services 781,822 $ - $ $ 781,822 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502023 Non-Departmental - IT PD 1 Allocated Central Services 259,730 $ - $ $ 259,730 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502028 Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety 1 Allocated Central Services 16,620 $ - $ $ 16,620 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502030 Non-Departmental - IT CD 1 Allocated Central Services 1,720 $ - $ $ 1,720 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502042 Non-Departmental - IT PW 1 Allocated Central Services 31,950 $ - $ $ 31,950 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 1502070 Non-Departmental - IT CS 1 Allocated Central Services 21,390 $ - $ $ 21,390 0.00 0.00 101 General Fund 5000042 Public Works - Engineering 1 Allocated Central Services 1,146,929 $ (139,880) $ $ 1,007,049 6.96 6.96 101 General Fund 5000050 Public Works - Auto Maintenance 1 Allocated Central Services 851,642 $ - $ $ 851,642 2.00 2.00 101 General Fund 5000052 Public Works - Building Maintenance 1 Allocated Central Services 1,673,991 $ (450,000) $ $ 1,223,991 2.05 2.05 Direct Services in All Funds
0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs 28,595,023 $ - $ 28,595,023 $ 0.00 0.00 2 General Government 310,324 $ 446,898 $ 757,222 $ 0.20 0.20 3 Police 18,913,573 $ - $ 18,913,573 $ 60.34 58.09
4 Fire 7,851,403 $ - $ 7,851,403 $ 0.00 0.00
5 Marine Safety 2,520,455 $ - $ 2,520,455 $ 22.10 4.40
6 Community Development 2,757,967 $ - $ 2,757,967 $ 6.00 5.60 7 Community Services 1,692,970 $ - $ 1,692,970 $ 9.62 9.62 8 Public Works - Engineering - $ 139,880 $ 139,880 $ 1.04 1.04 9 Public Works - Maintenance 13,941,851 $ 450,000 $ 14,391,851 $ 10.61 5.84 10 Public Works - Refuse 1,310,300 $ - $ 1,310,300 $ 0.00 0.00 11 Public Works - Water 12,126,706 $ - $ 12,126,706 $ 5.21 0.00 12 Public Works - Sewer 5,257,140 $ - $ 5,257,140 $ 4.16 0.00 13 Tidelands/Beach - $ - $ - $ 0.00 0.00
Grand Total Expenditure 109,204,339 $ - $ 109,204,339 $ 151.92 117.43 Reconciles to Workspace 1? Yes Reconciles to Workspace 3? Yes Fund Organization Expenditure Basis Classification for Indirect Rates

