HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 07 - Cost Allocation Plan7)Cost Allocation Plan
Adopt and implement the Cost Allocation Plan prepared by Willdan Financial Services and
approving the 19% overhead rate.
Page 1 of 2
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
To:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From:Jason Simpson, City Manager
Prepared by:Shannon Buckley, Assistant City Manager
Date:October 8, 2024
Subject:Cost Allocation Plan
Recommendation
Adopt and implement the Cost Allocation Plan prepared by Willdan Financial Services and
approving the 19% overhead rate.
Background
The City of Lake Elsinore engaged Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to determine the total
costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which the City charges user fees.
Due to the complexity and breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fees, Willdan
employed a variety of fee methodologies to identify the total costs of individual fees and program
activities. This report and the appendices herein identify 100% total cost recovery for City services
and the recommended level of recovery as determined through discussion with departmental
staff. The reality of the local government fee environment is that significant increases to achieve
100% cost recovery can often not be feasible, desirable, or appropriate depending on policy
direction, particularly in a single year. The recommended fees identified herein are either at or
less than full cost recovery.
Discussion
A cost allocation plan is a comprehensive study that determines the fair and equitable allocation
of the cost of the City's central administrative functions: city administration, finance, human
resources, city clerk, and city attorney. The study will analyze each function, determine its cost,
and develop the appropriate allocation basis necessary to distribute costs to the receiving
operating departments within the City. The study has determined a cost allocation plan rate of
19% to ensure central services department costs are appropriately allocated to the operating
departments.
The primary purpose of a CAP is to provide a fair and defensible document that clearly outlines
Cost Allocation Plan
the support provided to general fund and non-general fund sources from central service
departments. The results of a CAP are typically considered a more transparent and justifiable
methodology for establishing transfers from non-general fund sources, as well as outlining indirect
costs for inclusion in cost-of-service (user fee and development impact fee) studies. A
CAP analyzes the annual support provided by central service departments. Department and city-
specific metrics are then used to validate the support from central service departments to all
sources. The methodology to develop a CAP follows guidelines set by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). A more detailed
explanation of the methodology used to develop the CAP can be found in the full report.
In addition to collecting the direct cost of labor and materials associated with processing and
administering user services, it is common for local governments to recover support costs. Support
costs relate to a local government's central service departments that are properly allocable to the
local government's operating departments. Central services support cost allocations were derived
from the City's Cost Allocation Plan. As labor effort and costs associated with the provision of
services fluctuate over time, a significant element in the development of any fee schedule is its
flexibility to remain current.
Therefore, it is recommended that a comprehensive review of the models utilized to develop the
Cost Allocation Plan be reviewed, modified, and updated as appropriate every three to five years.
This comprehensive study should identify direct and indirect costs to ensure the City is not
overcharging for services in compliance with Proposition 218 and Government Code 66016 or
undercharging for services rendered. Additionally, an approved Cost Allocation Plan is required
to allocate overhead costs to projects/programs funded by federal and/or state grants.
Fiscal Impact
Funds were budgeted in the FY23-24 Annual Operating Budget.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Cost Allocation Plan
City of Lake Elsinore
Cost Allocation Plan
August 29, 2024
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................... ii
Certification of Cost Allocation Plan ................................................................................................................ 1
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Approach.......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology................................................................................................................................................................6
Applications..................................................................................................................................................................7
OMB Super Circular and 2 CFR Part 200.......................................................................................................................7
Central Service Departments........................................................................................................................................8
Distribution Bases.........................................................................................................................................................9
Allocable Costs and Distribution Bases.......................................................................................................... 10
Allocable Costs ...........................................................................................................................................................10
Central Service Allocation Methodology ....................................................................................................................11
Section 1: Administration – Public Works..............................................................................................................11
Section 2: City Attorney .........................................................................................................................................11
Section 3: City Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................12
Section 4: City Council............................................................................................................................................13
Section 5: City Manager.........................................................................................................................................14
Section 6: Finance..................................................................................................................................................14
Section 7: Human Resources .................................................................................................................................15
Section 8: Non-Departmental................................................................................................................................16
Iterative Allocation.....................................................................................................................................................17
Appendix A..................................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix B..................................................................................................................................................... 22
i Cost Allocation Plan
List of Tables
Table 1: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (OMB Compliant CAP).................................................... 3
Table 2: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (Full CAP)........................................................................ 4
Table 3: Allocable Cost Summary................................................................................................................... 10
Table A-1: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP)................................................................... 19
Table A-2: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP).................................................................... 20
Table A-3: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) ......................................................................... 21
Table B-1: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP) ............................................................................................. 23
ii Cost Allocation Plan
Certification of Cost Allocation Plan
This is to certify that I have reviewed the cost allocation plan submitted herewith and to the best of my
knowledge and belief:
(1) All costs included in this proposal 9/9/2024 to establish cost allocations or billings for Fiscal Year 2024-
2025 are allowable in accordance with the requirements of this Part and the Federal award(s) to which they
apply. Unallowable costs have been adjusted for in allocating costs as indicated in the cost allocation plan.
(2) All costs included in this proposal are properly allocable to Federal awards on the basis of a beneficial or
causal relationship between the expenses incurred and the Federal awards to which they are allocated in
accordance with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been treated as indirect costs
have not been claimed as direct costs. Similar types of costs have been accounted for consistently.
