HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.C- City Manager 5.0
RESOLUTION (ID # 3523) DOC ID: 3523 B
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Agreement/Contract
From: Allen Parker M/CC Meeting Date: 11/17/2014
Prepared by: Chris Lopez, (909) 384-
5122
Dept: City Manager Ward(s): All
Subject:
Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Authorizing
the City Manager to Execute a Vendor Services Agreement Between the City of San
Bernardino and Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC for a Cost Allocation Plan and User
Fee Study. (#3523)
Current Business Registration Certificate: No
Financial Impact:
$70,000 has been budgeted in the FY 14/15 Budget in account number 001-090-0053-
5502 for the Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study.
Motion: Adopt the Resolution.
Synopsis of Previous Committee Action
20 2014: The Ways and Means Committee received the first report on
August y p
departmental revenues from the City Clerk's Office for FY 13/14.
The committee requested an update on all fees; at the time of the requested, staff was
in the p rocess of interviewing proposers for an update to the City's Fee schedule, and
an update to the City's Cost Allocation Plan.
Synopsis of Previous Council Action
May 5, 2008: The Mayor and Common Council adopted Resolution 2008-149
establishing certain fees for services furnished by the City of San Bernardino amending
i Resolutions 89-471, 91-148, and repealing Resolution 2006-325.
Background: User Fee Study
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution, and the laws of the State of
California, the City is authorized to adopt and implement fees, rates, and charges for
services provided that such fees, rates, and charges do not exceed the estimated
reasonable cost of providing those services.
Prices in the private sector are updated annually to reflect increased costs and changes
in the market. Staff is interested in obtaining a more accurate representation and
I understanding of the true cost of providing various fee related services and determining
Updated: 11/13/2014 by Telicia Lopez B I Packet Pg. 19
5.0
3523
the possibilities of modifying current fees to recover the cost of providing services. The
last fee study was conducted many years ago, and the City has undergone many
changes since then. The user fee study will allow staff to understand the fiscal impacts
on its fees, and will allow the opportunity for the Mayor and Common Council to update
those fees to reflect current costs, or to subsidize a certain portion of fees for specific
activities at the Mayor and Common Council's discretion.
Background: Cost Allocation Plan
As part of the City of San Bernardino's efforts to reflect total program costs and
revenues, a Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) is necessary to allocate Finance, Human
Resources, City Attorney, City Council support staff, and City Manager overhead costs
to all programs within the City. This will also help determine how program costs can be
allocated to all funds within the organization.
This plan will help in achieving the following:
1. Determine total costs for operating programs
2. Allow the City to recover all allowable costs incurred by the City
3. Help management with tracking time spent on activities
Federal guidelines specify which costs are allowable and which are not with respect to
federal grants. This is of the utmost importance since the updated plan will allow staff to
determine which costs can be reimbursed, and will allow the City to pursue additional
grants. The CAP will specify which expenditures are allowable under OMB Circular A-
87.
Proposals
The Finance Department requested proposals from qualified vendors to conduct a User
Fee Study and update its Cost Allocation Plan. Three vendors provided proposals and
those vendors and costs are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Vendors and Costs
Vendor Cost
Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC $69,020
NBS $52,600
MGT of America $61,600
Staff from the Community Development Department, Finance Department, and City
Manager's Office then interviewed all proposers to ask specific questions about their
methodology and to get a closer look into their software programs.
Recommendation
The proposal from Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC offers software that allows staff
Updated: 11/13/2014 by Telicia Lopez B I Packet Pg.20
3523
to update its fee structure annually to reflect any changes within the organization. Their
software is included in the price of the proposal, and it provides the flexibility needed for
staff to update costs after the initial study and update is completed.
Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC has completed work for the cities of Riverside,
Rancho Cucamonga, Corona, Fontana, Loma Linda, Rialto, and Upland.
Staff is recommending that the Mayor and Common Council authorize a Purchase
Order in the amount of$69,020 to Revenue and Cost Specialists to update the City's
User Fees and complete a Cost Allocation Plan.
City Attorney Review:
Supporting Documents:
Reso (DOC)
agrmt 3523 (PDF)
Revenue & Cost Specialists LLC (PDF)
NBS (PDF)
MGT of America (PDF)
�I
I
i
I
Updated: 11/13/2014 by Telicia Lopez B
1 RESOLUTION NO.
2
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
3 BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A VENDOR
4 SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND
REVENUE AND COST SPECIALISTS, LLC FOR A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND
5 USER FEE STUDY.
6 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
7 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
8 SECTION 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Vendor Services
9
Agreement with Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
10
incorporated herein by this reference.
11
12 SECTION 2. The authorization granted hereunder shall expire and be void and of no
13 further effect if the agreement is not executed by both parties and returned to the Office of the
14 City Clerk within sixty(60) days following the effective date of the Resolution.
15
16
17
18
///
19
20
21
22
23
24
///
25
26
///
27
28
1
1 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A VENDOR
2 SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND
3 REVENUE AND COST SPECIALISTS, LLC FOR A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND
USER FEE STUDY.
4
5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
6
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on
7
s
the day of , 2014,by the following vote, to wit:
9 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
10 MARQUEZ
11 BARRIOS
12
VALDIVIA
13
14 SHORETT
15 NICKEL
16 JOHNSON
17
MULVIHILL
18
19 Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk
20
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this day of , 2014
21
22
R. Carey Davis, Mayor
23 City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form:
24 Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney
25
26 By.
27
28
2 i
VENDOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND
REVENUE AND COST SPECIALISTS, LLC FOR
A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
This Vendor Services Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this day of ,
20 , BY AND BETWEEN:
the City of San Bernardino, a Charter City organized under the laws of the State of
California, with an address of 300 N. "D" Street, San Bernardino, California (the
"CITY");
AND, in
a�
Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC, incorporated under the laws of the State of U-
California and having its principal place of business at 1519 East Chapman Avenue, Suite N
C, Fullerton., CA 92831 (the "VENDOR") (individually CITY or VENDOR may be D
referred to as a"PARTY" and collectively CITY and VENDOR may be referred to as the
"PARTIES"). _
a
WITNESSETH : o
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of CITY have determined that it is .2
advantageous and in the best interest of the CITY to contract for a cost allocation plan and user N
fee study; and, o
U
WHEREAS, the CITY did solicit and accept quotes from available vendors for a cost
allocation plan and user fee study and VENDOR was the most qualified bidder; and,
M
N
WHEREAS, CITY and VENDOR desire to contract for a cost allocation plan and user M
fee study and desire to set forth their rights, duties, and liabilities in connection with their E
performance; and,
_
WHEREAS, no official or employee of the CITY has a financial interest, within the 4)
provisions of California Government Code, Sections 1090-1092, in the subject matter of this
Agreement. `°
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions
contained herein, the PARTIES hereby agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
For the remuneration stipulated, CITY hereby engages the services of VENDOR to provide those
products and services as set forth on Attachment"l," attached hereto and incorporated herein.
VENDOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND REVENUE
AND COST SPECIALISTS,LLC FOR A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
Page 1 of 8
Packet Pg.22
2. COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.
2.1 Compensation. VENDOR shall be paid for the services set forth in Attachment
"1" a total fixed sum of$69,020.00. No other amounts, except those expressly
provided for in this Agreement, shall be paid by CITY.
2.2 Additional Services. VENDOR shall not receive compensation for any services
provided outside the scope of services specified in this Agreement unless the
CITY, prior to VENDOR performing the additional services, approves such
additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests
and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be
barred and are unenforceable. �^
3.3 Method of Billing. VENDOR may submit invoices to CITY for approval at
intervals no more often than monthly. Said invoice shall be based on the total of LL
ail VENDOR's products and services that have been supplied and performed to N
the CITY's sole satisfaction. CITY shall pay VENDOR'S invoice within forty- D
five (45) days from the date CITY receives said invoice. Each invoice shall
describe in detail the products supplied, the services performed, and the
associated time for completion. Any additional products or services approved and n.
performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as "Additional o
Services" and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where
applicable, on all invoices. .2
3.4 Records and Audits. Records of VENDOR's services relating to this Agreement 0
shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting
principles and shall be made available to CITY upon reasonable notice. N
M
V
3. TERM; TERMINATION. N
Ln
M
The term of this Agreement shall be from November 17, 2014 until June 30, 2015, inclusive. E
a>
This Agreement may be terminated at any time upon thirty (30) days written notice by either c
PARTY. The terms of this Agreement shall remain in force unless mutually amended in writing.
The duration of this Agreement may be extended with the written consent of both parties.
w
4. INDEMNITY. a
VENDOR agrees to and shall indemnify and hold the CITY, its elected officials, employees,
agents, or representatives, free and harmless from all claims, actions, damages and liabilities of
any kind and nature arising from bodily injury, including death, or property damage, based or
asserted upon any actual or alleged act or omission of VENDOR, its employees, agents, or
subcontractors, relating to or in any way connected with the accomplishment of the work or
performance of services under this Agreement, unless the bodily injury or property damage was
actually caused by the sole negligence of the CITY, its elected officials, employees, agents or
representatives. As part of the foregoing indemnity, VENDOR agrees to protect and defend at
VENDOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND REVENUE
AND COST SPECIALISTS,LLC FOR A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
Page 2 of 8
Packet Pg.23
its own expense, including attorney's fees, the CITY, its elected officials, employees, agents or
N*W11' representatives from any and all legal actions based upon such actual or alleged acts or
omissions. VENDOR hereby waives any and all rights to any types of express or implied
indemnity against the CITY, its elected officials, employees, agents or representatives, with
respect to third party claims against the VENDOR relating to or in any way connected with the
accomplishment of the work or performance of services under this Agreement.
5. INSURANCE.
5.1 Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. VENDOR shall obtain and maintain
during the life of this Agreement all of the following insurance coverage:
(a) Comprehensive general liability, including premises-operations, in
P p
roducts/com leted operations, broad form property damage, blanket
contractual liability, personal in with policy limit of not less than One U.
Jam' a P Y
L
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined singles limits, per occurrence and N
aggregate. -=a
(b) Automobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non-owned vehicles, with
a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined a
single limits,per occurrence and aggregate. o
(c) Worker's compensation insurance as required by the State of California. o
a
5.2 Endorsements. The comprehensive general liability insurance policy shall contain v
or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
LO
M
N
(a) Additional insureds: "The City of San Bernardino and its elected and
appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees are additional insureds with N
respect to this subject project and contract with City." M
2
E
(b) Notice: "Said policy shall not terminate, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the
coverage reduced, until thirty(30) days after written notice is given to City."
w
(c) Other insurance: "Any other insurance maintained by the City of San
Bernardino shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided 2
by this policy." a
5.3 Certificates of Insurance. VENDOR shall provide to CITY certificates of
insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described
above, in a form and content approved by CITY, prior to performing any services
under this Agreement.
5.4 Non-limiting. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way,
the indemnification provision contained within this Agreement, or the extent to
Mr A
which VENDOR may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or
property.
VENDOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND REVENUE
AND COST SPECIALISTS,LLC FOR A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
Page 3 of 8
Packet Pg.24
I
6. NON-DISCRIMINATION.
In the performance of this Agreement and in the hiring and recruitment of employees, VENDOR
shall not engage in, nor permit its officers, employees or agents to engage in, discrimination in
employment of persons because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age,
mental or physical disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual gender or sexual
orientation, or any other status protected by law.
7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
VENDOR shall perform work tasks provided by this Agreement, but for all intents and purposes
VENDOR shall be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. a
VENDOR shall secure, at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income
Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, u-
and other payroll deductions for VENDOR and its officers, agents, and employees, and all N
business license, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder.
S. BUSINESS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
a.
VENDOR warrants that it possesses or shall obtain prior to execution of this Agreement, and o
maintain, a business registration certificate pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code, and any
other licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approval of whatever nature that are legally _°
required of VENDOR to practice its business or profession. a
o
9. NOTICES.
M
N
LO
Any notices, documents, correspondence, or other communication concerning this Agreement or
the services provided hereunder may be provided by personal delivery or U.S. Mail. If personally N
delivered the notice shall be deemed delivered at the time of the personal delivery. If sent by M
U.S. Mail the notice shall be deemed delivered forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. E
Mail as reflected by the official U.S.postmark.
_
a�
E
TO THE CITY: TO THE VENDOR:
w
Allen Parker, City Manager Rick Kermer, President Q
City Manager's Office Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC
300 North D Street 1519 East Chapman Avenue, Suite C
San Bernardino, CA 92418 Fullerton, CA 92831
Either PARTY may change the address for delivery of notices by sending notice of the change to
the other PARTY in conformity with this Section.
VENDOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND REVENUE
AND COST SPECIALISTS, LLC FOR A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
Page 4 of 8
Packet Pg. 25
CW W 10. ATTORNEYS' FEES
In the event that litigation is brought by any PARTY in connection with this Agreement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its
rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions or provisions
hereof. The costs, salary and expenses of the City Attorney and members of his/her office in
enforcing this Agreement on behalf of the CITY shall be considered as "attorneys' fees" for the
purposes of this paragraph.
11. ASSIGNMENT.
VENDOR shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or
co
any part of the VENDOR's interest in this Agreement without CITY's prior written consent.
Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute L
a breach of this Agreement and cause for the termination of this Agreement. Regardless of v
CITY's consent, no subletting or assignment shall release VENDOR of VENDOR's obligation
to perform all other obligations to be performed by VENDOR hereunder for the term of this
Agreement.
a
12. VENUE. c
The parties hereto agree that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this Agreement .2
shall be tried and litigated either in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Q
San Bernardino or the United States District Court for the Central District of California, °
U
Riverside Division. The aforementioned choice of venue is intended by the parties to be
mandatory and not permissive in nature. 04
M
V
13. GOVERNING LAW. N
LO
M
r
This Agreement shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of California E
without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. cc
14. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. E
This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the PARTIES to this Agreement a
and their respective heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns.
15. HEADINGS.
The subject headings of the sections of this Agreement are included for the purposes of
convenience only and shall not affect the construction or the interpretation of any of its
provisions.
VENDOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND REVENUE
AND COST SPECIALISTS, LLC FOR A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg.26
16. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such determination shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any
other circumstance, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.
17. REMEDIES; WAIVER.
All remedies available to either PARTY for one or more breaches by the other PARTY are and
shall be deemed cumulative and may be exercised separately or concurrently without waiver of
any other remedies.
a�
The delay or failure of either PARTY to require performance or compliance of the other of any LL
of its obligations under this Agreement shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to y
require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be
effective unless made in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the PARTY
against whom it is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy with respect to any occurrence or R
event shall not be deemed a waiver of such right or remedy with respect to any future a.
occurrences or events and shall not be deemed a continuing waiver. o
w
18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. .2
a
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and the understanding between the PARTIES, 0
and supersedes any prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter of this
Agreement. C4
N
M
19. COUNTERPARTS. Cl)
LO
Cl)
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an E
original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement. In the
event that any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by e-mail delivery of a ".pdf'
format data file, such signature shall create a valid and binding obligation of the PARTY
executing (or on whose behalf such signature is execute) with the same force and effect as if U
such facsimile or ".pdf' signature page were an original thereof. Y
20. AMENDMENT.
No amendment to this Agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and signed by both
PARTIES.
VENDOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND REVENUE
AND COST SPECIALISTS,LLC FOR A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 27
21. CORPORATE AUTHORITY.
Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of the PARTIES hereto warrant that they are
duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said PARTIES and that by doing so, the
PARTIES hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.
22. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
VENDOR agrees to abide by all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations.
23. FORCE MAJEURE.
I�I
A PARTY shall not be liable for any failure or delay in the performance of this Agreement for 1
the period that such failure or delay is due to causes beyond its reasonable control, including but
not limited to acts of God, war, strikes or labor disputes, embargoes, governmental orders or any
other force maj eure event. U-
i
N
N
24. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERRORS. D
c
VENDOR shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. VENDOR, when
requested by CITY, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by CITY's a
representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to 0
CITY. In the event that an error or omission attributable to VENDOR occurs, then VENDOR cc
shall, at no cost to CITY, provide all necessary services to rectify and correct the matter to the .2
\ oo sole satisfaction of CITY and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction. N
0
U
25. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE.
M
N
LO
In the event of any inconsistency or conflict in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits
or Attachments,the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. 04
M
26. CONSTRUCTION. E
as
The PARTIES have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the
event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, E
E
this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the PARTIES and in accordance with
its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any a
Party by virtue of authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
VENDOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND REVENUE
AND COST SPECIALISTS,LLC FOR A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
Page 7 of S
Packet Pg.28
5.C.b
VENDOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND
REVENUE AND COST SPECIALISTS,LLC FOR
A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day
and date set forth below.
Dated: 12014 VENDOR: [Name of Vendor]
�a
By:
U.
L
Its: y
.a
_
t�
_
R
Dated , 2014 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO a.
c
0
By:
0
Allen Parker, City Manager N
0
U
APPROVED AS TO FORM: N
L0
Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney
M
N
LO
M
By: _ E
a�
d
E
a
VENDOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND REVENUE
AND COST SPECIALISTS,LLC FOR A COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY
Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg.29
REVENUE & COST SPECIALISTS, L.L.C.