Page 18 of 157 ends

Exhibit 2b-Supplemental
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Derivation of Allocation Factors: Net Operating Expenses and Modified Operating Expenses No. Title No. Title No. Title Debt Service Capital Depreciation Transfers & Financing Uses
Other
Adjustment
Overhead
Charge ISF Charges Large Payments
Distorting
Expense
Extraordinary
Expense
Central Services in the General Fund
101 General Fund 1000010 City Council - City Council 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 105,547 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 105,649 101 General Fund 1100011 Manager - City Manager 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,190,262 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,190,364 101 General Fund 1100014 Manager - Human Resources 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 558,136 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 558,238 101 General Fund 1100018 Manager - Risk Management 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 3,162,913 $ - - $ - $ (3,162,913) $ - $ $ 102 101 General Fund 1200012 Clerk - City Clerk 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 367,491 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 367,593 101 General Fund 1200013 Clerk - Elections 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 4,000 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 4,102 101 General Fund 1300015 City Attorney - City Attorney 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 507,000 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 507,102 101 General Fund 1400017 Finance - Finance 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,640,817 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,640,919 101 General Fund 1500019 Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,010,820 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,010,922 101 General Fund 1502011 Non-Departmental - IT CM 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 9,934 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 10,036 101 General Fund 1502012 Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 48,500 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 48,602 101 General Fund 1502017 Non-Departmental - IT Finance 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 88,516 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 88,618 101 General Fund 1502020 Non-Departmental - IT Citywide 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 781,822 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 781,924 101 General Fund 1502023 Non-Departmental - IT PD 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 259,730 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 259,832 101 General Fund 1502028 Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 16,620 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 16,722 101 General Fund 1502030 Non-Departmental - IT CD 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,720 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,822 101 General Fund 1502042 Non-Departmental - IT PW 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 31,950 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 32,052 101 General Fund 1502070 Non-Departmental - IT CS 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 21,390 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 21,492 101 General Fund 5000042 Public Works - Engineering 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,007,049 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,007,151 101 General Fund 5000050 Public Works - Auto Maintenance 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 851,642 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 851,744 101 General Fund 5000052 Public Works - Building Maintenance 1 Allocated Central Services - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,223,991 $ - - $ - $ (500,000) $ - $ $ 724,093 Direct Services in All Funds
0 Unclassified for Indirect Costs - $ (13,894,315) $ - $ (14,622,008) $ (78,700) $ $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 2 General Government - $ (160,000) $ - $ - $ - $ $ 597,222 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 597,222 3 Police - $ (5,000) $ - $ - $ (53,134) $ $ 18,855,439 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 18,855,439 4 Fire - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 7,851,403 $ - - $ - $ (7,334,771) $ - $ $ 516,632 5 Marine Safety - $ (90,050) $ - $ - $ - $ $ 2,430,405 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 2,430,405 6 Community Development - $ (25,000) $ - $ - $ (281,725) $ $ 2,451,242 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 2,451,242 7 Community Services - $ (55,000) $ - $ - $ (4,000) $ $ 1,633,970 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,633,970 8 Public Works - Engineering - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 139,880 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 139,880 9 Public Works - Maintenance (769,315) $ (5,465,205) $ - $ (2,267,000) $ (665,000) $ $ 5,225,331 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 5,225,331 10 Public Works - Refuse - $ - $ - $ (2,000) $ - $ $ 1,308,300 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,308,300 11 Public Works - Water - $ (4,961,817) $ - $ (440,000) $ - $ $ 6,724,889 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 6,724,889 12 Public Works - Sewer - $ (3,625,133) $ - $ (293,000) $ - $ $ 1,339,007 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,339,007 13 Tidelands/Beach - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - Grand Total (769,315) $ (28,281,520) $ - $ (17,624,008) $ (1,082,559) $ 61,446,936 $ - $ - $ - $ (10,997,684) $ - $ 50,451,409 $ Modified
Operating
Expenses
Fund Organization Classification for Indirect Rates Deductions to Expense Basis to Derive Allocation Factor Deductions to Expense Basis to Derive Allocation Factor Net Operating
Expenses

Page 19 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1000010 - City Council - City Council Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Governmental Oversight $ 2.50 18,000 [a]
Governmental Oversight $ 1.25 9,000 [a]
Governmental Oversight $ 1.25 9,000 [a]
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Governmental
Oversight
Governmental
Oversight
Governmental
Oversight Direct Services Rationale for Allocation
Council Member (Part-Time), All 36,000 $ 5.00 0% 50% 25% 25% 0% Common distribution - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of Labor Cost 36,000 $ 0% 50% 25% 25% 0%
Distribution of FTEs 5.00 0% 50% 25% 25% 0%
[a] The entire function is "Oversight," however, three cost pools are created to allow for multiple allocation bases to be applied, such as workforce, operating budgets, and capital/infrastructure values.

NOTE: Personnel data above reflects the whole position in its home organization, not the net cost and FTE to this specific organization after direct budgetary allocations are made. Refer to Workspace 6 for labor restorations.

Central Services Identification
Position Personnel Data Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions

Page 20 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1100011 - Manager - City Manager Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Agency Management $ 2.11 571,353 [a]
Agency Management $ 1.06 285,676 [a]
Agency Management $ 1.06 285,676 [a]
Direct Services 61,442 $ 0.20 [b]
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Agency
Management
Agency
Management
Agency
Management
Direct Services Rationale for Allocation
City Manager 498,207 $ 0.90 0% 48% 24% 24% 5% Common distribution [a] Assistant City Manager [Interim City Manager] 372,244 $ 0.70 0% 48% 24% 24% 5% Common distribution [a] Executive Assistant 66,930 $ 0.65 0% 50% 25% 25% 0% Common distribution [a] Management Analyst 145,860 $ 0.65 0% 48% 24% 24% 5% Common distribution [a] Management Analyst - HR 101,833 $ 0.65 0% 45% 23% 23% 10% Common distribution [a] Intern (Part-Time) 2,657 $ 0.12 0% 42% 21% 21% 17% Common distribution [a] Office Specialist (Part-Time) 16,417 $ 0.75 0% 50% 25% 25% 0% Common distribution [a] Distribution of Labor Cost 1,204,147 $ 0% 47% 24% 24% 5% Distribution of FTEs 4.42 0% 48% 24% 24% 4%
[a] The entire function is "Management," however, three cost pools are created to allow for multiple allocation bases to be applied: s 50% workforce, 25% operating budgets, and 25% capital/infrastructure values. [b] Amounts are those previously attributed by prior study to and implemented in the current budget for solid waste franchise management, accounted in Fund 104 Waste Management Act. See Workspace 6 for current labor allocation.

