Banning City Council
May 26, 2026

May 26, 2026
4:00 p.m.

In Chambers
Council Chambers
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. WORKSHOP

2.1 Banning Animal Shelter Feasibility Analysis Report

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Agenda Items Only

4. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING (WORKSHOP)

CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
The following information comprises the agenda for the special meeting of the Banning City Council, a joint meeting of the City Council and Banning Utility Authority, and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Banning Successor Agency Board.

This meeting is being held via Zoom so that members of the public may observe and participate in this meeting electronically. If you participate in this meeting via Zoom, you are agreeing to abide by the City's Zoom Community Standards for Public Meetings (provided in full on the last page of the agenda). Esta reunión se lleva a cabo en la Cámara y a través de Video/Teleconferencia en Zoom para que los miembros del público puedan observar y participar en esta reunión de manera electrónica. Si elige participar en esta reunión a través de Zoom, acepta cumplir con los Estándares comunitarios de Zoom para reuniones públicas de la ciudad (que se proporcionan en su totalidad en la última página de la agenda).

To observe and participate in the online video portion of the meeting through your personal computer or device, follow this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82012644588?pwd=GwdLNir0X6fHkhlgVjAjRUQf1C6yoz.1 Dial in: +1 669 900 9128
Meeting ID: 820 1264 4588
Password: 1913-92220
Per the City of Banning Manual of Procedural Guidelines, matters taken up by the Council before 10 p.m. may be concluded, but no new matters shall be taken up except upon a majority vote of the council members present and voting. Such an extension shall only be valid for one hour and each hour thereafter shall require a renewed action for the meeting to continue.

Recommendation: Receive and file the Banning Animal Shelter Feasibility Analysis Report prepared by IDS Group, Inc. and
provide feedback.

City Council - Special Meeting (Workshop) Agenda
May 26, 2026
1 Zoom Community Standards for Public Meetings
By participating in this meeting on Zoom, you are agreeing to abide by the City of Banning’s Community Standards for Public Meetings. Zoom attendees that fail to adhere to these standards may be removed from the meeting room.

Your microphone must remain on mute, and you may only unmute your microphone when/if you are recognized by the Mayor.

Your camera must be turned off unless/until you are recognized by the Mayor.

To indicate a desire to make Public Comment, you must use the Raise Hand function. The Mayor will not recognize those who have not used the Raise Hand function.

Public Comment from Zoom attendees will immediately follow in-person comment from members of the public in Council Chambers.

If you fail to adhere to these community guidelines, you may be removed for disrupting the meeting occurring in Council Chambers. You may rejoin the meeting but may be removed for each violation of these community standards.

The chat function will be disabled for all City Council meetings on Zoom.

Estándares comunitarios de Zoom para Reuniones Públicas Al participar en esta reunión en Zoom, usted acepta cumplir con los Estándares Comunitarios para Reuniones Públicas de la ciudad de Banning. Los que atienden por Zoom que no cumplan con estos estándares pueden ser retirados de la sala de reuniones.

Su micrófono debe permanecer en silencio, y solo puede reactivar su micrófono cuando / si es reconocido por el alcalde.

Su cámara debe estar apagada a menos que sea reconocido por el alcalde.

Para indicar el deseo de hacer un Comentario Público, debe utilizar la función Levantar la mano. El alcalde no reconocerá a quienes no hayan utilizado la función Levantar la mano.

Los comentarios públicos de lo que atienden por Zoom seguirán inmediatamente los comentarios en persona de los miembros del público en las Cámaras del Consejo.

Si no cumple con estas pautas de la comunidad, es posible que lo destituyan por interrumpir la reunión que tiene lugar en las Cámaras del Consejo. Puede volver a unirse a la reunión, pero es posible que lo eliminen por cada violación de estos estándares de la comunidad.

La función de chat estará deshabilitada para todas las Reuniones del Ayuntamiento en Zoom.

AFFIDAVIT • DECLARACIÓN JURADA
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED under the laws of the State of California that the above agenda was posted on the City's website (www.banningca.gov) as well as the Bulletin Board at Banning City Hall, located at 99 E Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220, at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
_________________________
Vickie Sellers, Elected City Clerk
Secretaria Municipal Electa
City Council - Special Meeting (Workshop) Agenda
May 26, 2026
2 PUBLIC NOTICE • NOTICIA PÚBLICA
Meeting Agendas and Notices
Interested in receiving email and/or text notifications of upcoming City Council meetings? Sign up for meeting notifications through the City's website. Pursuant to amended Government Code §54957.5(b), staff reports and other public records related to open session agenda items are available on the City's website (www.banningca.gov/).

Public Comment
Agenda Items
Any member of the public may address this meeting of the City Council on any item appearing on the agenda. A five-minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public and no member of the public shall be permitted to share their time with any other person.

Non-Agenda Items
Any member of the public may address this meeting of the City Council on any item which does not appear on the regular meeting agenda but is of interest to the general public and is an item upon which the City Council may act. A three-minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public and no member shall be permitted to share their time with any other person. No action shall be taken, nor discussion held by the City Council, on any item which does not appear on the agenda, unless the action is otherwise authorized in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (b) of §54954.2 of the Government Code.

Special Assistance/Accessibility Requests
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any member of the public may request that the agenda and agenda packet be mailed to them. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting (such as translation services), please contact the City Clerk's Office. Advanced notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will allow the city to make arrangements to ensure your accessibility.
¿Necesita servicios de traducción para participar? Contacto Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad.

CONTACT • CONTACTO
City Clerk's Office | 951-922-3102 | [email protected] 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220
City Council - Special Meeting (Workshop) Agenda
May 26, 2026
3 CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: May 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Banning Animal Shelter Feasibility Analysis Report RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the Banning Animal Shelter Feasibility Analysis Report prepared by IDS Group, Inc. and provide feedback.

BACKGROUND:

On December 9, 2025, the City Council awarded a professional services agreement to IDS Group, Inc. for the purpose of evaluating the short- and long-term viability of the City’s existing animal shelter facility and exploring opportunities for future improvements or expansion to support in-house animal shelter operations.

The scope of work included:

1. A full facility condition assessment of the existing shelter;

2. A feasibility analysis for interim and long-term use;

3. Conceptual site planning for expansion onto adjacent parcels; and

4. Preparation of a final report including operational and capital cost estimates, recommendations, and conceptual designs.

The Feasibility Analysis Report represents the City’s ongoing effort to evaluate short-term and long-term animal care and control service needs and identify potential capital investment strategies.

IDS Group, Inc. has completed the Banning Animal Shelter Feasibility Analysis Report. The report evaluates the existing facility, operational performance, and site conditions to determine the suitability of the facility for continued use, renovation, and potential expansion.