1519 Chapman Avenue, Suite C
Fullerton, California 92831
(714) 992-9020
Prepared for Christopher Lopez and the City of San Bernardino:
Cn
a�
a
U_
L
to
Limited Complete D
Scope =
a
1 - Prepare a Total Cost CAP for general City
verheads and an A-87 CAP for Grant purposes NA $12,000 a
- Prepare department overheads as necessary to development all o
ecover all service overheads. Perform costing analysis services only departments c
f the following service departments: —
a
a - Calculate Service cost for a single unit of service $24,750 0
b - Calculate Service costs for all projected (i.e total) $50,000
nits of service for all departments
LO
- Software to prepare CAP & Cost information NA $7,020
ncluding sales tax. _J
J
TOTAL $24,750 $69,020 N
U
d
Q
N
N
Proposed fees are guaranteed till November 30, 2014. 0
06
c
Sincerely,
U
R
RICK KERMER Q
President
Packet Pg. 30
Cn
a�
Proposal for a ti
m
Cost Allocation Plan and I I
User Fee Study `
�BEEtNARp��
tvr the o
City of - c
San Bernardino w
Januarj.24,201 ���pEb!N �� Q
o
v
M
N
LO
M
m
Z
C
N
E
t
i v
r
Q
Regional Office
870 Market Street, Suite 1223
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 800.4345349
www.nbsgov.com
Main Office
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Phone: 800.676.7516 helping communities fund tomorrow
Packet Pg. 31
rP'S��.+i-�,a ; Hr'P rd�uti a ` ` #,h+ � t' .-- ' "` u h
xb,f bra k a 'Y .w
Mir
;;rte
tea.h��tT fi,ur o <wd4 'r�^; E ,ABM - °+, 2 �n§e� a '' ¢�C. -�?'� ,�. mss, 9fa Is a�f�R
CQNBS
32605 Temecula Parkway,Suite 100
Temecula,CA 92592
Toll free:800.676.7516
nbsgov.com
January 24, 2014
David D. Cain
Director of Administrative Services
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street vn
San Bernardino, CA 92418 a)
am
U.
L
RE: COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY FOR THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
c
Dear Mr. Cain,
R
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal to conduct a Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Q,
Study for the City of San Bernardino ("City"). Our role in helping any agency establish overhead rates c
and fees for discretionary or regulatory services is to set the sound and legal maximum, beneath which, .2
community goals and values may influence the fees ultimately imposed. We work methodically—step by c
step—to build a strong analytical foundation for fees, and we bring our years and breadth of experience —
to facilitate the formulation of cost recovery policy unique to San Bernardino. Q
N
Selecting NBS to provide cost allocation and user fee consulting services delivers the following benefits:
• A proven and successful approach — analytically and procedurally — in the performance of cost v
allocation plans and fee/rate studies. N
• An analytical process which clearly communicates and defends the City's maximum cost recovery
opportunities through fee resources.
• A work plan which engages each stakeholder within the City organization, yielding fee outcomes and m
proposed policies that have the direct support of City staff and management. Z
• Deliverables that facilitate the formulation of well-defined cost recovery policies reflective of the
City's objectives and local values.
• A not-to-exceed consulting fee that is honest about what it takes to produce long-lasting and =
sustainable work products.
✓ An exclusively California-focused firm of consultants, who have served more than 200 public a
agencies in the state for nearly 15 years.
We appreciate your consideration of NBS to perform these services for the City. You may contact me
anytime, 800.676.7516 or nkissam @nbsgov.com.
Sincerely,
P J
CW Nicole Kissam Michael Rentner
Director President and CEO
helping communities fund tomorrow
Packet Pg.32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
TRANSMITTAL LETTER..................................................................................................PREVIOUS PAGE
1. NBS QUALIFICATIONS..........................................................................................................................2
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY..........................................................................................................2
2. PROJECT TEAM.....................................................................................................................................3
.a
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................................5 �
COST ALLOCATION PLAN.................................................................................................................5 rn
USERFEE STUDY..............................................................................................................................9 y
ESTIMATED PROJECT TIMELINE..................................... ..... 15 u-
........................................................ .
i
d
N
4. REFERENCES AND RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE...............................................................16
5. PROFESSIONAL FEES.........................................................................................................................19
COST ALLOCATION PLAN.................................................................... .......... 19
USERFEE STUDY............................................................................................................................20 n-
c
0
APPENDIX........................................................:..................;.................... . . . ...........::.........::...............A-1
PROFESSIONAL RESUMES. . .. . .. a
.A-1 0
Q
O
U
Cl)
N
Ln
M
m
Z
_
N
E
t
V
tC
a.
Q
Pmposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 1
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
1. NBS QUALIFICATIONS
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
NBS was founded in 1996 by experienced finance and engineering
ONB5 Professionals, and has worked with more than 300 public agencies to date.
NBS is an independent consulting firm serving local governmental agencies,
including cities, towns, counties, municipal utilities, and special purpose districts. The ultimate goal of
NBS is to provide support, expertise and solutions that allow these local agencies to focus on community
needs and core services. Our Financial Consulting practice focuses primarily on cost recovery
mechanisms and supporting justification for various agency revenue streams, including the following:
• Overhead cost allocation analysis M
• User and regulatory fees for a wide variety of local government programs and services N
• Rate studies for municipal water, sewer,storm drainage and solid waste utilities
4)
• Financial plans for public utilities Q
• System capacity and development impact fees L
Y P Y
m
These services are P erformed within the requirements and framework of California-specific statutes and
w
guidelines, including:
State Controller's Office Handbook of Cost Plan Procedures; and federal guidelines, including
the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87 g
• Proposition 218, 26, and subsequent legislation and case law a-
9• AWWA Industry Standards(Manuals M-1, M-6, and M-22) o
• State Water Resources Control Board Revenue Program
Guidelines
0
• Article XIIID of the California State Constitution (as applies to Q
j user and regulatory fees) n
Mitigation Fee Act(Government Code 66000 et seq., codified by 0
"AB 1600")
NBS also provides special financing City consulting and administration M
focusing on the formation and ongoing administration of assessment
districts, Business Improvement Districts(BIDs), Community Facilities m
Districts(CFDs), Local Improvement Districts (LIDs), property-related fee Z
districts, and special parcel tax districts. NBS is staffed with seasoned
experts who are dedicated to providing our clients with the best possible =
Q
results; 35 consultants contribute extensive experience in the fields of s
finance, management, and local governance.
Ultimately,we believe the most important quality NBS offers public Q
agencies is a strong track record, as demonstrated by:
• Continuous growth of client base
• High client retention rate
• Strong client references
NBS has two offices to serve clients: Temecula (headquarters) and San Francisco. All of our proposed
project team would be deployed from our Southern California location.
Pmposalfor a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 2
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
2. PROJECT TEAM
One of our greatest strengths, and a key to a successful project, is a team that works cohesively and
efficiently not only internally but with City staff, and who have the expertise in resolving complex issues.
Our team provides these qualities and more. The functional relationships of our proposed project team
are detailed as follows (Full resumes for the following staff are provided in the Appendix):
• Nicole Kissam-Project Director:
Roles & Responsibilities: Ms. Kissam will manage the ongoing administration of the project, serving
as the primary point of contact for City staff and directing the work efforts of our project team. She
will be fully conversant in all findings and will be onsite for progress, findings, and public events. _
She will present recommendations and findings to staff, the City Council, and any other public a
bodies or public hearings. Ms. Kissam will work closely with the City's designated project manager
to monitor schedule and delivery of work products to the City's satisfaction. While designing and U)
directing analytical efforts, she will also provide senior-level technical analysis as warranted m
throughout the project. U.
L
Brief Biography: Ms. Kissam is a Director with NBS in the Financial Consulting practice. She has N
over 10 years total work experience in public sector consulting, city government, marketing, and M
public relations. Nicole has been a financial and management consultant to local government for the c
majority of her career, specializing in Full and OMB A-87 compliant cost allocation plans, user and
regulatory fee analysis and rate studies for California agencies. She has worked with dozens of M
agencies across the State. a-
c
0
• Greta Davis-Associate Director:
Roles & Responsibilities: Ms. Davis will lead data acquisition and validation efforts with City staff, c
direct specific areas of model design, and prepare technical analysis supporting the determination a
and justification of cost allocation and fees, at the direction of our Project Manager. Ms. Davis will N
work actively with departmental staff members who oversee and perform services under review in v
this effort.
Brief Biography: Ms. Davis offers over 25 years of experience in all facets of financial, organizational N
and operational consulting for local government clients. The majority of her professional experience M Ln
includes development of Full Cost and OMB A-87 compliant cost allocation plans, and user fee
analysis including establishment of realistic, customized fee recovery policies. N
m
Z
• Felipe Monasi and/or Alex Oswald—Financial Analysts: w:
Roles & Responsibilities: NBS Financial Analysts perform large-scale data analysis and validation,
design and implement allocation/rate/fee models, and prepare technical outcomes at the direction of E
our project management team. U
Brief Biography: NBS Financial Analysts support project teams completing water and wastewater Q
utility rate studies, user fee studies, and cost allocation plans for cities, counties, and special districts
in California. Their high level of expertise in various spreadsheet and database platforms is utilized
in providing the support, documentation, and analysis required as deliverables to NBS clients. All
Financial Analysts proposed for this engagement have a minimum Bachelor's Degree in Finance,
Business, or Economics.
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
3
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
• Danielle Wood-Client Services Director:
Roles & Responsibilities: Mrs. Wood will be responsible for obligating NBS to all commitments,
schedule, and pricing for the project. Mrs. Wood will ensure that the City's fundamental objectives
are being met at all times.
Brief Biography:Danielle Wood is an Associate Director with NBS, with over ten years of experience
in public finance working for cities, counties, and special districts. Danielle has worked as a Client
Services Director with hundreds of clients. She has performed roles as a consultant, manager and
client services director, allowing her to excel in her role as a Client Services Director.
w e.a ArtD'Vfr
Exhibit A.
City of San Bernardino
I NBS Project Team City Council, c
for the City of Management and Staff
San Bernardino
kp�K N
N
LL
I d
COST ALLOCATION PLAN • to
• STUDY
C
Nicole Kissam ( Danielle Wood =
ca
Project Director Director of Client Services a
ONBSl '>NBS o
Greta Davis "
0
Senior Consultant Q
AZ)NBS y
�— o
U
Felipe Monasi
Alex Oswald N
Analysts i ul)
1NBS Cn
m
Z
E
r
a
H I iry II,I`i p iit R nr Proposal for a
� Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 4
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
MONO—
Packet Pg. 36
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City requested a scope of services to include delivery of a Cost Allocation Plan, and a Citywide User
Fee Study. The following sections explain the purpose, approach, and work plan for each project.
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
A Cost Allocation Plan is an analysis — accompanied by supporting documentation — which distributes
the general governmental and support service costs of an organization to the direct municipal services
and activities provided to the public.
Common uses for the result of a Cost Allocation Plan are: -a
• Application in the cost basis for governmental fees and charges.
• A component in the derivation of fully-burdened hourly rates for agency personnel.
• Inter-fund charges for recovery to the General Fund of support provided to areas outside it, such LL-
as the Sewer Services Fund or Enterprise Funds. a,
• Rates applicable to cost accounting. such as charging labor time to capital projects. D
• Mark-ups on costs directly passed-through to users.
• Recovery of costs from external funds such as grants or agreements with other agencies.
R
In the NBS approach, the Overhead Cost Allocation Plan encompasses the following analytical steps: a
• Compiles actual cost data. _
0
• Expresses costs according to the functions of service they provide.
• Assigns a factor to use as a basis for allocation. c
• Performs a minimum of two-step series of allocations. Q
• Derives total assigned overhead amounts by public service/fund. N
• Expresses rates that represent total indirect costs assigned by department and an overall City- o
wide rate. v
c�
N
Aside from accurately reflecting an organization's costs, the most important step in preparing a M
reasonable cost allocation plan is the selection of allocation factors. These data sets should represent
either: m
• Actual or estimated workload of the function allocated; or, z
• A reasonable and generally accepted means of apportioning benefit for the function allocated.
a�
In this way, resulting cost allocations represent a reasonable component to establishing the full cost of E
providing services.
Q
All NBS Cost Allocation Plans comply with the requirements and guidelines of Title 2, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (formerly known
as OMB A-87). NBS can provide cost allocation outcomes that are either more or less restrictive in
application of OMB A-87, depending on whether the primary intended use of the cost allocation plan
results are for reimbursement of overhead costs from State or Federal grants.
The following presents our detailed work plan for development of the City's Cost Allocation Plan:
TASK 1 -INITIATE THE COST ALLOCATION PLAN PROJECT
The purpose of this task is to initiate the project on a solid footing and establish a common
understanding of the project goals. Sub-tasks are as follows:
... Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 5
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
Packet Pg. 37
4
A. Gather and Analyze Initial Data
Gather and review published information and readily-available data. Issue a comprehensive data
request to City staff, to include items such as detailed revenue and expense budgets for the last
j completed fiscal year, prior cost allocation plan analyses, and any timekeeping data currently
recorded by staff.
B. Identify Initial Plan Structure
Identify initial indirect cost centers and recipients for preliminary discussion with City staff.
I
C. Meet with City Staff
Meet with a gathering of participating staff (e.g., Finance Department personnel) in one onsite
event to kick-off the project. The agenda for this meeting will include clarification of the project
scope, preparation for subsequent analytical review efforts, and discussion of critical issues, work
approach, timeline, and initial ideas regarding cost allocation to ensure development of the plan �
will be accurate and appropriate for the City's needs.
m
ur
Estimated Hours i.
d
N
• List of basic data requirements for the Study
• Kick-off presentation to appropriate staff 6
• On-site initial meeting with executive staff to review
goals, objectives, and project management plans a
c
0
• Basic data requirements for the Study as listed by o
NBS (staffing, salary, budget, etc.) 2 hours for the Finance Department, and Q
• Attendance at kick-off presentation and initial approximately 1 hour for each attendee of H
Executive staff meeting the kick off presentation and executive staff 0
• Designate City's project management representative meeting. V
(minimal involvement)N
M
TASK 2 -DEVELOP THE COST ALLOCATION PLAN MODEL Cn
The purpose of this task is to develop the customized technical model capable of performing the M
necessary cost allocations and generating the outcomes desired by the City from this effort. NBS will Z
develop an overhead cost allocation model in Microsoft Excel that will reflect the specific organizational
and financial structure of the City. The model will include two levels and layers ("step-downs") of cost m
allocation calculations, and summary reports identifying the total annual costs allocated. _
Estimated .r
w
Hours a
NBS Project Deliverables
• Review and analyze the organizational structure and 8
financial format to prepa,r,e the Ian model
San Bernardino Services Requirements
• Provide consultant with data as requested
• Review and discussion of consultant's initial Approximately 1 to 2 hours of support
interpretation of the data
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 6
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24,2014
Packet Pg. 38
TASK 3 -REQUEST, COLLECT,AND REVIEW FINANCIAL AND ALLOCATION DATA
The purpose of this task is to populate the Overhead Cost Allocation model with actual expenditure
financial data and other information to be used as allocation bases. Sub-tasks are as follows:
A. Conduct Organizational Review
Upon initial discussion with City staff, conduct a more thorough examination of the current
organizational and financial structure and finalize the list of indirect/support services that should be
included in the Overhead Cost Allocation Plan. Identify departments, divisions, and potential
functional service levels in which to summarize indirect costs. Compile associated costs and make
any necessary adjustments to costs to ensure capture only of support services costs. Work with
staff to discuss the identified structure and ensure that the proposed direction will satisfy all
requirements for overhead allocation.
B. Prepare Allocation Factors
Discuss the recommended cost allocation detail and corresponding basis for g apportioning costs �
City-wide, With staff buy-in and cooperation, embark on data collection to develop sets of
information to be used as factors for cost allocation. (The study will seek to primarily use data sets
already maintained for other purposes in order to minimize ongoing labor burdens in maintaining
future cost allocations-, however, new data sets may be developed where warranted.) Incorporate
data sets into the new allocation model, annotating data sources for ease of use in the future.
C. Input Data
Input cost and allocation factor data into the Overhead Cost Allocation Model, and complete the
functionality of the plan. o
w
U
O
MN Project Deliverables T' ..
• Staff structure review/interviews 0
• Data collection for the structure, functions, costs, 36
and allocation basis needed to complete the first N
draft of the Plan M
an Bernardino Services Requirements
Cn
• Review and discussion of consultant's initial A co
interpretation of the data/attendance at interviews Approximately 2 hours for each administrative
(if needed) department involved in the Study
• Provide consultant with data as requested E
TASK 4-PERFORM COST ANALYSIS AND PREPARE THE DRAFT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
The purpose of this task is to generate the specific outcomes necessary from this effort. Sub-tasks are Q
as follows:
A. Provide General Annual Allocations
Using the model and core data/assumptions developed in the prior phase, generate annual
allocated costs by budget unit and fund. Review with the City's staff during this process to review
interim progress of the Plan's numerical results.
B. Derive Overhead Allocation Outcomes
Using the model and core data/assumptions developed in the prior phase:
• Generate annual allocated costs by budget unit and fund
• Derive overhead/indirect rates by department and City-wide
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 7
« for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
- Packet Pg. 39
C. Prepare Draft Final Report
Prepare the draft final Cost Allocation Plan which incorporate any changes from the City Staff's
review of the draft Plan. Prepare a draft narrative report documenting the Cost Allocation Plan.
Report includes:
• Executive summary;
• Citation of data sources and key analytical assumptions;
• Illustration of analytical methods;
• Presentation of findings;
• Narrative descriptions and,
• Technical appendix showing the analysis and any relevant data sources.
D. Review Deliverables T
Meet with City staff in one event either in person, web-based meeting, or conference call as
appropriate, to review findings and discuss applicability of outcomes in existing and/or
recommended financial management practices.
