Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout39-23 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 39-23 File Number: 2023-413 RFP 22-06 MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING, LLC.: A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING, LLC, PURSUANT TO RFP 22-06, IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,312.50, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN UPDATED COST ALLOCATION PLAN & USER FEE STUDY, AND TO APPROVE A PROJECT CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,832.00 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes Mayor Jordan to sign a contract with MGT of America Consulting, LLC, pursuant to RFP 22-06, in the amount of $48,312.50 for the development of an updated Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study, and further approves a project contingency in the amount of $4,832.00. PASSED and APPROVED on February 21, 2023 Page 1 Attest: Kara Paxton, City Cle Treasurer CITY OF Pow, FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEMO 2023-413 TO: Mayor Jordan and City Council THRU: Paul Becker, Chief Financial Officer FROM: Kevin Springer, Budget Director DATE: SUBJECT: Approval of an agreement with MGT of America Consulting, LLC in the amount of $48,312.50 to create an updated Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study (RFP 22-06) plus a project contingency of $4,832 (10%). RECOMMENDATION: Approval of an agreement with MGT of America Consulting, LLC in the amount of $48,312.50 to create an updated Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study (RFP 22-06) plus a project contingency of $4,832 (10%). BACKGROUND: The last cost allocation plan and user fee study for the City of Fayetteville was performed in 2012. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the attached contract, this project will be broken into two phases. In Phase I, MGT will review and update the City's current cost allocation plan, as well as provide City staff with a model for adjusting the plan in the future. In Phase Il, MGT will review the City's permitting and development fees, prepare a report that identifies each service and its full cost, and provide a model for adjusting the fees in the future. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: This project has been budgeted in the Sales Tax Capital Improvements fund in the 2023 budget. ATTACHMENTS: 2023-0413 SRF Cost Allocation MGT contract, RFP 22-06 CONTRACT - Cost Allocation User Fee Study -signed PJD, RFP 22-06 Appendix A - Scope of Work 10.20.22, RFP 22-06, Appendix B - City RFP, RFP 22-06, Appendix C - MGT of America Consulting Submittal Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 - Legislation Text File #: 2023-413 Approval of an agreement with MGT of America Consulting, LLC in the amount of $48,312.50 to create an updated Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study (RFP 22-06) plus a project contingency of $4,832 (10%). A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING, LLC, PURSUANT TO RFP 22-06, IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,312.50, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN UPDATED COST ALLOCATION PLAN & USER FEE STUDY, AND TO APPROVE A PROJECT CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,832.00 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes Mayor Jordan to sign a contract with MGT of America Consulting, LLC, pursuant to RFP 22-06, in the amount of $48,312.50 for the development of an updated Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study, and further approves a project contingency in the amount of $4,832.00. Page 1 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form LULS-U41i Item ID 2/21/2023 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Kevin Springer 2/2/2023 BUDGET & INFORMATION MGMT (133) Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Approval of an agreement with MGT of America Consulting, LLC in the amount of $48,312.50 for a Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study (RFP 22-06) plus a project contingency of $4,832 (10%). 4470.133.8900-5315.00 Account Number 21002.1 Project Number Budgeted Item? Yes Does item have a direct cost? Yes Is a Budget Adjustment attached? No Purchase Order Number: Change Order Number: Original Contract Number: Comments: Budget Impact: Sales Tax Capital Improvements Fund Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study Total Amended Budget Expenses (Actual+Encum) Available Budget Item Cost Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget Project Title $ 83,814.00 83,814.00 $ 48,312.50 35,501.50 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Approval Date: V20221130 Aft `, GJTY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKAMBAS CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RFP 22-06, COST ALLOCATION & USER FEE STUDY between City of Fayetteville, Arkansas and MGT of America Consulting, LLC THIS AGREEMENT is executed this day of L4&Ua4q , 202 , by and between the City of Fayetteville acting by and through its Mayor (hereinafter called TY OF FAYETTEVILLE or CITY) and MGT of America Consulting, LLC. (hereinafter called MGT). CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE from time to time requires professional services in connection with the cost allocation & user fee study consultation services. MGT was selected through RFP 22-06 to provide the scope of work outlined and identified in this contract. Therefore, City and MGT in consideration of their mutual covenants agree as follows: MGT shall provide cost allocation & user consultation services to the CITY in those assignments to which this Agreement applies and shall give consultation and advice to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE during the performance of services defined in the scope of work. All services shall be performed under the direction of a licensed - registered in the State of Arkansas and qualified in the particular field. 1. Contracted parties: a. This agreement shall be binding between all parties. Fees for services shall be provided as identified in appendices. 2. Entire Agreement and Exhibits: This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between the parties on the subject matter of this Agreement. Parties shall not be bound by any conditions, definitions, representations or warranties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement other than those as expressly provided herein. This agreement may be modified only by a duly executed written instrument signed by the City and MGT. a. Appendices included under this agreement include the following and shall govern in the following order. Contract language in this document shall prevail over all exhibits: i. Appendix A: Scope of Work & Fees ii. Appendix B: City's Solicitation identified as RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study iii. Appendix C: MGT's RFP response iv. Appendix D: MGT's Certificate of Insurance RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Contract: City of Fayetteville and MGT of America Consulting, LLC Page 1 of 9 — Last Revised: 12.20.22 3. Notices: Any notice required under this Agreement shall be in writing, address to the appropriate party at the following addresses: a. City of Fayetteville: Attention: Mayor Lioneld Jordan, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, AR 72701 b. MGT: Attention: Patrick Dyer, 4320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33609 4. Fees, Expenses, and Payments: a. The maximum not -to -exceed amount authorized for this agreement is $48,312.50 US DOLLARS per year, which includes $3,270 in anticipated travel expenses and services as itemized in Appendix A. Progress payments shall be paid to the MGT as described in Appendix A. b. Payment Terms: All invoices are payable upon approval and due within thirty (30) calendar days. If a portion of an invoice or statement is disputed by CITY, the undisputed portion shall be paid. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE shall advise MGT in writing of the basis for any disputed portion of any invoice. CITY shall make reasonable effort to pay invoices within 30 calendar days of date the invoice is approved. c. Monthly invoices for each calendar month shall be submitted to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE or such parties as CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may designate for with MGT's normal billing schedule. Once established, the billing schedule shall be maintained throughout the duration of the Project. Invoices shall be made in accordance with a format to be developed by MGT and approved by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. Applications for payment shall be accompanied each month by the updated project schedule as the basis for determining the value earned as the work is accomplished. Final payment for professional services shall be made upon CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE'S approval and acceptance with the satisfactory completion of professional services for the Project. d. Final Payment: Upon satisfactory completion of the work performed under this Agreement, as a condition before final payment under this Agreement, or as a termination settlement under this Agreement, MGT shall execute and deliver to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE a release of all claims against CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE arising under or by virtue of this Agreement, except claims which are specifically exempted by MGT to be set forth therein. i. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by State law or otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties to this Agreement, final payment under this Agreement or settlement upon termination of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE claims against MGT or sureties under this Agreement. 5. Approval of Agent: The City reserves the right to require the MGT to replace the assigned agent with another agent of the same company if, in the opinion of the City staff, the agent is not rendering or is incapable of rendering the quality of service and cooperation required. 6. Notices: Any notice required to be given under this Agreement to either party to the other shall be sufficient if addressed and mailed, certified mail, postage paid, delivery, fax or e-mail (receipt confirmed), or overnight courier. 7. Jurisdiction: Legal jurisdiction to resolve any disputes shall be Arkansas with Arkansas law applying to the case. 8. Venue: Venue for all legal disputes shall be Washington County, Arkansas. RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Contract: City of Fayetteville and MGT of America Consulting, LLC Page 2 of 9 — Last Revised: 12.20.22 9. Freedom of Information Act: City of Fayetteville contracts and documents prepared while performing city contractual work are subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. If a Freedom of Information Act request is presented to the City of Fayetteville, MGT will do everything possible to provide the documents in a prompt and timely manner as prescribed in the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (A.C.A. 25-19-101 et. Seq.). Only legally authorized photo coping costs pursuant to the FOIA may be assessed for this compliance. 10. Changes in Scope or Price: Changes, modifications, or amendments in scope, price or fees to this contract shall not be allowed without a prior formal contract amendment approved by the Mayor and the City Council in advance of the change in scope, cost or fees. 11. Omissions: If MGT fails to include or omits an item from the Contract Documents, which was fully anticipated to be included in the Project, thereby necessitating the need for a Change Order, MGT will not receive a fee for work associated with the Change Order. 12. Insurance: MGT shall furnish a certificate of insurance addressed to the City of Fayetteville, showing coverages for the following insurance which shall be maintained throughout the term of this agreement. Any work sublet to major subconsultants MGT shall require the subconsultant to provide the insurance identified. In case any employee engaged in work on the project under this contract is not protected under Worker's Compensation Insurance, MGT shall provide and shall cause each Subcontractor to provide adequate insurance for the protection of such of his employees as are not otherwise protected. a. MGT shall provide to the City certificates as evidence of the specified insurance presented in Appendix D within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this agreement and upon each renewal coverage. b. Subconsultants shall maintain reasonable insurance including but not limited to worker's compensation, auto as applicable, general liability, errors and omissions, etc. 13. Professional Responsibility: MGT will exercise reasonable skill, care, and diligence in the performance of services and will carry out its responsibilities in accordance with customarily accepted professional practices. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE will promptly report to MGT any defects or suspected defects in services of which CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE becomes aware, so MGT can take measures to minimize the consequences of such a defect. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE retains all remedies to recover for its damages caused by any negligence of MGT. a. MGT will perform its duties, responsibilities and obligations with the care, skill, prudence and diligence that a prudent cost allocation & users fee study consultant acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims under the circumstances prevailing. b. Conflict of Interest: MGT's engagement under this Agreement will not prevent it from taking similar engagements with other clients. MGT will, nevertheless, exercise care and diligence to prevent any actions or conditions which could result in a conflict of interest. c. Subcontractors: MGT may cause another person or entity, as a subcontractor of MGT, to provide some of the services required to be performed by MGT hereunder; provided that MGT shall remain responsible for all acts and omissions of any such subcontractors, each of which shall be bound by MGT's obligations under this Agreement. MGT shall seek prior written approval from the City for any subcontractors providing substantive consulting, processional or managerial services. Prior written approval shall not be required for clerical, office, secretarial, IT back-up, administrative or similar support services. RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Contract: City of Fayetteville and MGT of America Consulting, LLC Page 3 of 9 — Last Revised: 12.20.22 14. Responsibility of the City of Fayetteville a. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE shall, within a reasonable time, so as not to delay the services of MGT: i. Provide full information as to the requirements for the Project. ii. Assist MGT by placing at MGT's disposal all available information pertinent to the assignment including previous reports and any other data relative thereto. iii. Assist MGT in obtaining access to property reasonably necessary for MGT to perform its services under this Agreement. iv. Examine all studies, reports, sketches, cost opinions, proposals, and other documents presented by MGT and render in writing decisions pertaining thereto. v. Review all documents and provide written comments to MGT in a timely manner. vi. The City of Fayetteville's Chief Financial Officer or his/her designee is the project representative with respect to the services to be performed under this Agreement. The City CFO or designee shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment, elements and systems to be used in the Project, and other matters pertinent to the services covered by this Agreement. 15. Debarment Certification: MGT hereby provides debarment/suspension certification indicating compliance with the below Federal Executive Order. Federal Executive Order (E.O.) 12549 "Debarment and Suspension" requires that all contractors receiving individual awards, using federal funds, and all sub -recipients certify that the organization and its principals are not debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded by any Federal department or agency from doing business with the Federal Government. MGT hereby attests its principal is not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency. 16. Termination: a. This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part in writing by either party in the event of substantial failure by the other party to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement through no fault of the terminating party, provided that no termination may be effected unless the other party is given: i. Not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate, ii. An opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination. b. This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part in writing by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE for its convenience, provided that MGT is given: i. Not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate, ii. An opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination. c. If termination for default is affected by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, an equitable adjustment in the price provided for in this Agreement shall be made, but RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Contract: City of Fayetteville and MGT of America Consulting, LLC Page 4 of 9 — Last Revised: 12.20.22 i. No amount shall be allowed for anticipated profit on unperformed services or other work, ii. Any payment due to MGT at the time of termination may be adjusted to cover any additional costs to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE because of MGT's default. d. If termination for default is affected by MGT, or if termination for convenience is affected by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, the equitable adjustment shall include a reasonable profit for services or other work performed. The equitable adjustment for any termination shall provide for payment to MGT for services rendered and expenses incurred prior to the termination, in addition to termination settlement costs reasonably incurred by MGT relating to commitments which had become firm prior to the termination. e. Upon receipt of a termination action, MGT shall: i. Promptly discontinue all affected work (unless the notice directs otherwise), ii. Deliver or otherwise make available to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE all data, drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries and such other information and materials as may have been accumulated by MGT in performing this Agreement, whether completed or in process. f. Upon termination under sections above CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may take over the work and may award another party an agreement to complete the work under this Agreement. g. If, after termination for failure of MGT to fulfill contractual obligations, it is determined that MGT had not failed to fulfill contractual obligations, the termination shall be deemed to have been for the convenience of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. In such event, adjustments of the agreement price shall be made as provided in this agreement. 17. Delays a. In the event the services of MGT are suspended or delayed by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE or by other events beyond MGT's reasonable control, MGT shall be entitled to additional compensation and time for reasonable documented costs actually incurred by MGT in temporarily closing down or delaying the Project. b. In the event the services are suspended or delayed by MGT, City shall be entitled to compensation for its reasonable costs incurred in temporarily closing down or delaying the project. The City does not agree to waive its right to claim (in addition to direct damages) special, indirect, or consequential damages, whether such liability arises in breach of contract or warranty, tort (including negligence), strict or statutory liability, or any other cause of action. 18. Rights and Benefits a. MGT's services shall be performed solely for the benefit of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and not for the benefit of any other persons or entities. 19. Dispute Resolution a. Scope of Paragraph: The procedures of this Paragraph shall apply to any and all disputes between CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and MGT which arise from, or in any way are related to, this Agreement, including, but not limited to the interpretation of this Agreement, the enforcement of its terms, any acts, errors, or omissions of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE or MGT in the performance of this Agreement, and disputes concerning payment. RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Contract: City of Fayetteville and MGT of America Consulting, LLC Page 5 of 9 — Last Revised: 12.20.22 b. Exhaustion of Remedies Required: No action may be filed unless the parties first negotiate. If timely Notice is given as described in this agreement, but an action is initiated prior to exhaustion of these procedures, such action shall be stayed, upon application by either party to a court of proper jurisdiction, until the procedures in this agreement have been complied with. c. Notice of Dispute i. For disputes arising prior to the making of final payment promptly after the occurrence of any incident, action, or failure to act upon which a claim is based, the party seeking relief shall serve the other party with a written Notice. ii. For disputes arising within one year after the making of final payment, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE shall give MGT written Notice at the address listed in this agreement within thirty (30) calendar days after occurrence of any incident, accident, or first observance of defect or damage. In both instances, the Notice shall specify the nature and amount of relief sought, the reason relief should be granted, and the appropriate portions of this Agreement that authorize the relief requested. iii. Negotiation: Within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the Notice, the Project Managers for CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and MGT shall confer in an effort to resolve the dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved at that level, then, upon written request of either side, the matter shall be referred to the President of MGT and the Mayor of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE or his designee. These officers shall meet at the Project Site or such other location as is agreed upon within 30 calendar days of the written request to resolve the dispute. 20. Sufficient Funds: The CITY represents it has sufficient funds or the means of obtaining funds to remit payment to MGT for services rendered by MGT. 21. Publications: a. Recognizing the importance of professional development on the part of MGT's employees and the importance of MGT's public relations MGT may prepare publications, such as technical papers, articles for periodicals, promotional materials, and press releases, in electronic or other format, pertaining to MGT's services for the Project. Such publications will be provided to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE in draft form for CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE's advance review. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE shall review such drafts promptly and provide CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE's comments to MGT, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may require deletion of proprietary data or confidential information from such publications, but otherwise CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE will not unreasonably withhold approval. Approved materials may be used in a variety of situations and do not require additional review or approval for each use. The cost of MGT's activities pertaining to any such publication shall be for MGT's account. 22. Indemnification: a. MGT shall indemnify, hold harmless and, not excluding the City's right to participate, defend the City and any of its officers, or employees from and against all liabilities, claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses, including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of or resulting in any way from the performance of professional services for the City in MGT's capacity as a consultant, and caused by any willful or negligent error, omission, or act MGT or any person employed by it or anyone for whose acts MGT is legally liable. RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Contract: City of Fayetteville and MGT of America Consulting, LLC Page 6 of 9 — Last Revised: 12.20.22 23. Additional Responsibilities of MGT: a. Review, approval, or acceptance of design drawings, specifications, reports and other services furnished hereunder by CITY shall not in any way relieve MGT of responsibility for the technical adequacy of the work. Review, approval or acceptance of, or payment for any of the services by CITY shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement. b. MGT shall be and shall remain liable, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE caused by MGT's negligent performance, except beyond the MGT normal standard of care, of any of the services furnished under this Agreement, and except for errors, omissions or other deficiencies to the extent attributable to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE or CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE-furnished data. c. MGT's obligations under this clause are in addition to MGT's other express or implied assurances under this Agreement or State law and in no way diminish any other rights that CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may have against MGT for faulty materials, equipment, or work. 24. Audit and Access to Records: a. MGT shall maintain books, records, documents and other evidence directly pertinent to performance on work under this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied in effect on the date of execution of this Agreement. b. MGT shall also maintain the financial information and data used by MGT in the preparation of support of the cost submission required for any negotiated agreement or change order and send to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE a copy of the cost summary submitted. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, or any of their authorized representatives shall have access to all such books, records, documents and other evidence for the purpose of inspection, audit and copying during normal business hours. MGT will provide proper facilities for such access and inspection. c. Records shall be maintained and made available during performance on assisted work under this Agreement and until three years from the date of final payment for the project. In addition, those records which relate to any controversy arising out of such performance, or to costs or items to which an audit exception has been taken, shall be maintained and made available until three years after the date of resolution of such appeal, litigation, claim or exception. d. This right of access clause (with respect to financial records) applies to: i. Negotiated prime agreements: ii. Negotiated change orders or agreement amendments affecting the price of any formally advertised, competitively awarded, fixed price agreement: iii. Agreements or purchase orders under any agreement other than a formally advertised, competitively awarded, fixed price agreement. However, this right of access does not apply to a prime agreement, lower tier sub agreement or purchase order awarded after effective price competition, except: 1. With respect to record pertaining directly to sub agreement performance, excluding any financial records of MGT; 2. If there is any indication that fraud, gross abuse or corrupt practices may be involved; RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Contract: City of Fayetteville and MGT of America Consulting, LLC Page 7 of 9 — Last Revised: 12.20.22 3. If the sub agreement is terminated for default or for convenience. 25. Gratuities: a. If CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE finds after a notice and hearing that MGT or any of MGT's agents or representatives, offered or gave gratuities (in the form of entertainment, gifts or otherwise) to any official, employee or agent of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, or related third party contractor associated with this project, in an attempt to secure an agreement or favorable treatment in awarding, amending or making any determinations related to the performance of this Agreement, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may, by written notice to MGT terminate this Agreement. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may also pursue other rights and remedies that the law or this Agreement provides. However, the existence of the facts on which CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE bases such finding shall be in issue and may be reviewed in proceedings under the Remedies clause of this Agreement. b. The CITY may pursue the same remedies against MGT as it could pursue in the event of a breach of the Agreement by MGT. As a penalty, in addition to any other damages to which it may be entitled by law, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE may pursue exemplary damages in an amount, as determined by CITY, which shall be not less than three nor more than ten times the costs MGT incurs in providing any such gratuities to any such officer or employee. 26. Clarification and Understanding of all parties: a. MGT shall not assign its duties under the terms of this agreement without prior written consent of the City. Subconsultants identified in MGT's response shall be permitted as being referenced herein. 27. Equal Employment Opportunity: The parties hereby incorporate by reference the Equal Employment Opportunity Clause required under 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.4, 41 C.F.R. § 60-300.5(a), and 41 C.F.R. § 60- 741.5(a), if applicable. a. MGT shall abide by the requirements of 41 CFR §§ 60-1.4(a), 60- 300.5(a) and 60-741.5(a). These regulations prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals based on their status as protected veterans or individuals with disabilities and prohibit discrimination against all individuals based on their race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. Moreover, these regulations require that covered prime contractors and subcontractors take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, protected veteran status or disability. b. MGT and subconsultants certify that they do not maintain segregated facilities or permit their employees to perform services at locations where segregated facilities are maintained, as required by 41 CFR 60-1.8. 28. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated §22-9-203 The City of Fayetteville encourages all qualified small, minority and women business enterprises to bid on and receive contracts for goods, services, and construction. Also, City of Fayetteville encourages all general contractors to subcontract portions of their contract to qualified small, minority and women business enterprises. RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Contract: City of Fayetteville and MGT of America Consulting, LLC Page 8 of 9 — Last Revised: 12.20.22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS by and through its Mayor, and MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING, LLC, by its authorized officer have made and executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. Date Signed: L L I- L n RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Contract: City of Fayetteville and MGT of America Consulting, LLC Page 9 of 9 — Last Revised: 12.20.22 MGT OF AMERICA CONSUILTING, LLC PATRICK J. DYER, V E PRESIDENT 111111111 r `��t/ T Y p�'�s'�'�■r TTEVP1j d • r :i:e' Date Signed January 24, 2023 CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RFP 22-06, COST ALLOCATION & USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX A Scope of Work & Fees 1. INTRODUCTION: The City of Fayetteville engages MGT as the professional consultant to provide consulting services to first conduct a costs allocation plan among City funds and second, a user fee study for services provided to external customers for building, planning and development services including allocated costscost allocation & user fee study consulting services described within this Appendix. 2. SCOPE OF WORK: a. PHASE 1: COSTALLOCATION PLAN: The purpose of this phase is to ensure that the City of Fayetteville City has a basis of calculating comprehensive overhead rates and by departments identified in the scope. Furthermore, best practices, make it necessary for the City to maintain a well -documented cost allocation plan that will help to appropriately allocate general or specific internal costs incorporated in the City's budget. Phase I shall include reviewing the City's current cost allocation plan for appropriateness and shall include MGT recommendations to improve or update the cost allocation methodology, bases, and procedures. The plan shall be compliant with OMB Circular A-87 and any other OMB circulars which may be applicable. Phase I tasks shall include, but are not limited to, the following: i. MGT shall work with selected City staff to refine the project scope, purpose, uses and goals of the City's current cost allocation plan to ensure the plan is both accurate and appropriate to meet the City's needs. ii. Collaborate with key staff as needed to develop and document an understanding of the City's practices and operations, including services being provided to/for enterprise funds and governmental funds. iii. Advise on potential costs not currently subject to allocation that may be eligible for allocation. iv. Develop a fair and equitable allocation method for costs for current services performed. MGT shall include a detailed explanation of the methodology and data sources for each schedule. v. MGT shall work with designated City staff to design templates to more accurately capture data inputs and provide understanding of allocation process. MGT shall prepare documentation of the data collection processes and assumptions, and an assessment of the data strengths and weaknesses, so the resulting plan can be updated by the City on an annual basis. vi. MGT shall Report on other matters which may get discovered during the evaluation that, according to experience and industry best practices, should be considered or evaluated by the City in these studies. vii. Present the plan to the City's management group and make necessary adjustments as requested. i. Provide the City with an electronic copy of the final comprehensive review, including related schedules and cost documentation in a format that can be edited and updated by City staff to accommodate changes in the organization or changes in cost. i. Prepare a final report and provide five bound copies, and a single Microsoft Excel and PDF file of the Full Cost Recovery Plan that can be made available to City staff. Models, tables and graphs should be provided in Microsoft Excel. Any Cost Allocation Model revisions developed shall also be made available to the City in Microsoft Excel and PDF formats, providing the ability to add, delete and/or update information as needed. City of Fayetteville, AR and MGT of America Consulting, LLC APPENDIX A — SCOPE OF WORK AND FEES Page 1 of 3 — Last Revised 10.19.2022 Provide a computer -based model in Microsoft Excel for adjusting these fees and charges for the City's current and future needs and provide the City with an electronic copy of the final comprehensive study, including related schedules and cost documentation in a format that can be edited and updated by City staff to accommodate changes in the organization or changes in costs. PHASE2: USER FEE STUDY. The second purpose of this project is to also ensure the City of Fayetteville utilizes a fee structure which takes into consideration the full cost of providing various development related services within City operations and to establish and assess appropriate fees and rates allowing the City to take allocated costs into consideration to recover fees for related services. MGT shall commit contractually to provide the specified services in accordance with the City's requirements. Phase II shall involve a study of current services and their assoc costs for, selected City departments. These departments and associated services (revenue sources) are detailed in the City's e detailed work program shall include, and is not limited to, the following: i. Schedule of planning and building fees and charges, as identified in the City's'RFP. Current fees and charges shall be identified and documented. A survey of the Development Services, Planning, and Engineering departments shall be conducted to deters*what services are revenue producers, what fees are charged and the current cost of provicIi g those services, specifically related to fees and charges. ii. MGT shall compare total service costs with isting fee structure. This shall include any service areas where they City is currently charging for services. iii. Recommend appropriate fees and charges based on the analysis together with the appropriate subsidy percentage for those fees where full cost recovery may be unrealistic. iv. Prepare a report that identifies each service, ON -full cos*ommended and current costs fee levels. The reportshall also identify the direct cost, the indirect cost, and the overhead cost for each service; and provide a model for adjusting these fees and rates for the City's current and future needs. v. Identify new fees for possible implementation. Determine services which could produce revenue, and cost each at a level which is measurable in specific units of service. vi. Provide training for City ssaff in the use of the cost recovery system and provide program technical support for one year following acceptance of the final product. vii. Identify a mechanism or draft a model ordinance for staff to pursue regular systemwide or targeted fee schedule adj tments based on regional standards, such as CPI. viii. Prepare final re the City, relative to the full scope of work identified. The results of the study shall be documen a written report to the city. The report shall project current revenues compared to increas enue as determined by the study. ix. Presentation of data. MGT shall be available to present findings to the City Council and the public Sthat a regularly scheduled Council meeting. This item shall have a separate cost clearly identified in e proposal response. City reserves the right to increase or decrease the contract amount due to e number of public presentations required. 1. Presentation cost shall be provided with both virtual (Zoom) and in -person attendance options. x. MG s report and presentation to City Council shall include a provision for three sample adoption options for consideration, an adoption schedule and plan, and specific implementation assistance to City staff. xi. The calculation of user fees is a prerequisite to adoption; but, does not guarantee adoption. MGT shall identify a process that increases the ability and feasibility for the City Council to comprehend, support, and adopt the resultant user fees. City of Fayetteville, AR and MGT of America Consulting, LLC APPENDIXA — SCOPE OF WORK AND FEES Page 2 of 3 — Last Revised 10.19.2022 xii. MGT shall detail the cost of the study and expected payment schedule. Progress payments shall match project outputs during the engagement. PRICING: a. MGT shall perform the services included in this proposal for a fixed fee of $48,312.50. This budget will provide the City with 210.5 consulting hours, which will provide the City with ample time and resources to produce a cost allocation plan as described in the scope of services. i. Estimated expenses are shown for anticipated travel, copying, and other costs related to the scope of work in the amount of $3,270. Only actual expenses will be charged. ii. Additional services requested that fall outside the scope of this project shall be provided based on a mutually agreed schedule and price. AOL b. MGT shall strive to make decisions based on what is best for the City. As sych, the MGT compensation is structured as a consulting fee. In addition, the City of Fayetteville Arkansas will be provided with many value- added services as part of MGT's service package. 4. PROJECT STRUCTURE: 44 a. The City will designate a City Project Officer for�his project. City Project Officer shall function as the primary point of contact for the project, and coordinate and facilitate the flow of information and communication between the county departments and MGT. b. The City Project Officer will ensure that comments on d and any conflicting comments are reconciled before delive c. MGT shall provide two draft reports as part of the not to exce 5. agreed upon by both parties via formal executed chan MGT shall have access to and cooperation and partici� reasonable, timely access to City personnWd data. Onsite meeting faciliti@0 shall be arranged for and u All costs and other data provided by for the audit and/or verification of a are consolidated into a single document comments to MGT. Additional reports shall be negotiated and nagement. The City shall grant MGT of the City. The City will provide all nsidered accurate and valid. MGT will not be responsible ata provided by the City. n ten (10) business days of contract award by the City A draft cop-Mthe User Fee Study shall be completed within ninety (90) calendar days from the start date. The final study shall be completed wit n one hundred twenty (120) calendar days from the start date. MGT and the City hereby agree to the following*ticipated project timeline: i. Coordinate with MGT for timeline and confirm draft/final days are in accordaince with 90/120 City of Fayetteville, AR and MGT of America Consulting, LLC APPENDIXA — SCOPE OF WORK AND FEES Page 3 of 3 — Last Revised 10.19.2022 CITY OF City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Purchasing Division — Room 306 IVFAYETTEVILLE 113 W. Mountain A R K A N S A S Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone: 479.575.8256 TDD (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf): 479.521.1316 Request for Proposal: RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee St DEADLINE: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 before 2:00 PM, local tiro Pre -Proposal Conference: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:00 P Wime, via Zoom PURCHASING MANAGER: Andrea Foren, aforen@fa etteville- v DATE OF ISSUE AND ADVERTISEMENT: Sunday, July 31iZ2 REQUEST FOR QUALkf INTIONS RFP 22-06 Cost AllocaCicVg User Fee Stu '� No late submittals will be accepted. Proposals shal,s3bmitt d i ne owing methods: 1 through p p + g �) g the City's third -party electronic bidding platforWav 'deliver* erson via sealed envelope to the City of Fayetteville Purchasing Division. Su ittMg throe Ci �' tronic bidding platform is strongly encouraged. All proposals shall be submi i accord with t �ched City of Fayetteville specifications and solicitation documents attached . Each �r i r d to fill in every blank and shall supply all information requested, failure to ay be e as b s o jection. Any bid, proposal, or statements of qualification will be rejected tha�ei_ es o�c fl t wi4 te, local, or federal laws, ordinances, or policies. The undersigned hereby off N1Cirnish & deliver their; or services as specified, at the prices & terms stated herein, and in strict accordance n, I ce specifications and eonditions of submitting, all of which are made a part of this offer. This offer is su ject to withdrawal ul%l pon mutual written agreement by the Proposer/Bidder and City Purchasing Official.G—` Contact Person: Title: E-Mail: Phone: Business Address: City Signature: City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 1 of 20 State: Date: Zip: City of Fayetteville RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Advertisement City of Fayetteville, AR Request for Proposal RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study The City of Fayetteville is seeking requests for proposal for a cost allocation & user fee study. Any questions concerning this solicitation process should be directed to Andrea Foren, City of Fayetteville Purchasing Manger, at aforen@favetteville-ar.Rov or by calling (479) 575-8256. Solicitation documents and addenda shall be obtained at the City of Fayetteville P Division's electronic bidding platform at www.favetteville-ar.gov/bids. All proposals shall be received byTuesda t 23 2022 before 2:00 PM Local Time utilizing the City's electronic bidding software. All proposals are due before th e stated. Submitting electronically is required No late proposals shall be accepted. The City of Fayetteville shal0 be responsible for lost or misdirected proposals, or for failure of proposer's technical equipment. A non -mandatory pre -proposal conference will be held Tuesday, Au st 2, 2022 at 2:00 PM virt lly via Zoom. Information regarding the pre -proposal conference is available on the pro Sage on the City's el bidding platform. All interested parties are encouraged to attend. v All interested parties shall be qualified to do business ancl�' nsed i acc dan a licable laws of the state and p q ��1 p p local governments where the project is located. *`� . ` �' _ C\ ..G Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated §22-9- business enterprises encourages all general contractors to su enterprises. The City of Fayetteville res agree that such rejection,Z any interested party becl City of Fayetteville bNule e agreement of the it O City Y of Fa ett�Rfe "tT such rejections, ,f such rejections. T party to these • c� r �s all qualified small, minority and women construction. Also, City of Fayetteville rheir cc`71 to qualified small, minority and women business 1q roposals and to waive irregularities therein, and all parties f the City of Fayetteville for any damage or claim brought by any interested party seek any recourse of any kind against the of any Statement in response to this invitation shall constitute an By: Andrea Foren, City Purchasing Manager P: 479.575.8256 Email: aforen@fayettevilleaforen@favetteville-argov TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (479) 521-1316 Date of advertisement: 07.31.22 This publication was paid for by the Purchasing Division of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Amount paid: $XXX.XX. City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 2 of 20 City of Fayetteville RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study SECTION A: General Terms & Conditions 1. SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSAL SHALL INCLUDE: Each proposal shall contain the following at a minimum. Proposer must also address detailed requirements as specified in the Scope of Work. a. A written narrative describing the method or manner in which the Prop ser proposes to satisfy requirements of this RFP in the most cost-effective manner. b. A description of the Proposer's experience in providing the sam s ilar services as outlined in the RFP. This description should include the names of the p who will provide the services, their qualifications, and the years of experience in performing s type of work. Also, include the reference information requested in this RFP. z z c. The complete fee and cost to the City for all servi outlined in this RFP. d. Statement should be no more than twent - 5) pages; single si tandard, readable, and print on standard 8.5x11 papers. P rs sh so sub ee (3) page (maximum) executive summary. The following i m will nott tow page limitations: appendix, cover sheet, 3-page executive FCyEary, resu (resu 11 1 be no more than 1 page per person), and forms provided by t ity for Retior4 rr G a. Submitting a e �ndin _his `osals shall be prepared simply and .O economically,, ing a Itforw ncise description of its ability to meet the requiremer rthe p an dings, colored displays, and promotional material are no fired. is oNbe on completeness and clarity of content. All d e s physicalI sub hould be typewritten on standard 8 %" x 11" white and bound in one . Exceptions would be schematics, exhibits, one -page sumes, and City re` orms. Limit proposal to twenty- five (25) pages or less, ,excluding one -page arr�resumes, references, and forms required by the City for completion. Allp is shall be sealed upon delivery to the City of Fayetteville. OG �N i. Electronic�rlJmittal (required): Proposers can go to www.fayetteville-ar.gov/bids and follow the prompts to submit a proposal within the electronic bidding platform. Physical submissions are not allowed for this solicitation. All Proposers must register in order to be able to submit. There is no fee for registration. (1) The use of Adobe PDF documents is strongly recommended. Files contained on a USB or electronic media shall not be restricted against saving or printing. Electronic copies shall not be submitted via e-mail to City employees and should only be uploaded by submission in the Citys electronic bidding portal. City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 3 of 20 e. Proposals will be reviewed following the stated deadline, as shown on the cover sheet of this document. Only the names of Proposers will be available after the deadline until a contract has been awarded by the Fayetteville City Council. All interested parties understand proposal documents will not be available until after a valid contract has been executed. f. Proposers shall submit a proposal based on documentation published by the Fayetteville Purchasing Division. g. Proposals submitted within the City of Fayetteville online bidding platfor in the corresponding solicitation associated with submittal. h. Proposals must follow the format of the RFP. Proposers should e their responses to follow the sequence of the RFP. i. Proposers shall have experience in work of the same or nature and must provide references that will satisfy the City of Fayetteville. Proposer alish a reference list of clients for whom they have performed similar services and must pro e information as re��iis uested in this document. j. Proposer is advised that exceptions to a fie terms containe RFP or the attached service agreement must be identified i �pon he RFP. to do so may lead the City 11 to declare any such term non-negotia e. roposer he o Viception to a non-negotiable term will not disqualify it from c s ratio I rd. ' � G k. Local time shall be defined time i tevill �nsas on the due date of the deadline. Documents shall be rece e�efore adli t�as shown in the City's electronic bidding platform. �� 2. WRITTEN REQUESTS FOR I RETA C TION: No oral interpretatio e made to ny fir a o the meaning of specifications or any other contract documents. All qu ertaining to the ter and conditions or scope of work of this proposal must be sent in writing via nail to the Purcha� epartment. Responses to questions may be handled as an addendum if t ponse would provide IaMrication to the requirements of the proposal. All such addenda shall beco of the contract dtaeor ts. The City will not be responsible for any other explanation or interpr at of the proposed R given prior to the award of the contract. V 3. DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES: Any manufacturer's names, trade name, brand name, catalog number, etc. used in specifications are for the purpose of describing and establishing general quality levels. Such references are NOT intended to be restrictive. Proposals shall be considered for all brands that meet the quality of the specifications listed for any items. 4. RIGHTS OF CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE IN REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS PROCESS: In addition to all other rights of the City of Fayetteville, under state law, the City specifically reserves the following: City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 4 of 20 a. The City of Fayetteville reserves the right to rank firms and negotiate with the highest-ranking firm. Negotiation with an individual Proposer does not require negotiation with others. b. The City reserves the right to select the proposal it believes will serve the best interest of the City. c. The City of Fayetteville reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals. d. The City of Fayetteville reserves the right to cancel the entire request for roposal. e. The City of Fayetteville reserves the right to remedy or waive techni i material errors in the request for proposal or in proposals submitted. �' f. The Cityof Fayetteville reserves the right to request R�cessar clarifications additional Y g q Y information or proposal data without changing the term he proposal. g. The City of Fayetteville reserves the right to make <Xlction of the Proposer to perform the services required on the basis of the original proposals �4il,`hout negotiation. _^ h. The City reserves the right to ask for a sd fi er from ore Proposers. The best and final offer process is not guaran therefor , opo er submit and respond to this RFP on the most favorable term lable. • ' S. EVALUATION CRITERIA: v The evaluation criterion defines the f responsive, responsible and qual selection committee to thoro and ranked by a selection itte evaluation criteria liste&i s RFP. ct r`hatIN `7se t�election committee to evaluate and score ♦♦♦♦� pos soposer II include sufficient information to allow the �' a'�f valuat a corRile posals. Each proposal submitted shall be evaluated e. tra awarded to the most qualified Proposer, per the Pro ser�c guaranteed to be ranked. 6. COSTS INCURRED B ROPOSERS: All expenses i d with the preparatio a�submission of proposals to the City, or any work performed in connection with, shall be borle�by the Proposer(s). No payment will be made for any responses receiv , o any other effort Cju7*d of, or made by, the Proposer(s) prior to contract commencement. 7. ORAL PRESENTATION: An oral presentation and/or interview may be requested of any firm, at the selection committee's discretion. 8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The Proposer represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest, either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance or services required hereunder, as provided in City of Fayetteville Code Section 34.26 titled "Limited Authority of City Employee to Provide Services to the City". City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 5 of 20 b. The Proposer shall promptly notify Amanda Beilfuss, City Purchasing Agent, in writing, of all potential conflicts of interest for any prospective business association, interest, or other circumstance which may influence or appear to influence the Proposer's judgment or quality of services being provided. Such written notification shall identify the prospective business association, interest or circumstance, the nature of which the Proposer may undertake and request an opinion to the City as to whether the association, interest or circumstance would, in the opinion of the City, constitute a conflict of interest if entered into by the Proposer. The City agrees to communicate with the Proposer its opinion via e-mail or first-class mail within thirty days of receipt of notification. 9. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL: A proposal may be withdrawn prior to the time set for the proposal sub is on a written request from an authorized representative of the firm; however, a proposal sha withdrawn after the time set for the ro osal. p p A 10. LATE PROPOSAL OR MODIFICATIONS: �(� a. Proposal and modifications received after the ti set for the proposal submittal shall not be considered. Modifications in writing received(ior t the deadline will accepted. The City will not be responsible for misdirected respons roposers should c urchasing Division at (479) 575-8258 to ensure receipt oft i mit current, o opening time and date listed. �. r` b. The time set for the deadline shal ocal ti ayett i , AR on the date listed. All proposals shall be received by the P sing Div* i FOR eadline stated. The official clock to determine local time s I e at o �c to e �i e Purchasing Division, Room 306 of City Hall, 113 W. Mountai tevill A w 11 a. The laws o ate of Arkksas a N any purchase made under this request for proposal. Propose , NIT#comply with all loca XITM, and federal directives, orders and laws as applicable to this pro sa and subsequent nt act(s) including but not limited to Equal Employment Op nity (EEO), Disadvan ged' Business Enterprises (DBE), & OSHA as applicable to this ursuant to Arkansas Annotated §22-9-203 The City of Fayetteville encourages all qualified small, minority and women business enterprises to bid on and receive contracts for goods, services, and construction. Also, City of Fayetteville encourages all general contractors to subcontract portions of their contract to qualified small, minority and women business enterprises 12. PROVISION FOR OTHER AGENCIES: Unless otherwise stipulated by the Proposer, the Proposer agrees to make available to all Government agencies, departments, municipalities, and counties, the proposal prices submitted in accordance with said proposal terms and conditions therein, should any said governmental entity desire to buy under this proposal. Eligible users shall mean all state of Arkansas agencies, the legislative and judicial branches, political City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 6 of 20 subdivisions (counties, local district school boards, community colleges, municipalities, counties, or other public agencies or authorities), which may desire to purchase under the terms and conditions of the contract. 13. COLLUSION: The Proposer, by affixing his or her signature to this proposal, agrees to the following: "Proposer certifies that his proposal is made without previous understanding, agreement, or connection with any person, firm or corporation making a proposal for the same item(s) and/or services and is in all respects fair, without outside control, collusion, fraud, or otherwise illegal action." 14. RIGHT TO AUDIT, FOIA, AND JURISDICITON: a. The City of Fayetteville reserves the privilege of auditing a Contra6Aords as such records 15 16 17. relate to purchases between the City and said Contractor. N' Freedom of Information Act: City contracts and docu en repared while performing City contractual work are subject to the Arkansas Freed o Information Act. If a Freedom of Information Act request is presented to the City o a ville, the (contractor) will do everything possible to provide the documents in a prompt an timely manner as prescribed in the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (A.C.A. §25-19-1&et. seq.). Only legallKthorized photocopying costs pursuant to the FOIA may be assesse I&his compliance. �� Legal jurisdiction to resolve any clispLx3all be Ar�as wit sas law applying to the case. 1NIFICATION: •�� sful Proposer(s) agrees to i nify th nd holiarmless from and against all claims, liability, loss, damage or expense,4n^jWg eand.Alho ited u ` I fees, arising from or by reason of any actual or claimed trademark, pat opyrngem litigation based thereon, with respect to the services or any part thereof covey thisb igation shall survive acceptance of the services and payment thereof by Ln t'he subsequent se posers prior to sLkA 'this request for proposal apply to this contract except as n� f this document, which take precedence, and should be fully a proposal on this requirement. Persons with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in this proceeding/event, should call 479.521.1316 (telecommunications device for the deaf), not later than seven days prior to the deadline. Persons needing translation of this document shall contact the City of Fayetteville, Purchasing Division, immediately. 18. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE: The successful Proposer shall provide a Certificate of Insurance in accordance with specifications listed in this request for proposal, prior to commencement of any work. Such certificate shall list the City of Fayetteville as an additional insured. Insurance shall remain valid throughout project completion. City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 7 of 20 19. PAYMENTS AND INVOICING: The Proposer must specify in their proposal the exact company name and address which must be the same as invoices submitted for payment as a result of award of this RFP. Further, the successful Proposer is responsible for immediately notifying the Purchasing Division of any company name change, which would cause invoicing to change from the name used at the time of the original RFP. Payment will be made within thirty days of invoice received. The City of Fayetteville is very credit worthy and will not pay any interest or penalty for untimely payments. Payments can be processed through Proposer's acceptance of Visa at no additional costs to the City for expedited payment processing. The City will not agree to allow any increase in hourly rates by the contract without PRIOR Fayetteville City Council approval. 20. CANCELLATION: a' 21 The City reserves the right to cancel this contract without cau iving thirty (30) days prior notice to the Contractor in writing of the intention to ca �ith cause if at any time the Contractor fails to fulfill or abide b an of the terms or co dit s specified. Y Y � p Failure of the contractor to comply with any of th reijions of the contract shall be considered a material breach of contract and shall be cause f mmediate termination of the contract at the discretion of the City of Fayetteville. _^ V (`` In addition to all other legal remedies le t City of F ��dille, the City reserves the right to cancel and obtain from anot r urce, ams n rvices which have not been delivered within the period of i e fro �te of as determined by the City of Fayetteville. • G In the event sufficient kc A e d fund lnot a aor a new fiscal period, the City shall notify the Contractor of suc Frence ntract a erminate of the last day of the current fiscal period without pe I r exp�`he'� Proposer shall d o assignment of subcontracting shall be allowed Proposer intends to subcontract a portion of this %etch intent in the proposal submitted as a result of this RFP. itq cquisition and/or merger, the Contractor shall provide written notice of such action or upon the occurrence of said action, whichever occurs first. The right to terminate this contract, which shall not be unreasonably exercised by the City, shall include, but not be limited to, instances in which a corporate acquisition and/or merger represent a conflict of interest or are contrary to any local, state, or federal laws. Action by the City awarding a proposal to a firm that has disclosed its intent to assign or subcontract in its response to the RFP, without exception shall constitute approval for purpose of this agreement. 22. NON-EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT: Award of this RFP shall impose no obligation on the City to utilize the Contractor for all work of this type, which may develop during the contract period. This is not an exclusive contract. The City specifically reserves City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 8 of 20 the right to concurrently contract with other companies for similar work if it deems such an action to be in the City's best interest. In the case of multiple -phase contracts, this provision shall apply separately to each item. 23. LOBBYING: Lobbying of selection committee members, City of Fayetteville employees, or elected officials regarding request for proposals, request for qualifications, bids or contracts, during the pendency of bid protest, by the bidder/proposer/protestor or any member of the bidder's/proposer's/protestor's staff, and agent of the bidder/proposer/protestor, or any person employed by any legal entity affiliated ith or representing an organization that is responding to the request for proposal, request for qualificat , 'd or contract, or has a pending bid protest is strictly prohibited either upon advertisement or on a t lished by the City of Fayetteville and shall be prohibited until either an award is final or the Pr finally resolved by the City of Fayetteville; provided, however, nothing herein shall prohibit 'Sective/bidder/proposer from contactingthe Purchasing Division to address situations such as clarificaat�fi and/or questions related to the g / procurement process. For purposes of this provision lobbying a49ection shall include but not be limited to, influencing or attempting to influence action or non -actin with any request for proposal, request for qualification, bid or contract through direct or direct oral or written communication or an attempt to obtain goodwill of persons and/or entities specl'ed in this provision. Sictions may cause any request for proposal, request for qualification, bid or r ct to be rejected, O 4po �� 24. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: J The City reserves the right to request ad al servi� tang t FP from the Proposer. When approved by the City as an amendment to th ntract tho ie it riting prior to work, the Contractor shall provide such additional re uirem t s may nec p q Y �� 25. SERVICES AGREEMENT: '0 A written agreement, in subs i ly the r tac incorporating the RFP and the successful proposal will be prepared by the Ci i ed by ce Reposer and presented to the City of Fayetteville for approval and signatu`�� Mayor. 26. INTEGRITY OF R iT FOR PROPOSAL (RFg,QOCUMENTS: Proposers e the original RFP* provided by the Purchasing Division and enter information only in the c here a response i re sted. Proposers may use an attachment as an addendum to the RFP form(s fficient space is not a le on the original form for the Proposer to enter a complete response. Any modifications or alterations to the original RFP documents by the Proposer, whether intentional or otherwise, will constitute grounds for rejection of such RFP response. Any such modifications or alterations a Proposer wishes to propose shall be clearly stated in the Proposer's RFP response and presented in the form of an addendum to the original RFP documents. 27. CONTRACT FORMATION: If the negotiation produces mutual agreement, the draft contract shall be constructed and forwarded to the Fayetteville City Council for final approval. If negotiations with the highest-ranking Proposer fail, negotiations City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 9 of 20 shall be initiated with the next highest-ranking Proposer until an agreement is reached. The City reserves the right to reject all offers and end the process without executing a contract. 