A key finding of the report is that the existing facility is significantly constrained in its ability to meet current service demands. Based on 2022–2023 intake data and capacity modeling, the shelter’s existing 28 kennel compartments represent only a fraction of the capacity required under typical operating conditions. When accounting for seasonal intake variability and peak demand conditions, the facility is estimated to operate at approximately 20% to 25% of the required capacity, resulting in an estimated capacity shortfall of approximately 75% to 85%.

The report identifies that these limitations impact operational efficiency, animal welfare, and the City’s ability to consistently meet current and future service demands.

To address these deficiencies, the report evaluates multiple development scenarios, including:
4 Continued operation of the existing facility at its current scale; Expansion and modernization of the existing facility to improve operational efficiency and increase capacity; and
Participation in a larger regional or multi-jurisdictional animal shelter model.

The analysis further identifies deficiencies related to building systems, site infrastructure, spatial organization, and animal housing capacity, while also evaluating opportunities for expansion onto adjacent undeveloped parcels.

To assist with implementation planning, the report organizes recommendations into two improvement categories:

Tier I – Immediate Repairs
Tier I improvements include critical repairs and system upgrades necessary to maintain safe and functional operations. These improvements focus on life-safety concerns, essential building systems, deferred maintenance items, and minimum operational requirements necessary for continued occupancy and use of the facility.

Tier II – Long-Term Solutions and Site Expansion
Tier II improvements include comprehensive facility modernization and expansion intended to improve capacity, operational functionality, and overall efficiency. This tier incorporates conceptual expansion onto adjacent parcels, modernization of animal housing and medical areas, improvements to public and staff spaces, and upgrades to utility and site infrastructure.

The report also contemplates the facility’s potential role as either an interim solution or a long-term facility capable of supporting expanded or regionalized animal shelter operations.

Cost estimates were prepared, providing the City with a planning-level understanding of anticipated capital investment needs and associated operational considerations. The recommendations are structured within a ten-year capital improvement framework to allow phased implementation while maintaining ongoing shelter operations.

JUSTIFICATION:

The purpose of this workshop is to provide the City Council and the public with the findings and recommendations contained in the report and to obtain feedback and policy direction regarding future animal shelter services and facility planning.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing the report or conducting the workshop.

Future fiscal impacts will depend on City Council direction regarding potential facility repairs, expansion, operational modifications, or participation in regional animal shelter partnerships. The report includes planning-level capital and operational cost estimates intended to assist the City in evaluating future funding strategies and implementation options.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 12.9.25 Staff Report Feasibility Report.pdf

2. 2026-05-11 Draft Banning Animal Shelter_Feasibility Analysis.pdf 5 6
7 DRAFT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS REPORT

THE BANNING ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITY

CITY OF BANNING
2242 E CHARLES ST. 92220
Prepared for:

CITY OF BANNING
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
By:
1 Peters Canyon Rd., Suite 130
Irvine, CA 92606
IDS Project Number 25X106.00
May 11, 2026
8 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Seals Page...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Section 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Program & Services .................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Community Relations ................................................................................................................. 9

1.3 Staffing ..................................................................................................................................... 12

1.4 Calls for Service ........................................................................................................................ 15 Section 2. Brief assessment of existing building ......................................................................................... 16

2.1 Staff Safety ............................................................................................................................... 16

2.2 Animal Health & Behavioral Deterioration .............................................................................. 19

2.3 Insufficient Facility Amenities & Infrastructure ....................................................................... 23

3. stakeholder meeting notes ..................................................................................................................... 27

3.1 Program Wants & Needs ......................................................................................................... 27

3.2 Problems to Address for Future Operations ............................................................................ 27

3.3 Considerations for the Future .................................................................................................. 27 Section 4. calculating animal capacity requirements ................................................................................. 27

4.1 Influence of Length of Stay ...................................................................................................... 27 Influence of Length of Stay (LOS) .................................................................................................. 27

4.2 Capacity Charts ........................................................................................................................ 29

4.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 36 Section 5. program of spaces ...................................................................................................................... 39

5.1 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 39

5.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 39

5.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 41 Section 6. site & floor plan diagrams .......................................................................................................... 49

6.1 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 49

6.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 49

6.3 Site Plan Diagrams Figure 1: Civil Engineering ....... 52 9 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Section 7. budget recommendations .......................................................................................................... 56

7.1 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 56

7.2 Budget Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................... 59

7.3 Budget Considerations ............................................................................................................. 60 Appendix A: stakeholder meeting presentation ......................................................................................... 63

10 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

SEALS PAGE
Design Professional of Record at IDS Group, Inc.

Mechanical/Plumbing Engineer:

Darren Smith, PE, BEAP
M30841

Electrical Engineer:

Steven Collins, PE, LEED AP
E22808

Civil Engineer:

Adrian Anderson, PE
C60955

Structural Engineer:

Rami Elhassan, PE, SE
S-3930

Landscape Architect
Jill Van Sickle, PLA, ASLA
5804

Architect
John Silber, AIA
C-34131

End of Seals Page
11 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IDS Group, Inc. (IDS) has completed a feasibility analysis for the existing Animal Shelter facility in Banning.

This report evaluates the site and existing structures to determine their suitability for continued use, renovation, and potential expansion to meet current and future animal care and control service demands.

The City of Banning owns all land and buildings associated with the facility. As part of the City’s ongoing efforts to assess long-term service needs and capital investment strategies, this report represents the second phase in the development of a comprehensive cost and feasibility analysis. The study provides a detailed assessment of existing conditions, operational performance, and spatial limitations, and establishes a framework for evaluating the facility’s role as both an interim solution and a potential component of a broader regional animal services strategy.

A key finding of this analysis is that the existing facility is significantly constrained in its ability to meet current demand. Based on 2022–2023 intake data and capacity modeling, the shelter’s existing 28 kennel compartments represent only a fraction of the capacity required under typical operating conditions. When accounting for seasonal intake variability and peak demand, the facility is estimated to operate at approximately 20% to 25% of required capacity, resulting in a capacity shortfall of approximately 75% to 85%. This limitation affects operational efficiency, animal welfare, and the City’s ability to consistently meet service demands.

This report evaluates multiple development scenarios, including continued operation at the current scale, expansion of the existing facility to support increased capacity and improved functionality, and participation in a larger regional shelter model. Each scenario is analyzed based on projected intake, Length of Stay (LOS), and peak demand conditions to establish realistic and data-driven facility requirements.

The feasibility analysis identifies key constraints and required improvements necessary to support expanded use, including deficiencies in building systems, spatial organization, animal housing capacity, and site infrastructure. The study also explores opportunities for expansion onto adjacent undeveloped parcels, allowing for improved site planning, increased capacity, and enhanced operational efficiency.