U.
L
Estimated Hours
N
• Delivery and discussion of the draft Cost
Allocation Plan 34
• Draft narrative report that explain the anal sis a
.to�:_ `
0
• Review and provide requests for changes or points Approximately 2 hours for each administrative M
of discussion to the consultant department involved in the Study o
Q
TASK 5-PREPARE THE FINAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN N
Prepare the final Cost Allocation Plan, incorporating any changes from the City staffs review and o
U
comment. Provide up to ten (10) bound, and one (1) unbound copy of the final report, as well as one (1)
electronic copy in PDF format. N
LO
M
• co
m
Z
• One to two rounds of revisions to finalize the Cost
Allocation Plan m
• Copies of the Final narrative report that explains the 16 a
analysis M
• Discussion and advice on implementation and uses Q
of the Plan
San Bernardino Services Requirements
• Review and approve final Cost Allocation Plan Approximately 1 hour for each administrative
department involved in the Study-Review
Pio for a
Cost Allocation Plan lan and User Fee Study 8
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
TASK 6--OMB A-87 ANALYSIS
NBS will make any necessary adjustments to the final version of the Plan's structure, expenditure data,
or allocation factor data to ensure compliance with OMB A-87 guidelines. We would review Plan results
with City staff, collect input and one round of revisions to the draft plan results, and revise the final report
to reflect changes.
Estimated Hours
• One to two rounds of revisions to finalize the
OMB A-87 Cost Allocation Plan
• Copies of the Final narrative report that
explains the analysis a
• Discussion and advice on implementation and uses 18
of the Plan N
d
• Access to NBS experts should the need to Li
defend the Plan arise as a result of a cognizant
approving agencX audit w
San Bernardinoervices Requirements
• Respond to consultant questions regarding purpose
and use of expenditures, etc.
Approximately 4 hours for Finance staff n,
* Review and approval of final report and Plan
documentation o
ca
0
USER FEE STUDY Q
N
The goals of a Fee Study are to identify the full cost of service in fee-related activities and to facilitate the V
development of strategies/policy for recovery of those costs in user/regulatory fees. In general, the scope <h
of services includes an evaluation of all fees for service that can be classified under the legal definitions
Ln
of user and/or regulatory fees, and analyzed on a time estimate per activity basis. Fees and charges not
able to be evaluated on a time per activity basis would be excluded from this analysis, typically including: Cn
taxes, penalties, fines, fees regulated or set by the State, development impact fees, and utility rates. m
Z
Equipment and facility rental fees are also excluded from the analysis, but may be included for
comparative purposes to other jurisdictions. The following task plan outlines our methodology, approach,
W
and proposed work plan for completion of a User Fee Study for the City: E
TASK 1 -PROJECT COMMENCEMENT ;a
Conduct an onsite administrative project commencement meeting with City staff members, such as a
those from Finance, who will manage the progress, completion, and implementation of the study's
findings. This meeting will include a discussion of expectations and an overview of the process for
conducting the analysis, including: coordination for onsite and remote interactions with City personnel in
all divisions, timeline for project completion, and other topics.
NBS will also acquire published or accessible data from the City, centering on adopted budgets, recent
financial performance (revenues and expenditures), current labor cost detail and classifications,
organizational structures, existing relevant policies, existing time-tracking and volumetric data, and other
items of a more global nature. NBS will then issue a consolidated data request to City Finance staff for
the balance of needed preliminary data requirements.
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 9
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24,2014
Packet Pg. 41
Estimated Hours
• Preliminary data collection list
• Initial on-site kick off meeting to review goals, 4
oJectives, and 1roject mana ement
• Package and send preliminary data needs to NBS Approximately 2-4 hours for response to
• Addend Kick-off meeting preliminary data needs. 1 hour for each staff
member attending the Kick-off meeting
a
TASK 2 -FEE STRUCTURE DESIGN AND ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS
Conduct two consecutive days of onsite project commencement events with individual divisions initially Cn
known to provide the fee-related services under review in this study. The chief purpose of these m
meetings is to acquire a broad understanding of each division's organization, performance of core L
services, functions of service, staffing structure/lines of command, current fee structures and systems, y
known issues/deficiencies in current fees, known areas for new fees, and availability of existing time- M
tracking and volumetric data. Applying industry expertise, NBS consultants will recommend and develop
fee structures (as opposed to amounts) for each area under review. Fee structures include flat fees,
variable fees based on measurable service characteristics (e.g., project types, size, etc.), and variable
fees based on staff time(e.g., hourly rates with deposits), etc. Fee structure can also mean rewriting fee a
categorical descriptions to retain flat fees for administrative ease but introducing variation in the o
applicable fee for an applicant or user.
U
O
Estimated Hours Q
N
O
V
• Preparation for and attendance of two days of on- 33 M
site meetin s with de artments under review N
M
• Attendance at meetings and follow up to action Approximately 1-2 hours of meeting N
items determined via discussions attendance for both Director/Department z
Head, as well as one or two key staff from
each department who will perform data E
collection and response.
Approximately 2 hours of follow up related to
meeting outcomes Q
TASK 3-TIME AND SERVICE ANALYSIS
Determine and communicate the subsequent steps to acquire and/or develop organizational,
performance, and time information necessary for establishing costs of service for justifying fees.
Consultants will also preliminarily identify any other divisions outside those immediately identified that
are involved in the direct provision of the services under review and will schedule comparable
commencement events with those areas. Develop an approach and tools for acquiring and/or developing
the organizational, performance, and time information necessary for justifying fees. For areas where
simple remote questionnaires may suffice, develop and route the forms to key personnel within each
division. For areas where onsite interviews will be necessary, coordinate scheduling and develop
interview tools. Conduct onsite events with individual divisions—and potentially small groups within each
division—to generate organizational, performance, and time information necessary for justifying fees.
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 10
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24,2014
�_AV
Packet Pg.41 s
4 M11
After acquiring historically-tracked and/or currently-available time and volumetric data, as well as
information developed through questionnaires and/or interviews, determine any necessary secondary
course of action to continue and/or refine organizational, performance, and time data. Up to two
iterations of the time and service analysis for each department are included to ensure that the cost of
service analysis is defensible and reasonable. Iterative efforts will be manageable through the use of
highly-concentrated/targeted remote questionnaires, which will be routed to the appropriate divisional
personnel. The product of this task will be a model of the complete organizational, performance, and
time requirements for the services under review in this study.
• Development of data collection materials and scheduling
and attendance of subsequent on-site events 40 co
• Up to two iterations of data modifications needed to
1roduce defensible first draft results
U.
L
• Collection of time estimate and volumetric data in the Approximately 4 to 12 hours of effort to
format requested by NBS collect first pass of data, and additional 4
• Attendance of additional meetings for discussion of work to 6 hours to revise and work with �+
processes or development of time and workload consultant. If meetings are required,
information additional 1 to 2 hours of staff time per n-
meetin _
0
TASK 4-TIME VALUATION v
Prepare the analytical module that will perform a time valuation analysis. This module will determine the 0 Q
full cost of service on an annual basis for each division, for various functions of service, and on an hourly
basis for the entire division, for core functions within a division, and as warranted, by classification of o
personnel. Consider the applicability of productive hours or direct-billed hours as the basis for the rate v
calculation, depending on the division or function in question. Integrate City financial/budget data, ch
payroll/labor data, and established overhead charges or cost allocations, as follows: LO
i
Define the direct costs of service for each division involved in each service under review in this
study. Direct costs reflect those specifically related to the provision of service embodied by the m
activities reflected in the fee schedule, as well as any potential additions to that list. z
• Define the indirect costs of service for each division involved in each service under review in this
study. Indirect costs are those incurred to support the provision of direct service, and may be m
reflected in many functional forms, depending on the division and/or direct services in questions. E
Examples of indirect functions include administrative support, customer service/public information,
code/policy/standards maintenance, training, and management. Outside of discrete functions, a
indirect costs may also include tangible items, such as materials and supplies.
• Determine applicable City-wide indirect costs, such as those defined by the Cost Allocation Plan to
determine appropriate shares of administrative, support services, and/or governance costs.
Estimated Hotim
• Development of fully burdened hourly rate models for 22
each department studied
San Bernardino Services Requirements
• Response to consultant questions related to budgeted Up to 2 hours of departmental and/or
expenditure, or overhead cost allocation information Finance department staff time
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 11
for the City of San Bernardino
.. Prepared by NIBS—January 24,2014
Packet Pg. 43
TASK 5-COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
The full cost of service defined by NBS serves as the analytically justified maximum amount that may be
recovered through a user/regulatory fee adopted solely by the City Council. As part of the Microsoft
Excel-based fee/cost of service model to be delivered to the City at the conclusion of the project, prepare
the module that will perform the cost of service analysis. This module will determine the full cost of
service at an activity level for each individual service currently associated with a fee or selected as a
candidate for a new fee. Integrate applicable information developed in previous tasks to develop activity
costs of service. Apply performance/time estimates at identified activity levels to the fully-burdened
hourly rates developed in the Time Valuation tasks to determine the full cost of service for each fee-
related service. Add any discrete materials/services costs not reflected in the time valuation for specific
activities, such as substantial equipment and incremental contract services.
The outcome of this task will provide the following information in a draft of results for review: -a
✓ Total estimated cost of providing each fee for service included in the Study. Once finalized, these cYOn
amounts will represent the legal maximum the City could charge for each service.
• Comparison of the total estimated cost of each fee for service to the current fee charged by the City. LL
Display of the current cost recovery percentage for each fee item. L
• Projection of the annual current fee revenue collected for each department, and comparison of that
amount to the annual estimated total costs of providing fee related services. Display of the annual .�
amount of potential additional revenue available, or current surplus collected in fee revenue.
• Placeholder tables for the recommended fee analysis, which will allow City staff and policy makers to =
suggest fee amounts at or below the maximum allowable fee level, and project the total annual
revenue impacts of their recommendations. a
c
0
Estimated Hours
0
Q
• Draft of anal 'cal results for de a(lmental review 25 y
O
U
• Response to consultant questions needed to produce Up to 2 hours of departmental and/or
draft results Finance department staff time LO
M
TASK 6 -DRAFT REVIEW AND REVISION m
Conduct review events, either on-site or by teleconference,with each individual department or division to Z
review the draft results of the Study. Determine any necessary refinements to core assumptions and
discuss applicability in current and/or alternative fee structures.
E
Discuss pricing objectives from the divisional perspective, i.e., the division's comfort with full cost
recovery or some alternative level of cost recovery. Consultants will facilitate this conversation by
discussing public/private benefits or causation of each activity, potential market sensitivity, interaction a
with established City goals or policies, behavior modification influence, and other considerations. Based
on review with City staff, revise core analytical modules and finalize the activity costs of service.
Calculate the final unit costs of service that will serve as the foundation for any revised fee amounts
and/or fee structure. This task represents one planned iteration of the analytical work products.
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 12
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24,2014
E
i
i
Estimated Hours
I
• Draft of analytical results for departmental review
• Incorporation of one round of City comments and 21
revisions to achieve final results
an Bernardino Services Re uire;ments a
• Review of draft results, and provision of follow up Up to 4 hours of departmental staff time
data and comment required to finalize fee models.
TASK 7 -CONDUCT COMPARATIVE FEE SURVEY
Policy makers often desire a comparison of current, full cost recovery, and recommended fee amounts to
�
neighboring jurisdictions. Although an "apples to apples" comparison of cost recovery policy and fee N
structures between agencies is challenging, presence of a comparison will ensure a smoother
implementation process and a sense of the "market" rate for various services. NBS will conduct a
comparative fee survey of up to 5 jurisdictions of the City's choice. Survey will be structured to include
the most comparable items/project types for each department studied. v,
• Survey of surrounding agencies, detailing a a-
comparison of current, full cost recovery, and 38 o
recommended fee amounts
C
'$an Bernardino Services Requirements =
• Selection of 5 comparative agencies Q
• Review and revision of results with NBS Up to 4 hours of departmental staff time o
U
TASK 8 - DOCUMENTATION N
Prepare a written report describing the complete work and findings of the project. Include an executive M
summary, narrative sections detailing the Fee Structure Design, Organizational Analysis, Time
Valuation, and Cost of Service Analysis. Issue the draft report in electronic form (portable document M
format) to City staff and management for review. Include one round of iterative changes to the draft final Z
report, to reflect City management group input.
m
E
R
w
• Issuance of Draft report for City staff review and a
comment
• Incorporation of one round of changes to the
narrative report
• Review and comment to draft final report document Approximately 2-4 hours of departmental
and/or Finance Department staff time
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 13
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24,2014
i
TASK 9-MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
NBS will consolidate all fee items into one Master Fee Schedule file, or update the City's existing file, for
use in public presentations, City Council meetings, policy discussions, and implementation purposes. A
draft will be submitted to the City's project manager for review. Assume up to two iterative rounds of
minor revisions to the fees presented therein.
Prepare foundational presentation materials for use in public meetings. Conduct up to two public
meetings of the City's choice, including but not limited to, community organizations, Finance Committee,
and City Council.
Revise fee schedules and documentation upon review and comment from each presentation. Issue the
final report to City staff and management in Word and portable document format(PDF), as well as up to
10(10) bound and one(1) unbound hard copy.
m
u.
L
d
• Compilation of report results into Master Fee Schedule U)
D
format for adoption -a
• Incorporation of two rounds of changes to the Master
Fee Schedule =
• Preparation and presentation at up to two public
40 a-
meetings r-
• One round of revisions to report and supporting .2
documentation, according to public meeting review U
and comment o
• Final Excel models and documentation `t
U)
off 1461M 0
U
• Review and comment to Master Fee Schedule Approximately 8 hours of departmental
Document, and Council presentation materials and/or Finance Department staff time ,N
• Attendance at Council Meeting Cl)
Cn
TASK 10-OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESS SUPPORT M
m
NBS will actively support the City's process to legislatively review, approve, and implement any changes Z
to fees stemming from this study. In anticipation of additional community stakeholder, Council or Council
subcommittee review beyond the meetings included in Task 9, NBS will prepare foundational m
presentation materials for use in public meetings. Prepare for and attend meetings or public hearings of
the City's choice to present study findings and respond to questions on behalf of or in support of U
Department staff. This task is structured as a "per meeting"option in the Project Budget section of this a
proposal.
Pmposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 14
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24,2014
Packet Pg.46
ESTIMATED PROJECT TIMELINE
For this Study, a typical timeframe is between four to six months. This timeline can be extended or
shortened, depending on the City's needs and capacity to participate in the work plan's tasks.
Cost Allocation Plan
Task Description
Mekof 3 110 117 124 13117 114 123. 128 15112 11.9 126 121 9116 123 130
1 I ni ti ate CAP Project
2 Develop GAP N/bdel A
3 Process Financial and Allocation Data
4 Draft Cost A I ocation PI a n
5 Finalize Plan N
6 ONVBA-87Analysis LD
L
N
D
User Fee Study
Task Description
•
Weekof 3 110 1712413117 114 21128 5 12 19 26.1'.21 91161231301 7 14 21 28 d
1 Project Correncerrt =
rr ei
O
2 Fee Design and Organizational Analysis
3 Ti rre and Senn ce Analysis tB
U
4 Time Va I uati on O
5 Cost of Service Analysis
6 Draft Reviewand Revision Q
7 CorrparativeSurvey to
O
8 Documentation 11111111111111110L 9"ster Fee Schedule/Presentation ofResults V
10 Additional legislative Process Support tbdby0tystaff M
11 Training tbdbygtystaff N
LO
M
N
At project commencement, NBS will prepare a detailed timeline with specific calendar dates of key m
events for the City's review, comment, and mutual acceptance. The timeline for implementation of any
final report is at the discretion of City.
E
During the study's process, NBS will provide periodic progress reports to assure progress is maintained
according to timeline objectives.
Q
Pipposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 1
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
Packet Pg. 47
k
k
t
4. REFERENCES AND RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
NBS submits the following references for projects we have performed comparable to the needs of the
City for a Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study. Combined, the references provide three references
for each work plan.All work was completed within the last three years.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
In 2011, NBS was selected by the City of Los Angeles' Planning Department to study
fully burdened hourly rates and fee structure policies related to provision of expedited
project review services. Key consulting tasks include development of a deliverable fully
burdened hourly rate model, recommendation regarding a fair and equitable fee N
structure for specialized services, and consideration of an appropriate fund balance for a�
�PI:1 1y`
off peak demand cycles. u.
L
d
In 2013, NBS was selected again by the Department to provide on-call consulting services related to
development of a Case Management fee structure for development review services, as well as a -a
comprehensive fee analysis that should commence within the near future.
Prior to joining NBS, Nicole Kissam completed a comprehensive fee analysis for this Department, as well .
a
as a study of EMS costs to providing services for the Fire Department. _
NBS Project Team: Project Director/Lead Project Consultant- Nicole Kissam
Agency: City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning o
Address: 200 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA a
Phone: 213.978.1273 c
Contact Information: Eva Yuan Mc-Daniel, Deputy Director, eva.yuan-mcdaniel @lacity.org V
Dates of Service: 2011 -present
M
N
Ln
M
CITY OF SAN CARLOS rn
m
Z
L{nFSAN C�Qrar In May 2013, NBS completed a Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study for the City of Y
San Carlos. Included in the project was the development of a deliverable Overhead Cost
Allocation Plan to identify and allocate the costs of central governmental and E
administrative services. Fees included in the analysis stemmed from the following broad
�411101L categories: administration/governmental, building and safety, engineering, land
development, planning and land use, and police. Key consulting tasks included a
development of a deliverable cost of service model justifying fully-burdened hourly rates and
activity/service unit costs, a master fee schedule identifying the maximum fee amount justified,
documentation of cost recovery and pricing objectives, and market comparison of all fees.