28. INSURANCE: Proposer shall provide and maintain insurance throughout the contract, which shall be inclusive of standard insurance within the respective industry. Listing of existing insurance coverages should be included with RFP response. 29. OTHER GENERAL CONDITIONS: a. Proposers must provide the City with their proposals signed by an em having legal authority to submit proposals on behalf of the Proposer. The entire cosh r paring and providing responses shall be borne by the Proposer. b. The Cityreserves the right to request an additional infor ati�i it deems necessary from an or g q Y j� Y Y all Proposers after the submission deadline. c. This solicitation is not to be construed as an offer, contract, or a commitment of any kind; nor does it commit the city to pay for any costs inc&Eed by Proposer in pre tion. It shall be clearly understood that any costs incurred by the ser in responding t request for proposal is at the Proposer's own risk and expens ost g busin s� e City of Fayetteville shall not be liable for reimbursement toPropo er any e t so incurred, regardless of whether or not the proposal is a ted. • d. If products, components, 0Vrvices han §A described in this bid document are proposed, the Proposer u `includ plet tive literature for each. All requests for additional informatio uu��be re i within e orking days following the request. e e. An uncertaint' I be to ntion to Andrea Foren immediate) via telephone Y 9 � Y p (479.575. e-mail (a ren ville-ar. ov). It is the intent and goal of the City of Fayette rchasing Division provide documents providing a clear and accurate and rsta ling of the scope of4ed to a completed and/or goods to be provided. We encourage all ' sted parties to ask stitfns to enable all Proposers to be on equal terms. (?inquiries or req sts�f��iRr explanation in regard to the City's requirements should be made romptly to Andreoren, City of Fayetteville, Purchasing Manager via e-mail (aforen@favetteviIle-ar.gov) or telephone (479.575.8256). No oral interpretation or clarifications will be given as to the meaning of any part of this request for qualifications. All questions, clarifications, and requests, together with answers, if any, will be provided to all firms via written addendum. Names of firms submitting any questions, clarifications, or requests will not be disclosed until after a contract is in place. g. At the discretion of the City, one or more firms may be asked for more detailed information before final ranking of the firms, which may also include oral interviews. City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 10 of 20 h. Any information provided herein is intended to assist the Proposer in the preparation of proposals necessary to properly respond to this RFP. The RFP is designed to provide qualified Proposers with sufficient basic information to submit proposals meeting minimum specifications and/or test requirements but is not intended to limit a RFP's content or to exclude any relevant or essential data. 3 Proposers irrevocably consent that any legal action or proceeding against it under, arising out of or in any manner relating to this Contract shall be controlled by Arkansas law. Proposer hereby expressly and irrevocably waives any claim or defense in any said action or roceeding based on any alleged lack of jurisdiction or improper venue or any similar basis. A The successful Proposer shall not assign the whole or any part of itract or any monies due or to become due hereunder without written consent of City eville. In case the successful Proposer assigns all or an art of an monies due or to be due under this Contract the p g any Y Instrument of assignment shall contain a clause substa ter, to the effect that is agreed that the right of the assignee in and to any monies due or t due to the successful Proposer shall be subject to prior liens of all persons, firms, and c orations for services rendered or materials supplied for the performance of the services caalli.�d for in this contract. _^ The successful Proposer's attention is di toth4oithatallL4rble Federal and State laws, municipal ordinances, and the rules d gulati nsNOFall a t i having jurisdiction over the services shall apply to the cont t throug they i deemed to be included in the contract as though written out in f ierein.ucce u Pr > oser shall keep himself/herself fully informed of all laws, ordina egnd reg softral, State, and municipal governments or authorities in any man er Ncting en employed in providing these services or in any way affecting the uct of e ices a all orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdi �r aut r ver e. If any discrepancy or inconsistency should be discovered in t ntract ent r n e specifications herein referred to in relation to any Y such law, e, regulati , order tree, s/he shall herewith report the same in writing to the Cityteville. �"� 30. APPENDICES: a. Wdix A: Previous C endix B: Current ppendix C: Current Ci City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 11 of 20 V7Vsive User Fee Study by Department rganizational Chart City of Fayetteville RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study SECTION B: Scope of Services and General Information 1. PURPOSE & OVERVIEW: The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (hereinafter referred to as the "City') requests proposals for consulting services to first conduct a costs allocation plan among City funds and second, a user fee study for services provided to external customers for building, planning and development services including allocated costs. PHASE 1: COST ALLOCATION PLAN The purpose of this project is to ensure that the City of Fayettevil t has a basis of calculating comprehensive overhead rates and by departments identified in th s . Furthermore, best practices, make it necessary for the City to maintain a well -documented co (location plan that will help to appropriately allocate general or specific internal costs incorpor0 in the City's budget. PHASE 2: USER FEE STUDY z The second purpose of this project is to also ensur ity of Fayetteville 1�e a fee structure which takes into consideration the full cost of pr i Tiario developm ted services within City operations and to establish and assess appr riaes an a s allo City to take allocated costs into consideration to recover fees for r led s vices. Awarded firm shall commit contract ly to pro e spe rvices in accordance with the City's requirements. Both the proposals receive ` ons s RFIOVd e performance of the firm awarded a contract through this RFP shall b e ate on mance outcomes (results) as opposed to specified inputs or outputs n evaluati g a p er's proposed approach to achieving the required performance o c e City shall con si relative feasibility to the City of the proposed method of achieving the t, and the relative re of risk, if any, the proposed method poses to the City. 2. INTRODUE&NSAND BACKGRO Th t o Fayetteville (City) i�2 i hMayor-Council form of government. The City has approximately 75 e loyees who deliver uality municipal services to approximately 95,000 residents. The City speci ically and Northwest Arkansas in general has become one of the fastest growing regions in the country, due in large part to a growingjob base coupled with a beautiful natural environment and enviable quality of life. Housing development permits per 10,000 residents would place our region third in the nation for activity. The City's 2022 fiscal year appropriations for its General Fund is approximately $56,085,000 with a total operating budget of $190,846,000. The last comprehensive cost allocation plan and user fee study was performed in 2004. 3. SCOPE OF WORK: The City is seeking a highly qualified and experienced firm to assist in a two-phase comprehensive study, phase one consisting of a cost allocation plan followed by a second phase user fee City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 12 of 20 study. City Departments and fees included in this scope of work are identified in Appendix B — Current Services by Department. The City is seeking to engage the services of a qualified professional firm to prepare both phases and the full scope of work. The City reserves the right to negotiate with the successful proposer to add additional scope of work to expand the study and work performed under a contract resulting from this RFP. The City also reserves the right to negotiate with the awarded Proposer for a second cost allocation plan, user fee study, or re-evaluation of the resulting cost allocation plan and user fee tudy within a three (3) year period after the scope of work for this resulting contract is complete. PHASE I — COST ALLOCATION PLAN Phase I involves reviewing the City's current cost allocation la or appropriateness and making recommendations to improve or update the cost allocation odology, bases, and procedures. The plan should be compliant with OMB Circular A-87 d other OMB circulars which may be applicable. If the Proposer feels additional tasks are WKranted, they shall be clearly identified in the RFP response. Phase I tasks shall include, but are n limited to, the followin_g� i. Work with selected City staff t the ct scop se, uses and goals of the City's current cost allocation n ppendix' ensur he plan is both accurate and appropriate to meet the 's needs.. •`� ii. Collaborate with key stafoloneede vel(p n document an understanding of the City's practices and tions, i g ser eing provided to/for enterprise funds and governmenta tv iii. Advise on pot-Pcosts rrentl ject to allocation that may be eligible for allocation. iv. Develop a and e e al method for costs for current services performed. Inc etailed exp nati e methodology and data sources for each schedule. V.. th designated City st to design templates to more accurately capture data inputs a provide understak . o allocation process. Prepare documentation of the data �;ollection processes d assumptions, and an assessment of the data strengths and weaknesses, so th s 1 ting plan can be updated by the City on an annual basis. ci01i. Report on of r ers which may get discovered during the evaluation that, according to experience industry best practices, should be considered or evaluated by the City in these studies. vii. Present the plan to the City's management group and make necessary adjustments as requested. i. Provide the City with an electronic copy of the final comprehensive review, including related schedules and cost documentation in a format that can be edited and updated by City staff to accommodate changes in the organization or changes in cost. Prepare a final report and provide five bound copies, and a single Microsoft Excel and PDF file of the Full Cost Recovery Plan that can be made available to City staff. Models, tables and graphs should be provided in Microsoft Excel. Any Cost Allocation Model revisions City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 13 of 20 developed shall also be made available to the City in Microsoft Excel and PDF formats, providing the ability to add, delete and/or update information as needed. Provide a computer -based model in Microsoft Excel for adjusting these fees and charges for the City's current and future needs and provide the City with an electronic copy of the final comprehensive study, including related schedules and cost documentation in a format that can be edited and updated by City staff to accommodate changes in the organization or changes in costs. b. PHASE II — USER FEE STUDY Phase II will involve a study of current services and their associated costs s ed City departments. These departments and their associated services (revenue sources tailed in Appendix B. The detailed work program shall include, and is not limited to, the fol i . i. Schedule of planning and building fees and char 0as identified in Appendix B. Current fees and charges shall be identified an or ented. A survey of the Development Services, Planning, and Engineering depa ents shall be conducted to determine what services are revenue producers, what ees are charged ande current true cost of providing those services, specificall d to fees and char ii. Compare total service costs wN ting tructure. mould include any service areas where they City is curr ly hargin rvices. iii. Recommend appropriat f es and ii bases e analysis together with the appropriate subsidy perce ge for ees `vh�re 11 cost recovery may be unrealistic. iv. Prepare a report tha ntifies e4�4e�Fvice,�., cost, recommended and current costs fee levels. The. r9 should iderrjAWy h direct cost, the indirect cost, and the overhead costkN�d'ch ser ' fd pro model for adjusting these fees and rates for the City's cur and feed v. Identify n w ees fo le ill p> e entation. Determine services which could produce rev d cost ea at a hich is measurable in specific units of service. vi. v training for City sta e use of the cost recovery system and provide program t nical support for c�n aar ollowing acceptance of the final product. �,?S�Pentify a mechanism dr t a model ordinance for staff to pursue regular systemwide or targeted fee sch *ustments based on regional standards, such as CPI. GQii. Prepare final po o t e City, relative to the full scope of work identified. The results of the study sha documented in a written report to the city. The report shall project current revenues compared to increased revenue as determined by the study. ix. Presentation of data. The firm's representative shall be available to present findings to the City Council and the public at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. This item shall have a separate cost clearly identified in the proposal response. City reserves the right to increase or decrease the contract amount due to the number of public presentations required. 1. Presentation cost shall be provided with both virtual (Zoom) and in -person attendance options. x. The Consultant's report and presentation to City Council shall include a provision for three sample adoption options for consideration, an adoption schedule and plan, and specific implementation assistance to City staff. City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 14 of 20 xi. The calculation of user fees is a prerequisite to adoption; but, does not guarantee adoption. The consultant shall identify a process that increases the ability and feasibility for the City Council to comprehend, support, and adopt the resultant user fees. xii. Detail the cost of the study and expected payment schedule. Progress payments shall match project outputs during the engagement. 4. PROPOSAL CONTENTS: Proposals should be structured in the following manner: a 0 Proposals shall be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforw rd, concise description on the Proposer's ability to meet the requirements for the project. Fanc ings, colored displays, and promotional material are not required. Emphasis shall be on co t nn s nd clarity of content. All documents shall be typewritten on standard 8 %" x 11" white unbound in one volume. Exceptions would be schematics, exhibits, or other informatio sary to facilitate the City of Fayetteville's ability to accurately evaluate the proposal. Proposer all limit proposal to twenty-five (25) pages or less. i. One -page team resumes, references, for s (2 fired by the City for completion, and tab/divider sheets may be included in addIKn to the twenty-five (25) page limit. Proposals shall include all information requested�is RFP, which inclu 0Qb t is not limited to the following: 41 i. Provide a general descriptio of Coml;:; �yits hisfestudy, ganizational structure, and services provided by the opo firm. ii. Proposer shall provide a osed tology r� including a step-by-step work plan and the tirr�� propos Wompl the scope of work. iii. How long has the L�been Ines g related services? iv. List any experi lorkinther r entities. v vi Provide infoVl_n reg from the i Prot/� r all provide '111�eeds and desired d and involvement which shall be requested ion of a work product similar to that meeting the relation to the scope of work as outlined in this vii Proposer shall providinimum of six (6) client references, including name, title, organization, tel number, and email address for which you have performed similar ciOwork. Govern L�l rences are preferred. viii. Proposer shall r ide an example final report, similar in nature to the scope of work requested. ix. Fees 1. Submit a not -to -exceed fee for completion of the scope of work including all professional services and expenses incurred. Please list a not -to -exceed cost for each of the following areas listed. Firm shall not request additional fees from the City, regardless of its actual time and reimbursable expenses on the engagement. a. City -Wide Cost Allocation, b. Current Cost of Services Delivered, c. Analysis of Existing Revenue Sources, d. Identification of New Revenue Sources and the Charges for Each Source. City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 15 of 20 2. The cost of the study and expected payment schedule shall be listed in detail. Progress payments shall match project outputs during the length of contract. 3. Proposer shall provide an itemized list of any fee for additional services not outlined in this RFP but may be available to the City. 4. Details of and cost of any "extras" or "add-ons" not included in your basic price but recommended for the successful completion or supplementation to this scope of work. 5. TIMEFRAME Unless changed by the City, services under the anticipated contract shall co mence within ten (10) business days of contract award by the City Council. A draft copy of the User Fee Study is desired to be completed within n* 0) calendar days from the start date. The City desires the final study to be completed withi ndred twenty (120) calendar days from the start date. However, proposers shall provide an antici ed project timeline, inclusive of completion milestones -based availability and existing contract mmitments. 6. SELECTION CRITERIA: The following criteria shall be use y the City to evaluate and score responsive proposals. Proposers shall include sufficient informatioto al ow the Cityto th the hly evaluate and score each proposal. Each proposal submitted is not r4Z., red to be ranked selection committee; however, all proposals will be evaluated. The ct maywarded t'4�t�1� ost qualified firm, per the evaluation criteria listed below, based on th va ation of elect �d�nmittee. Following the evaluation of the proposa a Sel Ndp►Con- ni e �rnay request the top-ranking firms make an oral presentation or be in ^ wed. A entati rview will take place in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Meetingnotices an in o tion w sent t �hasin Division. g 1) 20% Qualificatio elati pe ' c Project to be Performed: Information reflecting qualificati n of the ndi ecialized experience and technical competence of th r©in conned on e type and complexity of the service required. �ractors, if used, sha e ted. 2) 25%Ex erience, Competee;•%nd Capacity for Performance: Information reflecting the names, titles, and * cations (including experience and technical competence) of the Omajor person a"gned to this specific project. G 3) 20% Proposed Method of Doing Work: A proposed work plan (description of how the project would be conducted as well as other facts concerning approach to scope) indicating methods and schedules for accomplishing scope of work. Include with this the amount of work presently underway. 4) 25% Past Performance: Previous evaluations shall be considered a significant factor. If previous evaluations with the City are not available, the Proposer's past performance records with the City and others will be used, including quality of work, timely performance, diligence, and any other pertinent information. Proposers shall provide a list of similar jobs performed and person whom the City can contact for information. City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 16 of 20 5) 10% Price: Proposers shall list all fees and expenses to be paid by the City and shall be structured based on the provided pricing summary to be completed by all Proposers. The City desires all mark ups and fees shall remain firm for the entire contract term. �t CON XT Go Ci�� City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 17 of 20 City of Fayetteville RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study SECTION C: Signature Submittal 1. DISCLOSURE INFORMATION Proposer shall disclose any possible conflict of interest with the City of Fayetteville, including, but not limited to, any relationship with any City of Fayetteville employee. Proposer response shall disclose if a known relationship exists between any principal or employee of your firm and any City of Fayetteville employee or elected City of Fayetteville official. If, to your knowledge, no relationship exists, this shall also be stated in your re Failure to disclose such a relationship may result in cancellation of a purchase and/or contract as a re our response. This form shall be completed and returned in order for your bid/proposal to be eligible for c ideration. PLEASE CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO OPTIONS, AS IT APIPP LY APPLIES TO YOUR FIRM: 1) NO KNOWN RELATIONSHIP EXISTS 2) RELATIONSHIP EXISTS (Please ex I certify that; as an officer of this organization, of r the a d let of thorization, am duly authorized to certify the information provided herein ar;It:m as urate a e; an organization shall comply with all State and Federal Equal Opportunity and Non iinati uir nd conditions of employment. N Pursuant Arkansas Code Annotat -1-503 op° e grees and certifies that they do not currently boycott Israel and will not bo rael du ti e A�hich the are entering into or while in contract Y Y Y g with any public entity as in §25-1-50 . If a e during contract the contractor decides to boycott Israel, the contractor tify the contracted pu 'c entity in writing. ♦CZO 2. PRIMARY CONT FORMATION At the dis retiQof the City, one o m `Proposer may be asked for more detailed information before final rankingofofirms, which may also clude oral interviews. NOTE: Each Proposer shall submit to the City a Y p Y primary contact name, e-mail address, and phone number (preferably a cell phone number) where the City's Selection Committee can call for clarification or interview via telephone. Corporate Name of Firm: Primary Contact: Title of Primary Contact: Phone#1 (cell preferred): Phone#2: E-Mail Address: City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 18 of 20 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDA Acknowledge receipt of addenda for this invitation to bid, request for proposal, or request for qualification by signing and dating below. All addendums are hereby made a part of the bid or RFP documents to the same extent as though it were originally included therein. Proposers/Bidders should indicate their receipt of same in the appropriate blank listed herein. Failure to do so may subject Contractor to disqualification. ADDENDUM NO. SIGNATURE AND PRINTED NAME DATE ACKNOWLEDGED low 4. PRICING: n. All fees or charges shall be provided within the RFP response, II 1'�emJized, and inclusive of any charges or fees the City could be charged, as identified in the scope of wo�'-►k D. 5. DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION: v�` • `O As an interested party on this project, you are r uire provicie de arrrl ension certification indicating utiv in compliance with the below Federal Execr. Ce 1 a ion �an e by completing and signing this form. �► ` warm Federal Executive Order (E.O.) 125 t'd Sus dTi" requires that all contractors receiving individual awards, usingfederal fu �d all ci ie cue that the organization and its principals are p Y g p p not debarred, suspended, prop r d t, d d ineligible, or voluntarily excluded by any Federal department or agency from i usiness t t e ral overnment. Signature certifies that r you nor your prin pa presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared by federal department ineligible, vo untarily excluded rNarticipation in this transaction any or agency. Questions QegaS?ng this form shoulc ee irected to the City of Fayetteville Purchasing Division. NAME OF COMPANY: PHYSICAL ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: PRINTED NAME: PHONE: FAX: City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 19 of 20 E-MAIL: SIGNATURE: TITLE: DATE: (�V V V . O ♦� , 9j- G . 4 'C♦ N O O O ,Q G 'Q Q 'S O Q' E Form P O Cj Ci City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 20 of 20 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a study, conducted by MAXIMUS, Inc., of full cost of services provided by the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, for services for which user fees are currently being hWittil or might be considered. By calculating the full cost of these services, including an appropriate share of City-wide a e overhead and departmental overhead, and comparing that cost to the associated revenues received, MAXIMUS, I . w able to determin the amount of cost subsidy being drawn from general tax dollars in these areas. Any proposed cha in fees should b wed by the City's legal staff prior to implementation to verify compliance with all ap i e st nd Iota MAXIMUS has not investigated the legality of any fee recommendations within this study, as that th exclusiveonsib' the City of Fayetteville. ♦� , 0& G LOC ME _ OGY It is very important when reviewing the re a co ervi s tudy to comprehend exactly what types of costs are being included in the calculation of "Full Cost." � • V O "Full Cost" is defined as the otal mount of expendit�ir elated to the resources utilized with a given activity. Therefore, the individual user fees present ' in our study inclu e II erect and indirect costs associated with the performance of that activity. This means that "Full Co only includes t ' bor, fringe benefits, and operating costs for a particular fee area but also the related overhead cosnder true Cost A oc ion Methodology, overhead costs are not limited to items such as building and equipment use but inc e, in addition, those indirect support costs incurred by other divisions. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 1 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 2 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Examples of indirect support costs include the cost of the payroll, purchasing, data processing other such elements that provide services to the program's operating elements. Therefore, the "Full Cost" identified within a� o t user fees contained within the study reflects this manner of cost allocation. USER FEE METHOD The methodology utilized by MAXIMUS in the cost of Services Study to termine the individualfi-c includes the incremental cost of performing the task requested by the user of the service. For exa he cost of writing ident report is not included within the accident report copy fee calculation. Only the cost associate ma ' e repo % "s considered. It is assumed that the general tax dollar is spent to provide recovery of the initial re writiX ndit � is practice of fee calculation avoids the argument as to which services ought to be aid for benerer, •ich services should be reimbursed b the 9 9 p 9 Y � Y ultimate user. The technique is commonly utilized and �ideqaccer)t d�oug • country. G O Q' Q' O C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 2 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 3 of Fayetteville, Arkansas SUMMARIZED RESULTS The study indicates that the full cost of current and potential fee -for -service activities i 4,322 and that only $2,715,138 is being recovered in revenue, with the subsidy currently required to support the s is $3,119,184. Listed below is a breakdown of the revenue and costs for each of the divisions analyzed as a part of thi dy: rtment/Division FU Fee Revenue A%Cft Of Services Current Subsidy N Planning $106,242 '( $350,87$244,636 Parking $244,8 $21 $(27,474) Fire $5, 24 $23,516 Meter Services P&I 25 N+ •371,815 $184,390 G Billing & Collections �354,25� ` $104,052 $(250,198) Animal Services *.'0 $1 $530,340 $370,737 Water & Sewer �' 2 50 $1,991,286 $1,730,936 Transportation $ $55,952 $44,513 o P Police $2 , 62 $98,019 $74,657 P Alcohol &Privilege Perms �L1820 $3,565 $(29,255) O Building Safety ✓ ' �073,431 $751,974 $(321,457) � Parks & Recre io Cj $289,376 $1,062,133 $772,757 Totals $2,748,168 $5,565,926 $2,817,758 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 3 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 4 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas The subsidy identified in the table above represents the maximum amount of additional fee ue, assuming constant demand, the City can expect to receive as a result of raising all fees included in this study to the lev I�€u cost recovery. For an in depth analysis of the individual user fees included in each of the divisions reviewed, plead r to the appropriate section of this document as shown on the Table of Contents. nnZ- CLOSING COMNN 4S The results of our study indicate that in providing services, ther `significant costs.i which are not being recovered through the City's present user fee structure. However, with th 1f th ation ed within this comprehensive Cost of Services Stud the City now has the information to make infor user fee c d which can enhance revenues from these Y, tY ,� p Y activities. 0& • G MAXIMUS greatly appreciates the opportunity • the Ci Fa a rkansas in the identification of user fee costs and 9 Y pp pp tY � Y we will be pleased to assist the City in any fut acc pr, �p ts. G o P P o � C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 4 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 5 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I. INTRODUCTION v Being a full service city government, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, must provi &I ig quality services to the public (in essence its stockholders). Like most local government in the United States, Fayettevill n an increase in demand by the general public for more services and a higher quality of service delivery, thereby increasi eMOUre on City funding sources. As a result of these pressures, the City must examine all oppor u or anced rev ss nd explore new revenue sources in order to avoid cutting valuable City service levels. This stu re ents f the rategies to learn how to alleviate the revenue pressure. The City recognizes that revenues from user fe be �j ropr' t ns of achieving revenue enhancement for local governments. Typically, one of the following c s exis re a f t user fee study is undertaken by a city: G • Current user fees are set far a actual c t of g the service. • No fee is being charged fo es that could genera t evenue. • Current fee levels and i y ave not been set %.t�i f[ill knowledge of the relationship between the value of a service and the amount of the fee. • O G CG Providing certain public services at an amount equal to their full cost can have numerous benefits to both the City and its citizens: • User fees are paid by all service users, including those exempt from certain taxes. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 5 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 6 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas • User fees are paid by non-residents when they utilize a service, thereby reducing the f government operation for City residents. 6 • Accurate user fees can create a "rationing" of services and allow for the mess f true market demand. It is for these reasons that local governments all over the United States are h' om a near -total dependence on property, sales and income taxes for financing local services, to a more broad -based re earn. Although there may be political reaction to increasing fees for services that were previously free or heavily subsidized, to al governments areb coming aware that user charges can be a more acceptable method for raising revenue than is an increi taxes. O ♦� , 0& G O O O G 'Q Q O Q' Q' O C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 6 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 7 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas II. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The primary purpose of this study is to document the full cost of providing City serv' which user fees are assessed or can be reasonably assessed. This work will allow City executives to make an informed deter ' ation of the level of general tax subsidy it wants to maintain as a matter of public policy in an environment where both II and actual cost of doing business is known. Once all the facts are known, fee levels then become a true measure ity's intentions and not simply a continuation of historical practices. n�'K �GJ Among the tools that MAXIMUS uses in all its cost studies are ncipgovern cost accounting. This means that a detailed and comprehensive analysis of all the costs associattX ylith eaAitof. rovision is undertaken. This a roach p Y��► p ppdiffers from general governmental accounting, which is rily c wit' it ow of financial resources during the fiscal year. Y �' ` p ,O In order to accomplish a custom, departmen of s eve ar^isis for the City of Fayetteville, MAXIMUS went through the following stages of research and analys� o P • Extensive data collectionsearch were acco pli d in all central service departments of the City, as well as in the direct service departme s. ` • Interviews with k agement and o �I personnel were conducted to identify all potentially fee related service activities. • A complete and comprehensive "full cost" cost allocation plan was prepared; apportioning out all central service overhead costs to the operating departments. • A computer based cost analysis was completed which compares service costs per unit to revenue amounts. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 7 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 8 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas This approach results in a detailed cost of service/revenue analysis that the City is able to u gad an accurate basis for changing the levels of existing fees and/or implementing new fees. '< The primary tool used at the culmination of this process to develop full cos s wQh fee area is MAXIMUS, Inc.'s proprietary cost o allocation software, MAXCars. The system provides the structure in whit 11 ate both direct and indirect costs to the individual fee areas, based on the results of the aforementioned research and anaally-sis mponents of thepj;ocess. The system of course, is only as valid as the information it pr es The sults i rate multiple iterations and fine tuning of data. We believe the analysis and conclusions to be thq. bes btaln— he ;� the cooperative efforts of MAXIMUS and City staff. ♦ • a. ♦G O O O G 'Q Q O Q' Q' O C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 8 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 9 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas III. ECONOMIC AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The purpose of this section is to provide additional background considerations in the f user fees, in the event the City wishes to review current subsidy decisions. Setting fees is essentially equivalent to establish' prices for services. In the private sector, prices are usually set in a manner that is expected to maximize profits. Sinc ing a profit is not an objective of the City in providing services, it is commonly felt that fees should be established at e at will exactly recover the cost of providing each service. n� �GJ There are circumstances, however, in which it might be regarde 0 reale polic fees at a level that does not reflect the full cost of providing the service. Therefore it is important iscuss orrl�of th ications of these non -cost factors so that p 9 p the role of the cost information may be placed in proper ctive. Elasticity of Demand O O The price charged for a service often affects quanti an y potential users. In many instances, raising the price of a service results in fewer units of service emano c i to matters, since the costs of providing services to the public include both a fixed and a variable ent, the u 't cos ervice is affected by the volume of that service produced. This poses a special problem for the C` n attempting to setNs on a basis that will recover the full cost of providing the services. As noted above, the unit cost a rvice may rise or fill(b,ending on the volume produced, and that volume may depend on the volume demanded, which, i , may depend on charged. O �� G Fees charged for recre�Cl6nal services provide a ood example of this concept. Quite reasonably, children senior citizens and others 9 P 9 p P Q Y, , with limited means may discontinue using a recreational facility if fees are raised significantly. They may regard the service as desirable, but not essential, and find other means of recreation. The resulting decrease in volume would then increase the unit cost, a situation that would require additional fee increases. Some services' fees, however, probably will not be responsive to volume Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 9 RFP 22-06, Appendix A demand because the services will be used regardless of the fees charged. An example mig design review for a construction project. Because the fee associated with a service of this ty, overall costs of the construction project, builders are less likely to adjust their usage of Cif PAGE 10 of Fayetteville, Arkansas charged for services such as it such a small portion of the ces because of price changes. Subsidization Policy z �j User fees are often established on a principle that requires those who use s�4ice to bear the cost of producing it. Although this principle is firmly established in the private enterprise system, there m be ity activities for which it is regarded as inappropriate. Accordingly, it may be preferable to set fees for some services belov cost. Consequent)►ramifications of a subsidy policy should be fully understood. Subsidies are provided for two basic purposes. The firs o per ident' roup (e.g., senior citizens, students, public S& assistance recipients) to participate in services that might erwis� lee afford. This is a legitimate function of government, assuring access to important services lT cii granted on the basis of a means test (not al -or citi2 dignity often suggest offering particular su'to bro service. Such subsidies may be achiev er thr c�11► service) or through reducing fees for s most like to P The second purpose of subs' to provide serv' at may benefit those not qualifying as immediate recipients. For example, code enforcement ins tnsure complian i zoning ordinances. Ordinances are designated to safeguard communities form deteriorating p e ies, which ultimatel i act the business and home owners by lowering property values and causing possible health and safe problems. In this case and similar cases, it may be regarded as appropriate to spread the cost of services over the large base of potential beneficiaries. uto their ability to pay. While such subsidies could be My deprived), ease of administration and concern for m0r ,may include many who are able to afford the full cost of the Wes (i.e., charging lower fees to certain groups for common by particular groups. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 10 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 11 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Economic Incentives It may be desirable to use fees as a means of encouraging certain activities or pattern of u 'Ftir example, setting a relatively high fee for scarce resources such as water may encourage conservation. Inexpensiv s or services, on the other hand, do nothing to discourage waste. By setting fee structures that offer lower rates during - ak hours or seasons, it may be possible to modify user behavior to the benefit of all. (�• A�GJ Competitive Constraints f Although the City may monopolize certain services within its bou s, there are mangy ces of competitive pressure that restrict the ability to raise fees. There may be, in the private , alte�ies to u services. For example, instead of attending a recreation program at a park, citizens may go to Apyle or w tc`h(�levi • When there are alternatives available, the City ma cc e the Ri e sect Nnother governmental entity can provide cheaper and more effective service, thereby eliminatin 's role parti ice area. In this manner, competition may inhibit full recovery of costs, but at the same time, give City on of reducing nonessential services and reducing City costs. (' , o P P o � C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 11 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 12 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas PLANNING DEPARTMENT The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue for r fee services provided by the Planning Department. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing user fee servies 7otals $350,878 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts to $106,242. A(� Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues A� Service # of Occurrences Revenue Co Current ove r Y&O �$ent Fee Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1.1 Concurrent Plat: Non Res 1 $8 $1 •�6. ♦` . $800.00 $1,535.00 92% $735.00 1.2 Concurrent Plat: 10 or Less Res 3 �$ p0.00 �0 `?3.5% 11 $200.00 $1,478.67 639% $3,836.00 1.3 Concurrent Plat: 11-25 Res $400.0 $1,477 27.1% $400.00 $1,477.00 269% $1,077.00 `O 1.4 Concurrent Plat: 26+ Res c' $ 5 7.00 52.4% $800.00 $1,527.00 91% $727.00 2 Concept Plat v 1 O 0 1, 1.00 3.0% $50.00 $1,681.00 3262% $1,631.00 3.1 Final Plat: 10 or Less Res 1 $200.0 $1,667.00 12.0% $200.00 $1,667.00 734% $1,467.00 3.2 Final Plat: 11-25 Res 2 $3,529.00 22.7% $400.00 $1,764.50 341% $2,729.00 3.3 Final Plat: 26+ Res 2 ♦ �j00.00 $3,722.00 43.0% $800.00 $1,861.00 133% $2,122.00 OW 3.4 Final Plat: Non Res O ` 1,600.00 $3 873.00 41.3%1 $800.00 $1 936.50 142% $2,273.00 ohm Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 12 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 13 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas *CV Service # of Occurrences Revenue Cost Current Recovery ntl ee Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 4.1 Large Scale Dev: 10 or Less Res 1 $200.00 $2,154.00 $200.00 $2,154.00 977% $1,954.00 09.3°/ 4.2 Large Scale Dev:11-25 Res 1 $400.00 $2,868.00 � -x �23.4% $400.00 $2,868.00 617% $2,468.00 4.3 Large Scale Dev:26+ Res 4 $3,200.00 $13,674.0 $800.00 $3,418.50 327% $10,474.00 4.4 Large Scale Dew Non Res 25 $20,000.00 $87,9 . 22.7% $800. $3,518.84 340% 67,971.00 5 Lot Split 59 $11,800.00 .00 21.3% ♦ $937.76 369% $43,528.00 6.1 Alteration of Land: 1-2 Acres 25 $2,500.00 1,252.0 199. °/ 0.00 $50.08 -50% -$1,248.00 6.2 Alteration of Land: < 1 Acre 35 $2,6 $ NO $75.00 $50.06 -33% -$873.00 6.3 Alteration of Land: > 2 Acres 6.4 Alteration of Land: Appeals 15 RWO.00 ♦ O $100.00 .00 �/) $5000 v ` .2% O 200.0% $200.00 $100.00 $75.13 $50.00 -62% -50% -$1,873.00 -$50.00 7.1 Preliminary Plat: 10 or Less Res $ SO 7.00 8.9% $200.00 $2,241.75 1021% $8,167.00 7.2 Preliminary Plat: 11-25 Res 1 qw 21 7.00 14.6% $400.00 $2,737.00 584% $2,337.00 7.3 Preliminary Plat: 26+ Res `O 7 $5,600. 1,151.00 26.5% $800.00 $3,021.57 278% $15,551.00 7.4 Preliminary Plat: Non Res 4 $jk241�p $10,082.00 31.7% $800.00 $2,520.50 215% $6,882.00 8.1 Planned Zoning Dist: 10 or Lelcg� 1 25.00 $2,984.00 17.6% $525.00 $2,984.00 468% $2,459.00 0 ♦ ` 8.2 Planned Zoning DistVes $725.00 $2,984.00 24.3% $725.00 $2,984.00 312% $2,259.00 8.3 Planned ZoningDist 5 $5,625.00 $18,558.00 30.3% $1,125.00 $3,711.60 230% $12,933.00 8.4 Planned Zoning Dist: Non Res 2 $2,250.00 6 686.00 33.7%1 $1,125.0013 343.00 197%1 $4,436.00 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 13 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 14 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Service # of Occurrences Revenue Cost Current RecoveryV�ee nt Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 9 Sign Fee 240 $14,917.00 $10,924.00 136.6°/ various $45.52 26.8% $3,993.00 10 Sign Variance 6 $2,100.00 $2,070.00 % $350.00 $345.00 -1.4% -$30.00 11 Windblown Signs 45 $450.00 $814.Od 55.3% $10.00 $18.09 80.9% $364.00 12 Zoning: Rezoning 42 $13,650.00 $35, 38.6% $325. $842.12 159.1% $21,719.00 13 Zoning: Conditional Use 14 Board of Adjustment Variance 29 32 $2,900.00 $800.00 .00 11,678.0 13.2% 6. °/ ♦ ® 5.00 $759.97 $364.94 660.0% 1359.8% $19,139.00 $10,878.00 ♦ 15 Annexation 5 1 6 $ 0 325.00 $842.40 159.2% 2 587.00 `ASOV Totals $1 , .00 $ .00 1p.3% 2300/6 $244,636.00 Z C:Service Descriptions 1. Concurrent Plats -The City of Faye vi e curr ag f e submittal of a Concurrent Plat in four different categories. 1.1. Non -Residential -Full co evenue are ase ccurrence. 1.2. 10 or Less Residen ial -1__ Full cost and rev eare based on 3 occurrences. 1.3. 11-25 Residential - Full cost and re are based on 1 occurrence. 1.4. 26+ Resld la its - Full cost anO i1�.�e are based on 1 occurrence. 2. Concept Plat - en a developer intends to subdivide land within the City Planning Area boundary, he may first submit a Concept Plat for the Planning Commission's consideration. The purpose of the concept plat process is to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide the developer with their input or requirements before the developer invests a great deal of time Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 14 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 15 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas or money in the preparation of a detailed plat. The City of Fayetteville currently charges ft3t�,submittal of a Concept Plat. Full cost and revenue are based on one Concept Plat. 3. Final Plats — Final Plat must be submitted for approval by the Planning Commi must be filed with the County before construction permits for housing may be issued. The City of Fayetteville currently ges for the submittal of a Final Plat in four different categories. Orrence. z 3.1. 10 or Less Residential Units — Full cost and revenue are based 3.2. 11-25 Residential Units — Full cost and revenue are based on occ rrences. 3.3. 26+ Residential Units — Full cost and revenue are based ccur ences. . O 3.4. Non -Residential -Full cost and revenue are based 2 ccurrenc �` 4. Large Scale Developments — The Planning DepartlQ& ust ��all La le Developments within the City. Fees are currently charged ed in four different categories 9 .(� 4.1. 10 or Less Residential Units — Full cost enue sed `rrence. 4.2. 11-25 Residential Units — Full cost 4enue 1 sed 1 urrence. 4.3. 26+ Residential Units — Full c reve ba occurrences. 4.4. Non -Residential - Full cosvenue are ase ccurrences. S. Lot Split — Currently, ther is 0 fee for a Lot �p 1161bFu I cost and revenue are based on 59 occurrences. 6. Alteration of Land — A ions for the h `teration of land (grading and drainage) current) have fees in four different p Y�s!�� �9 9 9) Y categories. O Used N6.1. 1 — 2 Acre ll cost and revenue on 25 occurrences. 6.2. <1 Acre — Full cost and revenue is based on 35 occurrences. 6.3. >2 Acres — Full cost and revenue is based on 15 occurrences. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 15 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 16 of Fayetteville, Arkansas 6.4. Appeals — Full cost and revenue are based on 1 occurrence. 7. Preliminary Plats — When a subdivision of land is proposed, a preliminary plat mu t mitted to the Planning Commission for review. Approval of the preliminary plat is effective for one year and continu �g as work is actively progressing on the installation of required improvements. The City of Fayetteville currently charges bthe submittal of a Preliminary Plat in four different categories z 7.1. 10 or Less Residential Units — Full cost and revenue are based Orrences. 7.2. 11-25 Residential Units — Full cost and revenue are based on nocc rrence. 7.3. 26+ Residential Units — Full cost and revenue are based ccur ences. . O 7.4. Non -Residential - Full cost and revenue are based 4 ccurrenc �` 8. Planned ZoningDistricts — The City of Fa ettevill entl for t - ittal of an application for Planned Zoning tY Y Y � �� pp 9 Districts in four different categories. V 9 8.1. 10 or Less Residential Units — Full cost nue sed `rrence. 8.2. 11-25 Residential Units — Full cost 4enuesed aQ 1 urrence. 8.3. 26+ Residential Units — Full co-AirilreverT11%QMbasAoccurrences. 8.4. Non -Residential - Full cosNNOurevenue are l3asedOALOCcurrences. 9. Signs — Each sign or other_ ad\rftising structure recwu4S5 by City code must be approved by the Planning Department. Full cost and revenue are based ooccurrences. `�•J 10.Sign Variance — Oc-'ation for varia M sign code may be submitted where special circumstances exist. A fee is currently charged c ver the cost of the a li tion process. Full cost and revenue are based on 6 occurrences. 11.Windblown Signs — Windblown signs require a temporary permit, however records indicate that these permits are not sought and many violations exist. Information in this section indicates expected rates based on individuals obtaining required permits. Full cost and revenue are based on 45 occurrences. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 16 RFP 22-06, Appendix A 12.Zoning - Rezoning — Rezoning applications are evaluated by the Planning Commission. �st and occurrences. PAGE 17 of Fayetteville, Arkansas revenue are based on 42 13.Zoning — Conditional Use — An application for Conditional Use may be brou re the Planning Commission for use of land, structures, or buildings that are non -conforming to zoning codes within a di ' t. Full cost and revenue are based on 29 occurrences. (�e) 14.Board of Adjustments Variance — An application for variance oning code may be submitted to the Board of adjustments is special conditions and circumstances exist which ara pe liar to the land, structure, or building which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same distr' urrently the City ch REthe applicant a fee to cover the cost of the application process. Full cost and revenue are ba e o rrences. ♦O 15.Annexation — Revenue and full cost is based on 5 occurre O O O G 'Q Q O Q' Q' O C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 17 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 18 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas PARKING MANAGEMENT DEPARTME The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue f th user fee services provided by the Parking Management. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing user fee s totals $217,388 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts to $244,862. n�'Q� Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues ` � ^ = `O # of Occurrances Reven a urre�l JJJService covery ° �Fent Fee Fee @Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1 Gated Lot 5 per Quarter 230.00 $20,7�p00 $1 $90.00 $53.68 -40% -$8,373.00 2 Gated Lot 7 Quarter 311.00 ♦ 28, 14.00 42.00 O/6.8% $90.00 $50.94 -43% -$12,172.00 per 3 Hang Tag per Quarter 323.0029,107. $18,9 0 153.8% $90.00 $58.60 -35% -$10,180.00 4 Leased Spaces per Month 3 0 $1 0 158.9% $50.00 $31.47 -37% -$5,559.00 5 Municipal Deck per Quarter ` 00 $121,7 8.00 29.00 138.7% $135.00 $97.26 -28% -$33,989.00 6 Town Square Deck per Quarter 1;z 192.00 $28,7`. C') $71,445.00 40.2% $150.00 $372.11 149% $42,711.00 7 Town Square Deck Tokens W# 1,300.00 $ .00 $901.00 144.3% $1.00 $0.69 -31% -$399.00 8 Hang Tag or Card Re a en 15.00 5. 0 Cj $291.00 77.3% $15.00 $19.40 29% $66.00 9 TernOff Street Tag: 24.00 $45.00 $466.00 9.7% VARIOUS $19.42 936% $421.00 Totals $244,862.00 $217,388.00 112.6% -110/0 -$27,474.00 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 18 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 19 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Service Descriptions 1. Gated Lot 5 (per quarter) — The City's current fee structure calls for a quarterly p or access to this lot. The full cost is based on 53 spaces within Lot 5. 2. Gated Lot 7 (per quarter) — The City's current fee structure calls for a quartp,�y knt for access to this lot. The full cost is based on 66 spaces within Lot 7. �(� 3. Hang Tag (per quarter) — Citizens are able to purchase hang tags ch allow them to park in Ciity owned spaces. The full cost is based on 323 occurrences per year. 4. Leased Spaces (per month) — Citizens are also able to leas g s aces in City ; ots. The full cost is based on 300 occurrences per year. S. Municipal Deck (per quarter) — Spaces in the Mu i al teckar i,lable i ' ens on a quarterly basis. The full cost is based on 902 occurrences per year. Z�- 6. `�G Town Square Deck (per quarter) — Spaces Re*Tow&the4tqnquare e available to citizens on a quarterly basis. The full cost is based on 192 occurrences per year.'Preven Deck is turned over to the Fayetteville Town Center. " 7. Town Square Deck (tokens) — Sn the �qu elk are also available to citizens on a daily basis using a token system. The full cost is based kens so A Town Center. �N& ��e from the Town Square Deck is turned over to the Fayetteville � S. Hang Tag or Card R:f2ned �ent — The City cur *4 fl�charges a $15 fee for the replacement of parking cards or tags that are issued for the various parking spa full cost is based on 15 occurrences per year oft Q 9. Temp Off Stree Ha g Tag — As an alter tiv to paying standard parking fees, temporary off-street hang tags are available to citizens which allow hem to park in for -pay spaces. Tags are sold for three different time frames of parking — short, medium and long. The full cost is based on the issuance of 24 temporary hang tags. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 19 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 20 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas FIRE DEPARTMENT The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue f user fee services provided by the Fire Department. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing user fee ser. ice otals $28,524 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts to $5,008.00. A� Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues A� Service # of Occurrences Revenue Cost Crent RROe', o/ ee Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1 Rural Fire Contracts 9 $4,38``3. $1,1 J94` o $487.00 $123.44 -75% -$3,272.00 2 Fire Reports 25 *29lQO % $25.00 $26.68 7% $42.00 ` 3 EMS LiftingAssistance * 50e$5'U:hN.- ♦ O$0.00 057.00 o 0.0 /o $0.00 $41.14 0 100 /o $2,057.00 IQ 4 False Alarm Res onse * 60$ $24 9 0 0.0% $0.00 $41.15 100% $24,689.0Totals24. 0 17.60% 4700/ $23.516.00 `/ * Services currently provided for no clime. Service Descri tions ♦ �� O 1. Rural Fire Cont — The Fire DepartlQjprovides fire protection services to areas outside the City limits on a contract basis. Prior to 2003, the City provided this service to approximately 325 locations. However, due to the availability of the Automatic Mutual Aid Agreements between the City Fire Department and the Rural Fire Protection Districts, the number of locations served by this service has declined to only 9. The Automatic Mutual Aid Agreements require the homeowners to Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 20 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 21 of Fayetteville, Arkansas contract with their rural Fire Protection District rather than directly with the City of Fayett Costs are based on an assumed service time of 1 hour per year. Z5 2. Fire Reports — Fire Reports are available to citizens on a fee basis. Costs ed on an average of 25 reports sold per year. n- 3. EMS Lifting Assistance — Private EMS personnel occasionally requj5istance in lifting a patient into a medical vehicle or onto a gurney. No fee is currently charged either to Lzen or the private EMS companies. Costs are based on 50 occurrences per year. Ik 4. False Alarm Response — Traditionally, any charges assessEV citizens associa i h this activity is considered a fine' rather than a 'fee'. However, it is nonetheless im t fo official aware of the cost of the activity when establishing a pricing schedule. As such, full co ave b err I t this activity Costs are based on 600 ,; occurrences per year. No fee is currently collecte citi 2 this •� G Q O Q' Q' O C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 21 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 22 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas METER OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue for th s ee services provided by the Meter Operations Department. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing use vices totals $371,815 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts to $187,425, leaving a current City subsidy of.�D�feter related for -fee services of $184,390. Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues Meter Services # of Occurrences Revenue Co Current Recovery o/ t ee Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1 Meter Tampering 16 $640. $ $40.00 $38.81 -3% -$19.00 2 No House Number - 2nd Trip 50N11 9 00 /o $10.00 $25.84 158% $792.00 3 No House Number - After Hours 50 A$750.00 ?�881.0 0 ♦ `` 19.3% $15.00 $77.62 417% $3,131.00 4 Meter Service Call O $9,82 $39, 24.8% $10.00 $40.37 304% $29,819.00 5 Meter Reconnect `V $1 501.0067.7% $35.00 $51.72 48% $83,571.00 6 Meter Turn On - Non -Working Hours Is C)50 O 0.00 882.00 19.3% $15.00 $77.64 418% $3,132.00 7 Meter Reconnect - Non -Working Hour*,,, 1 $ NNW $79.00 44.3% $35.00 $79.00 126% $44.00 8 Meter Re -read 150 4:�P.00 $1,699.00 0.0% $0.00 $11.33 100% $1,699.00 9 Reset Pulled Meter 20 $0.00 $951.00 0.0% $0.00 $47.55 100% $951.00 10 Emergency Service 77 co ` $0.00 $21,311.00 0.0% $0.00 $53.28 100% $21,311.00 11 Emergency Svc Call - Non -Working Hours 500 $0.00 $39,959.00 0.0%1 $0.00179.92 100%1 $39,959.00 Totals $187,425.00 $371,815.00 50.4% 98% $184,390.00 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 22 RFP 22-06, Appendix A Service Descriptions 1. Meter Tampering — If the City discovers that a customer has been tampering the meter to prevent further interference. Full cost and revenue is based on 1C. PAGE 23 of Fayetteville, Arkansas V- hh*ir meter, a lock or coupling is placed on races. 2. No House Number — 2nd Trip — City ordinance requires permanen v�house numbers to be displayed on customer's homes, and a $10 fee is charged when city staff must make more tha erereturn trip to perform work when this number is not displayed. Currently, there is no fee for the first return trip. Currents -eve ue and full cost abased on an estimated 50 service trips. `O�� 3. No House Number - After Hours — City ordinance re ire man ible ho • 1►umbers to be displayed on customer's homes, and a $15 fee is charged when city staff mu ma orb +titne rqt after hours to perform work when this number is not displayed. Currently, there is no fee a fir 1trip. tent revenue and full cost are based on an estimated 50 service trips. D 4. Meter Service Call — A $10 fee is currentl r d for scall ften for leak tests and pressure tests. Full cost and revenue is based on 982 occurrences per, S. Meter Reconnect — A $35 fee is c r for rnioo cts. After a serviceman cuts off water for nonpayment, a customer will come in and pay t t anding bill lust a nnect fee. At this point the serviceperson must go back out and reconnect the water. Full cos ice and current rev e a are based on 4,998 reconnects. 6. Meter Turn On — After spur / Weekends / 0;)ys — For new accounts, the standard turn on service is provided at no fee. However, when a f4mer requests the, ce be turned on after hours, on a weekend, or on a holiday, this separate fee is charged. F t nd revenue are b estimated 50 turn ons. 7. Meter Reconnec After Hours / Week ds / Holidays — This service is the same as the 'Meter Reconnect' listed above, except it takes place after hours, on weekends, or on a holiday. Currently, the City does not have a separate fee for this service. Full cost of service is based on 1 after hours reconnect. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 23 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 24 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas B. Meter Re -read — No fee is currently charged for re -reading a meter when a customer t there was a mistake on the first read. If implemented, this fee would be best reserved for instances only where the I ead was correct. Full costs are based on an estimated 150 instances. (NO CURRENT FEE) 9. Reset Pulled Meter — In cases where a customer is delinquent in payment, ande5he lock or coupling on their meter broken, a serviceman pulls the meter in order to prevent further theft. When the cust'r pays the delinquent bill(s) and fees, then the serviceman will reinstall the meter. Full costs have been based on Wi nate of 20 pulled meters resets each year. (NO CURRENT FEE) 10.Emergency Service Call — This service is provided for a custom o has a line break a eds the meter shut off to fix the break. On some occasions, the break is not corrected the fi e b requires a� trips by city staff to shut off the meter. Current full cost is based on an estimated 400 trip ( URR EE),` 11.Emergency Service Call — After Hours / Weeke Holi This s is provided for a customer who has a line break and needs the meter shut off to fix the brea fteWegular g h weekends, or on holidays. Current full cost is based on an estimated 500 trips. (NO CURRE ) G O Q' Q' CP G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 24 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 25 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas BILLINGS & COLLECTIONS DEPARTME n*�A- The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue for r fee services provided by the Billing & Collections. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing user fee sery�s tals $104,052 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts to $354,250. A(� Because the fees listed below all have a punitive nature to them, the City s4<ldjnot necessarily feel limited by actual costs in setting these fees. The purpose of the Billing & Collections fees is more to debar slow (or non) paymem than it is a payment for a service rendered. �� O Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues Service # of Occurrences venue ` ` C �drrent e very % Current Fee Fee C@ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1 Collection Fees 710 $1,775. $1 01.0 15.0% $2.50 $16.62 565% $10,026.00 2 Late Payment Charges 65 908Z$l 23.00 424.0% 10% $1.18 -76% -$251,511.78 3 Returned Check Charge 67.00 0. 4 628.00 159.6% $20.00 $12.53 -37% 8 712.00 Totals I $354 2 78 $104 052.00 340.50/o -710/o -$250 197.78 Service Descri do O ` G 1. Collection Fees — Accounts over 60 days old are turned over to a collection agency. At the time this occurs, the City adds a final charge of $5 to the bill, of which the City only keeps half when the collection agency is successful in collecting from the customer. Full cost is based on 710 collections. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 25 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 26 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 2. Late Payment Charges — A 10% penalty fee is added to customer's invoice once the bill one unpaid for 20 days after the due date. Because this penalty fee is a variable amount dependant upon the total ad e from the customer, costs and revenues have been presented in total. Full cost is based on 65,990 occurrences. 3. Returned Check Charge — When a customer's check is returned due to insuffici funds, the Billing & Collections staff send out an additional notice to the customer requesting payment. State Law curly allows a maximum fee of $25. Full cost is based on 1,167 occurrences. �GJ O ♦� • �' G O O O G 'Q Q O Q' Q' O C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 26 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 27 of Fayetteville, Arkansas ANIMAL CONTROL FEES The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue for th �6 a services provided by the Animal Services Division. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing user f ces totals $530,340 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts to $159,603. Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues Animal Services # of Occurrences Reven Curre t Recove o en Fee Fee @Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1. Animal Adoptions (excludes Spay/Neuter) 1,100.00 $22,00 $143, 19. $20.00 $130.02 550% $121,019.00 2.1. Animal - Impounds (per day - total) 24,970.00 $al�S.00 1.00 /'�� .8% VARIOUS $7.94 n/a n/a 2.2. Animal - Impounds (city animals - no rev) * 16,820.00 $0.0 3,631. ♦ ` 0.0% VARIOUS $7.94 n/a n/a 2.3. Animal - (days) Impounds recoverable p ( y) (recoverable) 8 D $65, $6 7 100.4% VARIOUS $7.94 0% -$273.09 3. Animal - License Tags 0 .00 14,985.00 100.1% VARIOUS $7.49 0% -$15.00 4. Animal Euthanasia * 285.00 O $0. 62,352.00 0.0% $0.00 $71.05 n/a n/a 5. Cremation - Ashes Not Saved 50.00 • $ $1,519.00 32.9% $10.00 $30.38 204% $1,019.00 6. Cremation - 0-20 Lbs 5.00 00.00 $731.00 13.7% $20.00 $146.20 631% $631.00 7. Cremation - 21-50 Lbs /'► O 3. $150.00 $439.00 34.2% $50.00 $146.33 193% $289.00 8. Cremation - 51-75 L 2.0 $150.00 $292.00 51.4% $75.00 $146.00 95% $142.00 9. Cremation - 76-100 Lbs 1.00 $100.00 $158.00 63.3% $100.00 $158.00 58% $58.00 10. Cremation - 101-200 Lbs 1.00 $150.00 $158.00 94.9% $150.00 $158.00 5% $8.00 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 27 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 28 of Fayetteville, Arkansas Animal Services # of Occurrences Revenue Cost Cur Reco urrent Fee Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 11. Animal - Feline Leukemia 30.00 $300.00 $473.00 % $10.00 $15.77 58% $173.00 0' 12. Animal - Microchip 1,100.00 $11,000.00 $14,869.00 V 74.00%0 $10.00 $13.52 35% $3,869.00 13. Animal - Spay/Neuter 1,872.00 $37,660.00 $65, 41<j 57.5% VARIOUS $34.99 74% $27,833.00 14. Animal - Rabies Booster 960.00 $6,720.00 90.00 124.7% 9"10 $5.61 -20% -$1,330.00 15. Animal Rabies Testing (Head Shipment) 5.00 $250. �w $85 -J 294. °I �5000 $17.00 -66% -$165.00 16 . Animal - Heartworm Test 50.00 $5 0 $788. $10.00 $15.76 58% $288.00 17. Animal - Lost & Found Reports * 1,000.00 .00 ' Jkl, �.00 `30% $0.00 $11.61 100% $11,613.00 18. Animal - Bite Report * 125.00 $0.00 �2,378.00 ♦ G ` 0.0% $0.00 $99.02 100% $12,378.00 19. Animal - Trapping * $ $2 ,8 0.0% $0.00 $44.21 100% $27,850.00 20. Animal Dead Animal Pickup * �I�lL1 �00 $9,2 4.00 0.0% $0.00 $9.28 100% $9,284.00 21. Animal - Creulty Investigation * G 100.00 O $0. � 74,271.00 0.0% $0.00 $742.71 100% $74,271.00 22. Animal - Patrol (total costs)* N� 1.00 W $59,301.00 0.0% $0.00 $59,301.00 100% $59,301.00 23. Animal - Community Education * 175.00 $0.00 t22.494.00 0.0% to.00 $128.54 100% $22,494.00 Totals(excluding 2.1 2.2 59,603.00 $530,339.91 30.10/ 232% $370 736.91 G� * Services provided wio" pcurrent fees ** Service not available to citizens, unit cost shown for informational purposes only Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 28 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 29 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Service Descriptions 6�1 1. Adoption Fee — The City currently charges a fee to adopt animals from the �helter. The current fee as calculated does not include the cost of the required animal license, the first round of vation shots and de -worming, sterilization, a microchip ID, and an animal care kit. Each of those items are identified sleately in this document. The current unit cost is based on 1,100 instances. Z 2. Impound Fees — The costs and revenue associated with impo animals in the City shelter has been segregated into categories. V ^ 2.1 Total Impounds — The total cost of impoundirnals 4Re City s t�l s been calculated based on 24,970 impound days. p Y 2.2 City Animal Impounds — Many of the nds t hhh helte Jrms generate no revenue for the City as no citizen claims their animal. As such, we'v egregate hosts ed with these non -revenue impounds to assist the City with this analysis. Costs are ba 16,8 unU S. 2.3 Recoverable Animal Impgj" — Onlyi(tNTe iWour4Aays for which the City can recover a fee have been included here. Costs and reven 1,'ase ;p;j i d days. 3. License Tag — Citizens are r o licens heir is and dogs thru the City's Animal Patrol department. Full costs and revenues are based o � .mated 2,000 occur . 