To guide implementation, recommendations for site and building improvements are organized into a tiered framework:
• Tier I – Immediate Repairs
Includes critical repairs and system upgrades necessary to maintain safe and functional operations.

These improvements address life-safety concerns, essential building systems, and minimum operational requirements for continued occupancy.
12 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Tier II – Long-Term Solutions (Including Site Expansion) Includes comprehensive upgrades and reconfiguration of the facility to improve capacity, functionality, and efficiency. This tier incorporates expansion onto adjacent parcels, modernization of animal housing and medical areas, improvements to public and staff spaces, and upgrades to building systems and site infrastructure. Tier II improvements are intended to support the facility as an interim or potentially long-term solution, including the ability to accommodate expanded or multijurisdictional service demands.

Cost estimates have been developed for each improvement tier and development scenario, providing the City with a clear understanding of capital investment requirements and associated operational implications.

These recommendations are structured within a ten-year capital improvement framework, allowing for phased implementation that maintains ongoing operations while advancing toward long-term facility goals. The findings of this report, including conceptual site planning and program development, provide a comprehensive basis for decision-making regarding the future of animal shelter services in the City of Banning.

13 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

SECTION 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 Program & Services
Animal shelter facilities serve a wide range of functions that extend beyond basic animal housing. A comprehensive program must address the full lifecycle of animal care—from intake through outcome— while also supporting staff operations and public interaction.

Based on current operations and anticipated future needs, the program for the Banning animal shelter generally includes the following core components:
• Administrative Functions
Office space for staff, records management, licensing, and coordination of animal control services. • Animal Intake and Processing
Areas for receiving animals, conducting initial health and behavioral assessments, and completing intake documentation.
• Animal Housing
Separate and appropriately designed spaces for dogs, cats, and other animals, including general population housing and specialized enclosures.
• Isolation and Quarantine
Dedicated areas for animals that are sick, injured, or require observation, designed to limit disease transmission.
• Medical and Treatment Areas
Space to support basic veterinary care, including examinations, minor procedures, and ongoing treatment.
• Adoption and Public Interface Areas
Facilities that support public access, including reception, adoption viewing, and meet-and-greet spaces.
• Support Functions
Laundry, food preparation, storage, waste management, and maintenance areas necessary for daily operations.
• Staff Support Spaces
Offices, break rooms, restrooms, and other facilities required to support staff health, safety, and productivity.
14 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Services Provided
The existing facility supports a range of municipal animal services, which may include:
• Animal intake and impoundment
• Stray animal holding and reunification
• Owner surrender processing
• Adoption services
• Basic medical care and disease management
• Animal control support services
• Licensing and public assistance
As part of this feasibility analysis, consideration is being given to expanding or enhancing these services to better meet community needs and align with current best practices in animal care.

Future Program Considerations
In evaluating potential renovation or expansion of the facility, the City is also considering the incorporation of additional or enhanced services, such as:
• Expanded veterinary and medical capabilities
• Spay/neuter and preventative care programs
• Behavioral assessment and training areas
• Increased adoption and community engagement spaces
• Volunteer and foster program support areas
• Enhanced animal control and field services support
The inclusion of these elements would represent a shift toward a more comprehensive, service-oriented model of animal care.

Regional Service Potential
In addition to serving the City of Banning, the feasibility study explores the potential for the facility to accommodate a broader service area. This may include partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions to create a more efficient, regionalized approach to animal sheltering.

Such a model would require careful evaluation of program size, operational capacity, governance structure, and facility infrastructure to ensure that expanded services can be delivered effectively. 15 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Summary
The existing animal shelter facility provides a foundational level of service but was not originally designed to support the full range of functions expected of modern animal care facilities. As the City evaluates options for renovation, expansion, or long-term replacement, the definition of an appropriate program and service model is a critical step in determining space needs, operational requirements, and overall feasibility.

The program elements and service considerations outlined above establish the framework for subsequent analysis, including capacity calculations, facility deficiencies, and evaluation of development alternatives.

1.2 Community Relations
Overview
Animal shelter facilities play a vital role in fostering positive relationships between local government and the community. Beyond their core function of animal care and control, shelters serve as highly visible public-facing institutions that reflect community values related to animal welfare, public health, and responsible pet ownership.

This section evaluates the role of the existing animal shelter in supporting community engagement and identifies opportunities to strengthen public interaction, accessibility, and trust through facility improvements and program enhancements.

Role of the Shelter in the Community
The City of Banning animal shelter serves as a key point of contact between residents and municipal services. Core community-facing functions include:
• Reuniting lost pets with their owners
• Facilitating adoptions
• Providing licensing and animal-related information
• Supporting animal control services
• Responding to public concerns regarding animal welfare and safety As such, the shelter represents not only an operational facility but also a civic resource that contributes to quality of life within the community.

Existing Challenges
Based on typical conditions associated with older and constrained facilities, the current shelter may present several challenges that affect community engagement:
16 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Limited Public Access and Visibility
Inadequate or unclear entry points, limited signage, and constrained lobby areas may reduce accessibility and discourage visitation.
• Insufficient Adoption and Interaction Spaces
A lack of dedicated meet-and-greet areas or comfortable viewing environments can negatively impact the adoption experience.
• Perception of Facility Condition
Aging infrastructure and outdated facilities may influence public perception, potentially affecting trust and willingness to engage with shelter services.
• Separation Between Public and Operations
Inefficient layout may create confusion or limit the ability to provide a welcoming and organized public interface.

Community Engagement Opportunities
Enhancing community relations should be a key objective of any renovation or expansion effort.

Opportunities include:

1. Improved Public Interface
• Clearly defined and welcoming entry sequence
• Adequate lobby and reception areas
• Intuitive way finding and signage
• Separation of public and operational zones to improve safety and experience

2. Adoption-Focused Design
• Dedicated adoption areas designed to be inviting and accessible • Meet-and-greet rooms that allow positive interaction between animals and potential adopters • Increased visibility of animals in a low-stress environment A well-designed adoption experience can significantly improve placement rates and reduce length of stay.

3. Education and Outreach
• Space for community education programs and workshops
• Opportunities to promote responsible pet ownership, licensing, and animal care • Partnerships with schools and community organizations 17 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

4. Volunteer and Foster Program Support
• Facilities to support volunteer activities
• Coordination space for foster programs
• Storage and resources for community-based initiatives Strong volunteer engagement can enhance operations and build community investment in the shelter.

5. Transparency and Trust
Facility design and operations should support transparency by:
• Allowing appropriate visibility into shelter operations • Providing clear information to the public
• Creating an environment that reflects humane care and professionalism Transparency helps build trust and reinforces the City’s commitment to animal welfare.