I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Governmental Unit:
Signature:
City of Lake Elsinore
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Name of Official:
Title:
Date of Execution:
1 Cost Allocation Plan
Executive Summary
This cost allocation plan (“CAP”) summarizes a comprehensive analysis that has been completed for the City
of Lake Elsinore, California (the “City”) to determine the appropriate allocation of costs from central service
departments to the operating departments. The primary objective is to allocate costs from departments
that provide services internally to operating departments that conduct the day-to-day operations necessary
to serve the community. The internal service costs typically represent (a) incurred for a common or joint
purpose benefiting more than one cost objective, and (b) not readily assignable to the cost objectives
specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. The term "indirect costs," as
used herein, applies to costs of this type originating in the central service departments.
To ensure central service department costs are appropriately allocated to the operating departments,
Willdan analyzed the City’s cost code structure to determine which types of costs are allowable versus
unallowable in accordance with standard and accepted cost allocation principles. The term “allocable costs”
as used herein, applies to costs that are allowable for allocation. Internal Service allocations to the
operating departments are not included in the total central service allocation column below and as such are
not included in the indirect cost rates listed.
The study is comprised of two separate allocation plans. Table 1 is the summary results of the allocation in
compliance with the Office of Management and Budget Super Circular (the OMB Super Circular) and CFR
Part 200 (Cost Principles). Table 2 that follows is the summary results of the full plan. The report below
includes descriptions of the differences between the two plans, their separate purposes, and specific details
of when the plans deviate from each other.
2 Cost Allocation Plan
Table 1: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (OMB Compliant
CAP)
Allocated Cost Summary Fiscal Year 2024-2025
Direct Cost Base
Modified Total Direct
Cost
Indirect Cost
RateOperating Department / Division / Fund Total Allocation
$12,786,442 $69,475,621 18%
100: ANIMAL CONTROL
100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
100: COMMUNITY SERVICES
100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT
100: EMERGENCY SERVICES
100: ENGINEERING
100: FIRE SERVICES
100: LAKE MAINTENANCE
100: PUBLIC SAFETY
100: PUBLIC WORKS
103: THE ANCHOR
105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS
106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
$34,484
$2,023,578
$1,173,286
$253,400
$55,257
$2,526,925
$509,350
$621,798
$630,392
$2,038,279
$435,656
$2,175
$1,537
$75
$991,490
$7,276,870
$5,643,040
$604,260
$431,460
$4,133,950
$13,031,350
$1,362,060
$19,531,030
$4,031,600
$1,020,980
$21,355
$50,000
$0
3%
28%
21%
42%
13%
61%
4%
46%
3%
51%
43%
10%
3%
107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN $0 $0
109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT (SB1)
110: GAS TAX
111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATON
112: MEASURE A
$165
$280,797
$0
$0
$622,000
$0
45%
$150 $0
113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK
114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROGRAM
116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES DIF
117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES DIF
118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF
$15
$45,255
$135
$0
$1,100
$0
4114%
$135
$135
$0
$0
119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF
121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE
135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1
140: GEOTHERMAL WELL
150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMENT GRANT
180: LAUNCH POINTE
$150
$0
$799,876
$391,945
$432
$874
$130,829
$60
$478,548
$0
$0
$0
$1,863,250
$799,083
$14,339
$29,000
$285,952
$0
43%
49%
3%
3%
46%
$5,712,095
$0
8%
203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEE
205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE $165 $0
211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P.$45 $0
221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C.I.P.
231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF
$30
$181
$0
$0
232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF
500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III
$135 $0
$0$214,210
$56,000
$15,810
$15
$3,306
$6,678
$43,234
$2,492
$1,861
$1,859
$2,018
$2,705
$1,615,000
$0
3%
540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM
605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU
606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION
617: HOUSING
631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES
652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPACE,STREET LIGHT SERVICES
655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
$0
$6,000
$220,000
$103,977
$29,880
$9,430
$9,390
$14,140
$11,540
55%
3%
42%
8%
20%
20%
14%
23%
3 Cost Allocation Plan
Table 2: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (Full CAP)
Allocated Cost Summary Fiscal Year 2024-2025
Direct Cost Base
Modified Total Direct
Cost
Indirect Cost
RateOperating Department / Division / Fund Total Allocation
$13,209,212 $69,475,621 19%
100: ANIMAL CONTROL
100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
100: COMMUNITY SERVICES
100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT
100: EMERGENCY SERVICES
100: ENGINEERING
100: FIRE SERVICES
100: LAKE MAINTENANCE
100: PUBLIC SAFETY
100: PUBLIC WORKS
103: THE ANCHOR
105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS
106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
$37,160
$2,095,830
$1,233,642
$260,420
$58,855
$2,581,421
$547,666
$632,751
$683,375
$2,087,843
$442,239
$2,255
$1,669
$76
$991,490
$7,276,870
$5,643,040
$604,260
$431,460
$4,133,950
$13,031,350
$1,362,060
$19,531,030
$4,031,600
$1,020,980
$21,355
$50,000
$0
4%
29%
22%
43%
14%
62%
4%
46%
3%
52%
43%
11%
3%
107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN $0 $0
109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT (SB1)
110: GAS TAX
111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATON
112: MEASURE A
$168
$285,046
$0
$0
$622,000
$0
46%
$153 $0
113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK
114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROGRAM
116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES DIF
117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES DIF
118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF
$15
$45,955
$137
$0
$1,100
$0
4178%
$137
$137
$0
$0
119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF
121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE
135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1
140: GEOTHERMAL WELL
150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMENT GRANT
180: LAUNCH POINTE
$153
$0
$811,965
$397,886
$470
$950
$132,809
$61
$507,694
$0
$0
$0
$1,863,250
$799,083
$14,339
$29,000
$285,952
$0
44%
50%
3%
3%
46%
$5,712,095
$0
9%
203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEE
205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE $168 $0
211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P.$46 $0
221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C.I.P.