4. Euthanasia ** — Whil no vailable to the eNe ublic, the full cost of euthanizin animals has been calculated based on �r g g 2,285 occurrences.� �`�� S. Cremation —Vftialot Saved - Th uni host is based on 50 instances. 6. Cremation — Pounds - The unit cost is based on 5 instances. 7. Cremation — 26-50 Pounds - The unit cost is based on 3 instances. S. Cremation — 51-75 Pounds - The unit cost is based on 2 instances. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 29 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 30 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 9. Cremation — 76-100 Pounds - The unit cost is based on one instance. 1O.Cremation — 101-200 Pounds - The unit cost is based on one instance. `� 11.Feline Leukemia Test — The City vet clinic offers feline leukemia tests f 4's pets. The unit cost is based on 30 instances. Pt 12.Microchip Identification — Costs associated with implanting a mi o to animals for identification are recorded in this fee area. The unit cost is based on 1,100 instances. 13.Spay/Neuter of Dogs/Cats - The City vet clinic offers ste tion services for citicats and dogs. The unit cost is based on 1,872 instances. 1' ..�0 14. Rabies Booster — The City hosts a 'low cost' vet clin on eekend offer Ili s booster shots for citizen's pets. The unit cost is based on 960 instances. . • I ♦+ , 15.Rabies Testing— Head Shipment - In �c�asco?&Vuspec bies d is removed from the animal in uestion and p.��qshipped to Little Rock for further testing. Tcost i s on 5 ces. 16.Heartworm Test — The City vet clinic eart r stssffor i n's pets. The unit cost is based on 50 instances. 17.Lost & Found Reports * —The Ci ps 1 ado n r�6rts filed by citizens. Unit cost is based on 1,000 occurrences. 18.Bite Reports * - City staff �t®►te reports hen` a incident is reported. Unit cost is based on 125 occurrences. 19.Animal Trapping * - So es, animals mustt pped by City staff — either wild animals, or domestic pets causing problems in a neighborod. Unit cost is based occurrences. 2O.Dead Animal Pic - City staff will 1 d animals reported by citizens because of health reasons. The unit cost is based on 1,0 oc rences. 21.Cruelty Investigations * - Reports of animal cruelty are followed up on by City staff and an investigation is conducted. The unit cost is based on 100 occurrences. 22.Patrol — Costs associated with all animal patrol activities have been recorded here for informational purposes. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 30 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 31 of Fayetteville, Arkansas 23.Community Education — Animal Control staff provide outreach and education to th unity on animal related issues. While there is no revenue associated with this function, the full cost of the act' a been calculated based on 175 occurrences. ��► n�-GJ �GJ n� �GJ O �J ♦� • 0& G O O O G 'Q Q O Q' Q' O C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 31 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 32 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas WATER & SEWER FEES The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue for the user f Ices provided by the Water & Sewer Departments. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing user fee;s totals $1,991,286 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts to $260,350. n. Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues Service # of Occurrences Revenue ost Current cove % Cu♦ Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1 Taps: 1" Water Inside 56 $29,400\,) $48, 33 60. °/ 5.00 $873.80 66% $19,533 2 Taps: 1" Water Outside 2 $ , ♦`` $575.00 $894.00 55% $638 3 Taps: 2" Water Inside 4 Taps: 2" Water Outside 18,600 ♦ O 935 $1, `T5.6% O 67.6% $1,200.00 $1,250.00 $1,829.72 $1,849.00 52% 48% $11,335 $599 5 Taps: 4" Sewer Q� 4,25 $ 680 48.7% $425.00 $873.27 105% $50,655 6 Taps: 5/8" Water Inside �64 $ ,043 53.3% $425.00 $797.55 88% $23,843 O 7 Taps: 5/8" Water Outside 16 $7,6 $13,084 58.1% $475.00 $817.75 72% $5,484 8 Taps: 5/8" Double Water Inside 50 44`I $83,453 56.9% $950.00 $1,669.06 76% $35,953 9 Taps: 5/8" Double Water Outs 1 1,050 $1,690 62.1% $1,050.00 $1,690.00 61% $640 O ♦ ` I.10 Taps: 6" Sewer G $3,125 $5,419 57.7% $625.00 $1,083.80 73% $2,294 11 City Street Bore 28 $6,300 $13,367 47.1% $225.00 $477.39 112% $7,067 12 City Street Cut - Asphalt 72 $41,400 $74,548 55.5% $575.00 $1,035.39 80% $33,148 13 CityStreet Cut - Concrete 10 $5,750 $10,916 52.7% $575.00 $1,091.60 90% $5,166 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 32 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 33 of Fayetteville, Arkansas Service # of Occurrences Revenue Cost Curren Recoverywee rnt Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 14 Customer Request Water Sample* 16 $0 $485 $0.00 $30.31 100% $485 000/ 15 Customer Sewer Backup Ground* 16 $0 $3,142 �10% $0.00 $196.38 100% $3,142 16 Dee Taps 7-10' p p * 35 $0 $7,06 Oe 0.0% $0.00 $201.89 100% $7,066 17 Deep Taps >10' * 11 $0 0.0% $0. $403.73 100% $4,441 18 Fire Hydrant Flow Test* Flouride Sample* 57 55 $0 $0 94 $1,667 00% 4(:;�19 0.00/0go.00 0 $112.18 $30.31 100% 100/ $6,394 $1,667 20 State Highway Bore 10 $ 708 ♦ $425.00 $738.40 74% $3,134 21 State Highway Cut 10 9V1 250 ♦ O 21 .9% 0 $1,225.00 $2,232.10 82% $10,071 22 State Highway Permit 2 $2,500 V / $6, V 41.0% $125.00 $305.15 144% $3,603 23 Investigate Bill Jobs* 213 0.0% $0.00 $26.63 100% $213 24 Investigate Emergency Bill* 8 � o 0 P $897 0.0% $0.00 $32.04 100% $897 25 Investigate Sewer Odor* 36 OCQ$2,546 0.0% $0.001 70.72 100% 2 546 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 33 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 34 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas �V Service # of Occurrences Revenue Cost Curren Recove11wee rnt Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 26 Large Locates* 1,899 $0 $348,955 $0.00 $183.76 100% $348,955 00.00/ 27 Medium Locates* 2,659 $0 $201,593 % $0.00 $75.82 100% $201,593 28 Sewer Backup - Bldg* 13 $0 $4,511 0.0% $ 0.00 $347.46 ° 100 /o $4,517 29 Sewer Cleanup* 55 $0 $$114 0.0% $0. $211.65 100% $11,641 30 Sewer Jobs - City* 31 Sewer -Meet with Plumber* 2,277 200 $0 $0 98 $18,425 0.0% 0.0°/ ♦ 0 �$0.00 $259.73 $92.13 100% 100% $591,398 $18,425 32 Sewer Svc Pt Rep* 147 Od $ 4 MW $0.00 $848.30 100% $124,700 33 Slow Drain* 15 $0 12 `` .0% O $0.00 $100.80 100% $1,512 34 Small Locates* 3,03 ♦ O V / VW 0.0% 100% $0 $165, $0.00 $54.44 $165,428 35 Water Leak Investigate* ,753 0.0% $0.00 $54.43 100% $22,753 Totals '2861 13.1% 665% $1,730,9361 * Services provided with no current fees V ` �` Service Descriptions P 1. Taps — 1" Water In ' Full cost and rev this service is based on 56 instances. 2. Taps — 1" Wate Ou side — Full cost and v ue for this service is based on 2 instances. 3. Taps — 2" Water Inside — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on 18 instances. 4. Taps — 2" Water Outside — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on 1 instance. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 34 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 35 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 5. Taps — 4" Sewer — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on 113 instances. 6. Taps — 5/8" Water Inside — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on 64 i s 7. " Taps — 5/8Water Outside — Full cost and revenue for this service is based one► ances. p � 8. Taps — 5/8" Double Water Inside — Full cost and revenue for this service i sed✓✓on 50 instances. 9. Taps — 5/8" Double Water Outside — Full cost and revenue for this rJ�jis based on one instance. 10. Taps — 6" Sewer — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on►5 i tances. 11. City Street Bore — Full cost and revenue for this servicegservi Q228 instances. � 12. City Street Cut, Asphalt — Full cost and revenue for thiis bas o 72 ins 13. City Street Cut, Concrete — Full cost and revenue f tNeed on ances. 14. Customer Requested Water Sample —Full cos d rr is se based on 16 instances. (NO CURRENT FEE) 15. Customer Sewer BackupGround Clea Ful c l cos reve his service is based on 16 instances. NO CURRENT FEENNO '6j16. Deep Taps — 7-10'— Full cost and re n fort 'ce i Qc'd on 35 instances. (NO CURRENT FEE) 17. Deep Taps — >10' — Full cost nue for thi erysed on 11 instances. (NO CURRENT FEE) 18. Fire Hydrant Flow Test — FW and revenue for s s ice is based on 57 instances. (NO CURRENT FEE) ) 19. Flouride Sample — Full � $&.�nd revenue for t i ice is based on 55 instances. (NO CURRENT FEE) 20. State Highway Joull cost and reve i service is based on 10 instances. 21. State Highway Full cost and revenue r this service is based on 10 instances. 22. State Highway Permit — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on 20 instances. 23. Investigate Bill Jobs — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on 8 instances. (NO CURRENT FEE) Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 35 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 36 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 24. Investigations Emergency Bill Jobs — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on Ntances. (NO CURRENT FEE) 25. Investigate Sewer Odor — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on 36 ins ac� 0 CURRENT FEE) 26. Large Locates — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on 1899 instance CURRENT FEE) 27. Medium Locates — Full cost and revenue for this service is based on 2659 inleces. (NO CURRENT FEE) 28. Sewer Backup Building — Full cost and revenue for this service is ba�G3Jinstances. (NO CURRENT FEE) 29. Sewer Clean Up — Full cost and revenue for this service is based o5 i stances. (NO CURRENT FEE) 30. Sewer Jobs City — Full cost and revenue for this service is bas 277' instances. (1V RENT FEE) 31. Sewer — Meet w/ Plumber — Full cost and revenue for is ce is on 20 ces. (NO CURRENT FEE) 32. Sewer Svc Pt Rep — Full cost and revenue for this s i is bas 7 inst NO CURRENT FEE) 33. Sewer Slow Drain — Full cost and revenue for th' ervice is n 15 �es. (NO CURRENT FEE) 34. Small Locates —Full cost and revenue for tlw's a Tce is b n 3 inces. NO CURRENT FEE (Y ( ) Water L k Investigation— F II r v r s 1'Cfc i n 41 instances. N CURRENT FEE 35eau co � e o se e s based o 8 sta ces O G o P P o � G G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 36 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 37 of Fayetteville, Arkansas TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue for the services provided by the Transportation Department. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing user fee ser.>0�ce otals $55,952 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts to $11,439. A� Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues Service # of Occurrences Revenue '14�rrt ost co Nee Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1 Street Millings (per ton) 1,765 $7,054.00 6,333.0 ` 1542°/ ` $4.00 $26.25 557% $39,279.00 2 Drain Pipe Install: Small* 5 $1,1Ro $2, o materials only $485.00 116% $1,300.00 3 Drain Pipe Install: Medium* 7 00 1.00 4% materials only $563.00 125% $2,191.00 4 Drain Pipe Install: Large* 4 1,200.0 �2,70 0 44.4% materials only $675.75 125% $1,503.00 5 Snow/Ice Control 31 .00 56.4% $155.00 $275.00 77% $240.00 Totals $11 439.00 .00 20.40/ 389% $44 513.00 * Customer pays for only for rav� ater s, City provides labor for t% Cdf)e. o C> U Service Descriptions 1. Street Millings (per ton) — Costs are based on 1763.61 tons of street millings. At $4/per ton, the City is only recovering 15% of the costs associated with this activity. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 37 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 38 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 2. Drain Pipe Install: Small — Small drainage pipes (less than 40 feet) are installed unde ways by City staff. The cost of the pipe is paid for by the citizen, and City staff does the actual installation to ensure it i I ed correctly. Currently, there is no fee to recover labor costs associated with these installations. Full cost is based urrences. 3. Drain Pipe Install: Medium — Medium drainage pipes 40-60 feet are installeder drivewa s b City staff. The cost of the P 9 pp ( ) Y Y Y pipe is paid for by the citizen, and City staff does the actual installation to ensit is completed correctly. Currently, there is no fee to recover labor costs associated with these installations. Full cost riad d on 7 occurrences. 4. Drain Pipe Install: Large —Large drainage pipes (more than 60 f a installed under driveways by City staff. The cost of the pipe is paid for by the citizen, and City staff does the actual in ion to ensure it is cRNted correctly. Currently, there is no fee to recover labor costs associated with these installati s ost' based on ences. 41 S. Snow/Ice Control - Currently there is contracted servicread aI dgrt Veteran's Hospital's pavedareas. The current fee for this service is recovering 56% of the Csts. '► �` O O O ,Q G 'Q Q o P P o � G G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 38 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 39 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas POLICE DEPARTMENT The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue fo User fee services provided by the Police Department. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing user fee ser.>Oce otals $98,019 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts to $23,362. A� Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues A� Service # of Occurrences Revenue Cost kent Re1.n ee Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1 Accident Reports 4,152 $20,760.0 $24,91 ♦83`. $5.00 $6.00 20% $4,159.00 2 Parking Lot Accident Reports 334 $�60�/o $2.00 $3.00 50% $334.00 3 Delayed Accident Reports 4 Theft/Complaint Reports 300 150 00.00 $300 901.00 $ 0. 66.6% 66.7% $2.00 $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 50% 50% $301.00 $150.00 5 Other Reports (1st sheet) 36. 0 55.6% $1.00 $1.80 80% $16.00 6 Other Reports (more pages) 20 $5.00 $6.00 83.3% $0.25 $0.30 20% $1.00 7 Additional Breath Test P 40 $1'0@4. $720.00 138.9% $25.00 $18.00 -28% -$280.00 8 Taxi Driver Permit 2 0 $17.00 23.5% $2.00 $8.50 325% $13.00 ow O 0.♦` 9 Criminal Records Ch k 1 5.00 $12.00 41.7% $5.001 $12.00 140% $7.00 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 39 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 40 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 1V Service # of Occurrences Revenue Cost Current Recovery%Cost e$O. e @ Full Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 10 Abandoned Vehicle Response* 446 $0.00 $5,353.00 0.0%$12.00 100% $5,353.00 11 Wrecker Company Inspection* 11 $0.00 $394.00 i•Q. $0.00 $35.82 100% $394.00 12 Fingerprinting* 350 $0.00 $4,194.00 �(< 0.0% $0.00 $11.98 100% $4,194.00 13 Auto Unlocks* 5,000 $0.00 $60,015. 0.0% $0.00 $12.00 100% $60,015.00 Totals $23,362.0J $ 23.80/o • 320% t74.657.00 * Services currently provided for no charge. �✓ `V �'�� •`� • •` �' G Service Descriptions • O O 1. Accident Reports — A copy fee is char r copl cidents. Costs are based on 4,152 occurrences. 2. Parking Lot Accident Reports — y fe rg opies of parking lot accident reports. Costs are based on 334 occurrences. ` O 3. Delayed Accident Repo lA ee is charged for co s of delayed accident reports. Costs are based on 300 occurrences. 4. Theft/Complaint Re rt — Copies of co+C9 or theft reports are made available to individuals, attorneys, and insurance compani n request. Costs ar;�Oc460 d on 150 occurrences. 5. Other Re o sa e — A fee is rrhar ed for the ist a e of all other t es of re orts. Costs are based on 20 p ( 9)9 page types P occurrences. 6. Other Reports (additional pages) — A fee is currently charged for the additional pages of all other types of reports. Costs are based on 20 pages requested. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 40 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 41 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 7. Additional Breath Test — After failing a breath test, a person may, upon request, Aested. The current fee for this service is $25.00. Costs are based on 40 occurrences. �► 8. Taxi Driver Permit — Taxi drivers are required to have a current Taxi Driver Tssued by the Police Department. Costs are based on 2 occurrences. 9. Criminal Records Check — The Police Department performs criminal s checks for other law enforcement agencies. Costs are based on a single occurrence, as no data was available o ber of times this activity was performed. 10. Abandoned Vehicle Response — There is currently no fee chaed or responding to kNabandoned vehicle. Full costs are based on 446 occurrences. (NO CURRENT FEE) O • 11. Wrecker Company Inspection — The Police Depart s an ction o Wrecking companies before they can be included in the towing rotation'. No fee is charge fore servi II c used on 11 occurrences. (NO CURRENT FEE) •� • `— `G 12. Fingerprinting — No fee is currently being cl�r ed for f' rintin ormed by the Police Department. Full costs are based on 350 occurrences. (NO CURRE 13. Auto Unlocks — Officers will unlock c11a"cars ue C�ntl this service is being provided without a fee as a q y� g courtesy to citizens, despite this ser ing b t ate sector as well. Costs are based on 5,000 occurrences. (NO CURRENT FEE) O P O C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 41 RFP 22-06, Appendix A ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE & PRIVILEGE PE PAGE 42 of Fayetteville, Arkansas The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue for the4t2,820, verage and privilege permits issued by the Accounting & Audit Department. As the table depicts, the identified full cosng the alcoholic beverage and privilege permits totals $3,565 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts leaving a current City profit' of $29,255. A revenue stream that exceeds cost in this fee area is typical as theQjermit fees are not true 'fee for service' areas. Rather, these permits are regulatory in nature, and the fees charged for ea not be limited by the cost of issuance. Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues IQ"* ,-z n Service # of Occurrences Rft9ge ♦ C Reco, ° Current Fee Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1 Alcohol On Premises Consumption 51.00 $12, 0 .00 ♦� % $250.00 $17.22 93% $11,872.00 2 Alcohol - Private Club 29.00 �250.00 P 499.00 ` 452.9% O $250.00 $17.21 -93% -$6,751.00 3 Alcohol Retail Beer &Light Wine 73 O $2,920.0 $1,2 232.5% $40.00 $17.21 -57% $1,664.00 4 Alcohol - Retail Liquor $4 327. 1452.6% $250.00 $17.21 -93% -$4,423.00 5 Alcohol - Retail Beer Off Premises 0 00 $327.00 0.0% $0.00 $17.21 100% $327.00 6 Alcohol - Wholesale Beer ` O 3.00 $375. $52.00 721.2% $125.00 $17.33 -86% -$323.00 7 Alcohol - Large Attendance Facility 1.00 $500. $18.00 2777.8% $500.00 $18.00 -96% -$482.00 8 Alcohol - Satellite Catering 1.00 00 $18.00 1388.9% $250.00 $18.00 -93% -$232.00 9 Alcohol - Wholesale Liquor 1.00 $500.00 $18.001 2777.8%1 $500.001 $18.00 -96% 482.00 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 42 RFP 22-06, Appendix A 1V PAGE 43 of Fayetteville, Arkansas Service # of Occurrences Revenue Cost Curre RecoveVVVV// `Glrrent Fee Fee C@ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 10 Permit - Taxi Service 2.00 $100.00 $22.00 45 °/ $50.00 $11.00 -78% -$78.00 11 Permit - Limo Service 1.00 $25.00 $12.00 $25.00 $12.00 -52% -$13.00 12 Permit - Rental Car Service 1.00 $200.00 $12. A8.3% (� j1vv666.7% v $200.00 $12.00 -94% -$188.00 13 Permit - Non Motorized Transport 2.00 $500.00 $22. 00, 16* 227217% $250.00 $11.00 -96% -$478.00 14 Permit- Pawn Broker 9.00 $2,700.00 .00 2596.2% $3 $11.56 -96% -$2,596.00 Totals $32 820.00 .00 920.6% 1 -890/0 -$29 255.00 xN: Service Descriptions 1. Alcohol - On Premises Consumption (< 100 capC y) - nd rpvare based on an estimate of 51 occurrences per year. � 2. Alcohol - Private Club - Costs and reven ® based stl 9 occurrences per year. 3. Alcohol - Retail Beer & Light Wine - and r s ar se on an estimate of 73 occurrences per year. 4. Alcohol - Retail Liquor - Costs a nues a o e imate of 19 occurrences per year. S. Alcohol - Retail Beer Off P - Costs andreven a based on an estimate of 19 occurrences per year. 6. Alcohol - Wholesale Be &1i ht Wine - Cost evenues are based on an estimate of 3 occurrences per year. 9 �' p Y 7. Alcohol - Large Atte a Facility - Costsvenues are based on an estimate of 1 occurrence per year. S. Alcohol - Satellie bring - Costs and �ev`ues are based on an estimate of 1 occurrence per year. V 9. Alcohol - Wholesale Liquor - Costs and revenues are based on an estimate of 1 occurrence per year. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 43 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 44 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 10.Permit — Taxi Service — An annual permit is required for Taxi Cab Service businesses. Xi4qditional fee of $5 is charged for each passenger vehicle used on City streets. Costs and revenue are based on an estim ccurrences each year. 11.Permit — Limo Service — An annual permit is required for Limousine Service bu An additional fee of $5 is charged for each passenger vehicle used on City streets. Costs and revenue are based on an 'ate of 1 occurrence each year. 12.Permit — Rental Car Service — An annual permit is required for Rental ice businesses. Costs and revenue are based on an estimate of 1 occurrence each year. 13. Permit — Non Motorized Passenger Transport Service — An a&Uces al ermit is required fq� Non Motorized Transport Service businesses. Costs and revenue are based on an estimate of 2 oc ► each year. • O 14. Permit — Pawn Broker — An annual permit is required f �otori ZIR)p nsport a businesses. Costs and revenue are based on an estimate of 9 occurrences each year. •♦� • • 0& G O O O G 'Q Q O Q' Q' O C> G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 44 RFP 22-06, Appendix A BUILDING SAFETY FEES PAGE 45 of Fayetteville, Arkansas The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue for the Safety related user fee services. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing user fee services totals $751,97 !ngh7erevenue generated from these activities amounts to $1,073,431. nn- Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues Service # of Occurrences Revenue st a R ove /o Cur Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement ♦` 1 Electric Permits all $63,186.00p,590.0 48.4% US $130,590.00 107% $67,404.00 v 2 Gas Permits all $ 18 204. $54,723 3 ARIOUS $54,723.00 201% $36,519.00 3 Mechanical Permits all $36, $6 0 .° VARIOUS $60,813.00 66% $24,129.00 4 Plumbing Permits all Q , 00 .00 0.2% VARIOUS $146,296.00 99% $72,840.00 5 Permit Box Fee 918.00 �1720.00 316 91.9% $7.00 $7.97 9% $596.00 6 Reinspection Fee 145. $4,860. P $3, 0 125.8% $20.00 $26.63 -21% -$998.00 7 Moving Fee Y $700.0 . 0 281.1% $100.00 $35.57 -64% -$451.00 8 Demolition Fee .00 $850.00 64.00 128.0% $50.00 $34.95 -22% -$186.00 C-214,307.00 9 Plan Review Fee 295.00 $118,938.0 104.1% VARIOUS $387.48 -4% -$4,631.00 10 Building Permit Fees all $7084 $172,970.00 409.8% VARIOUS $172,970.00 -76% -$535,818.00 11 Driveway/Curb/Side 725.00 1 00 $12,688.00 145.8% VARIOUS $17.50 -31% -$5,817.00 12 Occupancy Cert 1,075.00 40.00 $29,722.00 67.8% $15.00 $27.65 48% $9,582.00 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 45 RFP 22-06, Appendix A 1V PAGE 46 of Fayetteville, Arkansas Service # of Occurrences Revenue Cost Current Recovery % Cur Alow ee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 13 Renewal Fee 7.00 $350.00 $50.00 700.0% 0 $7.14 86% -$300.00 13 Footing/Foundation 1.00 $50.00 $55.00 90.90/ $50.00 $55.00 10% $5.00 14 Design Build Fee 2.00 $2,000.00 $1,301.00 53 o VARIOUS $650.50 -35% -$699.00 15 Residential Plan Review * 914.00 $0.00 $16,368.00 0.0% NONE $17.91 100% $16,368.00 Totals $1 073 431.00 $751 974.00 142.7% -30% -$321 457.00 * Service provided at no cost. ✓ ♦ O Service Descriptions 0& G 1. Electrical Permits — All revenue and costs ed wit c ical a and inspections are shown here. Costs are based on 1,045 permits and 4,537 inspections. 2. Gas Permits - All revenue and costs ate p s and inspections are shown here. Costs are based on 436 permits and 2,963 inspections. O 3. Mechanical Permits - All r and costs associat Mechanical permits and inspections are shown here. Costs are based on 585 permits and 3 10 Inspections. `CO 4. Plumbing Permits - Al ue and costs as d with Plumbing permits and inspections are shown here. Costs are based on 885 permits an 00 Inspections. 5. Permit Box Fee revenue and costs asQted with a Permit Box are shown here. Costs are based on 918 occurrences. 6. Reinspection Fee - All revenue and costs associated with Reinspections are shown here. Costs are based on 145 occurrences. 7. Moving Fee - All revenue and costs associated with Moving fees are shown here. Costs are based on 7 occurrences. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 46 RFP 22-06, Appendix A 8. Demolition Fee - All revenue and costs associated with Demolition fees are sho 9. Plan Review Fee - All revenue and costs associated with Plan Reviews are shov 10. Building Permit Fees - All revenue and costs associated with Building perm PAGE 47 of Fayetteville, Arkansas are based on 19 occurrences. ire based on 295 occurrences. >ns are shown here. Costs are based on 675 occurrences with 6,234 inspections. Q� 11. Driveway/Curb/Sidewalk — All revenue associated with Driveway/Cu / walk services are shown here are based on 725 occurrences. Costs and revenue 12. Occupancy Certification - Full cost and revenue are based on occurrences. 13. Renewal Fee — When a permit expires, a renewal fee is re i beCosts ' nues are based on 7 occurrences. 14. Footing/Foundation Fee — Full cost and revenue are bas on+ccbence Io i' 15. Design Build Fee — Full cost and revenue are based 00 occXX. • �" •♦ 16. Residential Plan Review — These plan revie curre t� occurrences. (NO CURRENT FEE) '♦ Z G O Q' Q' O C> G ne Tee to the customer. Full cost is based on 914 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 47 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 48 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas PARKS & RECREATION FEES The table below presents a summary of the comparison of cost and revenue for the Recreation related user fee services. As the table depicts, the identified full cost of providing user fee services totals $162, 33 and the revenue generated from these activities amounts to $289,376. A Detailed Breakdown of Fees/Revenues Service # of Occurrences Reven^ cost u ent Rec Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 1 Boat Stall Rents 104.00%ilM2 78 ♦ .39/0 $407.48 201% $28,276 2 Fishing Permit 7,512.00 $23,251 P9,950 77.6% $3.99 29% $6,699 3 Boating Permit 2,194.% O $ 27.5% $14.79 264% $23,521 4 Swimming Pool 21 1 8 400 13.8% $10.38 622% $189,495 5 SwimmingLessons .00 ?,0 �, ` �19,943 $9152 98.9% $25.28 1% $102 6 Softball Adult (teams) 193.00 $7 IQ $291,001 25.5% $1,507.78 292% $216,681 7 Softball Youth Slow 353.00 rX $68,595 29.0% $194.32 244% $48,675 8 Softball Youth Fast (teams 4 22.00 ♦ $8,920 ` $38,068 23.4% $1,730.36 327% $29,148 9 Soccer Youth 2,785 0 $85,720 $273,268 31.4% $98.12 219% $187,548 10 Football Adult teams 8.00 $2,740 $11,210, 24.4% $1,401.25 309% $8,4701 Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 48 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 49 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Service # of Occurrences Revenue Cost Current Rec o Fee @ Full Cost Potential Fee Increase % Potential Revenue Enhancement 11 Gary Hampton Facility Rental 8.00 $2,235 $7,385 % $923.13 230% $5,150 12 Lake Fayetteville Facility Rental 3.00 $675 $2,233 V 30.2% $744.33 231% $1,558 13 White River Facility Rental 1.00 $150 $;4 01 25.5% $589.00 293% $439 14 Asbell Lewis Facility Rental 3.00 $1,400400 31.8% _^ $1,466.67 214% $3,000 �/ 16 Walker Facility Rental 1.00 $350 1 31.3 $1,119.00 220% $769 17 Athletic Facility Rental 12.00 $ $1,841 0ko $153.42 207% $1,241 ♦ ♦ N 18 Play Fees - Per Player 1,314.00 9 8 0 % $21.73 335%1 $21 985 Totals 289,376 2,133 27.20/. 267% $772,757 Service Descriptions 1. Boat Stall Permits — All revenue VS as ' w' t Stall rental at the two lakes are shown here. Unit cost is based on 104 occurrences. 2. Fishing Permits — All reven costs associated yuith ishing permits are shown here. Unit cost is based on 7512 permits issued. � *4 4S 3. Boating Permits — s and revenuetcsts .I with issuing and enforcing Boating Permits are shown here. The City is currently recoveri g a�oximately 28% of(Jei with with this activity. 4. Swimming Pool Admittance — The City is currently only recovering approximately 14% of the costs of operating the swimming pool. 5. Swimming Lessons — Costs of Swim lessons offered by City staff lifeguards have been based on 362 lessons provided. Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 49 RFP 22-06, Appendix A PAGE 50 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 6. Softball Adult — All revenue and costs associated with operating the City's Adult Softball �s; are shown here. The unit cost is based on 193 teams participating. 7. Softball Youth Slow — All revenue and costs associated with operating the City' �oftball (slow pitch) leagues are shown here. The unit cost is based on 353 participants. 8. Softball Youth Fast — All revenue and costs associated with operating t s Youth Softball (fast pitch) leagues are shown here. The unit cost is based on 22 teams participating. 9. Soccer Youth — All revenue (including sponsorships) and costs a kcia ed with operatine City's Youth Soccer league are shown here. The unit cost is based on 2,785 participants. � o 10. Flag Football Adult — All revenue and costs associated ehrating`�)Izity's FI tball Adult league are included in this // item. The unit cost is based on 8 teams participating. � • 11-17. Facility Rentals — All revenue and costs associat ith fa�k ava&IN�� rental are included here. On the whole, the o �� City is recovering approximately 30 /o of its costs. 18. Player Fees — A $5 per play fee is collect 1sport es th ze the City s facilities, but are not actually operated by the City in order to recover the maintenar is of iliti ed. he unit cost is based on 1,314 participants. V G o P P o G G Comprehensive User Fee Study Page 50 RFP 22-06, Appendix B Page 1 City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Appendix B - Current Services by Department INDEX Department Development Services Development Services - Building Permit Fees � a Plnning Engineering (�� n.V �GJ cb ♦� • 0& G O O O N'S ,Q G 'Q Q O Q' Q' CO O •' A Cj Ci RFP 22-06, Appendix B Page 2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEES Description Amount Building Permits Original C of O—new building $ 15.00 Certificate of Completion $ 15.00 C of O—existing building and/or change of use $ 25.00 Demolition permit Temporary C of O Footing/foundation only Appeal to CBAA Moving permit Administration/Maintenance Fee Permit extension Permit Processing Fee Design/Build Fee Emergency/After Hours Inspection Outside City Limits Construction without Permit Re -inspection Fee Temporary CO $ 50.00 $ .00 50 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 1.00 25 $ 25.00 $ 50.0 $ 20 . %2 per t 1,000 max $ �0.00 20.00 it Fee x2 .$ 5 1stt1nTC rence, th200 max) $25 f r t every s ($200 max) Electrical Permits First four (4) Meters O (�� $ �0 Each Additional Meter V 5.00 Per Outlet/Opening 0.25 Inspection in Concrete G 10.00 Neon tube lighting O $ 10.00 Minimum Permit $ 20.00 Apprentice re istra on $ 10.00 Gas Permits • �� Firs a fixtures $20 / $2 each addtl fixture Mechanical Permits Minimum Fee for 1st Unit Additional Units greater than 1/3 HP Fractional HP Mech. Exhaust Gas Vent per Unit Plumbing Permits 1ST Five (5) Fixtures Inspection Under Slab $ 20.00 $ 5.00 $ 2.00 $ 5.00 $20 / $1.75 each addtl fixture $ 10.00 RFP 22-06, Appendix B Page 3 Building Permit Fee Schedule FEE SCHEDULE NOTICE: Fractions of $1,000 are considered to the next $1 .000 in cost. Fees shall be based on material and labor, (lnciudrng plumbing, electrical and heat/cooling cost). Material Permit Material Permit Material Permit 3 Labor: Cost: & Labor. Cost: & Labor: Cost: S 1 to 1.000 --- 'No Fee $18,000 $100 $35,000 $185 S2.000 ....... S20 $19.000 $105 S36.000 S 190 S3.000 ....... $25 S20.000 $110 S37.000 S195 S4,000 ------- S30 $21.000 $115 S38.000 S200 S5.000 ....... S35 S22.000 S 120 539.000 S205 S6.000 ....... S40 S23.000 ....... $125 S40.000 $210 S7.000 S45 $24.000 $130 S41.000 S2t5 S8,000 ....... S50 $25.000 ....... $135 S42.000 $220 S9,000 S55 $26,000 _ S 140 S43. 0 $225 510.000 S60 S27.000 ....... $145 $44 $230 S11.000 ..__. - S65 S26.000 $150 S235 $12.000 $70 $29.000 S 155 ....... $240 $13,000 S75 S30.000 ....... S160 $47, ...... $245 S14.000 ....... S80 S31.000 ....... S165 8.000------- S250 S 15.000 ....... $85 $32.000 ....... Silo /0 9.000 ....... $255 $16,000 - --. S90 S33.000 $175 V t S50.000 ....... S260 $17,000 $95 S34.000 S180 �V/ No Fee. unless inspection required. in which case a 520 00 fee forth nspection 6,01 be charged FEE SCHEDULE CONTINUED ♦ O $50,001 to S100,000: $260 for the first $50.000 plus S4 for ch additional thousand or fraction thereof. to and tnclud+ng 51000 $100,001 to S500.000: $460 for the first S100,000 plus ist000 ach `� ♦ ` addilrunal thousand or fraction thereof, to and tnclu ng G $600,001 and up: S1.660 for the first S500 p�for ea /'► O additional thousand. er_m` itt)Fee Total Fee Project Valuation up to $10 $4 = $460 $690 Project Valuation up t 0 k P $3 = $1,660 $2,490 Project Valuation ve $2 = $2,660 $3,990 RFP 22-06, Appendix B Page 4 PLANNING FEES Description Signs Sign Permit Windblown Signs Sign Variance Filing Fee Development All Concept Plats Lot Splits Property Line Adjustments Resubmittal Fee for Tabled Items Plat Reviews (CCP, PPL, FPL) Nonresidential Residential (10 or less) Residential (25 or less) Residential (over 25) Other Plan Reviews (LSD, SIP, LSIP) Nonresidential (5000 sq ft or less) Nonresidential (over 5000 sq ft) Amount $ 25.00 $ 10.00 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 DV $ 800.00 V $ 200.0, � $ 40� 4 •�� 8 Residential (10 units or less) $ 0 Residential (25 units or less) • O $ 0.0 O Residential (26 units or more) 800.0( Zoning Q G Rezoning O 25.00 Zoning Verificatio 50.00 Planned Zoni Dis ict Nonres'a (5000 sq ft or less) CO, 800.00 Nonr a (over 5000 sq ft) • $ 1,125.00 s d I (10 units/lots or I ss ` $ 525.00 ntial (25 units/lots or Ie $ 725.00 Residential (over 25 units/lots) $ 1,125.00 Conditional Use Permit $ 100.00 Variances Planning Commission Variance $ 100.00 Board of Adjustment Variance $ 100.00 After Violation has occurred $ 200.00 Appeal of Zoning & Development $ 100.00 Administrator Determination RFP 22-06, Appendix B Page 5 PLANNING FEES Description Amount Vacation (easement or ROW) $ 200.00 Annexation $ 325.00 Fireworks Vendor Permit $ 500.00 Small Cell Facilities Co -located Facility $ 100.00 New or Replacement Facility $ 250.00 Annual Fee for Each $ 30.00 Co -location of City -owned Pole $ 240.00 Unauthorized Co -location $ 480.00 Reinspection $ 150.00 Other V Outdoor Mobile Vendor Permit $ 100.0� Parklet $ 10� Sidewalk Vendor Permit (Jan -June) Sidewalk Vendor Permit (July -Dec) $ $.00 , O Tree Preservation Fee $ 20.00 Public Notification Fee • �� Manufactured Home � ' �` Manufactured Home Renewal $ 0 `` Home Occupation • O $ (�� 25.0 O Home Occupation Renewal N` V 12.5( Tree Preservation Q G Filing Fee O <20.00 P ENGINEERING FEES Description Streets and Sidewalks Driveway, curb cut, sidewalk, and all other excavation in public ROW Temporary Closure Permit Sidewalks Residential Streets Neighborhood & Regional Links Downtown/Urban Streets Closure Extension Permit Amount $ 25.00 Application Per Day Fee Fee $ 50.00 $ 25.00 6 $ 50.00 $ 25.0 $ 50.00 $25 - $� $ 25.00 same Vbove V Drainage Grading Plan esubmittal Report Review & Permit , Fee quired) Grading Permit Less than 0.50 acre $ 15�75.0075.00 0.50 to 1.0 acre $ 0.00 10t $ 100.00 Over 1.0 acre 200 $ 200.00 Appeals 100/A N/A Re -inspection Fee �$25 1st c ence, ($200 max) Construction without Grading Pere► ,A< Gra rmit ` Floodplain Determination �► Administrative Review ( Q G (EC, Fence, Acc Stru ) P $ .00 N/A N/A LOMA, LOMR-F $�/5.00 $ 25.00 N/A CLOMR/LOM P 200.00 $ 100.00 N/A Appeals 100.00 N/A N/A o Cj Cj .,r,.a«,...,r��� ..« RFP 22-06, Addendum 1 9" Date: Friday, August 5, 2022 IV To: All Prospective Vendors From: Amanda Beilfuss — 479.575.8258 — abeilfuss@fayetteville-ar.gov RE: RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS This addendum is hereby made a part of the contract documents to the sa & eAt as though it were originally included therein. Interested parties should indicate their receiptaofl,�e the appropriate blank of the RFP. PROPOSERS SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THIS ADDENDUM ON THETED LOCATION ON THE BID FnRM ol 1. There will be a non -mandatory pre -proposal conference hid °� dnesday, August 101h at 2:00 PM, local time, via zoom. Below is the zoom information: Topic: Pre -Proposal Conference: RFP 22-065 �ocation & User Fe y Time: Aug 10, 2022 02:00 PM Central Ti and a) ` Join Zoom Meeting ,. • httr)s://us06web.zoom.us/i/87988�58387?iD U RkN@9�Di UNCTFRaeUJiRU1aZz09 �v. `` Meeting ID: 879 8866 0Mn n. O Passcode:071084 �� One tap mobile 01 Iq 8884754499 87 0387# -fre 877853525 660387# Toll - Dial b o location 75 4499 US Toll -free ?853 5257 US ToIW��� in ID: 879 8866Q8743NOd your local numbers://us06web.zoom.us/u/kDizHFXfL City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Addendum 1 Page 111 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf TDD (479) 521-1316 113 West Mountain -Fayetteville, AR 72701 RFP 22-06, Addendum 2 CITY OF qu FAYETTEVILLE Date: Friday, August 12, 2022 A R KA N SAS To: All Prospective Vendors From: Amanda Beilfuss — 479.575.8220 — abeilfuss@fayetteville-ar.gov RE: RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study This addendum is hereby made a part of the contract documents to the sae e> eedt as though it were originally included therein. Interested parties should indicate their receipt of !I;Ze the appropriate blank of the RFP. PROPOSERS SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THIS ADDENDUM ON THE A TED LOCH TION ON THE BID Fnl?m 1. A non -mandatory pre -proposal conference was held on W n, August 10th at 2:00 PM, local time, via zoom. The listing of attendees is also attached for disc) re to all interested parties. a. Attendees: � _^ i. City of Fayetteville: O 1. Amanda Beilfuss, Sr. Purc Age 2. Andrea Foren, Purchase nager 3. Kevin Springer, Bu Director• 4. Holly Black Senior F ncial A�+, • ` 5. Aril Melton t Anal p � Y 6. JonathamC t evelo Ser sector 7. Mike Wi Wlhr, Ci cil Me ii. Vendors 1. onsul up Q 2. The followin que ions have been ad4r d: G a. 'fin: In the City's ti the City states that a draftstudy must be completed within 90 d . However, based pn�r experience, a study of this nature usually takes about minimum onths to get the draiase. Is an alternative time frame acceptable? Answer: Yes, an alternative, appropriate time frame would be acceptable. b. Question: Is there a specific deadline for implementation of the study results? Answer: There is not a specific deadline, but in a timely manner c. When was the City's last cost allocation study conducted? And has the City updated it internally since then? Answer: 2004 was the period the last user fee study was completed. Although CPI updates have been made, a full cost allocation study has not been updated since then. City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Addendum 2 P a g e 1 1 2 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf TDD (479) 521-1316 113 West Mountain -Fayetteville, AR 72701 d. When was the City's last user fee study conducted? And has the City updated it internally since then? Answer: 2004 was the period the last user fee study was completed. It has not been updated since then. e. What is the impetus behind the study? Answer: There is a need to update current user fees to a more realistic amount. The City underwent organizational structure changes shortly after 2004; therefor, there is a need to complete the cost allocation study. f. Does the City have a project budget for this engagement? Answer: While we do have funds set aside for this, we feel ii� t ntirely accurate, as this study hasn't been performed since 2004. �� ♦� • 9J- N'S ,Q G 'Q Q O Q' Q' CO O •' A Ci Ci City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 2 0- 1 3, Addendum 1 P a g e 2 1 2 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf TDD (479) 521-1316 113 West Mountain -Fayetteville, AR 72701 City of Fayetteville RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Date: 08/10/2022 at 2:00 PM Meeting ID 87988660387 Topic Pre -Proposal Conference: RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Start Time 8/10/2022 1:56:39 PM End Time 8/10/2022 2:13:39 PM User Email abeilfuss@fayetteville-ar.gov Duration (Minutes) 18 Participants 9 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS ARKANSAS Name (Original Name) Amanda Beilfuss User Email abeilfuss@fayetteville-ar.gov Total Durati n (Minutes) Guest 17 No Andrea Foren aforen@fayetteville-ar.gov 17 No kspringer �J► 17 Yes Holly Black 18 Yes Khushboo Ingle 16 Yes amelton % 11 Yes Jonathan Curth Mike Wiederkehr jcurth@fayetteville-ar.gov ��(,� 11 No 6 Yes t` 0& � �kl CjoS� G�� CITY OF .� FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS S RFP 22-06 Addendum 2 MGT of America Consulting, L� T MGT of America, LL(�� Supplier Respons?' Event Information Number: RFP 22-06 Addendum � Title: Cost Allocation &User Fel)ud Y Type: Request for Propos} • V" Issue Date: 8/2/2022 Deadline: 8/23/2022 02: �(CT) Notes: The City of F eville is Ring we for proposal for a cost allocation r fee s�ny slipns concer is oli to i�+►i proc hould be directed to Andrea Foren, of Fa Nle P sing alter, at afore @fa—aar.gov or by calling (479) 575-8256. Con 4 Information 6d ckt: Amanda Bei ress: Purchasi $ Room 6 City Hall 113 West Mountain Street - Room 306 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Email: abeilfuss@fayetteville-ar.gov Page 1 of 2 pages Vendor: MGT of America Consulting, LLC RFP 22-06 Addendum 2 MGT of America Consulting, LLC Information Contact: Malony Allen Address: 4320 W. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: (888) 302-0899 Email: rcvrfp@mgtconsulting.com Web Address: mgtconsulting.com By submitting your response, you certify that you are authorized to represent and bind your company. Patrick J. Dyer der m tconsultin .co Signature Email Submitted at 8/22/2022 03:59:40 PM (CT) Requested Attachments RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study T Proposal City of\etteville CAP _UF.pdf Please attach the signed and completed RFP forms, located in t e ' tachments" tab alonany additional documents. (�.• Response Attachments _ �� r MGT E-Sign.pdf v Supplier Information Form (�+ C�i Example Report 1.pdf V" Example Report 1: User Fee Study-B 'P ' Ian Revi nd In ti� Example Report 2.pdf � '( Example Report 2: Cost Allocatio P and Cost 0 P P 0 Cj Page 2 of 2 pages Vendor: MGT of America Consulting, LLC RFP 22-06 Addendum 2 CITY OF W FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSA RFP 22-06 64%, Cost Allocation & User Fee Stu Issue Date: 8/2/2022 z Questions Deadline: 8/23/202�M (CT) Response Deadline: 8/23/20) 2 :00 PM (CT) ��► Z Con ac orm ti Contact: Aman ilfus V' Address: P asing ,'JW 306 ', f;► ��y Hal Qj '�G 113 ount et - Room 306 F e it ,A 01 fl: ab s fa Ile-ar.gov �a � P P � 0 Cj 0 Akv Page 1 of 4 pages Deadline: 8/23/2022 02:00 PM (CT) RFP 22-06 Event Information Number: RFP 22-06 Title: Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Type: Request for Proposal Issue Date: 8/2/2022 Question Deadline: 8/23/2022 02:00 PM (CT) Response Deadline: 8/23/2022 02:00 PM (CT) Notes: The City of Fayetteville is seeking requests for proposal for a cost allocation & user fee study. Any questions concerning this solicitation process should be directed to Andrea Foren, City of Fayetteville Purchasing Manager, at aforen@fayetteville-ar.gov or by calling *(47- 256. Bid Activities `✓ Pre -Proposal Conference A 8/2/2 22 2:00:00 PM (CT) Topic: Pre -Proposal Conference: RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & Us ee Study •` Time: Aug 2, 2022 02:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada) n- _✓ G Join Zoom Meeting J► https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87238371865?pwd=cHV0dvOU tZkF&. /IDlwZz09 WNW 0 Meeting ID: 872 3837 1865 SSS Passcode.436184p mobile n�oOne to tP8884754499„87238371US Toll -free 7( 8778535257„872 65# US Toll-fre O O Dial by your ocation 888 475 4499 US Toll -free 877 853 5257 US Toll -free Meeting ID: 872 3837 1865 Find your local number: https:Hus06web.zoom.us/u/kJfVLV6VW Bid Attachments RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study.pdf RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 2 of 4 pages Deadline: 8/23/2022 02:00 PM (CT) RFP 22-06 Requested Attachments RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study (Attachment required) Please attach the signed and completed RFP forms, located in the "Attachments" tab along with any additional documents. Page 3 of 4 pages Deadline: 8/23/2022 02:00 PM (CT) RFP 22-06 Supplier Information Company Name: MGT of America Consultina. LLC Contact Name: Bruce Cowans Director. Financial Solutions Grou Address: 4320 West Kennedy Boulevard, Ste 200 Tampa, Florida 33609 Phone: 888302.0899 Fax: W,17-M Supplier Notes com r� L.J By submitting your re You certify that ou & thorized to represent and bind your company. O G Patrick J. Dyer, Vice President Print Name N Signature Page 4 of 4 pages Deadline: 8/23/2022 02:00 PM (CT) RFP 22-06 Cost Allocation & User Fee Study CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Proposal August 23, 2022 RFP # 22-06 P Gx� CONSULTJ Submitted by: BRUCE COWANS VICE PRESIDENT, PERFORMANCE SOLUTIONS 790 Frontage Rd, Ste 110 Northfield, IL 60093 847.441.4175 bcowans@mgtconsulting.com CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY August 23, 2022 Table of Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................1 MGT DESCRIPTION, HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, AND SERVICES.............................................................................................. �!.............3 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................... ....�V................... 4 EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES......... �..........................8 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................13 EXPERIENCE...............................................................................................23 SIMILAR WORK PRODUCT .................................... ...........................♦.. ... . 25 EXAMPLE REPORT ......................................... 4 ............................... ... ............26 PROPOSED SCHEDULE ........................... .............. �.......... .. ........................27 COST PROPOSAL ............................ .. .......... ......... .. 29 ::!:... . V: APPENDIX ............................. ........... ........ .........................31 �0 • G N Proposal Ex P Exh1 it 1.mparison of Cost Alloc&on ethodologies.................................................. 4 O O ci 0 Akv " MGT MGTCONSULTING.COM CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Many cities update a cost allocation plan annually and user fee studies every five years. Fayetteville's last study was in 2004 and the City has experienced a great deal of growth. Fairness to taxpayers means that fees reimburse City costs. Yet with fees this old, the only way to fix this situation is to perform new cost allocation and fee study projects. MGT has been in the business of serving local governments since 1974 and brings substantial national experience in cost allocation and in developm rvice fees. In this proposal, we explain how we would do the work, and our qualifications.-,` You will receive a professionally prepared cost allocation plan. We prepa^L' plp aJn's in custom-built software for that purpose because it is more robust than a s readshe Bwe can export the findings p p p p g to one of three Excel models. We will explain the options to you, bye s ntially, the more complex versions have more features. We would train you to use the v Si u choose. You will also receive a development fee study. Our team d s m re of those than an�,,6,,rJFirm, and our team's experience in these studies includes cities lar small. Some of our tom -notable larger clients for this work have included the cities of Chi a sto hoenix, Nash ' elanta, Tampa, St. Louis, Reno, Pittsburgh, Tucson, and Dallas. W are I active en aged son how to provide development services, helping clients to define p r staff rmitti` ms, work rules, organization structure, and builder commns. '` COST ALLOCATION SERVICES V" Cities prepare cost allocation I ec� citmi 'st i and support costs (accounting, p p p 4 Y pp ( g payroll, HR, legal, city administ should e y alto internal and external sources with the expectation that a reasona e will r the C'ieneral fund. The most common areas that receive an allocation fro c t alloc n incl • Enterpri Vt ,Utilities User feed services Fe d state related pr ral �S uch as HUD, Housing Programs, CDBG, FEMA, FFA, etc. •Prams ments providing s s (and bill using full cost hourly rate staff billings) to non -city 0 There are two basic met s reparing cost allocation plans. They are centered around the recovery of city costs supporting reg city operations verses city operations related to federal and state programs. To recover costs supporting all programs in a city, two different tracks of cost allocation cost recovery methods must be prepared. The federal/state documents are more restrictive in their recovery, while the full cost models include costs the federal/state documents disallow. Typically, cities want to recovery general fund administrative costs from city operations like enterprise funds, user fee charges and ISF programs. Allocation methods are based on best practices and to a lesser extent, federal or state government guidelines. The documents that result from full cost allocation plans will meet what is generally referred to as the "best practices" followed by other cities in Florida. *+ MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 1 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY To recover city costs that support and help operate state and federal programs, the City must develop cost recovery methodologies that meet requirements set forth in federal circular numbered 2 CFR Part 200, 225. This circular provides information needed to calculate cost of service models that recover only approved costs. These arcane guidelines are voluminous, and difficult to comply with without years of experience. For the past 30+ years, MGT has prepared and submitted cost allocation plans for appr val to state and federal review authorities. During the past three-year period alone, our staff has u eral cost allocation plan methodologies for hundreds of agencies across the country. 6'N DEVELOPMENT SERVICE FEE STUDIES Cost is a fact based on the resources used to deliver a service. Price is a pqylLhoice. You can make better choices about how to price services when you know what a se costs. For a development permit fee study, we design for the follo �oals: '\%, 1. The study will show the cost of each service that review so that you can* ice choices. X 2. The study process should respect the comelicants, an on your staff' I 3. The results should be transparent toy a 4. The results should not be unduly d c It for you* in y 'i ting system. In terms of policy support, we are deep) ex ienced ' field an�proposed project manager is a former city council member. We kn hew to mo e m tech findings through stakeholder 10 IV support, to a successful adoption► iiee ✓ prices. Our proposal provides detail ur prof quali ' ns, our firm's relevant experience, and our approach and detailed wo p to n eet, b ceed the needs and expectations of the City. We look forward to in with the C of Fa et v 0 �. 0 ci 0 Akv ** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 2 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY MGT Description, History and Organization Structure, and .�• MGT(. M CONS Services /PROFILE CONSUL MGT of America Consulting, LLC (MGT) began operations in 1974. We are a national consulting firm Name: M erica specializing in assisting public sector clients to Consulting, (MGT) operate more efficiently and effectively. kcalons: 1974 We have provided the services required for this Headquarters W\�h' project for more than 30 years. pa Florida; offinride Staff: 420+ consul' (j�V Social Impact ✓ tru ure: Pri eld, e (cyee- e , Limited You strive to make a difference in the worl ndny. Key units are MGT Consulting shares that goal. Our work +'abili?,CV erfomn e Services (the group designed to relieve pressure on taxpay to &I to ovie services in this project, improve your financial stability s+ t u can logy Services, and magnify your impact, and to ge� ore of ' ` cational Services. and effective ways of operati should proud to make a differenc ' dive of u V Lines of Business: Government citizens. We are proud with y rd th' V Consulting, Education and goal. `` Financial Solutions, Diversity and Q. Inclusion, Human Capital, Cyber Our headquarters re in Tampa, with addit al Security and Technology locations ac he country. With virtu tin s Y g now co ffice location mates muc less. G � .❖. MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 3 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY ■ Identify the true costs of ■ Charging non -General Fund Administrative and administering all city funds for administrative and t costs allowable departments, divisions, support services. ` n r AAP. Plan and programs. ■ Recovering citywide nforms to 2 CFR Part ■ Justification for charging administrative and sup 200 principles but is not as the proportional cost for costs in hourly and billing restrictive. city administration and rates. D Is not submitted for FULL COST support to internal Recovering y review trcognizant sources, or external administra and support agency�� sources in the case of costs in se fees and rates. �I�l�Fansfer of billing rates and user B4uNr and resource from non-GF to the fees. ions. • Typically result in 15% G eral Fund. higher returns than 2 Part 200 plans. � ` V ■ Identify admin' iv A�Ch ing overi�costs to If this type of plan is used costs alloyv der 2 (/ eral Bra ts. (/ for grant or claim use, 2 CFR Par d Char ' ° rhead costs to CFR Part 200 requires that distr' hose c s st is and SB 90 an annual plan be uitable prepared. 2 CFR PART 200 ging admin an ovides a conservative Maybe reviewed by a verhead costs to gra s, view of citywide cognizant agency. claims and other us administrative and support � No that specifical reg02 costs. �+ CFR Part 20 u Ex ' 1. mparison of Cost Allocation Methodologies MGTCAP Cost Alloc ion Software We use proprietary cost allocation software, MGTCAP, to develop MGTCAP cost allocation plans. Most vendors use a purpose-built software for cost allocation as well because spreadsheets are simply not as robust. However, we can export these to Excel after the plan is developed. Software development entails a cost that vendors accept as a cost of doing business because it produces a better result. The MGTCAP software uses a double iteration (step-down) methodology ensuring the full allocation of all costs and the recognition of the cross allocations among central service agencies Often a provider of .❖. M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 4 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY such support also receives support too and the cost of support it receives should not remain in an indirect cost department. The software also enables the allocation of an unlimited number of cost pools using multiple allocation bases. Report outputs include detailed schedules that reconcile all costs allocated in the CAP to the City's financial statements. It also provides summary and management reports which compare the current year's allocation results with prior years. MGTCAP writes reports directly into Microsoft Excel, which provides us the ability to rqodify the presentation of the results in a nearly unlimited fashion. We offer three versions o cel download and can train you to run them. Not surprisingly, the version with the most feature re i s more training. MGT's final reports are packed into all-inclusive PDF files that incluc�e�ertal cover, table of contents, introduction, certifications, detailed cost allocation results, and narratives. Executive Summary information and year-to-year comparison worksheetS a e incorporated into separate deliverables for City management and other users that are interested in bottom line results and don't require all the detailed calculations. Our cost pla transparency to both reviewers and the public. DEVELOPMENT SERVICE FEE STUDIES Cost is a fact based on the resources used to deliver a Price is a policy ch u can make better choices about how to price services when y VW wh a s rvice costs. For a development permit fee study, wed ' n for e &f%IIQAijnfour 1. The study will show the cost of ch service review so t you can make price choices. 2. The study process should r p the co g dem your staff's time. 3. The results should be rent to o applicari 4. The results should and . u for ``code in your permitting system. This work requires f i ar y with indu ry pra tic ow you process permits as well as knowledge of cost accounti to ble us to turn intervie s into cost findings by fee type. In keeping a RFP's request for a it we provide our work Ian and schedule in table p g q p� p p format. W&OUrs and involvemepl(f City staff are shown in the right-hand column by task. Project Manage Kickoff meeting to addrNss scope, timing, deliverables, and identify people to interview Request data and populate cost models for interviews Project financial management Team status calls every two weeks Project 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 management plan with dates 6.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 6.00 6.00 ** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY PAGE 5 Conduct session with relevant City staff on current plan structure, uses, and desired changes Collect basic financial and operational data Interview providers of indirect support Evaluate existing methods and options for changes Propose and confirm design of new cost allocation plan Distribute costs to functions Develop allocation bases by type of cost 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 4.00 4.0 8.00 2.00 2.00 Lp 4.00 2.00 8.00 8.00 z8.00 8.00 4.00 171 Develop draft cost allocation plan Draft cost v 2.00 8.00 %Q 00 allocation plan � Internal CIA of draft plan 1.00 1.v .00 Present draft cost allocation plan 1.00 1. ` 2.00 Edit cost allocation plan per City G 2.0 0 6.00 comments Explain 3 options for an Excel version o Ilocati 2.00 plan and create the chosen option 1 ` Prepare final cost allocation pla K\ Final ktN �%► 1.00 2.00 3.00 oalln plan* Train City staff to update rsion of cost allocation plan Phase 2 F e�� Review exi a schedules and Co prehensive 0.50 discus ote ial new fees ventory of �'w o current fees to O_J review, City to approve �scuss structure of fe ai�ether Design memo, 1.00 changes may be apR[Qp City to approve Interview supervisors No can describe typical effort levels by fee types for fixed price fees 1.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 12.00 14.00 14.00 Interview supervisors in other departments with direct permit or application review effort about their support for fee services Develop construction fee rates using City explanations of time by construction fee types Develop first draft of cost findings, Draft report including non -labor additives and overhead 8.00 8.00 14.00 0.50 6.00 4.00 28.00 6.50 32.00 2.00 ** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 6 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY Survey 4-6 peer communities to Fee comparison 0.50 16.00 16.50 4.00 establish relevant comparative pricing to peers Four rounds of drafts to obtain a final Cost recovery 4.00 24.00 28.00 report. RFP calls for due date of model 12.00 12/31/22, which is feasible if work starts by 8/15/22 Discuss technology special revenue fund or other method 1.00 1.00 1.00 of obtaining big ticket items needed at irregular intervals Train City staff to update fee models �► 4.00 4.00 V Report Findings ,n - Draft and two rounds of edits of Report on all 4.00 2.00 6.00 1.00 narrative project report aspects of study Review key talking points for 0. 0 0.50 0.50 presentation with City staff Develop presentation materials Slide deck(s) .00 0 0.50 Deliver presentation Oral .00 ♦ �� 4.00 4.00 presentatio s GO 22.50 1 210.50 88.50 It ♦ + V ` Ci O ♦ G ' O Q' P P � O �. o Ci C) .❖. M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 7 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY Experience working with other public entities The tables below show where we have done this work for other public entities. The first shows our cost allocation plans performed in the last five years. The second lists the user fee studies w have done in the last 12 months. ALASKA Alaska Environmental Conservation A ALABAMA Jefferson County Commission Alabama DCNR C% ARIZONA VV City of Flagstaff Coconino County Arizona At oheral City of Mesa Maricopa County S Arizona It, t nt of Forestry City of Surprise & Arizon try & Fire Mgmt City of Yuma Pinal Of County G Ariz ol► e & Fish Cochise County Yuma Cou mo ice of the Governor CA Cl City of Alameda City o Ville ` City of Anaheim of acrame t'V Lake County Lassen County City of Beaumont &bf San JAI Los Angeles County City of Chula Vista ♦`'0 of San s ♦ Madera County City of Clovis I City of n na �[` Marlin County City of Corona �► Cit Clara ` Modoc County City of Daly City G anta M 3✓ City of Dublin o 1700f Santa City of Encinitas City of Su City of Fremont City Tur ck City of Fresn Ci &Ilejo City of He i g Cittwest Covina Fire Dept City of 1 City of Yuba City Ci of e s a (pine County Cing Beach �� Amador County City of Newport Beach City of Oakland City of Pasadena City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Redlands City of Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park Public Safety Calaveras County Del Norte County El Dorado County Humboldt County Inyo County LA County Metro Transportation Authority COLORADO Mono County Napa County Orange County Plumas County San Bernardino County San Joaquin County San Mateo County San Mateo County Sheriff Santa Cruz County Sonoma County Sheriff's Department Stanislaus County Tuolumne County Ventura County Yolo County Community Services Yuba County Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District Port of Oakland .❖. M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 8 CONSULTING RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY City of Boulder Eagle County Park County City of Brighton Elbert County Pitkin County City of Carson Fremont County Rio Blanco County City of Colorado Springs Garfield County Routt County City of Loveland Gilpin County Summit County City of Rifle Grand County Teller County City of Westminster Gunnison County City andof Denver Fire Rates Town of Castle Rock Jefferson County 04 dyunty of Denver Special Adams County La Plata County it and County of Broomfield Arapahoe County Mesa County n' ity and County of Denver Archuleta County Moffat County V City and County of Denver Public Works \Iu Boulder County Montrose County Colorado DePervices ic Safety Crowley County Otero County Denver E�al Health Delta County Ouray County Denver H�]I� Douglas County F City of Margate Collier Cous County Broward County MartlT� [� - nty • �thwest Florida Water `Management District City of Hollywood NyL►f Boca Riqfo\q •`O 'RGIA •`G City of Atlanta G/v]► HAW Kauai County O J v I C�V� Boone County CookrrCou DuPage County Kane7(pun ` U INDIANA Blackford y JayQunty De b o �awrence County D aw eZounty Montgomery County Fo n County Porter County Jackson County KANSAS City of St. Marys Sedgwick County City of Topeka Kansas Corporation Commission City of Wichita Kansas Department of Labor Johnson County Kansas Department of Wildlife LOUISIANA City of Alexandria State of Louisiana Rock Island County Vermillion County Warrick County Wayne County Whitley County Kansas Department of Wildlife Parks and Tourism Kansas Department of Commerce Unified Government of Kansas Unified Government of WYCO/KCK Jefferson Parish .❖. M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY PAGE 9 City of Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Division of Lafayette Consolidated Administration (OSRAP) Government City of Lake Charles State of Louisiana HCM Orleans Parish District Attorney City of New Orleans State of Louisiana Office of Rapides Parish Technology Services Louisiana Department of Baton Rouge Retirement System Rapides Paris Police Jury Transportation & Development East Baton Rouge Parish District St. Chris Louisiana Housing Corporation Attorney Louisiana Office of Aircraft Services Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning ammany Parish Government & Development Commission (IMCAL) MARYLAND V Frederick County e MICHIGAN Cityof Kalamazoo Grand Traverse Count OC Muskegon g Alcona County Grand Traverse Cot Newaygo y Alger County Gratiot Coun y �w Ocea i� y Alpena County Hillsdale oun _�J 9o'n County Arenac County Houghton a County Baraga County Hur my • oda County Barry County losccoity Ottawa County Bay County a ska Coun v" ✓✓ Presque Isle County Benzie County • eer Cou �► Roscommon County Calhoun County ` Peelana i y • G Saginaw County Cass County N Livin ounty Sanilac County Cheboygan County Luc Co n V Schoolcraft County Clinton County Cou v Shiawassee County Crawford County O I rquet C t St. Clair County Dickinson Count Maso Co St. Joseph County Emmet County Men ine County Tuscola County Gogebic Coin ` M', e County Van Buren County Grand Tra� ounty �o alm County Wexford County Oontmorency County American Public Power G Association MISSOURI Clay County NORTH CAROLINA City of Fayetteville Davie County Nash County City of Greenville Duplin County Pitt County City of Hickory Forsyth County Randolph County City of Salisbury Greene County Richmond County City of Winston-Salem Guilford County Robeson County Town of Cary Harnett County Rockingham County Alleghany County Hertford County Rowan County Cabarrus County Hoke County Stokes County Camden County Iredell County Warren County .