Equity and Accessibility Considerations
The shelter should be accessible to all members of the community. Considerations include:
• Compliance with accessibility standards (ADA)
• Multilingual signage and communication materials where appropriate • Convenient location and access via major roadways
• Adequate parking and safe pedestrian access
Ensuring equitable access supports broader community participation and service delivery.

Implications for Renovation and Expansion
To strengthen community relations, future improvements to the facility should prioritize:
• Enhancing the public-facing components of the shelter • Creating a welcoming and humane environment
• Improving functionality and clarity of public access
• Supporting programs that encourage community involvement These improvements not only enhance user experience but also contribute to improved operational outcomes, including higher adoption rates and increased public support. 18 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Conclusion
The animal shelter serves as a critical interface between the City and its residents, shaping public perception of municipal services and animal welfare practices. While the existing facility provides essential services, there are opportunities to significantly enhance community engagement through thoughtful design, improved amenities, and expanded programming.

Investments in community-oriented features should be considered alongside operational and capacity improvements, as they play a key role in achieving the City’s broader goals for service delivery, public trust, and animal welfare.

1.3 Staffing
Overview
Staffing levels and organization are fundamental to the successful operation of an animal shelter facility.

The number of personnel, their roles and responsibilities, and the efficiency of daily workflows directly influence animal care outcomes, staff safety, and overall operational effectiveness.

This section evaluates staffing considerations associated with the existing facility and identifies factors that will influence staffing needs under potential renovation, expansion, or regional service scenarios.

Existing Staffing Context
The current animal shelter operated by the City of Banning is assumed to function with a staffing model scaled to a relatively small facility and service population. Typical staffing roles may include:
• Animal control officers
• Shelter technicians/animal care attendants
• Administrative personnel
• Supervisory or management staff
Given the size and configuration of the existing facility, staffing efficiency may be impacted by:
• Dispersed buildings requiring increased staff movement • Limited visibility into animal housing areas
• Constrained workspace and support areas
• Overlap of roles due to limited personnel
These factors can result in increased labor demands and reduced operational efficiency. 19 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Staffing Drivers
Staffing requirements for an animal shelter are influenced by several key variables:

1. Animal Intake and Population
Higher intake and average daily population require increased staffing for:
• Feeding and cleaning
• Intake processing
• Monitoring animal health and behavior

2. Length of Stay (LOS)
Longer LOS increases workload due to:
• Extended daily care requirements
• Increased medical and behavioral interventions
• Greater need for cleaning and maintenance

3. Level of Services Provided
Facilities offering expanded services require additional specialized staff, such as:
• Veterinary professionals
• Behavioral specialists
• Adoption coordinators
• Volunteer coordinators

4. Hours of Operation
Extended public hours or 24/7 animal control services increase staffing needs and may require shift-based coverage.

Operational Efficiency and Facility Design
Facility design has a direct impact on staffing efficiency. Inefficient layouts can increase staffing requirements, while well-designed facilities can reduce labor demands.

Key Design Factors Affecting Staffing:
• Centralized vs. Dispersed Layout
Consolidated facilities reduce travel time and improve supervision 20 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Visibility and Line of Sight
Improved visibility allows fewer staff to monitor more animals effectively • Proximity of Support Spaces
Locating storage, laundry, and food prep areas near points of use reduces time spent on routine tasks • Circulation and Workflow
Clear and efficient movement paths support streamlined operations Investments in improved layout and infrastructure can result in long-term operational savings through reduced staffing inefficiencies.

Staffing Implications for Expansion
Under expansion or regional service scenarios, staffing needs are expected to increase proportionally with:
• Increased animal intake and capacity
• Expanded service offerings
• Larger facility footprint
• Extended hours of operation
Additional roles that may be required include:
• Veterinary and medical staff
• Dedicated intake personnel
• Adoption and customer service staff
• Facility maintenance personnel
• Program coordinators (volunteer, foster, outreach)
The transition to a regional facility model may also require a more formalized organizational structure, including management, supervision, and inter-agency coordination.

Staff Support and Workplace Environment
Providing adequate staff support spaces is essential for maintaining productivity, safety, and morale.

Facility improvements should consider:
• Office and administrative workspaces
• Break rooms and rest areas
• Locker and changing facilities
• Training and meeting rooms
A well-designed work environment contributes to staff retention and overall operational effectiveness. 21 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Use of Volunteers and Partnerships
Many animal shelters rely on volunteers and partnerships to supplement staffing:
• Volunteers can assist with animal care, socialization, and adoption support • Foster programs can reduce on-site population and workload • Partnerships with rescue organizations can improve outcomes and reduce LOS Facilities should include spaces and infrastructure to support these programs where feasible.

Implications for the Existing Facility
The current facility configuration may limit staffing efficiency due to its size, layout, and infrastructure constraints. As a result:
• Staffing demands may be higher than necessary for the level of service provided • Opportunities for operational optimization may be limited without physical improvements • Expansion of services may not be feasible without corresponding increases in staff and facility upgrades
Targeted improvements to layout, support spaces, and building systems can help mitigate these challenges in the short term.

Conclusion
Staffing requirements are a critical component of overall facility feasibility and must be considered alongside physical capacity and operational goals. While staffing levels are driven by intake, LOS, and service scope, facility design plays a significant role in determining how efficiently staff can perform their duties.

For the City of Banning, future planning efforts should integrate staffing projections with facility improvements to ensure that both short-term and long-term solutions are operationally sustainable. A balanced approach that aligns staffing, facility design, and service objectives will be essential to achieving efficient and effective animal shelter operations.

1.4 Calls for Service
To be determined
22 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

SECTION 2. BRIEF ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDING

2.1 Staff Safety
Staff safety is a critical component in evaluating the feasibility of continued use, renovation, and expansion of the existing facility. Animal shelters present inherently complex working environments where staff are exposed to a range of occupational hazards, including animal handling risks, zoonotic disease transmission, ergonomic strain, and operational inefficiencies related to facility layout.

This analysis evaluates existing conditions and identifies improvements necessary to provide a safe, functional, and compliant working environment that supports both current operations and potential future expansion.

Based on the current facility configuration—which includes a small administration building, multiple kennel structures of varying age, isolation areas, and dispersed support functions—several constraints may impact staff safety:

Fragmented Building Layout
The separation of functions across multiple small structures can result in increased staff travel distances, reduced visibility, and limited ability to monitor animals effectively.

Aging Infrastructure
Older kennel buildings may not meet current standards for ventilation, drainage, sanitation, and safe animal handling, increasing risk of injury and disease exposure.

Limited Separation of Functions
Inadequate distinction between public areas, animal intake, isolation, and staff-only zones can create safety conflicts and increase stress for both staff and animals.