Central Services Identification
Position Personnel Data Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions

Page 21 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1100014 - Manager - Human Resources Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Workforce Support $ 1.45 384,301
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Salary
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Workforce
Support
Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation City Manager 55,356 $ 0.10 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% All to single function Assistant City Manager [Interim City Manager] 159,533 $ 0.30 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% All to single function Executive Assistant 36,039 $ 0.35 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% All to single function Management Analyst 78,540 $ 0.35 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% All to single function Management Analyst - HR 54,833 $ 0.35 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% All to single function Distribution of Labor Cost 384,301 $ 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of FTEs 1.45 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
NOTE: Personnel data above reflects the whole position in its home organization, not the net cost and FTE to this specific organization after direct budgetary allocations are made. Refer to Workspace 6 for labor restorations.

Central Services Identification
Position Personnel Data Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions

Page 22 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1100018 - Manager - Risk Management Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Agency Risk, General Fund $ - -
Agency Risk, Citywide $ - -
Facilities Risk, General Fund $ - -
Facilities Risk, Citywide $ - -
Workforce Risk, General Fund $ - -
Workforce Risk, Citywide $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Agency Risk,
General Fund
Agency Risk,
Citywide
Facilities Risk,
General Fund
Facilities Risk,
Citywide
Workforce Risk,
General Fund
Workforce Risk,
Citywide Direct Services Rationale for Allocation
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Personnel Data
Central Services Identification
Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions

Page 23 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1200012 - Clerk - City Clerk Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Governmental Administration $ 1.25 169,760 [a]
Governmental Administration $ 0.63 84,880 [a]
Governmental Administration $ 0.63 84,880 [a]
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Governmental
Administration
Governmental
Administration
Governmental
Administration Direct Services Rationale for Allocation City Clerk 204,909 $ 1.00 0% 50% 25% 25% 0% Common distribution Deputy City Clerk 114,767 $ 1.00 0% 50% 25% 25% 0% Common distribution Office Specialist (Part-Time) 19,844 $ 0.50 0% 50% 25% 25% 0% Common distribution Distribution of Labor Cost 339,520 $ 0% 50% 25% 25% 0%
Distribution of FTEs 2.50 0% 50% 25% 25% 0%
[a] The entire function is "Administration," however, three cost pools are created to allow for multiple allocation bases to be applied, such as workforce, operating budgets, and capital/infrastructure values.

Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Central Services Identification
Personnel Data

Page 24 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1200013 - Clerk - Elections Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Governmental Oversight $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Governmental
Oversight Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Central Services Identification
Personnel Data

Page 25 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1300015 - City Attorney - City Attorney Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
General Counsel $ - -
Workforce Support $ - -
Direct Services - $ - [a]
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
General
Counsel
Workforce
Support
Direct Services Rationale for Allocation
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0%
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
[a] Direct Services includes litigation that may be directly charged to applicable funds if necessary and allowed. Direct Services includes prosecution.

Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Central Services Identification
Personnel Data