NBS Project Team: Project Director/Lead Project Consultant- Nicole Kissam;
Analyst—Felipe Monasi; Client Service—Tim Seufert
Agency: City of San Carlos
Address: 600 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
Phone: 650.802.4217
Contact Information: Tracy Kwok, Financial Services Manager, tkwok @cityofsancarlos.org
Dates of Service: January 2013—May 2013
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 16
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24,2014
4
CITY OF CAMARILLO
C OF + NBS completed a user fee study for the City of Camarillo in 2012. As
part of this study, NBS performed a review of the City's current cost
+ allocation calculation to ensure that the City was recovering all
potential indirect costs. Presentation to the City's Council involved
extensive consideration of local priorities and economic impacts of
changing fee amounts.
NBS Project Team: Nicole Kissam, Project Director; Greta Davis, Project Manager/Lead Consultant
Agency: City of Camarillo
Address: 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010
Phone: 805.388.5320
Contact Information: Ronnie Campbell, Finance Director, rampbell@ci.camarillo.ca.us N
Dates of Service: November 2011 —February 2012
U_
L
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
NBS recently completed a Full Cost and OMB A-87 Cost Allocation Plan analysis for the
III; City of National City. Beyond the traditional work plan for this type of project, Ms. Davis
made extensive presentation of the results to the City's Council and trained staff in how a
to use the analytical model for future updates. c
0
i NBS Project Team: Nicole Kissam, Project Director; Greta Davis, Project Manager/Lead Consultant; c
Felipe Monasi,Analyst —
Owner: City of National City a
Address: 1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950 N
Phone: 619.336.4300 U
Contact Information: Stacey Stevenson, Director of Administrative Services,
sstevenson @nationalcityca.gov N
LO
Is
Dates of Service: October 2012—May 2013
m
CITY OF PALMDALE z
c
Ate@ tn4,y�. In 2012, NBS completed a Full Cost Allocation Plan analysis for the City of Palmdale. B
fr Beyond the traditional work plan for this type of project, deliverables also included U
development of a Citywide fully burdened hourly rate model for each staff position, which
applied the City's indirect overhead rate on top of salaries. Additionally, NBS has recently a
been invited back to update the 2012 Cost Allocation Plan with current expenditure and
allocation basis data. That project is currently underway.
NBS Project Team: Nicole Kissam, Project Director; Greta Davis, Project Manager/Lead Consultant;
Felipe Monasi,Analyst
Owner: City of Palmdale
Address: 38300 Sierra Highway, Palmdale, CA 93550
Phone: 661.267.5411
Contact Information: Karen Johnston, C.P.A.,Assistant Director of Finance,
kjohnston @cityofpalmdale.org
Dates of Service: May 2012—August 2012
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 17
for the City of San Bernardino
- Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
In 2012, NBS completed a Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study. Included in the
project was the development of a deliverable Overhead Cost Allocation Plan to identify
and allocate the costs of central governmental and administrative services. The Plan
included a Full Cost and OMB A-87 version of the plan. Fees included in the analysis
stemmed from the following broad categories: administration/governmental, building and
safety, engineering, land development, planning and land use, special events, and
police. Key consulting tasks included development of a deliverable cost of service model justifying fully-
burdened hourly rates and activity/service unit costs, a master fee schedule identifying the maximum fee
amount justified documentation of cost recovery and pricing objectives, and market comparison of all
fees.
V
NBS Project Team: Project Director/Lead Project Consultant- Nicole Kissam; U)
Analyst—Kim Boehler; Client Service—Tim Seufert m
Agency: City of East Palo Alto U.
Address: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: 650.853.3122 N
Contact Information: Edmund Suen, Finance Director, esuen @cityofepa.org -a
Dates of Service: December 2012—May 2012
c
R
a
r-
0
a
0
a
0
0
U
c�
N
Ln
M
V
N
co
Z
w�
W
E
V
W
Q
Pi-oporal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 18
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
5. PROFESSIONAL FEES
Pricing Considerations
g
Our professional fees are based on our understanding of the City's needs and the effort we believe is
necessary to complete the scope of services/task plan described. We express this honestly and
transparently through our price proposal. Should the proposed project cost noted here fall outside of the
City's expectations, please let us know so we can discuss a scope and project fee that are mutually
agreeable.
NBS applies the following hourly rates to derive the overall not-to-exceed pricing for the City's requested _
scope of services. These hourly rates will apply for the duration of our contract with the City, are
inclusive of all costs for expenses such as printing, travel, etc.
rn
• Project Director, $205 per hour d
• Associate Director, $160 per hour U'
• Analyst, $120 per hour N
NBS is willing to commit to the fee as a not-to-exceed amount for the services described, and at no time c
will we invoice for charges in excess of the fee to which the City of San Bernardino and NBS mutually
agree. Should the City specifically request additional services beyond those described in this document,
we will discuss those requests and associated costs at that later time and only invoice for additional fees 0-
upon separate written authorization from the City. NBS proposes to invoice the City on a monthly basis, o
following recorded consultant time on the project, paralleling our completion of the work. R
U
O
Professional Fees Q
r
NBS will complete the scope of services required for year one of this engagement, including a t0
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan for a total cost not-to-exceed $52,600. Our
proposed project budget is summarized as follows: M
u7
M
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
m
Z
PROJ ECT COST DIETAI L Consultant labor(Hours) Grand Trnals
Project Senior i Consultant Consultant N
Ta�IcPlan Manager Consultant Analyst Labor(Hours) Costs($) E
Hourly Rate $205 $160 .$120 v
1 Initiate CAP Project 1.0 3.0 2.0 6-0 925 Q
2 Develop CAP Model - 2.0 6.0 8.0 1,040
3 Process Financial and Allocati on Data - 24.0 12.0 36.0 5,280
4 Draft Cost A I ocati on PI an 2.0 24.0 8.0 34.0 5,210
5 RnaIlzePIan 1.0 12.0 3.0 16.0 2,485
I6 OMB A:87 Ana lysis 2.0 12.0 4.0 ! 18.0 2,810
GRAND TOTAL NOTTO EXCEED 6.0 77.0 35.0 118.0 $ 1?750
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 19
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
Packet Pg. 51
5.C.d
USER FEE STUDY
PROJECT COST DETAIL Consultant tabor(Hors) Grand Totals
Task Plan Project Lead Analyst Consultant Consultant
Director Consultant Labor(Hours) Costs($)
Hourly Rgte $205 $160 $120
1 Project Cormiencerrent 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 730
2 Fee Design and Organizational Analysis 1.0 24.0 8.0 33.0 5,005
3 Ti rre a nd Servi ce Ana I ys i s - 24.0 16.0 40.0 5,760
4 Ti me Val uati on - 10.0 12.0 22.0 3,040
5 Cost of ServiceAnalysis 1.0 16.0 8.0 25.0 3,725 -a
6 Draft ReviervandRevision 1.0 12.0 8.0 21.0 3,085
7 Comparative Survey - 6.0 32.0 38.0 4,800
8 Documentation 1.0 12.0 4.0 17.0 2,605
LL
9 Master Fee Schedule/Presentation of Results 4.0 24.0 12.0 40.0 6,100 y
10 Additional Legislative Process Support (optional,permuting) - - N
GRAND TOTAL NOTTOEXCEED 10.0 130.0 100.0 240.0 $ 34850 �
_
Should the City require Optional Task 10 of the User Fee Study's work plan, a fee of$800 per meeting a
would apply. o
U
a
a
N
O
U
r�
N
LO
M
Cn
M
Z
r
_
N
E
U
t0
rr
Q
,
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study 20
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS-January 24, 2014
�
Packet Pg. 52
!i APPENDIX
PROFESSIONAL RESUMES
Professional staff resumes for key project team members have been provided on the following pages.
"a
aD
a>
U.
L
N
D
C
R
C
tC
d
C
O
R
V
O
Q
N
O
U
r�
N
M
N
m
Z
C
a?
E
t
U
cC
Q
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study A- 1
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NIBS—January 24, 2014
Packet Pg. 53
i � •
I N BS S • s
helping communities
fund tomorrow
RESUME HIGHLIGHTS
• Over 10 years experience `I really appreciate all
• Financial and management consultant of the extra timeyou spent
• Specialized in cost allocation plan, user fee and rate educating a (and a staff on the
studies for California agencies basisfor the rater. It was extremely
EDUCATION valuable andgdves me the detail need to
mplain and justij any increases. Thanks again
Bachelor of Science, Business Administration, for everything It was a pleasure working with
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo yon,»
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS CHAD DAVISSON N
• Association of California Water Agencies(ACWA) WASTEWATER MANAGER
LL
• American Public Works Association (APWA) CITY OF RICHMOND
• California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) as
Vl
[Nicole Kissam served as the Project D
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS Manager on various financial analyses 'a
• Revenue Remedies, Pre-Conference Workshop, CSMFO 2013 for the City.] M
• Verdict on User Fees, Panel on User Fees, CSMFO 2013 a
• Strategies for Managing Your Building Department's Budget, CBOAC, 2011
.5
BIOGRAPHY c
Nicole Kissam is Director of Financial Consulting for NBS. She has over 10 years total work experience in
public sector consulting, city government, marketing, and public relations. o
Q
Nicole has been a financial and management consultant to local government for the majority of her y
career, specializing in cost allocation plans, and user fee and rate studies for California agencies. She v
also spent several years performing management audits to improve the operational efficiency of various
municipal services, including wastewater, community development, public works, recreation and human N
resources. She has supported, developed, and directed financial services consulting practices for three
private consulting firms offering similar services to those proposed to be completed by NBS in this
document. m
Z
Ms. Kissam has participated in, managed, and completed more than 100 separate consulting
engagements throughout her career, from small jurisdictions with less than 10,000 population, to large m
jurisdictions such as the City/County of San Francisco's Building Inspection Department, and City of Los
Angeles' Planning and Fire Departments.
Q
RECENT NBS PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Within the last three(3) years as Director of NBS' Financial Consulting practice, Nicole has managed and
completed the following relevant projects to the scope of services proposed in this document:
• Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Indirect Cost Allocation Plan Review
• City of Chula Vista, Cost Allocation Plan Review and User Fee Study Analysis
• City of Clear Lake, Cost Allocation Plan
• Contra Costa County, User and Regulatory Analysis Review
• City of Dixon, Cost Allocation Plan
• City of East Palo Alto, Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study
• City of Eastvale, Development Impact Fee Study
• City of Fresno, Fire Prevention User Fee Analysis
• City of Indio, Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
11111,ioiC ity 6Los ele s, Expedited Review Fees for the Department of City Planning
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study A-
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
�. .. _ Packet Pg. 54
Resume continued...
• City of Napa, Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
• City of Petaluma, Cost Allocation Plan and Internal Service Fund Rate Review
• City of Portola Valley, Community Development User Fee Analysis
• City of Richmond, User Fee Analysis for Engineering, Code Enforcement and Medical Marijuana.
• City of San Luis Obispo, Building Department User Fee Analysis
• City of San Carlos, Citywide User Fee Study, Police False Alarm Analysis, Sewer Financial Plan and
Rate Update Recommendations
• City of Sausalito, User Fee Study(in progress)
• City of Taft, Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study w
• City of Turlock, Building Fee Study
• Sacramento Public Library Authority, Cost Allocation Plan
U.
• Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department, User Fee and Fund Balance Analysis
d
HISTORICAL PROJECT EXPERIENCE D
Nicole was the project manager and lead analyst for the following engagements as Vice President for the =
Matrix Consulting Group:
• City of Arcata, Building Fee Analysis
• City of Atwater, Building Fee Analysis n.
• Centre City Development Corporation (San Diego), Planning Fee Analysis o
• City of Elk Grove, Overhead Cost Allocation Plan
• City of Fresno, Development Services Fee Analysis c
• City of Manteca, User Fee Analysis —
• Marin County Community Development Agency, Fee Analysis a
• Maui County, Planning Department Fee Analysis c
• City of Petaluma, Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Analysis �?
• City of Richmond, Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Analysis for Planning and Building ch
• City/County of San Francisco, Department of Building inspection Fee Analysis tn
City of San Jose, Land Development/Engineering Fee Analysis
• City of Sunnyvale, Development Services Fee Analysis m
• City of Temecula, Citywide User Fee Analysis Z
Nicole also participated in or managed the following Cost of Service/User Fee Analysis engagements m
while employed by a large national government services consulting firm: E
Alameda, Brentwood, Chula Vista, Citrus Heights, Dana Point, El Cerrito, Hemet, Hermosa Beach,
Livermore, Manteca, Martinez, Mission Viejo, National City, Oceanside, Ontario, Pasadena, Paso Robles, Q
Red Bluff, Sacramento Library, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, Temecula, Vacaville, Vallejo, Winters,
Yuba.Additionally, Ms. Kissam conducted User Fee Studies in Reno, NV.
Propora!for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study A-3
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24,2014
QNBS' rr. • r •• •
helping communities
fund tomorrow
RESUME HIGHLIGHTS
• Expert in Cost Allocation Plans, Cost of Service/User Fee Analysis and Building Nexus
Fee Studies
• Solid track record of implemented results in assisting public entities recover additional revenue
to fund programs and services
• Over 25 years experience
EDUCATION
• Bachelor of Arts in Social Science; Emphasis in Finance, University of California, Irvine, 1990
• Risk Management Certificate, University of California, Riverside, 1992 cn
d
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
LL
• CSMFO—California Society of Municipal Finance Officers y
• MMASC—Municipal Management Association of Southern California M
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
• League of CA Cities—Annual Conference break out session, "Fire Department EMS Cost Recovery", C
September 2013 a
• NBS Workshop — Extreme Revenue (And Cost) Makeover - over 30 local jurisdictions represented, c
May 2012 :�
• League of CA Cities - Financial Management Seminar, "Setting User Fees in the Current Legal U
Environment", December 2007 2
Q
BIOGRAPHY
N
Ms. Davis offers over 25 ears of experience in all facets of government financial, organizational and L)
Y P 9
operational consulting for local government clients. A dedicated professional and industry expert with a
P 9 9 P rY
solid track record of implemented results in assisting public entities recover additional revenue to fund N
programs and services. Recent projects include working with local agencies to become financially stable
fees and increase service delivery of reduced or eliminated programs and community by re aligning e ry P 9 Y Cn
services. Ms. Davis continues efforts in evaluation of cost of service delivery of services and programs m
a nd establishment of realistic fee recovery ryp olicies to assist local g overnments with the organizational
Z
..
r
strategic and business goals and objectives.
9 objectives.
�
Ms. Davis has over 25 years of experience in local government services. Her range of experience E
includes the following: �
• ..
Project Management;
Training and Quality
Assurance w
Q
• Indirect Cost Rate Studies/Federal OMB A-87 Indirect Cost Allocation Plans
• Cost of Service/User Fee Studies/Activity Based Cost Studies
• Federal/State Jail Rates
• Federal IV-D Indirect Cost Reimbursement Agreements
• Revenue Maximization, Process Re-engineering and Process Improvement
• Budget Analysis and Program Management, Consultation and Advise
• Government audit liaison on audits of indirect cost rates and cost eligibility
RECENT NIBS PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Within the last three (3)years as a Project Manager and Lead Consultant with NBS' Financial Consulting
practice, Greta has managed and completed the following relevant projects to the scope of services
proposed in this document:
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study A-4
for the City of San Bernardino
°° Prepared by NBS—January 24,2014
` • • i •
. . .
Resume continued...
• City of Bell, Cost Allocation Plan
• City of Belmont, Indirect Cost Allocation Plan and iCRP
• City of Camarillo, User Fee Study
• City of Chula Vista, Cost Allocation Plan Review and User Fee Study Analysis
• City of Dixon, Cost Allocation Plan
• City of Napa, Cost Allocation Plan and 991 Indirect Cost Allocation Plan
• City of National City, Cost Allocation Plan
• City of Palmdale, Cost Allocation Plan and Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
• City of Seaside, User Fee Study >+
• City of Santa Cruz, Cost Allocation Plan
• City of San Juan Capistrano, User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan N
• Sacramento Public Library Authority, Cost Allocation Plan
• Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Cost Allocation Plan and Fully Burdened Hourly Rates U_
a)
N
HISTORICAL PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Greta was the project manager and lead analyst for the following engagements as Practice Leader for the =
Matrix Consulting Group:
City of Seal Beach, User Fee Analysis
• City of San Bernardino, Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Analysis a.
• City of Pasadena, Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Analysis o
• City of Fresno, Development Services Fee Analysis
• City of Santee, Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Analysis o
• Watershed Conservation Authority(WCA), Cost Allocation Plan
• Bay Area Air Quality District(BAAQ), Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Analysis Q
• Los Altos Hills, User Fee Analysis c
• City of Willits, Cost Allocation Plan v
c�
Greta also managed the following Cost of Service/User Fee Analysis engagements while employed by a M
large national government services consulting firm:
Camarillo, Lancaster, Vallejo, Vista, Encinitas, Oceanside, Malibu, Dana Point, Huntington Beach, Z
Mission Viejo, Hawthorne, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Cucamonga, Grover Beach, Orange, Lynwood, r
Irvine, Maywood, Calexico, National City, Santee, Covina, Newport Beach, Moreno Valley, Rancho Santa
Margarita, Chula Vista, Turlock, Tulare, Lathrop, Imperial Beach, Solana Beach, Victorville, Yucaipa, San E
Bernardino, Fresno, Pasadena, Bay Area Air Quality District and the County of Imperial, Butte and
Orange in CA.