Constrained Support Spaces
Limited space for staff work areas, storage, and break facilities may contribute to operational inefficiencies and fatigue.

Key Safety Considerations

1. Animal Handling and Control
Safe animal handling is fundamental to staff safety. Facility design should:
23 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Provide secure and direct animal transfer paths from intake to housing • Minimize cross-traffic between animals, staff, and the public • Include appropriately sized and designed kennels with safe access points • Incorporate double-door (sally port) systems in high-risk area

2. Zoning and Circulation
Clear separation of functions is essential to reduce risk:
• Public Areas (lobby, adoption) should be isolated from operational zones • Intake and quarantine areas should be separated from general population • Staff-only circulation paths should allow safe movement without animal conflict Well-defined zoning reduces:
• Animal stress and aggression
• Risk of escape
• Staff exposure to unpredictable conditions

3. Infection Control and Biosecurity
Staff are at risk of exposure to zoonotic diseases. Design strategies should include:
• Dedicated isolation and quarantine areas with controlled access • Proper ventilation systems to limit airborne transmission • Easily cleanable, non-porous materials
• Clearly defined clean/dirty pathways

4. Ergonomics and Physical Strain
Daily shelter operations involve repetitive and physically demanding tasks:
• Lifting animals, food, and supplies
• Cleaning kennels and handling waste
Improvements should include:
• Efficient layout to reduce unnecessary movement
• Properly designed wash and cleaning stations
• Storage located near points of use
• Adequate space for equipment and maneuvering
24 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

5. Visibility and Supervision
Maintaining visual control of animals is key to preventing incidents:
• Open sightlines into kennel areas
• Centralized staff workstations where feasible
• Elimination of blind corners and hidden areas
Improved visibility enhances:
• Early identification of animal distress or aggression • Faster response times
• Overall operational control

6. Security and Access Control
To protect both staff and animals:
• Controlled access points for staff-only areas
• Secure perimeter fencing and gated service entries
• Separation between public and animal intake zones
• After-hours security considerations

7. Staff Support Spaces
Adequate staff facilities contribute directly to safety and well-being:
• Break rooms separated from animal areas
• Restrooms and locker facilities
• Administrative and reporting spaces
• Areas for training and safety briefings
Providing appropriate support spaces reduces fatigue, improves morale, and enhances overall job performance.

Implications for Renovation and Expansion
To support safe operations, any renovation or expansion of the existing facility should prioritize:
• Reconfiguration of site circulation to improve separation of uses • Modernization or replacement of outdated kennel structures • Expansion of isolation and medical areas
• Consolidation of functions where feasible to improve efficiency and oversight 25 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Integration of current best practices in animal shelter design Where constraints of the existing site limit full implementation, the facility may function more effectively as an interim solution, with targeted upgrades focused on mitigating the most critical safety risks
Conclusion
Staff safety considerations play a central role in determining the feasibility of continued use and expansion of the existing animal shelter facility. While the current configuration presents several challenges, strategic improvements to layout, building systems, and operational flow can significantly enhance safety and functionality.

These findings should be integrated into the evaluation of development alternatives, balancing the cost of improvements against the operational benefits and long-term goals of the City and participating agencies.

2.2 Animal Health & Behavioral Deterioration
Overview
Animal health and behavioral well-being are fundamental considerations in evaluating the feasibility of continued use, renovation, and expansion of the existing animal shelter facility. The physical environment, operational practices, and duration of stay within a shelter setting directly influence disease transmission, stress levels, and behavioral outcomes for housed animals.

This section assesses how existing conditions may contribute to adverse health and behavioral impacts and identifies design and operational strategies necessary to support improved animal welfare in both interim and long-term facility scenarios Relationship Between Length of Stay and Outcomes
Length of Stay (LOS) is a primary factor affecting both animal health and behavior. Extended stays in a shelter environment are associated with:
• Increased exposure to infectious disease
• Heightened stress and anxiety
• Development or escalation of negative behaviors (e.g., aggression, withdrawal) • Reduced likelihood of adoption
As LOS increases, the risk of deterioration grows, placing additional strain on staff, resources, and facility capacity. Therefore, both facility design and operational efficiency must support minimizing LOS wherever possible.
26 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Existing Conditions and Constraints
The current configuration—comprised of multiple small, aging kennel structures and limited support space—may contribute to the following concerns:
• Inadequate Ventilation and Environmental Control
Older kennel buildings may lack modern HVAC systems, contributing to poor air quality, temperature fluctuations, and increased airborne disease transmission. • Limited Isolation and Quarantine Capacity
Insufficient or undersized isolation areas can hinder the ability to separate sick or high-risk animals, increasing the potential for disease spread.
• Noise and Stress Factors
Close proximity of kennels, particularly in confined or acoustically reflective spaces, can elevate noise levels and stress, especially for dogs.
• Restricted Space and Enrichment Opportunities
Small or outdated enclosures may not provide adequate space for movement, exercise, or behavioral enrichment.
• Inefficient Layout and Circulation
Fragmented site organization can lead to increased animal movement and handling, which may elevate stress and risk of exposure.

Key Health Considerations

1. Disease Prevention and Control
Animal shelters must function as controlled environments to limit the spread of infectious diseases.

Critical design elements include:
• Properly designed and balanced ventilation systems
• Dedicated intake, quarantine, and isolation areas
• Clear separation between healthy, at-risk, and sick populations • Durable, non-porous materials that support effective cleaning and disinfection Without these features, disease outbreaks can significantly impact capacity and operational effectiveness

2. Sanitation and Hygiene
Effective sanitation is essential for maintaining animal health:
• Adequate drainage and wash-down capabilities in kennel areas 27 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Convenient access to cleaning supplies and equipment
• Separation of clean and contaminated zones
• Design that minimizes cross-contamination during routine operations Older facilities often present challenges in achieving modern sanitation standards.

3. Environmental Quality
Environmental conditions directly influence immune health and recovery:
• Temperature and humidity control
• Air exchange rates and filtration
• Access to natural light where feasible
• Reduction of drafts and stagnant air zones
Improved environmental quality supports both physical health and behavioral stability.

Behavioral Health Considerations

1. Stress Reduction
Shelter environments can be inherently stressful. Design strategies should aim to:
• Reduce noise through materials and spatial separation • Provide visual barriers between animals where appropriate • Minimize overcrowding
• Limit unnecessary handling and movement
Lower stress levels contribute to improved health outcomes and adoptability.

2. Enrichment and Socialization
Animals require stimulation and interaction to maintain behavioral health:
• Opportunities for exercise and play
• Access to enrichment elements (toys, varied environments) • Spaces for human interaction and training
• Separation of high-stress and low-stress animals
Facilities that support enrichment can reduce behavioral deterioration over time. 28 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

3. Species-Specific Needs
Dogs and cats have distinct environmental requirements:
• Dogs: Benefit from exercise areas, controlled noise environments, and structured interaction • Cats: Require quieter spaces, vertical territory, and separation from dogs Design must account for these differences to support overall well-being.