❖. M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 10 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY Catawba County Craven County Currituck County State of North Dakota Dawson County City of Farmington Los Alamos County Lee County Lincoln County McDowell County NORTH DAKOTA NEBRASKA Gosper County NEW MEXICO New Mexico Dept of Heal State of New Mexico Wilson County North Carolina Dept of Environment & Natural Resources North Carolina Housing Finance Agency State of Nort Carolina Departm nvironmental Quali;� i y of Lincoln V NEVADA Nevada Department of Corrections n. State of Nevada �J CG Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Ohio Division of Environmental Response and v' alization • J► Greater Cleveland Reg Transit ` Adams County OKL City of Edmond 0 IV • of Tuls `GON • G Pacific States Marine Fisherieskw r&" sion P NSYL Beaver County G Coun O E SEE Nashville and Da ' o unty - Metro Gover me TEXAS City of Abiler ` Ci idland City of Arli Cit Odessa City f ry� Nity of Plano Cipocorpus dlrege Station City of San Angelo CitChristi City of San Antonio City of Dallas City of Waco City of Fort Worth Cameron County City of Garland Collin County City of Houston El Paso County City of Lewisville Galveston County City of Longview UTAH State of Utah Oklahoma County Harris County Harris County Health Department Kendall County Tarrant County Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Texas Department of Agriculture Texas Office of the Attorney General Texas Office of the Governor Texas Veterans Commission Rio Grande Council of Government .❖. M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 11 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS U.S. Virgin Islands Virgin Islands Econ Dev Authority VIRGINIA City of Newport City of Roanoke City of Newport News City of Suffolk City of Portsmouth WASHINGTON City of Ocean Shores City of Spokane State of Washington Office of Financial Management WISCONSIN Walworth County Loudoun County State of Virginia DMME Sound T SnAthority �V TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS Moapa Band of Paiute Indians A(/v' Navajo Nation (V/• MGT USER FEE CLIENTS Alameda County, CA IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS Oakland, CA , TX Oow ma City, OK Aspen, CO Riverside, CA orado oun , CA nge County, CA Augusta, GA San Rafael, CA Florida epa ment of H r#alo Alto, CA Beaumont, CA Santa Rosa, CA W . , MA Park County, CO Bend, OR Clinton Cou y, I ood, Pasco County FL CA Gambling Control Commission Color4df RevJ a amazo y, MI Pinal County, AZ Cape Coral, FL C LaS C my IL Plano, TX Chaffee County, CO of Agin&n)VN M e County, FL Redlands, CA City and County of Denver, CO NSA my of H gh, L co Island, FL San Diego, CA Detroit, MI County of Monte ey, Nashville TN Santa Barbara County, CA Vallejo, CA El Segundo, CA County of Winne o, North Texas Muni. Water District, TX ***** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 12 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY References MGT has an outstanding record of past performance. Our teams are composed of proven professionals with the goal of providing the best quality of service while meeting project schedules and budgets. Many of our clients have contracted with MGT for multiple projects or updates. Repeat business is the greatest testament to our commitment to customer service and client satisfaction. We encourage you to contact any of our references to learn of our professionalism, ability to meet timelines, nd the expertise of our staff. 6 Contact: Mr. Ray Turner, Deputy Direct c !;4 141 Pryor Street S.W. Suite j�01 Address: Atlanta, GA 30303 o('vJ• Phone: 404-612-7737 V E-Mail: Ra .turner ful nco t a. ov Work Performed: MGT rec �c mpleted the first year o e-year cost allocation plan engage mplet h FY 2017 2 R rt 200 and Full cost allocation plan. Both an ere reviend app e b the County. 0& ♦ + V Contact: Ms. Bha ik Fin cia�Yl st 1 �s n Streei� A urg, V pared the County's annual 2 CFR Part 200 cost allocation past 7 years. The plans were filed and approved by the Virginia of Social Services. melisa.lowe@swfwmd.state.fl.us .❖. MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 13 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY Work Performed: Prepared the District's 2 CFR Part 200 and Full cost allocation plans for the past 10 years. The plans and associated indirect cost rates are filed and approved by the were filed and approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Contact: Mr. Jose Fernandez, Business Manag Address: 601 E. Kennedy Blvd, 19th Floor �► Tampa FL Phone: 813-307-3435 �� V E-Mail: Assist in streamli in rrent method of building and p uyn rmits and determine Work Performed: ,_.,, _ _, _ _ _ ., _, _ __ _ _ III PICI I ICI I LCrILUI I. Mr. es rysdal , P er, Ad s ative Services arket Y V uffolk, V 3 4 A 805.7 2 •``GVVV dale@cus apdiggs@suffolkva.us reamli xistin fee schedule from more than s ar e to 200 developed cost findings by fee t) as P policv review and implementation of a new x Brady Rich, Deputy Director, Codes & Building Safety (615)862-6151 800 2"d Avenue South Nashville TN 37201 Brady.Rich@nashviIle.gov of and As part of a larger study to rescale all development services to meet a much larger level of demand, we performed fee studies to assist in funding necessary improvements. These included fee studies of the departments of Codes & Building Safety, Planning, Fire Marshal, and Metro Water Services. ** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 14 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY EXPERIENCE The MGT proposed project team includes: • Bruce Cowans, Project Manager and Phase 2 User Fee Analysis Leader • Meredith Miller, Phase 1 Cost Allocation Plan Leader • Brett Swendig, Project Staff Resumes are Included on the following pages. (�V V V G �O O • G N G 'Q O O Q' P P � 0 �. O Ci C) 41111kv **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 23 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY BRUCE COWANS Vice President I Performance Solutions Mr. Cowans has performed more than 1,000 fee studies, been an expert witness on the subject, and addressed the 2009 GFOA National Conference on the topic of "Effective User Fee Strategies." He advises development services departments on operations, staffing levels, processes, and systemnc�ias done this work as well for public works, law enforcement, and administrative services. �� Mr. Cowans has spent more than 30 years helping hundreds of public officials make decisions on how best to serve the public and how to properly fund those effor has been a speaker, panelist, and contributor of articles for professional asso throughout his career. He spent 10 years as a city council member and chair of A00 Finance Committee. His user fee and cost of service projects have served the cities of c ehe, ston, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Tampa, St. Louis, Tucson, Reno, Oakland, an mong others. Areas of Expertise • Process Reviews • Productivity Standards • Financial Management V • S n Reviews • U�F e Studi • x ert W' s� Education 70- 6\ Master of Arts, Public Policy, Duke Uni si V� Bachelor of Arts, Environmental c s Pitzer Col ( `he Clare o l'Colleges) Professional Experience MGT of America Consultin ire c Present Fiscal Choice Consu&nfner(merge with GTiVillage of Glenc , City Council Member iw nce Chair MAXIMUS (NYS a ), Senior Vice Presider JMB Instit al ealty Corp., Portfolio A cal t US Tre epartment, Office of Secretary, Budget Analyst P/i2'L rhouse, Office of Goy9'R Services, Senior Consultant R 1 f, .❖. M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 24 CONSULTING RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY C•� MEREDITH MILLER Director I Performance Solutions Ms. Miller is a Director with a focus on cost allocation development, cost of cn—i c and user fee rate development, and management auditing of government or for city, county, state, and special district government agencies. She has wor extensively with all the major cities in Texas, cities and counties in California Louisiana, and cities in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Minnesot Kansas. Over the past three years she has worked with state agencies in Alal Kansas, New Mexico, Oregon, Mississippi, and Arizona and negotiated indire rates with their various cognizant agencies annually. Prior to working with MGT, Ms. Miller served as a Senior Consultant with IMUS, where she prepared cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate studies, user fee studies, and cla sous cities and cou \tiesn Texas, California, Colorado, Louisiana, and New Mexico. She als a the program; staf company's SB 90 practice, during her tenure there. Recent cost allocation projects include City of Fullerton, CA ced County, CA, City of S�l TX, City of El Paso, TX, City of Las Cruces, NM, City of Madison, W f Whittier, CA, City of ria, LA, City of Las Vegas, NV, City of Reno, NV, and Lafayette Cons Gover ent, LA. Rece u ee studies include the Oklahoma City, City of Dallas, City of Whittier, A, y of Garla , T and th I Sugar Land, TX. Areas of Expertise • Government Cost Allocation Plans (2& `Indirect `St�tate Proposals Part 200) Co alysls • Full Cost Allocation Plans. CA� .� aim preparation and reimbursement • User Fee Studies �� v ` • Jail Rate Studies �► Education G ren Bachelor of Busine istration, Txas at Austin Professio al E erience MGT of A a Consulting, LLC, Director,IK0� - present MAXI sulting Services, Se Consululttaant G � **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 23 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY BRETT SWENDIG Senior Consultant I Performance Solutions Mr. Swendig's consulting experience has given him the knowledge and experience governmental budgeting, finance, accounting, and operations. In addition to his usl fee experience, Mr. Swendig has expertise in development of cost allocation plans (CAPS) in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); development of CAPS in accordance with federal principles; assisting agencies in maximizing general fund cost recoveries from federally funded programs, enter and special revenue funds, and other non -general fund sources; development of ✓ indirect cost rate proposals (ICRPs). He also assists MGT'S Disparity practic ' eveloping market availability databases, vendor research, and market area availavilbilty and utiliz tic0qMtical analysis. He h participated in operations reviews of development service depart e s several local governm Prior to working at MGT, he has experience working as a direct of a onprofit organizatio ng a number of programs and over 30 employees within the orga �pn. Mr. Swendig also serves on the City of Wylie's (Texas) a�r+n Rela Board anc�,` xecutive Director of the Wylie Parks & Recreation Foundati _.✓/ Education 0 ♦`� Master of Public Service and Administration, Te7�i�A&M Uiy, 2010 Bachelor of Science, Kinesiology —Sports gement 14&M U ' rsity, 2005 Professional Experience O MGT of America Consulting, LLC Consult t � - pre Victory VBC, Non -Profit Directo � D' Parish Episcopal School,*monoger ch V Americorps VIST;t$�X , P Relevant Userct Experience City of Ho - Building Fee Study 4 City of Corpus Christi TX —Multiple Department Fee Study • City of Hou n, T Multiple Department FA • City of Dca — Multiple Departme ee • City rs'CA —Parks & Recrea n e Study • Ity o erside, CA— Multiple D ar nt ee Study • Ik ounty, FL— Multiple De I''y"Development ee Study • City of Port St. Lucie, FL — g Fee Study • City of Fort Myers, FL — Com Fee Study and Comparative Survey City of Greensboro, NC— Multiple Department Fee Study and Comparative Survey • City of Sugar Land, TX - Multiple Department Fee Study • Lee County, FL— Building Fee Study • Oklahoma City, OK— Multiple Department Fee Study • City of Marco Island, FL— Building Fee Study • City of Raleigh, NC — Building Fee Study and Comparative Survey City of San Marcos, TX — Multiple Department Fee Study City of Flagstaff, AZ — Fire Department Fee Study Hillsborough County FL— Building Fee Study **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY PAGE 24 SIMILAR WORK PRODUCT Our client lists above address similar work product. Some cities procure only a cost allocation plan or only a fee study, but many include both. Our sample report included with this proposal is an example of a similar work product. **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 25 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY EXAMPLE REPORT There are two example reports located in the appendix of this proposal. **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 26 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY PROPOSED SCHEDULE Proposed Schedule These tasks will lead to the completion of the cost allocation plan in 90 days, assuming key data is made available in a timely manner. This represents the estimated amount of time to provide the proposed services. Project Management Tasks Kickoff meeting to address scope, timing, deliverables, and identify people to interview Request data and populate cost models for interviews Project financial management Project manage a with dates C3 ILI Z lz Team status calls every two weeks V ♦ Cost Allocation Plan Conduct session with relevant City staff on c r plan structure, uses, and desired changes Collect basic financial and operation a Interview providers of indirect support`/ ` Evaluate existing methods an R s for cha Propose and confirm de a an cost alZIon plan Distribute costs to &sb)ytyp s Develop allocat, Developd llocation lari� Draft cost allocation I p � p Internal raft plan P Pre it draft cost allocation plan V st allocation plan pe ty comments p lain 3 options for a sion of cost allocation plan and e t chosen option Prepare final cos NP, on plan Train City staff to update Excel version of cost allocation plan Fee Study Review existing fee schedules and discuss potential new fees Final cost allocation plz Comprehensive inventory of current fees to review, City to approve **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY PAGE 27 PROPOSED SCHEDULE Draft and two rounds report Review key talkii City staff � Deliver d 0 Cj o� all aspects of study Oral presentation **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY PAGE 28 COST PROPOSAL MGT proposes to perform the services included in this proposal for a fixed fee of $48,312.50. This budget will provide Fayetteville with 210.5 consulting hours, which will provide the City with ample time and resources to produce a cost allocation plan as described in the scope of services. Estimated expenses are shown for anticipated travel, copying, and other costs related to the scope of work. Only actual expenses will be charged. Cost by Task Project Management Tasks Proj Mgr $1,462.50 Sr Staff $712.50 Staff $ Total $3,747.50 Phase I -Cost Allocation Plan - $5,700.00 $9,4 .00 $15,135.00 Phase 2 - Fee Study $4,387.50 - ,315.00 $22,702.50 Report Findings $3,087.50 - $370.00 $3,45 0 Travel Total $8,937.50 2.50 $29,692.50 ' 2.50 Additional services requested that fall outside the f thi 00i ct shall b o Wed based on a mutually agreed schedule and price. Method of Payment a► MGT will provide monthly invoicis City ba itasks bed in the project workplan that we presented earlier. V Project Assum ti P P Our work progra aoposed fee for this p ere developed with several key assumptions about the project ges to these assumlkion may impact either or both our methodology and proposed fee elcome the opportuC�tions to meet with the City Project Officer to review these assumption date or adjust the asbased on more complete information, and adjust the work I /or budget accord' I elow, we present our assumptions: he City will designate Project Officer for this project. This person will function as the primary point of lontact for the project, and coordinate and facilitate the flow of information and communication between the county departments and MGT. • The City Project Officer will ensure that comments on draft documents are consolidated into a single document and any conflicting comments are reconciled before delivering the comments to MGT. • Two draft reports have been included in this proposal. Additional reports can be added for an additional fee. **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 29 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY COST PROPOSAL • MGT will have access to and cooperation and participation by staff and management. MGT expects to have reasonable, timely access to City personnel and data. If the City stops the project for any reason, MGT will be due all fees for services performed to date. • Onsite meeting facilities will be arranged for and used at the expense of the City. The City will provide all requested documents at its own expense. • All costs and other data provided by the City will be considered accurate and v lid. MGT will not be responsible for the audit and/or verification of any cost or other data pr by the City. �V (�V V V G �O O • G O Q' P P � O �. o Ci C) 4111kv **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 30 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX APPENDIX Example Report 1: User Fee Study -Building Plan Review and Inspections On the following pages are sample pages from example final reports that were produced by MGT. The full PDF versions of the reports have also been added in the Cit ttevHI- s bidding platform, Ion Wave. V ►� M GT ONSULTING GRO� LPER FEE S ` BUILDING PLA VIEW kASPE S 0& ;�N+c0 , ORIDA Final Report ♦ O ♦ November 2021 O Q' P 0 G www.mgtconsulting.com **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 31 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS Leon County, Florida User Fee Study — Building Plan Review & Inspections November 2021 Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................x. .... ..................3 II. ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ .. \vv// 4 A. STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES....................................................................................4 B. KEY FINDINGS....................................................................0....................................5 III. RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................0....................--..............................ii%L q A. A SIMPLE FEE STRUCTURE.............................................................................. B. COST RECOVERY...................................D..........................................�V9/ C. CONSOLIDATION OF PERMIT FEE T�L;p�ND CA GURIES ................ �.�.....-lU D. MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTI N C4R5SIFICA ON ANGE.. .. . ...............10 E. THIRD PARTY "PRIVATE PROV REVIEW EE5 ....................... .. .....................11 F. ESTABLISH A TECHN E...-..-... .* ......... .... . ............................ 11 G. FEE MAINTENAN ` ..........................�'Ulq..................�.................................11 H. FUND BALA� 12 IV. APPENDIX. `(v.................... ... �....--...........-......-......-..-......--.....- . 12 A. INT ON........ .. ........................................................................13 B. ER OUPR OMPA.................................................................13 t]ULE 1— P IT RES C PARISON........................................................13 1. SINGLE-FAMILYCONSTR ROJECT.......................................................................14 P 2. MULTI-FAMILY&U( UCTION PROJECT ........................................................................15 3. CDMME�ALCTION PROJECT.........................................................................16 SCHE ' h IMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISONS........................................................17 O Cj1. PERMIT FEE COMPARISON - RESIDENTIAL.....................................................17 NIMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISON -COMMERCIAL...................................................18 C. FEE COMPARISON SUMMARY....................................................................................19 TABLE 1-A: PERMIT FEE COMPARISON SUMMARY LEON COUNTY CURRENT FEES COMPARED TO PEER AVERAGE............................................................................................................19 TABLE 1-13: PERMITFEE COMPARISON SUMMARY LEON COUNTY PROPOSED FEES COMPARED TO PEER AVERAGE............................................................................................................20 ♦���� M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CCVSUL-INccRouP June 20200DraftReport Page12 **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 32 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS I. BACKGROUND The Florida Building Code (§ 553, Fla. Stat.) requires Leon County (herein referred to as the " to regulate building construction. § 553.80, Fla- Stat., states, "... each local government and c g y constituted enforcement district with statutory authority shall regulate building eonstructio where authorized in the state agency's enabling legislation, each state agency shall enforce Building Code required by this part on all public or private buildings, structures, and faciliti^. In Leon County, the responsibility for this work is assigned principally to the D rtment of Development Support and Environmental Management's (DSEM) Building Plans Review an ection (BPRI] Division. The Division employs licensed Building Plan Reviewers, Building Inspe o ermit Technicians. Thes professionals work in unison with other DSEM staff to process bui n , issue building permits, an� inspect construction to ensure compliance with the Florida Building de (FBC). In November 2019, the Leon County Board of County Com �rs (herein referred to as the �} took a major step in simplifying the building permit f ation rocess by adoptin fee" methodology based upon the square footage of a s; �e which r su to in a fee of $ 0 r square foot for residential permits. The November 20V adted "flat fire hodolo ulted in a significant time savings by reducing the number o Cations r quto determ M gilding permit fee. In addition, the simplified process h r ided grea C*&iva y and s�e ICy to contractors and homeowners by granting them the abili t alculate nce o n ting a building permit application. YN, ^ It is important to recognize thin L n Lntyrs las permit f Mule update occurred in 2004. The building permit fee cal et�Qug " ed at th�I c ras rather complex. It entailed assigning a unique fee t� pect tion (elect 1,lR�echanical, plumbing, etc.). These individual sub -fees wed Iculated the n f unique elements associated with the respective work. Fan le, the frg, trical wo be calculated by adding each individual outlet, switch, ' fi re, fan, etc. f this would then be added to any other applicable sub -fees to dhe overall bu At the tim Board adopted the flat fe eth ology in November 7019, the Board also authorized sta pro ed with hiring a consult nduct a comprehensive building permit fee study. In D 2019, the County c�oo ract�ith MGT Consulting Group to conduct this study. The ology used to conduct yR udy, data, analysis, and recommended actions are provided in this rt- CiTheQinitial flat fee*meadopted in November 2019 greatly simplified the fee calculations. However, it did noee (3) aspects involved in the permitting process: intake, plan review and inspections. Id that there is no residential or commercial plan review fee for the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and gas trades. This presents a significant problem which affects the following: • Collecting the plan review fee at the time of permit application; • The inability to calculate the required reduction for the private provider pursuant to FL. Stat. 553.791; and `♦*** M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY Page13 PAGE 33 APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS • Fees collected did not always recover the expenses of providing plan review services_ Pursuant to § 553.80, the County may collect fees to recover the costs associated with the regulation of building construction (e.g. administration, intake, plan review and inspections). § 553.80 stipulates what costs may be recovered for enforcing the FBC. These include direct costs and reasonable indir t costs associated with: o Permit processing; 01 o Plan review of building plans; o Inspections; o Re inspections; o Building code enforcement; o Other laws related to the design, construction, erection, altQn, modification, repair, or demolition of public or private buildings, structu S, J�cllities; o Manufactured building site setup and utilities; o Training; o Enforcement action pertaining to unlicensed ractor activity; o Implementation of policies, procedures, ctices which produce the st- effective property insurance ratings; /►_ o Assessing fines-, �_/✓� G o Searching of records, and; o Managing the enforcement of the Fees collected for these services are deposi ' to an en Ind that e o support the functions of the BPRI Division. Building permit gr,�Ue that has cted bu not nded is known as a "fund balance." Per § 553.80, a fund ba not exc t average o St four [4j years of "operating budget casts for the BPRI Diei i pprapriat ainterlan sure the County's general fund is not impacted by the costs* ry to ope PRI Divi II. ANA A. S r 1\1� .,0.6 - 0� ;COPE AND OB E S e otkctives of this building perm' tudy are to: ❖ Develop a methogy that continues the transparent and streamlined approach for O - "mi ci County. Provide rectenclations on how to monitor and maintain appropriate building permit fees in perpetuity. 8 Compare similar Florida jurisdictions to determine their practices for building permit fee methodology. calculating all bu' 'ng it fees as established by the Board's direction in November 2019. Evaluate adap d all ***+* M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report Page14 **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 34 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS B. KEY FINDINGS a Issue: Each jurisdiction has adapted specific methodologies far calculating building permit fees. Many jurisdictions utilize base fees to capture the minimum costs associated with permitting. DSEM's current base fees vary greatly by project type and, in most instances, recoveAutf sts for intake, administration, permitting, plans review, and inspection. • Approach: MGT reviewed the permitting process from intake to final ins ctall permit types. • Result: MGT found the current individual minimum fees for the fi s should be eliminated. MGT discovered the individual minimum trade fees a ocess complex and difficult to determine when and where they should be app I GT recommends using a single base fee to ensure costs are recovered thus � 11ifying the fee calculation process. Q�`V/� Issue:§553.80authorizes alocal governmenttoset fe r' si�buildingpermits but stipul the fees are to be used only for related responsibilities u er the FBC. MGT conducte analysis to determine if building permit fee change re necessary to ensure cost roc • Approach: Fallowing the conventions of c knting, and more specif' call , Part 200 (the Uniform Administrative Requ' Cost incipies, guide to t 1Tciples), MGT reviewed the service delivery ent bui Ing rmit types. study was based on the review of the BP ivis n's work p ed es regar g4 rocessing of each phase of the building per during iriake, administrate n review, and inspection. This assessm ounted f perfoeach phase of the process including the subm of the ap , data enessing the construction plans, oversight of t ocess, pay ^s ning the !0, the permitting system, plan review pro ermit iss nc collectingfees, issuance of the permit placard, protiPr spections ut Ae Cs I Ion process, and issuing the Certificate cy or C • Results:ow alyzing II fee str emend the available fund balance, MGT deterfe s a es b hed at ropriate level to sustain operation of the BP an witho r the a nd to subsidize the enterprise system. To avi a more accura in bud et r o g by separating expenditures and revenues for n review and inspections, i s mended the County separate all building permit es into a "plan review" &dan nspection fee". This recommended ch IlaId result in the following benefits: ✓ 1. Allow to collect plan review fees at the time of application, which would O e of services are recovered in instances where applicants choose to G their permit after plan review is completed. �3V*Iaw more accuracy in budget reporting by separating expenditures and ues for plan review and inspections. for an accurate calculation of fee reductions when a private provider is used. 4. Allow the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and gas plan review costs to be easily determined for each trade. 5. Provide greater transparency to the customer. Issue: DSEM's current method of combining multiple fees for each trade continues to involve multiple calculations to determine the total fee. This current methodology is cumbersome and ♦���� M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2D20 • Draft Report P a g e 15 **** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 35 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY - COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS lacks transparency. • Approach: MGT suggests collapsing the different calculations into a single amount for efficiency. Further, the elimination of construction valuation and the implementation of square footage -based fees would provide greater transparency and strearnlinethe ocess. • Results: The conversion of the current methodology of adding multiple fees t i o n with the trade base fee to a single minimum fee per trade will furthe sl lif# the permitting process. `v\1► Issue: in November 2019, the Board approved the implementation f e methodology forpermitfees. Many ofthecurrent building permit fees donot align wiY Board's direction. This same methodology should be applied across all permit type 0fees. • Approach: MGT examined all occurrences of valua fees and other miscel lane s fees which involve complex calculations. This st o es fees that would confor S the approved methodology based on the Boar 's ction including the establish a `tiered' flat fee system for commercial projekbased on occupancy classifirp� • Results: The methodology above was utili lliminate occurrences of va ased fees in favor of simplified flat raejpeeX all Et it types. In ad n, study recommends permit fees for c r I projllizing atier � structure commensurate with the occup y c sification a is indicate r� a intensity of review. Issue: Pursuant to § 553.791, a ' ants can W d party, 'cc'`'''' s "private provider", to review plans and/or insp a construc�t�s t for ca Inan�ith the FBC. However, if an applicant chooses iz the servicA►d private pr rirl DSE M still incurs costs for the requiredadminisR t es Ices. Am gyfoyca a a red uced perm it fee when such services are ut�LeRi ds tab hed but be done if the plan review and inspection fe e parated. • A ac : MGT the re I rtion of work by BPRI Division staff when p nts use priv�prmits providers. is s accomplished by evaluating the level of work provides on f I administration, plans review, and/or inspection P• onion associated with " ivat ovrder permits. This analysis provided the required level of reduction in the plans Iew /or inspection part of the permit. Results: Based on th f work DSEM provides to process private provider permits, MGT recomme the reduced to 40 percent of the plans review and/or inspection fee to recove cost of services provided. Implementation will ensure compliance with O private pr a fe eductions required in § 553.791. The fee reduction is the amount of ci cost savi s fe ized by the local enforcement agency far not having to perform such servic \\JJ Issue: in the building permitting process requires use of technology, including an electroni a itting system with the ability to store and easily access data. These assets are expensive and require periodic upgrades and replacement. Funding upgrades and replacement is a budget challenge. Several Florida jurisdictions include a technology fee with building permit fees to ensure that the building departments will be able to purchase the technology tools required without placing a burden on or seeking additional funding from the County General Revenue budget. Current Lean County building permit fees do not include a technologyfee. ♦***** M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report **** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY Page16 PAGE 36 APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS • Approach: MGT evaluated and amortized the technology needs, the acquisition cast, and expected useful life of the applicable software. The review included the County's current permitting software, Accela; Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) upgrade to allowing inspection requests bytexting; the acquisition of'DigEPlan' plan review software; and other related updates to improve the permitting process. MGT calculated the averagual expense of all required permitting software and divided this amount by t6N n's budget to determine a technology fee percentage. • Results: Based on the review of all required software and upgrade rmined that a standard technology rate of 3 percent would be adequate o5the required technology maintenance and improvements. Issue: Most local governments update building permit fees infrly. If the operating cost of a department grows while fees remain the samithap 6?.�i growing gap betw revenue and expense_ Eventually, a new building tudy would be necessa r address the fees once again to determine and address in the cost of the level of r provided. �• Approach: MGT evaluated a �Se ine building permit fee s ed on inflation. MGT found many ji egio al consumer is index (CPI) percentage to determine the pr� • Result: To help preventt e sihilityof usi� neral F to idize the enterprise system, CPI can be used t�o a dically ev es. MG Ined using the inflation rate based on the �re aI CM, child be ap oprlate meth gyto evaluate operating costs until such tian pher bulildir i fee stuerformed. Periodic analysis of fees will ensure r rise fu Hues to Plu ortive. MGT recommends the County co study e I years, nsistent with common practice in Florida, ' coon with in the CPI inflotment to continually monitor and ensure g permit nue to r V ssaciated costs. Issu nni years, yyears, a g ouildin 5: ti has caused many local government building ds to grow to I els that a ely need for "rainy day" funding which was one 'o intents of establish in suc s. Builders sought legislative relief because they boned why they shoul onti a to pay traditional prices while local governments accumulated what appeare�� excessive fund balances. In response, the State enacted //'��� modifications to FL. St t. 5$.8L]7) that limits fund balance to not he more than the average of the last four (4) ye of the operating budget". GOC Approac reviewed the last four (4) years of the operating budget for BPRI Division and t c re and balance level. • R ult: aunty is in compliance with § 553.90(7) with the current fund balance well be allowable level by approximately 51 percent. ♦��� M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report p a g e 17 **** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 37 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS III. RECOMMENDATIONS A. A SIMPLE FEE STRUCTURE The Board adopted a flat fee of $0.80 per square foot for one and two-family residentiakNAs In November 2019. The Study verified staff took the correct approach in simplifying the fee strktulp. After analyzing the overall fee structure, it was determined that fees were established at i p ate level to recover the cost of operation of the BPRI Division. The recommendation to overing the cost of operation of the BPRI Division and continue the simplification of the fe s for all permit types is reflected in the table below titled, "A New Tiered Fee System". Adopting t fee methodology for all permit types, the creation of a tiered fee structure based on occ cy classification and the establishment of minimum fees per trade will further simplifythe permitt a I ss consistent with Board direction. ANEW TIERED FEE SYSTE RESIDENTIAL COMACIAL NO A One and Two -Family TierI Tier 2��j TwS I I'll 7' Single -Family, �� R2 u ki$b ducational, Townhouses, Duplexes Factory, Storage, Utility 111�(ifami , PA iness• ercarrtile so h-Hazard, Institutional Plan Inspection Plan Inspectionew Insan s eeti Plan Inspection Review Review - Re+new r Review $0.41 $0.38 $0.28 $ $OAE w $0. $0.4s .44 $0.52 $0.46 Total $0.79 Total Total .86 $0.92 Total Saw The fee study recommend in the onstruct tion method and instead using a s uare foots a method es for th Ion and e w for residential, commercial multi- q g / family, and wareho cts. Ins d, h fee Sc or commercial permits will take into consideration the s occupa cations res and the associated cost of services for plans review n in ection. Four mmercial ti create distinct categories and fees unique to various occ ssifications. For ample, 1" commercial category was created for "Factory, Storage I " projects due to t se es of structures requiring minimal plan review and inspectio . This methodology will result I dec ase in permit fees for these types of structures. rcial tier unique tom famli ' ier 2"j is needed due to the complexity and classification of pes of uses under the ursuant to the FBC, multifamily construction is classified as commercial Gnstruction due to the �/R16 c afety requirements. Consequently, a commercial tier unique to multifamily was created th commensurate with the associated cost of services. Based on the study fi s, the table below illustrates current and recommended fees for two types of typical projects: (1 mily residential and (2) business/mercantile commercial. Plan review fees for single-family resident projects are not currently separated from inspection fees. Thus, MGT recommendations include a reduction to the inspection fees while adding a plan review fee. Forcommercial Projects, plan review fees, which are calculated and based on the stated project valuation, would be replaced with a flat rate plan review fee that is based on square footage. * * M G T Leon County 0 Comparative Fee Analysis ccvsutTNGGRouP June 2D20•Draft Report PageIB **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 38 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS CURRENT FEES vs RECOMMENDED FEES SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS & MERCANTILE COMMERCIAL Current Recommended Current Recommended' Size 2,500 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. z Building $0.46 $1,150.00 $0.15 $375.0Q $0.51 $1,530.00 $0.15 450. 0 o Mechanical $0.10 $250.00 $0.06 $150.00 $0.10 $300.00 $0.09 0. 15 LU Electrical $0.12 $300.00 $0.09 $225.00 $0.12 $360.00 $0 2 60.00 LA w Plumbing $0.07 $175.00 $0.04 $100.00 $0.07 $210.00 ❑ $180.00 ? Gas $0.05 $125.00 $0.04 $100.00 $0.05 $150.00 $60.00 Ian iew' $0.41 $1,025.00 v"wd 3 $104.43 .48 $1,440.00 Total $0.80 $2,000.00 $0.79 $1,975.00 $0.85 $ $0.86 $2,760.00 1: Currently, the residential plan review costs for service Ts included in the buil g i pku fee. /� 2: The commercial category was divided into four (4) Tiers to reflect the differen eIs of cost of services for plan review �nM in spectio ns. M e rea nti le is catego rized u n de r Tie r 3. � �I `V 3: The stated valuation of $458,000 was calculated using ICC (International ode Council) Building Valuation DataoB� The recommendation of separating the plan rev' inspect111' costs for all per I in two (2) separate fees will further implement the Boa 's di n and t flat ee met using project square footage. Consequently, this would resul v eparate Ian w fee f rade. Collecting plan review fees at the time of applicatio it reduce the f uncol fe ue to permits not being picked up and will allow for a redu the pl �V w wan n fees when private nce provider services are utilized in comp h § 553.7 ' V VVV B. COST RECOV • � �G Current County permit f e er 97 per o the total c a rvices which slightly varies by permit category. It is reco the pro se schedu�dopted to continue capturing the cast recovery for services h suppo rd's Stra iative to "exercise responsible stewardship of County r o ce sound finaanagem t ensure that the provision of services and community ents are done a fair able manner" (G5). The recommendations in the study aI a posed fee schedule a ow the enterprise fund to continue to fully support the operatin et of the BPRI Division wit ut th need to seek General Revenue funding. su marQurrent Cost Recovery by Permit Category O G R enue Cost Revenue minus cost Revenue f Cost Total $2,72S,677 $2,808,435 ($82,758) 975,6 Canstruct'an Iv Permits $1,881,345 $1,917,627 ($36,281) 985,E Stand-alone Tillade Permits $196,942 $206,466 ($9,524) 9556 Other permits* 1 $647,390 $684,342 ($36,952) 955,6 ' Includes decks, re -roofs, retaining walls, signs, generators, etc. +•*** M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2D20 • Draft Report P a g e 19 **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 39 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS C. CONSOLIDATION OF PERMIT FEE TABLES AND CATEGORIES For most projects, an increase in project size may result in a corresponding building permit fee increase due to the increase of square footage. Use of the flat fee square footage calculations for minor construction projects, however, will not recover the cost of services provided_ For example, un Ivir the current fee schedule a small residential addition project with 100 square feet of area wou in a building permit fee of $80. This fee would not address the cost for intake of the permit, rev sp ns, inspections, and paperwork necessary to close the project. Therefore, ien such I , it is recommended that a minimum fee of $135.00 be utilized to ensure full reve associated permitting costs. This fee is representative of the hourly rate ($90,00) multiplie urs. The table below provides the current minimum individual fee for each trade and the recom d simplified single min i mum fee for any permit. — A Trade Current Minimum Fee mended Minimum Fee* Building None $135.00 Mechanical $82.00 $135.00 Electrical $79.63 $135.00 Plumbing $91.38 $135.00 Gas $7�3.1r. $135. * The minimum fee is based on the hourly rate of $ 5 hour D. MULTIFAMILY CONST116,IONeing SSI 1* CHANGE Pursuant to the FBC, multifamily constructs classifircial cos ctian due to enhanced safety requirements. The plan rev a cammer lex and addresses a significant number of life, health and saf Quirement dl g exitin ihility, type of construction, occupant loading, fire resis lgs, sprinkle I alarms, x ng ignage, fire separation, structural, energyandmechanicalan � alsyste I the curr llTFamilypermitfeesrecover the costs involved with the plan process comme �at multifamily projects be specifically designated as a co er fee c l i �p h ch ali r It the FBC. MGT recommends the County include multifam' fees un osed cial tier fee structure for this reason. It is also recommen t he `valuationsed' m o o determining multifamily plan review fees be convert to -at fee' method as illustrate Current and Recommen- dea Fees for a $2,300,000' Multifamily 17,000 sq. ft. Structure O ci 1 Building Current Fee Recommended Fee Cost per sq. ft, Stied ValuatinNONNI $0.51 Fee 1.97 $8,670.00 Cost per sq. ft. $0.15 Fee $2,550.00 Mech $0.10 $1,700.00 $0.07 $1,190.00 LL c Electrical $0.12 $2,040.00 $0.11 $1,870.00 ° Plumbing $0.07 $1,190.00 $0.05 $850.00 Gas $0.05 $850.00 $0.02 $340.00 Total $D.85 $14,731.97 $0.96 $14,620.00 t Plans review was a Dort -ion of the building insnection fee. ♦���� M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis coHSutTiNe �eoua June 2020 • Draft Report Page 1ID **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 40 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS 2 Stated valuation of $2,300,DOe was calculated using ICC (International Code Council) Building Valuation Data (BVD). The current fee structure does not account for any reduction in plan review or inspections fees en a builder or owner decides to use a private provider. Leon County is required to calculate th nYs cast savings based on the private provider's services, per § 553.791(2)(b). When a private p ' e ed, the County's cost for the level of services would be reduced since Leon County t d not be performing all the required plan review and/or inspections typically associated wi onstruction. The State Statute still requires County involvementto process the permit, obtain ocumentation, ensure the private provider has insurance for professional liability policy, perform !'-Cons, enter the inspections into the permitting system, ensure the project is in compmx and that all required inspections have been completed and approved, and issue the Certil cupancy or Completion. Therefore, it is recommended the private provider fee reduction b tei e DSEM Building Permit F� Schedule as 60 percent of the plans review andJor inspections p fees, whichever is applicable would allow DSEM to recover 40 percent of the cost of service pro ed as mentioned. The redu 60 percent of the plans review and/or inspection fees is cons ent with a reduction already♦i In §5-1.09 of Chapter 5 of the Leon County Code of Laws. The V y accepting the recomme eon County would be compliant with § 553.791j2j(b)``. F. ESTABLISH A TECHNOLOGYJE The assessment of a technology fee in c� on with I g per f ommon practice in Florida. As the building permit process hived fir to digits , It became necessary to maintain and upgrade software and c ology on a basis. T srst with the financial aspect of these ongoing upgrades and m ce, it is r ded tha IoIogy fee be added into the building permit fee schedu y, technol s associNte wr �ullding permits range from 2 to 4 percent. Based on tech oestab' i MGT in h� rsdictions, it is recommended that Leon County establish a ogynt of the wildingpermitfee. Recent spending for si nTicant technolo es wnt of 1 bud et. As such a technolo fee of 3 g g gYpercent of the BP t is requntain support for minor improvements and future upgrades. If the to n ee is deposited into its an the funds would be exclusively dedicated for improving per4ittin echnology. In addition, a tech gy and would be a revolving fund, which would be difficult tot loan average annual appropriati n n t rc. `i ci_.✓FEE MAINTE CL'► Building permit fees s I e aluated on an on -going basis to ensure the 3PRI Division is recuperating the cost of service r d. Therefore, MGT recommends the County conduct a fee study every five years, which is com dice in Florida, in conjunction with usingthe CPI inflation adjustment to ensure building permit fees co inue to recover associated costs. MG T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020• Draft Report Pagel 11 **** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 41 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS H. FUND BALANCE During the last several years, a surge of building activity resulted in an increase of local government building funds, which caused developers to question the excessive fund balance. In 2018 the legislature adopted § 553.80 that defines the maximum level of fund balance as the average of the last four y ars of the local building department's operating budget. The County is also required to report the fence annually on the County's website pursuant to. § 553.89(7). MGT reviewed Leon County's average operating budget for the last four years and f e County in compliance with § 553.80. The current balance is at 51 percent of the allowable e limit. MGT recommends that the Leon County Office of Financial Stewardship continue to re a a quarterly basis, the fund balance to ensure the fund remains within the allowable limits as estoabllis y statute. Ate/ IV. APPENDIX A. Introduction Peer Group Results and Comparisons ` Schedule 1 addresses new construction i ' It illu per squa ofor: 1. Single -Family Residential: Plan iew nd Inspectio(ate)sosts 2. Multifamily: Plan Review a d Insp n � 3. Commercial: Plan Revie spectio ef�fea of e nercial Tiers listed below): • Tier 1 j5tarage,p2d , Industria ity): Plan Revi�ll/and Inspection • Tier 2 {8usinercantisela eview and ctionTier3 Als; Iationa e, Institu ' d Hazardous):Plan Review and Inspe� ` Schedule minimu trees relagsidential and commercial construction �pucmcal, plumbi /gas permits with no other associated G tlon, such a rnace Chan - s existing buildings. mily Residen 'al: Plan nd Inspection amily: Plan Review nd In con Fee Comparison Summary Table 1-A: Permit Fe orn�n Summary— Leon County Current Fees Compared to Peer Average O Table B: Per ee parison Summary —Leon County Proposed Fees Compared to Peer GAverage f Akv ♦*#** M G T Leon County • Comparatiye Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report Page112 **** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 42 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS A. INTRODUCTION MGT determined a list of permits, sample projects, and peers for comparison. The con"p3�cz'A of the selected jurisdictions illustrates their fees, but does not factor the workload, or si complexity as is found in Leon County. Jurisdictions used for comparison are as follows: Alachua Bay :• Lake E• Manatee E• Osceola E• Sarasota E• St. Lucie A` :+ City of Tallahassee f Note that with these comparison of fees there are differ funding, process, evaluatio manpower that contribute to how each jurisdictio es thei structure. Also, es ay not cover the same services. Some of the pa s includ he er the a is calculated by construction valuation or square �e or co tin Brent c°� nts. In addition, several jurisdictions receive su ntal fundi; t Gene Ill�sjnd are not entirely supported by an Enterprise Fund. e ally, Ala L ke Man��a�ota, and the City of Tallahassee are not selfsupphr ghtheirl al idingpermrtf LeonCauntr�s building department, however, is s su orted thr g enterpri d which is an account backed entirely by fees collec4e� ding perq�. k pections, ed services. ` 01 c' V B. PEER G REU OM ON SCHED `PERMIT TYPE RESU &MPARISON 5h th mount charged by other juri I Ins for each of the example fees —single-family, multi- fa,�/d commercial. Fee amounts a r nded to the nearest dollar. O Ci 0 Akv *�+�+ M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis caHsutTiNc ;"", June2020 • Draft Report **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 CONSULTING GROUP REP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY Pagell3 PAGE 43 APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS I. SINGLE-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT The graph below shows Leon County's proposed fees and fees charged by each jurisdiction for a new single-family building permit and associated inspections. The fee amounts were determined by the fee schedules, responses, and calculations used by each jurisdiction and project type. 'St. Lucie County, like Leon County, includes Certifica f O upancy in their 9lYMfg p "Leon County fee value is based on the flatf approac dopted by Board in Novi this graph is based an a 2,500 square foot h 71ausinp is the alp rt - a rage si 2021. The stated valuation of $370,825 was caICC r ' al Cade C�"`All of the abavejurisdidions, exce on, assess im impact fees the AVERAGE FEE— $1,899 "O O • G O Q' P P � O �. o ci 0 Akv ♦ * M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2D20 • Draft Report �NM�,'aluation used in tted in Leon County in Iing Valuation Data (BVD). rom $2,800 - $24,517. F::__1 14 **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 44 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY - COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS 2. MULTI -FAMILY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT The graph below shows Leon County's proposed fees and fees charged by each jurisdiction for a new multi -family building permit and associated inspections. The fee amounts were determine by the fee schedules, responses, and calculations used by each jurisdiction and project typ ""' 'St. Lucie County, like Leon County, also inclu%AjEertificate o Mncy it "Leon County fee value is based on t at fee approached the B- graph is based on a 17,00D squares foo ui ing. The sta v ion of $2,: Code Council} Building ValuvtiorlNaw■ D}. (A/T��- "•All of the above iurisdictiatis. Leon and Cess minirrAi;l o� MG T Leon County - Comparative Fee Analysis C6NSULTING GROUP June 2020 - Draft Report nVermitfee. er 2019. The value used in this calculated using ICC [International Pagel15 **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 45 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY - COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS 3. COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT The graph below shows Lean County's proposed fees and fees charged by each jurisdiction for a new commercial building permit and associated inspections. Leon Counts fee amount represen an average of the three commercial tiers. The fee amounts were determined by the fee sch responses, and calculations used by each jurisdiction and project type. *St. Lucie County, like Leon County, includes "Leon County fee value is based on a stated valuation of $1,830,000 was a lat "'All of the above jurisdictions, xc of AVERAGE FEE — $9,960� G �O Offfcommercial Tiers 1, 3 & 4. ;uilding Valuation Data (RVD hat range from $2,800 - $24,517. ♦**+* M G T Leon County * Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2D20 • Draft Report Pagel 16 **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY PAGE 46 APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS SCHEDULE 2— MINIMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISONS Shows the amount charged by other jurisdictions for each of the example fees. Fee amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. I. MINIMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISON - RESIDENTIAL Lean County does not currently have a minimum fee for a residential building permit. Th ra below illustrates minimum fee comparisons based on the proposed minimum reside ti of $135. GRAPH 4: FEE COMPARISON: PROPOSED MINIMUM RESIDENT 'Leon Countycurrently However, there is no r projects and of i to (1)fee instea&r o� *#** M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report a ir used for residential and commercial projects. on is to create one minimum fee for all small will simplify the permitting process by using one y rate ($90.00) x 1.5 hours. **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY Pagell7 PAGE 47 APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS 2. MINIMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISON - COMMERCIAL Lean County does not currently have a minimum fee for a commercial building permit. The graph below illustrates minimum fee comparisons based on the proposed minimum commercial fee of $135. GRAPH 5: FEE COMPARISON: PROPOSED MINIMUM COMMERCIAL 'Leon County currently has atndelim fee fore th rades that for residential and commercial projects. However, the e� urn fee r I mg. Thy r om dation as stated is to create one minimum fee for all sma Qr c' five (5) t t minimum fees. This will simplify the permitting process b y a (1) fee' f five [Sj. ec mended fee of $135 is the hourly rate ($90.00) x 1.5 ho //�► v AVERAGE P P P � 0 G � **** M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020• Draft Report Pagel Is **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 48 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS C. FEE COMPARISON SUMMARY The tables below (I -A and I-B) list the current and proposed amounts charged by Lean County side -by -side with the average fee amount charged by the comparative jurisdictions. A column has also been added next to each average to highlight the percentage difference (% DIFF) between the amount char ed Leon County and the comparative counties. The fee for each project type byjurisdiction is detailed in ious section (Section 2). TABLE I -A: PERMIT FEE COMPARISON SUM �V LEON COUNTY CURRENT FEES COMPARED TO PEER RAGE ♦*♦♦♦ M G T Leon County 0 Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June2020 • Draft Report **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 49 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS TABLE I-B: PERMIT FEE COMPARISON SUMMARY LEAN COUNTY PROPOSED FEES COMPARED TO PEER AVERAGE oz�e) `\GA ***** M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report P a g e 120 **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 50 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX Example Report 2: Cost Allocation Plan and Indirect Cost Rates CITY OFWICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 C ART 200 COSTA ION PLAN AND INDJ ,E COST RATES For FY 20 Ban FY 2018 Actual Expe itures Z No G 0& .. M G T CONSULTING GROUP ♦ O • 0 MGT Consulting Group D3 W. Maple, Suite 139 #177 1 Wichita KS 67235 316.214.3163 1 bschfyer@MgtCorisufting.com �%, mgtconsulting.com G 'Q �/ O Q' W1W1111110� Table of Co ent� P Section Voduction OCertifications Cj S� Organization Chart ction 4 - Engineering Burden Rate Section 5 - Reading a Cost Allocation Plan Section 6 - Departmental Indirect Cost Rates Section 7 - Central Services Cost Allocation Plan Detail Section 8 - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Section 9 - Indirect Cost Rate Base Detail **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 51 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX Section 1 Introduction Introduction The enclosed Indirect Cost Allocation Plan identifies the costs of indirect services pr e y central service departments of the City of Wichita, Kansas (the City) based on act n itures for fiscal year 2018. The MGT Consulting Group (MGT) prepared these docurtM the request of the City. C61.; The Cast Allocation Plan is used by the City to claim indirect costs as es against awards (grants) and City funds. The list of federal/state grants and award a charged indirect costs based on the results of this plan are located in Section 6—❑ art al Indirect Cast Rates.e Cost Allocation Plan and indirect cast rates are filed with the Department of Transporta Federal Highway Administration each year, and an Indire&Cost egotiation Agreeme Zed that details the allowable indirect cost rates. n� ` These documents are prepared in complianc wl bR Part&00.ity pero viided the expenditure and allocation data to MGT cons . MGT conts the red the Cost i� Allocation Plan utilizing multiple allocat' basis rrrethod wn doub - calculation methodology. V ` ation dal❑ mary The City of Wichita u ' e multi le o t n met distribute indirect costs to all City departments, fun peratin his h calls for services to be grouped into cast pools, each then al locat usin st is that most closely correlates to the service provided t lative benefits received departments, funds, and operating units of the City. Ad a the City's cost alloci$pnp n utilizes a double -step -dawn allocation meth olog that fully recognizes t support that exists between central service de p is (Human Resaurc sup Finance, and Finance supports Human Resources). 'I lowing is a descrip Cn th central service departments, the cost pools they've been roken down into, an I ation statistic utilized to distribute the costs from each pool to the benefitting depart t, ds and operating units. Equipment Depreciation Depreciation on equipment forthe Central Service Pool. Costs are allocated based on actual depreciation amounts for allocated departments. Building Depreciation Pursuant to the 2 CFR Part 200, depreciation on buildings and improvements for City Hall are allowable. The cost of land has been excluded. The depreciation has been allocated as follows: • City Hall -Allocated to central service departments based on usable square feet of space occupied per department and division. **** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 52 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX City Manager The mission of the City Manager is to provide professional leadership and management for the City of Wichita. In this capacity, the office provides general guidance and management to City departments, executes City Council policies, facilitates the development of the mission statement and the City's long-range goals and objectives, and coordinates City efforts to accomplish cost savings and increased efficiencies. Allowable costs are allocated as follows: • City Manager— Costs associated with the day-to-day operation of the City are alloca ed based upon the number of full-time equivalent positions administered by departmen ivision. P Law Department 6 It is the mission of the Law Department to facilitate client success through an of high quality legal services and guidance to the City Council, City Manager, and rtments, boards, agencies, utilities and commission of the City. Civil legal staff members perF a variety of roles including providing legal advice, drafting and reviewing contracts, rencov legal opinions, and conducting litigation for the City. Allowable costs are allocatedas • Advice &Opinions —Costs associated with providing a c pinions have been all wed to all City departments based on the number of full time uivalent positions. • Department Support —Costs associated with providi&Support directly to depastave been allocated based on the number of recordedes of support. ` • Other Law Services —Costs are not allocat �,CoCJ Human Resources The mission of Human Resources is to b stimul rRd diver re of inclusion that thrives on public service, high erf ante, and i I ` I and o6rpment i Tonal growth and P g p ��d development. Human Resourc ' e responsi ..ti are emrecruitment and selection; classification and corn en t. • e Io ee r I ns; berwfi d and administration; p p Y payroll; HR-related infor ystems; u mploy n portunity and Affirmative Action programs; union nego ' and co a ministr anaging Family and Medical Leave (FML); Unemploymer Ir uurrance testin ployee Assistance Program and fund; and employee �nni and develo ent. AIIo costs are allocated as described below: • Human �10s—Costs are allocate upon the number of full-time equivalent posit department and divi> . Cit O T Clerk is responsible f cting as ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, the board of Bids and acts, and Staff Scree���an election Committee; and preparing minutes of all meetings and rforming such otOF Ilowable costs are allocated as described below: vv • Records — Cosed based upon the number of full-time equivalent positions by department a **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 53 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX Director of Finance The mission of the Director of Finance is to maintain the fiscal integrity of the City organization through financial services, timely information and analysis, innovation, financial management and appropriate controls. The Director's Office is responsible for the overall management of the Finance Department. In addition, the Budget and Research Office prepares and administers the annual City budget and the 10-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Director's Office staff members advise the City Manager regarding financial and management issues and ass' department directors and their staff with research, analysis, and support regardin riate and necessary administrative and budget procedures. The Department of Finance exis t i the entire organization in accomplishing its varied missions. Support involves h I g erfunctions understand, plan, prioritize, control, report, satisfy requirements, and/or available resources. Costs are allocated as shown below for the following allowa tions: • Director of Finance —Costs associated with the Director are allo teased upon the actual expenditures of all City departments. (VJ� • Budget — Costs related to the budget function are allot ed�ed upon the number o ull- time equivalent positions. • TBID — Costs associated with the Tourism Business I�npr ment District have n allocated. �`�` • Treasury Treasury provides for the safe, efficient, an A u nt handlin(f le City's s sets through the establishment and monitoring of polici and p c(ed ures klated to cas hg, investment of idle funds, and revenue collection tl les. Treging rovides t*liety of services for total City operation including, maintaigi b accou �d Ingchecks, maintaining cash records, administering the c s receiv gram arming other related duties. Costs are allocated as shown bEi%u r the foJia allowahle n ions: V management are allocated based upon or division. lice are allocated based upon the number of )ns related to the Water bill have been split on the revenue handled for each segment of I MPThe mission of Gene! r A nting to ensure the integrity of the financial statements and ccuracy of payments endors, and assist in the financial management of the City. The office seeks to sust y-to-day accounting processes in conformity with the highest professional and regu ory standards while also pursuing efficiencies that will improve the overall financial management and financial status of the City. Service objectives include, minimizing the cost of financial transactions, producing the Comprehensive An nual Financial Report (CAFR) that is recognized as excellent by industry standards, and monitoring and auditing the vendor payment process for purchasing goods and services to assure accuracy and timeliness. Costs are allocated as shown below for the following allowable functions: **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 54 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX General Accounting —Costs are allocated based upon the number of accounting transactions (expense and revenue) processed for departments during the year. Grants Admin —Costs associated with the administration and reporting forfederal grants programs have been allocated based on the federal expenditures as reported in the CAFR. Payroll —Costs associated with payroll activities have been allocated based on the number of FTEs. Purchasing The mission of Purchasing is to obtain the greatest value for each dollar spent by th N the efficient and effective procurement of goods and services while also ensuring fair nd integrity in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The office is responsi rseeing the formal and informal hid process, negotiating blanket purchase orders, m e overall procurement process, registering vendors, administering the Emerging an ' advantaged Business Enterprise program (including staffing the Wichita Supplier Diversity Team), disposition of surplus vehicles/equipment, and providing an on-line pu rchas' g Allowable costs h ve been allocated as follows: • Purchasing —Costs for this function are allocated based on the number of PCYs,Q DV's (weighted) by department and division. Administrative Services The Administrative Services Division include he t�FnaI Au act ities. allocated as shown below for the followingallowable func � ♦ V • Internal Audit —Costs are ally d based up dumber f e ?nse transactions processed for department g the yea osts are Jted from this function in the 2012 plan.