231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF
$31
$183
$0
$0
232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF
500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III
$137 $0
$0$217,522
$60,355
$16,054
$15
$3,356
$7,256
$43,887
$2,595
$1,910
$1,908
$2,079
$2,772
$1,615,000
$0
4%
540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM
605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU
606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION
617: HOUSING
631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES
652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPACE,STREET LIGHT SERVICES
655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
$0
$6,000
$220,000
$103,977
$29,880
$9,430
$9,390
$14,140
$11,540
56%
3%
42%
9%
20%
20%
15%
24%
4 Cost Allocation Plan
Introduction
In the early 1970s, the cost allocation plan concept was introduced to many government agencies. The
purpose of a typical cost allocation plan is to identify costs related to rendering internal central support
services and allocate those costs to operating departments or programs that utilize and benefit from them,
in a fair and equitable manner.
Before indirect costs and central support service charges may be claimed for reimbursement by an operating
department, there must be some formal means of identifying, accumulating and distributing these types of
costs to all benefiting departments. Regardless of whether an agency has a formal comprehensive cost
accounting system, the best method of accumulating, identifying, and determining a distribution of indirect
costs is a cost allocation plan.
A City is made up of many departments, each with their own specific purposes or functions. Departments
whose primary function is to provide support internally to other City departments are called central services.
Examples of central services are Human Resources, City Manager, Finance, and City Council. Within these
groups there are numerous functions performed that provide support to the direct cost centers. The direct
cost centers, or departments and funds, that require support from Central Services and provide services
directly to the community through their day-to-day operations, are called operating departments. Examples
of operating departments are Public Safety, Public Works, Community Development, and Community
Services. The cost allocation plan allocates the costs of the central services to the operating departments
based on the nature of the functions of each central service, upon which the operating departments
depend. This is done to determine the total cost associated with providing direct services. The overall goal
of the cost allocation plan process is to allow cities to allocate a portion of the central service costs to the
operating departments, thus 1) accounting for “all” costs, direct and indirect, for each operating
department, and 2) facilitating the calculation of a fully burdened cost estimate of providing services to the
public.
The purpose of this study is to:
.
.
.
Identify the central support and operating departments in the City;
Identify the functions and services provided by the central departments;
Identify allocable and non-allocable costs associated with the City’s central service departments;
and
.Distribute those costs to operating entities in a fair and equitable manner.
5 Cost Allocation Plan
Approach
Methodology
The way in which each Indirect Service provides support to the operating departments is determined in
order to perform allocations in a manner consistent with the nature of that Indirect Service. This ensures
that the costs can be allocated to each operating department in a fair and equitable way. The cost allocation
plan identifies the functions of each central service department, and then determines a methodology to
allocate or spread the central service costs in a manner that best represents the nature of those functions.
The mathematical representations of central service functions used to allocate indirect costs are commonly
called distribution bases. A distribution basis is a set of data displayed as the level of measure of each
department’s participation in a specific activity or City function. This basis is then used to distribute costs
that reasonably relate to the activity or City function that the basis represents. Some examples of
distribution bases are salary and benefits costs, number of full-time equivalent employees, frequencies of
City council agenda items, and number of processed transactions. The data sets associated with these
distribution bases for each department are collected to facilitate the allocation of indirect costs.
The methodology used for this cost allocation plan is the iterative method, which is one of the most
equitable methods for allocating costs from central services to operating departments. While not used as
prevalently as simpler allocation methods, it is widely considered to be the most accurate. The iterative
method utilizes a recursive application of central service cost distribution to allocate indirect costs. In the
first step, the allocable costs of central service departments are identified and distributed to all departments
including the central service departments themselves, based on the appropriate allocation bases that were
selected to represent the manner in which central services are utilized. This is repeated ad infinitum until
all costs have been distributed to the operating departments, and none remain with the central service
departments.
As an example, consider the allocation of central service costs associated with Human Resources. The
function of Human Resources is identified, and the appropriate distribution basis is determined to be the
number of full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel and total salaries and benefits per department and fund.
The allowable costs are then distributed to all City departments and funds based on their proportional share
of FTE’s and salaries and benefits, including other central services. The costs allocated from central service
to central service in the initial allocation are then allocated out using the same distribution methodology.
This function is performed as many times as necessary until all costs for Human Resources have been
allocated.
All central service departments are treated equally. That is to say, this method is performed concurrently
for the allowable costs in each of the central service departments for each iteration until all costs associated
with the central service departments have been allocated to each direct service department. The method
is complete when the total amount of allocable costs remaining in the central service departments is equal
to zero.
6 Cost Allocation Plan
Applications
Public agencies use cost allocation plans for many purposes such as internal accounting, the justification of
user fees, application for reimbursement from federal programs or the determination of administrative
effort associated with special districts and/or municipal service activities. In many of these cases, the agency
will be required to certify that the costs identified are “reasonable”. Per the Code of Federal Regulations, a
cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent
person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question
of reasonableness is particularly important when determining the amount that a public agency should be
reimbursed for central service overhead activities associated with a federally funded program. Additionally,
public agencies should consider special care to only identify the portion of central service costs that have
not been reimbursed through other means (such as grants, user fee revenues, transfers from other
departments or internal service funds) to avoid double-counting. These cost reductions are done before the
allocation methodologies are used and are detailed within the model itself.