Page 26 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1400017 - Finance - Finance Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) 211,067 $ 0.99
Accounting / Financial Reporting $ 1.48 355,624
Budget / Financial Planning $ 1.01 250,174
Payroll $ 1.19 186,036
Accounts Payable $ 1.03 128,089
Accounts Receivable & Counter $ 1.27 148,029
Utility Customer Service & Analysis $ 1.35 198,944
Purchasing $ 0.15 24,622
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Accounting /
Financial
Reporting
Budget /
Financial
Planning
Payroll
Accounts
Payable
Accounts
Receivable &
Counter
Utility Customer
Service &
Analysis
Purchasing Direct Services Rationale for Allocation
Director of Finance / City Treasurer 304,275 $ 1.00 48.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 5.0% 2.5% 6.3% 5.0% 0% Staff interview 2/2026 Finance Manager 298,612 $ 1.00 5.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 10.0% 7.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0% Staff interview 2/2026 Accountant 211,608 $ 1.00 0.0% 97.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0% Staff interview 2/2026 Senior Accounting Technician (Payroll) 118,493 $ 1.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% Staff interview 2/2026 Senior Accounting Technician (Utility) 110,448 $ 1.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 3.1% 96.3% 0.0% 0% Staff interview 2/2026 Financial Analyst 220,520 $ 1.00 0.0% 0.0% 67.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 30.0% 0.0% 0% Staff interview 2/2026 Account Technician (A/P) 94,085 $ 1.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 87.5% 2.5% 0.0% 10.0% 0% Staff interview 2/2026 Account Technician 94,309 $ 1.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% Staff interview 2/2026 Accounting Technician (Part-Time) 50,237 $ 0.46 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% Staff interview 2/2026 Distribution of Labor Cost 1,502,587 $ 14% 24% 17% 12% 9% 10% 13% 2% 0% Distribution of FTEs 8.46 12% 17% 12% 14% 12% 15% 16% 2% 0% NOTE: Personnel data above reflects the whole position in its home organization, not the net cost and FTE to this specific organization after direct budgetary allocations are made. Refer to Workspace 6 for labor restorations.

Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Central Services Identification
Personnel Data

Page 27 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1500019 - Non-Departmental - Non-Departmental Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Workforce Support, Citywide $ - -
Workforce Support, General Fund $ - -
Facilities Support, Citywide $ - -
Facilities Support, City Hall $ - -
Financial / Admin. Support, Citywide $ - -
Financial / Admin. Support, General Fund $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Workforce
Support,
Citywide
Workforce
Support,
General Fund
Facilities
Support,
Citywide
Facilities
Support, City
Hall
Financial /
Admin. Support,
Citywide
Financial /
Admin. Support,
General Fund
Not in Use Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Position Personnel Data Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Central Services Identification

Page 28 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1502011 - Non-Departmental - IT CM Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
City Manager Support $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
City Manager
Support
Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Central Services Identification
Position Personnel Data Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions

Page 29 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1502012 - Non-Departmental - IT City Clerk Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
City Clerk Support $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
City Clerk
Support
Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0%
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0%
Central Services Identification
Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Personnel Data

Page 30 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1502017 - Non-Departmental - IT Finance Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Finance Support $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Finance
Support
Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Central Services Identification
Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Personnel Data

Page 31 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1502020 - Non-Departmental - IT Citywide Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Citywide Support $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Citywide
Support
Not in Use Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Central Services Identification
Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Personnel Data

Page 32 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1502023 - Non-Departmental - IT PD Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Police Support $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Police Support Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0%
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0%
Central Services Identification
Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Personnel Data

Page 33 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1502028 - Non-Departmental - IT Marine Safety Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Marine Safety Support $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Marine Safety
Support
Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Position Personnel Data
Central Services Identification
Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions

Page 34 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1502030 - Non-Departmental - IT CD Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Community Development Support $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Community
Development
Support
Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Central Services Identification
Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Personnel Data

Page 35 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1502042 - Non-Departmental - IT PW Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Public Works Support $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Public Works
Support
Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0%
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0%
Central Services Identification
Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Personnel Data

Page 36 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 1502070 - Non-Departmental - IT CS Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Community Services Support $ - -
Not in Use $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Community
Services Support Not in Use Direct Services Rationale for Allocation Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0%
Not in Use / See Exhibit 4 - $ - 100% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of Labor Cost - $ 0% 0% 0% 0%
Distribution of FTEs - 0% 0% 0% 0%
Central Services Identification
Position Personnel Data Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions

Page 37 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 5000042 - Public Works - Engineering Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Department Administration, Workforce $ 1.87 393,660 [a] Department Administration, Operations $ 1.17 245,626 [a] Department Administration, Infrastructure $ 1.63 343,217 [a] Public Projects & Infrastructure $ 2.30 531,804
Direct Services 210,339 $ 1.04 [b]
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Department
Administration,
Workforce
Department
Administration,
Operations
Department
Administration,
Infrastructure
Public Projects &
Infrastructure Direct Services Rationale for Allocation Positions in Current Budget with Origin to this Engineering Program:

Assistant Engineer 226,588 $ 1.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 56% 44% See notes. [c, d] Associate Engineer 281,789 $ 1.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 87% 13% See notes. [c, d] Deputy Director / City Engineer 184,603 $ 1.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 87% 13% See notes. [c, d] Director of Public Works 320,829 $ 1.00 0% 24% 24% 48% 0% 3% See notes. [c, e] Executive Assistant 89,255 $ 1.00 0% 22% 22% 45% 0% 10% See notes. [c, e] Positions in Current Budget with Origin in Another Public Works Program:

Deputy Director of Public Works 346,692 $ 1.00 0% 50% 25% 25% 0% 0% See notes. [f] Executive Assistant 110,298 $ 1.00 0% 47% 23% 23% 0% 7% See notes. [c, f] Management Analyst 164,591 $ 1.00 0% 43% 22% 22% 0% 13% See notes. [c, f] Distribution of Labor Cost 1,724,645 $ 0% 23% 14% 20% 31% 12% Distribution of FTEs 8.00 0% 23% 15% 20% 29% 13%
[a] The entire function is "Administration," however, three cost pools are created to allow for multiple allocation bases to be applied, such as workforce, operating budgets, and capital/infrastructure values. [b] Direct Services includes fee-supported activities and aligns on a composite basis for all positions in the organization to the direct services time assumptions used to set service fees in the cost of service analysis conducted in the 2021 Comprehensive User Fee Study. [d] All time not attributable to Direct Services per Note C has been assigned in total to the public infrastructure program (e.g., CIP and other infrastructure-related activities). [e] Any time attributable to Department Administration from Engineering-classified positions has been split among the three Administration cost pools following a common distribution of 25% workforce, 25% operations, and 50% infrastructure to enable the functionality described in Note A. [f] Any time attributable to Department Administration has been split among the three Administration cost pools following a common distribution of 50% workforce, 25% operations, and 25% infrastructure to enable the functionality described in Note A.

Position
[c] Position treatment in this plan is compared to and consistent with how the position was treated in the most recent Comprehensive User Fee Study defining the cost of service basis for fee-supported services in Public Works / Engineering. Amount attributed to Direct Services in this table matches or is consistent with the assumptions used in that separate analysis to determine the portion of the FTE attributed to fee-supported activities (Direct Services).

Central Services Identification
Personnel Data Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions

Page 38 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 5000050 - Public Works - Auto Maintenance Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) - $ -
Fleet Support, Citywide $ 2.00 318,388
Fleet Support, Non-Utility $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
Fleet Support,
Citywide
Fleet Support,
Non-Utility Direct Services Rationale for Allocation
Fleet Maint. Program Manager 193,635 $ 1.00 0% 100% 0% 0% All to single cost pool Mechanic (same as water oper.) 124,753 $ 1.00 0% 100% 0% 0% All to single cost pool Distribution of Labor Cost 318,388 $ 0% 100% 0% 0%
Distribution of FTEs 2.00 0% 100% 0% 0%
Central Services Identification
Position Personnel Data Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions

Page 39 of 157 ends

Exhibit 3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH | INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR FY 2026-27 Distribution of Labor to Central Services Cost Pools | 5000052 - Public Works - Building Maintenance Cost Pool Name Distributed
Labor Cost
Distributed
FTEs
General / Admin. (Reallocate) 351,842 $ 2.05
City Hall $ - -
Police Facilities $ - -
Community Centers & Facilities $ - -
Marine Safety Facilities $ - -
Pier Facilities $ - -
Direct Services - $ -
Title Total Labor
Cost
Full Time
Equivalency
General /
Admin.
(Reallocate)
City Hall Police
Facilities
Community
Centers &
Facilities
Marine Safety
Facilities Pier Facilities Direct Services Rationale for Allocation PW Superintendent 34,594 $ 0.15 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in use / See Ex. 4 Recreation Manager 14,972 $ 0.05 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in use / See Ex. 4 Senior Maintenance Worker (044) 67,334 $ 0.50 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in use / See Ex. 4 Senior Maintenance Worker (101-044) 20,146 $ 0.10 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in use / See Ex. 4 Senior Maintenance Worker (101-044) 127,910 $ 0.75 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in use / See Ex. 4 Senior Maintenance Worker (106) 40,922 $ 0.25 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in use / See Ex. 4 Senior Maintenance Worker (106) 45,964 $ 0.25 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not in use / See Ex. 4 $ - $ -
Distribution of Labor Cost 351,842 $ 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Distribution of FTEs 2.05 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Position Allocation of Time to Central Services Functions Central Services Identification
Personnel Data

Page 40 of 157 ends

Seal Beach City CouncilJuly 27, 2026

Seal Beach City Council
July 27, 2026