Q
Proposal for a
Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study A-5 s
for the City of San Bernardino
Prepared by NBS—January 24, 2014
Packet Pg.57
5.C.d
m
m
LL
L
a)
N
D
c
O
M
U
O
Q
N
O
U
Cl)
N
M
m
Z
C
d
E
U
Q
Packet Pg. 58
MGT of America Response to the
City of San Bernadino, California
Request for Proposal for User Fee and Cost Allocation
Plan Study
March 31 , 2014 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL 3
L
d
N
Q.
O
i+
V
r; O
Q
i+
N
O
U
M
N
LO
TO:
Mr. David D. Cain
L
Cain_Da@sbcity.org
Director of Administrative Services c
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
E
FROM:
J. Bradley Burgess, Vice President a
Costing Services Division
916.595.2646 (Direct)
916.443.3411 (Office)
2001 P Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811
www.mgtamer.com
MST
Packed Pg. 5
MGT of America
2001 P Street,Suite �1T1
Sacramento,CA 95811 l�(1 j
Office:916.443.3411 OF AMERICA, INC .
Fax:916.443.1766
www.mgtamer.com
March 31, 2014 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL
Mr. David D. Cain
Director of Administrative Services
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Subject: Proposal for User Fee and Cost Allocation Plan Study Services
Cn
Dear Mr. Cain:
L
Q�
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the City of San Bernardino's (City) request for a
user fee and cost allocation plan study. We believe that our firm, MGT of America, Inc. (MGT),
offers the City solutions that will meet your specific objectives while providing the best overall
value to the City. Our projects deliver:
o.
c
> Defensible & Transparent Calculation Methodology. Our user fee and cost 0
allocation models are rigorous, accurate and proven. They are also completely 0
transparent, with services, costs, cost recovery, and subsidies all readily identified and .2
presented in a comprehensive fashion. N
0
> Intuitive and Powerful Spreadsheet Calculation Models. MGT uses powerful, v
user-friendly spreadsheet models to calculate overhead allocations and specific user N
fees. The model is fully customized for each client and will be provided to the City at M
the completion of the project.
ca
> Experience, Exceptional Staff& Immediate Availability. The proposed MGT
team has performed over 50 cost allocation plans and 25 user fee studies over the E
past five years, and has access to over 100 studies for comparative purposes. We c
have recently completed studies for the cities of Santa Monica and Inglewood, as well
as Palo Alto, Santa Clara and Oakland up north. We are recommended by statewide
organizations such as CSMFO because we have a long successful history of preparing
exceptional cost allocation plans and user fee studies all over the state. Our proposed E
project team has immediate availability for this project.
�a
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments about this proposal at 916.595.2646,
or at bburgess @mgtamer.com. Thank you for the opportunity to submit our proposal to the
City of San Bernardino.
Sincerely,
t J. Bradley Burgess
Vice President
Costing Services Division
Attachment
Packet Pg.60
City of San Bernardino
►r
Proposal to Provide User Fee and
Cost Allocation Study 01 AMERICA, INC.
Y
(D
a)
u-
L
d
N
PROPOSAL
a
c
0
0
N
0
U
ch
N
LID
M
t0
V
�L
E
Q
0
F..
CV
C
Y
E
V
Y
Y
Q
Packet Pg. 61
. 5.C.e
City of San Bernardino
TProposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study CIF A M E R I C A. INC.
Table of Contents
BACKGROUND & PROPOSAL SUMMARY... .. . .. . .... . . .... 1
°
cn
d
METHODOLOGY. . . ...... ... . .. ... ... ...... ......... ... ... . .. .. ...... 4
U.
L
to
D
C
STAFFING... . .. ....... ... ...... ... . .. ......... ... ... ... . .. ... ....... . . .. 16
a
0
QUALIFICATIONS... .. . . . ... ... .... . . ... ... ... . .. . .. ...... . .......... 18 '
0
FEE PROPOSAL... ... . . . . . . ... .. . ... ... ... ...... ....... ..... .......... 22 °
U
r�
N
LIM
M
v
APPENDIX A — RESUMES
�L
d
E
a
0
d
E
r
cc
ANNIRL
Q
Packet Pg.62
City of San Bernardino Z,
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study Of AMERICA. INC.
The City of San Bernardino (City) has requested consulting assistance to prepare a comprehensive
citywide user fee study of its fee-for-service activities. The City has also requested a full-cost cost
allocation plan as well. These deliverables are specialties of MGT. As a consulting group, we have
delivered more of these analyses to more governmental jurisdictions than all of our current
competition combined. We have a proven track record providing these specific services for dozens
of Southern California cities,and will deliver all requested services to the City's complete satisfaction,
E while achieving the City's overall goals and objectives. Our analysis will allow the City to meet its >%
objectives of having legally defensible user fees, calculations that support full cost recovery of each
current and potential user fee, and recommendations for the appropriate fees to be charged for each '
service. m
_ a�
U.
+� MGT of America, Inc. (MGT) is thoroughly familiar with all relevant federal and state of California cost N
to plan guidelines, and the legal issues surrounding user fees. Our consultants have both successfully
defended jurisdictions where challenges were made, and testified before the California legislation on c
user fee issues. The state of California and several federal districts have approved our cost plan
methodology, and we guarantee acceptance of our analyses by any cognizant or audit agency. Our
0 cost plan and user fee models offer transparency to reviewers and the general public. Our models CL
also contain important management information schedules. o
a
While software is certainly important in creating cost plan and user fee analyses, the key to a c
successful engagement is the personnel involved. Our team for this analysis has over 50 years of Q
experience in governmental cost determination. They are backed up by the strongest bench in the c
cost of service business-13 additional cost professionals. V
M
:D Our Understanding of San Bernardino M
Our group of consultants has a deep, successful history of serving Southern California cities similar to 2
0) San Bernardino. Like many other cities, San Bernardino has gone through very difficult financial times a)
over the past decade, but San Bernardino joined Vallejo, Stockton and Mammoth Lakes as the only Q
r l California cities that have filed for bankruptcy protection. MGT has worked very closely with Vallejo 0
V and Stockton during their difficult financial period and continues to provide exceptional revenue
enhancement outcomes that are helping both cities to get back on their feet. We believe in the City
of San Bernardino and know that we can be a valuable part of your City's financial renaissance.
as
Citywide User Fee Study
We have reviewed the City's current fee schedule. We believe that our consulting team will be Q
thoroughly prepared from day one to assist the City with this important project. Our approach will
provide a basis for calculating new fee schedules that reflect San Bernardino's current costs in the
context of your City's political realities and constraints. We will work with City staff to design fee
schedules that reflect the way that the City wishes to manage its cost recovery program. The final fee
schedule can consist of any mix of static fees, blended fees, cost-based fees with an up-front deposit,
Prot-osa'to Przide Fail CortAilocatl0r,Plait&Ci ,m,,de User Fee Stsdy to the Ci0-of San Bernardino Marry 31,2014 Pale t
PaCk4t Pg�63�,n
City of San Bernardino
,r Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, 114C,
or valuation (in the case of building fees). Our firm has worked with every possible fee type of
methodology. The most important goals of MGT fee studies are to:
> Define what it costs to provide various fee-related services.
> Determine whether there are any opportunities to implement new creative fees. MGT
maintains a propriety statewide data base of city fees. We will provide recommendations
for new fees and new ways to charge fees based on our experience in other California
cities. y
N
d
> Identify service areas where the governmental entity might adjust fees based on the full Li
cost of services and other economic or policy considerations.
D
> Develop revenue projections based on potential increases (or decreases) to fees.
c
> Establish or refine existing cost recovery and subsidy policies.
IL
> Provide the City with a report that identifies the present fees, recommended fees, c
percentage change, and revenue impacts. The report will be filled with practical
information that reflects the City's specific circumstances, history, political constraints, c
and objectives. The results will be easy to use by department personnel and your end Q
users. The final report will also be transparent. We understand that the best study is w
worthless if the stake holders believe the consultant plugged numbers into a black box �j
and came up with an answer. Transparency is essential. That means every number in
M
both the user fee study and the cost plan can easily be traced back to its source. It also N
LO
means that all stake holders understand how the project will be accomplished, and
understand how MGT will arrive at its final results. Holding a study session with a few
members of the city council during the project is essential. Council members do not
appreciate surprises, and it is a great opportunity to get input from them, as well as E
provide them with a high level view of the process. Q
0
In addition, our team will provide the City with all of the documentation used as part of the fee study
process, including all information used to determine proposed fees, and the analysis and calculations
performed. All documents will be thorough and sufficiently detailed to use in the event of a legal c
challenge. We will also provide the City with an electronic copy of the final study, and assist with E
preparation of staff reports/notices required for public hearings.
R
w
The user fee study will calculate the full cost of all current and potential fee-for-services activities `t
within the City. User fee services are those which the applicant (personal, business, organizational)
receives a benefit that does not accrue to non-applicants. The underlying philosophy of the user fee
study will be to identify the full cost of providing a service and then set a cost recovery and subsidy
level that is appropriate to the market, service, department and goals of the City of San Bernardino.
Included in a user fee study are negotiated fees for which specific city staff time required to accomplish
the fee can be identified. Excluded from a user fee study are fines, penalties,taxes, rates such as utility
rates and impact fees.
Proposal to Putt&Full CottAlloeadon Plan&Cipudle UtcrFee Shv6,to the Gpv of San BerrarNav•Alar<b 31,2014 Page 2
City of San Bernardino MGT
to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, 11C,
User fee studies are dynamic models where both economic and societal forces intersect. On the
economic side the recipients of some user fee services benefit monetarily and therefore, often the
recovery/subsidy policy is to recover the full costs of those services. This is particularly true in
development services. Policy-making groups across the country routinely set these fees to recover
full, or close to full costs.
We will bring to this engagement our knowledge of cost recovery strategies, and we will review all
services so that no fee potential area is left undocumented.We understand that the best analysis that
is not adopted is valueless, and we will work with staff to develop an effective implementation plan. '
N
Bottom line, the City will not be engaging just fiscal analysts, but experienced consultants who will
work with you to design, and implement, optimum solutions. u-
L
Full Cost vs. OMB A-87 Cost Allocation Plans
The City has requested the following project deliverables: A Full Cost CAP and potentially a
supplemental OMB A-87 CAP. For the purposes of this proposal, we will provide a discussion of `°
both types of plans. _
0
MGT will review the current cost allocation plan, but will prepare a new full cost allocation plan and 0
A-87 plan that reflects the City's current costs and structure. The cost allocation plans will be —°
constructed concurrent to the user fee study. The results of the new c I! Q
cons co cu cost allocation plan will be an
important cost component in the user fee study. c
U
Local agencies provide services that include administrative and support expenditures which are not N
allowable for federal reimbursement. These expenditures, however, are appropriate for allocation M
under GAAP principles and guidelines.This allocation methodology is often referred to as a Full Cost
Allocation Plan. It can be generalized that a Full Cost Allocation Plan is primarily used for internal
purposes such as recovering indirect costs from enterprise funds, special revenue funds and other
funds as well as be included in establishing user fees, permits and applications, billing rates, hourly rates Q
and costs of special services. —
F—
Under OMB Circular A-87 guidelines, which are now codified in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) at 2 225 CFR, local governments may be reimbursed for these administrative and support ..o
expenditures if they are documented in a cost allocation plan and indirect cost rates that are compliant E
with the principles contained in the Circular. Generally, OMB A-87 compliant Cost Allocation Plans
are used primarily for external purposes such as recovering indirect costs on federal and state grants cva
and awards. Q
Pr*osal to Provide Fall CostAllotation Pion ef GD=de User Fee Shia),to the Gay gfSan Bemanfina•Alairh 31,2014 Page 3
1�061, , Pg.65
f <<
City of San Bernardino
,r Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A. INC.
COMPARISON OF COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGIES
COST PLAN TYPE OBJECTIVES TYPICAL USES CONSIDERATIONS
I 1 VIII I I
O • Identify the true costs • Charging non-General • Administrative and
of administering all city Fund funds for support costs
departments, divisions administrative and allowable under >%
Oand programs. support services. GAAP. Plan
conforms to OMB co
-�-- • Justification for • Recovering citywide A-87 principles, but
U.
n� charging the administrative and is not as restrictive. L
VJ proportional cost for support costs in hourly y
city administration and and billing rates. • Is not submitted for
FULL COST support to internal review to a c
• Recovering citywide t°
sources, or external g yam' cognizant agency. �
sources in the case of administrative and ca
support costs in use fees • Basis for transfer of a
billing rates and user PP r_
fees. and rates. dollars from non-
:r
GF to the General
• Typically result in I S% • Budgeting and resource Fund. e
higher returns than allocations. Q
OMB A-87 plans. o
,. v
• Identify administrative • Charging overhead • If this type of plan is N
costs allowable under costs to federal grants. used for grant or LO
OMB A-87, and claim use, OMB
distributing those • Charging overhead requires that an
costs on an equitable costs to state grants and annual plan be j
basis. SB 90 claims. prepared. Q
OMB A-87 o
* Charging admin and • Provides a conservative • Maybe reviewed by
overhead costs to view of city-wide a cognizant agency. s
grants, claims and administrative and
other uses that support costs.
m
specifically require E
OMB A-87 use. o
R
MGT's cost allocation plans also provide our clients with exceptional financial and managerial
information. Examples of useful and meaningful information that can be extracted from the project
results include:
> Understanding the true costs of operating departments, divisions programs and/or
activities such as IT and Police, including the users and amount of usage of identified admin
services.
Proposa.'to Protx'le Fu.°Cost A P!m&Ci�:;ide User Fee Study to the Cztj,ofS�n Bern a�diro �.11arch 31,201 Ria e 4
Packet Pg.66
City of San Bernardino M �
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF AMERICA. I N C.
> General Fund subsidies of services or programs.
> Unit costs of identified administrative services such as the cost per paycheck or other
similar services or tasks.
> An exceptional Microsoft-based cost allocation plan system that will allow San Bernardino
staff to add, delete, update or modify the final cost allocation plan results in future years.
This proprietary software system is Windows based with a streamlined GUI interface.
We will provide training either at the conclusion of this project, or during our Six Month
Follow-up Visit;whichever works best for the City. Cn
a�
a�
U.
Project Implementation Plan
The best approach to successfully completing a cost allocation plan/user fee study project is bring the =
full team of professionals to the City at the same time and conduct both parts of the project
concurrently. In this section,we will provide the City with a detailed description of the steps required
to produce a cost allocation plan and fee study. However, the overarching implementation elements CL
that will ensure project success are: c
r
is
> Pre-populate as much City data prior to the kick-off meeting as possible. c
> Project team works with the City on-site to collectively scope and schedule the project, N
as well as define roles and deadlines, 0
U
> Establish a clear communication plan. N
> Initiate the cost allocation plan(s) and the user fee analysis at the same time
ca
> Project Management - Discuss potential issues, challenges and choke points up front to
avoid problems later in the project. An example of this is agreeing to a finite review Q
window to review the draft cost plans and the draft user fees. We have found that a 30-
45 day window is very effective for multiple iterations between the departments and the o
consulting staff. Once the agreed to end date arrives, the project needs to move to the
next stage. Without that level of structural discipline, the schedule and momentum of
the study will suffer.
E
> Part of implementation needs to involve training and recommendations,both of which are
included in our plan. Training for both the cost plan and fee study will be available to the
appropriate City staff. MGT will also assist the City build fee recommendations based on Q
our analysis and understanding of the market.
> Six Month Diagnostic Visit — To our knowledge, MGT is the only consulting firm that
offers an additional on-site visit approximately six months after the conclusion of the
study. This visit is specifically targeted to assist with any lingering implementation hurdles,
and to answer any questions or concerns that have arisen. This additional service is
provided at no additional charge to the City.
Pgposal to Prwide Full CostAllocakon Nan&Up nzde User Fee Studj,to the Cite of Saa Berwarddno •llareh 31,2014 Page S
City of San Bernardino ,,
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF AMERICA, INC.
Cost Allocation Work Plan & Schedule
The following work plan has been refined over many years to provide a methodology that produces
MGT's cost allocation plans with minimal disruption to our client's workloads. The schedule shown at
the end of this section assumes a May start, and a typical schedule for a study of this scope and
complexity. This is a draft schedule which can easily be modified depending on the City's direction.
a
I. Conduct an initial meeting with designated personnel
�
Meet with city personnel who have responsibility or a high interest in the cost allocation plan.This Cn
a)
meeting will refine the specific objectives, requirements, measurements, and schedule of the a'
u_
consulting project. This meeting will also help the project consultants understand the unique d
aspects of the project specifically and the City generally. N
2. Conduct an introductory training session with all relevant personnel
c
Conduct an initial and introductory training session with key city personnel or kick-off ca
presentation for project stakeholders. MGT consultants will work with city personnel to establish c
the objectives, content, and list of attendees for this meeting or presentation. MGT considers this c
r
session vital to successful project results.
0
Agenda items for these meetings or presentations could include: Q
0
> Review the project objectives. v
> Review and finalize the project schedule. N
to
M
> Review available financial data and allocation statistics.
ns
> Explain the cost allocation plan process to interested department staff.
m
Summarize the purpose for calculating the cost allocation plan. a
> Discuss example summary reports produced by the project. o
> Discuss example applications produced by the project.