OMB Super Circular and 2 CFR Part 200
This report details the allocations for two separate cost allocation plans. The primary model, presented in
text and tables in the below sections and in Appendix A, provides a plan that complies with the Office of
Management and Budget Super Circular (the OMB Super Circular) and CFR Part 200 (Cost Principles) that
are used to determine central overhead costs incurred while carrying out activities associated with Federal
awards, cost reimbursement contracts and some other intergovernmental agreements (as required). The
secondary model presented in Appendix B of this report is the full cost allocation plan, which the City should
use for standard City operations and budgeting. Unless otherwise indicated, the details of this report and
Appendix A contain the OMB compliant allocation plan. The Appendix B tables contain the full cost plan and
utilizes the same distribution methodology as the OMB Compliant plan. While the overall methodology used
for both plans is the same, there are specific guidelines that require additional cost exemptions for OMB
Super Circular compliance outside of what was done for the full cost plan. Where such exemptions are done
in the methodology has been explained below. Some commonly encountered examples that are usually
exempt under OMB Super Circular guidelines are:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
General Advertising
Bad Debt
Contingencies
Litigation
Debt Service
Entertainment
Capital
Lobbying
Legislative Body (City Council)
Promotional Items
7 Cost Allocation Plan
Central Service Departments
Eight (8) central service functions were identified for the purposes of this cost allocation plan:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Administration – Public Works
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Council
City Manager
Finance
Human Resources
Non-departmental
8 Cost Allocation Plan
Distribution Bases
Distribution bases are the allocation factors that may be used to distribute the allocable costs to all
departments and funds. As discussed previously, distribution bases are measurable and readily available
data that are utilized to represent activities or functions, and which are then used to distribute costs
matching that activity or function. Below are the bases that were analyzed in this study and used to
allocate Central Services costs to operating departments.
.
.
.
Number of FTE Employees – The number of full-time equivalent personnel for each department
and fund.
Modified Total Direct Cost – The total allowable expenditures budgeted for each department and
fund for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 which excludes capital and debt., and non-operational transfers.
City Council Agenda Frequency – City Council agendas spanning a 12-month period were used to
determine the number of times each department and fund had matters brought before the City
Council.
.
.
Total Receipts – The total number of receipts processed for each department and fund for a year.
Total PO’s– The total number of purchase orders processed for each department and fund for a
year.
.
.
Total Requisitions – The total number of requisitions processed for each department and fund for
a year.
Total Salary and Benefits – The total salary and benefit expenditures for each department and
fund for the fiscal year.
9 Cost Allocation Plan
Allocable Costs and Distribution Bases
Allocable Costs
Table 3 identifies the allocable cost of each central service department for the OMB compliant allocation
plan, with the total allocable costs for this study being $12,786,442. The total expenditures from the central
service departments were $13,918,690. However, $1,132,248 of the expenditures identified as unallowable
by the 200 CFR Part 200 and have been excluded from allocation for the OMB compliant plan. The primary
exclusions were related to the City Council, contribution to other funds costs, the lobbyist and lobbying
organizations, external advertising, and 5% exclusion for fee activity as detailed in the methodology below.
The remaining amount was distributed to the operating departments and the central services departments
by distribution factor(s) that best represents the functions of each central service department and the
demand placed on that central service by all City departments, as previously described in the Methodology
section of this report. The allocation methodology for each central service is detailed in the following section
of this report.
Table 3: Allocable Cost Summary
Allocable Cost Summary - Central Services Fiscal Year 2024-2025
Unallocable
CostTotal Cost
13,918,690
Allocable Cost
12,786,442Summary$$1,132,248 $
Central Service
100: ADMINISTRATION - PUBLIC W
100: CITY ATTORNEY
100: CITY CLERK
100: CITY COUNCIL
100: CITY MANAGER
100: FINANCE
4,808,110
675,190
1,095,020
354,770
1,333,230
1,666,310
790,530
-
-
4,808,110
675,190
1,040,269
-
1,235,819
1,582,995
790,530
2,653,530
54,751
354,770
97,412
83,316
-100: HUMAN RESOURCES
100: NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,195,530 542,000
10 Cost Allocation Plan
Central Service Allocation Methodology
The first step of the iterative allocation method is to distribute the allocable costs of the central service
departments to other central service departments and operating departments based on the distribution
methodology and bases that best represent the activity of the central service, and the functions it serves.
The sections below describe each central service and the methodology used to allocate their costs.
Corresponding tables detailing each distribution are attached in the Appendices as tables A-1 through A-3
for the OMB compliant plan and B-1 for the full cost plan.
Section 1: Administration – Public Works
The mission of the Public Works Department is to provide high-quality, responsive and cost-effective
engineering and operational services that support current and future infrastructure and circulation
improvements, public safety, and environmental assets within the City of Lake Elsinore. This is
accomplished through oversight of private and public improvement projects, maintenance of the City’s
public roadways and bike lanes, street lighting, traffic systems, sidewalks, public landscaping, graffiti
control, and drainage facilities, implementation and regulation of water quality, pollution prevention and
flood damage prevention measures designed for the protection of life, property, water courses and lake in
the City. The measures include enforcement of higher construction standards, street sweeping, solid
waste management, and recycling programs, public emergency response training, and responding to and
aiding in recovery from earthquakes, storms and other emergencies. The Department provides a broad
base of services through its six divisions: Administration, Streets, Parks and Streetscape, Lake Operations,
Facilities, and Fleet. Each staff member is assigned to a specific division and corresponding supervisor.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Public Works Administration Division, it is reasonable to
distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
.One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified
total direct cost of each department and funds that Public Works Administration supports.
100: ADMINISTRATION - PUBLIC W
PW Admin MTDC 100%
Section 2: City Attorney
The mission of the City Attorney’s Office is to provide the City with the highest quality, responsive and
preventative legal services and to identify legal options and strategies for implementing and achieving the
City Council’s goals, objectives and policies.