} ♦ �` ♦ G • City Manager Supper �ts associ a with this f�nc�pn have been allocated based upon the number of fu i rquivale ons. Public Works Aid ni ration The mission o r orks Adminis ration vide coordination, guidance and support services fo erating divisions of tf dep rtment, including Building Services, Engineering, Fleet, d ntenance, so that empl are freed to focus directly on serving the public. Sup &vices include: record mairrient, human resources coordination, policy d ent and financial m ement. Costs are allocated as shown below for the following Ga ble functions*ervices • Department A —Costs are allocated based upon the salaries of the Public Works divisions admi Public Works — Buil The mission of Public Works - Building Services is to maintain an efficient infrastructure of clean, attractive, and properly functioning City buildings, structures, and related facilities that best meet the needs of the public and of City employees providing service to the public. Costs are allocated as shown below for the following allowable functions: **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 55 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX • General and Administration — Costs are allocated based upon the other functional salaries within the department. • City Nall —Associated costs are allocated based upon occupant's square footage. • Other Buildings — Costs associated with building services for other buildings are allocated based upon the direct Departmental expenditures. Indirect Cast Rates (NA, In Section 6 of this cost allocation plan, the City of Wichita is proposing indirect cost rates for group of its departments, funds, grants and/oroperating units. Although the cost allocation plan id (direct costs to everyoperating unit of the City (See Section 7), indirect cost rates are only calculat f set of units where indirect cost recovery is available to the City. The indirect cost rates have been o lcu a sing only central service indirect costs— no departmental administrative costs have been classifiZs in erect costs. The rate base utilized for the indirect cost calculations is Total Modifie it sts. This rate base utiliz all expenditure object codes in the 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XX]C and SXXX ranges.Xe ct Bode ranges include all a ies, Benefits, Contractual Services, Supplies, and Other expenditures. Thrange is excluded from t because it consists of capital outlay expenditures. Details on the Ount of rate base expendit%e�e c ed with each object code are located in Section 9. �` ` The City is requesting the approval of the indirect Bost�JPonection as Fi ed with Car rd for use in Fiscal Year 2Q2Q. The rates have been calculated u ��ctual expe tur and in ct allocation results from Fiscal Year 2018 and include car -forward calc'�I'.is where ro riate. carry -forward PP P Beginning in the FY 2018 CAP {based an FY 201 ual Cost sreviou idual indirect rates where iier there are infrequent or low levels of gra tivity were c d d into an 'AllGrants' rate. The consolidated rates include: WSCCAP, r ts, City IV Grants, P r�g Grants, Finance Grants, Municipal Court Grants, Fire Grants, ibr Grants, ts, Pr�bli o rants, Federal State Grants_ Consolidating these indirect rat�[e he admi burden ity and will continue in FY 2020. G Q ' O NN P P � O **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 56 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX Section 2 Certification of Cost Allocation Plan Certificate of Cost Allocation Plan This is to certify that I have reviewed the cost allocation plan submitted herewith and tothe best of my knowteef: ,61b (1) A31 Lasts included in this proposal based upon Fiscal Year 2018 actual casts to establish cost aflocati bH for Fiscal Year 2019 are allowable in accordance with the requirements of 2 CFR (Part 200, "Uniform Adr Inistrativ q� ts, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards" and the Federal award(s) to which they apply. Unali ns s have been adjusted for in allocating costs as indicated in thecost allocation plan. l2j All costs included in this proposal are properly allocableto Federal awards on the basis o e�eficial or causal relationship between the expenses incurred and the federal awards tawhich they are allocated in a with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been treated as indirect costs have not been cl a Wet costs. Similar types of costs n�ye been accounted for consistently. I declare that the foregoing is true and correct. ♦ ��` /vim Government Unit: City of Wichita, Kansas Signature: G Name of Official- Shawn Rennin ♦ V Title: Director of Finance & ` Date of Execution: 07 30 2019 �� � �G '� e fi f In Costs G � This is to certify that re ewed the indire ost rate ethL- ted herewith and to the best of my knowledge and belief: (1) All costs incfRdedii proposal based upon fist Yeasts to establish billing or final indirect costs rates for Fiscal Year 2019 are a in accordance with the requi el award(5) to which they apply and 2 CFR Part 200, "Unlfor mini alive Requirements, Cost Princi Audit Requirements for Federal Awards"- Unallowable costs have been adjuste@aIlocatmgcosts as indicatedinthe i din t cost proposal. [2 alil/lncluded In this praposai are�r dyallocahie to Federal awards on the basis of a beneficial orcausal relationship b the expenses incurred and nee is to which they are allocated in accordance with applicable requirements. F er, the same costs that have b en ed as indirect costs have not been claimed as direct costs. Similar types of costs have n accounted for consistentlyy eral government will be notified of any accounting changes that would affect the predetermined rate. \` # declare that the foregoing is trN and correct. Government Unit: City of Wichita, Kansas Signature: Name of Official: Shawn Rennin Title: Directorof Finance Date of Execution: D 019 **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 57 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX Section 3 Organization Chart City of Wichita, Kansas O rga n aatio n Chart C IT IlFN5 O F W ICH ITA AOYiHaiY BnAuiS - - AL CoLYT dims i Aura yBowes ---------------------- ._._______ _ T Sren,u. Cowcae�o+as ((AAJ' BnAA GFA"K&Larlti]R S -j _ S�[OAL COSINPfTPPS cny M. NAGM /•� AFFLSi 1T C1TY htA SAC: ex PC-HLIC SAPFfYR A ntlL�tyr¢Amx Slavuxs Fxxre :�rnn OxYM.�•IAcw's ❑eo ' pvia verruki L FmmATioN TaamLDGY 9ircAxel9�xNa O G Pnurr ,B AB[ � V're Bianalrc ■ ColzsrRnnnr C7ufx labran by Ra•rter nn_ SatY�ca$ ,4Cw R+g3y, llNenu+ L1Al C n�rensare• TR"Mx UBB.' DmLormb- r **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 58 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX Section 4 Engineering Burden Rate Engineering Labor Burden Rate The City of Wichita includes a burden rate charged on direct wages in its invoices to Kansas Department of Transportation [KDOT] for construction engineering on state or fed erallyfunded projects. Project costs eligible for reimbursement by KDOT inclu direct wages and direct benefits [plus the burden rate] and certain direct expenses, including vehicle rental. Benefits a ded in the burden rate because they are captured as direct expenses on the invoices the City submits to KDOT. The burden rate is intended to cover non -productive payroll costs that are not allocated to projects dir t City s payroll system and reports in order to account for the indirect benefit that accrues to projects as a result a aIningfuI1-time employees to participate in project activities. In order to calculate a rate, we totaled direct wages, rti a wages, and non- productive pay for all employees engaged in KDOT project activities during the year. Nan -productive includes holiday pay, vacation pay, sick leave, and other types of leave including emergency leave and bereavemeWMAsed on 2018 operating data, the ratio of non -productive pay to total direct wages was 18%. V ENGINEERING LABOR BURDEN RATE CAL CATION �( A Calculated based on payroll data for the ye December 31, 2018 V Regular pay ✓ $ 32,6 .63 Overtime 3.25 $ 1,65+J,316.88 Non -productive pa Burde ^ ;�C` fo 020 wa a 8% . ,. **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 59 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX Section 5 Reading a Cost Allocation Plan Reading the Cast Allocation Plan Overview The Federal 2 CFR 200 Cost Allocation Plan is a document that distributes, or al City indirect costs. Indirect costs are those costs incurred by City divisions and de�al m t that benefit other City divisions and departments. Examples of City indirect c stLarspersonnel, purchasing, human resources and the Finance Department. The primary purpose for preparing the Cast Allocation Plan is toe Ify the appropriate division and department indirect costs and (2) calculate corresQ g indirect cost rates if 5 needed. io The significant steps involved in preparing the Cost A cat n Plan include the fol (9 ♦ K • Identify the City divisions and depa that provide suppo��d City divisions and departments. The Ins an ep rtments ar to as central service or allocatin ep ments. U • Identify the City division�.depart rec ' e rt from other City divisions and de art ts. Thes ments ar r erred to as grantee or receivir en t� ♦ 0 D, ♦ V V • Accumulat wable a a xpenditu s t e City divisions and depart t t provid s p t to of divisions and departments. • t bu , or allocateIN lFheallowa a enditures of the City divisions and tments that provide sup ther City divisions and departments don available, mean' ful, easurable and auditable allocation statistics that match the e provided to the service received. s ouble-step dawn allgMt!ikont4ethodology is used to allocate the allowable costs of the Cj central service divisi n an partments. This methodology recognizes the cross support provided between c rvice divisions and departments. For example, accounting supports the info n systems department by providing payroll, paying vouchers and preparing a budget. owever, the information systems department also supports accounting, by providing software and hardware support and by maintaining and administering various applications and systems. The double -step down methodology requires an initial sequencing of allocating divisions and departments. In the first step of the double -step methodology, allowable costs from central service divisions and departments are allocated in the sequence selected to all City divisions, departments and funds; including to other central service divisions and departments. The second step in the double -step down methodology is made to fully account for the cross **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 60 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX support provided between central service divisions and departments. Central service divisions and departments are closed after the second step in the double -step down allocation methodology. Sections Table of Contents The first few pages of the Cost Allocation Plan are the Table of Contentsge�n on the ft leside of the pages lists the central service, or allocating, divisionSFctions ments. Each central service division and department is broken down into functia are the specific services provided by a particular division and departme he middle column lists the allocation base for each corresponding function. The column VAwkIght side of the pages is the applicable page number. e Summary Schedule _ 1r�� The next few pages of the Cost Allocation Plan arermmary Schedule. Schedule identifies the total dollar amount omQ City alloci department to every City receiving divisi an eloca'departments are listed down the left colum d rnions Idh f h mary ision and and funds are iste across t e top a eaC pag- ` Detail Schedules The remaining pages of Alloca ' are t schedules for every central service division and d nt. Th schedu r ach central service division and department are str in t f in for Narrative - division and part e, provides a brief description of the activitie ed, along with fide ifyir functions and the corresponding allocation base. D mental Costs (A) — H the Qual expenditures for that division and department. 1Pfcoming Costs (6j — R Gr t`s the support costs coming into the division and department from other allocatin sand departments. Total Allocated (C) - e total amount allocated for that division and department. This amount is found at the end of the Incoming Costs schedule. Function Allocations - The distribution, or allocation, of the Total Allocated costs by function. Allocation Summary — Shows the summary of allocated costs by function. **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 61 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX Section 6 Departmental Indirect Cost Rates **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 62 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX CRy of Wichita, KS FY 20182 CPR 200 Cost Allocation Plan FY 20201ntlirect Cost Rates Total Modified Direct Costs Rate Base• 2018 LORG ®f Nnerg shelter Grenu Pollu Grenu no.ram Housing aueh Tr❑nsfir.Ms aoipmen. Ueprecatlon ding oeprxurion 3 CRy Manager cevartment 6 Gty tlerkes.uases ] 6rennrm Fh.nre s feasNry 9 Gereral acteunang 30 P. r[hasing nem�n sen•�xea w nge warts -Hare m 13 nrngc worts-elegsws caa,Ra.t sFxut� utenTn%s 20t8 ]oral Maalnee olretx cnsu (rare ease FY 2818 Fixed IMlrext Coll Rafe fY 2016 krdkest RecofMes [wry Forward amwnt In ftseil md—Cna Rate FY 28111 al— Recoveees (2❑,SYou." ♦/Grry Forwerdamour In FY 18 Rare! [xry ForwaM for fv10m Rate cakulaean fr m2❑ maned m.te and W log orry forward mx❑ Irdlrece Cass Rote n 2❑le alegetlaeee Rme lusetl M Plarce et ranenhmle! • Psle du Ind W es ohle[[ cages 11(Mltthm 31t%R and 61GOC Iheu enter[ tnee[ en[ompa:: vlaoe:. aenerlu cenraa[. wPples. am OMveWendltures, capital pushy larxxiha peen excluded. Details on Me rare haY espendrt� res can he fourd In Semon 9- Irdlrect Cott Rate -bilk. W w W W }g,❑g1 1❑l9 ❑ I.6?A 5.3]8 5❑8 1].eT2 88.984 I.GaG aG o ,oR eel n.6sa zeal I, 5,� aes lit t p, ..1ix 618 ❑ R 98.1� W91 .Gse soT ,W 1,w] ns ,°zaf zeeea 96.18E va] 1.W9 aaao ❑ e.ufi 19] n.1aa 8.9e1 a]as 139.BR9 sz. 126 1]. z]o, ■31,a3. 2tw 1,T9a ssv k". a 274,b1 3 �13 lea,222 991,383 1.Gs3.982 1j81 2; ,139 951"2] 3.269L 3-Oa% ❑.m 16 a4m L29% 2Te% 112,]96 ,S.ss. 3,?9a "Sm — L.y51 3— w` uaa {1a,39o! - f]s211 2❑,zn {sss! f3.,9]z1 3h.sa3 / ]� xsa ma zzsz 3,29e � ss.a31 ease n..a]6 � /V� 1-x3x 0.1a% °-R6x moo. 3.3]% 0.6fx% ❑.99% �i r pa — r • � v Pagelo/3 City of Wichita, K5 FY 202 2 CFR et C Los[ Allocation Plan FY al Modified Cnst Rates O Total Metlifietl Olrect Costs Rate Bas¢i Odin silo Nl Bern Nl Odrer all Oerer akc— aril dher Grano Grenu Grenu Grenu fi.- Grants al ee,n CRy M.mege Flnan[e Munl[Ipal nhmry 201A sekd 5[ 6r.rd All Gre Park Grenu Gmr,es [curt Grants Flre Is— Gnrns la.6'.- egapmenr oepreuatmn 2 eul Mng oepreclatl on 9 0 ° ° w W ° a W W ❑ ° w ° w ° w o 3 rIty agcr `O 4 law ❑epadment 3,2 9 ° ° 21G 0 ° ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ..t•m RIB ° 0 o 0 zRsl G G ❑ ❑ ❑ ° e �oe,xesa kill� PO aaa: ° ° ❑ ❑ ❑ �, ° ❑ ] a R zap ❑, '18 :a a Ireasary F�' 32 19 11] 6 0 al m a�nry e ° fan eldg sys v6 ❑ lcI,u.e0, O 5 a-2 3m .,.ax w A, ss 38 12.M G,.a .,dal zo ats Maal❑ee Glr�t cons rote Rafe• l.luaw dodo lus°9 zs.ox9 19d3 zz6s - m.12s 3sx.Rcs u,..a Raga I W erect cart Rate rA G ..err. FY 2- -d1l. Remredee ferry FnwaM amount In FmM Ntlke.Y RateQ {z3311 1�+G3 i.,8621 F12018RIbnRe Ree❑vedesi2G18a1° Fsl In rt 1B nacel 21X997 3W 1,.83 713 21121 63 10 12" 1,262 I'm c.rry Fo,ePam fn Fr tam Rme Gkalaem 2w99] .0 lawre aartMrnrwnea are eon° a, lherrrra9daredlevel fY xex6 [Hanes [uses tnckdlry Grry Froward a1,32s a❑xG Irtllrin Lest Rate 3.9d% F12820 Negotkletl RMe lfece In 0-1— rbmm] 'Rate M-11I Wes°nre[t code, lMYJf thro—r and 5ltgC Theu No prr,loua oua No prrvlour rblrr�esgno raa'eat ed R end P onfe[ic°tles en[ompass Salaries. eenefltt CanUatRs. Supplles.aM Comdldntliq all d mxidalN r ditonvlAmd r r+ehax.ro $otla[ed for Ortrn IWIldUures-[appal outlayi.R'✓.]hasheenextludM onaIls xParmerrt.nv xl mnvGnnn rwe oiwa v trod vru on Merata Wuexpeneitorescan6e louMln Semon9-IMlren [mt Rage Rase GHmis. raMryly for hawkrwv of Ineguler p-art esN OMVGvnts. not Grano GNerGvnts 01hv Her Rarenoaprtd Gram PhvGrina orryfwwardi _ All Oewr 9arm. All Gl6v Gm¢ Page 2 el 3 **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 63 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX City of Wichita, KS FY 2019 2 CFR 200 Cost Allocation Plan FY 20201ndirect Cost Rates Total Modified Direct Costs Rate Base* All olher All Other Gran. Gratis 2U18 public Works Federal State Grants Grams 1-v.,pment Depreciation sc $D 2 Building Depreclahon D ❑ 3 City Manager a O 4 law ❑epartmem 0 o 5 Human Rem.r[es 0 o 6 City clerk 0 O G Director of Fi nan[e 4 0 s Trea:Dry 5 o 4 General Accounu ng n 0 1G Nr[h-ng 0 O 11 Admin services D o 12 W blic works -Ad in o 0 o 13 Rublhcwodu-Rldgsu 0 o CfirrxAl 51IIIIICB•LLOCATIONS 42 - 2018 Tata1 Modified Direct Costs Rate Rase • 13�33 - FT 21Ms axed Indirect Cost Rate FY 21116 Ind,rect Recawrles - - Cary Forward Amount In Fixed mewea Cost Rate - 1,16A FT 2D1R Allowed Recouertes (2❑ick All —tens 41- CaFry F—rd attnunt 42 1,168 In FT 19 Ratej Carry Fwwaird for F 20211 Rate CalculaB C FT 202❑ lndbet Costs Including Carry Forward '1tl� ✓) FI`3GQG IFdlret Cast Rate FY ZM Negottated Rate (used In place of rate above) • Rate base Intl odes object codes 1x thru 3xxa: and 5x . These Rate n ob,ect codes encompass salaries, Benef ts, Contracts, 5upplles, and roieol' Other expenditures- Capdal outlay 0" has been exduded, Details at1ef on the rate base expend w re, can be found In Seezlon 9- Indlre t Lost Rate Base Details. G �O P Ni Page 3 of 3 ***** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 64 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX Proposal Certification The undersigned hereby offers to furnish & deliver the articles or services as specified, at the prices & terms stated herein, and in strict accordance with the specifications and general conditions of submitting, all of which are made a part of this offer. This offer is not subject to withdrawal unless upon mutual written agreement by the Proposer/Bidder and City Purchasing Official. Name of Firm: MGT of America Consulting, LLC Contact Person: Bruce Cowans Title: Director, Financial E-Mail: Proposals@mgtconsulting.com Phone: Business Address: City: Signz City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 1 of 20 5 Zip: 33609 08119120z l **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 65 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX City of Fayetteville RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study SECTION C: Signature Submittal 1. DISCLOSURE INFORMATION Proposer shall disclose any possible conflict of interest with the City of Fayetteville, includin of limited to, any relationship with any City of Fayetteville employee. Proposer response shall disclose if w relationship exists between any principal or employee of your firm and any City of Fayetteville empl r elected City of Fayetteville official. If, to your knowledge, no relationship exists, this shall also be stated in your respo.Failure to disclose such a relationship may result in cancellation of a purchase and/or contract as a re iI f your response. This form shall be completed and returned in order for your bid/proposal to be eligible deration. PLEASE CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO OPTIONS, AS ITAPP IATELY APPLIES TO YOUR FI M X 1) NO KNOWN RELATIONSHIP EXISTS • 4 2) RELATIONSHIP EXISTS (Pleas 11 . `V I certify that; as an officer of this organization, r the certify the information provided herein ac rate an and Federal Equal Opportunity and No is iminatio Pursuant Arkansas Code Ann boycott Israel and will not be with any public entity as Israel, the contractor r1mv 2. ;kX4letter o nation, am duly authorized to d u nd my orga ion shall comply with all State n�rements qt74Londitions of employment. )ser agr certifies that they do not currently in th y are entering into, or while in contract, ing contract the contractor decides to boycott ILti in writing. At the di eVoi1111,of the City, one or morrNNser may be asked for more detailed information before final ranVn firms, which may al incl ral interviews. NOTE: Each Proposer shall submit to the City a pri tact name, a -mail ad and phone number (preferably a cell phone number) where the City's %I Committee can call fylrLl fic ion or interview via telephone. Primary Contact: Director, Financial Solutions Title of Primary Contact: Group Phone#1 (cell preferred): 847-302-2006 Phonett2: E-Mail Address: bcowans(cb_mgtconsultinq.com City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 18 of 20 **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 66 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDA Acknowledge receipt of addenda for this invitation to bid, request for proposal, or request for qualification by signing and dating below. All addendums are hereby made a part of the bid or RFP documents to the same extent as though it were originally included therein. Proposers/Bidders should indicate their receipt of same in the appropriate blank listed herein. Failure to do so may subject Contractor to disqualification. �_ ` ADDENDUM NO. SIGNA URE AND PRINTED NAME DATE LEDGED Patrick J. Dyer 022 2 Patrick J. Dyer /2022 �V 4. PRICING: All fees or charges shall be provided within the REP response, I fully itemized, and inclus� harges or fees the City could be charged, as identified in the scope of ` 5. DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION: As an interested party on this project, you ar ire to prgyi ebarmen certification indicating in compliance with the below Federal Executiv er. Cer i n can b completing and signing this form. Federal Executive Order (E.O.) 3►SQr �arme d►Susp ns quires that all contractors receiving g individual awards, using federal d all s dents c t the organization and its principals are not debarred, suspended, pr for deb declar ig le, or voluntarily excluded by any Federal department or agency fro bus i s h Fede rnment. Signature certifies eryou noryo princi is e ently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligi luntarily excluded fr m I ation in this transaction by any federal department or agency. Questl0 ding this form shoulgLAe diod to the City of Fayetteville Purchasing Division. QCOMPANY: ME P SICAL ADDRESS: 4U01 MAILING ADDRESS: Sam! as above PRINTED NAME: Patrick J. Boulevard, Ste 200, Tampa, Florida 33609 PHONE: 888.302.0899 FAX: 850.385.4501 City of Fayetteville, AR REP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 19 of 20 **** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 67 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX E-MAIL: Proposals@mgtconsulting.com SIGNATURE: TITLE: Vice President DATE: 08/19/2022 D,V 6N +'4. V V G "o • G G d of �o � P P � 0 �. o Cj 0 Akv City of Fayetteville, AR RFP 22-06, Cost Allocation & User Fee Study Page 20 of 20 ***** M G T CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 68 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX Sample Insurance Certificate Below is a copy of MGT's Certificate of Liability Insurance. Upon award of the contract, MGT will add the City of Fayetteville as an additional insured. C ACdR� CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATEIMIworvvrY, 5I1 Tf2622 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE OLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORD E POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INS SI, ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: IF the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the poli cy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSUR Ek pr - I ns or he endorsed. IF SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require n s ent. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Crystal IBC, LLC 32 Old Slip 29th FI CGHrACT Meagan Ra O P ONE FAX WC, No AooRFss: Meagan.Rago all om New York NY 1 DDD5 INSURERS I COVERAGE NA` INSURER A: Hartford Fi orn an 19682 INSURED MGrcONs-❑t INSURER a: Trum Ins c Company 27120 MGT Of America, LLC and all of its subsidiaries 4320 West Kennedy Blvd INSURER C: Ha sua Insurance CG 2a INSURER D: Hartfor surance Group4 Tampa, FL 33609 NsuRERE: nstihl[i al Casualty CGmpan 115M INSU COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:982845886 IZ4 - REVISION NUMQIIIIII. r THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAV E ED TO INSURED NAMED ABO' O POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REOUlREMENT, TERM OR CONDIT CONTRA OTHER DOCUMENT %S -I F -PECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFO E POLICI DES IBED HEREIN JE TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN AVE E EDUCED 6 AID C MS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADOL NSD SUBR WIID POLICY HUM POLICY EFF MMID EXP LIMITS A x COMMERCIAL GENERAL LABILITY CLAIMS -MADE OCCUR •if 10 UUN CJ(& .31 ` T3112M 41N99SONAL A `(r 4 O ENICE $1,DDO,D00 Ea occu­I$3DD UUU ME EXP (Any one Person) $11),DDB S - ev NJuRY $1,DDn,UDn GEHL AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: x POLICY PE6 LOG OTHER: GENERAL ACLl1EG4TE $ 2 DDn 000 PRODUCTS-GOMPfOP AGG $2,DD0,0D0 1 $ B AUTOMOBILE x LIABILITY ANY AUTO OWNED SCHEDULE❑ AUTOS ONLY AUTOS HIRED x NON-0W AUTOS ONLY AUTOS Y UEN CG67 33 112 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT Ea aarderrt $1,OIXI,DD[I BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ BODILY INJURY ?Per aoddent] $ PROPERTY DAMAGE Per axKL $ C X UMBRELLA LIAR EXCESS LLAB CCU S-MADE 10 3V DL6D29 3131f2a22 3/3112O23 EACH OCCURRENCE $10,000,000 AGGREGATE $1DD00000 ❑E❑ I x *ftTIO $ ❑ WORKERS COMPE AND EMPLOYERS' TM YIN AN`PRD IETCR�P ER1E%ECITIIVE ❑ OFFICER BERIX ❑EDP IManda HI Ryy DES PERATIONS below N 7A 10 HB 4 3f31 f2522 -1I2D23 x PTATUTE I I EOTRH El. EACH ACCIDENT $1 DDO 000 El. DISEASE- EA EMPLOY $1,DD0,000 El. DISEASE-POLICYLIMIT $1,DD0,000 E al ilny 652348448 71112021 7 12— DmilofLi Ity $6,1300,000 DES IPTION OF OPERARONS I LOCAWCO 101. Additional Rernarks Schedule, RHy be attached IF more space IS required tional Named Insureds: ML GT Irdermetliate, LLC; MGT EH&A Investor, LLC; MGT ofAmerica CGnsurong, LLC; Layer 3 MGT, LLCvis Demographics MGT, LLC; MGT Cira Investor, LLC; Hillsborough County Schools Succeed, LLC; Adams 14 Schools Succeed,AuroraColorado Schools Succchools Recovery, LLC; Davis Demographics & Planning, Inc.; Ci ra Infotech, Inc.; MGT Cira InfGTech, Layer3 Communications, LLC; Layer 3 (Texas), LLC; Layer 3 Communications (Georgia), LLC CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Evidence Of Insurance AIITHnROFn RFPRFCFNTATIVF ® 1988 2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2016103) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD **** MGT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 69 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-06 1 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY APPENDIX ' NATIONAL FIRM LOCAL FOCUS ALABAMA Montgomery CALIFORNIA Sarrarm�nto I Pasadena I Carlsbad COLORADO Denver FLORIDA Tallahassee I Tampa 40 GEORGIA MICHIGAN TE Atlanta Bay City KAN5A5 NEW YORK INIA Alich to Manhattan chmond ILLINOIS NORTH {AR NA WASHINGTON Cniraga Ralelgt Sea-tle MASSACHLISETTS OH WASH1 , DC Boston CK, No 1Q, CG N 4oA * MGT 4320 West KmInedv B oulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609 8. 302.0999 I __ ting_conl **** M GT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, FL I AUGUST 23, 2022 PAGE 70 CONSULTING GROUP RFP #22-061 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY ***** M G T CONSULTING GROUP USER � STUDY BUILDING PLAN REVIEW 8(�PECTIONS LOUNTY,`LORIDA n� inal Report �•� November 2021 G�;``O �,Q¢i Kl�e) Cj Q) k4IR Ed www.mgtconsulting.com LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS Leon County, Florida User Fee Study — Building Plan Review & Inspections November 2021 Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................ .............3 .4II. ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................A. STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ........................................... .............................4 ....B. KEY FINDINGS.................................................................�.............................5 1. III. RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................1............................................................8 A. A SIMPLE FEE STRUCTURE ........................... .....)................................ ...........8 B. COST RECOVERY ....................................... ....................................... �► 9 C. CONSOLIDATION OF PERMIT FEE TAB D CATEGORIES ....... .. . ...................10 w D. MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION L SSIFI I N CHANGE...�..........................10 E. THIRD PARTY "PRIVATE PROVI REVIE �.......... 11 F. ESTABLISH A TECHNOLO..................................................11 G. FEE MAINTENANCE Y....................................................11 ..�H. FUND BALA Q............. .........♦...12 IV. APPENDIX ...................... ................12 ................................................................................... A. INTR ON...... .. .. ............................................................................13 B. P OUP RESULT &CO ISON..................................................................13 DULE 1— PERMIT TY&E LTS & COMPARISON........................................................13 1. SINGLE-FAMILY COOCTION PROJECT.......................................................................14 GO2. MULTI-F �STRUCTION PROJECT........................................................................15 3. CO CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.........................................................................16 SCHEDU 22 — MINIMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISONS........................................................17 1. MINIMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISON - RESIDENTIAL.....................................................17 2. MINIMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISON - COMMERCIAL...................................................18 C. FEE COMPARISON SUMMARY....................................................................................19 TABLE 1-A: PERMIT FEE COMPARISON SUMMARY LEON COUNTY CURRENT FEES COMPARED TOPEER AVERAGE............................................................................................................19 TABLE 1-13: PERMIT FEE COMPARISON SUMMARY LEON COUNTY PROPOSED FEES COMPARED TO PEER AVERAGE............................................................................................................20 **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report P a S e 12 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS I. BACKGROUND The Florida Building Code (§ 553, Fla. Stat.) requires Leon County (herein referred to as the "County') to regulate building construction. § 553.80, Fla. Stat., states, "... each local government and each legally constituted enforcement district with statutory authority shall regulate building construction, and where authorized in the state agency's enabling legislation, each state agency shall enforce the Ikorida Building Code required by this part on all public or private buildings, structures, and facilities..X In Leon County, the responsibility for this work is assigned principally to the Dermh$t of Development Support and Environmental Management's (DSEM) Building Plans Review a(d Inspection (BPRI) Division. The Division employs licensed Building Plan Reviewers, Building Inspectors anoW*rmit Technicians. These professionals work in unison with other DSEM staff to process building Als, issue building permits, and inspect construction to ensure compliance with the Florida Build' g' BC). In November 2019, the Leon County Board of County Commi ion s (herein referred o 'Board") took a major step in simplifying the building permit fee-7_ lation process by ad'�a "flat fee„ methodology based upon the square footage of a stru u iahic esulted in a f o .80 per square foot for residential permits. The November 2019 p d "fI fe ' met o has resulted in a significant time savings by reducing the number �lation re ed to ine a building permit fee. In addition, the simplified process has ded great ainty/�sparency to contractors and homeowners by granting them the abilityalculat advan �oubmitting a building permit application. It is important to recognize that L r anty's I ding p e schedule update occurred in 2004. The building permit fee calcul I&ethod tilized P atime was rather complex. It entailed assigning a unique fee tc e c Mpect c ruct'O rical, mechanical, plumbing, etc.). These individual sub -fees we culated s mmin n mber of unique elements associated with the respective work. For �e, the fee fo electrical rk would be calculated by adding each individual outlet, switch, ligh I ,fan, etc. The su f this sub -fee would then be added to any other applicable sub -fees to de mI the overall building 't fee. At the time I oard adopted the fee methodology in November 2019, the Board also authorized staff o PC o4ed with hiring a n tat to conduct a comprehensive building permit fee study. In DeceW 2019, the CountvtQQVicted with MGT Consulting Group to conduct this study. The methodology used to condV study, data, analysis, and recommended actions are provided in this report. The initial flat fee methodology adopted in November 2019 greatly simplified the fee calculations. However, it did not itemize all three (3) aspects involved in the permitting process: intake, plan review and inspections. It was also found that there is no residential or commercial plan review fee for the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and gas trades. This presents a significant problem which affects the following: Collecting the plan review fee at the time of permit application; The inability to calculate the required reduction for the private provider pursuant to FL. Stat. 553.791; and **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report p a g e 13 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS • Fees collected did not always recover the expenses of providing plan review services. Pursuant to § 553.80, the County may collect fees to recover the costs associated with the regulation of building construction (e.g. administration, intake, plan review and inspections). § 553.80 stipulates what costs may be recovered for enforcing the FBC. These include direct costs and reasonable indirect costs associated with: o Permit processing; o Plan review of building plans; o Inspections; o Re -inspections; o Building code enforcement; o Other laws related to the design, construction, erection, al n, modification, repair, or demolition of public or private buildings, structures, fa ities; o Manufactured building site setup and utilities; w o Training; e 1Z) o Enforcement action pertaining to unlicensed co actor activity; o Implementation of policies, procedures, and pra tices which prodV ost cost- effective property insurance ratings; o Assessing fines; o Searching of records, and; G o Managing the enforcement o the ✓ Fees collected for these services are dep0 it o an en(ehe fund t used to support the functions V" of the BPRI Division. Building permit re that ha a collect t not expended is known as a fund balance. Per § 553.80, a fund bald v�i ai y note he aye bfthe last four (4) years of operating budget" costs for the BPRI Divisi I�ppropri qeVM main Wwill ensure the County's general fund is not impacted by the costs n ry to o e BP ion. 1 l\ ;,xj ives of this buildi fee study are to: Develop a meSd&%gy that continues the transparent and streamlined approach for calculating all bui Nng permit fees as established by the Board's direction in November 2019. Evaluate adopted overall permit fees to determine their adequacy in addressing the costs associated with intake, plan review, inspections, and administration. Identify costs associated with enforcement, interpretation, and regulation of the FBC by Leon County. Provide recommendations on how to monitor and maintain appropriate building permit fees in perpetuity. Compare similar Florida jurisdictions to determine their practices for building permit fee methodology. **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report P a g e 14 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS B. KEY FINDINGS ❖ Issue: Each jurisdiction has adopted specific methodologies for calculating building permit fees. Many jurisdictions utilize base fees to capture the minimum costs associated with permitting. DSEM's current base fees vary greatly by project type and, in most instances, recover the costs for intake, administration, permitting, plans review, and inspection. • Approach: MGT reviewed the permitting process from intake to final inspection for all permit types. • Result: MGT found the current individual minimum fees for the five,(!j) trades should be eliminated. MGT discovered the individual minimum trade fees made the process complex and difficult to determine when and where they should be apklied." MGT recommends using a single base fee to ensure costs are recovered thus�implifying the fee calculation process. Issue: § 553.80 authorizes a local government to set fee pr' building permits but stipulates the fees are to be used only for related responsibilit' u the FBC. MGT con d a fiscal analysis to determine if building permit fee changes necessary to ensure cos*Zery. • Approach: Following the conventions of cosACcounting, and more sp , 2 CFR Part 200 (the Uniform Administrative Requireot , Cost Principles, gui ost principles), MGT reviewed the service delivery f ent lyiii"tfirnpermit t he fee study was based on the review of the BPR ivl ' s wor ro edure ing the processing of each phase of the buildin per during inta e, ad lion, plan review, and inspection. This assessment nted6ork r d during each phase of the process including the sub itt f the a II Ion, data en , processing the construction plans, oversight of th c ss, pay r> - assigninee project in the permitting system, placard, providi pection cplan review prod permit i �u e, cpll i final fees, issuance of the permit ghout�t onstruction process, and issuing the Certificate of ancy or otion. ` • Results: alyzin erall ^TPdcture and the available fund balance, MGT dete * d hat fees ar estab elUa an appropriate level to sustain operation of the B on without need pro de more accuracy in b an review and inspectio( �ees into a "plan re ' " an O �r t Fund to subsidize the enterprise system. To !geT139nneral porting by separating expenditures and revenues for �t is recommended the County separate all building permit an "inspection fee". GThis recomme��d�c�ange would result in the following benefits: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. AIINM�EM to collect plan review fees at the time of application, which would ensure the cost of services are recovered in instances where applicants choose to withdraw their permit after plan review is completed. Provide more accuracy in budget reporting by separating expenditures and revenues for plan review and inspections. Allow for an accurate calculation of fee reductions when a private provider is used. Allow the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and gas plan review costs to be easily determined for each trade. Provide greater transparency to the customer. ❖ Issue: DSEM's current method of combining multiple fees for each trade continues to involve multiple calculations to determine the total fee. This current methodology is cumbersome and ***** M G T Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report P a g e 15 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS lacks transparency. • Approach: MGT suggests collapsing the different calculations into a single amount for efficiency. Further, the elimination of construction valuation and the implementation of square footage -based fees would provide greater transparency and streamline the process. • Results: The conversion of the current methodology of adding multiple fees in conjunction with the trade base fee to a single minimum fee per trade will further simplify the permitting process. ❖ Issue: In November 2019, the Board approved the implementation of a fee) methodology for permit fees. Many of the current building permit fees do not align it Board's direction. This same methodology should be applied across all permit type�n _ • Approach: MGT examined all occurrences ofvaluation-b edi'es and other miscellaneous fees which involve complex calculations. This study es fees that would conform to the approved methodology based on the Boar dcion including the est lishment of ' a 'tiered' flat fee system for commercial project ased on occupancy cl ss' n. • Results: The methodology above was utilize o eliminate occurrencg�tion-based fees in favor of simplified flat rate fe � all permit types. 1 coition, the study recommends permit fees for copr&nd utilizing ed fee structure commensurate with the occupa SK6PMcatio hat is Vve of the intensity of review. • Issue: Pursuant to § 553.791, pl nts can s`third par as "private provider , to review plans and/or inspec nstruct' n oject fo�pliance with the FBC. However, if an applicant chooses to► iz t e sery a prinistrati y a I�d�ider, DSEM still incurs costs for the required admiices. A eology ulating a reduced permit fee when such services are utiliz ds to ilishe an only be done if the plan review and inspection fees s parate • A ol�+. MGT determined th fired portion of work by BPRI Division staff when ap is use private provi rs. phis was accomplished by evaluating the level of work SE provides on permi intake, administration, plans review, and/or inspection i rtion associated w "prWe provider" permits. This analysis provided the required level of reduction in th la review and/or inspection part of the permit. Results: Based n level of work DSEM provides to process private provider permits, G MGT recomm a rate be reduced to 40 percent of the plans review and/or inspection fee to reco e cost of services provided. Implementation will ensure compliance with private provi r fee reductions required in § 553.791. The fee reduction is the amount of cost savings realized by the local enforcement agency for not having to perform such services. ❖ Issue: Efficiency in the building permitting process requires use of technology, including an electronic permitting system with the ability to store and easily access data. These assets are expensive and require periodic upgrades and replacement. Funding upgrades and replacement is a budget challenge. Several Florida jurisdictions include a technology fee with building permit fees to ensure that the building departments will be able to purchase the technology tools required without placing a burden on or seeking additional funding from the County General Revenue budget. Current Leon County building permit fees do not include a technology fee. MGT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report p a g e 16 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS • Approach: MGT evaluated and amortized the technology needs, the acquisition cost, and expected useful life of the applicable software. The review included the County's current permitting software, Accela; Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) upgrade to allowing inspection requests by texting; the acquisition of'DigEPlan' plan review software; and other related updates to improve the permitting process. MGT calculated the average annual expense of all required permitting software and divided this amount by the Division's budget to determine a technology fee percentage. • Results: Based on the review of all required software and upgrades, T etermined that a standard technology rate of 3 percent would be adequate to a the required technology maintenance and improvements. ❖ Issue: Most local governments update building permit fees inf t yy. if the operating cost of a department rows while fees remain the same ther il�a growing a between p g � g gg p revenue and expense. Eventually, a new building per study would be necessary to address the fees once again to determine and addres h in the cost of the le I of services provided. • Approach: MGT evaluated a method to mine building perm' `'fi�A�costs based on inflation. MGT found many jurisd' ti e Zn) regional co price index (CPI) percentage to determine the per nt djust • Result: To help prevent the lity of *i Gen Up pd"to subsidize the enterprise system, CPI can be used t pei'iddically a ate fees.etermined using the inflation rate based on the regio I would ppropriate methodology to evaluate operating costs until such timl ®n t er buil I ermit_ fee y Is performed. Periodic analysis of fees will ensure t erprise ntinu self -supportive. MGT recommends the County cond a study ive ye ich is consistent with common practice in Florida, in c uij riction g the ation adjustment to continually monitor and ensu it g permit f s continu Vecover associated costs. ❖ Issue: I nt years, a surge o uilcl�ng activity has caused many local government building per t f s to row to levels &ceed a like) need for "rain day" funding which was one � g Y Y Y g oCli le Intents of establ' ing ch funds. Builders sought legislative relief because they (�g Mttioned why they o continue to pay traditional prices while local governments CiAccumulated what a(p@&fd to be excessive fund balances. In response, the State enacted modifications to FL . 53.80(7) that limits fund balance to not be more than the average of the last four (4) f the "operating budget". Approach: MGT reviewed the last four (4) years of the operating budget for BPRI Division and the current fund balance level. Result: The County is in compliance with § 553.80(7) with the current fund balance well below the allowable level by approximately 51 percent. **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report P a g e 17 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS III. RECOMMENDATIONS A. A SIMPLE FEE STRUCTURE The Board adopted a flat fee of $0.80 per square foot for one and two-family residential projects in November 2019. The Study verified staff took the correct approach in simplifying the fee structure. After analyzing the overall fee structure, it was determined that fees were established at an appropriate level to recover the cost of operation of the BPRI Division. The recommendation to contin recovering the cost of operation of the BPRI Division and continue the simplification of the fee str for all permit types is reflected in the table below titled, "A New Tiered Fee System". Adopting e methodology for all permit types, the creation of a tiered fee structure based on occu � ssification and the establishment of minimum fees per trade will further simplify the permittin s consistent with Board direction. A NEW TIERED FEE SYSTEM V RESIDENTIAL CIDL� ♦�` � v One and Two -Family Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 • �� Tier 4 Single -Family, R1, R n V Educational, Townhouses, Duplexes Factory, Storage, Utility M tifa ) Bu mess; Mercantile�Nembly, High Hazard, Institutional Plan Plan wI n �� Plan Inspection Inspection PI iew In �r,�i ction Inspection Review Review ` Revi Review $0.41 $0.38 $0.28 $0.40 $0.46 40 0.4 $0.44 $0.52 $0.46 Total $0.79 Total $ .6k To � $0.86 ( tal $0.92 Total $0.98 The fee study recommends el' I th cons obi valuation method and instead using a square footage method or f t s for I ec ion n review for residential, commercial/multi- family, and warehou IF cts. I d, t e f hedule for commercial permits will take into consideration the t p ccupancy cla sificat structures and the associated cost of services for plans review and ion. Four comme I t rs will create distinct categories and fees unique to various occup y c ssifications. For exam e "Tier 1" commercial category was created for "Factory, Storage an projects due y th types of structures requiring minimal plan review and inspectio methodology will I�s'�t in a decrease in permit fees for these types of structures. A corcial tier unique to ily ("Tier 2") is needed due to the complexity and classification of these types of uses undertillk�F C+Pursuant to the FBC, multifamily construction is classified as commercial construction due to the enf%nced safety requirements. Consequently, a commercial tier unique to multifamily was created with fees commensurate with the associated cost of services. Based on the study's findings, the table below illustrates current and recommended fees for two types of typical projects: (1) single-family residential and (2) business/mercantile commercial. Plan review fees for single-family residential projects are not currently separated from inspection fees. Thus, MGT recommendations include a reduction to the inspection fees while adding a plan review fee. For commercial projects, plan review fees, which are calculated and based on the stated project valuation, would be replaced with a flat rate plan review fee that is based on square footage. **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report P a g e 18 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS CURRENT FEES vs RECOMMENDED FEES SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS & MERCANTILE COMMERCIAL Current Recommended Current Recommended' Size 2,500 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. z Building $0.46 $1,150.00 $0.15 $375.00 $0.51 $1,530.00 $0.15 $450.00 O Mechanical $0.10 $250.00 $0.06 $150.00 $0.10 $300.00 $0.09 $270.00 U w Electrical $0.12 $300.00 $0.09 $225.00 $0.12 $360.00 $0.12 $360.00 z Plumbing $0.07 $175.00 $0.04 $100.00 $0.07 $210.00 $0.06, $180.00 iw - " Gas 1 $0.05 $125.00 $0.04 $100.00 $0.05 $150.00 $60.00 $0.41 $1,025.00 Stated $104.43 %08$1,440.00 Valuation 3 Total $0.80 $2,000.00 $0.79 $1,975.00 $0.85 $2, $0.86 $2,760.00 1: Currently, the residential plan review costs for service is included in the building inspe n fee. 2: The commercial category was divided into four (4) Tiers to reflect the different IVSNvost of services for plan review and inspections. Mercantile is categorized under Tier 3. 3: The stated valuation of $458,000 was calculated using ICC (International C ouncil) Building Valuation D ). The recommendation of separating the plan review an �pection costs for all s into two (2) separate fees will further implement the Board's n an a flat fee m o ogy using project square footage. Consequently, this would resul ' a parate dp n view ach trade. Collecting plan review fees at the time of application w' redu they unt of unto a fees due to permits not being picked up and will allow for a reductl the pl X iew ar pection fees when private provider services are utilized in complian wi § 553 7 a► B. COST RECOVERY �O Current Count permit fees r 97 rae the t t st of services which slightly varies b permit County � g Y Y category. It is recomme0le� a prop sc be adopted to continue capturing the cost recovery for services, lhici-supports the oard' gic Initiative to "exercise responsible stewardship of County resour and financial ma ge nt and ensure that the provision of services and community a nc ents are done in a f d equitable manner" (G5). The recommendations in the study and t posed fee schedul al w for the enterprise fund to continue to fully operating of the BPRI Divisi ithout the need to seek General Revenue funding. Cjy of Current Cost Recovery by Permit Category support the Revenue Cost Revenue minus cost Revenue / Cost Total $2,725,677 $2,808,435 ($82,758) 97% Construction Permits $1,881,345 $1,917,627 ($36,281) 98% Stand-alone Trade Permits $196,942 $206,466 ($9,524) 95% Other permits* $647,390 $684,342 ($36,952) 95% * Includes decks, re -roofs, retaining walls, signs, generators, etc. **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report P a g e 19 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS C. CONSOLIDATION OF PERMIT FEE TABLES AND CATEGORIES For most projects, an increase in project size may result in a corresponding building permit fee increase due to the increase of square footage. Use of the flat fee square footage calculations for minor construction projects, however, will not recover the cost of services provided. For example, under the current fee schedule a small residential addition project with 100 square feet of area would result in a building permit fee of $80. This fee would not address the cost for intake of the permit, review of plans, inspections, and paperwork necessary to close the project. Therefore, in such instances, it is recommended that a minimum fee of $135.00 be utilized to ensure full recovery f all associated permitting costs. This fee is representative of the hourly rate ($90.00) multiplied b urs. The table below provides the current minimum individual fee for each trade and the recom � Anplified single minimum fee for any permit. /► w� Trade Current Minimum Fee Rec—ow#Aended Minimum Fee* Building None 1 $135.00 Mechanical $82.00 $135.00 Electrical $79.63 $135.0 Plumbing $91.38 $1 Gas $73.10zAr $1 * The minimum fee is based on the hourly rate of $ 0.,�c�i!5 hours. D. MULTIFAMILY CONSTRV ONLA 11ATION CHANGE Pursuant to the FBC multifamilyconstr ilassifi d commerc' onstruction due to enhanced safety requirements. The plan revie comm is uilding(SNmplex and addresses a significant number of life, health and saf t'4Sirements * I ding*eVing accessibility, type of construction, occupant loading, fire resistanc s, sprin r Ire alar s, signage, fire separation, structural, energy and mechanical and e I I syste let e t multifamily permit fees recover the costs involved with the plan r proce reco d that multifamily projects be specifically designated as a co a fee calculat n, w . h ' s with the FBC. MGT recommends the County include multifamil fees under the pr pos mmercial tier fee structure for this reason. It is also recommended tha h 'valuation -based' th for determining multifamily plan review fees be converted to t 'fla fee' method as illust- t elow. V O C) Current and l4Crrf��nded Fees for a $2,300,0001 Multifamily 17,000 sq. ft. Structure Current Fee Recommended Fee Cost per sq. ft. Fee Cost per sq. ft. Fee n review' Stated Valuation $281.97 $0.46 $7,820.00 Building $0.51 $8,670.00 $0.15 $2,550.00 Mechanical $0.10 $1,700.00 $0.07 $1,190.00 Electrical $0.12 $2,040.00 $0.11 $1,870.00 v Plumbing $0.07 $1,190.00 $0.05 $850.00 Gas $0.05 $850.00 $0.02 $340.00 Total $0.85 $14,731.97 $0.86 $14,620.00 1 Plans review was a portion of the building inspection fee. **i*i M GT Leon County * Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 * Draft Report Page 1 10 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS z Stated valuation of $2,300,000 was calculated using ICC (International Code Council) Building Valuation Data (BVD). E. THIRD PARTY "PRIVATE PROVIDER" REVIEW FEES The current fee structure does not account for any reduction in plan review or inspections fees when a builder or owner decides to use a private provider. Leon County is required to calculate the applicant's cost savings based on the private provider's services, per § 553.791(2)(b). When a private provider is used, the County's cost for the level of services would be reduced since Leon County sta f would not be performing all the required plan review and/or inspections typically associated with I g construction. The State Statute still requires County involvement to process the permit, obtain req Ir cumentation, ensure the private provider has insurance for professional liability policy, perior, inspections, enter the inspections into the permitting system, ensure the project is in com?iance and that all required inspections have been completed and approved, and issue the Certificate � ccupancy or Completion. Therefore, it is recommended the private provider fee reduction be list?d4n the DSEM Building Permit Fee Schedule as 60 percent of the plans review and/or inspections per {�, whichever is applicable. This would allow DSEM to recover 40 percent of the cost of servicekr c0d as mentioned. The duction of 60 percent of the plans review and/or inspection fees is const with a reduction affation, cluded in §5-1.09 of Chapter 5 of the Leon County Code of Laws. There, re, by accepting the rerd� Leon County would be compliant with § 553.791(2)(b). I F. ESTABLISH A TECHNOL GY E G The assessment of a technology fee in conju c on wit Iding pit ee is a common practice in Florida. As the building permit proces evolved aper to digit6l, it has become necessary to maintain and upgrade software and t logy o these ongoing upgrades and ma e, it i building permit fee schedule. T ' y, tech 4 percent. Based on technq� es eta c Leon County establish,,a t ogy fee significant technology des was at N pe 0.1 �noing b assist with the financial aspect of nd %hjit a technology fee be added into the fees a kaNed with building permits range from 2 to y "other jurisdictions, it is recommended that h total building permit fee. Recent spending for t e BPRI budget. As such, a technology fee of 3 percent of the BPet is required to rr�intai�i the MIS support for minor improvements and future upgrades. � O If the techne�%fee is deposited ints own fund, the funds would be exclusively dedicated for improving per n te+thnology. In additi teZhnology fund would be a revolving fund, which would be difficult to ti o average annual a ri ion metric. G. FEE MAINTENA CE Building permit fees should be evaluated on an on -going basis to ensure the BPRI Division is recuperating the cost of services provided. Therefore, MGT recommends the County conduct a fee study every five years, which is common practice in Florida, in conjunction with using the CPI inflation adjustment to ensure building permit fees continue to recover associated costs. **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report P a g e I LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS H. FUND BALANCE During the last several years, a surge of building activity resulted in an increase of local government building funds, which caused developers to question the excessive fund balance. In 2018 the legislature adopted § 553.80 that defines the maximum level of fund balance as the average of the last four years of the local building department's operating budget. The County is also required to report the fund balance annually on the County's website pursuant to. § 553.89(7). MGT reviewed Leon County's average operating budget for the last four years and fount Leon County in compliance with § 553.80. The current balance is at 51 percent of the allowable fun ce limit. MGT recommends that the Leon County Office of Financial Stewardship continue to revi o a uarterly basis, the fund balance to ensure the fund remains within the allowable limits as estrl il* h by statute. IV. APPENDIX A. B. Introduction Peer Group Results and Comparisons Schedule 1 addresses new constructio s. It i rates costs r are foot for: 1. Single -Family Residential: Plan R e nd Inspe o 2. Multifamily: Plan Review an spe on ��►� 3. Commercial: Plan Review a IT713ectin N—y rage f 1'rfee commercial Tiers listed below): .. Tier 1 (Storage, F Tier 2 (Busin(tss Review and Inspection Inspection onal, and Hazardous): Plan Review and residential and commercial construction r "'t'hanical, electrica plumbing, or gas permits with no other associated ruct igion, such as furnac harTge-outs in existing buildings. e-Family Residential: na Review and Inspection ultifamily: Plan R§14w an Inspection Fee Comparison Table 1-A: Pernai parison Summary — Leon County Current Fees Compared to Peer Average I �1 Table 1-13: Permit ee Comparison Summary— Leon County Proposed Fees Compared to Peer Average **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report page 112 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS A. INTRODUCTION MGT determined a list of permits, sample projects, and peers for comparison. The comparison of the selected jurisdictions illustrates their fees, but does not factor the workload, or similar complexity as is found in Leon County. Jurisdictions used for comparison are as follows: ❖ Alachua o• Bay a► Lake J► •'• Manatee ❖ Osceola ❖ Sarasota n. ❖ St. Lucie n�J ❖ City of Tallahassee Note that with these comparison of fees there are differen funding, process, ev id�r, and manpower that contribute to how each jurisdiction est s their fee structure. ees may not cover the same services. Some of the com incl e hether th rmit fee is calculated by construction valuation or square of e or cony differ t mponents. In addition, several jurisdictions receive suppl ental undi4i ugh G ands and are not entirely supported by an Enterprise Fund. Spm i ally, Al Lake e, Sarasota, and the City of Tallahassee are not self-supporte ough the' uildin e t funds. Leon County's building department, however, is sel orted t h an ent fund which is an account backed entirely by fees collected ing p inspect''Q nd related services. A �I O B. PEER G RESULTS C ARISON SCHEDU ERMIT TYPE RJ(JLTq COMPARISON ShowjAh a ount charged by ooer jur%dictions for each of the example fees —single-family, multi- fami an commercial. Fee a �nts,are rounded to the nearest dollar. **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report P a g e 1 13 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS I. SINGLE-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT The graph below shows Leon County's proposed fees and fees charged by each jurisdiction for a new single-family building permit and associated inspections. The fee amounts were determined by the fee schedules, responses, and calculations used by each jurisdiction and project type. FEE COMPARISON VS. LEON COUNTY PROPOSED: *St. Lucie County, like Leon County, includes Certifica f cupancy inuilding i `` **Leon County fee value is based on the flat fe proac dop �d the Board in v2019. The valuation used in this graph is based on a 2,500 square foot hom is the xi a e ave g �me permitted in Leon County in 2021. The stated valuation of $370,825 was calculZlild using IC el►national Co e uncil) Building Valuation Data (BVD). ***All of the above jurisdictions, except L n 4d COT, as inimum i11 t fees that range from $2,800 - $24,517. AVERAGE FEE $1,899 �` V G G 'Q O O Q' P P � O �. O ci C) 4kNV1 **i*i M GT Leon County * Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 * Draft Report Page 1 14 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS 2. MULTI -FAMILY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT The graph below shows Leon County's proposed fees and fees charged by each jurisdiction for a new multi -family building permit and associated inspections. The fee amounts were determined by the fee schedules, responses, and calculations used by each jurisdiction and project type. FEE COMPARISON VS. LEON COUNTY PROPOSED: *St. Lucie County, like Leon County, also includeskQAificate o NSncy in thLhr6�ding permit fee. **Leon County fee value is based on the flat fee approach y the B rrd in ovember 2019. The value used in this graph is based on a 17,000 square foot uildigg The sta a tion of 2i10 was calculated using ICC (International Code Council) Building Valuation �VD). ***All of the above jurisdictions, M Leon and ess min' � pact fees that range from $2,800 - $24,517. /1V � G/vVl► '� ` V AVERAGE FEE — $14, � nl_§ P � 0 ci 0 Akv **i*i M GT Leon County * Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 * Draft Report P a g e 15 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS 3. COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT The graph below shows Leon County's proposed fees and fees charged by each jurisdiction for a new commercial building permit and associated inspections. Leon County's fee amount represents an average of the three commercial tiers. The fee amounts were determined by the fee schedules, responses, and calculations used by each jurisdiction and project type. FEE COMPARISON VS. LEON COUNTY PROPOSED: Ivew t-ommercial Construction vermlt Fee-`v► (Includes Initial Inspection Fee) 12,000 s.f. $1,800,000 valuation >zo,000 — >15,000 >10,000 $9,837 $11 < </V1► $5,000 $4 $7 $4 ♦ — $0 u sota Ula Qnier a E d \ v *St. Lucie County, like Leon County, includes Cert ' to of Oc pin their bui i permit fee. **Leon County fee value is based on the t e approac d4�present average of Commercial Tiers 1, 3 & 4. The stated valuation of $1,830,000 was �al ting IC national C cil) Building Valuation Data (BVD ***All of the above jurisdictions, n and C T ss mini act fees that range from $2,800 $24,517. AVERAGE FEE — $9,960 O Q' P P � O �. o ci 0 Akv **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report Page 1 16 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS SCHEDULE 2 — MINIMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISONS Shows the amount charged by other jurisdictions for each of the example fees. Fee amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. I. MINIMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISON - RESIDENTIAL Leon County does not currently have a minimum fee for a residential building permit. The graph below illustrates minimum fee comparisons based on the proposed minimum residential fee of $135. GRAPH 4: FEE COMPARISON: PROPOSED MINIMUM RESIRE T FEE VS. PEER JURISDICTIONS *Leon County currently However, there is no r projects and elimina (1) fee instead of five AVE %r ■ G c� � s lTfum fee fVac fthehat are used for residential and commercial projects. fee for builcRn . Thk reco mendation is to create one minimum fee for all small g ive (5) trade permit inimum fees. This will simplify the permitting process by using one ). The recommended fee135 is the hourly rate ($90.00) x 1.5 hours. **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report page 1 17 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS 2. MINIMUM PERMIT FEE COMPARISON - COMMERCIAL Leon County does not currently have a minimum fee for a commercial building permit. The graph below illustrates minimum fee comparisons based on the proposed minimum commercial fee of $135. GRAPH 5: FEE COMPARISON: PROPOSED MINIMUM COMMERCIAL FEE VS. PEER JURISDICTIONS �a� ■ ■ 1 *Leon County currently has a mi ' fee for Zf the trl, tl tare used for residential and commercial projects. However, there is imum fe fo buildin h�recommendation as stated is to create one minimum fee for all smal s and el' i t he fiv �de permit minimum fees. This will simplify the permitting process b ne (1) d of f' he recommended fee of $135 is the hourly rate ($90.00) x 1.5 h� AVERAGE FE — ,$S. 2 P 0 0 Cj 0 Akv **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report page 1 18 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS C. FEE COMPARISON SUMMARY The tables below (I -A and 1-13) list the current and proposed amounts charged by Leon County side -by -side with the average fee amount charged by the comparative jurisdictions. A column has also been added next to each average to highlight the percentage difference (% DIFF) between the amount charged by Leon County and the comparative counties. The fee for each project type byjurisdiction is detailed in the previous section (Section 2). TABLE I -A: PERMIT FEE COMPARISON SU LEON COUNTY CURRENT FEES COMPARED T AVERAGE UC **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report Page 1 19 LEON COUNTY • COMPARATIVE FEE ANALYSIS TABLE I-B: PERMIT FEE COMPARISON SUMMARY LEON COUNTY PROPOSED FEES COMPARED TO PEER AVERAGE LEON COUNTY COMPARATIVE % DIFF PROPOSED AVERAGE Single -Family Construction ' ex. $371,000 valuation; 2,500 sq. ft. Multi -Family Construction ex. $2,300,000 valuation; 17,000 sq. ft. Commercial Construction r • . ex. $1,800,000 valuation; 12,000 sq. ft. Minimum Residential Building Permit I Minimum Commercial Building Permit I �� \\oG��oPQQ��`\Ga� **i*i M GT Leon County • Comparative Fee Analysis CONSULTING GROUP June 2020 • Draft Report P a g e 120 CITY OFWICHIT�►, flftlx�� cerERAL n sT Ai ING VN O� �f�'P20lPiMed CJ �.l 0 P G � KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 CATION PLAN CT COST RATES on FY 2018 Actual Expenditures *V*M G T CONSULTING GROUP © MGT Consulting Group 13303 W. Maple, Suite 139 #177 1 Wichita KS 67235 316.214.3163 1 bschlyer@mgtconsulting.com mgtconsulting.com V" Table of Contents J, GJ Section 1 - Introduction nn, �GJ Section 2 - Certifications ,`i�► Section 3 - Organization Chart G Section 4 - Engineering Burden Rate 0& Section 5 - Readinga Cost Alloc o 'Plan ` �� � G ex Section 6 - Departmental Indirect Cmsga ebs Section 7 - Central S�v ces Cost Alloc&io Plan Detail n Section 8 - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards C '0" Section 9 - Indirect Cost Rlkvase Detail Introduction The enclosed Indirect Cost Allocation Plan identifies the costs i irect services provided by central service departments of the City of Wichita, Kansas ( it based on actual expenditures for fiscal year 2018. The MGT Consulting Group (MGT) kpared these docp�ents at the request of the City. `` • ��:VV"" The Cost Allocation Plan is used by the City to 66 6 dirj�)osts harges against awards (grants) and City funds. The list of federal/state ,gra -d a Nat are charged indirect costs based on the results of this Ian are located in Sec i — De mental Indirect Cost Rates. The p � p Cost Allocation Plan and indirect cost rats are W ith S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration each ear, a Ind,'e Cost Negotiation Agreement is reached that details the allowable indirWVt r E144 Qj 0 These documents are preired in complia with 2 CFR Part 200. City personnel provided the expenditure and alloca '0, deata to MGT c Itants. MGT consultants then prepared the Cost le allo p � asis method with a double step-down Allocation Plan utili ' ulti 'on -down calculation p methodology. Allocation Methodology Summar The Cityof Wichita utilizes a multiple allocation method to distr' ndirect costs to all City p Y departments, funds, and operating units. This method eoubl�e-step-d ices to be grouped into cost pools, each of which is then allocated using a statistic thclosely correlates to the service provided and the relative benefits received by the depafunds, an rating units of the City. Additionally, the City's cost allocation plan utili (location methodology that fully recognizes the cross sup off, t exists betw Zentral service departments (Human Resources supports Finance end Fin s is Human Resources). The followingis a description of the cent I s07%vice6NIrtments, the cost ools the 've been pp Y broken down into, and the allocation is u ' tobl&bute the costs from each pool to the benefitting department, funds and atin s. Equipment Depreciation P Depreciation on equipm or the Central Berk Pool. Costs are allocated based on actual depreciation amountskilr1located depar '�nts. Building Depreciation r i Pursuant to the 2 CFR Part 2001 depreciation on buildings and improvements for City Hall are allowable. The cost of land has been excluded. The depreciation has been allocated as follows: • City Hall - Allocated to central service departments based on usable square feet of space occupied per department and division. City Manager The mission of the City Manager is to provide professional leadershi management for the City of Wichita. In this capacity, the office provides general guidance�anagement to City departments, executes City Council policies, facilitates the development of the mission statement and the City's long-range goals and objectives, and coordin�j City efforts to accomplish cost c7ed as follows savings and increased efficiencies. Allowable costs are • g �� • CityManager — Costs associated with the da -t Ala operation of* it are allocated based g Y Y p Y upon the number of full-time equivalent posi ' s administere epartment and division. Law Department ��' It is the mission of the Law Department t fa itat ` t succc s through the provision of high quality legal services and guidance to �ty cil, Ci nager, and the departments, boards, agencies, utilities and commission e Cit it leg, ff members perform a variety of roles including providing legal advice, in� ie �g contracts, rendering legal opinions, and conducting litigation for th Allowable cost�e allocated as follows: • Advice & Opinions �s associated wit�rovidin advice and opinions have been allocated p p g p to all City depart s based on thenber of full time equivalent positions. • Department Su� rt — Costs a Aiated with providing support directly to departments have been alloc Qtebased on the iur ber of recorded hours of support. • Other Law Services — Cos not allocated. Human Resources The mission of Human Resources is to build a stimulating and divers ure of inclusion that thrives on public service, high performance, and individual and o'Fa zational growth and development. Human Resources' core responsibilities are employee recruitment and selection; classification and compensation; employee relations; benefj�evelopment and administration; HR-related informations systems; Equal Em to t� ortunit a �4►ffirmative Action payroll; Y q p Y�� pp Y programs; union negotiations and contract administr tin; managing Fagg and Medical Leave (FML); Unemployment Insurance (UI); drug testin E ployee Assistance Program and fund; and employee learning and development. Allova e cos e allo0ed as described below: • Human Resources — Costs are allocatelb, sed .the '4er of full-time equivalent positions by department and divisi C5 City Clerk The CityClerk is responsible for a cio `of the City Council the Board of Bids and p �t g Y Contracts, and Staff Screenir*Gd Select n t ee; and preparing minutes of all meetings and performing such other du ' . Allowable c is reallocated as described below: • Records — Costs arlocated based the number of full-time equivalent positions by department a &'�ision. %mow Director of Finance X'A The mission of the Director of Finance is to maintain the fiscal inte r; the City organization through financial services, timely information and analysis, inno , financial management and appropriate controls. The Director's Office is responsible for t erall management of the Finance Department. In addition, the Budget and Resear h e prepares and administers the annual City budget and the 10-year Capital Improvemen rogram (CIP). T irector's Office staff members advise the City Manager regarding financia d management'1a s and assist department directors and their staff with resear lys's, and suppgrt regarding appropriate and necessary administrative and budget procedu e D&d tme inance exists to aid the entire organization in accomplishing its varie�missi .Sup olves helping other functions understand, plan, prioritize, control, report, satisf creme , and/or wisely use available resources. Costs are allocated as shQ elow �e f ng allowable functions: • Director of Finance — Costs a ted i he or are allocated based upon the actual expenditures of all City de er, • Budget — Costs relate o to budget function are allocated based upon the number of full - IN time equivalent pos . TBID — Costs assokat d with the ToLom Business Improvement District have not allocated. .