Implications for Renovation and Expansion
To mitigate health and behavioral deterioration, improvements to the existing facility should prioritize:
• Expansion and modernization of isolation and medical areas • Upgraded ventilation and environmental control systems • Replacement or renovation of outdated kennel structures • Improved spatial organization to support proper animal flow and separation • Integration of enrichment and exercise spaces
Where limitations of the existing site or structures restrict these improvements, the facility may be more appropriate as an interim solution, with targeted upgrades focused on critical deficiencies.

Operational Considerations
Facility improvements should be paired with operational strategies to reduce LOS and improve outcomes:
• Enhanced adoption and foster programs
• Efficient intake and processing procedures
• Behavioral assessment and intervention programs
• Partnerships with rescue organizations
Operational efficiency can significantly reduce the negative impacts associated with extended shelter stays.

Conclusion
Animal health and behavioral outcomes are directly influenced by both the physical environment and operational practices of a shelter facility. The existing conditions present several challenges that may contribute to increased disease risk and behavioral deterioration, particularly under expanded or regional use scenarios.
29 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Strategic investments in facility upgrades, combined with improved operational practices, can significantly enhance animal welfare, increase adoption success, and reduce overall system strain.

These considerations should play a central role in evaluating renovation, expansion, and longterm development alternatives.

2.3 Insufficient Facility Amenities & Infrastructure
Overview
Adequate facility amenities and supporting infrastructure are essential to the effective, safe, and humane operation of an animal shelter. Modern animal care facilities require a balance of operational, medical, and public-facing spaces, supported by reliable building systems and site infrastructure.

This assessment evaluates the extent to which the existing animal shelter facilities meet current standards and identifies deficiencies that may limit the City’s ability to provide efficient services, support staff, and maintain appropriate levels of animal care—particularly under scenarios involving expanded or regional use.

Existing Conditions and Limitations
The current facility consists of a small administration building, multiple kennel structures of varying age and condition, isolation pens, and limited accessory structures. While functional for basic operations, the facility appears to lack several key amenities and infrastructure components typical of contemporary animal shelters.

Primary limitations may include:
• Undersized and Dispersed Facilities
The overall building area is limited and distributed across multiple detached structures, reducing operational efficiency and limiting opportunities for functional adjacencies. • Aging and Obsolete Structures
Older kennel buildings and support spaces may not meet current standards for durability, sanitation, or environmental control.
• Limited Dedicated Program Space
The facility may lack sufficient areas for medical treatment, animal intake processing, behavioral evaluation, and public interaction.
30 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Inadequate Site Infrastructure
Site systems—including utilities, drainage, and circulation—may not be designed to support increased capacity or modern operational demands.

Deficiencies in Core Functional Areas

1. Intake and Processing Areas
Efficient intake is critical to shelter operations. Deficiencies may include:
• Lack of a dedicated intake and examination space
• Inadequate separation between incoming and existing animal populations • Limited space for documentation, assessment, and initial care These constraints can result in operational bottlenecks and increased risk of disease transmission.

2. Medical and Isolation Facilities
Modern shelters require robust veterinary and isolation capabilities. Potential gaps include:
• Insufficient or undersized medical treatment areas
• Limited quarantine/isolation capacity
• Lack of proper environmental controls in these critical spaces Without adequate facilities, the shelter’s ability to manage illness and injury is significantly constrained.

3. Animal Housing and Support Spaces
Existing kennel areas may not meet current standards for:
• Space per animal
• Environmental enrichment
• Noise control
• Cleaning and sanitation efficiency
Additionally, there may be limited support spaces such as food preparation areas, laundry, and storage, all of which are essential for daily operations.

4. Public Interface and Adoption Areas
Public engagement is a key component of successful shelter operations. Deficiencies may include:
• Limited or inadequate lobby and reception areas
31 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Lack of dedicated adoption or meet-and-greet spaces
• Poor separation between public and operational zones
These limitations can negatively impact adoption rates and overall user experience.

5. Staff Facilities
Adequate staff support spaces are essential for efficient and safe operations. Potential deficiencies include:
• Insufficient office and administrative space
• Lack of break rooms, lockers, and restrooms
• Limited space for training, meetings, and reporting
Inadequate staff facilities can contribute to fatigue, reduced productivity, and staff retention challenges.

Building Systems and Infrastructure

1. Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Systems
Existing systems may be outdated or undersized, resulting in:
• Inadequate ventilation and air exchange
• Limited capacity for temperature and humidity control • Insufficient electrical service for modern equipment
• Plumbing systems not optimized for high-volume cleaning and sanitation Upgrading these systems is often necessary to meet current codes and operational requirements.

2. Site Circulation and Access
Effective site planning supports both operational efficiency and public access. Issues may include:
• Conflicts between public, staff, and service vehicle circulation • Limited parking capacity
• Inadequate access for animal control vehicles
• Lack of secure intake/drop-off areas

3. Utility Capacity and Expansion Constraints
Expansion of the facility may be limited by:
32 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Available utility capacity (water, sewer, electrical) • Site grading and drainage conditions
• Configuration of existing structures and setbacks
These factors must be evaluated when considering future development scenarios.

Implications for Renovation and Expansion
Addressing deficiencies in amenities and infrastructure will be essential to support any continued or expanded use of the facility. Key considerations include:
• Whether existing structures can be feasibly upgraded to meet current standards • The extent to which new construction is required to provide critical program elements • Opportunities to consolidate functions to improve efficiency • Phasing strategies to allow continued operation during improvements In some cases, the cost of upgrading infrastructure to meet modern requirements may approach or exceed the cost of new construction, particularly when considering long-term operational efficiency and lifecycle costs.

Role as an Interim Facility
Given existing limitations, the facility may be best suited for interim use, with targeted improvements focused on:
• Critical life-safety and system upgrades
• Enhancements to intake, isolation, and housing areas
• Basic improvements to staff and public spaces
This approach allows the City to maintain operations while planning and developing a larger, purpose-built regional facility.

Conclusion
The existing animal shelter facility provides a foundational level of service but lacks several key amenities and infrastructure components necessary to meet current standards and future demands. These deficiencies affect operational efficiency, staff effectiveness, and animal care outcomes.

A comprehensive approach to renovation and expansion—supported by targeted infrastructure upgrades and strategic planning—will be necessary to address these limitations. These findings 33 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

should be carefully weighed in the evaluation of alternatives, including continued use, expansion, or development of a new regional facility.

3. STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES

3.1 Program Wants & Needs
To be determined

3.2 Problems to Address for Future Operations
To be determined

3.3 Considerations for the Future
To be determined
SECTION 4. CALCULATING ANIMAL CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Influence of Length of Stay
Influence of Length of Stay (LOS)
At its core, required capacity is driven by a simple relationship:

 



   
ℎ  
365

1. Key Variables
Annual Intake
Total number of animals entering the shelter per year (by type if possible: dogs, cats, etc.) Average Length of Stay (LOS)
Average number of days an animal remains in the shelter from intake to outcome (adoption, transfer, return-to-owner, etc.)
34 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Capacity (Kennels/Cages Needed)
The average daily population (ADP)—this translates directly to the number of enclosures required.

2. Why LOS Matters So Much
LOS has a linear impact on capacity:
• If LOS doubles, required capacity doubles
• If LOS is reduced by 25%, capacity is reduced by 25%
This is why operational strategies (adoptions, transfers, foster programs) are just as important as physical expansion.

3. Example Scenarios
Scenario A – Higher LOS
• Annual Intake: 2,000 animals
• LOS: 20 days
Capacity:
2,000  20 /365 " 110 kennels
Scenario B – Reduced LOS
• Annual Intake: 2,000 animals
• LOS: 10 days
Capacity:
2,000  10 /365 " 55 kennels
 Cutting LOS in half reduces facility size needs by half.

4. Planning for Peak Demand
The formula gives average daily population, but shelters must plan for peak loads.

Typical planning factor:
• Add 20%–30% buffer for peak intake periods
%&
'%
  ('
  1.2 to 1.3
35 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

5. Species-Specific Considerations
You should calculate separately for:
• Dogs (typically longer LOS, larger space needs)
• Cats (higher intake, shorter LOS)
• Isolation/medical (longer LOS, limited turnover)
Each category needs its own capacity calculation.

6. Functional Implications for Design
LOS directly affects:
• Number of kennels/cages
• Size of housing areas
• Cleaning and circulation efficiency
• Staffing needs
Long LOS also increases:
• Disease risk
• Stress on animals
• Operational costs

7. Benchmark LOS Targets (Typical Industry Ranges)
• Dogs: 7–20 days
• Cats: 5–15 days
• Stray hold (legal): 3–10 days (jurisdiction dependent) • Isolation/medical: often significantly longer

4.2 Capacity Charts
The following information is from the City of Banning Statistics Report_2022-2023:

1. Key Observations: What the data is currently showing • Intake varies significantly month-to-month
• There are major seasonal spikes, especially:
• Cats in spring/summer (kitten season)
• Dogs more stable but still variable
• Example:
36 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Cats reached 300 intakes in May 2022
• Typical months range closer to 50–130 intakes
Note: You cannot size the shelter based on averages alone—you must account for peaks.

2. Normalized Annual Intake (Derived)
Based on aggregation of the monthly data, the estimated annual intake (rounded for planning use) is as follows:

Year Cats Dogs Total
2021 (partial) ~400–600 ~500–700 ~1,000–1,300
2022 ~1,400–1,800 ~800–1,000 ~2,200–2,800
2023 (partial) trending slightly lower but still high variability Key takeaway:
• 2022 represents a stress-test year (use for planning) • Intake is not stable enough to rely on a single-year average

3. Capacity Chart (Core Planning Model)
A. Average Daily Population (ADP)
Use standard formula:

ADP = (Annual Intake × LOS) ÷ 365
Scenario Chart (Total Animals)
Scenario Intake LOS ADP
Low Demand 2,200 10 days 60
Moderate 2,500 14 days 96
High (Stress Year) 2,800 18 days 138
37 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

B. Peak Capacity (Required Kennels/Cages)
Apply 25–30% surge factor:

Scenario ADP Peak Factor Required Capacity
Low 60 1.25 75
Moderate 96 1.30 125
High 138 1.30 180

4. Species-Based Capacity (Critical for Design)
From data collected:
• Cats = ~60–70% of intake
• Dogs = ~30–40%
Moderate Scenario Breakdown
Species % Capacity Needed
Cats 65% ~80 spaces
Dogs 35% ~45 spaces
 This aligns with what your data shows:
• Large seasonal cat surges (kitten season)
• More stable dog intake
38 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

5. Graphs
Chart 1 – Annual Intake Trend (2021–2023)

• Separate bars for Dogs vs Cats
o Note: Shows growth + volatility
Chart 2 – Monthly Intake Variability

• Separate lines for Dogs and Cats
o This is critical—it visually proves:
39 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Seasonal spikes
• Why peak capacity matters
Chart 3 – Capacity vs LOS (Most Important)
(To be inserted in next iteration)
• Shows City how operations affect building size
• Justifies program assumptions

6. Key Planning Conclusions
Based on the data:

1. The Facility Is Peak-Driven, Not Average-Driven
• Extreme monthly spikes (especially cats)
• Capacity must accommodate surge conditions

2. LOS Is the Single Biggest Lever
Example:
• LOS 10 days → ~75 capacity
• LOS 18 days → ~180 capacity
o Note: That’s more than 2x facility size difference

3. Existing Facility Is Likely Undersized
Given:
• Current building SF
• Required capacity range (125–180 animals)
o Note: Strong justification for:
• Expansion (Tier 2)
• Or regional facility (Tier 3)

7. Regional and Stakeholder Service Demand Considerations In addition to the historical intake data collected from the City of Banning, stakeholder outreach conducted with neighboring agencies and jurisdictions identified several regional trends and operational considerations that directly influence future shelter capacity requirements. 40 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Responses from Riverside County Animal Control indicate that Riverside County currently processes approximately 30,000 animals annually across its shelter system, serving a countywide population exceeding 2.5 million residents, with continued long-term growth anticipated. Although Riverside County indicated that it would not routinely utilize a City-operated Banning shelter under the current model, the County acknowledged that a future regionalized system could involve limited emergency or overflow use for unincorporated areas within the Pass region. The County further emphasized that animal service demand is expected to continue increasing as regional population growth continues.

Similarly, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians indicated an anticipated need for continuous participation in a Banning-area shelter facility, with current dog intake estimated at approximately 80–100 animals annually and expectations for ongoing growth associated with increasing regional population and pet ownership trends. The Tribe identified capacity limitations, response times, and facility condition as major operational challenges and emphasized the need for improved intake, holding, veterinary care, and animal control support services.

Collectively, the stakeholder responses reinforce that the City of Banning shelter system does not operate in isolation, but rather within a broader regional animal services environment characterized by:
• Continued population growth,
• Increasing demand for animal services,
• Seasonal intake surges,
• Limited regional shelter capacity,
• and increasing operational complexity.