The City Attorney’s office provides a wide range of professional legal services from complex and
sophisticated transactions and litigation to general matters of municipal law, including open meeting laws,
conflicts of interest, public records, public contracts, election laws, planning and zoning, water and
11 Cost Allocation Plan
environmental laws, mining laws and redevelopment dissolution. The City Attorney’s Office strives to
provide effective analysis and preparation/review of resolutions, ordinances, contracts and other legal
documents necessary to accomplish the City’s municipal functions and City Council goals.
The City Attorney is appointed by the Lake Elsinore City Council. The City Attorney serves as legal advisor to
the City Council, Successor Agency, City commissions, City Manager, City Clerk and City Departments. City
Attorney services are performed under contract with the law firm of Leibold McClendon & Mann.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Attorney, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable
cost by using the method(s) described below.
.
.
.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for
each department and fund.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of agendas for each
department and fund.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost
for each department and fund.
100: CITY ATTORNEY
Total FTE's 33%
33%
33%
Total Agendas
Modified Total Direct Cost
Section 3: City Clerk
The City Clerk compiles and maintains the official records of the City, making them readily accessible and
ensuring transparency to the public. Appointed by the City Manager, the City Clerk is the local official who
administers democratic processes by conducting fair and impartial municipal elections. Additionally, the
City Clerk acts as the Compliance Officer for Federal, State and local statutes and prepares, certifies
and/or adheres to public notice requirements with regard to legal documents, ordinances, resolutions,
and public hearings. The City Clerk's department also codifies and disseminates the City's Municipal code,
promotes public awareness of government processes, provides meeting, administrative, and legislative
support to the Mayor, City Council Members, and Commissioners, and arranges for both ceremonial and
official functions.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Clerk, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost
by using the method(s) described below.
.A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for
each department and fund.
12 Cost Allocation Plan
.
.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of agendas for each
department and fund.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost
for each department and fund.
100: CITY CLERK
Total FTE's 33%
33%
33%
Total Agendas
Modified Total Direct Cost
Section 4: City Council
The City Council is elected by the voters of Lake Elsinore to establish and adopt overall policies, legislative
and otherwise, to give direction to the City Manager, to ensure effective and efficient operation of the City,
and to identify the types and levels of programs and services to be provided to its residents. The Mayor and
City Council serve to provide an overall quality of life in the City of Lake Elsinore by enhancing security,
recreation, and neighborhoods, delivering quality public services, preserving and enhancing the City’s
economic prosperity, and embracing the diversity of the citizens.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Council, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost
by using the method(s) described below.
.
.
.
.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for
each department and fund.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of agendas for each
department and fund.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost
for each department and fund.
For the OMB plan the costs of the City Council are not allocated to ensure OMB compliance.
100: CITY COUNCIL
Total FTE's 33%
33%
33%
Total Agendas
Modified Total Direct Cost
13 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 5: City Manager
The City Manager is appointed by the City Council to serve as the Chief Administrative Officer of the
organization. The City Manager’s Office coordinates the implementation of policy and programs established
by the City Council. The City Manager provides overall direction to the administration of City programs and
services; coordinates economic development and marketing activities; intergovernmental relations,
lobbying, and public relations efforts; oversees interdepartmental programs for strategic planning,
emergency preparedness and animal control. The City Manager’s Office is committed to the policy of
providing extreme customer services to the community and promoting overall safety to the staff and citizens
of Lake Elsinore.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Manager’s Office, it is reasonable to distribute the
allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
.
.
.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for
each department and fund.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of agendas for each
department and fund.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost
for each department and fund.
100: CITY MANAGER
Total FTE's 33%
33%
33%
Total Agendas
Modified Total Direct Cost
Section 6: Finance
The Finance Division develops fiscal policies to ensure a financially strong City government, provides
finance- based services and facilitates growth in the City through the effective and efficient management of
resources and processes.
The Finance Division administers the financial and treasury affairs of the City of Lake Elsinore. It serves as
an indispensable partner on topics requiring economic, financial and fiduciary inputs and expertise. As such,
the division provides the City's departments and residents with dependable and efficient quality services in
Cash Management, Accounting and Financial Reporting, Procurement, Grants and Contracts, as well as its
internal and external audit partners.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Finance Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable
cost by using the method(s) described below.
.Fifteen percent (15%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time
equivalents for each department and fund.
14 Cost Allocation Plan
.
.
.
.
Forty percent (40%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct
cost for each department and fund.
Twenty percent (20%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of purchase
orders processed for each department and fund.
Fifteen percent (15%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of requisitions
processed for each department and fund.
Ten percent (10%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of receipts
processed for each department and fund.
100: FINANCE
Total FTE's 15%
40%
20%
15%
10%
Modified Total Direct Cost
Total PO
Total Requistions
Total Receipts
Section 7: Human Resources
The Human Resources division is part of the Administrative Services Department, which also includes the
Finance Division. Its focus is on meeting the personnel and support needs of the City, according to all
applicable employment standards and labor laws. The goal of the division is to develop and manage a
diverse and skilled workforce.
The division functions include recruitment, benefits, job descriptions, salary surveys, training, performance
evaluations and labor relations. The division serves both the City’s employees and prospective employees.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Human Resources Division, it is reasonable to distribute
the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
.
.
Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents
for each department and fund.
Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of salaries and benefits
for each department and fund.
100: HUMAN RESOURCES
Total FTE's 50%
50%Total Salaries and Benefits
15 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 8: Non-Departmental
The Non-Departmental Division is a cost center for general administrative expenditures such as CalPERS
Replacement Benefit, County Property Tax Administration Fees, and various Trustee Fees and Costs. It also
reflects the Debt Service payment for the 2013 Recreation Authority Lease Revenue Bonds.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Non-Departmental Division, it is reasonable to distribute
the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below based on what the budgeted expenditures
support.