� J Treasury (✓ Treasury provides for the safe, been efficient, and prudent handling of the City's cash assets through the establishment and monitoring of policies and procedures related to cash handling, investment of idle funds, and revenue collection activities. Treasury provides a varietWAservices for total City operation including, maintaining bank accounts, signing and disbursip&ecks, maintaining cash records, administering the accounts receivable program and per, ng other related duties. Costs are allocated as shown below for the following allowable func 'or • Cash Management — Costs associated with cash flo gement areallocated based upon the number of revenue transactions by departmen r ivision. • Express Office — Costs related to the Express Off' are allocated b on the number of p p � p Express Office transactions handled. Transa related to t ter bill have been split between Water, Sewer and Stormwater s on theven ndled for each segment of the utility operations. N+ General Accounting It is the mission of General Accoun ' o en he i ity of the financial statements and accuracyof payments made to v rs s ist ' � financial management of the City. The p Y � � g Y office seeks to sustain the d t -day acc unti cesses in conformity with the highest professional and regulato ndards whil al pursuing efficiencies that will improve the overall financial management id inancial statu he City. Service objectives include, minimizing the cost of financial tra ions, producing the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) that is recognized as e cel nt by industr&dards, and monitoring and auditing the vendor payment process for purchasing goods aNNrvices to assure accuracy and timeliness. Costs are allocated as shown below for the following allowable functions: • General Accounting — Costs are allocated based upon the numbe (expense and revenue) processed for departments during thqkO, • Grants Admin — Costs associated with the administration a c�L� programs have been allocated based on the federal exp unting transactions orting for federal grants ITi tires as reported in the CAFR. • Payroll — Costs associated with payroll activities ha allocated based on the number of FTEs. Purchasing Qach The mission of Purchasing is to obtain the grea s value r spent by the City in the efficient and effective procurement of goods and se w ensuring fairness and integrity in accordance with applicable laws and reg`htion a off'ce ' responsible for overseeing the formal and informal bid process, negooWng bl t pur orders, managing the overall procurement process, registeringPig rs, a nester* e Emerging and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program (including st hita Sup leer Diversit Task Team dis osition of p p g ( g� � pp Y ), p surplus vehicles/equipmen vc0providianto-ll ine purchasing system. Allowable costs have been allocated as follows. • Purchasing —Cos fo this function Ilocated based upon the number of PO's, DP's and � p DV's (weighte department and division. Administrative Services The Administrative Services Division includes the Internal Audit activities. Costs are allocated as shown below for the following allowable functions: • Internal Audit — Costs are allocated based upon the number of ex Ae transactions processed for departments during the year. (No costs are all rom this function in the 2012 plan.) • City Manager Support — Costs associated with this function have been allocated based upon the number of full time equivalent positions. Public Works Administration The mission of Public Works Administration is to e oidance and support services for the operating divisions of the dep nt, ingoordinati uding i ing Services, Engineering, Fleet, and Maintenance, so that employees free cu y on serving the public. Support services include: records managNe t, h `•resour s coordination, policy development and financial managerQ Cost allo as shown below for the following allowable functions: N$ • Department Administratio ost oc 'based upon the salaries of the Public Works divisions administere P Public Works — Buildin Se vices ` 0 The mission of Publ' 4orks - BuildinKervices is to maintain an efficient infrastructure of clean, attractive, and PC Zy functionin Zty buildings, structures, and related facilities that best meet the needs of the public and of City employees providing service to the public. Costs are allocated as shown below for the following allowable functions: • General and Administration — Costs are allocated based upon the other functional salaries within the department. �� • City Hall —Associated costs are allocated based upon occusquare footage. • Other Buildings — Costs associated with building services for'other buildings are allocated based upon the direct Departmental expenditures. G �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � Indirect Cost Rates In Section 6 of this cost allocation plan, the City of Wichita is proposing in ost rates for a select group of its departments, funds, grants and/or operating units. Although the cost allo ion plan identifies indirect costs to every operating unit of the City (See Section 7), indirect cost rates ar calculated for a subset of units where indirect cost recovery is available to the City. The indirect cost r ve been calculatE�d using only central service indirect costs — no departmental administrative costs h v een classified a ect costs. The rate base utilized for the indirect cost calculations i o ified Direct ` This rate base utilizes all expenditure object codes in the 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX an rang. These t code ranges include all Salaries, Benefits, Contractual Services, Supplies, and Othe enditwr�amo The nge is excluded from the base because it consists of capital outlay expenditures. 9�tails f rate base expenditures associated with each object code are located in Section The City is requesting the approval of tirec rates ' ection 6 as Fixed with Carry -Forward for use in Fiscal Year 2020. The rates have beet Iculated . ng th ual expenditures and indirect cost allocation results from Fiscal Year 2018 and inclu dry -forward calcula 'o s where appropriate. Beginning in the FY 2018NP ased on FY 2016 Actual Costs), several previously individual indirect rates where there are infrequent or I vels of grant tivity were consolidated into an 'All Other Grants' rate. The consolidated rates ' : WSCCAP, Par grant; CityManager Grants, Planning Grants, Finance Grants, g g Municipal Court GO, Fire Grants, Li r rants, Law Grants, Public Works Grants, Federal State Grants. Consolidating these indirect rates ea he administrative burden on the City and will continue in FY 2020. Section ej� Certification of Cost Al cation J ��p� Certificate of Cost Allocation I This is to certify that I have reviewed the cost allocation plan submitted herewith an t(Ni e best of my knowledge and belief: (1) All costs included in this proposal based upon Fiscal Year 2018 actual cos!sk establish cost allocations or billings for Fiscal Year 2019 are allowable in accordance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 20 form Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards" and the Federal award(s) to ich they apply. Unallowable costs have been adjusted for in allocating costs as indicated in the cost allocation plan. . A (2) All costs included in this proposal are properly allocable to FSd awar s of the basi beneficial or causal relationship between the expenses incurred and the Federal awards to which they are ated in ante with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been treated as indirect costs have•nI en c s direct costs. Similar types of costs have been accounted for consistently. ` V �� I declare that the foregoing is true and correc . �O � • G Government Unit: City of Wichita, Kan Signature: P Name of Official: Shawn Henn�n O Title: Director of Finance Date of Execution: 07 30 2019 Certificate of Indirect Cos This is to certify that I have reviewed the indirect cost rate proposal submitted here to the best of my knowledge and belief: (1) All costs included in this proposal based upon Fiscal Year 2017 actual costs to establish billing or final indirect costs rates for Fiscal Year 2019 are allowable in accordance with the requirements of the Federal award(s) to which they apply and 2 CFR Part 200, "Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awarr S". Unallowable costs have been adjusted for in allocating costs as indicated in the indirect cost propos !` (2) All costs included in this proposal are properly allocable to F war a the basis d�lbeneficial or causal relationship between the expenses incurred and the agreements to which re all ca n acc a ce with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been treated as indire is hav n cl ' �5 direct costs. Similar types of costs have �� Yp been accounted for consistently and the Federal governor will be ed of any accounting changes that would affect the predetermined rate. '0 � •G I declare that the foregoing is true and correct Government Unit: City of Wichita, K% Signature: Name of Official: Title: Date of Execution 0M3012019 `V� Section 3l' Organizati or��hart ,��� I 0 F Section Engineering Ben Rate��� Engineering Labor Burden Rate 6�1 The City of Wichita includes a burden rate charged on direct wages in its invoices to K� partment of Transportation (KDOT) for construction engineering on state or federally funded projects. Project costs eligible fdT`r�mbursement by KDOT include direct wages and direct benefits (plus the burden rate) and certain direct expenses, incl 99Fvehicle rental. Benefits are not included in the burden rate because they are captured as direct expenses on the invoic t submits to KDOT. The burden rate is intended to cover non -productive payroll costs t*1:an allocated to prof'ctly in the City's payroll system and reports in order to account for the indirect benefit thatto projects as a res e City retaining full-time employees to participate in project activities. In order to calculate0anbereavement. led direct assovertime wages, and non- productive pay for all employees engaged in KDOT project acti�ititar. Noon -productive pay includes holiday pay, vacation pay, sick leave, and other types of leave including cy lea a Based on 2018 operating data, the ratio of non -productive pay to total direct wages was 18%} V" ENGIN LABO DEN R4fEtALCULATION Calculated s on pV to for ar ended December 31, 2018 "Z Nw r Regular pay $ $ 1,532,592.63 Overtime O 117,723.25 $ 1,650,315.88 Non- r e Y a $ 299 569.03 p Burden rate for 2020 wages 18% Section Reading a Cost A ation PI�'��' V" Reading the Cost Allocation Plan c4i Overview r The Federal 2 CFR 200 Cost Allocation Plan is a docr what distribu s, or allocates, City indirect costs. Indirect costs are those costs incurreCity divisio departments that benefit other City divisions and departments. ples of City incd' costs are personnel, purchasing, human resources and the Fina paUtnt. The primary purpose for preparing th t All3 -56n ao'(1) identify the appropriate division and department indirect cKI, and 1221,calcula ctyrresponding indirect cost rates if needed. `o G i�► � The significant steps invol`,�c�`ff� p g th IZ' t Allocation Plan include the following: "� 1140 • Identify tVZ:ity divisions. d departments that provide support to other City divisioiiLand department ese divisions and departments are referred to as central service or allocating departments. • I entify the Ci*Vsions and departments that receive support from other City divisions and departments. These departments are referred to as grantee or receiving departments. • Accumulate the allowable actual expenditures of ivisions and departments that provide support to other City on s and departments. • Distribute, or allocate, the allowable exp ures of the Ci divisions and departments that provide support to otS<rMty divisions a epartments based on available, meaningful, me table and audits ocation statistics that match the service e to the serv' ceived. Q, Process %togy • + A double-stepdown allocation met i 'd to allocate the allowable costs of the central service divisions and depa ents me Alogy recognizes the cross support provided between central servicg► ivisi nd c� tments. For example, accounting supports the information s,(stems er��providing payroll, paying vouchers and preparing a budget. v ee er, the formation systems department also supports accounting, b providing softwa� hardware support and b maintaining and administering various Y p g p p� Y g g applications and �sslt ms. The double -step down meth plogy requires an initial sequencing of allocating divisions and departments. In the first steps the double -step methodology, allowable costs from central service divisions and departments are allocated in the sequence selected to all City divisions, departments and funds; including to other central service divisions and departments. The second step in the double -step down methodology is made to fully account for the cross support provided between central service division and departments are closed after the second step methodology. Sections s and departm 9MACentral service divisions in the dou�l p down allocation (�5 n'e-j e! Table of Contents The first few pages of the Cost Allocation P a t Table of left side of the pages lists the central ser ' e or allo ng, d central service division and departme bro wntt Ztt�nts. The column on the Y'bns and departments. Each nctions. Functions are the specific services provided by a partic�l divi i nd department. The middle column lists the allocation base for each corresponds ing fu . Tteatumn on the right side of the pages is the applicable page number. �� G 'Q � Summary Schedule Q P The next few pages Cost Allocation are the Summary Schedule. The Summary Schedule identifi-t total dollar a dunt allocated from every City allocating division and department to ry City receiv, division and department. Allocating divisions and departme&s i;Te listed down left column and receiving divisions, departments and funds are listed ac�"bss the to o page. p p g Detail Schedules The remaining pages of the Cost Allocation service division and department. The detail Plan are the detail 00 es for every central schedules for ntral service division and department are structured in the following format. Narrative - Lists the division and department nam roovvides a brief d i tion of the p p activities performed, along with identifying the ctions and the ponding allocation base. D — L' � n Departmental Costs (A) Lists the act expe es f tt division and department. Incoming Costs (B) — Represents upp sts g into the division and department from other allocating divisio dep ents,t� Total Allocated (C) - The oia amo t a locatedfor that division and department. This amount is found at d of the Incomilcg`Costs schedule. Function Alloc �s - The distribution, or allocation of the Total Allocated costs by function. Allocation Sfnmary — Shows the summary of allocated costs by function. Section 6Z � Departmental Indirect Cost Rat. City of Wichita, KS FY 2018 2 CFR 200 Cost Allocation Plan FY 2020 Indirect Cost Rates Total Modified Direct Costs Rate Base* 6�1 V- Emerg Shelter Env. Health HOME Wichita 2018 CDBG CSBG ants Trans -Grants HUD Grants Program Housing Auth 1 Equipment Depreciation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Building Depreciation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 City Manager 23,061 3,049 0 5,376 508 17,872 56,904 4 Law Department 1,635 216 0 108 381 1,267 4,035 5 Human Resources 21,636 2,861 0 1,430 51,044 477 16,768 53,390 6 City Clerk 4,127 546 273 96 91 3,199 10,184 7 Director of Finance 14,944 2,118 1,122 3, ` 697 16,939 37,532 8 Treasury 1,658 260 C)194 6 71510,331 2,723 9 General Accounting 26,669 2,187 0 5 3 5,746 143,829 52,267 10 Purchasing 35,402 1,049 `J0 37 381 175 37,500 50,699 11 Admin Services 2,701 �// ko\+ 179 630 60 2,094 6,666 12 Public Works-Admin 00 0 0 0 13 Public Works -Bldg Svcs 0 0 00 0 CENTRAL SERVICE ALLOCATIONS 131,834 2, 2 4 35,154 8,505 249,799 274,401 2018 Total FY 018 Fixed Indirefiedct Direct t Cost Rates Rate Base * 3,265,3 ` 33.081 0 97% •` !68% 1,643,982 0 42% 1381,942 0.41% 21,600,1.29 0 9,517,72% FY 2018 Indirect Recoveries 8, 18,546 6,950 5,624 279,624 259,064 Carry Forward Amount in Fixed Indirect Cost Rate O (19,039) 909 2,508 (7,927) (3,136) (5,148) 31,546 FY 2018 Allowed Recoveries (2018 Allocations +/- Carry Forward a t in FY 18 Rate) 12 112,795 18,5q3,798 11,023 27,227 5,368 244,651 305,947 Carry Forward for FY 2020 Rate Calculation �w 6,210 (1 - (7,524) 20,277 (255) (34,972) 46,883 FY 2020 Indirect Costs IncludingCar Forward /► O 138 4� 2,252 3,798 990 55,431 8,250 214,826 321,284 Carry / 1 ; FY 2020 Indirect Cost Rate l .23%OF 0.24% 0.66% 0.14% 3.37% 0.60% 0.99% 3.38% FY 2020 Negotiated Rate (used in place of rate above) * Rate base includes object codes 1XXX thru 3XXX, and 5XXX. These Rate was object codes encompass Salaries, Benefits, Contracts, Supplies, and negotiated for Other expenditures. Capital Outlay (4XXX) has been excluded. Details 2018, thus no on the rate base expenditures can be found in Section 9 - Indirect Cost carry -forward is Rate Base Details. allowed. Calculated rate for FY 2020. Page 1 of 3 City of Wichita, KS FY 2018 2 CFR 200 Cost Allocation Plan FY 2020 Indirect Cost Rates Total Modified Direct Costs Rate Base* All Other All Other All Other All Other ///►►► OG�rAts Grants Grants Grants Grants All Other Grants City Manager Planning Pa a s Finance Municipal Library Law Grants 2018 (Consolidated) WSCCAP Grants Grants Grants Court Grants Fire Grants Grants 1 Equipment Depreciation $0 0 $0 $ $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 2 Building Depreciation 0 0 0 � 0 � 0 0 0 0 3 City Manager 3,049 0 0 0 0 3,049 0 0 4 Law Department 216 0 0 0 0 0 216 0 0 5 Human Resources 2,861 0 0 0 0 0 2,861 0 0 6 City Clerk 546 0 (�j� 0 0 0 546 0 0 7 Director of Finance 2,203 2 ell ma`s) 7 8 1 3 2,013 101 33 8 Treasury 461 127(D: 1 5 0 53 16 90 9 General Accounting 5,418 1947 7 3,764 238 890 10 Purchasing 8,217 011 2 52 0 0 0 5,769 0 11 Admin Services 357 0 0 0 `�► 0 0 0 357 0 0 12 Public Works-Admin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Public Works -Bldg Svcs 0 1& X\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 CENTRAL SERVICE ALLOCATIONS 2018 Total Modified Direct Costs Rate Base FY 2018 Fixed Indirect Cost Rate FY 2018 Indirect Recoveries 23,328 All Other All Other All Other All Other Grants Grants Grants Grants 707 53 10 12,859 6,123 1,013 +,I,C2,�,0 9 3,909 2,206 427,123 357,845 117,106 Carry Forward Amount in Fixed Indirect Cost Rate O (2,331) 1,363 - (4,862) - FY 2018 Allowed Recoveries (2018 Allocations +/- Carry Forward a t in FY 18 Rate) 20,997 t 320 1,487 713 2,071 53 10 12,859 1,262 1,013 Carry Forward for FY 2020 Rate Calculation ` 20,997 O` all future carry -forwards are done at the consolidated level ow FY 2020 Indirect Costs Including Carry Forward O 3 FY 2020 Indirect Cost Rate FY 2020 Negotiated Rate (used in place of rate above) * Rate base includes object codes 1XXX thru 3XXX, and 5XXX. These New as of FY 2018. Rate now part No previous No previous Rate now part No previous No indirects, no Rate was Rate now part Rate now part object codes encompass Salaries, Benefits, Contracts, Supplies, and Consolidating all of consolidated rate, no carry- rate, no carry- of consolidated rate, no carry- rate base, no negotiated for of of Other expenditures. Capital Outlay (4XXX) has been excluded. Details department rates All Other Grants. forward. Rate forward. Rate All Other forward. Rate rate calculated. 2017, thus no consolidated consolidated on the rate base expenditures can be found in Section 9 - Indirect Cost that have low or now part of now part of Grants. now part of Rate now part of carry -forward is All Other All Other Rate Base Details. irregular grant consolidated All consolidated All consolidated All consolidated All allowed. Rate Grants. Grants. activity for ease of Other Grants. Other Grants. Other Grants. Other Grants. now part of administration. consolidated All Other Grants. Page 2 of 3 City of Wichita, KS FY 2018 2 CFR 200 Cost Allocation Plan FY 2020 Indirect Cost Rates Total Modified Direct Costs Rate Base* All Other All Other Grants Grants 2018 Public Works Federal State Grants Grants 1 Equipment Depreciation 2 Building Depreciation 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 General Accounting 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Services 12 Public Works-Admin 13 Public Works -Bldg Svcs CENTRAL SERVICE ALLOCATIONS 2018 Total Modified Direct Costs Rate Base FY 2018 Fixed Indirect Cost Rate FY 2018 Indirect Recoveries Carry Forward Amount in Fixed Indirect Cost Rate 1% FY 2018 Allowed Recoveries (2018 Allocations +/- Carry Forward in FY 18 Rate) Carry Forward for FY 2020 Rate Calculation �wr FY 2020 Indirect Costs Including Carry Forward O FY 2020 Indirect Cost Rate NMOIF FY 2020 Negotiated Rate (used in place of rate above) * Rate base includes object codes 1XXX thru 3XXX, and 5XXX. These object codes encompass Salaries, Benefits, Contracts, Supplies, and Other expenditures. Capital Outlay (4XXX) has been excluded. Details on the rate base expenditures can be found in Section 9 - Indirect Cost Rate Base Details. $0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 33 0 0 0 0 42 13,33 A $0 (/ j 0 /mow 0 0 0 0 0 168 P� Rate now part of No rate base. consolidated All Rate now part Other Grants. of consolidated All Other Grants. Page 3 of 3 Section 7`' Central Services Cost ocation,P,� Table of Contents Schedule Description Table of Contents Summary Schedule Equipment Depreciation 1 Department Costs 1 Incoming Costs 1 Equipment Depreciation 1 Allocation Summary Building Depreciation 2 Department Costs 2 Incoming Costs 2 City Hall 2 Allocation Summary City Manager 3 Department Costs 3 Incoming Costs 3 Manager 3 Allocation Summary Law Department 4 Department Costs 4 Incoming Costs 4 Advice & Opinions 4 Dept Support 4 Other Law Activities 4 Allocation Summary Human Resources 5 Department Costs 5 Incoming Costs 5 Personnel 5 Allocation Summary City Clerk 6 Department Costs 6 Incoming Costs 6 Records 6 Allocation Summary G # of Full Ti Me nt Positi GVVV ``of ulI Time EquPo iv ent ' 'on l�ours of Support By Depart PNot Allocated" t- O GO# of F II �uivalent Positions CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Allocation Basis Units Equipment Depreciation for Allocated Depts Square Footage Occupied # of Full Time Equivalent Positions ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 30 32 33 34 35 37 38 40 41 42 43 45 47 48 49 50 52 MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 1 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Director of Finance 54 7 Department Costs 55 7 Incoming Costs 56 7 Finance Dir Actual Expenditures 58 7 Budget # of Full Time Equivalent Positions 61 7 TBID Direct 100% to Other 63 7 Allocation Summary 64 Treasury A 67 8 Department Costs V 68 8 Incoming Costs /�vvv 69 8 Cash Mgmt # of Revenue Transactions e; ` 70 8 Express Office # of Express Office Transactions 73 8 Allocation Summary f 74 Gen Acctng ` 77 9 Department Costs 78 9 Incoming Costs C) 79 9 Genl Accounting # of Accounting Transactions �ev) 80 9 Grants Admin Federal Expenditures P R ♦ 83 9 Payroll # of Full Time Equivalent ns 84 9 Allocation Summary ` 86 Purchasing ♦ /►� 89 10 Department Costs `O ♦ G 90 10 Incoming Costs f` 91 10 Purchasing # of P P's ` 92 10 Allocation Summary ��,/ 95 Admin Svcs O P 98 11 Department Costs 99 11 Incoming Costs � 100 11 Internal Audit # of Accounting Transahoss ( xp + Rev) 101 11 City Mgr Support # of Full Time Equiva itions 104 11 Allocation Summary 106 PW Admin O 108 12 Department Costs Cj 109 12 Incoming Costs 110 12 Dept Admn Sl-liloo o Divisions Administered 112 12 Allocation Summary 113 PW Bldg Svcs 114 13 Department Costs 115 13 Incoming Costs 116 13 City Hall Square Footage Occupied 118 13 Other Bldgs Direct to Other 119 MGT Consulting Group ����� M G T Page 2 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 13 Allocation Summary 120 MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 3 of 120 CONSULTING GROUP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Summary Schedule ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Department PW-Street Housing Homelessnes Public Intgovt Legislative o wd City Council Sp Court Maint. Admin s Assistance Information Affairs Svcs (fnil�tiv /Cent Assessments ers X�3�� 1 Equipment Depreciation 2 Building Depreciation 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs Total Current Allocations 0 17,778 0 187 374 0 0 5,614 468 40,151 51,030 1,016 0 1,397 � 0 1,484 6,266 2,541 41,629 3,619 63,141 0 13,640 A 25,740 105 54,730 180 30,644 47,878 954 0 1,311 0 92 5,879 2,384 39,058 9,133 182 0 250 0 0 1,121 455 7,451 34,252 684 100 962 38 0 4,146 1,658 27,189 408 0 127 0� 0 0 � 40, 21 16 170,528 33,824 1,208 1,641 1,� 127 0 ` 1,194 4,322 1,436 62,681 25,175 0 0 524 175 2,273 0 10,752 5,978 119 0 �4 0 0 174 734 298 4,876 441,760 0 0 �� 0 G O �, 0 0 0 0 4 NJ P o� CjC) �v MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 4 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 Summary Schedule Department Com Fac- Expo Hall Boathouse Ice Rink Fire Police -Field Ice- Police- Library Wichita Arts Century2 Department p rt Investigation Operations Council V s 1 Equipment Depreciation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Building Depreciation 0 0 0 0 12,093 10,188 24,188 22,316 0 0 3 City Manager 20,205 549 0 0 231,E 265,918 73,725 91,638 58,144 0 4 Law Department 19,853 39 0 0 41 18,857 289,342 6,498 19,250 0 5 Human Resources 18,957 515 0 0 21 249,494 69►171 85,978 54,553 0 6 City Clerk 3,616 98 0 0 1, 47,593 13,195 16,401 10,406 0 7 Director of Finance 13,400 380 0 8 54,363 176802 48,469 61,652 37,950 2 8 Treasury 22,621 58 0 53� 5,796 169:516 • kj�(60 42 8,079 0 9 Gen Acctng 16,092 717 0 95,600 153,630 ` 4,641 41,090 26,206 5 10 Purchasing 9,091 1,049 0 1,014 8,0 16,084 1,049 9,615 175 11 Admin Svcs 2,367 64 00 27, 34 31, 0 8,636 10,734 6,811 0 12 PW Admin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 PW Bldg Svcs 0 0 0 0 1 ,433 7 264,887 244,393 0 0 Total Current Allocations $126.202 $3.469 0 $970.7 1.410.077 $886.497 $581.791 $231.015 $182 MGT Consulting Group Oii M G T Page 5 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Summary Schedule Department 1 Equipment Depreciation 2 Building Depreciation 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs Total Current Allocations CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Art Museum Historical Cowtown Farm - Art MANIC African -Am tion City Arts & Park-ForestryPW-Natural Museum Operations Mkt / Plaza Museum seum Culture Landscape Resources $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,793 0 5,493 0 2,16' 0 0 9,503 47,493 0 411 0 390 0 1 0 0 12,629 3,368 0 5,435 0 5,154 0 2,0� 0 0 8,916 44,560 0 1,037 0 983 0 39 0 /� 1,701 8,500 0 4,056 47 3,611 0 1,395 6/1r0 6,269 31,921 0 5 0 10,256 69;� 0 0 ��0 6,532 74 0 2,827 12 6,825 1,764 5 ` 7 7,008 36,276 0 2,273 175 5,070 1,399 1 175 7,343 10,839 0 679 0 643 0 53 0 0 1,113 5,563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 6 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Summary Schedule ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Department Public Works- Pub Wks- Park Botanica Park Central Insp Ti�ism Special Landfill Landfill Engineer Maint Department- Department- Vvention Alcohol Drug Postclosure Admin Recreation 1 Equipment Depreciation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Building Depreciation 12,095 0 12,093 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 City Manager 33,666 0 3,898 2,033 57,87 17,318 0 0 4,523 0 4 Law Department 2,387 0 276 144 59 134,197 0 0 321 0 5 Human Resources 31,587 0 3,657 1,907 5 16,249 0 0 4,243 0 6 City Clerk 6,025 0 698 364 0, 8 3,100 �� 0 809 0 7 Director of Finance 23,328 0 2,559 1,359 36,934 11,549 504 3,564 0 8 Treasury 16,290 0 646 0� 60,039 5,070 ♦ 21 21 4,667 0 9 Gen Acctng 20,604 0 2,391 1, JZ 51,253 9,400 79 359 4,496 0 10 Purchasing 11,713 0 87 (6, ,766 9 ` 1,923 6,294 17,570 0 11 Admin Svcs 3,944 0 4578 79 2, 9 0 0 530 0 12 PW Admin 162,979 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 PW Bldg Svcs 132,454 0 132,433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OLA - *�� .10.1 N§) Total Current Allocations $457,073 0 $159, LZ:7aQ V $358.411n T199 872 $4,126 $7,178 $40,724 0 �O O ♦ G O Q' P MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 7 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Summary Schedule Department 1 Equipment Depreciation 2 Building Depreciation 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs Total Current Allocations CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Property St Office Management Bldg Operations 0 1,016 72 954 182 787 1,383 1,844 1,049 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 11 4 0 0 0 0 Airport Golf Course Transit Ops Gilber /Mosle Lomic Ops y TIF Uvelop $0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 6,325 71,738 47,290 12,06g1. 0 1,016 �`/ 72,547 3,353 76 0 72 67,307 44,369 1 0 54 12,839 8,464 2, 0 0 51,386 30,001 9,080 301 9,536 42,308� 30,132 233* x V92 46,063 37, 17,254 1,117 ` 1,530 42,133 J�6,_ 7,605 7,4 962 8,403 Ki rr�.0 1, 14 0 119 0� 0 0 0 _ 0 0 t 0 0 69,270 IK\ 0 PQP�z COP '0 AkV ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 North Sewer Water - Industrial Operations Corridor TIF $0 $0 $0 0 0 16,478 0 72,373 9,000 0 5,132 638 0 67,903 8,444 0 12,953 1,611 104 55,961 13,364 101 3,295 (48,044) 297 41,785 6,931 787 88,025 29,458 0 8,478 1,054 0 0 0 0 0 180,451 MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 8 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Summary Schedule Department CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Water Sys WS-Water WS-Prod / WS- Storm Water Plan/Dev Cust Acct Pumping Trmnt/Distrib Ops 1 Equipment Depreciation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Building Depreciation 0 0 0 0 0 3 City Manager 8,893 0 37,670 39,805 19,01?->- 4 Law Department 631 0 2,671 2,823 5 Human Resources 8,344 0 35,344 37,346 1 6 City Clerk 1,592 0 6,742 7,124 3, 3 7 Director of Finance 5,498 0 26,751 27,930 13,557 8 Treasury 0 11 58 477� 726 9 Gen Acctng 4,764 40 23,827 24, 10,122 10 Purchasing 3,322 0 44,493 ]�,_ 0,892 11 Admin Svcs 1,042 0 4,413 3 2, 7 12 PW Admin 0 0 0 0 80 8 13 PW Bldg Svcs 0 0 0 0 0 LL1 _ _•_� /►' Total Current Allocations $34.084 $50 $181. 9 $221 $269.2 Water Later Projects isopacts _ACV' �0 $0 IILO0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,546 2,601 • �� 28 7,572 ` 5,104 13,2 18,881 0 0 0 -SQ 0 0 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Sewer IT/IS Print Shop Projects 0 28,024 0 0 27,736 0 0 64,060 0 0 26,023 0 0 4,964 0 9,306 19,877 145 1,828 1,256 366 4,828 14,566 336 13,287 26,661 1,049 0 3,249 0 0 0 0 0 306,900 0 MGT Consulting Group Oii M G T Page 9 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Summary Schedule Department 1 Equipment Depreciation 2 Building Depreciation 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs Total Current Allocations CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN PW-Fleet Self Ins - Risk -Work Self Ins - Risk -Gen Fund Group Health Comp Group Life Liability PW-Flood D Control 6�ani n g 0 $0 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Env Hlth Pension- Pension Svcs WER Management 0 187 1,310 0 0 0 0 0 561 0 23,503 0 1,016 0 f 12,155 6,479 13,644 0 3,049 1,667 0 72 0 2862 4,119 968 0 216 22,051 0 954 0 11,405 679 12,802 0 2,861 4,206 0 182 0 2,175 ` 2,442 0 546 18,098 14,188 1,997 247 2,081 8,065 9,098 12,520 1,925 1,515 1,409 159 254� 313 164 ♦ 40 30,833 980 0 14,075 1,809 5,976 � 1,989 5,850 ` 3,818 18,365 604 1,742 75,088 699 2,535 9,528 5,33� 262 8,217 175 0 2,753 0 119 �0 19 1, 4 759 1,598 0 357 259,406 0 0 0 0 111'Y 0 0 0 0 0 2,049 14,346 0 0 ' 0 0 0 6,148 0 MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 10 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Summary Schedule Department 1 Equipment Depreciation 2 Building Depreciation 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs Total Current Allocations CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Pension Plan Pension-P&F Airport 3B Projects ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 CDBG CSBG WAMPO- VCAP City Manager Park Grants Finance UWP Grants Grants $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 0 561 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,061 3,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,635 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,127 6 0 0 0 0 605 12,261 1,787 14,944 2,118 451 33 8 1 1,632 789 1,425 1,6581 260 2,575� �� 27 32 117 5 1,117 571 748 26, 2,187 4,750 ` 191 111 59 47 0 175 10,140 1,049 5,8 0 1,311 524 0 0 0 0 1 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�� 0 0 �, 0 0 0 0 COP '0 AkV MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 11 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Summary Schedule Department Law Grants Municipal Emergency Fire Grants Environment Library ing Court Grants Shelter HUD al Health Grants 6"' ra is Grants w� v` ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Public Works Police Grants Public Grants Improvement s 1 Equipment Depreciation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Building Depreciation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 City Manager 0 0 0 3,049 1,5jZ 0 0 0 5,376 1,362 4 Law Department 0 0 0 216 0 0 0 381 97 5 Human Resources 0 0 0 2,861 0 0 0 5,044 1,278 6 City Clerk 0 0 0 546 73 0 0 962 244 7 Director of Finance 33 3 161 2,013 1,122 101 4 3,788 46,540 8 Treasury 90 0 307 53� 196 16* 16 5 1,457 4,344 9 Gen Acctng 890 7 3,330 3, 3,245 238 ` 78 33 11,134 113,051 10 Purchasing 0 0 0 437 5,7 612 0 6,381 125,612 11 Admin Svcs 0 0 0 7 79 0 0 0 630 160 12 PW Admin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 PW Bldg Svcs 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 _� Total Current Allocations 4 NJ P -0 Cj C) 11�� MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 12 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Summary Schedule Department Downtown HOME Wichita Transit Other 2nd al Parking Fund Program Housing Grants Allocation Authority Orphans �v_ 1 Equipment Depreciation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 2 Building Depreciation 0 0 0 0 71,031 0 296,024 3 City Manager 1,016 508 17,872 56,904 1,5 0 1,560,666 4 Law Department 72 36 1,267 4,035 0 1,067,191 5 Human Resources 954 477 16,768 53,390 0 1,46 69 6 City Clerk 182 91 3,199 10,184 3 0 27 7 Director of Finance 1,010 697 16,939 37,532 3,949) 0 8 Treasury 7,962 715 10,331 2,723� 86,739 0 • 54 9 Gen Acctng 4,859 5,746 143,829 52, 15,943 0 ` 8,651 10 Purchasing 16,871 175 37,500 6,381 T,002,624 11 Admin Svcs 119 60 2,0946 79 0 182,816 0 0 12 PW Admin 0 0 0 1,155,893 13 PW Bldg Svcs 0 0 0 0 2,1 887 _ `� 0 4,591,839 in 4 Total Current Allocations $33.045 $8.505 $249. 9 $274Ll2.037.5Viorl $0 $14.560.685 -0 Cj C) 11�� ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 MGT Consulting Group Oii M G T Page 13 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Equipment Depreciation ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Nature and Extent of Services This cost center includes depreciation on usable equipment for the Central Service Pool. osts are allocated based on actual depreciation amounts for allocated departments. n. � n�'G�! CG •+ �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 14 of 120 CONSULTING GROUP A. Department Costs Description Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Equip Depreciation Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN o'V V P 229,069 0 229,069 1, 229,069 0 229,069� ♦ 229,069 0 2 ` G 0 0 Nwof 01 ` 229,069 229 $229, 29,069 ♦`G G 'Q O Q' P cp Amount General Equipment Admin Depreciation S 0 0 0 .00% 00 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:1 Equipment Depreciation MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 15 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Expense%) Dept:1 Equipment Depreciation No Indirect Costs MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 16 of 120 CONSULTING GROUP Equipment Depreciation Allocations Department Units 3 City Manager 7 Director of Finance 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: Equipment Depreciation for Al 3,979 4,060 4,980 216,050 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation �6'1 I ' 1.74% $3,979 $0 $3,979 //►► $3,979 1.77% 4,060 0 4,060 [ w 0 4,060 2.17% 4,980 0 4,980 �vJ 0 4,980 94.32% 216,050 0 216,05V 0 216,050 229,069 100.00% 229,069 0 22VJ 0 229 vv COP '0 AkV ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:1 Equipment Depreciation MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 17 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 3 City Manager 7 Director of Finance 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs Tota I CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Equipment Total Depreciation $3,979 $3,979 4,060 4,060 4,980 4,980 216,050 216,050 $229,069 $229,069 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:1 Equipment Depreciation MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 18 of 120 CONSULTING GROUP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Building Depreciation ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Nature and Extent of Services Depreciation for buildings and improvements for City Hall is included in this cost pool.e cost of land has been excluded. The depreciation has been allocated as follows: City Hall - Allocated to central service departments based on usable square feet of space occupie per department and division. G �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 19 of 120 CONSULTING GROUP A. Department Costs Description Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Bldg Depreciation Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Amount General City Hall Admin o'V V P 370,421 0 370,421 370,421 0 370,421� 370,421 0 sz�p ` G 0 0 Nwof 0� ` 370,421 370 $370, 170,4,21 ♦`G G 'Q O Q' P cp S 0 0 0 .00% 00 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:2 Building Depreciation MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 20 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Expense%) CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN No Indirect Costs Page Intentionally Left Blank V ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:2 Building Depreciation MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 21 of 120 CONSULTING GROUP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 City Hall Allocations Dept:2 Building Depreciation Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second a Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation . &` 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs 15 Housing Admin 17 Public Information 18 Intgovt Affairs 21 City Council 22 Sp Assessments 23 Court 28 Fire Department 29 Police -Field 30 Police -Support 31 Police -Investigations 44 Public Works -Engineer 46 Park Department-Admin 60 Economic Develop 63 Water -Operations 72 IT/IS 75 Self Ins - Group Health 76 Risk -Work Comp 82 Pension-WER 85 Pension-P&F 108 Other Subtotal 10,100 5.10% $18,901 $0 $18,901 $18,901 3,230 1.63% 6,045 0 6,045 �� 0 6,045 3,000 1.52% 5,614 0 5,614 ✓ 0 5,614 2,825 1.43% 5,287 0 5,280 5,287 2,630 1.33% 4,922 0 4,9 0 4,922 3,035 1.53% 5,680 0 Vi 0 V80 3,230 1.63% 6,045 0 0 045 2,780 1.40% 5,202 0 5,202 0 02 300 0.15% 561 561 0 • 61 8,125 4.10% 15,205 15,205 0 1 205 500 0.25% 936 936 RV1936 9,500 4.80% 17,778 0 1 78 17,778 100 0.05% 187 0 (7 187 200 0.10% 374 0 374 0 374 3,000 1.52% • 5,6 J► 0 5,614 250 0.13% 4 0 468 21455 10.84% 0,15'f 40151 0 40151 6,462 3.26% 093 Z 3 0 12,093 12,925 6.5r. 4,188 0 8 0 24,188 12,925 11 925 6 `O 22 38 0 • 22 3i8 0 22 3i8 �` 6,463 12,095 0 12,095 6,462 % 12,093 0 12,093 3,380 �f.71% 0 6,325 0 6,325 O 4.45% 16,47 0 16,478 0 16,478 9"7.57% 28024 0 28,024 0 28,024 0.05% 7P 0 187 0 187 700 0.35% 0 1,310 0 1,310 300 300 0.15% 0.15°/ 1 61 0 0 561 561 0 0 561 561 37,956 O G197,938 19.1 °° 71,031 0 71,031 0 71,031 IW0. % 370,421 0 370,421 0 370,421 Direct Bills `\� 0 0 Total $370,421 $370,421 Basis Units: Square Footage Occupied MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 22 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Allocation Summary Department 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs 15 Housing Admin 17 Public Information 18 Intgovt Affairs 21 City Council 22 Sp Assessments 23 Court 28 Fire Department 29 Police -Field 30 Police -Support 31 Police -Investigations 44 Public Works -Engineer 46 Park Department-Admin 60 Economic Develop 63 Water -Operations 72 IT/IS 75 Self Ins - Group Health 76 Risk -Work Comp 82 Pension-WER 85 Pension-P&F 108 Other Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN City Hall Total $18,901 $18,901 6,045 6,045 5,614 5,614 5,287 5,287 A 4,4,922 5,680 045 5,680 �(�//' 045 5,202 5,202 561 561• �� 15,205 15,20205 936 936 74 374 187 374 74 5,614 5,614 • J► 468 468 40,151 40,151 a► ,12,093 2412� 24,188188 24,1$8 O • /► 2,24 N ^ ` 22,316 12,95 0951112,093 93 6,3 5 6,325 1 O 16,478 028,024 187 P 310 1,310 k 561 561 561 56]� O71,031 71, G$370,421 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:2 Building Depreciation MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 23 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN City Manager ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Nature and Extent of Services 6�1 The mission of the City Manager is to provide professional leadership and management f y of Wichita. In this capacity, the office provides general guidance and management to City departments, executes City Council p cc's, facilitates the development of the mission statement and the City's long range goals and objectives, and coordinates City efforts ccomplish cost savings and increased efficiencies. Allowable costs are allocated as follows: City Manager —Costs associated with the day-to-day operation of th Cit are allocated bas�'the number of full-time equivalent positions administered by department and division. �� �GJ G 0& 64N �O O • G O Q' P 0 G 0 AkV MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 24 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA A. Department Costs Description Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Contract Svcs Mat & Supp Misc. & Sundry Rev & Reimb Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Amount General Manager Admin S1 1,736,199 0 1,736,199 .00% 100.00 S 642,505 0 642,505 2,378,704 0 2,378,704 G z� 277,736 0 277,736 30,932 0 30,932;k 0 0 1,523,447 0 1,5 (1,214,780) 0 ) Ci 1,163,924 0 3,924 � � V 0 IL ` 1,163,9Z4 �o 0 �24 � • G $ ,1 , 24 $1,Ilk P 0 ci 11�� ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:3 City Manager MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 25 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Expense%) Dept:3 City Manager Department First Second Manager Incoming Incoming 1 Equipment Depreciation $3,979 $0 $3,979 /►����"" Subtotal Equipment Depreciation 3,979 0 3,979 [ �� 2 City Hall 18,901 0 18,901 A Subtotal - Building Depreciation 18,901 0 18,901 V 3 Manager 0 10,683 10,683 Subtotal - City Manager 0 10,683 10,683 4 Advice &Opinions 0 1,012 1,012 4 Dept Support 0 207,041 207,041 Subtotal -Law Department 0 208,053 208,053 (_/✓� 5 Personnel 0 13,168 13,168 Subtotal - Human Resources 0 13,168 1 • J► 6 Records 0 2,108 2,1 Subtotal -City Clerk 0 2,108 108 7 Finance Dir 0 0 71 'r 7 Budget 0 8,5 Subtotal - Director of Finance 0 8 Cash Mgmt 0 v 82 Subtotal -Treasury O 82 8:2,;e 9 Genl Accounting 2,109 9 9 Payroll PO 5,171 Subtotal - Gen Acctng 0 7,2811 10 Purchasing 0 1, 1,233 Subtotal - Purchasing O 0 23 1,233 11 Internal Audit Cj 0 0 11 City Mgr Support 0 73 1,673 MGT Consulting Group +*•** M G T Page 26 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Expense%) Dept:3 City Manager Department First Second Manager Incoming Incoming Subtotal - Admin Svcs $0 $1,673 $1,673 13 City Hall 0 204,617 204,617 Subtotal - PW Bldg Svcs 0 204,617 204,617 A Total Incoming 22,880 458,121 481,002 e; C. Total Allocated $1,644,926 $1,644,926 ��/�► 100.00% D'� • � V V G �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 27 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Manager Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 3 City Manager 29.21 0.90% $10,683 $0 $10,683 $10,683 4 Law Department 24.96 0.77% 9,128 0 9,128 6 12,684 5 Human Resources 15.17 0.47% 5,548 0 5,548 161 7,709 6 City Clerk 2.00 0.06% 731 0 73^ 285 1,016 7 Director of Finance 8.08 0.25% 2,955 0 2 _Cj 1,151 4,106 8 Treasury 14.33 0.44% 5,241 0 Vj 2,041 9 Gen Acctng 14.00 0.43% 5,120 0 64110 1,994 10 Purchasing 10.25 0.32% 3,749 0 3,749 1,460 11 Admin Svcs 3.50 0.11% 1,280 1,280 499* 9 12 PW Admin 8.25 0.25% 3,017 �` 3,017 1,175 ` 4,192 13 PW Bldg Svcs 44.25 1.36% 16,183 16,183 6,3 22,486 14 PW-Street Maint. 100.42 3.09% 36,725 0 36, 25 14, 51,030 15 Housing Admin 2.00 0.06% 731 0 1 1,016 17 Public Information 2.75 0.08% 1,006 0 006 ` 2 1,397 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 2.92 0.09% 1,0 `V>► 416 1,484 21 City Council 12.33 0.38% 4, 4,5 1,756 6,266 22 Sp Assessments 5.00 0.15% 1,8 1,829 712 2,541 23 Court 81.92 2.52% 959 29,959 11,670 41,629 24 Corn Fac-Century2 39.76 1.2ro ; 4,541 0 1�41 5,664 20,205 25 Expo Hall 1.08 0. °N 39 0* G 395 154 549 28 Fire Department 455.83 1 ` 166,7 0166,703 64,934 231,638 29 Police -Field 523.29 1 1 191,375 74,544 265,918 30 Police -Support 145.08 c' % 53,058 20,667 73,725 31 Police -Investigations 18§0.3 �5.56% 0 65,949 25,688 91,638 32 Library Operations 11O 3.53% 41,84 0 41,845 16,299 58,144 34 Art Museum 0.35% 4169 0 4,169 1,624 5,793 36 Cowtown Operations 0.33% 3 ` 0 3,953 1,540 5,493 38 MAAIC .25 0.13% 0 1,554 605 2,160 41 City Arts & Culture 18.70 0.58% 6, 9 0 6,839 2,664 9,503 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 93.46 2.88°/ 180 0 34,180 13,314 47,493 44 Public Works -Engineer (0�O 66.25 2.0 °° 24,229 0 24,229 9,437 33,666 oft 46 Park Department-Admin 7.67 4°/ 2,805 0 2,805 1,093 3,898 47 Botanica 4.00 0. % 1,463 0 1,463 570 2,033 48 Park Department -Recreation 113.89 ° 41,651 0 41,651 16,224 57,875 49 Central Insp 34.08 05% 12,464 0 12,464 4,855 17,318 52 Landfill 8.90 0.27% 3,255 0 3,255 1,268 4,523 54 Property Management Operations 2.00 0.06% 731 0 731 285 1,016 56 Airport 141.17 4.35% 51,628 0 51,628 20,110 71,738 57 Golf Course Ops 93.06 2.87% 34,033 0 34,033 13,257 47,290 58 Transit Ops 23.75 0.73% 8,686 0 8,686 3,383 12,069 60 Economic Develop 2.00 0.06% 731 0 731 285 1,016 62 Sewer 142.42 4.39% 52,085 0 52,085 20,288 72,373 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:3 City Manager MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 28 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 Manager Allocations Dept:3 City Manager Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 63 Water -Operations 17.71 0.55% $6,477 $0 $6,477 $9,000 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 17.50 0.54% 6,400 0 6,400 3 8,893 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 74.13 2.28% 27,110 0 27,110 Cj3'560 37,670 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 78.33 2.41% 28,646 0 28,64 11,158 39,805 68 Storm Water Ops 37.42 1.15% 13,685 0 16�T 5,331 19,016 72IT/IS 54.58 1.68% 19,961 0 1 7,775 2 36 74 PW-Fleet Fund 46.25 1.43% 16,914 0 4 6,588 2 76 Risk -Work Comp 2.00 0.06% 731 0 731 285 78 Risk -Gen Liability 2.00 0.06% 731 731 285 • 16 79 PW-Flood Control 23.92 0.74% 8,748 8,748 3,407 ,155 80 MAPD Planning 12.75 0.39% 4,663 4,663 1,8 6,479 81 Env Hlth Svcs 26.85 0.83% 9,819 0 9, 19 3, 13,644 83 Pension Management 6.00 0.18% 2,194 0 2 4 3,049 87 CDBG 45.38 1.40% 16,596 0 596 4 23,061 88 CSBG 6.00 0.18°/G • 2,1 J► 855 3,049 97 Fire Grants 6.00 0.18°/G 2, 2,1 855 3,049 98 Environmental Health Grants 3.00 0.09°/G 1 097 1,097 427 1,524 102 Police Grants 10.58 0.33°/G 869 �' 69 1,507 5,376 103 Public Improvements 2.68 0.0vo 980 0 _&0 382 1,362 104 Downtown Parking Fund 2.00 O.Q� 73 0•`G 731 285 1,016 105 HOME Program 1.00 '�V� 3 0� 366 142 508 106 Wichita Housing Authority 35.17 12,862 5,010 17,872 107 Transit Grants 111.98 °/G Q 40,953 15,952 56,904 108 Other 3. 0 .09% e 1,097 427 1,524 Subtotal 3, 100.00% 1,186 804 0 1,186,804 458,121 1,644,926 Direct Bills st 0 0 Total - $1,186, 804 $1 Basis Units: # of Full Time Equivalen 0Wqs on MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 29 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Manager Total 3 City Manager $10,683 $10,683 4 Law Department 12,684 12,684 5 Human Resources 7,709 7,709 6 City Clerk 1,016 1,016 A 7 Director of Finance 4,106 4,106 �'qj 8 Treasury 7,282 7,282 9 Gen Acctng 7,114 7,114 10 Purchasing 5,209 5,209 11 Admin Svcs 1,779 1,779 • 12 PW Admin 4,192 4,192 ` 13 PW Bldg Svcs 51,030 51,486 030 14 PW-Street Maint. 51,030 51,030 (_/✓� 15 Housing Admin 1,016 1,016 17 Public Information 1,397 1,397 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 1,484 1,484 • J► 21 City Council 6,266 6,266 0& ` 22 Sp Assessments 2,541 2,541 a► 23 Court 41,629 41,629 24 Com Fac-Century2 20,205205 20,2j15 � • /► 25 Expo Hall 549 O 28 Fire Department 231,638 2 29 Police -Field 273,918 30 Police -Support 73,725 25 31 Police -Investigations 91,638 O 1,638 32 Library Operations 5 58,144 ` 34 Art Museum 5,793 36 Cowtown Operations 5,493 P 38 MAAIC 160 2,160 41 City Arts & Culture 9,503 9,503 O 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 47,493 47,491 44 Public Works -Engineer O 33,666 33, 46 Park Department-Admin 3,898 89 47 Botanica 2033Cj ,33 48 Park Department -Recreation 57,875 49 Central Insp 17,318 18 52 Landfill 4,523 4,523 54 Property Management Operations 1,016 1,016 56 Airport 71,738 71,738 57 Golf Course Ops 47,290 47,290 58 Transit Ops 12,069 12,069 60 Economic Develop 1,016 1,016 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:3 City Manager MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 30 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 62 Sewer 63 Water -Operations 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 68 Storm Water Ops 72 IT/IS 74 PW-Fleet Fund 76 Risk -Work Comp 78 Risk -Gen Liability 79 PW-Flood Control 80 MAPD Planning 81 Env Hlth Svcs 83 Pension Management 87 CDBG 88 CSBG 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grant 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Manager Total $72,373 $72,373 9,000 9,000 8,893 8,893 37,670 37,670 A 39,016 39,016 �(�//' 27,016 27,016 23,503 23,736 503 23,503 23,503 1,016 1,016 • �� 1,1,` 12,155 155 12,155155 13,644 13,644 3,049 3,049 23,061 23,061 • J► 3,049 3,04� ` 3,049 3,049 a► s 1,1,524 5,376 5,3�6 O • /► 1,362 1, ^ ` 2 1,016 508 ow 17,87272 72 56,904 6,904 1 \10 1,524 $116 $1,644,926 P O CG 0 AkV ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:3 City Manager MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 31 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Law Department ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Nature and Extent of Services 6�1 It is the mission of the Law Department to facilitate client success through the provision ) ality legal services and guidance to the City Council, City Manager, and the departments, boards, agencies, utilities and commissS the City. Civil legal staff members perform a variety of roles including providing legal advice, drafting and reviewing contracts, reng legal opinions, and conducting litigation for the City. Allowable costs are allocated as follows: �J Advice & Opinions — Costs associated with providing advice and opi ion have been allocail City departments based on the number of full time equivalent positions. ', Department Support — Costs associated with providing sup o ctly departmen been allocated based on the number pp of recorded hours of support. Other Law Services — Costs are not allocated. �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 32 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 A. Department Costs Dept:4 Law Department Description Amount General Advice & Dept Support Other Law Admin Opinions Activities &I �61 Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Contract Svcs Mat & Supp Contr to Other Funds DUI Diversion Reimb Misc Revenues Reimbursements Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total S1 1,862,171 82,392 80,758 1,136,712 4.42% 4.34% 61.04% 4..$.20 658,449 26,034 25,517 359,16 247,733 2,520,620 108,426 106,275 1,495 810,042 189,117 8,231 8,066 Z<1 3,538 59,282 10,242 359 352 4,959 4,572 23,296 0 0 23,296 (50,000) 0 0 (50,00 0 0 �0 0 183,017 183,017 0 0 C (10,362) (174,427) 8,4:81 ,497 /� 0 2,510,258 (6610 A 1,614,3� 47,192 tok ,o o A_ 0 � 0 0 1�J • 2,5 (66,0 114,69614,374 847,192 G(42,154) (20,853) 510,258 1 ,698 $1,572,220 $826,339 PIlk not allocated 11�� O G � MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 33 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Department First Second Advice & Dept Support Other Law Incoming Incoming Opinions Activities 2 City Hall Subtotal - Building Depreciation 3 Manager Subtotal - City Manager 4 Advice & Opinions Subtotal - Law Department 5 Personnel Subtotal - Human Resources 6 Records Subtotal - City Clerk 7 Finance Dir 7 Budget Subtotal - Director of Finance 8 Cash Mgmt Subtotal - Treasury 9 Genl Accounting 9 Payroll Subtotal - Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing Subtotal - Purchasing 11 Internal Audit 11 City Mgr Support Subtotal - Admin Svcs $1,910 1,910 9,128 3,556 576 8,101 4,0Z 9,128 3,556 576 8,101 4 0 864 39 552 (T/�/• 0 864 39 552 273 \lhq 0 11,252 511 7, 3,555 0 11,252 511 3,555 0 1,801 82 150 C9 0 1,801 82 �1,150 569 ♦ ` ]► 0 727 4 2 VVV 0 7,274 �/ ''� 330 4 2,298 0 8,001 �`363 8 0 l,< ' 46 ♦`G 23 0 46� 23 0 15 �/ 479 0 O 4,419 � 2 1,396 5,934 ` 260 1,875 329 CA15P,79210 104 0 329 210 104 0 OO 0 0 0 1, 65 913 452 O 0 4 65 913 452 G 13 City Hall Subtotal - PW Bldg Svcs Total Incoming $6,045 $0 $274 $3,861 6,045 0 274 3,861 0 2,969 0 ,437 2,969 15,173 98,675 5,166 41,793 20,674 41,793 20,674 72,713 35,970 C. Total Allocated $2,624,106 $116,864 $1,644,933 $862,309 4.45% 62.69% 32.86% ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:4 Law Department MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 34 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Advice & Opinions Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 3 City Manager 29.21 0.90% $1,012 $0 $1,012 /�► $1,012 4 Law Department 24.96 0.77% 864 0 864 IC 0 864 5 Human Resources 15.17 0.47% 525 0 525 �vJ 21 547 6 City Clerk 2.00 0.06% 69 0 6 3 72 7 Director of Finance 8.08 0.25% 280 0 11 291 8 Treasury 14.33 0.44% 496 0 20 16 9 Gen Acctng 14.00 0.43% 485 0 20 10 Purchasing 10.25 0.32% 355 0 355 14 11 Admin Svcs 3.50 0.11% 121 0� 121 5 • �� 6 12 PW Admin 8.25 0.25% 286 286 12 ` 297 13 PW Bldg Svcs 44.25 1.36% 1,532 1,532 1,595 14 PW-Street Maint. 100.42 3.09% 3,478 0 r3,478 1 3,619 15 Housing Admin 2.00 0.06% 69 72 17 Public Information 2.75 0.08% 95 0 95 4 99 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 2.92 0.09% 1 • 1 J► 4 105 21 City Council 12.33 0.38% 4 17 444 P 22 S Assessments 5.00 0.15% 1 1 173 7 180 23 Court 81.92 2.52% 837 V 115 2,952 24 CornFac-Century2 39.76 1.23% O 1,377 0 56 1,433 25 Expo Hall 1.08 0. °� 3 0 • G 37 2 39 28 Fire Department 455.83 1 ` 15,7 01�` 15,786 640 16,426 29 Police -Field 523.29 1 it, 1 18,123 734 18,857 30 Police -Support 145.08 c' % 5,024 204 5,228 31 Police -Investigations 180. 3 �5.56% 0 6,245 253 6,498 32 Library Operations 11 O 3.53% 3,96 0 3,963 161 4,123 34 Art Museum 0.35% 395� 0 395 16 411 36 Cowtown Operations 0.33% 74 ` 0 374 15 390 38 MAAIC .25 0.13% 0 147 6 153 41 City Arts & Culture 18.70 0.58% 8 0 648 26 674 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 93.46 2.880 92t 7 0 3,237 131 3,368 44 Public Works -Engineer O 66.25 2.0 °° 2,294 0 2,294 93 2,387 46 Park Department-Admin 7.67 40 266 0 266 11 276 47 Botanica 4.00 0. % 139 0 139 6 144 48 Park Department -Recreation 113.89 ° 3,944 0 3,944 160 4,104 49 Central Insp 34.08 05% 1,180 0 1,180 48 1,228 52 Landfill 8.90 0.27% 308 0 308 12 321 54 Property Management Operations 2.00 0.06% 69 0 69 3 72 56 Airport 141.17 4.35% 4,889 0 4,889 198 5,087 57 Golf Course Ops 93.06 2.87% 3,223 0 3,223 131 3,353 58 Transit Ops 23.75 0.73% 823 0 823 33 856 60 Economic Develop 2.00 0.06% 69 0 69 3 72 62 Sewer 142.42 4.39% 4,932 0 4,932 200 5,132 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:4 Law Department MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 35 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 Advice & Opinions Allocations Dept:4 Law Department Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I , �6,1 63 Water -Operations 17.71 0.55°/G $613 $0 $613 1W no /► $638 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 17.50 0.54% 606 0 606 [ w 5 631 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 74.13 2.28% 2,567 0 2,567 �✓) 104 2,671 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 78.33 2.41% 2,713 0 2,71110 2,823 68 Storm Water Ops 37.42 1.15% 1,296 0 1�2 53 1,348 72 IT/IS 54.58 1.68% 1,890 0 77 67 74 PW-Fleet Fund 46.25 1.43% 1,602 0 65 76 Risk -Work Comp 2.00 0.06% 69 0 69 3 78 Risk -Gen Liability 2.00 0.06% 69 69 3 • 2 79 PW-Flood Control 23.92 0.74% 828 828 34 862 80 MAPD Planning 12.75 0.39% 442 442 459 81 Env Hlth Svcs 26.85 0.83% 930 0 30 968 83 Pension Management 6.00 0.18% 208 0 8 216 87 CDBG 45.38 1.40% 1,572 kl..572 4 1,635 88 CSBG 6.00 0.18% • 2 J► 8 216 97 Fire Grants 6.00 0.18% 2 8 216 98 Environmental Health Grants 3.00 0.09°/G 104 104 4 108 102 Police Grants 10.58 0.33% �`366 X6 15 381 103 Public Improvements 2.68 0.0vo 93 0 3 4 97 104 Downtown Parking Fund 2.00 0.4� � 6 0 •`G 69 3 72 105 HOME Program 1.00 '�V01� 35 1 36 106 Wichita Housing Authority 35.17 01 2 ` 1,218 49 1,267 107 Transit Grants 111.98 °/G 3,878 157 4,035 108 Other 3. 0 �'0.09°/G 0 104 4 108 Subtotal 3, N 100.00% 112 2 0 112,387 4,477 116,864 Direct Bills � 0 0 Total $112,387 $116,864 Basis Units: # of Full Time Equivalen s on 'ON AkV MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 36 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Dept Support Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 3 City Manager 1,775 13.09% $207,041 $0 $207,041 /►X NV' $207,041 5 Human Resources 68 0.50% 7,932 0 7,932 [ w 4 8,295 6 City Clerk 45 0.33°/G 5,249 0 5,249 �vJ 241 5,490 7 Director of Finance 1,641 12.10% 191,411 0 191,41 8,774 200,185 12 PW Admin 2,192 16.16°/G 255,681 0 25 11,720 267,401 15 Housing Admin 517 3.81% 60,304 0 6 2,764 6 69 17 Public Information 111 0.82% 12,947 0 593 1 19 Legislative Svcs 211 1.56% 24,612 0 24,612 1,128 21 City Council 445 3.28% 51,906 51,906 2,379• 5 23 Court 227 1.67% 26,478 �` 26,478 1,214 ` 692 24 Com Fac-Century2 151 1.11% 17,613 17,613 8 18,420 28 Fire Department 209 1.54% 24,378 0 24, 78 1, 25,496 30 Police -Support 2,329 17.17% 271,661 0 71 1 284,114 32 Library Operations 124 0.91°/G 14,464 0 464 3 15,127 41 City Arts & Culture 98 0.72% 1�lt • 11,4 J► 524 11,955 48 Park Department -Recreation 451 3.33% 5252,6 2,411 55,017 49 Central Ins 1,090 8.04% 7 127,145 5,828 132,969 P 56 Airport 553 4.08% ,504 �1 4 2,957 67,460 58 Transit Ops 618 4.5F�00%��O 2,085 0 ��g5 3,304 75,390 72 IT/IS 509 3. 