> Address potential areas for additional direct or indirect cost recovery.
d
> Solicit questions and answers. E
.0
3. Review City's organizational structure and any existing cost allocation plans Q
Review the City's organizational structure and any existing cost allocation plans and associated
data to determine appropriateness and to identify alternatives which may favorably impact indirect
cost recoveries. Prepare for department interviews.
4. Collect basic financial and operational data
Collect and review data such as organization charts, expenditure statements, budgets, personnel
counts, salary reports, and transaction statistics. Project consultants will work with City personnel
to develop and gather the needed data in the most efficient way possible. The review of this data
will provide the general structure for the cost allocation plan including the determination of
"allocating" and "receiving" departments.
Proposal to Provide Full CoftAAl catior,Plan&C 0wide User Fez StAr,to the G)g of Sar.Berrar dum •Alarrh 31.2014 Page 6
g,
City of San Bernardino MGT
to Provide User Fee and Cost
AW It Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, INC.
Allocating departments are referred to as central service departments and will include, but are
not limited to, accounting, purchasing, human resources, and information technology. Receiving
departments will be all operating departments and funds that receive central service support.
S. Conduct department interviews
Meet with and interview each central service department to determine the allowable expenditures,
services provided, direct billings, personnel providing the services, the recipients of the provided ^>,
services, and appropriate statistical information for allocations. The goal is to structure the cost
allocation plan in a way that accurately and fairly reflects current city operations. N
a�
m
6. Develop cost plan structure u'
L
W
Using the City's organizational structure, budget and staffing information, MGT will determine the
basic structure of the cost allocation plan, identifying central service (or allocating) departments
and operating (or receiving) departments.
c
ca
Using information gathered in Task 5, MGT consultants will complete Personnel Staffing Analysis �-
(PSA) worksheets to assist in dividing departments into functions. The PSA provides a basis for o
the distribution of department costs into functional areas.
0
7. Distribute central service department costs into functions Q
Central service personnel costs will be split into functional areas of responsibility based on o
timesheets, assignments, activities, or other allowed methods. Once staff members and their v
corresponding salaries are distributed into functions, other department costs such as materials
N
and supplies will also be distributed into the same functions. This task breaks a department into M
functional cost pools, which can then be allocated throughout the City using meaningful,
measurable, and auditable allocation bases. V
'i
d
Distribute the allowable costs within each central service department, and the incoming costs Q
flowing into each central service department, into the functions determined in Task 6. Incoming c
costs are the costs from other central service departments determined by a double step-down
calculation. The distribution of allowable department costs and incoming costs will determine the
total cost of providing each distinct service within each central service department.
d
This step utilizes a feature in the MGT proprietary cost allocation software not available in most t
other cost allocation plan software. The MGT proprietary cost allocation software has the ability Y
to analyze, display,and allocate the indirect costs of each central service department in great detail. Q
This detail facilitates review, explanation, and understanding of incoming costs which leads to
reduced errors, fewer reruns of reports, and the ultimate acceptance and approval of the cost
allocation plan.
8. Develop allocation bases for central service department functions
Determine an appropriate allocation base for each function in each central service department.
This determination will serve as the basis for allocating the allowable costs in each function to the
recipients of the service. MGT consultants will request corresponding transaction or other
statistical data from central service department personnel.
Proposal<Io Pro.=de Fu;.'Cos;A locator.Ran&City-rnide UserFre Study:o;;e Cifij of San Berrrarrliro ,49arr�3 1,2014 Pale 7
Packet P6:�G9
City of San Bernardino
TProposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF AMERICA, 114C.
Central service departments will allocate costs to all city departments and funds that benefit from
their services.This allocation methodology ensures the most fair and accurate distribution of costs
as opposed to a methodology that singles out particular departments or funds for maximum
allocation.
9. Process draft Full Cost allocation plan
Process the draft cost allocation plan using the MGT proprietary cost allocation model. The cost
allocation plan will include both summary and detail reports. The summary report in each cost
allocation plan provides information on the dollar amounts allocated from each central service v�
department to every receiving department.The detailed reports in the cost allocation plan provide
U.
information on the expenditures,allowable costs, incoming costs, personnel distribution,functions
L
and allocation bases for every central service department. u0i
D
10. Conduct internal review of the draft cost allocation plans a
The project director and the lead consultant will perform an internal review process to raise the _r-
accuracy of the cost allocation plans to ensure city personnel do not waste time reviewing a
substandard or incomplete work. o
cc
11. Provide draft cost allocation plans o
Present the cost allocation plan to city personnel for their review and approval. This step is an Q
opportunity to review preliminary results, address questions or concerns, and make changes as 0
necessary. Task 10 will ensure city staff review quality draft results and are not spend time editing
and correcting substandard work. N
In
M
12. Process final cost allocation plans
Process the final cost allocation plans after addressing issues or concerns raised in Task 11.
E
13. Provide final cost allocation plan in hard copy and electronic format Q
0
Provide six printed original bound copies, and one electronic copy (Adobe PDF file) of the each
final reports following confirmation that the work is final by the City's project manager.
Additionally, project consultants will provide electronic copies (Excel or Adobe PDF files) of
summary schedules, variance analyses, and management reports as requested. All MGT work
papers are also available upon request. E
Each cost allocation plan will contain: Q
> A narrative that clearly defines the purpose, uses, and goals of the plan.
> Descriptions of the methodology and procedures
> Descriptions of the central services and the allocation bases utilized to allocate costs
> Actual distribution of indirect cost to programs
> Other supporting documentation
Proposal to Provide Fw,11 Coat Allocation Plan&CiDv ide User Fee Stud},to the G�,of Sar,Bernardino Afar h 31,2014 Pale 8
Packet P .70
City of San Bernardino
,T Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, INC.
14. Present results of cost allocation plan
Conduct a presentation/training session with the City Council to explain the cost allocation
process, the calculation methods, the reasons for the plans and other related issues The goal of
this presentation is to increase the understanding of the cost allocation process and its implications
to the City.
15. Provide guidance and training
Provide guidance and training on an on-going basis to provide additional assistance to city staff
that has specific questions about the cost allocation plan process, methodology, and application of m
results. ii
L
d
16. Identify additional uses for the cost allocation plans
Research and identify additional uses for the management and financial data included in the
completed cost allocation plans including unit cost calculations.
CL
17. Prepare a project recap memo
0
Prepare a cost allocation plan recap memo.This memo will include comments and input from city
personnel to review regarding the just-completed cost allocation plans. This memo will provide o
an opportunity for timely feedback on aspects of the cost allocation plan project that went well Q
and aspects of the project that need improvement. n
0
SAN v
BERNARDINO • N
U)
EWGOING
COST ALLOCATI•
1. Initial Meeting �?
2. Introductory Training
E
3. Review and Preparation Q
O
4, Collect Core Data F_
5, Department Interviews g
6. Develop Cost Plan Structure
d
7. Distribute Costs E
t
8. Develop Allocation Bases
9. Process Draft Plan Q
10.Internal Review
11.Provide Draft Plan
12,Finalize Plan
13.Provide Copies
14,Present Results
15.Follow up Training,Guidance
16.Identify Additional Uses
17.Project Recap Memo
Piroposal to Piroirde Fa,l Cost A, catior:Pion&Cip3; de E.rer Fee Stub,to the 0 ,of San Ben.47n ito 31,2014 Pr{,,9
Packet Pg. 71
City of San Bernardino
,r Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, 114C.
User Fee Study Work Plan & Schedule
The following is a detailed work plan that summarizes the tasks necessary to complete the user fee
study.The schedule shown at the end of this section assumes a May start, and a typical schedule for a
study of this scope and complexity. This is a draft schedule which can easily be modified depending
on the City's direction.
I. Conduct introductory meetings with relevant personnel. Issue project memorandum 3
Meet with city personnel who have responsibility or a high interest in the user fee study. This
m
meeting will refine the specific objectives, requirements, measurements, and schedule of the user
LL
fee study, and will establish the overall objectives of the study. We consider this meeting vital to
successful project results including acceptance by department directors and officials as well as the w
City's elected officials. Based on the outcomes of these meetings, write and issue a memorandum
documenting the project scope, time line, activities, participant responsibilities and other related Ca
information as necessary. _
rY �
a
2. Conduct user fee survey c
MGT will conduct a user fee survey of comparable California cities,which will include neighboring 0
cities. This survey will focus on the most significant fees from each fee department that would —°
also be found in the survey cities as well. This survey will provide the City with important Q
perspective on relative fee levels, which will be incorporated into the final report 0
recommendations. v
r4
3. Collect basic financial data M
Collect and compile financial data such as expenditure statements, budgets, and salary reports. cc
We will work with city personnel to develop and gather the needed data in the most efficient way
possible. This data will provide the foundation for developing the total costs, direct and indirect, E
associated with each user fee service identified in Tasks 4 and 5. a
0
4. Catalog all existing user fee activities
Create an inventory of all the user fee services provided by the City.
c
m
5. Identify potential new user fee services s
Using our experience in other jurisdictions and our extensive data base of fees, we will create an :°
inventory of potential new user fee services that are currently provided by the City, but have no Q
corresponding current revenue.
6. Issue an inventory memorandum
Based on the outcomes from Tasks 4 and 5, write and issue a memorandum documenting all user
fees within selected departments within the City. This inventory will establish the scope of the
services to be included in the cost analysis.
Pmposa!to Pmiide Full CostAlloeation Plan&CiDwide UrerFee Study to the Cite of San Bernardino•.Afamrh 31,2014 Page 10
City of San Bernardino �,T,
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, INC.
7. Develop data gathering workbooks
Using the financial and staffing information and user fee inventory collected in earlier tasks, MGT
will develop data gathering workbooks to be used when interviewing city personnel. MGT will
pre-populate our Excel-based user fee model with staffing and budget information, user fee
services, and other support or non-fee related functions.
These workbooks are extremely helpful in facilitating discussion about how user fee services are >,
provided, and will also provide the City with a comprehensive view of resource allocation and
utilization for each department included in the study. Cn
d
<D
8. Interviews: San Bernardino departments providing user fee services L
m
Interview city personnel providing the user fee services identified in Tasks 4 and 5. In these D
interviews, we will determine the following information related to the user fee services provided:
c
> A unit of measurement for each user fee service provided. c�a
CL
> The number of units provided during the fiscal year. c
0
> The personnel providing each user fee service.
> The amount of time spent to provide one unit of a user fee service. c
> The amount of time spent per year providing all user fee services. n
0
U
In an individually designed meeting format(individual interviews,group interviews, etc.)verify that
100 percent of all time for all department, division, section, or unit personnel is identified and ,N
accounted.This extra step, not completed by most cost consulting firms, ensures that all costs—
user fee service related or not—are included in the study.
L
9. Calculate initial user fee schedules m
E
Q
Enter data into the firm's user fee calculation model, including data collected from the City's cost o
allocation plan as available.We will then calculate the full direct costs and indirect costs of each
existing and potential new user fee service. g
The user fee schedules created in this task are extremely detailed. Every cost component of the c
user fee service is identified and supported by detailed, yet clearly and concisely presented E
calculations.
w
10. Conduct internal review of the draft fee schedules Q
Undertake an internal review process to raise the accuracy of the user fee schedules. This review
includes the following steps:
> A formal review by the Project Manager of the study's assumptions and output.
> Compare user fee calculations to prior studies, if available. Variances are identified,
researched, understood, and explained to relevant individuals. The comparison and
variance analysis between years, which is available to city personnel, raises the accuracy
of project results.
Proposa!to Pro-r,&Furor Cost A_ocatiar P(ar:&Citpiride User Fee Stu.t,to the Cite of San Bernard flo Alar-ch 31,2014 Page 11
�` Packet Pg _73'"
City of San Bernardino
TProposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, INC.
> A final review of the user fee model by a project quality assurance consultant. This
experienced consultant, although not directly involved in the project, has a fresher
perspective of the project than does the lead and project consultants. This perspective
incorporates knowledge from dozens of similar projects.
11. Present initial calculations to departments and stakeholders
Review the initial user fee calculations with personnel from each department, division, section, or
unit; make changes as required. -a
Although the user fee schedules are fairly detailed, our consultants will spend as much time as Cn
requested with city personnel to fully explain the cost components of each user fee service. Our aoi
experience in conducting hundreds of these types of reviews helps facilitate this step. L
m
w
12. Recalculate and review user fee schedules
c
Recalculate data as required. Some departments require only one or two drafts and review.Other
c
departments require several drafts and review. Calculations will not be considered final until ea
P q
department, division, section, or unit personnel fully understand the calculations and fully support CL
the final results. o
r
13. Develop recommendations for fee adjustments o
MGT will work with city personnel and stakeholders to review and apply existing policies regarding Q
cost recovery. Recommendations for modifications to the City's policies for cost recovery of user v
fee services will also be considered.
M
N
City officials will consider many factors when deciding to adopt or modify a user fee policy. These M
factors could include: C
m
> A desired policy to establish user fees at a level that permits lower income groups to `m
participate in services that they might not otherwise be able to afford. Q
4-
> A consideration of community-wide benefit versus specific benefit.
> In conjunction with the second point above, the issue of who is the service recipient n
versus the service driver should also be considered.
c
d
Y Elasticity of demand increasing the price of some services results in a reduction of demand E
for those services, and vice versa.
> Public-sector agencies monopoly on providing certain services within its boundaries, such Q
as development-related services.
> Pricing services that encourage or discourage certain behaviors.
> Cost/benefit of establishing a cost recovery system for some services or the cost to collect
user fees.
We bring to this project experience from many similar projects that will assist city officials not
only to understand the relevant factors involved but also to integrate the factors involved in
determining City policies.
Proposai to Pv rdc Frei:'Carl Ai bCatoon P.w,� User Fee Stv�y to the Cif-of Sar:Berl,a lr:o •A1mzh 31.2014 Page 12
Packet P_§?4.`
City of San Bernardino ,
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, INC.
14. Prepare final user fee schedules
Prepare final user fee study summary schedules displaying costs and revenues of each existing and
potential user fee service.The user fee summary schedules will include the following information:
> A comprehensive list of all user fees by department.
> Annual volume statistics.
> Current fees charged. 3
> The full cost of providing each user fee activity.
m
> The subsidy (or over-recovery) of each fee. U.
L
d
> Recommended adjustments to each fee. D
> Potential revenue impacts, on a fee-by-fee basis as well as in total for each department.
c
15. Prepare and deliver summary of findings f°
CL
The user fee study results will be incorporated into a comprehensive management report. This c
report will include the following sections:
0
> Study scope and objectives. Q
> Fiscal results of the analysis and revenue projections for the City, o
U
> The methodology used to calculate the cost of user fee services.
M
N
> Summarized user fee schedules for each department, as described above.
M
> Fee Survey of comparable cities in California as well as neighboring cities
> All detailed calculations will be provided in a separate book.
E
16. Present results to city officials c
Present, or assist in presenting, the final user fee study results to city officials. The presentation
will include the Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study and all accompanying reports.
I �
17. Provide copies of documents and materials
E
M
Provide report copies: five bound, one unbound, and an electronic version of user fee reports to V
the City. Q
18. Transfer of knowledge and cost of service models
Provide the final copies of the customized Excel-based cost of service models for future use by
the City.
19. Provide continuous guidance, and assistance
A hallmark of our client-centered approach is our desire to provide guidance, and assistance to
all appropriate city officials and personnel on reading, understanding and applying the results of
the user fee study, and the associated schedules and calculations.
Prat=oea!ta Proartle Px_"CortA!1OCa,"or Parr UlerFee Stab to the CYy-ofSar,Berran#ro •111areb j1,2014 Page 13
City of San Bernardino ,T
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, INC.
•
AUG SEPT OCT
! GOING
1. Introductory Meetings/Prot Memo
2I, Conduct User Fee Survey
3. Collect Core Data
4. Catalog Existing Fees
3
5. Identify Potential New Fees U)
- G1
6. Issue Fee Inventory Memo
LL
L
7. Develop Data Workbooks y
& Department Interviews
9. Prepare Draft Fee Schedules
IO.Conduct Internal Review
CL
11.Present Draft Calculations c
12.Review/Revise Drafts r
13.Develop Recommendations p
14.Prepare Final Fee Schedules I Q
15.Prepare Summary of Findings !
" C
_ U
16.Present Results
17.Provide Copies and Materials p N LO
18.Provide Model/Methodology
19.Provide On-Going Assistance
e........
d
E
a
Cost Allocation Software and User Fee Models
I MGT's Proprietary Cost Allocation Software c
W
The MGT proprietary cost allocation software incorporates a double step down methodology, is s
technical and detailed, includes a one of a kind self-auditing feature and has been approved by federal
ca
and state cognizant agencies across the country.The Microsoft Windows based software is written in Q
a relational database and uses Microsoft Excel as a report writer. This platform provides unlimited
flexibility in calculating, formatting and reporting information. Data can easily be exported into many
city reports or databases.
The MGT cost allocation software was designed by our top cost allocation experts, and it produces
more than the traditional cost allocation data. With two years of data, allocation information is
automatically produced and includes comparisons of data, variance analysis and statistical information
that our clients find understandable and helpful. These reports provide:
Proposal to Pr,!,.ae Full Co tAhi cation P."zr.&Cil- ide User Fee Stxd3,to tree 0e ,of Sala Berrar�lirro ,Man-,,31.2014 Page 14
Packet Pg.76
City of San Bernardino ,T,
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF AMERICA, INC.
> A schedule comparing total allocated costs between fiscal years for every receiving
department.