.
.
Three percent (3%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct
cost for each department and fund.
Ninety seven percent (97%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time
equivalents of each department and funds in City Hall.
100: NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Modified Total Direct Cost
City Hall Department FTE's
3%
97%
16 Cost Allocation Plan
Iterative Allocation
The total allocable expenditures of each central service department were allocated to other departments
(including both operating departments and other central service departments) based on the individual
methodologies outlined above in Sections 1 through 8 of the Allocation Percentages chapter. Any cost
allocated from central service to central service is then reallocated using the same methodology. This
operation is done iteratively until all allocable costs are received by the operating departments and funds,
and none remain with the central services. After completion of the iterative allocation method, a total
combined allocable cost of $12,786,442 was distributed to all departments and funds until the allocable
cost remained only in the operating departments and funds, and the amount of allocable costs remaining
in central service departments was equal to zero.
The full cost plan follows the same methodology with the exception that all costs that were excluded solely
for OMB compliance, but were reasonable for the full plan, were made allowable and included in the
allocation. See Table B-1 for additional details for the full cost plan.
After implementing the iterative allocation methodology, all allocable central service costs have been
distributed to the operating departments and funds. Table 1 in the Executive Summary of this report
summarized the distribution of the total allocable cost of $12,786,442 to each recipient department for the
OMB compliant CAP. Table 2 summarized the distribution of the total allocable cost of $13,209,212 to each
recipient department for the full cost CAP.
17 Cost Allocation Plan
Appendix A
Appendix A lists the tables detailing the allocation methodology performed in allocating central service costs
for the OMB compliant cost allocation plan.
18 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-1: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP)
First Iteration Central Service Departments
100:100:100: CITY 100: CITY 100: CITY 100: CITY 100:100: NON-Central Service/Operating Departments ADMINISTRATION -
PUBLIC W
HUMANATTORNEYCLERKCOUNCIL MANAGER FINANCE DEPARTMENTALRESOURCES
100: ADMINISTRATION - PUBLIC W
100: CITY ATTORNEY
100: CITY CLERK
100: CITY COUNCIL
100: CITY MANAGER
100: FINANCE
100: HUMAN RESOURCES
100: NON-DEPARTMENTAL
100: ANIMAL CONTROL
100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
100: COMMUNITY SERVICES
100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT
100: EMERGENCY SERVICES
100: ENGINEERING
100: FIRE SERVICES
100: LAKE MAINTENANCE
100: PUBLIC SAFETY
100: PUBLIC WORKS
103: THE ANCHOR
105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS
106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN
109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT (SB1)
110: GAS TAX
111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATON
112: MEASURE A
113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK
114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROGRAM
116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES DIF
117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES DIF
118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF
119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF
121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE
135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1
140: GEOTHERMAL WELL
150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMENT GRANT
180: LAUNCH POINTE
203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEE
205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P.
221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C.I.P.
231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF
232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF
500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III
540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM
605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU
606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION
617: HOUSING
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
29.1%
0.0%
9.6%
0.0%
28.3%
7.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
13.1%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.9%
3.7%
6.4%
1.1%
5.0%
7.1%
3.1%
0.1%
0.4%
13.3%
11.1%
1.2%
0.6%
7.4%
6.2%
1.0%
8.4%
6.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.9%9.9%
3.7%
6.4%
1.1%
5.0%
7.1%
3.1%
0.1%
0.4%
13.3%
11.1%
1.2%
0.6%
7.4%
6.2%
1.0%
8.4%
6.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.9%
3.7%
6.4%
1.1%
5.0%
7.1%
3.1%
0.1%
0.4%
13.3%
11.1%
1.2%
0.6%
7.4%
6.2%
1.0%
8.4%
6.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
0.5%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
4.3%
1.2%
2.5%
0.7%
9.4%
8.6%
1.7%
0.8%
4.4%
7.5%
1.7%
11.0%
5.4%
1.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
8.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.2%
1.1%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
13.1%
0.0%
2.3%
1.8%
3.9%
6.1%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
21.5%
18.6%
2.5%
0.9%
10.1%
0.6%
1.3%
0.0%
7.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
3.0%
5.0%
4.0%
10.7%
4.7%
0.0%
0.0%
37.1%
11.1%
5.0%
0.0%
15.1%
2.5%
0.1%
0.8%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
6.4%
1.1%
5.0%
7.1%
3.1%
0.1%
0.4%
13.3%
11.1%
1.2%
0.6%
7.4%
6.2%
1.0%
8.4%
6.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES
652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPACE,STREET LIGHT SERVICES
655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
19 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-2: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP)
Central Service Departments
100:100: CITY 100: CITY 100: CITY 100: CITY 100:100: HUMAN 100: NON-Central Service/Operating Departments ADMINISTRATION -
PUBLIC W ATTORNEY CLERK COUNCIL MANAGER FINANCE RESOURCES DEPARTMENTAL
100: ADMINISTRATION - PUBLIC W
100: CITY ATTORNEY
100: CITY CLERK
100: CITY COUNCIL
100: CITY MANAGER
100: FINANCE
100: HUMAN RESOURCES
100: NON-DEPARTMENTAL
100: ANIMAL CONTROL
100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
100: COMMUNITY SERVICES
100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT
100: EMERGENCY SERVICES
100: ENGINEERING
100: FIRE SERVICES
100: LAKE MAINTENANCE
100: PUBLIC SAFETY
100: PUBLIC WORKS
103: THE ANCHOR
105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS
106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN
109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT (SB1)
110: GAS TAX
111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATON
112: MEASURE A
113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK
114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROGRAM
116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES DIF
117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES DIF
118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF
119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF
121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE
135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1
140: GEOTHERMAL WELL
150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMENT GRANT
180: LAUNCH POINTE
203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEE
205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P.