59,37 0 •`�9,371 2,721 62,093 78 Risk -Gen Liability 168 ' " 19,5 0� 19,596 898 20,494 80 MAPD Planning 30 3,4 3,499 160 3,660 Subtotal 13,5=2 n .0000% 1,5 0 1,581,911 63,022 1,644,933 Direct Bills Total Basis Units Hours of Support By Department OJ Cj ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:4 Law Department MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 37 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs 14 PW-Street Maint. 15 Housing Admin 17 Public Information 19 Legislative Svcs 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 21 City Council 22 Sp Assessments 23 Court 24 Com Fac-Century2 25 Expo Hall 28 Fire Department 29 Police -Field 30 Police -Support 31 Police -Investigations 32 Library Operations 34 Art Museum CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Advice & Dept Support Other Law Total Opinions Activities $1,012 $207,041 $0 $208,053 864 0 0 864 547 8,295 0 8,842 72 5,490 0 5,562 A 291 200,185 0 200,476 504 0 0 0 516 �'qj 0 04 369 69 126 297 0 0 267,401 0 369 369 0 12 0 267,M` 1,595 0 0 3,619 0 0 9 Cj 72 63,069 0 141 99 13,541 0 3,640 ` 0 25,740 25 7r4``/1► 105 0 444 54,285 5 3 180 0 �` 0 2,952 27,642 O 0 ,644 1,433 18,1 N 19,853�`G 39 A 39� 16,426 V 41, 18,857857 0 5,2 8 4,114 �p 2 O 0 498 1� 15,127 0 19,250 0 0? 411 36 Cowtown Operations 390 0 390 38 MAAIC 153 0 O 0 153 41 City Arts & Culture 674 11,951?1 0 12,629 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape O 3,368 0 3,368 44 Public Works -Engineer Cj 2,387 0 2,387 46 Park Department-Admin 276 0 0 276 47 Botanica 48 Park Department -Recreation 49 Central Insp 52 Landfill 54 Property Management Operations 56 Airport 57 Golf Course Ops 58 Transit Ops 144 0 144 4,104 17 0 59,121 1,228 32,969 0 134,197 321 0 0 321 72 0 0 72 5,087 67,460 0 72,547 3,353 0 0 3,353 856 75,390 0 76,245 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:4 Law Department MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 38 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Allocation Summary Department 60 Economic Develop 62 Sewer 63 Water -Operations 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 68 Storm Water Ops 72 IT/IS 74 PW-Fleet Fund 76 Risk -Work Comp 78 Risk -Gen Liability 79 PW-Flood Control 80 MAPD Planning 81 Env Hlth Svcs 83 Pension Management 87 CDBG 88 CSBG 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grant 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Advice & Dept Support Other Law Total Opinions Activities $72 $0 $0 $72 5,132 0 0 5,132 638 0 0 638 .\lh, 968 0 0 968 216 0 21 J► 1,635 0 1 216 0 1 20 �` 0 s 10808 '0 O 0 108 3381 97 97 A 97� 72 36 � 0 1,267 0 1, 7 4 O 0 035 0 0 108 $11 864 $1,644,933 $1,761,797 O CG C> 4111t%�V' 631 0 0 631 A 2,671 0 0 2, 2,823 0 0 2,82 �(�//' 823 1,348 0 0 1,348 1,967 62,093 0 64,060 1,667 0 0 1,667� 72 0 0 72 20,494 0 0 0 2 459 C) 459 3,660 0 � '119 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:4 Law Department MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 39 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Human Resources ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Nature and Extent of Services The mission of Human Resources is to build a stimulating and diverse culture of inclusion es on public service, high performance, and individual and organizational growth and development. Human Resources' core resli s ilities are employee recruitment and selection; classification and compensation; employee relations; benefits clevelopmen�V administration; payroll; HR-related information systems; Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action programs; unio tions and contr ct administration; managing Family and Medical Leave (FML); Unemployment Insurance (UI); drug testing; loyee Assistance P am and fund; and employee learning and development. Allowable costs are allocated as described belov Human Resources — Costs are allocated based upon the nu II-ti equivalent rf`ns by department and division. �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 40 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA A. Department Costs Description Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Contract Svcs Mat & Supp Revenue - Admin Fees Reimbursements Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Amount General Personnel Admin S1 1,059,512 0 1,059,512 .00% 100.00 S 367,247 0 367,247 1,426,759 0 1,426,759 1,443,278 0 43,278 `�� � + V 0 IL ` o'V V 190,678 0 190,678 49,543 0 49,54& 0 0 � 223,702 0 223,702 16,519 0 9 CJ V 1,443,2W8 0 278 $ A , 78 $1,4 8� Ilk P 0 ci 11�� ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:5 Human Resources MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 41 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Department First Second Personnel Incoming Incoming 2 City Hall Subtotal - Building Depreciation 3 Manager Subtotal - City Manager 4 Advice & Opinions 4 Dept Support Subtotal - Law Department Q'q 525 21 547 v 8,457 385 8,295 842 8,457 385 8,842 � • 5 Personnel 0 6,839 6,839 ` Subtotal - Human Resources 0 6,839 6,839 �(� G 6 Records 0 1,095 1,095 Subtotal - City Clerk 0 1,095 • J► 7 Finance Dir 0 442 4 7 Budget 0 4,421421 Subtotal - Director of Finance 0 4,8V3 O 4,863 • /► 8 Cash Mgmt 0 / olc Subtotal - Treasury 0/>s6 'I9 9 Genl Accounting 0 v 926 9 Payroll Oc2,686 2,68 Subtotal - Gen Acctng 3,612 3 612 10 Purchasing Q 0 1,891 Subtotal - Purchasing 0 1,891 1, 1 11 Internal Audit 0 0 11 City Mgr Support O 0 86 869 Subtotal - Admin Svcs G 0 69 869 13 City Hall 0 77 60,777 Subtotal - PW Bldg Svcs 0 60,777 60,777 Total Incoming C. Total Allocated $5,614 $0 $5,614 5,614 0 5,614 5,548 2,161 7,709 5,548 2,161 7,709 19,619 82,529 102,149 $1,545,427 $1,545,427 100.00% ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:5 Human Resources MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 42 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Personnel Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 3 City Manager 29.21 0.90% $13,168 $0 $13,168 /�►NV_ $13,168 4 Law Department 24.96 0.77% 11,252 0 11,252 [ �� 0 11,252 5 Human Resources 15.17 0.47% 6,839 0 6,839 (v 0 6,839 6 City Clerk 2.00 0.06% 902 0 9� 52 954 7 Director of Finance 8.08 0.25% 3,642 0 3 210 3,852 8 Treasury 14.33 0.44% 6,460 0 372 32 9 Gen Acctng 14.00 0.43% 6,311 0 364 10 Purchasing 10.25 0.32% 4,621 0 4,621 266 11 Admin Svcs 3.50 0.11% 1,578 1,578 91 9 12 PW Admin 8.25 0.25% 3,719 �` 3,719 214 ` 933 13 PW Bldg Svcs 44.25 1.36% 19,948 19,948 1,1 21,097 14 PW-Street Maint. 100.42 3.09% 45,269 0 4 J69 2, 47,878 15 Housing Admin 2.00 0.06% 902 0 2 954 17 Public Information 2.75 0.08% 1,240 0 240 1 1,311 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 2.92 0.09% 1,3 76 1,392 21 City Council 12.33 0.38% 5, 5,5 320 5,879 22 Sp Assessments 5.00 0.15% 2,2 2,254 130 2,384 23 Court 81.92 2.52% 929 36,929 2,129 39,058 24 CornFac-Century2 39.76 1.Z o O 7,923 0 1U23 1,033 18,957 25 Expo Hall 1.08 0. 48 K:12135,895 * 487 28 515 28 Fire Department 455.83 1 ` 205,4 205,485 11,846 217,330 29 Police -Field 523.29 1 24[,8 13,599 249,494 30 Police -Support 145.08 c' % 65,401 3,770 69,171 31 Police -Investigations 180. 3 .56% 0 81,291 4,686 85,978 32 Library Operations 11 O 3.53% 51,58 0 51,580 2,973 54,553 34 Art Museum 0.35% 5 1390 5,139 296 5,435 36 Cowtown Operations 0.33% 73 ` 0 4,873 281 5,154 38 MAAIC .25 0.13% 0 1,916 110 2,026 41 City Arts & Culture 18.70 0.58% 8, 0 0 8,430 486 8,916 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 93.46 2.880 31 0 42,131 2,429 44,560 44 Public Works -Engineer O 66.25 2.0 °° 29,865 0 29,865 1,722 31,587 46 Park Department-Admin 7.67 40 3,458 0 3,458 199 3,657 47 Botanica 4.00 0. % 1,803 0 1,803 104 1,907 48 Park Department -Recreation 113.89 ° 51,341 0 51,341 2,960 54,300 49 Centrallnsp 34.08 05% 15,363 0 15,363 886 16,249 52 Landfill 8.90 0.27% 4,012 0 4,012 231 4,243 54 Property Management Operations 2.00 0.06% 902 0 902 52 954 56 Airport 141.17 4.35% 63,638 0 63,638 3,669 67,307 57 Golf Course Ops 93.06 2.87% 41,951 0 41,951 2,418 44,369 58 Transit Ops 23.75 0.73% 10,706 0 10,706 617 11,323 60 Economic Develop 2.00 0.06% 902 0 902 52 954 62 Sewer 142.42 4.39% 64,202 0 64,202 3,701 67,903 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:5 Human Resources MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 43 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Personnel Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 63 Water -Operations 17.71 0.55% $7,984 $0 $7,984 $8,444 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 17.50 0.54% 7,889 0 7,889 5 8,344 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 74.13 2.28% 33,417 0 33,417 1.0,926 35,344 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 78.33 2.41% 35,311 0 35,311 2,036 37,346 68 Storm Water Ops 37.42 1.15% 16,869 0 16 972 17,841 721T/IS 54.58 1.68% 24,604 0 2 1,418 2W23 74 PW-Fleet Fund 46.25 1.43% 20,849 0 , 1,202 �51 76 Risk -Work Comp 2.00 0.06% 902 0 902 52 54 78 Risk -Gen Liability 2.00 0.06% 902 902 52+1 54 79 PW-Flood Control 23.92 0.74% 10,783 10,783 622 ,405 80 MAPD Planning 12.75 0.39% 5,748 5,748 3 6,079 81 Env Hlth Svcs 26.85 0.83% 12,104 0 1 , 04 12,802 83 Pension Management 6.00 0.18% 2,705 0 2 5 2,861 87 CDBG 45.38 1.40% 20,457 0 ,457 ` 9 21,636 88 CSBG 6.00 0.18°/G 2,7 `V>► 156 2,861 97 Fire Grants 6.00 0.18°/G 2, 2,7 156 2,861 98 Environmental Health Grants 3.00 0.09°/G 1,3 1,352 78 1,430 102 Police Grants 10.58 0.33% 769 V9� 275 5,044 103 Public Improvements 2.68 0.0$°%O 1,208 0 70 1,278 104 Downtown Parking Fund 2.00 O.Q� 90 0 902 52 954 105 HOME Program 1.00 '�'%V� 4 01� 451 26 477 106 Wichita Housing Authority 35.17 8 ` 15,854 914 16,768 107 Transit Grants 111.98 50,480 2,910 53,390 108 Other 3. ZO �'0.09°/G 0 1,352 78 1,430 Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: # of Full Time Eq 3,#$1�N 100.00% 1,462,897C 0 1,462,897 82,529 1,545,427 N ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:5 Human Resources MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 44 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Personnel Total 3 City Manager $13,168 $13,168 4 Law Department 11,252 11,252 5 Human Resources 6,839 6,839 6 City Clerk 954 954 A 7 Director of Finance 3,852 3,852 �'qj 8 Treasury 6,832 6,832 9 Gen Acctng 6,675 6,675 10 Purchasing 4,887 4,887 11 Admin Svcs 1,669 1,669 • 12 PW Admin 3,933 3,933 ` 13 PW Bldg Svcs 21,21,097 14 PW-Street Maint. 47,878 878 47,878878 (_/✓� 15 Housing Admin 954 954 17 Public Information 1,311 1,311 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 1,392 1,392 • J► 21 City Council 5,879 5,879 ` 22 Sp Assessments 2,384 2,384 a► 23 Court ,58 39,058 18121� 24 Com Fac-Century2 18,957 18,957 � • /► 25 Expo Hall 515 O 28 Fire Department 217,330 2 29 Police -Field 249 69,94 30 Police -Support 9,171171 71 31 Police -Investigations 85f5o 978 978 32 Library Operations 54,55334 Art Museum 5,435 36 Cowtown Operations 5,15438 MAAIC 2,026 41 City Arts & Culture 8,916 8,916 O 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 44,560 44,56(]A 44 Public Works -Engineer O 31,587 31, 'ff 46 Park Department-Admin 3,657 65 47 Botanica Cj 11907 07 48 Park Department -Recreation 54,300 49 Central Insp 16,249 49 52 Landfill 4,243 4,243 54 Property Management Operations 954 954 56 Airport 67,307 67,307 57 Golf Course Ops 44,369 44,369 58 Transit Ops 11,323 11,323 60 Economic Develop 954 954 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:5 Human Resources MGT Consulting Group +*•** M G T Page 45 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Allocation Summary Department 62 Sewer 63 Water -Operations 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 68 Storm Water Ops 72 IT/IS 74 PW-Fleet Fund 76 Risk -Work Comp 78 Risk -Gen Liability 79 PW-Flood Control 80 MAPD Planning 81 Env Hlth Svcs 83 Pension Management 87 CDBG 88 CSBG 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grant 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Personnel Total $67,903 $67,903 8,444 8,444 8,344 8,344 35,344 35,344 A 37,346 37,346 �(�//' 26,841 26,02 22,051 2,0 22, 051 22,051 954 954 • �� 954 954 ` 11, 11, 079 079 12,802 12,802 2,861 2,861 21,636 21,636 • J► 2,861 2,861 ` 2,861 2,861 a► s 1,1,430 5,044 5,044 O • /► 1,9278 54 15 ^ ` 954 477 16,76868 68 53,390 O 310 1 � 1,43430 $1,5 $1,545,427 P O CG 0 AkV ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:5 Human Resources MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 46 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN City Clerk ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Nature and Extent of Services 6�1 The City Clerk is responsible for acting as ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, the Board of Contracts, and Staff Screening and Selection Committee; and preparing minutes of all meetings and performing such other �. Allowable costs are allocated as described below: n- Records — Costs are allocated based upon the number of full-time equ 01,knWositions by depart e kt and division. G •� �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 47 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA A. Department Costs Description Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Contract Svcs Mat & Supp Capital Revenue Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Capital Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Amount General Records Admin S1 132,870 0 132,870 .00% 100.00 S 60,491 0 60,491 193,361 0 193,361 o'V V S 27,0 27,737 850 S 850 0 850� D 0 0 S 0 0 28,587 0 7 221,948 0 1,948 ♦ � V D 0 ` 0 0 221, 0 Z21,948 ♦`G P colp 11�� o` ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:6 City Clerk MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 48 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Department 2 City Hall Subtotal - Building Depreciation 3 Manager Subtotal - City Manager 4 Advice & Opinions 4 Dept Support Subtotal - Law Department 5 Personnel Subtotal - Human Resources 6 Records Subtotal - City Clerk 7 Finance Dir 7 Budget Subtotal - Director of Finance 9 Genl Accounting 9 Payroll Subtotal - Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing Subtotal - Purchasing CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN First Second Records Incoming Incoming $5,287 $0 $5,287 5,287 0 5,287 731 285 1,016 A 731 285 1,016 �(�//' 69 3 72 5,241 5, 5,318 318 243 5,562562 � • 902 52 954 902 52 954 0 144 144 G 0 144 • � J► 0 59 ` 0 583 583 0 6642a2 O 642 � /► 0 4 •` G 3 0 � 24 '� O 82 8 82 82 P 11 Internal Audit 0 Total Incoming C. Total Allocated 12,238 19 71,857 $293,805 $293,805 100.00% ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:6 City Clerk MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 49 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Records Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 3 City Manager 29.21 0.90% $2,108 $0 $2,108 �► $2,108 4 Law Department 24.96 0.77% 1,801 0 1,801 [ w 0 1,801 5 Human Resources 15.17 0.47% 1,095 0 1,095 ci 0 1,095 6 City Clerk 2.00 0.06% 144 0 14Z 0 144 7 Director of Finance 8.08 0.25% 583 0 152 735 8 Treasury 14.33 0.44% 1,034 0 i 269 03 9 Gen Acctng 14.00 0.43% 1,010 0 4 263 10 Purchasing 10.25 0.32% 740 0 740 193 11 Admin Svcs 3.50 0.11% 253 0� 253 66• �� 18 12 PW Admin 8.25 0.25% 595 595 155 ` 750 13 PW Bldg Svcs 44.25 1.36% 3,193 3,193 8 4,024 14 PW-Street Maint. 100.42 3.09% 7,247 0 47 1, 9,133 15 Housing Admin 2.00 0.06% 144 0 4 182 17 Public Information 2.75 0.08% 198 0 198 2 250 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 2.92 0.09% 1 • 2 J► 55 266 21 City Council 12.33 0.38% 8 232 1,121 22 S Assessments 5.00 0.15% 36T 361 94 455 P /'� 23 Court 81.92 2.52% �3,912 / 12 1,539 7,451 24 Corn Fac-Century2 39.76 1.23% O 2,869 0 9 747 3,616 25 Expo Hall 1.08 0. °� 7 0 • q 78 20 98 28 Fire Department 455.83 1F 32,8 0�`2,895 8,563 41,457 29 Police -Field 523.29 1 37,763 9,830 47,593 30 Police -Support 145.08 10,470 2,725 13,195 31 Police -Investigations 180. 3 �0 13,013 3,387 16,401 32 Library Operations 11 O 3.53% 8,257 0 8,257 2,149 10,406 34 Art Museum 0.35% 823� 0 823 214 1,037 36 Cowtown Operations 0.33% 0 0 780 203 983 38 MAAIC .25 0.13% 0 307 80 387 41 City Arts &Culture 18.70 0.58% 1, 9 0 1,349 351 1,701 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 93.46 2.88°/ , 44 0 6,744 1,756 8,500 44 Public Works -Engineer (0�O 66.25 2.0 °° 4,781 0 4,781 1,244 6,025 oft 46 Park Department-Admin 7.67 4°/ 554 0 554 144 698 47 Botanica 4.00 0. % 289 0 289 75 364 48 Park Department -Recreation 113.89 ° 8,219 0 8,219 2,139 10,358 49 Central Insp 34.08 05% 2,459 0 2,459 640 3,100 52 Landfill 8.90 0.27% 642 0 642 167 809 54 Property Management Operations 2.00 0.06% 144 0 144 38 182 56 Airport 141.17 4.35% 10,187 0 10,187 2,652 12,839 57 Golf Course Ops 93.06 2.87% 6,716 0 6,716 1,748 8,464 58 Transit Ops 23.75 0.73% 1,714 0 1,714 446 2,160 60 Economic Develop 2.00 0.06% 144 0 144 38 182 62 Sewer 142.42 4.39% 10,278 0 10,278 2,675 12,953 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:6 City Clerk MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 50 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Records Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 63 Water -Operations 17.71 0.55% $1,278 $0 $1,278 $1,611 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 17.50 0.54% 1,263 0 1,263 9 1,592 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 74.13 2.28% 5,350 0 5,350 392 6,742 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 78.33 2.41% 5,653 0 5,65 1,471 7,124 68 Storm Water Ops 37.42 1.15% 2,700 0 2� 703 3,403 721T/IS 54.58 1.68% 3,939 0 1,025 64 74 PW-Fleet Fund 46.25 1.43% 3,338 0 869 76 Risk -Work Comp 2.00 0.06% 144 0 144 38 78 Risk -Gen Liability 2.00 0.06% 144 144 38 • 2 79 PW-Flood Control 23.92 0.74% 1,726 11726 449 ,175 80 MAPD Planning 12.75 0.39% 920 920 2 1,160 81 Env Hlth Svcs 26.85 0.83% 1,938 0 1, 38 2,442 83 Pension Management 6.00 0.18% 433 0 3 546 87 CDBG 45.38 1.40% 3,275 0 275 2 4,127 88 CSBG 6.00 0.18% • 4 J► 113 546 97 Fire Grants 6.00 0.18% 4 113 546 98 Environmental Health Grants 3.00 0.09°/G A�� 2T6 216 56 273 102 Police Grants 10.58 0.33°/G76363 199 962 103 Public Improvements 2.68 0.0vo 193 0 3 50 244 104 Downtown Parking Fund 2.00 0.Q� 14 0 •`G 144 38 182 105 HOME Program 1.00 '�V� D� 72 19 91 106 Wichita Housing Authority 35.17 2,538 661 3,199 107 Transit Grants 111.98 °/G 8,081 2,103 10,184 108 Other 3. 0 �'0.09°/G 0 216 56 273 Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: # of Full Time Eq 3,1�N 100.00% 234,186 N 234,186 59,619 293,805 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:6 City Clerk MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 51 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Records Total 3 City Manager $2,108 $2,108 4 Law Department 1,801 1,801 5 Human Resources 1,095 1,095 6 City Clerk 144 144 A 7 Director of Finance 735 735 �'qj 8 Treasury 1,303 1,303 9 Gen Acctng 1,273 1,273 10 Purchasing 932 932 11 Admin Svcs 318 318 • 12 PW Admin 750 750 ` 13 PW Bldg Svcs 4,4,024 14 PW-Street Maint. 9,133 133 9,133133 (_/✓� 15 Housing Admin 182 182 17 Public Information 250 250 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 266 266 • J► 21 City Council 1,121 1,121 ` 22 Sp Assessments 455 455 /'� a► 23 Court ,451 7,451 3 24 Com Fac-Century2 ,616 3,6j6 � • /► 25 Expo Hall 98O � ^ �` 2 28 Fire Department 41,457 29 Police -Field 4593 30 Police -Support 13,,195 95 31 Police -Investigations 16,401 O 6,401 32 Library Operations 1 10,406 ` 34 Art Museum 0 1,037 36 Cowtown Operations 983 P 38 MAAIC 387 387 k 41 City Arts & Culture /'� 1,701 1,701 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape V) 8,500 8,50A 44 Public Works -Engineer O 6,025 6, 46 Park Department-Admin 698 69 47 Botanica Cj 364 64 48 Park Department -Recreation 10,358 49 Central Insp 3,100 00 52 Landfill 809 809 54 Property Management Operations 182 182 56 Airport 12,839 12,839 57 Golf Course Ops 8,464 8,464 58 Transit Ops 2,160 2,160 60 Economic Develop 182 182 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:6 City Clerk MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 52 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 62 Sewer 63 Water -Operations 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 68 Storm Water Ops 72 IT/IS 74 PW-Fleet Fund 76 Risk -Work Comp 78 Risk -Gen Liability 79 PW-Flood Control 80 MAPD Planning 81 Env Hlth Svcs 83 Pension Management 87 CDBG 88 CSBG 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grant 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Records Total $12,953 $12,953 1,611 1,611 1,592 1,592 6,742 6,742 A 3,124 3,124 �(�//' 3,964 3,403 964 4,206 4,206 4,206 4,206 182 182 • �� 11`2,175 2,175 1,160 60 1,16060 2,442 2,442 546 546 4,127 4,127 • J► 546 546 546 546 /'� a► s 273 273 182 91 ^ �` 91 3,199 99 10,184 O 0, 784 3 273 $2 $293,805 P O CG 0 AkV ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:6 City Clerk MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 53 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Director of Finance Nature and Extent of Services 6�1 The mission of the Director of Finance is to maintain the fiscal integrity of the City organi�p'rough financial services, timely information and analysis, innovation, financial management and appropriate controls. Tho9ector's Office is responsible for the overall management of the Finance Department. In addition, the Budget and Research Officimpares and administers the annual City budget and the 10-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Director's Office staff me bVpKise the City Ma ager regarding financial and management issues and assist department directors and their staff with resea allrMysis, and support rding appropriate and necessary administrative and budget procedures. The Department of Finan a is to aid the entir zation in accomplishing its varied missions. Support involves helping other functions understand, pl ioritize, control, re i isfy requirements, and/or wisely use available resources. Costs are allocated as shown below for the o g all able functio Director of Finance — Costs associated with the Direct are cated ase upo t tual expenditures of all City departments. Budget — Costs related to the budget function are ca ed baqQ&on the nuer of full-time equivalent positions. Tourism Business Improvement District (T �osts r to TB of allocated. G 'Q O Q' �. O P 0 G 0 AkV MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 54 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 A. Department Costs Dept:7 Director of Finance Description Amount General Finance Dir Budget TBID Admin Personnel Costs Salaries S1 730,345 0 156,548 573,797 0 Salary % Split .00 % 21.43 % 78.57% 00% Benefits S 251,171 0 53,838 197,33 0 Subtotal - Personnel Costs 981,516 0 210,386 771 0 Services & Supplies Cost Contract Svcs S 169,065 0 36,239 32,826 0 Other Prof Svcs P 83,212 0 0 83,212 Mat & Supp S 1,331 0 1; kt,046 0 ` Misc & Sundry P 3,018,868 0 z 0 3,018,8 Transient Guest Tax P (3,328,489) 0 C 0 0 (3,328, 9) Admin Fees P (83,213) 0 0 0 83,213) Reimbursements S (155,961) 0 3,430) (1 , 31) 0 Capital D 5,450 0 Subtotal - Services & Supplies (289,737) LT 3 11,3 09,622) Department Cost Total 691,779 �` 0 7?71 (309,622) .p ,G Adjustments to Cost Capital D 0 0 Subtotal -Adjustments c(6'/l59) � 0 0 o329Total Costs After Adjustments �66V0 782,471 (309,622) P _ General Admin Distribution 0 0 0 0 Grand Total P $686,329 $213,480 $782,471 $ 309,622 O Ci 0 AkV MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 55 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Dept:7 Director of Finance Department First Second Finance Dir Budget TBID Incoming Incoming 1 Equipment Depreciation $4,060 $0 $870 $3,190 $0 /►����"" Subtotal Equipment Depreciation 4,060 0 870 3,190 0 [ �� 2 City Hall 4,922 0 1,055 3,867 v Subtotal - Building Depreciation 4,922 0 1,055 3,867 3 Manager 2,955 1,151 880 3,226 ei Subtotal - City Manager 2,955 1,151 880 3,226 0 ♦� 4 Advice &Opinions 280 11 62 0 ` 4 Dept Support 191,411 8,774 42,909 1 0 Subtotal - Law Department 191,691 8,785 42,972 4 C) 0 5 Personnel 3,642 210 826 3,027 0 Subtotal - Human Resources 3,642 210 3 0C %, 6 Records 583 152 158 0✓ Subtotal - City Clerk 583 152 �` 158 �0 7 Finance Dir 0 1, 24 887♦ G 0 7 Budget 0 5 1,8501�` 0 Subtotal - Director of Finance 0 c' 2,� 0 8 Cash Mgmt 0 v 947 4 0 Subtotal - Treasury O 947 ` 20 744 0 9 Genl Accounting 950 4 ` 746 0 9 Payroll PO 1,430 1,124 0 Subtotal - Gen Acctng 0 2,380 0 1,870 0 10 Purchasing 0 70 258 0 Subtotal - Purchasing O 0 3 70 258 0 11 Internal Audit Cj 0 0 0 0 11 City Mgr Support 0 63 99 364 0 MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 56 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Dept:7 Director of Finance Department First Second Finance Dir Budget TBID Incoming Incoming Subtotal - Admin Svcs $0 $463 $99 $364 $0 13 City Hall 0 53,281 11,421 41,861 0 Subtotal - PW Bldg Svcs 0 53,281 11,421 41,861 Total Incoming 207,853 71,182 59,811 219,225 C. Total Allocated $965,364 $273,291 $1,001,696 $ 9,622 �� /7► 28.31 %O 103.76% (32.07)%G • V V ` G �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 57 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Finance Dir Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs 14 PW-Street Maint. 15 Housing Admin 16 Homelessness Assistance 17 Public Information 18 Intgovt Affairs 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 21 City Council 22 Sp Assessments 23 Court 24 Corn Fac-Century2 25 Expo Hall 27 Ice Rink 28 Fire Department 29 Police -Field 30 Police -Support 31 Police -Investigations 32 Library Operations 33 Wichita Arts Council 34 Art Museum 35 Historical Museum 36 Cowtown Operations 37 Farm - Art Mkt / Plaza 38 MAAIC 39 African -Am Museum 40 Aviation Museum 41 City Arts & Culture 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 44 Public Works -Engineer 46 Park Department-Admin 47 Botanica 48 Park Department -Recreation 2,687,371 0.28% $712 $0 $712 $712 2,743,275 0.28% 727 0 727 0 727 1,666,979 0.17% 442 0 442 0 442 221,949 0.02% 59 0 5 0 59 4,259,443 0.44% 1,129 0 1 0 1,129 1,145,068 0.12% 304 0 18 22 1,393,675 0.14% 369 0 22 961,778 0.10% 255 0 255 15 247,783 0.03% 66 66 4 • 0 898,559 0.09% 238 238 14 252 4,872,562 0.50% 1,291 1,291 1,369 11,434,382 1.17% 3,031 0 3, 31 3,212 233,697 0.02°/G 62 0 �62 66 355,942 0.04% 94 0 94 6 100 397,610 0.04% • 1 J► 6 112 136,587 0.01% 2 38 325,655 0.03% / ''� 86 5 91 1,190,857 0.12% �`316 16 19 335 400,537 0.09�/° O 106 0 6 6 113 6,647,118 867 3,951,973 0. ` 1,10 0•��1,047 1,762 105 63 1,1100 163,746 43 3 46 28,617 �0% 8 0 8 47,926,046 �'4.92% 0 12,703 760 13,463 53,577 O 5.50% 14,201 0 14,201 850 15,051 12,901,7 1.33% 3 420 0 3,420 205 3,624 21,042,4�* 2.16% 77P 0 5,577 334 5,911 9,19�453 0.94% 0 2,436 146 2,582 6,779 0.00% 2 0 2 0 2 VYI,895,244 0.19°/ 02 0 502 30 532 O 167,229 0.0 °G 44 0 44 3 47 G 959,166 0°/ 254 0 254 15 269 1,656 0. % 0 0 0 0 0 290,267 G 77 0 77 5 82 22,386 00% 6 0 6 0 6 34,245 0.00% 9 0 9 1 10 1,738,362 0.18% 461 0 461 28 488 10,794,212 1.11% 2,861 0 2,861 171 3,032 10,144,888 1.04% 2,689 0 2,689 161 2,850 670,767 0.07% 178 0 178 11 188 437,379 0.04% 116 0 116 7 123 6,158,768 0.63% 1,632 0 1,632 98 1,730 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:7 Director of Finance MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 58 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Finance Dir Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 49 Central Insp 3,612,796 0.37°/G $958 $0 $958 $1,015 50 Tourism Convention 7,483,014 0.77% 1,983 0 1,983 9 2,102 51 Special Alcohol Drug 1,792,793 0.18% 475 0 475 28 504 52 Landfill 2,894,848 0.30% 767 0 7� 46 813 54 Property Management Operations 602,476 0.06% 160 0 10 169 55 St Office Bldg 517,167 0.05% 137 0 8 44556 Airport 27,586,199 2.83% 7,312 0 438 57 Golf Course Ops 4,399,528 0.45% 1,166 0 1,166 70 58 Transit Ops 6,188,509 0.64% 1,640 0� 1,640 98• 59 Gilbert/MosleyTIF 1,071,367 0.11% 284 �` 284 17 ` 301 60 Economic Develop 1,917,173 0.20% 508 508 539 61 North Industrial Corridor TIF 368,586 0.04°/G 98 0 98 104 62 Sewer 42,497,153 4.37°/G 11,264 0 (:t*444 4 11,938 63 Water -Operations 28,085,802 2.88% 7,444 0 45 7,890 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 315,316 0.030 G • J► 5 89 66 WS-Prod /Pumping 13,658,453 1.40% 3, 3,6 217 3,837 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 13,236,329 1.36°/G 3 508 3,508 210 3,718 68 Storm Water Ops 7,084,340 0.73% 8788 112 1,990 69 Water Projects 19,741,181 2.03O 5,232 0 2 313 5,546 70 Stormwater Projects 11,751,100 1.°%�3,11 0•`G3,115 186 3,301 71 Sewer Projects 33,126,968 'V%/. V� 8,7 01� 8,780 525 9,306 721T/IS 10,701,769 ,8 �` 2,837 170 3,006 73 Print Shop 515,631 137 8 145 74 PW-Fleet Fund 13,534,851 O 39% 0 3,587 215 3,802 75 Self Ins - Group Health 50,507,1 5.19% 13,387 0 13,387 801 14,188 76 Risk -Work Comp 4,908,17�` 0.50% 1 301 0 1,301 78 1,379 77 Self Ins - Group Life 879,8�16 0.09% 3P 0 233 14 247 78 Risk -Gen Liability 5,207,293 0.53% 0 1,380 83 1,463 79 PW-Flood Control //�388,528 0.25% 3 0 633 38 671 80 MAPD Planning 457,142 0.15°/ 86 0 386 23 409 81 Env Hlth Svcs oft O 2,842,521 0. °G 753 0 753 45 799 82 Pension-WER 44,569,841 8° 11,813 0 11,813 707 12,520 83 Pension Management Ci 249,191 0. % 66 0 66 4 70 84 Pension Plan 3B 2,154,321 G 571 0 571 34 605 85 Pension-P&F 43,645,147\*48% 11,568 0 11,568 692 12,261 86 Airport Projects 6,360,1460.65% 1,686 0 1,686 101 1,787 87 CDBG 3,265,313 0.34% 865 0 865 52 917 88 CSBG 938,304 0.10% 249 0 249 15 264 89 WAMPO-UWP 1,605,098 0.16% 425 0 425 25 451 90 WSCCAP 5,893 0.00% 2 0 2 0 2 91 City Manager Grants 118,285 0.01% 31 0 31 2 33 92 Park Grants 27,193 0.00% 7 0 7 0 8 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:7 Director of Finance MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 59 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Finance Dir Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 93 Finance Grants 94 Law Grants 95 Municipal Court Grants 96 Emergency Shelter HUD 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grants 99 Library Grants 100 Planning Grants 101 Public Works Grants 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: Actual Expenditures COP 2,206 117,106 11,041 571,362 563,777 691,383 357,845 25,079 13,333 1,843, 821 162,722,998 1,395,136 1,381,942 21,600,139 10, 388, 640 123,688,535 973, 514, 095 0.00% 0.01 % 0.00% 0.06% 0.06% 0.07% 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 16.72% 0.14% 0.14% 2.22% 1.07% 12.71 % 100.00% $1 $0 $1 /►%W $1 31 0 31 [ i5 10 33 3 0 3 ��/J 0 3 151 0 1��9 161 149 0 j//9 158 183 0 11 94 95 0 6 7 0 7 0 4 0� 4 0•�� 4 489 489 29 ` 518 43,130 43,130 2,5 45,711 370 0Q725 0 392 366 � 06 388 5,725 0 ` 43 6,068 • 2,7 `�/1► 165 2,918 32 32,71,962 34,746 o� 0� 15,258 273,291 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:7 Director of Finance MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 60 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 Budget Allocations Dept:7 Director of Finance Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second a Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation . &` 3 City Manager 29.21 0.90% $8,513 $0 $8,513 $8,513 4 Law Department 24.96 0.77% 7,274 0 7,274 �� 0 7,274 5 Human Resources 15.17 0.47% 4,421 0 4,421 ✓ 0 4,421 6 City Clerk 2.00 0.06% 583 0 58^ 0 583 7 Director of Finance 8.08 0.25% 2,355 0 2 _9�//j 0 2,355 8 Treasury 14.33 0.44% 4,176 0 253 29 9 Gen Acctng 14.00 0.43% 4,080 0 4ftt 247 10 Purchasing 10.25 0.32% 2,987 0 2,987 181 11 Admin Svcs 3.50 0.11% 1,020 1,020 62* 2 12 PW Admin 8.25 0.25% 2,404 �` 21404 146 ` 550 13 PW Bldg Svcs 44.25 1.36% 12,896 12,896 7 13,678 14 PW-Street Maint. 100.42 3.09% 29,266 0 29, 66 1, 31,040 15 Housing Admin 2.00 0.06% 583 0 3 618 17 Public Information 2.75 0.08% 801 0 801 ` 49 850 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 2.92 0.09% 1 8 `V>► 52 903 21 City Council 12.33 0.38% 3, 3,5 218 3,811 22 Sp Assessments 5.00 0.15% 1,4 1,457 88 1,546 23 Court 81.92 2.52% 875 23,875 1,447 25,322 24 Corn Fac-Century2 39.76 1.2ro ; 1,588 0 1�88 702 12,290 25 Expo Hall 1.08 0. °� d2,8 0 G 315 19 334 28 Fire Department 455.83 1 ` 10132,847 8,052 140,899 29 Police -Field 523.29 1 1 152,507 9,244 161,752 30 Police -Support 145.08 c' % 42,282 2,563 44,845 31 Police -Investigations 180. 3 6% 0 52,555 3,186 55,741 32 Library Operations 11 O 3.53% 33,347 0 33,347 2,021 35,368 34 Art Museum 0.35% 3 3220 3,322 201 3,524 36 Cowtown Operations 0.33% 0308 0 3,150 191 3,341 38 MAAIC .25 0.13% 0 1,239 75 1,314 41 City Arts & Culture 18.70 0.58% 0 5,450 330 5,780 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 93.46 2.88°/ 0 27,238 1,651 28,889 44 Public Works -Engineer O 66.25 2.0 °° 19,308 0 19,308 1,170 20,478 46 Park Department-Admin 7.67 40 2,235 0 2,235 135 2,371 47 Botanica 4.00 0. % 1,166 0 1,166 71 1,236 48 Park Department -Recreation 113.89 ° 33,192 0 33,192 2,012 35,204 49 Centrallnsp 34.08 05% 9,932 0 9,932 602 10,534 52 Landfill 8.90 0.27% 2,594 0 2,594 157 2,751 54 Property Management Operations 2.00 0.06% 583 0 583 35 618 56 Airport 141.17 4.35% 41,143 0 41,143 2,494 43,636 57 Golf Course Ops 93.06 2.87% 27,121 0 27,121 1,644 28,765 58 Transit Ops 23.75 0.73% 6,922 0 6,922 420 7,341 60 Economic Develop 2.00 0.06% 583 0 583 35 618 62 Sewer 142.42 4.39% 41,507 0 41,507 2,516 44,023 MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 61 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Budget Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 63 Water -Operations 17.71 0.55% $5,161 $0 $5,161 IwAar $5,474 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 17.50 0.54% 5,100 0 5,100 Nq 5,409 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 74.13 2.28% 21,604 0 21,604 ,310 22,914 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 78.33 2.41% 22,828 0 22,8 1,384 24,212 68 Storm Water Ops 37.42 1.15% 10,906 0 10 661 11,567 72 IT/IS 54.58 1.68% 15,907 0 1 964 1 71 74 PW-Fleet Fund 46.25 1.43% 13,479 0 817 1 76 Risk -Work Comp 2.00 0.06% 583 0 583 35 78 Risk -Gen Liability 2.00 0.06°/G 583 583 35 18 79 PW-Flood Control 23.92 0.74% 6,971 6,971 423 ,394 80 MAPD Planning 12.75 0.39% 3,716 3,716 2 3,941 81 Env Hlth Svcs 26.85 0.83% 7,825 0 , 25 8,299 83 Pension Management 6.00 0.18% 1,749 0 (:�.226 9 1,855 87 CDBG 45.38 1.40% 13,226 0 ` 2 14,027 88 CSBG 6.00 0.18°/G 1,7 `V>► 106 1,855 97 Fire Grants 6.00 0.18°/G 1,7� 106 1,855 98 Environmental Health Grants 3.00 0.09% /'� 8 874 53 927 102 Police Grants 10.58 0.33% �3,083 OX3 187 3,270 103 Public Improvements 2.68 0.OVo 781 0 1 47 828 104 Downtown Parking Fund 2.00 O.Q� 58 0 G 583 35 618 105 HOME Program 1.00 '�V� 2 01� 291 18 309 106 Wichita Housing Authority 35.17 006 11,2 ` 10,250 621 10,871 107 Transit Grants 111.98 % e) 32,635 1,978 34,614 108 Other 3. k0j 09% 0 874 53 927 Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: # of Full Time Eq 3,1�N 100.00% 945,771 N 945,771 55,925 1,001,696 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:7 Director of Finance MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 62 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA TBID Allocations CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Department Units Allocation Percent 108 Other Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: Direct 100% to Other First Direct Billed Department Second a Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 100 100.00% $(309,622) $0 $(309,622) $(309,622) 100 100.00% (309,622) 0 (309,622) 0 (309,622) C7f n N Nap ej\- N ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:7 Director of Finance MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 63 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs 14 PW-Street Maint. 15 Housing Admin 16 Homelessness Assistance 17 Public Information 18 Intgovt Affairs 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 21 City Council 22 Sp Assessments 23 Court 24 Com Fac-Century2 25 Expo Hall 27 Ice Rink 28 Fire Department 29 Police -Field 30 Police -Support 31 Police -Investigations 32 Library Operations 33 Wichita Arts Council 34 Art Museum 35 Historical Museum 36 Cowtown Operations 37 Farm - Art Mkt / Plaza 38 MAAIC 39 African -Am Museum 40 Aviation Museum 41 City Arts & Culture 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 44 Public Works -Engineer 46 Park Department-Admin 47 Botanica CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Finance Dir Budget TBID Total $712 $8,513 $0 $9,225 727 7,274 0 8,001 442 4,421 0 4,863 59 583 0 642 A 1,129 2,355 0 3,484 �'qj 322 4,429 0 4,751 392 4,327 0 4,719 270 270 3,168168 0 3,439 70 1,550 0 1,151� 252 2,550 0 2;� ` 1,212 31,040 0 3,212 31,040 0 2 66 618 0 684 G 100 0 0 100 112 850 Cc J► 38 0 91 903 9 113 3,811 �` 0 113 1,5a6 O 0 1,658 1,867 25, ' �27,189*`G 1,110 13,4001� 46 8 0 13,463 O 0,752 3 1 161,752 ` 7 ,802 44,845 0 48,469 55,741 0 61,652 582 35,368 37,950 2 0 O0 2 547 3,524� 0 4,056 O 47 0 47 G 269 4 0 3,611 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 1,395 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 10 488 5,780 0 6,269 3,032 28,889 0 31,921 2,850 20,478 0 23,328 188 2,371 0 2,559 123 1,236 0 1,359 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:7 Director of Finance MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 64 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Allocation Summary Department 48 Park Department -Recreation 49 Central Insp 50 Tourism Convention 51 Special Alcohol Drug 52 Landfill 54 Property Management Operations 55 St Office Bldg 56 Airport 57 Golf Course Ops 58 Transit Ops 59 Gilbert/Mosley TIF 60 Economic Develop 61 North Industrial Corridor TIF 62 Sewer 63 Water -Operations 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 68 Storm Water Ops 69 Water Projects 70 Stormwater Projects 71 Sewer Projects 72 IT/IS 73 Print Shop 74 PW-Fleet Fund 75 Self Ins - Group Health 76 Risk -Work Comp CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Finance Dir Budget TBID Total $1,730 $35,204 $0 $36,934 1,015 10,534 0 11,549 2,102 0 0 2,102 0 0 54 813 A 2,751 0 3,6 169 787 1618 0 14545 145 0 7,749 43,636 0 51,386386 1,236 28,765 0 30,001� 1,738 7,341 0 9,gn ` 53 0 0 539 618 07 0 10 104 0 4 G 11,938 44,023 0 5,961 7,890 5,474 13 364� J► 89 5,409 5 � 3,837 22,914 2 5 3,,�` 0 1,990 990 1111,47 O 0 ,557 5,546 � 51546�`G 3,301 3,301� 9, 306 9, 3,006 71 145 O 0 5 14,296 1 ,098 0 0�1,188 1 618 0 ` ,997 77 Self Ins - Group Life 247 0 247 78 Risk -Gen Liability '+1,463 618 O 0 2,081 79 PW-Flood Control V) 671 7,39� 0 8,065 80 MAPD Planning O 409 3, 0 4,350 81 Env Hlth Svcs 799 29 0 9,098 82 Pension-WER 12,520 0 0 12,520 83 Pension Management 70 0 1,925 84 Pension Plan 3B 605 0 0 605 85 Pension-P&F 12,261 0 0 12,261 86 Airport Projects 1,787 0 0 1,787 87 CDBG 917 14,027 0 14,944 88 CSBG 264 1,855 0 2,118 89 WAMPO-LIWP 451 0 0 451 90 WSCCAP 2 0 0 2 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:7 Director of Finance MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 65 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Allocation Summary Department 91 City Manager Grants 92 Park Grants 93 Finance Grants 94 Law Grants 95 Municipal Court Grants 96 Emergency Shelter HUD 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grants 99 Library Grants 100 Planning Grants 101 Public Works Grants 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Finance Dir Budget $33 $0 8 0 1 0 33 0 3 0 161 0 158 1,855 194 927 101 0 7 0 4 0 518 3,270 45,711 828 392 618 388 309 6,068 10,871 2,918 34,614 34,746 927 273,291 $1,001, P Co'1240' �O P COP TBID Total $0 $33 0 8 0 1 0 33 A 0 3 0161 0 2,01 0 1,122122 0 101� 0 0 0 8 0 `� F940 0 1,010� 6 16 (�3 3 3 N22) �\� 0 G P� ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:7 Director of Finance MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 66 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Treasury Nature and Extent of Services Treasury provides for the safe, efficient, and prudent handling of the City's cash assets th etr the establishment and monitoring of policies and procedures related to cash handling, investment of idle funds, and revenue collectior'T''�ctNities. Treasury provides a variety of services for total City operation including, maintaining bank accounts, signing and disbursing checks, maintaining cash records, administering the accounts receivable program and performing other related duties. Costs are alloca0as shown below for following allowable functions: c, w Cash Management — Costs associated with cash flow manageme tare allocated based upo�nOu►mber of revenue transactions by department or division. Express Office —Costs related to the Express Office ar Iloc d based Yhe r of Express Office transactions handled. Transactions related to the Water bill have been split een W er��ewer ro Krmwater based on the revenue handled for each segment of the utility operations. The direct bil�d credit c�d here is hDr the Water department's funding of the Express Office positions, and is derived from OCA 3000Klybject C 4. �► O Q' P COP 0 AkV MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 67 of 120 CONSULTING GROUP A. Department Costs Description Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Postage Printing & Copying Contract Svcs Materials & Supplies Reimbursements/Revenue Convenience Fees Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Amount General Cash Mgmt Express Admin Office S1 597,927 0 379,650 218,277 .00% 63.49% 36.51 235,280 0 149,390 85,89 833,207 0 529,040 304,i 28,253 39,204 239,657 0 0 0 28,253 39,20 152, 0 0 87,488 4387) 0 1,733 (61,387) 0 �7) 0 C43) 6,083 0 0 244,391 0 1,253 138 1,077,598 690 387,3 Ci .o o '_N 0 11VO 1(J • 1,07 690,292�` 387,306 ° ,077,598 0,292 $387,306 5310 o cp 11�� ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:8 Treasury MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 68 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Department 2 City Hall Subtotal - Building Depreciation 3 Manager Subtotal - City Manager 4 Advice & Opinions Subtotal - Law Department 5 Personnel Subtotal - Human Resources 6 Records Subtotal - City Clerk 7 Finance Dir 7 Budget Subtotal - Director of Finance 8 Cash Mgmt Subtotal - Treasury 9 Genl Accounting 9 Payroll Subtotal - Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing Subtotal - Purchasing 11 Internal Audit 11 City Mgr Support Subtotal - Admin Svcs CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN First Second Cash Mgmt Express Incoming Incoming Office $5,680 $0 $3,606 $2,073 5,680 0 3,606 2,073 5,241 2,041 4,624 2,658 A 5,241 2,041 4,624 2,658 �'qj 496 20 328 189 496 20 328 189 6,460 372 4,338 2, 6,460 372 4,338 1,034 269 828 76 G 1,034 269 828 476 ♦ V 304 18 4,176 253 //''��2,8 1� 4,480 271 �3,017 4 0 29, 18,85 10,841 ♦`G 0 18,8 10,841� 0 76 0 O 1,213 6 1,213 ` 7,12 ,093 1,726 96P 630 0 1,726 630 0 i� C�o 0 O 0 521 300 0 8 521 300 13 City Hall G Subtotal - PW Bldg Svcs Total Incoming 0 39,040 22,446 0 14,1486 39,040 22,446 23,390 107,917 83,373 47,934 C. Total Allocated $1,208,905 $773,665 $435,240 64.00% 36.00% ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:8 Treasury MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 69 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Cash Mgmt Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 3 City Manager 17 0.01% $82 $0 $82 $82 4 Law Department 15 0.01% 72 0 72 0 72 5 Human Resources 8 0.01% 38 0 38 0 38 7 Director of Finance 197 0.13% 947 0 94 0 947 8 Treasury 6,175 4.21% 29,696 0 29 0 29,696 9 Gen Acctng 15 0.01% 72 0 7 79 10 Purchasing 64 0.04% 308 0 31 11 Admin Svcs 1 0.00% 5 0 5 0 12 PW Admin 1 0.00% 5 5 0 • 5 13 PW Bldg Svcs 3 0.00% 14 �` 14 1 ` 16 14 PW-Street Maint. 77 0.05% 370 370 408 16 Homelessness Assistance 24 0.02% 115 0 115 127 21 City Council 4 0.00% 19 0 9 21 22 Sp Assessments 3 0.00% 14 0 14 1 16 23 Court 32,189 21.95% 15 • 154,7 �,730 170,528 24 CornFac-Century2 4,270 2.91% 20, 20,5 2,087 22,621 25 Expo Hall 11 0.01% 53 5 58 27 Ice Rink 10 0.01 % �` 48 � �8 5 53 28 Fire Department 1,094 0.75% A 5,261 0 1 535 5,796 29 Police -Field 31,998 21.°� 153,87 0•`�1 3,879 15,637 169,516 30 Police -Support 6,448 ` 31,0 01' 31,009 3,151 34,160 31 Police -Investigations 8 �` 38 4 42 32 Library Operations 1,525 V/0 7,334 745 8,079 34 Art Museum 1 �'0.00% 0 5 0 5 36 Cowtown Operations 1 O 1.32% 9,31 0 9,310 946 10,256 37 Farm -Art Mkt /Plaza 0.01% 63 0 63 6 69 41 City Arts & Culture 0.84% 30P 0 5,930 603 6,532 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 14 0.01% 0 67 7 74 44 Public Works -Engineer 3,075 2.10% 987 8 0 14,788 1,503 16,290 46 Park Department-Admin 122 0.08°/ 0 587 60 646 48 Park Department -Recreation O 11,333 7.7 °° 54,501 0 54,501 5,538 60,039 49 Central Insp Cj 957 5°/ 4,602 0 4,602 468 5,070 50 Tourism Convention 4 0. % 19 0 19 2 21 51 Special Alcohol Drug 4 ° 19 0 19 2 21 52 Landfill 881 60% 4,237 0 4,237 431 4,667 54 Property Management Operations 261 0.18% 1,255 0 1,255 128 1,383 55 St Office Bldg 2 0.00% 10 0 10 1 11 56 Airport 1,800 1.23% 8,656 0 8,656 880 9,536 57 Golf Course Ops 7,986 5.45% 38,405 0 38,405 3,903 42,308 58 Transit Ops 5,683 3.88% 27,330 0 27,330 2,777 30,107 59 Gilbert/Mosley TIF 44 0.03% 212 0 212 22 233 60 Economic Develop 225 0.15% 1,082 0 1,082 110 1,192 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:8 Treasury MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 70 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Cash Mgmt Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 61 North Industrial Corridor TIF 62 Sewer 63 Water -Operations 65 WS-Water Cust Acct 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 68 Storm Water Ops 69 Water Projects 70 Stormwater Projects 71 Sewer Projects 72 IT/IS 73 Print Shop 74 PW-Fleet Fund 75 Self Ins - Group Health 76 Risk -Work Comp 77 Self Ins - Group Life 78 Risk -Gen Liability 79 PW-Flood Control 80 MAPD Planning 81 Env Hlth Svcs 82 Pension-WER 84 Pension Plan 3B 85 Pension-P&F 86 Airport Projects 87 CDBG 88 CSBG 89 WAMPO-UWP 90 WSCCAP 91 City Manager Grants 92 Park Grants 93 Finance Grants 94 Law Grants 96 Emergency Shelter HUD 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grant 99 Library Grants 100 Planning Grants 101 Public Works Grants 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 19 0.01% $91 $0 $91 /► $101 622 0.42% 2,991 0 2,991 [ w 4 3,295 892 0.61% 4,290 0 4,290 436 4,726 2 0.00% 10 0 1 1 11 11 0.01 % 53 0 5 58 90 0.06% 433 0 44 77 137 0.09% 659 0 67 491 0.33% 2,361 0 2,361 240 43 0.03% 207 207 21 • 8 345 0.24% 1,659 1,659 169 �S-1,828 237 0.16% 1,140 1,140 1 1,256 69 0.05% 332 0 32 366 286 0.20% 1,375 0 1 5 1,515 266 0.18% 1,279 0 279 ` 0 1,409 30 0.02% • 1 `1� 15 159 48 0.03% 2 23 254 59 0.04% �/'� 2 284 29 313 31 0.02% �`14'1,943 49 15 164 404 5 185 O'2$/VO 27,880 •!� 890 2,84490 30 9833 80 308 1,481 151 1,632 149 a 11 $0/0 717 73 789 269 � 18% 0 1,294 131 1,425 O 0.21% 1,50 0 1,505 153 1,658 0.03% 236 0 236 24 260 0.33% 7P 0 2,337 237 2,575 24 6 22 1 0.02% 0.00% - 62°/ 0.0 °0 �9 106 5 0 0 0 0 115 29 106 5 12 3 11 0 127 32 117 5 17 1 °/ 82 0 82 8 90 COP 58 0. 4% 279 0 279 28 307 10 ° 48 0 48 5 53 s 37 03% 178 0 178 18 196 3 0.00% 14 0 14 1 16 3 0.00% 14 0 14 1 16 1 0.00% 5 0 5 0 5 275 0.19% 1,322 0 1,322 134 1,457 820 0.56% 3,943 0 3,943 401 4,344 1,503 1.03% 7,228 0 7,228 734 7,962 135 0.09% 649 0 649 66 715 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:8 Treasury MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 71 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Cash Mgmt Allocations Department Units 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: # of Revenue Transactions 1,950 514 9,858 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation �6'1 I ' 1.33% $9,378 $0 $9,378 W $10,331 0.35% 2,472 0 2,472 1 2,723 6.72% 47,407 0 47,407 A 817 52,225 146,629 100.00% 705,144 68,521 773,665 � �\ G fit. P ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:8 Treasury MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 72 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 Express Office Allocations Dept:8 Treasury Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation �6'1 58 Transit Ops 35 0.01% I ' $22 $0 $22 $25 63 Water -Operations 567,875 92.06% 364,432 (453,471) (89,039) 9 (52,769) 108 Other 48,913 7.93% 31,390 0 31,390 124 34,514 Subtotal 616,823 100.00% 395,844 (453,471) (57, 39,396 (18,231) Direct Bills 45 Total $395,844 116— JL 40 Basis Units: # of Express Office Transactions MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 73 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Cash Mgmt Express Total Office 0 Direct Billed $0 $453,471 $453,471 3 City Manager 82 0 82 4 Law Department 72 0 72 5 Human Resources 38 0 38 A 7 Director of Finance 947 0 947 ' 8 Treasury 29,696 0 29,696 9 Gen ng 79 0 79 10 Purchasing 339 0 339 11 Admin Svcs 5 0 5 • 12 PW Admin 5 0 5 13 PW Bldg Svcs 16 0 16 14 PW-Street Maint. 408 0 408 (_/✓� 16 Homelessness Assistance 127 0 127 C) 21 City Council 21 0 21 22 Sp Assessments 16 0 • J 170 ► 23 Court 170,528 0 ` 24 Com Fac-Century2 22,621 0 2,6 a► 25 Expo Hall 58 � 58 27 Ice Rink 53 •0 O 53 • r 28 Fire Department 5,796 5,79 V 29 Police -Field 169,516 N 169,5 30 Police -Support 34,160 ell 31 Police -Investigations 42 0 32 Library Operations 8,079 0 34 Art Museum O 0 36 Cowtown Operations -_`� 0 10 256� 37 Farm - Art Mkt / Plaza 0 9 41 City Arts & Culture 532 0 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 74 0 4 44 Public Works -Engineer 16,290 , 90 46 Park Department-Admin O 646 646 48 Park Department-Recreatio 60,039 60,039 49 Central Insp 5,070 0 5,070 50 Tourism Convention 21 21 51 Special Alcohol Drug 21 0 21 52 Landfill 4,667 0 4,667 54 Property Management Operations 1,383 0 1,383 55 St Office Bldg 11 0 11 56 Airport 9,536 0 9,536 57 Golf Course Ops 42,308 0 42,308 58 Transit Ops 30,107 25 30,132 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:8 Treasury MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 74 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 59 Gilbert/Mosley TIF 60 Economic Develop 61 North Industrial Corridor TIF 62 Sewer 63 Water -Operations 65 WS-Water Cust Acct 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 68 Storm Water Ops 69 Water Projects 70 Stormwater Projects 71 Sewer Projects 72 IT/IS 73 Print Shop 74 PW-Fleet Fund 75 Self Ins - Group Health 76 Risk -Work Comp 77 Self Ins - Group Life 78 Risk -Gen Liability 79 PW-Flood Control 80 MAPD Planning 81 Env Hlth Svcs 82 Pension-WER 84 Pension Plan 3B 85 Pension-P&F 86 Airport Projects 87 CDBG 88 CSBG 89 WAMPO-UWP 90 WSCCAP 91 City Manager Grants 92 Park Grants 93 Finance Grants 94 Law Grants 96 Emergency Shelter HUD 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grant 99 Library Grants 100 Planning Grants 101 Public Works Grants 102 Police Grants CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Cash Mgmt Express Total Office $233 $0 $233 1,192 0 1,192 101 0 101 3,295 0 3,295 A 4,726 (52,769) (48,044) 11 0 11 58 0 58 477 0 477 726 0 726 2,601 0 2,601 228 0 228 �+ 1,0 1, 1,256 256 0 1,256256 366 0 366 1,515 0 • � J► 1,409 0 1, ` 159 0 1 313 •0 O 313 116 •`G 2140 40 A 2,1 ,833 K 980 � 0 1,632 O 0 0 ` 78 —0 1 425 0 8 , 260 0 2,575 0 2, 5 127 127 32 32 O 117 117 Ci 5 0 5 90 90 307 0 307 53 0 53 s 196 0 196 16 0 16 16 0 16 5 0 5 1,457 0 1,457 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:8 Treasury MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 75 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Cash Mgmt Express Total Office $4,344 $0 $4,344 7,962 0 7,962 715 0 715 10,331 0 10,331 2,723 0 2,723 52,225 34,514 86,739 $773,665 $435,240 $1,208,905 z� e Ilk, C) 0& 1; ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:8 Treasury MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 76 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 General Accounting Nature and Extent of Services 6�1 It is the mission of General Accounting to ensure the integrity of the financial statements Iracy of payments made to vendors, and assist in the financial management of the City. The office seeks to sustain the day-to-day L�c nting processes in conformity with the 4i highest professional and regulatory standards while also pursuing efficiencies that wil&prove the overall financial management and financial status of the City. Service objectives include, minimizing the cost of fin n nsactions, prod dng the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) that is recognized as excellent by industry standards, itoring and auditi &Xe vendor payment process for purchasing goods and services to assure accuracy and timeliness. Costs are Koc ed as shown belK<,ae following allowable functions: General Accounting — Costs are allocated based upon the n Poi ac nting trans (expense and revenue) processed for p g Y departments during the year. �` Grants Admin — Costs associated with the administrat'ri an portin for eder s programs have been allocated based on the federal expenditures as reported in the CAFR. Payroll — Costs associated payroll activities have b a ocate on the n er of FTEs. �O O • G O Q' �. O P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 77 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 A. Department Costs Dept:9 Gen Acctng Description Amount General Genl Grants Payroll Admin Accounting Admin Personnel Costs Salaries S1 860,228 168,497 291,781 88,617 W, 3 Salary % Split 19.59% 33.92% 10.30% 19% Benefits S 352,934 69,131 119,712 36,35ft 127,734 Subtotal - Personnel Costs 1,213,162 237,628 411,493 124 439,067 Services & Supplies Cost Contract Svcs Mat & Supp Witholding Admin Fees Reimbursements Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total 176,305 48,814 84,530 25,673 17,289 4,207 824 1,4274t 433 1,523♦ I� (23,216) 0 0 0 (23,216) 85,090 0 85,090 0 72,206 49,638 6 Q26,.,0,106 (4, 5) 1,285,368 287,266 2��-Jr 359 1 ��2 9+ V 0 0 0 1,285,48 7,266 359 �1 434,662 (287,2 121,17 ` 36,801 129,292 A ,2 , 68 $ $187,882 $563,954 P 0 ci 11�� MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 78 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Department 2 City Hall Subtotal - Building Depreciation 3 Manager Subtotal - City Manager 4 Advice & Opinions Subtotal - Law Department 5 Personnel Subtotal - Human Resources 6 Records Subtotal - City Clerk 7 Finance Dir 7 Budget Subtotal - Director of Finance 8 Cash Mgmt Subtotal - Treasury 9 Genl Accounting 9 Payroll Subtotal - Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing Subtotal - Purchasing 11 Internal Audit 11 City Mgr Support Subtotal - Admin Svcs CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Payroll $2,721 2,721 5,120 1,994 3,001 911 3,20 5,120 1,994 3,001 911 485 20 213 65 485 20 213 65 227 6,311 364 2,816e163 ;k 3,004 6,311 364 2,816 3,004 1,010 263 537 &31,010 263 537 573 369 22 \+ 1 4,080 247 / �1 825 5 1 948✓ 4,450 269 �1,991 �4 72 \3 10 ♦`G 36 72 136 0 39` 557 0 O 2,479 :5 8 1,116 3,717 ` 1,56 ' 476 1,673 1,233 20P 158 555 0 1,233 158 555 0 0 0 0 O 0 338 103 361 G0 80 338 103 361 13 City Hall Subtotal - PW Bldg Svcs Total Incoming First Second Genl Grants Incoming Incoming Accounting Admin $6,045 $0 $2,550 $774 6,045 0 2,550 774 0 27,602 04,37 27,602 8,383 29,452 8,383 29,452 23,493 74,106 41,168 12,503 43,927 C. Total Allocated $1,382,967 $574,700 $200,386 $607,881 41.56% 14.49% 43.95% ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:9 Gen Acctng MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 79 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Genl Accounting Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs 14 PW-Street Maint. 15 Housing Admin 16 Homelessness Assistance 17 Public Information 18 Intgovt Affairs 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 21 City Council 22 Sp Assessments 23 Court 24 Corn Fac-Century2 25 Expo Hall 27 Ice Rink 28 Fire Department 29 Police -Field 30 Police -Support 31 Police -Investigations 32 Library Operations 33 Wichita Arts Council 34 Art Museum 35 Historical Museum 36 Cowtown Operations 37 Farm - Art Mkt / Plaza 38 MAAIC 39 African -Am Museum 40 Aviation Museum 41 City Arts & Culture 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 44 Public Works -Engineer 46 Park Department-Admin 47 Botanica 48 Park Department -Recreation 1,635 0.39% $2,109 $0 $2,109 $2,109 1,174 0.28% 1,515 0 1,515 0 1,515 718 0.17% 926 0 926 0 926 364 0.09% 470 0 47� 0 470 736 0.17% 950 0 .� 0 950 6,725 1.60% 8,676 0 0 8�76 960 0.23% 1,239 0 0 39 695 0.16% 897 0 897 53 50 417 0.10% 538 0� 538 32 �� 0 510 0.12% 658 658 39 ` 697 3,443 0.82% 4,442 4,442 2 4,705 10,960 2.60% 14,140 0 14, 40 14,978 609 0.14% 786 0 6 832 1,201 0.29% 1,549 0 ,549 2 1,641 399 0.09% � w 5 31 1545 27 93 0.02% 1 7 127 473 0.11 % �/'� 6 610 36 646 1,469 0.35% �1,895 5 112 2,008 364 0.0T% O 470 0 �0 28 497 34,617 6,315 8.V°� 4�1 0 �` 11 ;661 47 2,646 483 48,6030 376 ` � 485 29 514 15 �0 0 19 1 20 7,357 �f.75% 0 9,492 562 10,054 4 O 9.63% 52,32 0 52,323 3,100 55,424 " '1� 3.03% 16439 0 16,439 974 17,413 1.26% 2 , 0 6,842 405 7,247 463 0.82% 0 4,468 265 4,733 4 0.120 V64 0 5 0 5 503 0.12°/ 9 0 649 38 687 O 9 0.0 °° 12 0 12 1 12 G 3,510 3°/ 4,528 0 4,528 268 4,797 25 0. 1 % 32 0 32 2 34 707 0 912 0 912 54 966 4 00% 5 0 5 0 5 5 0.00% 6 0 6 0 7 2,560 0.61% 3,303 0 3,303 196 3,498 13,710 3.25% 17,688 0 17,688 1,048 18,736 5,979 1.42% 7,714 0 7,714 457 8,171 696 0.17% 898 0 898 53 951 276 0.07% 356 0 356 21 377 21,864 5.19% 28,208 0 28,208 1,671 29,879 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:9 Gen Acctng MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 80 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 Genl Accounting Allocations Dept:9 Gen Acctng Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 49 Central Insp 2,198 0.52% $2,836 $0 $2,836 V41W $3,004 50 Tourism Convention 58 0.01 % 75 0 75 4 79 51 Special Alcohol Drug 263 0.06% 339 0 339 20 359 52 Landfill 2,068 0.49% 2,668 0 2,66 158 2,826 54 Property Management Operations 1,075 0.26% 1,387 0 1 82 1,469 55 St Office Bldg 3 0.00% 4 0 0 4 56 Airport 14,320 3.40% 18,475 0 1,095 1 57 Golf Course Ops 14,486 3.44% 18,689 0 18,689 1,107 58 Transit Ops 9,364 2.22% 12,081 12,081 716 7 59 Gilbert/MosleyTIF 817 0.19% 1,054 �` 1,054 62 ` 1,117 60 Economic Develop 845 0.20% 1,090 1,090 1,155 61 North Industrial Corridor TIF 217 0.05% 280 0 Q14 0 297 62 Sewer 11,018 2.62% 14,215 0 515,057 63 Water -Operations 2,640 0.63% 3,406 0 6 ` 2 3,608 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 1,083 0.26% 7 1,3 `V>► 83 1,480 65 WS-Water Cust Acct 29 0.01 % 2 40 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 7,255 1.720/( 9,3 9,360 555 9,915 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 6,960 1.65% 979 �9 532 9,512 9�/° 68 Storm Water Ops 2,268 0.5O 2,926 0 6 173 3,099 69 Water Projects 5,541 1.°� 7,14 07,149 424 7,572 70 Stormwater Projects 3,735 ` 4,8 0� 4,819 286 5,104 71 Sewer Projects 3,533 4,558 270 4,828 721T/IS 3,163 V/0 4,081 242 4,323 73 Print Shop 246 �'0.06% 0 317 19 336 74 PW-Fleet Fund O 0.94% 5,09 0 5,094 302 5,395 75 Self Ins - Group Health �� 0.31% 1 708 0 1,708 101 1,809 76 Risk -Work Comp 0.97% 7P 0 5,287 313 5,600 77 Self Ins -Group Life 100 0.02% 0 129 8 137 78 Risk -Gen Liability 1,181 0.28% Q285 4 0 1,524 90 1,614 79 PW-Flood Control 996 0.24°/ 0 1,285 76 1,361 80 MAPD Planning O 1,043 0.2 °° 1,346 0 1,346 80 1,425 81 Env Hlth Svcs 9,751 1° 12,580 0 12,580 745 13,326 82 Pension-WER 442 0. % 570 0 570 34 604 83 Pension Management 451 ° 582 0 582 34 616 84 Pension Plan 3B 817 19% 1,054 0 1,054 62 1,117 85 Pension-P&F 418 0.10% 539 0 539 32 571 86 Airport Projects 547 0.13% 706 0 706 42 748 87 CDBG 3,681 0.87% 4,749 0 4,749 281 5,030 88 CSBG 776 0.18% 1,001 0 1,001 59 1,060 89 WAMPO-UWP 3,476 0.83% 4,485 0 4,485 266 4,750 90 WSCCAP 140 0.03% 181 0 181 11 191 91 City Manager Grants 81 0.02% 105 0 105 6 111 MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 81 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Genl Accounting Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 92 Park Grants 93 Finance Grants 94 Law Grants 95 Municipal Court Grants 96 Emergency Shelter HUD 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grants 99 Library Grants 100 Planning Grants 101 Public Works Grants 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: # of Accounting Transactions (Exp + COP 43 33 458 5 861 418 1,114 174 57 2 3,396 25,489 3,281 674 47,949 6,019 11,254 0.01 G/O 0.01 % 0.11% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 0.26% 0.04% 0.01 % 0.00% 0.81 % 6.05% 0.78% 0.16% 11.38% 1.43% 2.67% 421,223 100.O�G/G (-'NN3,441 0 1 31,259 574,700 x` $55 $0 $55 /$59 43 0 43 [ 3 45 i 591 0 591 ��/J 35 626 6 0 0 7 1,111 0 1 166 1,17 539 0 32 71 1,437 0 00 85 224 0 224 13 74 74 4 8 3 ;k, 3 0 3 4,381 4,381 2 4,641 32,885 0 32, 85 1, 34,833 4,233 0 4 3 4,484 870 0 870 2 921 6 1 4 61,8 65 65,52 7, 7,7 60 8,226 4,577 14,519 860 15,380 ^� ^� 0 0 o� IN ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:9 Gen Acctng MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 82 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Grants Admin Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 87 CDBG 3,481,815 6.55% $12,500 $0 $12,500 V4W $13,122 93 Finance Grants 518 0.00% 2 0 2 0 2 94 Law Grants 70,175 0.13% 252 0 252 Ci5%013 264 96 Emergency Shelter HUD 571,362 1.07% 2,051 0 2,05.Z 102 2,153 97 Fire Grants 548,459 1.03% 1,969 0 1 98 2,067 98 Environmental Health Grants 307,743 0.58% 1,105 0 55 60 101 Public Works Grants 8,000 0.02% 29 0 1 102 Police Grants 1,195,992 2.25% 4,294 0 4,294 214 103 Public Improvements 20,621,763 38.78% 74,033 ( 4,033 3,682♦ 15 105 HOME Program 1,230,463 2.31% 4,417 4,417 220 ` 4,637 106 Wichita Housing Authority 19,026,093 35.78% 68,305 68,305 3,3 71,702 107 Transit Grants 6,109,924 11.49% 21,935 0 21, 35 1, 23,026 Subtotal 53,172,307 100.00% 190,89 17892 ` 4 200,386 Direct Bills 0& �*` 0 Total Basis Units: Federal Expenditures Per CAFR $190,892 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:9 Gen Acctng MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 83 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 Payroll Allocations Dept:9 Gen Acctng Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second a Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation . &` 3 City Manager 29.21 0.90% $5,171 $0 $5,171 //��►► $5,171 4 Law Department 24.96 0.77% 4,419 0 4,419 [ w 0 4,419 5 Human Resources 15.17 0.47% 2,686 0 2,686 �vJ 0 2,686 6 City Clerk 2.00 0.06% 354 0 35y� 0 354 7 Director of Finance 8.08 0.25% 1,430 0 1 _ ci 0 1,430 8 Treasury 14.33 0.44% 2,537 0 Vj 0 2*537 9 Gen Acctng 14.00 0.43% 2,479 0 0 479 10 Purchasing 10.25 0.32% 1,815 0 1,815 109 9424 11 Admin Svcs 3.50 0.11% 620 620 37* 4 57 12 PW Admin 8.25 0.25% 1,461 1,461 88 ` 548 13 PW Bldg Svcs 44.25 1.36% 7,834 7,834 4 8,304 14 PW-Street Maint. 100.42 3.09% 17,778 0 CJ7 8 1, 18,846 15 Housing Admin 2.00 0.06% 354 0 4 375 17 Public Information 2.75 0.08% 487 0 487 9 516 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 2.92 0.09% 7 5 31 548 21 City Council 12.33 0.38% 2, 2,1 131 2,314 22 Sp Assessments 5.00 0.15% 8 885 53 938 23 Court 81.92 2.52% �1�503 3 871 15,374 24 Corn Fac-Century2 39.76 1.23% O 7,039 0 j4W LW9 423 7,462 25 Expo Hall 1.08 0. °� 19 0 j 191 11 203 28 Fire Department 455.83 1 ` 80,7 01�` 80,701 4,846 85,546 29 Police -Field 523.29 1 92,644 5,563 98,207 30 Police -Support 145.08 c' % 25,685 1,542 27,227 31 Police -Investigations 180. 3 �5.56% 0 31,926 1,917 33,843 Z32 Library Operations 11 O 3.53% 20,257, 0 20,257 1,216 21,473 34 Art Museum 0.35% 2 018� 0 2,018 121 2,139 36 Cowtown Operations 0.33% 14 0 1,914 115 2,029 38 MAAIC .25 0.13% 0 752 45 798 41 City Arts & Culture 18.70 0.58% 3, 1 0 3,311 199 3,509 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 93.46 2.88°/ 46 0 16,546 994 17,540 44 Public Works -Engineer (0�O 66.25 2.0 °° 11,729 0 11,729 704 12,433 ow 46 Park Department-Admin 7.67 4°/ 1,358 0 1,358 82 1,439 47 Botanica 4.00 0. % 708 0 708 43 751 48 Park Department -Recreation 113.89 ° 20,163 0 20,163 1,211 21,374 49 Centrallnsp 34.08 05% 6,034 0 6,034 362 6,396 52 Landfill 8.90 0.27% 1,576 0 1,576 95 1,670 54 Property Management Operations 2.00 0.06% 354 0 354 21 375 56 Airport 141.17 4.35% 24,993 0 24,993 1,501 26,494 57 Golf Course Ops 93.06 2.87% 16,475 0 16,475 989 17,465 58 Transit Ops 23.75 0.73% 4,205 0 4,205 252 4,457 60 Economic Develop 2.00 0.06% 354 0 354 21 375 62 Sewer 142.42 4.39% 25,214 0 25,214 1,514 26,728 MGT Consulting Group ***+* M G T Page 84 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 Payroll Allocations Dept:9 Gen Acctng Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 63 Water -Operations 17.71 0.55% $3,135 $0 $3,135 IMIW'/► $3,324 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 17.50 0.54% 3,098 0 3,098 � 6 3,284 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 74.13 2.28% 13,124 0 13,124 �vJ 788 13,912 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 78.33 2.41% 13,868 0 13,86 833 14,700 68 Storm Water Ops 37.42 1.15% 6,625 0 6 398 7,023 72 IT/IS 54.58 1.68% 9,663 0 580 1 0,J43 74 PW-Fleet Fund 46.25 1.43% 8,188 0 492 76 Risk -Work Comp 2.00 0.06% 354 0 354 21 78 Risk -Gen Liability 2.00 0.06% 354 354 21 5 79 PW-Flood Control 23.92 0.74% 4,235 41235 254 4,489 80 MAPD Planning 12.75 0.39% 2,257 2,257 1 2,393 81 Env Hlth Svcs 26.85 0.83% 4,754 0 4, 54 5,039 83 Pension Management 6.00 0.18% 1,062 0 1 2 1,126 87 CDBG 45.38 1.40% 8,034 0 ,034 2 8,517 88 CSBG 6.00 1 °/G 0 0.18,64 1,126 97 Fire Grants 6.00 0.18°/G 3'f 1,0� 64 1,126 98 Environmental Health Grants 3.00 0.09% �/'� 5 531 32 563 102 Police Grants 10.58 0.33% �1,873 X3 112 1,986 103 Public Improvements 2.68 0.0$°/G O 474 0 4 28 503 104 Downtown Parking Fund 2.00 0.( °� 35 0 �`G 354 21 375 105 HOME Program 1.00 ` 1 177 11 188 106 Wichita Housing Authority 35.17 6,227 374 6,600 107 Transit Grants 111.98 % 19,825 1,190 21,015 108 Other 3. 0 �'0.09% 0 531 32 563 Subtotal 31 100.00% 574 528 0 574,528 33,354 607,881 Direct Bills 0 0 Total $574,528 $607,881 Basis Units: # of Full Time Equivalen oWps on MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 85 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs 14 PW-Street Maint. 