> A schedule,by central service department,comparing allocated costs between fiscal years,
to receiving departments defined criteria(for example,a variance greater than 10 percent,
or a variance greater than $10,000).
> A schedule documenting unit costs of identified support activities, such as the cost of -a
payroll per employee, or the cost per purchase order.
Cn
d
> A self-auditing schedule that reconciles the sum of all central service department LL
expenditures to the sum of all allocated costs. `(D
rn
User Fee Model(s)
c
We use spreadsheet user fee models that are designed to be easy to use, yet powerful enough to
handle even the most complex of fees. The models are extremely flexible and able to accommodate a
organizations of vastly different sizes.The model that we create will be fully customized to accurately c
reflect the unique aspects of your organization.
0
Our model allows the cost of services to be analyzed at the unit cost level, or on a program-wide Q
basis where desired. The model accommodates the ability to individually control all types of costs, o
including personnel costs; contract costs, direct materials, departmental support costs and allocated t)
indirect costs, and includes several self-checking audit formulas. This allows the model to calculate cn
fees that are both accurate and comprehensive. to
�a
Summary of Costs and Fees, and Revenue Projections
a)
The end result of the calculations is a summary schedule of full costs and fees, divided into two distinct Q
segments: current fees and the impact from recommendations. o
C7
Developed with input from city staff, the recommendations section provides instant feedback for
decision makers as to what the subsidy will be for a service if fees are set at less than 100 percent
recovery.
E
By entering varying recovery levels, the model will re-calculate the fee and provide updated ;a
information regarding: Q
> Expected Annual Revenue
> Expected Increase Over Current Revenues
> Expected Annual Subsidy
�r
Proposal to Pronde Full Cost Allocation Plan&City udde User Fee Stimb,to the C't,of Satz Bernardino'Afairb 31.2014 Page 15
City of San BernardinoT
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
MG
Allocation Study OF AMERICA, INC.
MGT Project Team
_ While the qualifications and experience of a firm are important, perhaps more important are the
knowledge and experience of the proposed project team. The proposed project team combines rich,
deep knowledge and experience in preparing cost allocation plans and user fee studies in California.
-f— The information below provides highlights of our proposed consulting team's experience. Detailed
resumes are included in Appendix A.
r
Cn
e_
' Brad u_
• i ! r ! L
Partner in Charge
d
C
� to
C
(ill ; I Illi' �l o.
■ On e I ! I i c
O
Project ManagerR
User Fees V
Specialist O
a
o
Frank w U
! Mike Adams Cindy Sconce N
User Fee M
Specialist User Fee
V
L
E
Mr. Brad Burgess,Vice President. Mr.Burgess is the National Director of the Costing Services Q
Division at MGT.As partner in charge, he will be responsible for making sure that this project is staffed O
properly, ensuring the City's goals and objectives for this study are achieved, and that the City of San 0
Bernardino will be unconditionally satisfied with the services received from MGT consultants. Mr.
Burgess is an expert in project management, having managed or directed over 340 consulting projects c
over his 24-year career. He has taught hundreds of government finance official's indirect cost theory E
and application through numerous training sessions.
c�
w
Ms. Erin Payton, Senior Associate. Ms. Payton has over 26 years of experience providing Q
public-sector consulting services. She has a background in local government consulting focusing on
cost allocation development, user fee rate calculations, and jail rate studies. She has performed more
user fee studies than any other individual consultant in the nation, and has completed more than 200
cost plan and user fee studies for local governments. Prior to joining MGT, she was a senior manager
for management consulting firms PRM, Maximus, and DMG. Ms. Payton was the project manager on
the 2008-09 study for San Bernardino. Along with being the project manager for the anticipated
engagement, she will also work with Cindy Sconce on the cost allocation plan, and the following San
Bernardino user fee departments: Community Services, Public Works, Treasurer, Clerk, Finance, and
other fee departments.
Pro oral to Pror.rrle F:rr}'Cort A!locaton P,�nr.d�Cet�airle LIr;Ft.Str y m tGe Crt�of Sar,Bernardz�.o 141 arch 31,2014 Pa,-�,16
Packet Pg. 78
5.C.e
City of San Bernardino ,T,
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocafion Study of nMeaicA, INC.
Ms. Cindy Sconce, Senior Consultant. Ms.Sconce has over 12 years of professional consulting
experience working with local governmental agencies. She has worked with over a hundred agencies
including cities, counties and special districts on state mandated cost claiming projects, cost allocation
plans, and user fee studies. She has led and managed numerous consulting projects involving project
initiation and planning, managing the project's timelines and milestones, collecting and analyzing data
as a result of interviews and training sessions, performing quality assurance on deliverables, and project
close out. Her high level of organizational skills, strong attention to detail, and her ability to provide a
exceptional client services makes her a valuable asset to our consulting team. 3
Mr. Mike Adams, Senior Consultant. Mr. Adams has over 12 years of experience providing �i
public-sector consulting services. He has a background in local government consulting focusing on cost
allocation development, user fee rate calculations, and cost of service analysis. Mr. Adams was the N
D
primary consultant on the ground-breaking Los Angeles County Environmental Health user fee study -a
that changed the paradigm for charging health inspection fees in that county from square footage to a
risk-based model. Mr. Adams will be assigned to the same user departments he worked with during
the 2008-09 study: Police, Fire, Planning, & Building. a.
C
0
Mr, Frank Murphy, Senior Consultant. With an extensive background in Finance and
Management, Mr. Murphy has been providing local government cost base consulting services for over o
10 years. He specializes in the development of Indirect Cost Rate proposals, mandate cost recovery Q
and cost allocation development, and user fee rate analysis. He has been the lead consultant with w
0
some of the largest cities and counties in California where he has aided in the recovery of over $35 U
million dollars in direct and indirect costs. M
N
LO
M
U
•L
I_
Q
LLO
tr
VC
G
E
U
tSS
.v
Y
Q
I Pro�)osal to Pmide Fud Cost AZocation Plan Z Cit wide User Fee Stuff,to the Cite of Sar.Bernardino 1larcb 31,2014 'Rik-
Packet Pg. 79
City of San Bernardino ,�T
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, INC.
V) MGT of America, Inc. (MGT) is a private corporation owned by the current and retired partners,
principals, and consultants of the firm. The advantage of this ownership structure to our clients is that
Oevery member of the firm has a vested interest in the successful completion of every project,for every
client. Additionally, this ownership structure creates a mindset that permeates through every MGT
owner: we are continuously building a growing, yet stable firm based on trusting long-term
relationships, both within our own firm and with all of our clients.
UMGT began operations in 1974 as consultants to the public education sector. Over the years, we have 3
.— expanded our capabilities to provide consulting services in three primary areas: education (K-12 and N
- - higher education), criminal justice, and financial analysis to a�
state and local governments. We currently have over 75 ti
professionals throughout the county. Our headquarters is in y
Tallahassee, Florida, with major regional offices in
VV ° v MGT Sacramento (CA), Denver (CO), Austin (TX), Bay City (MI), _
and Olympia, (WA). Our annual consulting revenue is
MGT Cod 9 SeMeas Cllanq
approximately $15 million firm wide. The Costing Services
Division has been in existence for 14 years. It was significantly L
augmented in 2007 with the acquisition of Public Resource C
Management Group, Ltd., whose consultants previously ITS
_ y=44- , worked for MAXIMUS, and David M. Griffith & Associates °
(DMG). The map to the left illustrates that MGT's Costing a
Services practice is especially strong in California. c
_tly� MGT's Costing Services Division is a national practice, and N
concentrates on cost allocation plans, user fee studies, state M
mandate cost reimbursement claiming,jail rate analysis, indirect cost rate proposals,and appropriation
limitation calculations. .L 2-
d
E
The Costing Services Division of MGT traces its roots to David M. Griffith&Associates (DMG). DMG Q
delivered more cost allocation plans to more local governments than any other firm—then or since.
It is fair to say that DMG pioneered the cost plan business for local governments on a national scale.
Virtually all of the Division's consultants worked for DMG prior to its acquisition by MAXIMUS, Inc.
We continue to set the standard for creativity and commitment to our client's goals, qualities that set c
DMG apart from all competitors. The majority of our Division's consultants have been directly E
employed in producing cost allocation plans for more than 10 years, with the average of 14 years of
direct government consulting experience.
Q
There are 26 full-time cost consultants in the Costing Services Division, 14 of which reside on the
West Coast (based out of the Sacramento office). We will be staffing this engagement with
professionals from our Sacramento office.
MGT has the deepest consulting bench in the local government cost and revenue industry. This depth
assures our clients that: (1) MGT has the ability to complete the assignment no matter what happens
to any one particular consultant; (2) if a project time-line has to be advanced, MGT has the resources
to commit additional staff to the engagement;and (3)with a combined 430 years cost plan experience
Propo al to Pros`de Fui!Cost rlfocatior.Fair&Gl}'a trle User Fee Sttd
y to t,,c Cit)of San Berrardiro Marzb 31,2014 Page 18
Packet Pg.80
City of San Bernardino
,r AVVN Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF A M E R I C A, INC.
and combined 297 years user fee experience, there are no issues that our team has not addressed,
and that expertise is only a phone call away.
Finally and most importantly, MGT has unmatched understanding of San Bernardino.We have assisted
the City with cost of service studies during our time at DMG, PRM and now with MGT of America.
p
g
y
y e
W also work for the majority of our SoCal neighbors in these specific service areas.
III �
Cost Allocation Plan References n
Ms.Tamara Layne, Finance Director LL
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Phone: 909.477.2700 0
CA e-mail:Tamara.Layne(a)cityofrc.us D
Work Performed:Cost allocation plans
Al Kruse, Department of Finance
Marin County, CA
Phone: 415.499.6178 _
akruse(o)co.marin.ca.us r
R
Work Performed:Cost allocation plans and indirect cost rates p
Marian Fahy, Senior Budget Analyst Q
Phone: 916-808-5077 0
City of Sacramento, CA v
mfahy@cityofsacramento.org
Work Performed:Cost allocation plans and indirect cost rates Cl)
In
Ms.Jennifer Sorenson,Senior Management Analyst M
Phone: 714.765.5100 x5418 U
City of Anaheim, CA
e-mail: isorensoneanaheim.net
Work Performed:Cost allocation plans Q
Heather Ippoliti, Finance Director O
N
Phone: 707.838.5354
Town of Windsor, CA e-mail: hippoliti(CDtownofwindsor.com
Work Performed:Cost allocation plans
E
t
R
Q
P.n.osal to Pro.n:de Fua'YCort Al.'ocatbr.Nin CiTj;a^di UserFee Study to the Cep,of5an Bernardiro •.11areh 31,201st Pale 19
Packet ' , 11
City of San Bernardino
TProposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF AMERICA, INC.
User Fee Study References
Summary of Work Performed:
Prepare a cost of service study, interviewing city staff,data collection,
developing the cost of services on a full cost,per-unit basis,comparing
the cost of services to the current fee levels, developing and
presenting recommendations on potential fee changes to city staff and
elected officials. In 2007 Newport Beach hired MGT to perform a
citywide cost allocation and user fee study.After the success of that y
Newport Beach, California d
j study, Newport Beach contracted with MGT on a six year two phase �i
cost allocation and user fee study project. Each three year cycle L
Ms. Evelyn Tseng includes one citywide cost allocation plan and a detailed fee analysis In
Revenue Manager for each city department. Given the current economic situation,
3300 Newport Blvd. -a
Newport Beach, CA 52663 analyzing each fee department on a three year cycle allows the city to
949.644.3141 devote extra resources to each department to ensure that the
changing service offerings are properly reflected in the master fee
ETseng @newportbeachca.gov schedule. In addition to the user fee study,the citywide cost a
allocation is being used to justify and recover millions of dollars in o
county and state funds.
0
Percent Completed by MGT: 100%of services are completed by Q
MGT. Erin Payton is the lead MGT consultant. w
Timeframe: Annually. 0
U
Adherence to Schedule and Budget:The annual deliverables are
provided within the project schedule at the negotiated fixed fee. N
In
M
Summary of Work Performed:
Prepare a cost of service study, interviewing city staff,data collection, m
developing the cost of services on a full cost, per-unit basis,comparing E
the cost of services to the current fee levels, developing and
presenting recommendations on potential fee changes to city staff and 0
City of La Mesa, California elected officials. M
Ms.Yvonne Garrett Conducted market survey of the city's existing and proposed fees to =
Assistant City Manager those charged by other jurisdictions. With city staff, conducted an m
8130 Allison Ave t
outreach meeting to explain fee adjustments to stake-
La Mesa, CA 91942 holders. Provided city with an updatable Excel-based master fee 0
619.667.1105
ygarrett(CDci.la-mesa.ca.us schedule. Q
The study included assistance in developing a cost recovery manual
and policies for user fees.
Percent Completed by MGT: 100%of services are completed by
MGT. Erin Payton is the lead MGT consultant.
Timeframe: Every two years.
Adherence to Schedule and Budget:The annual deliverables are
provided within the project schedule at the negotiated fixed fee.
PI oposal to Pron"de FwZ!Cost A.,oration Ran Cit3,u rde User Fee Stm6,to the Cif,of Sar Ben.ard;`ro •.liavrb 31,2014 Page 20
Packet Pg.82 1
City of San Bernardino,
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF AMERICA, INC.
Summary of Work Performed:
Prepare a cost of service study, interviewing city staff, data collection,
developing the cost of services on a full cost, per-unit basis, comparing
the cost of services to the current fee levels,developing and
presenting recommendations on potential fee changes to city staff and
elected officials.
City of Vallejo, California -a
Mr.Craig Whittom Tested and recalibrated the city's valuation-based building fees to V
Assistant City Manager ensure they do not exceed the actual inspection and processing costs. N
Instituted a new vacant building monitoring fee. Conducted market m
555 Santa Clara St. survey of the city's existing and proposed fees to those charged by u
Vallejo, CA 94590 other jurisdictions. With city staff,conducted an outreach meeting to d
707.651.7152 0
cwhittom(o)ci.vallelo.ca.us explain fee adjustments to stakeholders. Provided a narrative D
description for each restructured or new fee.Provided city with an "a
updatable Excel-based master fee schedule. ITS
c
cu
Percent Completed by MGT: 100%of services are completed by a
MGT.Jeff Wakefield is the lead MGT consultant. o
Adherence to Schedule and Budget: The project deliverables were o
provided within the project schedule at the negotiated fixed fee. —
n
0
U
MGT has prepared budgets for each of the two projects and will provide the proposed project N
deliverables for the following fixed, all-inclusive fees. .�"'..
INS
d
E
Q
O
H
C
d
E
t
V
cC
a�
Q
Pm,lvsai to Pr oru-,e Fal CostAl!ocation P o:dam°Citlur„e user Fec Stx�)-,'o the City of San Bemardiro D$airb 31,2014 Rte 21
Packet Pg.83'
City of San Bernardino MT,
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study OF AMERICA, INC.
User Fee Study
LQ MGT proposes to perform the User Fee Study for a fixed fee of$48,100.
0
D User .e Study Hours Labor Total
0 1. Introductory Meet/Project Memo 4 .; $600 $500 1 $1,100 1
^ 2. Comparison Survey 24 300 3,600
1�
3. Collect Core Data 2 300 300
4, Catalog Existing Fees 2 300 300 Li
5. identify Potential New Fees 21 300 300 y
6. Issue Fee Inventory Memo 2 300 300 -a
7. Develop Data Workbooks 24 i 3,600 1 3,600
8, Department Interviews 60 9,000 1,000 10,000
_ a
9. Prepare Draft Fee Schedules 60 9,000 9,000
_ _ O
10.Conduct Internal Review 4 600 600 a
11.Present Draft Calculations 24 3,600 1,000 4,600 O
Q
12.Review/Revise Drafts 40 6.000 6,000 N
13.Develop Recommendations 24 3,600 3,600 V
14.Prepare Final Fee Schedules 8 1,'00 1,200
15.Prepare Summary of Findings 16 2,400 2,400 51
16.Present Results 2 300 500 300 v
17. Provide Copies and Materials 2 300 100 400 m
E
18,Provide Mcdel/P.lethodology Q
... 4-
19.Provide On-Going Assistance O
F
U'
C
MGT will prepare invoices to the City using the following schedule:
E
U
30%of the contract amount Upon completion of department interviews Q
30%of the contract amount Upon delivery of draft user fee calculations
20%of the contract amount Upon delivery of final user fee calculations
10%of the contract amount Upon delivery of draft user fee report of findings
10%of the contract amount Upon completion of all services
Proposa,'to Psnszde Furl CostAk'ocat.'oi Plan&QO,A;=.,de UserFee.Stum,to tke C,p-ofSan$ernar%no-Maitfi31,2014 22
Packet Pg. 84
City of San Bernardino,
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost
Allocation Study O F A M E R I C A, I N C.
Cost Allocation Plan
MGT proposes to perform the Full Cost Allocation Plan for a fixed fee of$1 3,500.