221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C.I.P.
231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF
232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF
500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III
540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM
605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU
606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION
617: HOUSING
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
29.1%
0.0%
9.6%
0.0%
28.3%
7.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
13.1%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
17.9%
15.0%
1.8%
0.9%
13.5%
8.2%
2.6%
11.1%
12.2%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
6.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
17.9%
15.0%
1.8%
0.9%
13.5%
8.2%
2.6%
11.1%
12.2%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
6.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
17.9%
15.0%
1.8%
0.9%
13.5%
8.2%
2.6%
11.1%
12.2%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
6.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
24.4%
21.0%
2.8%
1.1%
15.9%
1.8%
3.0%
1.7%
13.1%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
41.7%
15.0%
5.6%
0.3%
18.3%
4.5%
0.8%
3.6%
3.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
17.9% 12.4%
15.0% 10.6%
1.8%
0.9%
13.5%
8.2%
2.6%
2.0%
0.9%
7.6%
8.5%
2.5%
11.1% 12.3%
12.2%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
6.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.1%
1.5%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
9.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.7%
1.2%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES
652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPACE,STREET LIGHT SERVICES
655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
20 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-3: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP)
Central Service Departments Central Service Departments
100: ADMINISTRATION - 100: CITY 100: CITY 100: CITY 100: CITY 100: HUMAN
RESOURCES
100: NON-TotalDepartment Classification Department 100: FINANCE
1,582,995
PUBLIC W ATTORNEY CLERK COUNCIL MANAGER DEPARTMENTAL Allocation
4,808,110 675,190 1,040,269
3,775 5,816
120,920 186,302
101,095 155,758
0 1,235,819 790,530 2,653,530 12,786,442
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
100: ANIMAL CONTROL -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,909
221,323
185,038
21,695
10,843
166,559
101,101
32,137
137,105
150,444
18,855
219
12,068
195,829
167,583
32,144
13,797
120,808
133,868
39,613
195,236
128,713
24,079
1,283
465
54
-
118
25,664
-
107
11
32,026
97
97
97
107
-
47,388
55,267
127
257
13,040
43
741
192,712
166,325
22,079
8,479
125,363
14,314
24,004
13,322
103,765
9,381
51
5,175 34,484
100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
100: COMMUNITY SERVICES
100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT
1,106,491 2,023,578
397,487 1,173,286
147,367
7,088
11,853
5,924
18,262
9,127
253,400
55,257100: EMERGENCY SERVICES
100: ENGINEERING
100: FIRE SERVICES
100: LAKE MAINTENANCE
100: PUBLIC SAFETY
100: PUBLIC WORKS
103: THE ANCHOR
1,396,806 91,000 140,203 486,186 2,526,925
-55,237
17,558
85,104
27,052
119,726
21,212
94,412
509,350
621,798
630,392
460,222
-74,907 115,410
82,195 126,6391,362,224
344,975
84,299 2,038,279
10,302 15,872 12,192
318
232
11
435,656
2,175
1,537
75
105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS
106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN
109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT (SB1)
110: GAS TAX
111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATON
112: MEASURE A
113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK
114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROGRAM
116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES DIF
117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES DIF
118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF
119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF
121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE
135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1
140: GEOTHERMAL WELL
150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMENT GRANT
180: LAUNCH POINTE
203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEE
205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
-
-
-
-
119 184
185 285 339
4
-
32
223
-----
-4 7 8 4 24 165
280,797
-
210,165 6,686 10,301 12,237
-
6,096
-
9,647
--
-
-
--
64 7 4
0
22
2
150
0
1,204
4
1 1
2,204
7
15
372
-
-
-
-
-
1,855
6
1,121 6,474
20
45,255
135
135
135
150
3
3
3
4
4 6 7
7
7
20
20
22
4 6
4 6
----
17,239
8,606
9
18
2,846
1
--
629,567
269,999
18,929
9,421
53
29,163
14,514
81
34,645
17,243
97
196
5,711
3
22,945
16,895
65
132
4,686
9
799,876
391,945
432
874
130,829
60
-
-107
3,120
2
165
4,807
2
96,619
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
45,870
-
70,672
-
83,957
-
147,548
-
65,677
-
64,825
-
478,548
-
4 7 8
2
1
9
118
32
21
129
4
1
1
4
24
7
4
26
165
211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P.1 2 45
30221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C.I.P.
231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF
232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF
500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III
1 1
5 7 181
13546797320
5,706
6,144
421
0
8,792
9,467
649
1
10,445
11,246
771
1
147
1,486
1,865
279
140
140
173
193
153,054
19,535
11,296
11
5,312
1,202
392
0
30,901
8,405
2,281
2
179
1,008
1,078
366
270
270
294
393
214,210
56,000
15,810
15
3,306
6,678
43,234
2,492
1,861
1,859
2,018
2,705
540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM
605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU
606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION
617: HOUSING
631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES
652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPACE,STREET LIGHT SERVICES
655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
2,027
-
80 124
1,251
1,570
235
118
118
146
162
674 74
812
1,019
152
77
77
94
1,982
1,643
1,402
1,210
1,209
1,262
1,786
140
927
58
45
45
35,132
-
-
-
-
-
48
66105
21 Cost Allocation Plan
Appendix B
Appendix B provides the table detailing the allocation performed in allocating central service costs for the
full cost allocation plan. The methodology for the full plan is the same as for the OMB compliant plan, as
it is reasonable and represents how indirect support is provided in the City. The difference between the
two plans, as has been described in this report, is in the costs that can be allocated.