15 Housing Admin 16 Homelessness Assistance 17 Public Information 18 Intgovt Affairs 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 21 City Council 22 Sp Assessments 23 Court 24 Com Fac-Century2 25 Expo Hall 27 Ice Rink 28 Fire Department 29 Police -Field 30 Police -Support 31 Police -Investigations 32 Library Operations 33 Wichita Arts Council 34 Art Museum 35 Historical Museum 36 Cowtown Operations 37 Farm - Art Mkt / Plaza 38 MAAIC 39 African -Am Museum 40 Aviation Museum 41 City Arts & Culture 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 44 Public Works -Engineer 46 Park Department-Admin 47 Botanica CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Genl Grants Payroll Total Accounting Admin $2,109 $0 $5,171 $7,281 1,515 0 4,419 5,934 926 0 2,686 3,612 470 0 354 824 A 950 0 1,430 2,380 8,676 1,950 0 0 2,537 11,213 �'qj 2,924 3,717 950 570 6 0 0 0 873 1,924 2,873 657 1,227� 1,2; � 4,705 05 0 8,304304 ` 14,978 0 18,846 9�4 832 0 375 208 G 1,641 0 0 1,641 ` 0 1 orb � ``/1► 127 0 tqV 646 0 �/� 5 19 2,314 497 0 �3*938 497 '0 O 938 11436 47,307 15,37 62,681 *`G 81A 7,4 16,09 51421� 20 � 0 10,054 O 0 0 5 0 98,207 635 ,0 4 0 27 227 44,641 0 3 3P41,090 733 0 26,206 5 0 0 5 687 139 2,827 12 0 12 GO 4,797 2,029 6,825 34 0 0 34 966 798 1,764 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 7 3,498 0 3,509 7,008 18,736 0 17,540 36,276 8,171 0 12,433 20,604 951 0 1,439 2,391 377 0 751 1,128 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:9 Gen Acctng MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 86 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Allocation Summary Department 48 Park Department -Recreation 49 Central Insp 50 Tourism Convention 51 Special Alcohol Drug 52 Landfill 54 Property Management Operations 55 St Office Bldg 56 Airport 57 Golf Course Ops 58 Transit Ops 59 Gilbert/Mosley TIF 60 Economic Develop 61 North Industrial Corridor TIF 62 Sewer 63 Water -Operations 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 65 WS-Water Cust Acct 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 68 Storm Water Ops 69 Water Projects 70 Stormwater Projects 71 Sewer Projects 72 IT/IS 73 Print Shop 74 PW-Fleet Fund 75 Self Ins - Group Health CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Genl Grants Payroll Total Accounting Admin $29,879 $0 $21,374 $51,253 3,004 0 6,396 9,400 79 0 0 79 359 0 0 359 A 2,826 0 1,670 4,496 1,469 0 375 1,844 4 0 0 4 19,570 0 26,494 46,063 19,796 0 17,465 37,261� 12,797 0 4,457 17, ` 1,117 0 0 1,15555 0 375 �0 297 0 0 297 G 15,057 0 26,728 `�41,785 3,608 0 6918 J► 1,480 0 3, 4 � 40 0 4' 9,915 0 912 9,512 '0 O 4,700 1212 3,099 '0 7,02 R10,122 *`G 7572 7, 5721� 5,104 • / ]t0 5,Q 4,828 G 0 `` 4,3 3 O 0 966 0 ` 336 i \3 0 8 68014,075 0 0 ` 1,809 76 Risk -Work Comp 600 0 5,976 77 Self Ins - Group Life 137 0 0 137 78 Risk -Gen Liability 1,614 75 1,989 79 PW-Flood Control 1,361 4,489 5,850 80 MAPD Planning O 1,425 2,393 3,818 81 Env Hlth Svcs G 13,326 0 5,039 18,365 82 Pension-WER 83 Pension Management 84 Pension Plan 3B 85 Pension-P&F 86 Airport Projects 87 CDBG 88 CSBG 89 WAMPO-LIWP 604 0 604 616 0 1,126 1,742 1,117 0 0 1,117 571 0 0 571 748 0 0 748 5,030 13,122 8,517 26,669 1,060 0 1,126 2,187 4,750 0 0 4,750 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:9 Gen Acctng MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 87 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Allocation Summary Department 90 WSCCAP 91 City Manager Grants 92 Park Grants 93 Finance Grants 94 Law Grants 95 Municipal Court Grants 96 Emergency Shelter HUD 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grants 99 Library Grants 100 Planning Grants 101 Public Works Grants 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Genl Grants Payroll Total Accounting Admin $191 $0 $0 $191 111 0 0 111 59 0 0 59 45 2 0 47 A 627 264 0 897 �(�//' 7 0 0 7 1,171 2,067 6 3,330 764 571 2,067 1,126 3,764 1,522 1,160 563 3,245� 238 0 0` ` 78 0 0 3 30 0 �3 4,641 4,507 1,986 134 G 34,833 77,715 503 �3,051 4,484 0 4 86 J► 921 4,637 5 65,527 71,702 6 60D 14 2 8,226 23,026 015 15,380 ♦0 O 563 ,943 r ♦ V b' $574,700 $2a $607,8 $1,382,967�` ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:9 Gen Acctng MGT Consulting Group O♦*i NIGT Page 88 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Purchasing ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Nature and Extent of Services 6�1 The mission of Purchasing is to obtain the greatest value for each dollar spent by the City in* icient and effective procurement of goods and services while also ensuring fairness and integrity in accordance with applicable.a' a rs and regulations. The office is responsible for overseeing the formal and informal bid process, negotiating blanket purchase orders, managing the overall procurement process, registering vendors, administering the Emerging and Disadvantaged Business Enter Me- rogram (including staffing the Wichita Supplier Diversity Task Team), disposition of surplus vehicles/equipment, and providin,ko line purchasing sys p Allowable costs have been allocated as follows:' Purchasing — Costs for this function are allocated based upo tber of PO's, DP's V's (weighted) by department and division. ✓ �` �O O • G O Q' �. O P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 89 of 120 CONSULTING GROUP A. Department Costs Description Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Contract Svcs Mat & Supp Misc and Sundry Contr to Other Funds Revenue Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Contr to Other Funds Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Amount General Purchasing Admin S1 596,915 0 596,915 .00% 100.00 S 232,945 0 232,945 829,860 0 829,860 o'V V S 139,721 0 139,721 S 5,882 0 5,882 S (13,683) 0 (13,6�'3 , D 0 0 w p j S 20,253 0 CJ 111,667 0 ,667 0 941,527 941&C�&+ J► 0 4 LN 0 9 941,5271�` 941,527 T,527 P 0 ci 11�� r� ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:10 Purchasing MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 90 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Department First Second Purchasing Incoming Incoming 2 City Hall $5,202 $0 $5,202 Subtotal - Building Depreciation 5,202 0 5,202 3 Manager 3,749 1,460 5,209 A Subtotal - City Manager 3,749 1,460 5,209 ' 4 Advice & Opinions 355 14 369 Subtotal - Law Department 355 14 369 �� 5 Personnel 4,621 266 4,887 e Subtotal -Human Resources 4,621 266 4,8876 Records 740 193 932GSubtotal - City Clerk 740 193 932 7 Finance Dir 255 15 ` V 7 Budget 2,987 181 3,1 //''�� Subtotal - Director of Finance 3,242 196 �3,439 8 Cash Mgmt 308 33 G 'G Subtotal - Treasury 308` 3 9 Genl Accounting 897 —53 9 Payroll 1,815 G 109 Subtotal - Gen Acctng O 162 2,87 10 Purchasing 1,233 3P Subtotal - Purchasing PO 1,233 11 Internal Audit 0 0 11 City Mgr Support O 0 587 Subtotal Admin Svcs Cj 0 8 587 13 City Hall 0 56,320 Subtotal - PW Bldg Svcs 0 20 56,320 Total Incoming C. Total Allocated 20,928 60,463 81,391 $1,022,918 $1,022,918 100.00°/G ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:10 Purchasing MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 91 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 Purchasing Allocations Dept:10 Purchasing Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second a Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 3 City Manager 7.50 0.13% $1,233 $0 $1,233 /�► $1,233 4 Law Department 2.00 0.03% 329 0 329 [ w 0 329 5 Human Resources 11.50 0.20% 1,891 0 1,891 �vJ 0 1,891 6 City Clerk 0.50 0.01 % 82 0 80 82 7 Director of Finance 2.00 0.03% 329 0 �2j�//1 0 329 8 Treasury 10.50 0.18% 1,726 0 0 26 9 Gen Acctng 7.50 0.13% 1,233 0 0 33 10 Purchasing 7.50 0.13% 1,233 0 1,233 0 33 12 PW Admin 3.50 0.06% 575 575 '3 • 12 13 PW Bldg Svcs 66.50 1.14% 10,933 10,933 693 ` 626 14 PW-Street Maint. 144.00 2.46% 23,675 23,675 1,5 25,175 18 Intgovt Affairs 3.00 0.05% 493 0 93 524 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 1.00 0.02% 164 0V1'37 4 175 21 City Council 13.00 0.22% 2,137 0 5 2,273 23 Court 61.50 1.05% 1 1 • 10,1 J► 641 10,752 24 Corn Fac-Century2 52.00 0.89% 8, 8,5 542 9,091 25 Expo Hall 6.00 0.10% 986 986 62 1,049 P ^ 28 Fire Department 63.00 1.08% �11l358 X8 656 11,014 29 Police -Field 46.00 0.71 % O 7,563 0 j4W L0163 479 8,042 30 Police -Support 92.00 1.15,12 0•`,126 958 16,084 31 Police -Investigations 6.00 9 986 62 1,049 32 Library Operations 55.00 0 �` 9,043 573 9,615 33 Wichita Arts Council 1.00 % 1 164 10 175 34 Art Museum 13.00 .22% 0 2,137 135 2,273 35 Historical Museum O 0.02% ` 16 4 0 164 10 175 36 Cowtown Operations 0.50% 768 0 4,768 302 5,070 38 MAAIC 0.14% 15P 0 1,315 83 1,399 39 African -Am Museum 00 0.02% 0 164 10 175 40 Aviation Museum 1.00 0.02% 4 0 164 10 175 41 City Arts & Culture 42.00 0.720 Q'0"5 0 6,905 437 7,343 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape O 62.00 1.0 °° 10,193 0 10,193 646 10,839 44 Public Works -Engineer CG 67.00 1 40 11,015 0 11,015 698 11,713 46 Park Department-Admin 0.50 0. 1% 82 0 82 5 87 48 Park Department -Recreation 124.50 ° 20,469 0 20,469 1,297 21,766 49 Central Insp 5.50 09% 904 0 904 57 962 50 Tourism Convention 11.00 0.19% 1,809 0 1,809 115 1,923 51 Special Alcohol Drug 36.00 0.61 % 5,919 0 5,919 375 6,294 52 Landfill 100.50 1.72% 16,523 0 16,523 1,047 17,570 54 Property Management Operations 6.00 0.10% 986 0 986 62 1,049 56 Airport 241.00 4.12% 39,623 0 39,623 2,510 42,133 57 Golf Course Ops 93.00 1.59% 15,290 0 15,290 969 16,259 58 Transit Ops 43.50 0.74% 7,152 0 7,152 453 7,605 MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 92 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Purchasing Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 59 Gilbert/Mosley TIF 60 Economic Develop 61 North Industrial Corridor TIF 62 Sewer 63 Water -Operations 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 68 Storm Water Ops 69 Water Projects 70 Stormwater Projects 71 Sewer Projects 72 IT/IS 73 Print Shop 74 PW-Fleet Fund 75 Self Ins - Group Health 76 Risk -Work Comp 78 Risk -Gen Liability 79 PW-Flood Control 80 MAPD Planning 81 Env Hlth Svcs 82 Pension-WER 85 Pension-P&F 86 Airport Projects 87 CDBG 88 CSBG 89 WAMPO-UWP 91 City Manager Grants 92 Park Grants 98 Environmental Health Grant 99 Library Grants 100 Planning Grants 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other 42.50 0.73% $6,987 $0 $6,987 $7,430 5.50 0.09% 904 0 904 7 962 4.50 0.08% 740 0 740 j 47 787 503.50 8.60% 82,780 0 82,78 5,244 88,025 168.50 2.88% 27,703 0 2004 1,755 29,458 19.00 0.32% 3,124 0 198 22 254.50 4.35% 41,842 0 2,651 4 443.50 7.58% 72,916 0 72,916 4,619 119.50 2.04% 19,647 19,647 1,245• 2 76.00 1.30% 12,495 ` 12,495 792 ` 287 108.00 1.84% 17,756 17,756 1,1 18,881 76.00 1.30% 12,495 0 12, 95 13,287 152.50 2.61% 25,072 0 25 2 26,661 6.00 0.10% 986 0 986 2 1,049 429.50 7.34% 7 • 70,6 �,474 75,088 4.00 0.07% 6 42 699 14.50 0.25% 2 384 2 384 151 2,535 54.50 0.93% 960 8,960 568 9,528 30.50 0.5 00°�O 5,014 0 14 318 5,332 1.50 0.( 24 Z 0 •`G 247 16 262 77 47.00 ,0� 7,727 490 8,217 1.00 e) 164 10 175 1.00 % 164 10 175 58. 0 �'0.9900 0 9,536 604 10,140 20 O 3.46% 33,29 0 33,293 2,109 35,402 0.10% 9866 0 986 62 1,049 0.57% 8 0 5,508 349 5,857 0.13% 0 1,233 78 1,311 N.50 3.00 0.05% p 0 493 31 524 s 2.50 0.040 411 0 411 26 437 O 33.00 0.5 00 5,426 0 5,426 344 5,769 3.50 60 575 0 575 36 612 G 36.50 0. % 6,001 0 6,001 380 6,381 718.50 0 118,128 0 118,128 7,484 125,612 96.50 65% 15,866 0 15,866 1,005 16,871 1.00 0.02% 164 0 164 10 175 214.50 3.66% 35,266 0 35,266 2,234 37,500 290.00 4.95% 47,679 0 47,679 3,021 50,699 36.50 0.62% 6,001 0 6,001 380 6,381 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:10 Purchasing MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 93 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Purchasing Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Secondal Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation Subtotal 5,854.00 100.00% 962,455 0 962,455 3 1,022,918 Direct Bills 0 Tota I 6 $1, 022 18 Basis Units: # of PO's and DP's V ` G •� �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:10 Purchasing MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 94 of 120 CONSULTING GROUP Allocation Summary Department CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Purchasing Total 3 City Manager $1,233 $1,233 4 Law Department 329 329 5 Human Resources 1,891 1,891 6 City Clerk 82 82 A 7 Director of Finance 329 329 �'qj 8 Treasury 1,726 1,726 9 Gen Acctng 1,233 1,233 10 Purchasing 1,233 1,233 12 PW Admin 612 612 • 13 PW Bldg Svcs 11,626 11,626 ` 14 PW-Street irs 25,524 25,175 524 18 Intgovt Affairs 524 524 (_/✓� 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 175 175 21 City Council 2,273 2,273 23 Court 10,752 10,752 • J► 24 Com Fac-Century2 9,091 9,091 ` 25 Expo Hall 1,049 1,049 a► 28 Fire Department 11,014 11,01412� 29 Police -Field 8,042 8,042 O � • /► 30 Police -Support 16,084 16� ^ ` 31 Police -Investigations 1,049 32 Library Operations 9,6154Q 33 Wichita Arts Council 175 75 34 Art Museum 2,273 O 2,273 35 Historical Museum 175 ` 4\ 36 Cowtown Operations 5,070 38 MAAIC 1,399 P 39 African -Am Museum 175 175 40 Aviation Museum 175 175 O 41 City Arts & Culture 7,343 7,34 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape O 10,839 10, oft 44 Public Works -Engineer 11,713 it, 1 46 Park Department-Admin Cj 87 87 48 Park Department -Recreation 21,766 49 Central Insp 962 62 50 Tourism Convention 1,923 1,923 51 Special Alcohol Drug 6,294 6,294 52 Landfill 17,570 17,570 54 Property Management Operations 1,049 1,049 56 Airport 42,133 42,133 57 Golf Course Ops 16,259 16,259 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:10 Purchasing MGT Consulting Group +*•** M G T Page 95 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Allocation Summary Department CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Purchasing Total 58 Transit Ops $7,605 $7,605 59 Gilbert/Mosley TIF 7,430 7,430 60 Economic Develop 962 962 61 North Industrial Corridor TIF 787 787 62 Sewer 88,025 88,025 V /1 63 Water -Operations 29,458 29,458 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 3,322 3,322 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 44,493 44,493 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 77,535 77,535 • 68 Storm Water Ops 20,892 20,892 ` 69 Water Projects 13,2813,28 70 Stormwater Projects 18,881 18,881 (_/✓� 71 Sewer Projects 13,287 13,287 72 IT/IS 26,661 26,661 73 Print Shop 1,049 1,049 • J► 74 PW-Fleet Fund 75,088 75,088 ` 75 Self Ins - Group Health 699 699 ^ Aa► 76 Risk -Work Comp 2,535 2,535 78 Risk -Gen Liability 9,528 9,5Z8 O �` _ • /► 79 PW-Flood Control 5,332 5, ^ ` 2 80 MAPD Planning 262 81 Env HIth Svcs 8,217 82 Pension-WER 175 175 75 85 Pension-P&F 175 O 175 86 Airport Projects 1 � 10,14040 87 CDBG 4 35,402 88 CSBWAM U1, 049 89 WAMPO-WP 857 5,857857 91 City Manager Grants 1,311 1,311 O 92 Park Grants 524 529'** 98 Environmental Health Grants ow O 437 IN 99 Library Grants 5,769 6 100 Planning Grants Ci 612 %LV 102 Police Grants 6,381 103 Public Improvements 125,612 12 104 Downtown Parking Fund 16,871 16,871 105 HOME Program 175 175 106 Wichita Housing Authority 37,500 37,500 107 Transit Grants 50,699 50,699 108 Other 6,381 6,381 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:10 Purchasing MGT Consulting Group +*•** M G T Page 96 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Allocation Summary Department Tota I CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Purchasing Total $1,022,918 $1,022,918 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:10 Purchasing MGT Consulting Group **i+i M G T Page 97 of 120 CONSULTING GROUP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Administrative Services ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Nature and Extent of Services 6�1 The Administrative Services Division includes the Internal Audit activities. Costs are alloc --.\S own below for the following allowable functions: Internal Audit —Costs are allocated based upon the number of expense a ns processed for departments during the year. City Manager Support — Costs associated with this function been allo ated based upon the f full time equivalent positions. G •� �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 98 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA A. Department Costs Description Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Contract Svcs Mat & Supp Reimbursements Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Amount General Internal Audit City Mgr Admin Support S1 170,400 0 0 170,400 .00% 00% 100.00 S 48,678 0 0 48,67 219,078 0 0 219,0 S 28,510 0 0 28,510 S 196 0 196 S 68,000 0 �k�68,000 (39,294) 0 � 39,294) 179,784 0 0 79 4 ♦ J' 0UNP 179,784 0 O 1Vt4 .`O G $1XNX AX $179,784 5310 cp 11�� ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:11 Admin Svcs MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 99 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Department First Second Internal Audit City Mgr Incoming Incoming Support 2 City Hall $561 $0 $0 $561 /►�� Subtotal Building Depreciation 561 0 0 561 [ �� 3 Manager 1,280 499 0 1,779 A ,•/ Subtotal - City Manager 1,280 499 0 1,779 V 4 Advice & Opinions 121 5 0 126 Subtotal - Law Department 121 5 0 126 ♦� 5 Personnel 1,578 91 0 1� ` Subtotal - Human Resources 1,578 91 0 6 Records 253 66 0 !�l8 Subtotal - Cit Clerk 253 66 0 318 Y 7 Finance Dir 66 00- 4 ♦� V 7 Budget 1,020 62 8 Subtotal - Director of Finance 1,086 66 �` 0 8 Cash Mgmt 5 � 5* Subtotal -Treasury 5 9 Genl Accounting 538 G 32 e 9 Payroll 6 0 O 37 7 Subtotal -Gen Acctng 1 69 ` ,227 11 Internal Audit 0 0 0 11 City Mgr Support PO 200 200 Subtotal - Admin Svcs 0 200 O 0 200 13 City Hall 0 6, 0 6,078 CSubtotal - PW Bldg SvcsO 0 ,07 0 6,078 Total Incoming 6,041 XNQ 4 0 13,115 C. Total Allocated 92,899 $0 $192,899 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept: 11 Admin Svcs MGT Consulting Group ♦**+i M G T Page 100 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Internal Audit Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs 14 PW-Street Maint. 15 Housing Admin 16 Homelessness Assistance 17 Public Information 18 Intgovt Affairs 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 21 City Council 22 Sp Assessments 23 Court 24 Corn Fac-Century2 25 Expo Hall 27 Ice Rink 28 Fire Department 29 Police -Field 30 Police -Support 31 Police -Investigations 32 Library Operations 33 Wichita Arts Council 34 Art Museum 35 Historical Museum 36 Cowtown Operations 37 Farm - Art Mkt / Plaza 38 MAAIC 39 African -Am Museum 40 Aviation Museum 41 City Arts & Culture 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 44 Public Works -Engineer 46 Park Department-Admin 47 Botanica 48 Park Department -Recreation 1,635 0.39% $0 $0 $0 $0 1,174 0.28% 0 0 0 �� 0 0 718 0.17% 0 0 0 ✓ 0 0 364 0.09% 0 0 0 0 736 0.17% 0 0 0 0 6,725 1.60% 0 0 OQ 0 0 960 0.23% 0 0 �/(� 0 695 0.16% 0 0 0 0 417 0.10% 0 0� 0 0•� 0 510 0.12% 0 0 0 ` 0 3,443 0.82% 0 0 0 10,609 2.14% 0 0 0 0 609 0.14% 0 0 0 0 1,201 0.29% 0 0 0 0 0 399 0.09% • J► 0 0 93 0.02% 0 0 473 0.11 % 0✓ 0 0 1,464 0.35% �` 0 �0 0 0 0. 34,617 8.0�°�O 0 0• G 0 0 0 6,315 01�` 0 0 0 315 e) 0 0 0 15 % 0 0 0 7,357 75% ���ppp 0 0 0 0 4 O 9.63% 0 0 0 0 " '1� 3.03% 0 0 0 0 0 1.26% 0 0 0 0 0 463 4 0.82% 0.00% O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 503 0.12°/ 0 0 0 0 0 9 O 0.0 °° 0 0 0 0 0 3,525 3°/ 0 0 0 0 0 25 G 0. 1% 0 0 0 0 0 707 ° 0 0 0 0 0 4 00% 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 2,560 0.61% 0 0 0 0 0 13,710 3.25% 0 0 0 0 0 5,979 1.42% 0 0 0 0 0 696 0.17% 0 0 0 0 0 276 0.07% 0 0 0 0 0 21,864 5.19% 0 0 0 0 0 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:11 Admin Svcs MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 101 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 Internal Audit Allocations Dept:11 Admin Svcs Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 49 Central Insp 2,198 0.52% $0 $0 $0 $0 50 Tourism Convention 58 0.01 % 0 0 0 0 0 51 Special Alcohol Drug 263 0.06% 0 0 0 0 0 52 Landfill 2,068 0.49% 0 0 0 0 54 Property Management Operations 1,075 0.26% 0 0 0 0 55 St Office Bldg 3 0.00% 0 0 OQ 0 0 56 Airport 14,320 3.40% 0 0 0 57 Golf Course Ops 14,486 3.44% 0 0 0 0 58 Transit Ops 9,364 2.22% 0 0� 0 0 • 0 59 Gilbert/Mosley TIF 817 0.19% 0 0 0 ` 0 60 Economic Develop 845 0.20% 0 0 0 61 North Industrial Corridor TIF 217 0.05% 0 0 0 0 62 Sewer 11,018 2.62% 0 0 G 00 0 63 Water -Operations 2,640 0.63% 0 `w 0 0 0 0 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 1,083 0.26% • J► 0 0 65 WS-Water Cust Acct 29 0.01 % 0 0 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 7,255 1.72% 0✓ 0 0 P 9 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 6,960 1.65% �` 0 0 0 0 68 Storm Water Ops 2,268 0.59V/° O 0 0 �0 0 0 69 Water Projects 5,541 1.01h, 0 •`G 0 0 0 70 Stormwater Projects 3,735 ` 01� 0 0 0 71 Sewer Projects 3,533 ` 0 0 0 721T/IS 3,163 % 0 0 0 73 Print Shop 246 .06% P 0 0 0 0 74 PW-Fleet Fund O 0.94% ` 0 0 0 0 75 Self Ins - Group Health 3 0.31% 0 0 0 0 0 76 Risk -Work Comp 0.97% 0 0 0 0 77 Self Ins - Group Life 100 0.02% 0 0 0 0 78 Risk -Gen Liability 11181 0.28% O 0 0 0 0 0 79 PW-Flood Control 996 0.240 0 0 0 0 0 80 MAPD Planning O 1,043 0. °° 0 0 0 0 0 81 Env Hlth Svcs Ci 9,751 10 0 0 0 0 0 82 Pension-WER 442 0. % 0 0 0 0 0 83 Pension Management 451 ° 0 0 0 0 0 84 Pension Plan 3B 817 19% 0 0 0 0 0 85 Pension-P&F 418 0.10% 0 0 0 0 0 86 Airport Projects 547 0.13% 0 0 0 0 0 87 CDBG 3,681 0.87% 0 0 0 0 0 88 CSBG 776 0.18% 0 0 0 0 0 89 WAMPO-UWP 3,476 0.83% 0 0 0 0 0 90 WSCCAP 140 0.03% 0 0 0 0 0 91 City Manager Grants 81 0.02% 0 0 0 0 0 MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 102 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Internal Audit Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 92 Park Grants 93 Finance Grants 94 Law Grants 95 Municipal Court Grants 96 Emergency Shelter HUD 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grants 99 Library Grants 100 Planning Grants 101 Public Works Grants 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: # of Accounting Transactions (Exp + COP 43 33 458 5 861 418 1,114 174 57 2 3,396 25,489 3,281 674 47,949 6,019 11,254 421,223 0.01 % 0.01 % 0.11% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 0.26% 0.04% 0.01 % 0.00% 0.81 % 6.05% 0.78% 0.16% 11.38% 1.43% 2.67% 100.0w. $0 $0 $0 /►%NW $0 0 0 0 [ w 0 0 0 0 0 ��/J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OQ 0 0 0 0 �/(� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0•�� 0 0 0 0 ` 0 0 0 0 0 �0 C) 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0 0 • J► 0 0 0 0 0✓ 0 0 o A_ o� 0 0 0 o� IN ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:11 Admin Svcs MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 103 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN City Mgr Support Allocations Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 3 City Manager 29.21 0.90% $1,673 $0 $1,673 /► $1,673 4 Law Department 24.96 0.77% 1,429 0 1,429 0 1,429 5 Human Resources 15.17 0.47% 869 0 869 �vJ 0 869 6 City Clerk 2.00 0.06% 115 0 11 0 115 7 Director of Finance 8.08 0.25% 463 0 0 463 8 Treasury 14.33 0.44% 821 0 0 21 9 Gen Acctng 14.00 0.43% 802 0 0 10 Purchasing 10.25 0.32% 587 0 587 0 11 Admin Svcs 3.50 0.11% 200 0� 200 0• sw 0 12 PW Admin 8.25 0.25% 472 472 19 ` 491 13 PW Bldg Svcs 44.25 1.36% 2,534 2,534 �12,634 14 PW-Street Maint. 100.42 3.09% 5,750 0 50 5,978 15 Housing Admin 2.00 0.06% 115 0 C15 119 17 Public Information 2.75 0.08% 157 0 157 6 164 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 2.92 0.090/0 7 • 1 J► 7 174 21 City Council 12.33 0.38% 7 28 734 P 22 S Assessments 5.00 0.15% 286 286 11 298 23 Court 81.92 2.52% 691 wl 186 4,876 24 Corn Fac-Century2 39.76 1.23% O 2,277 0 7 90 2,367 25 Expo Hall 1.08 0. °� 6 0 • G 62 2 64 28 Fire Department 455.83 1 ` 26,1 26,102 1,032 27,134 29 Police -Field 523.29 1 29,965 1,185 31,150 30 Police -Support 145.08 c' % 8,308 329 8,636 31 Police -Investigations 180. 3 .56% 0 10,326 408 10,734 32 Library Operations 11 O 3.53% 6,55 0 6,552 259 6,811 34 Art Museum 0.35% 6530 653 26 679 36 Cowtown Operations 0.33% 19 ` 0 619 24 643 38 MAAIC .25 0.13% 0 243 10 253 41 City Arts & Culture 18.70 0.58% 1, 1 0 1,071 42 1,113 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape 93.46 2.880 ,352 0 5,352 212 5,563 44 Public Works -Engineer ow O 66.25 2.0 00 3,794 0 3,794 150 3,944 46 Park Department-Admin 7.67 40 439 0 439 17 457 47 Botanica 4.00 0. % 229 0 229 9 238 48 Park Department -Recreation 113.89 0 6,522 0 6,522 258 6,779 49 Centrallnsp 34.08 05% 1,951 0 1,951 77 2,029 52 Landfill 8.90 0.27% 510 0 510 20 530 54 Property Management Operations 2.00 0.06% 115 0 115 5 119 56 Airport 141.17 4.35% 8,084 0 8,084 320 8,403 57 Golf Course Ops 93.06 2.87% 5,329 0 5,329 211 5,540 58 Transit Ops 23.75 0.73% 1,360 0 1,360 54 1,414 60 Economic Develop 2.00 0.06% 115 0 115 5 119 62 Sewer 142.42 4.39% 8,155 0 8,155 323 8,478 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept: 11 Admin Svcs MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 104 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 City Mgr Support Allocations Dept:11 Admin Svcs Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I , �6,1 63 Water -Operations 17.71 0.55°/G $1,014 $0 $1,014 /► $1,054 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 17.50 0.54% 1,002 0 1,002 [ N� 0 1,042 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 74.13 2.28% 4,245 0 4,245 �vJ 168 4,413 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 78.33 2.41% 4,485 0 4,48177 4,663 68 Storm Water Ops 37.42 1.15% 2,143 0 04, 8 85 2,227 721T/IS 54.58 1.68% 3,125 0 124 3L249 74 PW-Fleet Fund 46.25 1.43% 2,648 0 105 t19 53 76 Risk -Work Comp 2.00 0.06% 115 0 115 5 78 Risk -Gen Liability 2.00 0.06% 115 115 5*4 19 79 PW-Flood Control 23.92 0.74% 1,370 11370 54 ,424 80 MAPD Planning 12.75 0.39% 730 730 759 81 Env Hlth Svcs 26.85 0.83% 1,537 0 1, 37 1,598 83 Pension Management 6.00 0.18% 344 0 4 357 87 CDBG 45.38 1.40% 2,599 0 ,599 3 2,701 88 CSBG 6.00 k4� 0.18°/G• 3 J► 14 357 97 Fire Grants 6.00 0.18°/G 3 14 357 98 Environmental Health Grants 3.00 0.09°/G 172 7 179 102 Police Grants 10.58 0.33% �`606 X6 24 630 vo 103 Public Improvements 2.68 0.0153 0 3 6 160 104 Downtown Parking Fund 2.00 0.4� 11 0 •`G 115 5 119 105 HOME Program 1.00 '�V� 01A57 2 60 106 Wichita Housing Authority 35.17 ` 2,014 80 2,094 107 Transit Grants 111.98 °/G 6,412 254 6,666 108 Other 3. 0 Q. 0 172 7 179 Subtotal 3, N 100.00% 185 825 0 185,825 7,074 192,899 Direct Bills � 0 0 Total $185,825 $192,899 Basis Units: # of Full Time Equivalen s on 0 MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 105 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs 14 PW-Street Maint. 15 Housing Admin 17 Public Information 20 N'hood Initiative/Centers 21 City Council 22 Sp Assessments 23 Court 24 Com Fac-Century2 25 Expo Hall 28 Fire Department 29 Police -Field 30 Police -Support 31 Police -Investigations 32 Library Operations 34 Art Museum 36 Cowtown Operations CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Internal Audit City Mgr Total Support $0 $1,673 $1,673 0 1,429 1,429 0 869 869 0 115 115 A 0 463 821 �(�//' 0 821 80 0 587 587 0 587 587 0 491 ` 0 2,63 2,63634 978 5,978 0 1119 0 164 64 16464 0 174 • � J► 0 734 ` 0 298 2 0 4,876 876 00 2,3�7 O 2,6367 ) /► ♦ V 0� 27,1 0 36 0 O 6,734 811 `� 6,67 F6,81 moo` 679 679 643 3 38 MAAIC 0 253 41 City Arts & Culture '' 0 11113 q63 42 Park -Forestry -Landscape V) 0 5,56� 44 Public Works -Engineer O 0 3, 3,944 46 Park Department-Admin 0 45 457 47 Botanica Cj 0 38 238 48 Park Department -Recreation 49 Central Insp 52 Landfill 54 Property Management Operations 56 Airport 57 Golf Course Ops 58 Transit Ops 60 Economic Develop 0 6,779 0 29 2,029 0 530 530 0 119 119 0 8,403 8,403 0 5,540 5,540 0 1,414 1,414 0 119 119 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:11 Admin Svcs MGT Consulting Group +*•** M G T Page 106 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Allocation Summary Department 62 Sewer 63 Water -Operations 64 Water Sys Plan/Dev 66 WS-Prod / Pumping 67 WS-Trmnt/Distrib 68 Storm Water Ops 72 IT/IS 74 PW-Fleet Fund 76 Risk -Work Comp 78 Risk -Gen Liability 79 PW-Flood Control 80 MAPD Planning 81 Env Hlth Svcs 83 Pension Management 87 CDBG 88 CSBG 97 Fire Grants 98 Environmental Health Grant 102 Police Grants 103 Public Improvements 104 Downtown Parking Fund 105 HOME Program 106 Wichita Housing Authority 107 Transit Grants 108 Other Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Internal Audit City Mgr Total Support $0 $8,478 $8,478 0 1,054 1,054 0 1,042 1,042 0 4,413 4,413 0 , , 0 2,227 2,227 'qj 0 3,249 3,249 0 2,753 2,753 0 119 119 0 1 119 0 1,424 1,24 �+ 0 759 759 759 (_/✓� 759 0 1,598 1,598 0 357 357 0 2,701 1 • + J► 0 357 ` 0 357 3 s 0 179 �` 179 0 330 O 6316 0 D' 0 0 94 0 6,666 O 179 17 $192,899 $19 9 O O CG 0 AkV ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:11 Admin Svcs MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 107 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Public Works Administration ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Nature and Extent of Services 6�1 The mission of Public Works Administration is to provide coordination, guidance and supq �es for the operating divisions of the department, including Building Services, Engineering, Fleet, and Maintenance, so that ern es are freed to focus directly on serving the public. Support services include: records management, human resources coordinatio0olicy development and financial management. Costs are allocated as shown below for the following allowable functions: n- Department Administration —Costs are allocated based upon the sal rie f the Public Wor5ns administered. G •� �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 108 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA A. Department Costs Description Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Contract Svcs Mat & Sup Capital Revenues Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Capital Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Amount General Dept Admn Admin S1 211,071 0 211,071 .00% 100.00 S 64,368 0 64,368 275,439 0 275,439 o'V V S 611,908 0 611,908 S 11,212 0 11,212k D 0 0 1 ` S 4,002 0 4,002 619,118 0 8 C 894,557 0 4,557 ♦ � V D 0 ` 0 0 894, 0 Z94,557 ♦`G P colp 11�� o` ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:12 PW Admin MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 109 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Custom%) Department First Second Dept Admn Incoming Incoming 1 Equipment Depreciation $4,980 $0 $4,980 Subtotal - Equipment Depreciation 4,980 0 4,980 2 City Hall 15,205 0 15,205 A Subtotal - Building Depreciation 15,205 0 15,205 3 Manager 3,017 1,175 4,192 Subtotal - City Manager 3,017 1,175 4,192 4 Advice &Opinions 286 12 297 4 Dept Support 255,681 11,7267,401 Subtotal -Law Department 255,96967 11,732 32 267,69699 (_/✓� 5 Personnel 3,719 214 3,933 Subtotal - Human Resources 3,719 214 • J► 6 Records 595 155 7 Subtotal -City Clerk 595 155 �`750 7 Finance Dir 238 4 0 25 'G 2 7 Budget 2,404 L 2,5:0 Subtotal - Director of Finance 2,643 8 Cash M9 mt 5 G 0 Subtotal - Treasury O 0 9 Genl Accounting 39 97P 9 Payroll 461 88 ogzk Subtotal - Gen Acctng 21119 127 1 2, 5 10 Purchasing 575 612 Subtotal - Purchasing O 575 3 612 11 Internal Audit Cj 0 0 11 City Mgr Support 472 19 491 ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:12 PW Admin MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 110 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Custom%) Department First Second Dept Admn Subtotal - Admin Svcs 13 City Hall Subtotal - PW Bldg Svcs Total Incoming C. Total Allocated Incoming Incoming $472 $19 $491 0 164,605 164,605 0 164,605 164,605 A 289,297 178,224 467,521 $1,362,078 $1,362,078 V G •� �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:12 PW Admin MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 111 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Dept Admn Allocations Department Units 13 PW Bldg Svcs 14 PW-Street Maint. 44 Public Works -Engineer 68 Storm Water Ops 74 PW-Fleet Fund 79 PW-Flood Control Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: Salaries of Divisions 2,043,944.52 4, 379, 228.71 1,615,632.50 1,785,432.28 2,571,528.35 1,106, 692.01 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation 15.14% $179,207 $0 $179,207 4 97 $206,186 32.43% 383,957 0 383,957 ,M3 441,760 11.97% 141,654 0 141,654 325 162,979 13.22% 156,541 0 156,54 23,567 180,108 19.04% 225,464 0 2205j2 V 33,943 259,406 8.20% 97,031 0 9 14,608 111�39 13,502,458.37 100.00% 1,183,854 0 N83,854 178,224 9— ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:12 PW Admin MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 112 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 13 PW Bldg Svcs 14 PW-Street Maint. 44 Public Works -Engineer 68 Storm Water Ops 74 PW-Fleet Fund 79 PW-Flood Control Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Dept Admn Total $206,186 $206,186 441,760 441,760 162,979 162,979 180,108 180,108 259,406 259,406 111,639 111,639 $1,362,078 $1,362,078 z� 0& ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:12 PW Admin MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 113 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Public Works — Building Services Nature and Extent of Services The mission of Public Works - Building Services is to maintain an efficient infrastructure ok$ractive, and properly functioning City buildings, structures, and related facilities that best meet the needs of the public and of &DkIployees providing service to the public. Costs are allocated as shown below for the following allowable functions: o'n- General and Administration — Costs are allocated based upon the oth nal salaries withi \department. City Hall — Associated costs are allocated based upon occupant's s Se footage.�0 Other Buildings — Costs associated with building servic fo er b 'Idi s aretl cc t`d based upon the direct Departmental g g �g p p expenditures. `` Note, the Health Department Building, and several buildin tha wer 6`sly classi�Fi�d as 'Other Buildings' were reclassified as direct costs for FY 2014. � �► .`O O , G O Q' P COP 0 AkV MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 114 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA A. Department Costs Description Personnel Costs Salaries Salary % Split Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Costs Services & Supplies Cost Contract Svcs Mat & Supp Inventory Revs & Reimb Subtotal - Services & Supplies Department Cost Total Adjustments to Cost Inventory Subtotal - Adjustments Total Costs After Adjustments General Admin Distribution Grand Total S1 P P D P 0 COP CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Amount General City Hall Other Bldgs Admin 2,043,945 0 1,588,448 455,497 .00% 77.71 % 22.29 897,433 0 727,624 169,80 2,941,378 0 2,316,072 625,E 1,629,508 301,677 0 0 0 0 1,145,102 178,2194t 0 84,406 123,458 0 ♦� 159 0 121 ` 1,931,026 0 3 QO.4 3 4,872,404 0 9,355 49 9 ♦ � V 0 ` 0✓ 0 0 0 4,872�39,XN ♦'2 3,049 V �� o` ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:13 PW Bldg Svcs MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 115 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Dept:13 PW Bldg Svcs Department First Second City Hall Other Bldgs Incoming Incoming 1 Equipment Depreciation $216,050 $0 $167,903 $48,147 /►����"" Subtotal Equipment Depreciation 216,050 0 167,903 48,147 [ �� 2 City Hall 936 0 727 209 A v Subtotal - Building Depreciation 936 0 727 209 V 3 Manager 16,183 6,304 17,475 5,011 Subtotal - City Manager 16,183 6,304 17,475 5,011 4 Advice &Opinions 1,532 62 1,239 Subtotal - Law Department 1,532 62 1,239 5 Personnel 19,948 1,150 16,396 G 02 Subtotal -Human Resources 19,948 1,150 16,396 /1�4,702 6 Records 3,193 831 3 V Subtotal - City Clerk 3,193 831 3,1 �9 ►� 7 Finance Dir 1,291 W7 1,064 305 7 Budget 12,896 10,63Q., 31048� G Subtotal - Director of Finance 14,188 11,6 3,3531�` 8 Cash Mgmt 14 1 Subtotal - Treasury 14 O 1 4 9 Genl Accounting 4"1` 263 3 657 1,049 9 Payroll 470 4P 1,851 Subtotal - Gen Acctng 1 276 734 2,899 10 Purchasing 10,933 69 35 2,591 Subtotal - Purchasing O 10,933 9,035 2,591 11 Internal Audit ow 0 0 0 11 City Mgr Support 2,534 1 2,047 587 Subtotal - Admin Svcs 2,534 00 2,047 587 12 Dept Admn 179,207 26,979 160,237 45,949 MGT Consulting Group +**** M G T Page 116 of 120 CONSULTING GROVP Subtotal - PW Admin 13 City Hall Subtotal - PW Bldg Svcs Total Incoming C. Total Allocated CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN B. Incoming Costs - (Default Spread Salary%) Department First Second City Hall Other Bldgs Incoming Incoming $179,207 $26,979 $160,237 $45,949 0 10,130 7,872 2,257 0 10,130 7,872 2,257 A 476,994 47,842 407,875 116,961 $5,397,240 $4,047,230 $1,350,010 74.99%O 25.01D%;k • �V/ V ` G �O O • G O Q' P 0 G � ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:13 PW Bldg Svcs MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 117 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS ACTUAL FY 2018 FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN 7/25/2019 City Hall Allocations Dept:13 PW Bldg Svcs Department Units Allocation First Direct Billed Department Second Ilk, al Percent Allocation Allocation Allocation I ' �6'1 3 City Manager 10,100 5.10% $204,617 $0 $204,617 $204,617 4 Law Department 3,230 1.63% 65,437 0 65,437 jc_ 0 65,437 5 Human Resources 3,000 1.52% 60,777 0 60,777 ✓ 0 60,777 6 City Clerk 2,825 1.43% 57,232 0 57,23 0 57,232 7 Director of Finance 2,630 1.33% 53,281 0 53 0 53,281 8 Treasury 3,035 1.53% 61,486 0 6 0 61 9 Gen Acctng 3,230 1.63% 65,437 0 0 6 10 Purchasing 2,780 1.40% 56,320 0 56,320 0 11 Admin Svcs 300 0.15% 6,078 6,078 0 8 12 PW Admin 8,125 4.10% 164,605 �` 164,605 0 ` 4,605 13 PW Bldg Svcs 500 0.25°/G 10,130 10,130 10,130 15 Housing Admin 9,500 4.80°/G 192,462 0 92, 62 2, 194,695 17 Public Information 100 0.05°/G 2,026 0 2 6 2,049 18 Intgovt Affairs 200 0.10% 4,052 0 052 47 4,099 21 City Council 3,000 1.52% 6 7 60,77 705 61,482 22 Sp Assessments 250 0.13% 5, 5,0 59 5,124 23 Court 21,455 10.84% 4,6 434,659 5,043 439,702 28 Fire Department 6,462 3.26°/G �C�6 914 1�14 1,519 132,433 29 Police -Field 12,925 6.53°/G 4 1,849 0 021849 9 3,038 264,887 30 Police -Support 12,925 6. °� 261,84 0� 3,038 264,887 31 Police -Investigations 11,925` 241,5 `241,590 2,803 244,393 44 Public Works -Engineer 6,463 $0/0 1 130,935 1,519 132,454 46 Park Department-Admin 6,462 a130,914 1,519 132,433 60 Economic Develop 3,380 1f.71% 7,4 0 68,476 794 69,270 63 Water -Operations O 4.45% 70 178,382 2,070 180,451 72 IT/IS _' 757% 300 303,380 3,520 306,900 75 Self Ins - Group Health 0.05% 2P 0 2,026 24 2,049 76 Risk -Work Comp 700 0.35% � 0 14,181 165 14,346 82 Pension-WER 300 0.15% �6,1j18 0 6,078 71 6,148 85 Pension-P&F 300 0.15°/ 78 0 6,078 71 6,148 108 Other O 37,956 19.1 °G 768,955 0 768,955 8,921 777,877 Subtotal G 197,938 0. % 4,010,050 0 4,010,050 37,180 4,047,230 Direct Bills 0 0 Total $4,010,050 $4,047,230 Basis Units: Square Footage Occupied MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 118 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN Other Bldgs Allocations Department Units Allocation Percent 108 Other Subtotal Direct Bills Total Basis Units: Direct to Other First Direct Billed Department Second a Allocation Allocation Allocation 100 100.00% $1,339,348 $0 $1,339,348 �„$#Q,662 $1,350,010 (i► 100 100.00% 1,339,348 0 1,339,348 ,662 1,350,010 C7f n N Nap ej\- N ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:13 PW Bldg Svcs MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 119 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Allocation Summary Department 3 City Manager 4 Law Department 5 Human Resources 6 City Clerk 7 Director of Finance 8 Treasury 9 Gen Acctng 10 Purchasing 11 Admin Svcs 12 PW Admin 13 PW Bldg Svcs 15 Housing Admin 17 Public Information 18 Intgovt Affairs 21 City Council 22 Sp Assessments 23 Court 28 Fire Department 29 Police -Field 30 Police -Support 31 Police -Investigations 44 Public Works -Engineer 46 Park Department-Admin 60 Economic Develop 63 Water -Operations 72 IT/IS 75 Self Ins - Group Health 76 Risk -Work Comp 82 Pension-WER 85 Pension-P&F 108 Other Total CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS FEDERAL 2 CFR 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN City Hall Other Bldgs Total $204,617 $0 $204,617 65,437 0 65,437 60,777 0 60,777 57,232 0 57,232 A 61,281 0 61,281 �(�//' 61,437 0 61,486 37 56,320 0 56,320 56,320 0 56,320 6,06,078• �� 164,605 605 0 164,605605 1,0 10,130 194,695 0 194,695 2 ,049049 0 2,049 4,099 0 4,099 61,482 0 6 • J► 5,124 0 5, ` 439,702 0 9,7 _/� 64,887 0 % 6 433 264,887 •0 O 4,887 264,887 n 264,88 •`G 244,393 244,3 132,]t0 454 • I 1 132,433 G 0 69,270 0 180,40 0 80,451 3069 0 306 900 0 9P 1 346 0 6,148 0 6, 8 6,148 148 777,877 1,350, �'127,887 O G$4,047,230 $145ND101 $5,397,240 V ACTUAL FY 2018 7/25/2019 Dept:13 PW Bldg Svcs MGT Consulting Group Oi*i M G T Page 120 of 120 CONSULTING GROVA Section 8G�j� Schedule of Expenditures of Federal ards gc gc �c gc �cT m n n n n n m m m m m 3 m m v D x° T v cn v x m n v y CD o m m m m m e e e e e e e e e e e e Nn N N N N N CD e. n O y n n n n N yn C T C n O N y O m m O- K 0 Q Q 3° T O oo N fD y>> m m m m m a w m m m m ° T D m m m m m m a m m m m w' Q w -n o m o Q °p y ' m 0 0 0 m co 3 T o w C o 9 C d >>>>> v v v v v v v v v v v v y a a a a a ° y a a o. ace v c 0 ° CD c n n n n n �< �< �< �< �< �< �< �< �< �< �< �< �• o m C G G G G G �• m a�i 2 ° m C ? m C U) CD = oo � > > > j o m C 33 zy m G� <n -g � � � � � � � � � � p W W W W W O; �' (n 0.., O-., O~ 07 07 07 07 O _ O 2 p a, N m Q n < C3D p N M. M. 0 0 0 o o m m m m m m m m m m m m c N 9 9 N 9�� m 3 3 3 3 3=>>>> c a m (� � m N c 3 3 N•o °��<�� m � c m 0 3 3 3 3 3 > > > > > > > > > > > > mmmmm-N� ODDDDD�m m m m m�� �.�c T °O�D� To G� o n3 �0 0--jZ' O Cn Cn C C C C C CO (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 N 0 n, 0 0 0 M m N N N N N, N CD CD CD CD O (0 .7. �' m N -�fl n �% O C O 7 m CD �. m n 3 m m 3 3 2 2 2.m m m m m m m m m m m m 3=___= o N N N N N 3 3 3 3 3 N n ° o o o D ° 2. x 0 x a o 0 (D (D '� '� '� '� '� a a a a a a a a a a a a 40i N N N N 3 °1 m>>>> j v o 0 0 o N� o N � M m° N �� � ink v� .� °c d G 3 c° m 0? m� N C y O O O O O N iD m m m N, n (0 ? N„ O .Oe C �� O m N a. N CD N m m F 3 000000000000p m m m m m 1 0 CD CD CD x'ma m 2 � m m0> > ° ° 0 C, O c0 CO CO CO CO O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O m ° O W W W W N 0 (1#) O CD n O CD N O N G) a. c c c c O ti 3 m O N N W N N -. m 3 3 3 3 3 m m���� 0 0 ° m o' 2� n G c � v m p m m m m m m C C C C C d C 1 N C CL O O O N N (D 6) N N .< `G 'G 'G 'G C C C C C C C C C C C C �' m m m m m? K O O O O CCD) O `z (D C m C a "O O O L 3 3 ° O CD CD CD 0 m 3 0-0 mc0 x m N N N 0 0 0 C i In (D T T T T T N 7 n 1 � O (7 � O C_ 7 m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N 3 m r. y Cn n CD m 'n 6 N G' (N N N N �_ O 'N < '0 3 N m N CD 0 Cl) CD a,cn O O p ti o 3 3 3 3 3 m m m m �/ ' a n m 3 m 0 W 7 m N N N N Vv/ C7 n' CCD �. o ci Gi Gi Gi y C, • w 1 05 N m 3>>>> > vr&j 3 C. CD m � co co co 3 � 7 •� 7 3 N N G CT CT fT fT fT CT CT A A A A A A A A A A A A W W W W W W - `� N N N = N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A' Z m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 CT O O O O W CJI A A A A A A A A A n7 C n CD CD CD CD CA CD N IV C> C> C> Iv Iv Iv Iv Iv Iv Iv O) O) O) O) O) Cn w w w w V V V CT O QD O co O QD M N N - O 6 0 N O O O O O O O O O O Cl Cl Cl O O O O N N N N N O V V V G7 G7 co A O O Cfl V V V V 0 (D W O O O O O O O O (TI (TI (TI O O (T1 (T1 (T1 (T1 (TI (T1 (T1 O O O O O V� CT CT VI O O O u/ _ CJl A T CD N— O O CO OD D N � V (n V1 C/J [n Cl) T. Z Z Z C Z Z Z Z Z Z Z �6D W N N V7 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v o 0 o m m m Nrn�rnAcnrnrnrnrn -m CA 0 (/� GO GO GO w-4rn0 D � �N V 0 O V V W V W V O O W CO -/Vr 7 y O O A 0 0 0 0- CO W V N O O A O W V /� Q � ___♦ NO S A O1 (DAAN jO000a a 000000 V DD DD N�o1��jn o V Ce 3 O O O W V O V O tAJt CAJ1 W W_W N X N V C Q.0000� C) P � N 6 7 j O g O N CD O V M O n C co O G i i i I� W V � �p -p m N 0 o a) n Sn co i i W OOD N W '' N O (n m x O V A A W O N N O N (D W fT (D A CT N V CT W N W N Ln N O N cn to p, m CD V W A CT N CJ) A O W O O M A W CA N N V O O W j O O) V CD 01 O A V W j A OD O N O) A N O O A A On O (n N V 4 W O V (T W O V CD W GT O O O O O O O O CT O O W C a 08 N OD W A O W A O CA O j O CA N O CD A CD A j A W O� CA A W 0) A V A V A 0) N IV N cn O qD N cn 8 t) A W CT M M CD O O T V O A CT A A CD O (D V CD CT CD A CD O (T1 W V O A V O O W W CD N CD A CD O A A A V O O W O CD y N N w A A CP O O O N V CD A W V w w 00 W O O CD Co w co 0) O O 0 q N O C7) N 00 N (7) CT O A V W V W N W O O m O ElF m d a 0 CD CD N 0 00 gc Tm 'Ti �c mcT (7 2 2 T 2 n ((A D S 2 2 y m 001, 000 o) Vl Z (n Cl) D y in a fU y T (� (� y 0 � S S y O O O y O C C y (D W° v � v N K N a m N W ° y y T m m n< °- a a Q 3 3 3 a v o m m o n m n N N = '� °—' c �° 7> N m N N? (D c N N S c cM. c� v c v < < Z �< < i ° C 13 �D = = a � 'm 'm o � � � 0 3 � (n (n (n o o > ? (D -. -. c ° c c O c c c 3 m_ >>° m � a° ? i CD n � m m m °° ° a a o m o p 9' n m m CD 0) c ('D 3, fD 2 2 m �� v �. �. �. m o o m--� v o m c n n 3 3 c> y m 3 m(D wl N N N ti m -3v_ (AD (�D y CD a o m C y (cn G� m � m m m ti �, °° y W W W °; °- c° m m o y° 3 n (D O m N v ° 3 3 c° c°� c°� o m v 3 mo M a 20 a - -. ° ? ?a xxxc > > va o ° 5 v QQL)y a v 3 m° �' 3 m ° c d W W 3 v d '2 CDm R. _ ° o m CD (n D (D _ y N .Old o> T. T. �3i. m d 0 °- O� °-� Q y N a L) L) o yo ° j D D° CD IDw'm= c(n y 0 N CCL D n T co C N N Z CD y y 3 � y ° n m 3 3 o CD v NCD m 3 y Z,ej Nm y J �D Vj 5. p C CD Cb ffl fA fH fH ffl Efl O T O N 0 6) O) C N COTI W (°D V49 V_ y O OOD A A (D (D to co (D O O O O Z (TI V �� W W W W W Q)D)D)T c nm V O O O CDUn (n 0) (T (n ? O O CD :3 v N A� (V7i ((n (DD(DtOo O A A (CD D N NN (n0(n OO -4 7s A A �0Li pOO �p 0 1t` DD oo D N c m a� P 69 6 c c O v (D O N (), C y G PI) � sn 00 PO fA E9 X p W (D 7 V A N W N PO D) to N N W O CD -nN ao V W A (D V (li POcn O N D V aD (D C 6- W A W O Co O (D a 0 V O A V Co O T O N N O O Ol O V V OI cn A (D O V A O O A (Ti y p� 4 W N V (Ti O T N N N V W Co O W N co n O n 9 Section Indirect Cost Rate -base Detae CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE DETAIL OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major 43 Sum of Rate Base MGT Index 92 93 95 97 98 ' y9 102 103 01; ichita 104 151 155 Emergency Lib nning HOME sing Transit MGT Object Combo CDBG CSBG WSCCAP Shelter HUD Gran Grants Program ity Grants Park Grants Fire Grants 1100 - Bi-weekly wages 648,978 276,704 14,999 1,292 49,Z3� , 913 365,184 235,998 1101- Longevity 6,368 4,869 7 26,819 421 110- Education pay 575 1104 -Shift differential � � 169 1,548 1105 - Hazard duty pay 1125 - Paid leaves 98,685 51,116 6,018 245,490 46,469 23,042 1126 - Injury leave ♦ �/ 43 2,474 1190 - Accrual 3,666 1,578 0& 94 ` J 235 8,427 18,052 1195 - Delegate agencies - payroll 480,578 74,017 59,20 ♦•/ 37,782 58,960 1199 - Other � /►� / ]► 11,370 1200 - Part time/seasonal 141,234 ♦ O V t ♦ ( jV 33,483 1,266 1202 - Bi-weekly wages WT drivers/maintenance V f`V 27 2,583,141 1204 - Clothing allowance ` 150 -3,900 1205 - Auto allowance 7,088 9 ` 9,746 53 100 1208 - Cellular phone allowance 4,400 ` 3,050 600 1211- Longevity WT drivers/maintenance O 35,660 1214 - Shift Differential WT drivers/maint 4,974 1215 - Paid Leaves WT drivers/maintenance 295,231 1216 - Overtime WT drivers/maintenance 631,598 1217 - Shift Differential 1st WT drivers/maint O 157 1229 - Police Physical Fitness Bonus 1230 - Bonus Pay O 23,474 1233 - Holiday WT drivers/maintenance 135,219 1300 - Premium -Overtime 117 Lu 25,188 35,921 2,051 1301- Straight 29 2,662 588 699 1302 - Court appearance 1303 - Holiday 97 13,137 1400 - FICA 65,335 24,097 1,141 90 4,125 129,106 240,971 97 3,890 1401- Employee pension 97,143 38,540 1,910 159 7,237 203,339 51,875 1402 - Police and fire pension 149 50,212 1403 - Workers compensation 9,433 3,681 168 29 619 19,390 144,641 44 8,191 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE DETAIL OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major 43 Sum of Rate Base MGT Index 92 93 95 97 98 ' y9✓ 102 103 �VV/ 5jchita Emergency Libnning HOME ng MGT Object Combo CDBG CSBG WSCCAP Shelter HUD Gran Grants Program ty 1404 - Unemployment compensation 858 315 15 1 ♦ _CV,04 1405 - Group health insurance 144,213 77,181 4,617 243 9,5& 436,704 1406 - Group life insurance 1,225 657 0 V 2 1 3,116 1407 - Central States - Transit 1408 - Deferred compensation G 0 1410-Tuition reimbursement 1411- EMT Recert Reimbursement ♦ �j��,/ 1413 - Dental insurance -employer ` J 1414 - Health insurance -employer WAMPO ♦•/ 1415- Vision insurance -employer /'�� /►�/]► 1495 - Employee benefits -delegate agencies 63,754 20,448 ♦ O l/ t ♦ ( jV 1499 - Employee benefits in aggregate 2,200 V `V -3,091 2100 - Electricity 812 127,349 2101- Gas-ONEOK Kansas Gas Service ,886 37,291 2102 -Gas-Black Hills O � 5,851 2104 - Water �� 58,439 2106 - Landfill P 102 2107 - Trash service 125 84,010 2108 - Hazardous materials disposal 5,07p 2120 - Client utility assistance O 2195 - Delegate agencies - utilities 113,501 2200 - PBX - line charges OW O 893 798 Oft 2201- PBX - instrument charges 2,115 1,89 2203 - Long distance service Qj 2204 - Local services 2206 - Pagers and mobile phones 2207 - Postage - regular 2210 - Shipping and freight 2211- Express mail 2212 - CATV (Cable) 2214 - Air cards - mobile 11;�� 505 521 82 1,225 542,965 7,259 11,458 1,208 3,288 426 2 25 24,567 160 134 80 38 2,773 5,351 104 151 Transit Grants 4,057 993,117 6,174 641,847 14,098 33 316 8 0 12 245 155 Park Grants Fire Grants 1 268 84,120 346 180 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE DETAIL OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major Sum of Rate Base MGT Object Combo 2215 - Plexar 2216 - Voice mail 2217 - Internet Service 2218 - Automatic Call Distribution 2295 - Delegate agencies -phone, comm 2296 - Delegate agencies-postage/ship 2299 - Other -Communications 2300 - Auto tags and titles 2301- Meals and lodging allowance 2302 - Out of town registration fees 2303 - In town registration fees 2304 - Training consultants 2307 - Employee - in -town mileage 2308 - Transportation - out of town 2310 - Turnpike fees and charges 2395 - Delegate agencies - travel and training 2399 - Other training/transportation 2400 - Building and contents insurance 43 MGT Index 92 CDBG 574 2,819 153 93 95 97 98 0j9 102 103 VV �iclhi'ta Emergency Lib nning HOME sig CSBG WSCCAP Shelter HUD Gran Grants Program y t �774 588 0, 2,079 -28 ,997 '� 6,133 76 263 G 0& X*X+*_ 920 5,88,126 3,175 175 1,080 O D'� 2,16 13 381 � � �2,487 531 82 O Old` " 87,818 2402 - General liability 2495 - Delegate agency insurance chgs /� V✓1 O 12,304 2499 - Other insurance 50 2500 - Certification fees O 150 2501- Pre -employment expenses 1,850 2502 -Medical and laboratory services 6,223 71, 2503 - Studies/Consultants 863 2504 - Engineering 3,653 2505 - Contractors 389,651 2507 - Audits 1,623 442 2508 - Temporary help 2509 - Appraisal/inspection 1,625 2512 - Credit report -2,045 185 18,668 40,274 3,569 11,094 2,695 14 110,399 33,479 30,172 275 303 6,335 250 628 12,826 336 875 37,362 104 151 155 Transit Grants Park Grants Fire Grants 711 21,116 1,905 790 8,107 6 8,482 225 5,759 45 369 25,296 14,774 3,874 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE DETAIL OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major 43 Sum of Rate Base MGT Index 92 MGT Object Combo 2514 - Laboratory services 2516 - Sublet repairs 2519 - Background checks 2540 - Management Fees 2541- Bookkeeping Fees 2542 - Asset Management Fees 2599 - Other professional services 2600 - Data center charges 2601- Maintenance - data equipment 2700 - Motor pool - scheduled charges 2701- Motor pool -unscheduled charges 2702 - Lease/rent equipment 2703 - Maintenance - equipment 2704 - Car washes 2705 - Outside services 2706 -Towel rental service 2707 - Cylinder rental -compressed gas 2708 - Uniform rental service 2795 - Delegate agen-equip rent/maint 2799 - Other equipment charges 2801- Lease/Rent-Buildings or grounds 2802 - Maintenance -grounds 2803 - Maintenance - buildings 2804 - Pest control services 2805 -Janitorial services 2806 - Security/Fire services 2895 - Delegate agencies -Bldg rent/main 2899 - Other building/grounds charges 2900 - City administrative charges 2902 - Advertising 2904 - Codes and manuals 93 95 97 98 0j9 102 103 VV �iclhita Emergency Lib nning HOME sing CSBG WSCCAP Shelter HUD Gran Grants Program ty V 331 637,700 GW19,657 50,045 69,360 40 ♦ 5,182 17,518 ` 272,978 �01634 52,835 1,870/]► 77,200 311 895 ♦`O ♦ 1� ' 76 13 IQ\ 0 �` 80 G 'Q 85 O 518 P P � 600 O 5,164 126,143 35 O 41,284 Qj 709,195 345,236 195 45,236 53,988 157,601 t 35,189 108 680,127 97,233 28,238 699 13,973 956 60 5,652 264,050 4,269 1,459 1,175 54 7,840 1,542 1,565 CDBG 79 148 11,815 98,286 104 151 155 Transit Grants Park Grants Fire Grants 363,955 164 15,491 214,358 29,860 392 17,347 25,355 5,675 6,148 3,918 16,073 98,394 192 102,054 1,092 26,816 215,711 35 2,500 32 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE DETAIL OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major Sum of Rate Base MGT Object Combo 2905 - Periodicals/Subscriptions 2906 - Membership dues 2907 - Rent and rent assistance 2908 - Bad debt expense 2909 - Recording costs 2910 - Purchase transp services -Transit 2912 - City admin charges - projects 2914 - Downpayment 2915 - Rehabilitation costs 2916 - Property taxes 2917 - Printing and copying 2922 - Shredding and recycling 2923 - Application Fees 2928 - Permits and Fees 2950 - City Engineering Overhead 2995 - Delegate agencies -rent 2996 - Deleg agencies -other contractuals 2997 - Deleg agencies-admin charges 2999 - Other contractuals 3101- Computer/printer supplies 3103 - Office supplies 3195 - Delegate agency -office supplies 3196 - Delegate agencies - supplies 3199 - Other office supplies 3200 - Clothing and towels 3299 - Other clothing 3301- Industrial chemicals 3399 - Other chemicals 3400 - Equipment parts and supplies 3401- Aircraft 3402 - Automotive 43 MGT Index 92 CDBG 4,548 8,715 10,839 10,566 93 95 97 98 0j9 102 103 VV �iclhi'ta Emergency Lib nning HOME sig CSBG WSCCAP Shelter HUD Gran Grants Program toy A4 V� 0 11,705 27 q 5,932 �-14,656 380 3,300 `�►� J 231,297 951,474 ♦ A� 14,515 7,301 O 1116�' 369 369 ��VV 25 � � 300 G 'Qe) 313 O 24 ` 5 �` 65,000 4, 551 O �111,847 1,056 6,214 4,265 1,920 163 O 1,076 284 G261 272 1,640 12 104 151 155 Transit Grants Park Grants Fire Grants 3,555 2,186 201 76,989 295 105 1,323 449 10,000 14,796 51,612 275,910 8,431 5,280 13,318 2,500 108 2,932 3,090 16 19,688 3,416 57,261 534 52 365,435 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE DETAIL OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major 43 Sum of Rate Base MGT Index 92 MGT Object Combo CDBG 93 95 97 98 0�9 102 103 VV �iclhita Emergency Lib nning HOME sing CSBG WSCCAP Shelter HUD Gran Grants Program ty 3403 - Electrical ♦ �193 3405 Fuel 204 19,712 3406 - Safety/security equipment V ' 8,341 3407 - Road/highway/traffic equipment 3421- Tires G 3499 -Other equipment parts 15,556 3500 - Materials ♦ v 7,983 3515 - Welding supplies 0& ` J 13 3550 - Weatherization materials ♦•/ 3595 - Delegate agencies - materials 294 26 �/ ]► 3599 - Other materials ♦`O ♦ jV 3700 - Building parts and materials 12,468 f`V 3702 - Building repairs and equipment ` 3799 - Other building parts and materials 3800 - Non -capital shop equipment < $5,000 each O �` 3801- Appliances < $5,000 each 3802 - Audio and visual equipment < $5000 each 3804 - Data processing equipment < $5,000 each 1, 8 19,213 3805 - Furniture & equipment <$5000 each 26,779 3806 -Athletic equipment < $5,000 each /! 3807 - Garden/grounds/lawn equip < $5,000 eac✓1 3808 - Photographic equipment < $5,000 _ 'V^ 3809 -Plumbing equipment < $5,000 eac `/'► 3810 - Police equipment < $5,000 each 3811- Library materials < $5,000 each 99,451 3812 - Communication equipment < $5,000 each 3813 - Training equipment < $5,000 each 3815 - Safety equipment < $5,000 each 3895 - Delegate agency non -capital equip <$5000 9,965 3896 - Delegate agency -real property 3899 - Other non -capitalized equip <$5,000 each 48,500 426 197,334 1,070 10,154 14,438 1,832 10,460 107 34,997 104 151 155 Transit Grants Park Grants Fire Grants 1,017,989 717 85,713 19,035 1,266 0 10,606 5,919 3,612 14,447 13,545 170 27,839 21,370 540 6,284 579 3,098 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE DETAIL OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, 5XXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major 43 Sum of Rate Base MGT Index 92 93 95 97 98 Emergency LI MGT Object Combo CDBG CSBG WSCCAP Shelter HUD C. 3901- Custodial supplies 3903 - Food supplies 3904 - Petty cash expenditures 3990 - Purchasing Card Clearing 3995 - Delegate agencies-misc commod 3999 - Other commodities 4202 - Carpeting and window treatment 4400 - Furniture and fixtures => $5,000 4505 - Vans => $10,000 4508 - Motorcycles => $10,000 4604 - Medical/Rescue/Security Equip => 4610 - Lawn and farm equipment => $5,0 4612 - Transportation Equipment => $5,0 5101- Reimbursements-interfund & inter 5208 - Interest - temporary notes payme 5303 - Legal settlements and claims 5306 - In -kind expense 5308 - Engineering overhead Grand TotalMENEM V` 710 550 1,765 96 � � 60 5,018 2,031 $5,000 `O l/ t ♦ l j 00 00 depart ,9 nt O �` 4, 65,3 938,222 24,47 �V71,362 357,845 0 O CG 0 I;kv 'jV 9 SDI nning Grants 207 22,505 0 0 673 102 103 104 151 155 &ty ta HOMEng Transit Program Grants Park Grants Fire Grants ♦ ,765 31,742 ` 4,913 130 188 G ° 5,000 11,543 1,000 25,079 1,381,942 21,600,139 9,518,327 3,909 427,123 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major Sum of Rate Base `) VV 157 159 169 170 171 'qJ2✓Grand Total Environment Ci �VV// al Health Public Works Man r nance MGT Object Combo Grants Police Grants Law Grants Grants Gran Grants 1100 - Bi-weekly wages 295,770 439,759 51,199 _& - 1,475 3,844,Y0 1101- Longevity 652 4,092 43,9 1102 - Education pay 4,264 8 1104 - Shift differential 10,666 2, 3 1105 - Hazard duty pay 1,140 G 140 1125 -Paid leaves 34,176 54,906 11,167 71,067 1126 - Injury leave 93 ♦ �/ 2,609 1190 - Accrual 1,023 6,242 287 ` J 39,604 1195 - Delegate agencies - payroll ♦•/ 710,537 1199 - Other 11,370 1200 - Part time/seasonal ♦ �43 V t ♦ jV 179,426 1202 - Bi-weekly wages WT drivers/maintenance V f`V 2,583,167 1204 - Clothing allowance 6 ` -3,069 1205 - Auto allowance 37 ` 18,304 1208 - Cellular phone allowance 2,700 ` 11,350 1211- Longevity WT drivers/maintenance O 35,660 1214 - Shift Differential WT drivers/maint 4,974 1215 - Paid Leaves WT drivers/maintenance 295,231 1216 - Overtime WT drivers/maintenance 631,598 1217 - Shift Differential 1st WT drivers/maint O 157 1229 - Police Physical Fitness Bonus 280 280 1230 - Bonus Pay O0., 23,474 1233 - Holiday WT drivers/maintenance 135,219 1300 - Premium -Overtime 470 170, 234,931 1301- Straight 23 4,632 1302 - Court appearance 6 960 1303 - Holiday 3,398 16,633 1400 - FICA 25,217 16,314 3,118 104 513,605 1401- Employee pension 44,316 13,461 6,398 189 464,566 1402 - Police and fire pension 79,486 129,846 1403 - Workers compensation 8,186 9,061 357 9 203,810 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major Sum of Rate Base VV 157 159 169 170 171 'qJ2 Grand Total Environment Ci �VV// al Health Public Works Man r Hance MGT Object Combo Grants Police Grants Law Grants Grants Gran Grants �( 1404 - Unemployment compensation 330 518 40 1 8,0 v 1405 - Group health insurance 71,437 66,249 21,996 403 1,909,8 1406 - Group life insurance 577 714 65 2 9 1407 - Central States - Transit 1, 7 1408 - Deferred compensation ,099 1410-Tuition reimbursement 0 0 1411- EMT Recert Reimbursement ♦ �,/ 180 1413 - Dental insurance -employer ` J 33 1414 - Health insurance -employer WAMPO ♦•/ 316 1415- Vision insurance -employer /]► 8 1495 - Employee benefits -delegate agencies ♦ O ♦ V 84,202 1499 - Employee benefits in aggregate -1,735 -42 �` 7,276 4,227 2100 - Electricity 8,6 149,819 2101- Gas-ONEOK Kansas Gas Service ` 40,177 2102 - Gas -Black Hills 10,269 2104 - Water 439 60,788 2106 - Landfill 102 2107 - Trash service 358 84,493 2108 - Hazardous materials disposal 5,070 2120 - Client utility assistance O 542,965 2195 - Delegate agencies - utilities '113,501 2200 - PBX - line charges O 1,140 266 �30 10,586 2201- PBX - instrument charges 2,340 58, 249 18,637 2203 - Long distance service Qj 7 73 1,387 2204 - Local services 3,360 2206 - Pagers and mobile phones 2,662 2207 - Postage - regular 155 24 4,204 25 30,029 2210 - Shipping and freight 568 18 893 2211- Express mail 450 650 2212 - CATV (Cable) 2,773 2214 - Air cards - mobile 2,873 630 420 10,744 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major Sum of Rate Base `) VV 157 159 169 170 171 'qJ2✓Grand Total Environment Ci �VV// al Health Public Works Man r nance MGT Object Combo Grants Police Grants Law Grants Grants Gran Grants 2215 - Plexar 279 5,Y5 v 2216 - Voice mail 336 196 117 3,8� 2217 - Internet Service 4,889 8 2218 - Automatic Call Distribution 6 2295 - Delegate agencies -phone, comm G 417 2296 - Delegate agencies-postage/ship `�� 595 2299 - Other -Communications 110 �j��,/ 1,031 2300 - Auto tags and titles ` J 711 2301- Meals and lodging allowance 217 16,050 �•/ 92,108 2302 - Out of town registration fees 32,618 /►� / ]► 44,607 2303 - In town registration fees l/ t �`( jV 11,884 2304- Training consultants ` V f 8,107 2307 - Employee - in -town mileage ` 19 2308 - Transportation - out of town 7 ` 19,861 2310 - Turnpike fees and charges 80 O 841 2395 - Delegate agencies - travel and training ` 1,836 2399 - Other training/transportation 1,535 95,126 2400 - Building and contents insurance 110,399 2402 - General liability 33,479 2495 - Delegate agency insurance chgs O 12,304 2499 - Other insurance 30,222 2500 - Certification fees O 425 2501- Pre -employment expenses 1,895 2502 -Medical and laboratory services 78,440 2503 - Studies/Consultants 30,449 2504 - Engineering 3,653 2505 - Contractors 2,801 29,378 455,706 2507 - Audits 19,393 2508 - Temporary help 336 2509 - Appraisal/inspection 2,500 2512 - Credit report 37,362 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major Sum of Rate Base `)✓ VV 157 159 169 170 171 (/!/2Grand Total Environment Ci al Health Public Works Man r nance MGT Object Combo Grants Police Grants Law Grants Grants Gran Grants 2514 - Laboratory services _& 2516 - Sublet repairs 363,9 2519 - Background checks 2540 - Management Fees 7, 0 2541- Bookkeeping Fees G 045 2542 -Asset Management Fees �9,360 2599 Other professional services 154 1,364 ♦ 130,343 2600 - Data center charges 17,844 2,848 2,178 645,667 2601- Maintenance - data equipment 93,328 2700 - Motor pool - scheduled charges 4,320 18,040 101,430 2701- Motor pool -unscheduled charges 399 O V t ♦ GV 2,199 2702 - Lease/rent equipment 9,73 VV0� 9,661 2703 - Maintenance - equipment 2,532 15,4 35,447 2704 - Car washes 2 ` 296 2705 - Outside services O �` 25,440 2706 -Towel rental service 5,675 2707 - Cylinder rental -compressed gas 518 2708 - Uniform rental service 6,148 2795 - Delegate agen-equip rent/maint 600 2799 - Other equipment charges O 3,918 2801- Lease/Rent-Buildings or grounds 61,000 192,342 2802 - Maintenance -grounds O 1240i:��\ 58,597 2803 - Maintenance - buildings 12:62, 1,187,089 2804 - Pest control services 46,133 2805 -Janitorial services 156,042 2806 - Security/Fire services 159,605 2895 - Delegate agencies -Bldg rent/maint 35,189 2899 - Other building/grounds charges 707,051 2900 - City administrative charges 3,892 933 504 23 631,956 2902 - Advertising 10,170 965 17,681 47,689 2904 - Codes and manuals 1,565 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major Sum of Rate Base `)✓ VV 157 159 169 170 171 (/!/2Grand Total Environment Ci al Health Public Works Man r nance MGT Object Combo Grants Police Grants Law Grants Grants Gran Grants 2905 - Periodicals/Subscriptions �1 2906 - Membership dues 32,8 2907 - Rent and rent assistance 100 14, 4 2908 - Bad debt expense 41 6 2909 - Recording costs C) 095 2910 - Purchase transp services -Transit 14,139 2912 - City admin charges - projects ♦ �,/ 3,555 2914 - Downpayment ` J 241,863 2915 - Rehabilitation costs ♦•/ 951,474 2916 - Property taxes 1b, 2,186 2917 Printing and copying 4,290 960 ♦ �56 V t ♦ 6C4 120,796 2922 - Shredding and recycling V f`V 842 2923 - Application Fees ` 325 2928 - Permits and Fees ` 449 2950 - City Engineering Overhead O �` 1,635 2995 - Delegate agencies -rent 10,241 2996 - Deleg agencies -other contractuals 124,182 2997 - Deleg agencies-admin charges 18,928 2999 - Other contractuals 682 441,107 3101- Computer/printer supplies 93,730 O 142 114,349 3103 - Office supplies 3,936 296 A-,731 227 24,857 3195 - Delegate agency -office supplies OW O 3,576 3196 - Delegate agencies - supplies 545 3199 - Other office supplies Qj 380 3200 - Clothing and towels 200 11,524 3299 - Other clothing 215 2,305 3301- Industrial chemicals 19,703 3399 - Other chemicals 60,677 3400 - Equipment parts and supplies 1,791 2,336 3401- Aircraft 23,260 23,260 3402 - Automotive 41,521 407,008 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major Sum of Rate Base `)✓ VV 157 159 169 170 171 (/1 2Grand Total Environment Ci al Health Public Works Man r nance MGT Object Combo Grants Police Grants Law Grants Grants Gran Grants 3403 - Electrical _& - 7,1 v 3405 - Fuel 840 39,780 1,078,52� 3406 - Safety/security equipment 0 ` 3407 - Road/highway/traffic equipment 12,500 2, 0 3421- Tires 5,336 G 048 3499 -Other equipment parts 34,591 3500 - Materials -48 ♦ v 8,035 3515 - Welding supplies ` J 1,279 3550 - Weatherization materials ♦•/ 0 3595 - Delegate agencies - materials /►�/ ]► 27,160 3599 - Other materials ♦ O V t ♦ ( jV 11,031 3700 - Building parts and materials V f215,722 3702 - Building repairs and equipment ` 4,682 3799 - Other building parts and materials ` 14,509 3800 - Non -capital shop equipment < $5,000 each O �` 23,699 3801- Appliances < $5,000 each 14,438 3802 - Audio and visual equipment < $5000 each 1,619 1,619 3804 - Data processing equipment < $5,000 each 25,801 876 49,733 3805 - Furniture & equipment <$5000 each 59,914 125,500 3806 - Athletic equipment < $5,000 each 2,580 O 2,580 3807 - Garden/grounds/lawn equip < $5,000 eac 107 3808 - Photographic equipment < $5,000P� 6,527 7,106 3809 - Plumbing equipment < $5,000 eac j 34,997 3810 - Police equipment < $5,000 each v 164, 164,795 3811- Library materials < $5,000 each 99,451 3812 - Communication equipment < $5,000 each 3 4 53,410 3813 - Training equipment < $5,000 each 3,098 3815 - Safety equipment < $5,000 each 540 3895 - Delegate agency non -capital equip <$5000 9,965 3896 - Delegate agency -real property 48,500 3899 - Other non -capitalized equip <$5,000 each 6,284 CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS 2 CFR PART 200 COST ALLOCATION PLAN FY 2018 INDIRECT COST RATE DETAIL - RATE BASE OBJECT CODES 1XXX, 2XXX, 3XXX, SXXX EXCLUDES 4XXX - CAPITAL OUTLAY GL Major Sum of Rate Base VV 157 159 169 170 171 (/!/2 Grand Total Environment Ci al Health Public Works Man r nance MGT Object Combo Grants Police Grants Law Grants Grants Gran Grants 3901- Custodial supplies 42,J0� 3903 - Food supplies 202 22 27,8 3904 - Petty cash expenditures 3 3990 - Purchasing Card Clearing 0 0 3995 - Delegate agencies-misc commod C) ,383 3999 - Other commodities 249 35,223 04 45,396 4202 - Carpeting and window treatment ♦ �j��,/ 4400 - Furniture and fixtures => $5,000 ` J 4505 - Vans => $10,000 ♦•/ 4508 - Motorcycles => $10,000 /'�� /►� / ]► 4604 - Medical/Rescue/Security Equip => $5,000 ♦`O l/ t ♦ ( jV 4610 - Lawn and farm equipment => $5,000 4612 - Transportation Equipment => $5,000 5101- Reimbursements-interfund & interdepart ` 51,995 5208 - Interest - temporary notes payment ` 11,543 5303 - Legal settlements and claims O 1,000 5306 - In -kind expense 14 162,044 5308 - Engineering overhead 4,123 Grand Total 91,3 1,643,982 117,10 & 13,333 141,569 2,206 40,723,315 O CG 0 5� ej C (INSULT GROUP z � P Goy G