Cost ♦ wn Plan Hours Labor •
1. Initial Meeting 2 1 $300 $500 $800
2. Introductory Training 2 300 300
3. Review and Preparation 1 150 150 U)
G1
4. Collect Core Data 1 150 150 F Li
5. Department Interviews 16 2,400 200 2,600
to
6. Develop Cost Plan Structure 8 1,200 1,200 -a
_
7. Distribute Costs 8 1,200 1,200
8. Develop Allocation Bases 12 1,800 1,800
_ a
9. Process Draft Plan 8 1,200 1,200 ? _
0
10.Internal Review 4 600 600 s
11.Provide Draft Plan mm 4 I 600 I 200 800 2
12.Finalize Plan 8 1,200 1,200 N
13.Provide Copies 1 150 100 250 U
14.Present Results 2 300 500 800 ch
i. C14
15.Follow up Training,Guidance 1 150 150 r�
16.Identify Additional Uses 1 150 150
17.Proiect Recap Mpmo 150 150 F E
TOTAL 80 $12,000 $1,500 $13,500
0
MGT will prepare the supplemental OMB A-$7 Cost Allocation Plan for an additional charge of O
$4,500.This fee assumes that the OMB plan will be prepared contemporaneous to the Full Cost plan.
d
E
MGT will prepare invoices to the City using the following schedule:
!4
Q
50%of the contract amount Upon delivery of draft full cost plan
30%of the contract amount Upon delivery of final draft full cost plan
20%of the contract amount Upon completion of all services
I
Ptnyosa!to Pm,�de Full CostA,iOw ioi.P,,',,c&Ci f teicle User Fee St,r*to*Fe Ci13 of Sari Bernarrling --arch 31,2014 Page 23
Packet Pg�$
City of San Bernardino �T
Proposal to Provide User Fee and Cost --
Allocation Study OF AM E R l c A, INC,
Annual Updates
In the event the City wants our firm to update the cost allocation plan, MGT proposes to update the
full cost plan for a fixed fee of$12,000 per year for three subsequent years. Any requested updates
to the user fee study will be negotiated based upon the scope of services requested by the City.
Hourly Billing Rates
MGT's hourly billing rates are as follows: N
m
m
u_
> Vice President: $225 per hour
> Project Manager: $200 per hour
> Project Consultant: $175 per hour
C
ca
Additional services requested that fall outside the scope of this project shall be on a time-an-materials a
basis using the above hourly rates, with all expenses billed at cost subject to pre-approval. r-
.2
Lightening Quick Contract Negotiations _o
a
MGT typically spends no more than one to two days reviewing and approving contracts. We are very o
responsive to City purchasing and legal requirements as well. We can assure the City that our 0
administrative staff is very responsive and efficient.
N
LO
M
R
U
.i
O
1=
Q
O
H
f�
C
d
>_
z
V
cC
Y
Q
Proposal to Pro ode FO Cost.Alloohon Plan C.• .wde User Fee Stud r to the Gros of Son Bemardino'.11arch 31,201.1 Paoe 24
Packet Pg. 86
City of San Bernardino MGT
to Provide User Fee and
Cost Allocation Study OF AMERICA, I N C.
r
cn
APPENDIX A
U-
RESUMES o-
c
0
r
0
0
v
M
N
M
� V
�L
E
Q
4-
O
f ~
C
d
E
t
v
ca
w
Q
Packet Pg.87
MGT J. BRADLEY BURGESS
:
Vice President—Costing Services
OF AMERICA, INC .
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE _
CONSULTING BACKGROUND. Mr. Burgess has performed a wide variety of cost- I PROFESSIONAL
of-service studies for California local governments and state associations since 1990. j EXPERIENCE
Over the past 23 years, he has developed a broad expertise in local government
consulting, with a primary focus on cost allocation methodologies, user fee analysis, 23 YEARS OF GOVERNMENT
state and local claims and grant applications, negotiations with state and federal ! CONSULTINc ExPERIENCE&PRIVATE
authorities, and indirect cost rate proposal development. He has served as a SECTOR LEADERSHIP
corporate officer for the following consulting firms: MGT of America, Public I >%
Resource Management Group, LLC (founder), Maximus, DMG-Maximus, and David MGT of AMERICA,INC. 3
M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. Vice President-Costing in
Services,Senior Partner,
d
Mr. Burgess has personally served over 150 cities and 41 of the 58 counties within MGT Board of Directors U.
the state of California during his 23-year consulting career. He has also personally August 2007—Present (n
provided consulting services to 19 of California's 20 largest counties. Mr. Burgess
also has extensive transit district experience, having worked with such districts as
PUBLIC RESOURCE
Los Angeles Metro Transit, SF Muni, BART, Charlotte Transit,and Sound Transit in MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC c
Seattle. Founding Partner d
2003-2007 EDUCATION. Mr B ur g ess received a Ma st er s In Public Policy Studies from t h e
o
University of Chicago, and a Bachelors of Journalism from the University of Missouri. W
MAXIMUS,INC. C
PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP. Mr. Burgess is a Senior Partner at MGT and serves Vice President Q
on the firm's Board of Directors. He is also the Vice President responsible for o
managing MGT's Cost Services Division, and is one of two partners responsible for DMG-MAXIMUS,INC. U
the division nationally. At PRM, Mr. Burgess was one of three partners who started Vice President
a firm that became the fastest growing costing services practice in the nation.
During his tenure with DMG and Maximus, Mr. Burgess was one of two vice DAVID M.GRIFFITH& M
v
presidents responsible for the$5 million local government consulting practice, with ASSOCIATES,LTD.
30 professional consultants, and over 400 clients served per year. In addition to SB Vice President L
90 claiming, additional representative consulting studies include appropriation
Director E
limitation studies, indirect cost rate proposal preparation, OMB A-87 cost allocation
Manager Q
plans, user fee studies, development impact fee analysis, and legislative analysis. Senior Consultant C
H
C7
PERTINENT STATEWIDE EXPERIENCE. Mr. Burgess served as the Associate
Director of the California Cities SB 90 Service and the CSAC SB 90 Service. In this STATE OF ILLINOIS
capacity, Mr. Burgess worked on behalf of all California local agencies to reach BUREAU OF THE BUDGET a)
resolution on statewide issues such as the Open Meetings Act impasse; developing Budget Analyst,Department E
unit costs for several current mandates; and has assisted agencies such as San of Transportation
Francisco, Santa Barbara County, Orange County, Santa Clara County, Sacramento Q
County, Monterey County, Marin County and San Mateo County, as well as large
municipalities such as Oakland and Sacramento to defend SB 90 claims under audit EDUCATION&DEGREES
by the California State Controller. Mr. Burgess has also represented local agencies
before the California Legislature, the Commission on State Mandates and the Bureau UNIVERSITY of CHICAGO
of State Audits. Mr. Burgess has also provided over 35 statewide training sessions on HARRIS SCHOOL OF
cost accounting theory, and presentations to over 20 state associations. PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES
Masters Degree in Public
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY. Mr. Burgess has a broad background in government, Policy Studies
public policy, and journalism. For three years, he edited and published a monthly
professional magazine for the University of Missouri. Mr. Burgess was the IDOT UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
budget analyst for Governor Thompson in the State of Illinois, and a consultant for Bachelors Degree in
Continental Illinois National Bank in Chicago. Mr. Burgess was a journalist for a daily journalism
newspaper in Kansas City, had professional projects in Egypt, Israel, &Saudi Arabia.
Packet Pg. 88
5.C.e
MGERIN m PAYTON
1 SENIOR ASSOCIATE
OF AMERICA , INC
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
PROFESSIONAL
Ms. Payton has been performing governmental cost of service studies since 1986. EXPERIENCE
She has a background in local government consulting focusing on cost allocation 27 Years of Experience
development, user fee rate calculations, and jail rate studies.
MGT OF AMERICA,INC.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE Senior Associate
Ms. Payton is recognized as one of the country's leading experts on cost of August 2007—Present a
service analysis. She has been instrumental in developing numerous cutting-edge PRM
analytical tools to define governmental costs and revenue enhancement Senior Manager N
opportunities. She has participated in local government consulting for more than 2003—2007 ti
27 years in both direct cost analysis and project management. DMG,DMG-MAximus L
Ms. Payton has directly participated in and managed literally hundreds of cost of AND MAxtMUS
m
Director
service studies for local agencies ranging in size from a population of just a few 1986—2002 c
thousand up to several million.
c
Ms. Payton has successfully delivered cost allocation plans, user fee studies, and EDUCATION/ a
jail rate studies for the following governmental entities: CERTIFICATIONS o
UC Santa Barbara c
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES C
City of Alameda City of Lathrop City of Rancho Cucamonga
0 Q
City of Brentwood City of Lompoc City of Redondo Beach c
City of Burbank City of Long Beach City of Richmond v
City of Calistoga City of Los Gatos City of Roseville
City of Camarillo Madera County City of Sacramento LO
City of Campbell City of Manhattan Beach Sacramento County t°
v
City of Compton City of Menlo Park City of San Diego
City of Concord City of Milpitas City of San Fernando
City of Culver City City of Mission Viejo City/County of San Francisco E
City of Cupertino City of Modesto City of South San Francisco c
City of Daly City Mono County City of San Jose
Town of Danville Monterey County City of San Luis Obispo
City of Dixon City of Moorpark City of San Mateo
.r
City of El Centro City of Morgan Hill San Mateo County y
City of Emeryville City of Napa City of Santa Clara E
City of Encinitas City of Newport Beach City of Santa Monica
City of Fairfield City of Ontario Town of St. Helena Q
City of Fresno Orange Co Registr of Voters City of Suisun City
City of Grover Beach Orange Co Treas-Tax Coll City of Sunnyvale
City of Hercules City of Inglewood City of Temecula
City of Hermosa Beach City of Palo Alto City of Santa Paula
Inyo County City of Pasadena City of Santa Rosa
Lake County City of Pinole City of South San Francisco
City of La Habra City of Pittsburg City of Torrance
City of La Mesa Placer County City of Watsonville
City of La Mirada Plumas County City of Wheatland
Lassen County Port of San Diego City of Whittier
Packet Pg. 89
ERIN PAYTON
PAGE 2
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE(CONTINUED)
City of Woodland Marin County City of Visalia
City of Huntington Beach Butte County Yolo County
LA County Environmental Health Modoc County
City of Fort Bragg City of Vallejo
OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES
City of Bainbridge Island, WA Clackamas County, OR 3
Clatsop County, OR Coconino County,AZ vn
City of Hillsboro, OR City of Kennewick,WA
City of Des Moines, IA Fulton County, GA U.
L
Johnson County, KS City of Lake Oswego, OR v0i
Lane County, OR City of Medford, OR
Morrow County, OR Multnomah County, OR
City of Ocean Shores, WA City of Portland, OR =
Portland (OR) Development Commission City of Salem, OR
CL
Tillamook County, OR Snohomish County, WA =
City of Spokane, WA Spokane County, WA 2
City of Tacoma, WA Thurston County, WA c
Umatilla County, OR City of Issaquah, WA Q
City of Houston, TX Pinal County, AZ
0
v
r�
LO
M
V
L
d
E
a
4-
0
F
C9
d
E
w
a
MGT
OF AMF RICA, INC.
Packet Pg.90
5.C.e
MGT
OF AMERICA , INC . CINDY SCONCE
SENIOR CONSULTANT
RANGE OF EXPERTISE
Cindy Sconce has over twelve years of professional consulting experience YEARS OF CONSULTING
working with local governmental agencies. She has worked with over 150 EXPERIENCE: 12
agencies including cities, counties and special districts on cost accounting
and state mandated cost claiming projects. Her range of experience MGT of America, Inc.
includes the following: Senior Associate
March 2013—Present ^y
Reimbursable California State Mandated Programs (SB 90) Nimbus Consulting
a• Government Cost Allocation Plans (OMB Circular A-87) Graup, Inc. 0
Project Manager
•:• Indirect Cost Rate Proposals December 2009—March L
•;® User Fee Analysis 2013 N
California Legislative Process and Bill Analysis MAXIMUS, Inc.
Principal Consultant
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE October 2003— c
umerous consulting November 2009
Ms. Sconce has led and managed
g g projects involving
project initiation and planning, managing the claiming project, collecting and Centration c
analyzing data as a result of interview and training sessions, performing Manager
quality assurance on deliverables, and project close out. December 2001 — o
October 2003 Q
State Mandate Reimbursement (SB 90) EDUCATION/ N
The following is a sample list of California agencies for which Ms. Sconce CERTIFICATIONS v
has prepared state mandated reimbursement (SB 90) claims: BS, Special Major in N
Fashion Marketing, M
County of Alameda City of San Jose California State --
County of Santa Clara City of Berkeley University Sacramento
County of Sacramento City of Santa Clara a,
County of Napa City of Fremont a
County of Siskiyou City of Sunnyvale o
County of Mariposa City of Bakersfield ~
In addition to being a veteran expert at state mandated reimbursement claiming, MS. Sconce
possesses direct experience in responding to desk reviews and working on field audits with the E
E
State Controller's office. She has also assisted her clients with the compilation and filing of
incorrect reduction claims when necessary. B
Q
Cost Allocation and Indirect Cost Rate Services
Ms. Sconce has worked with agencies in both the State of California and Colorado in preparing
their Cost Allocation Plans. In addition, she has prepared and reviewed indirect costs and
central support services for California cities in order to recover project revenue from the
California Department of Transportation.
User Fee Analysis
Ms. Sconce has worked with various cities in the State of California providing user fee analysis.
She has also worked with cities to specifically analyze their business license application
processing fee.
Packet Pg. 91
• 5.C.e
MGT MIKE ADAMS
SENIOR CONSULTANT
OF AMERICA , I N C .
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
YEARS OF
Mr. Michael Adams joined the PRM Group after nearly three years with EXPERIENCE:6
DMG-Maximus. While at DMG, he focused primarily on cost of service MGT of America,Inc.
studies and cost allocation plans. Mr. Adams graduated from Arizona Senior Consultant
State University in 2001 with a Bachelor of Science degree in economics. August 2007—Present
Mr. Adams has done extensive analysis of all City departments and PRM
assisted with the development of a new building fee methodology, which 003 Manager 2007
has been implemented for many municipalities. Working with these
Cn
departments required distinct knowledge of many state assessed rules DMG-Maximus, Inc.
and regulations. Senior Consultant U-
2001 —2003 L
a�
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE EDUCATION/
CERTIFICATIONS
Mr. Adams has been a lead consultant on the following user fee studies:
B.S., Economics
.° Pittsburg La Mesa Arizona State University t°
Huntington Beach °:• Emeryville 2001
Santa Barbara Dublin 2
cc
0
0
Mr. Adams is currently working on user fee projects in Daly City, Santa Ana, and Newport Q
Beach. o
U
Mr. Adams has also performed user fee or cost plan projects for the following cities/counties: N
LO
M
Long Beach Dublin
Huntington Beach •»° Pittsburg
Santa Barbara ❖ Coconino County a�
»° Los Alamitos Orange County Fire Authority Q
Irvine °:° La Habra o
•»4 Newport Beach Encinitas
Redondo Beach Redlands
Mr. Adams was made a senior consultant after his first year with DMG/Maximus. During his time E
with DMG/Maximus he participated in numerous user fee and cost allocation plan projects. His
experience included projects with:
.r
a
Fresno Orange
°
El Centro Covina
Temecula Banning.
Mr. Adams also completed projects for the counties of: Butte, Orange and Napa.
Packet Pg. 92
5.C.e
MGT
FRANK L. MURPHY
OF A M E R I C A , I N C
SENIOR CONSULTANT
RANGE OF EXPERTISE YEARS OF CONSULTING
Frank Murphy has over ten years of professional experience in EXPERIENCE:11
project management specializing in Government operations. He has
worked with city, county, state, special district, school districts and MGT of America, Inc.
joint powers authority agencies on cost accounting and state Senior Consultant
mandated cost claiming projects. His range of experience includes July 2013-Present
the following: MAXIMUS, Inc.
Business Unit Director in
•�• Reimbursable California State Mandated Programs (SB 90) Principal Consultant
October 2003-March U-
•:• Government Cost Allocation Plans (OMB Circular A-87) 2006,April 2007-June a_
•�• Indirect Cost Rate Proposals 2013
•:* Cost, Revenue and Forecast Analysis c
County of Orange
•:* California Legislative Process and Bill Analysis Health Care Agency
Administrative Manager o.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE April 2006-March 2007 2
0
Mr. Murphy has managed the completion of mandated cost claiming EDUCATION/
for some of the largest cities and counties in California. He has been CERTIFICATIONS Q
the lead consultant with over 35 agencies, and personally filed BS, Business, University N
combined claims in excess of$40 million dollars annually. of San Diego °
U
Certificate: Economic
The following is a sample list of agencies for which, Mr. Murphy has Development, San Diego
N
LO
prepared mandated cost reimbursement related claims: State University M
�-
County of Alameda City of Newport Beach E
County of Imperial City of Fullerton Q
County of Orange City of Orange o
County of Mono City of Redlands
County of Sacramento City of San Bernardino
City of Huntington Beach City of Santa Ana
City of Simi Valley City of West Covina
City of South San Francisco City of Baldwin Park
City of Long Beach City of La Mesa
r
Q
Prior to joining MGT of America, Mr. Murphy served as the SB90 Business Unit Director with
MAXIMUS Inc. where he provided direction, leadership, mandate expertise, staff development,
training and quality assurance to a staff of 8 consultants and supervised the consulting
engagements of more than 150 local government agencies. As the lead Project Manager for
over 35 local agencies he helped maximize state mandated cost recovery, evaluated
compliance practices and established tracking processes to comply with the State Controller's
document requirements.
MGT,
Packet Pg. 93
a
Y
W
(1)
U-
L
o.
O
U
0
Y
0
U
Cl)
N
U)
M
R
V
'C
d
E
Q
v-
O
H
C
N
MGT
V
Y
Y
OF AMERICA , INC . Q
J. Bradley Burgess, Vice President
Costing Services Division
916.595.2646 (Direct)
916.443.3411 (Office)
2001 P Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811
www.mgtamer.com
Packet Pg.94