22 Cost Allocation Plan
Table B-1: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP)
Central Service Departments Central Service Departments
100: ADMINISTRATION - 100: CITY 100: CITY 100: CITY 100: CITY 100: HUMAN
RESOURCES
100: NON-TotalDepartment Classification Department 100: FINANCE
1,582,995
PUBLIC W ATTORNEY CLERK COUNCIL MANAGER DEPARTMENTAL Allocation
4,808,110 675,190 1,040,269 354,770 1,261,819
3,775 5,817 1,984 7,055
790,530 2,695,530 13,209,212
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
Operating Department
100: ANIMAL CONTROL -
-
-
-
-
12,075
195,623
167,538
32,113
13,799
120,738
133,949
39,623
195,377
128,742
24,088
1,283
465
741
192,704
166,324
22,078
8,479
125,361
14,317
24,005
13,327
103,766
9,381
51
5,713 37,160
100: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
100: COMMUNITY SERVICES
100: COMMUNITY SUPPORT
120,910 186,287
101,093 155,755
63,531 225,961
53,118 188,926
1,110,813 2,095,830
400,888 1,233,642
147,741
7,342
489,452 2,581,421
126,789
22,249
104,971
87,473 2,087,843
12,954
330
259
11
11,852
5,924
18,260
9,127
6,227
3,113
22,149
11,071
260,420
58,855100: EMERGENCY SERVICES
100: ENGINEERING
100: FIRE SERVICES
100: LAKE MAINTENANCE
100: PUBLIC SAFETY
100: PUBLIC WORKS
103: THE ANCHOR
1,396,806 90,996 140,198 47,813 170,057
29,025 103,236-55,241
17,559
85,110
27,053
547,666
632,751
683,375
460,222 9,226 32,814
-74,914 115,421
82,197 126,641
39,363 140,002
43,189 153,6121,362,224
344,975 10,302 15,872 5,413 19,253 442,239
2,255
1,669
76
105: MISC. GENERAL PROJECTS
106: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
107: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
108: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN
109: ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT (SB1)
110: GAS TAX
111: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATON
112: MEASURE A
113: SB821 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK
114: SB1186 CASp EDUCATION PROGRAM
116: CITY HALL/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES DIF
117: COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES DIF
118: LAKESIDE FACILITIES DIF
119: ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES DIF
121: TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
130: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE
135: LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1
140: GEOTHERMAL WELL
150: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
155: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
160: PUBLIC EDUCATION GOVERNMENT GRANT
180: LAUNCH POINTE
203: ELSP - SUMMERLY TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FEE
205: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
-119 184 63 223
-185 285 97 346 32
2-2 3 1 4 54
---------
-4 7 2 8 118
25,669
-
107
11
32,024
97
97
97
107
-
47,404
55,272
127
257
13,043
43
4 24 168
285,046
-
210,165 6,686 10,301 3,513 12,495 6,097
-
10,119
--
-
--
6
-
2
-
4 7 4
0
22
2
153
-0 1 0
633
2
1
2,250
7
15
372
-
1,204 1,855
6
1,121 6,496
20
45,955
137
137
137
153
4 3
3
3
4
-
-
4
4
6
6
2
2
7
7
20
20
22-4 6 2 7
------
17,239
8,606
9
18
2,846
1
--
629,567
269,999
18,929
9,421
53
107
3,120
2
29,164
14,515
81
165
4,807
2
9,946
4,950
28
56
1,639
1
35,376
17,606
99
200
5,831
3
24,338
17,516
73
148
4,903
9
811,965
397,886
470
950
132,809
61
-
-
96,619
-
-
-
45,871
-
70,674
-
24,103
-
85,726
-
147,582
-
65,679
-
68,058
-
507,694
-
-4 7 2 8 118
32
21
129
4
1
1
4
24
7
4
26
168
211: STORM DRAIN C.I.P.-1 2 1 2 46
31221: QUIMBY ACT 66477 - PARK C.I.P.
231: LIBRARY FACILITIES DIF
232: FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES DIF
500: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
510: SARDA AREA I, II, & III
-1 1 0 1
-5 7 3 9 183
137-4 6 2 7 97 3 20
-
-
-
-
5,706
6,145
421
0
8,791
9,468
649
1
2,998
3,229
221
0
10,664
11,484
787
1
153,048
19,547
11,296
11
5,312
1,203
392
0
31,003
9,280
2,288
2
184
1,127
1,155
382
276
276
302
400
217,522
60,355
16,054
15
3,356
7,256
43,887
2,595
1,910
1,908
2,079
2,772
540: SARDA DIAMOND STADIUM
605: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN-LIEU
606: AB2766 AIR POLUTION REDUCTION
617: HOUSING
631: DESTRATIFICATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
650: CFD 2003-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
651: CFD 2006-5S PARK, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAIN SERVICES
652: CFD 2007-1S LAW,FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
653: CFD 2009-1S PARK,OPEN SPACE,STREET LIGHT SERVICES
655: CFD 2015-1S LAW, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES
2,027
-
35,132
-
-
-
-
-
80 124
1,251
1,570
235
118
118
146
162
42
427
535
80
40
40
50
55
150
1,517
1,904
285
143
143
177
197
674 74
812
1,019
152
77
77
94
1,983
1,643
1,402
1,210
1,210
1,262
1,786
140
927
58
45
45
48
66105
23 Cost Allocation Plan
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-4856
800.755.6864 | Fax: 888.326.6864
951.587.3500 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com