These findings suggest that future shelter planning should consider not only current local demand, but also the facility’s potential role within a larger regional response network.

Seasonal and Operational Demand Pressures
The stakeholder questionnaires further validate several operational trends already observed within the City’s intake statistics.

Riverside County identified spring through summer as the period of highest intake activity, particularly associated with neonatal kitten populations occurring between March and October. This directly aligns with the significant cat intake spikes observed in the City of Banning statistical data and reinforces the conclusion that seasonal surge capacity is a critical planning factor.

The responses also emphasized that shelters must accommodate a wide range of animal housing and operational conditions, including:
41 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Stray hold and quarantine,
• Isolation housing,
• Aggressive or dangerous animals,
• Evidence and investigative holds,
• Rabies quarantine,
• Livestock or large-animal holding,
• and medical treatment and recovery spaces.

These requirements indicate that future facility planning cannot focus solely on the number of kennels provided, but must also account for specialized housing types, operational separation requirements, and medical support infrastructure.

Implications for Capacity Modeling
The stakeholder input substantially reinforces the importance of using a scenario-based capacity model rather than relying solely on average intake assumptions.

Several operational themes consistently emerged:
• The importance of reducing Length of Stay (LOS),
• The need for robust adoption and lifesaving programs, • The necessity of veterinary and spay/neuter services, • and the importance of community-based support programs to reduce shelter intake pressure.

Riverside County specifically emphasized that simply expanding holding space without corresponding operational programs would not represent best practices in modern sheltering. Instead, effective shelter systems must integrate:
• Adoption and reunification programs,
• Foster and volunteer networks,
• Medical and spay/neuter services,
• Community outreach,
• and intake diversion strategies.

This reinforces the earlier conclusion that LOS remains one of the most significant determinants of required facility size. Operational efficiency and programmatic capacity are therefore directly tied to physical space requirements.

At the same time, stakeholder responses also indicate that even with optimized operational practices, the current Banning facility remains substantially below functional capacity requirements. Both Riverside 42 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

County and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians identified the need for expanded housing, improved intake processing, veterinary facilities, and modernized shelter infrastructure.

Regional Facility Planning Considerations
The stakeholder questionnaires also provide important guidance regarding long-term facility planning strategies.

Riverside County expressed concerns regarding the visibility, accessibility, and functionality of the existing shelter location, indicating that a modern shelter facility should be highly visible, publicly accessible, and designed to support volunteerism and lifesaving-focused operations. The County further suggested that complete replacement of the existing facility may ultimately be preferable to renovation of aging kennel infrastructure.

Conversely, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians expressed support for both phased expansion and continued use of existing facilities, emphasizing the urgent need for additional animal holding and care space regardless of implementation strategy.

These differing perspectives illustrate that while phased improvements may provide interim operational benefits, long-term planning should evaluate whether the existing site can realistically support the scale, visibility, circulation, parking, medical services, and operational flexibility required for a modern animal shelter system.

4.3 Conclusion
The analysis of animal capacity requirements, informed by the 2022–2023 statistical reports and supplemented by stakeholder outreach conducted with Riverside County Animal Control and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, indicates that the animal shelter serving the City of Banning operates within a demand environment that is both consistently elevated and highly variable. Intake data from this period reflects sustained volumes, with 2022 representing a peak year and 2023 maintaining similar trends, particularly with pronounced seasonal surges in cat intake during spring and early summer months. Regional stakeholder responses further validated these trends, specifically identifying increased spring-through-summer intake activity and significant neonatal kitten surges occurring between March and October.

When these intake levels are evaluated in conjunction with Length of Stay (LOS), the resulting Average Daily Population (ADP) significantly exceeds the capacity of the existing facility under most realistic operating conditions. Even under relatively efficient LOS assumptions, projected daily populations suggest a need for animal housing well beyond baseline levels, with additional capacity required to accommodate peak intake periods, emergency overflow conditions, and specialized housing functions. 43 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

This condition is particularly critical when compared to the existing facility’s physical limitations. The current kennel provides only 28 animal compartments, which represents a fixed and inflexible capacity that is substantially below the range indicated by capacity modeling. Based on observed intake patterns, stakeholder input, and reasonable LOS scenarios, required capacity during average operating conditions is likely to exceed this number, while peak conditions may demand several times the available compartments.

Regional stakeholder outreach additionally demonstrated that future shelter planning must account not only for local intake demand, but also for broader regional service pressures and operational expectations.

Riverside County Animal Control identified continued regional population growth and increasing animal service demand as long-term trends likely to impact shelter systems throughout the region. Although Riverside County indicated that it would not routinely utilize a City-operated Banning shelter under the current operating model, the County acknowledged that future regionalized or emergency overflow coordination may become necessary. Similarly, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians indicated an anticipated need for continuous participation in a Banning-area shelter facility and emphasized the need for expanded holding, intake, and veterinary care capacity.

As a result, the facility is effectively operating in a constrained capacity environment, where intake fluctuations cannot be fully absorbed within existing infrastructure. This limitation can contribute to operational challenges, including:
• Increased Length of Stay due to bottlenecks in processing and housing • Reduced flexibility to separate animals by species, health status, behavior, or quarantine status
• - Elevated risk of disease transmission and stress-related deterioration • Limited ability to accommodate specialized housing needs such as aggressive animals, evidence holds, rabies quarantine, and medical isolation • Greater reliance on external measures such as transfers, foster placement, or intake restrictions
The disparity between required capacity and available kennel space underscores that the current facility is not sized to support existing demand, particularly when accounting for seasonal variability, specialized housing needs, and peak intake conditions. While operational strategies aimed at reducing LOS can partially mitigate capacity pressures, they are unlikely to fully offset the magnitude of the shortfall created by such a limited number of compartments.

Stakeholder responses further reinforced that modern shelter operations require more than basic animal holding capacity. Both Riverside County and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians identified the importance of integrated veterinary services, intake processing, quarantine and isolation areas, spay/neuter capabilities, volunteer and foster support programs, and community-focused lifesaving 44 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

operations. Riverside County additionally emphasized that simply increasing holding capacity without implementing adoption, reunification, medical, and operational support programs would not reflect current best practices in animal sheltering.

Accordingly, the development of a Program of Spaces must be based on a scenario-driven capacity model that incorporates:
• Recent intake trends,
• Realistic LOS assumptions,
• Seasonal surge conditions,
• Specialized housing requirements,
• Regional growth trends,
• and appropriate peak demand factors.

This model clearly indicates that meaningful improvements to service levels, animal welfare, operational efficiency, and regional resiliency will require a substantial increase in available housing capacity beyond the current 28-compartment constraint.

The stakeholder responses also provide important insight regarding long-term facility planning. Riverside County expressed concerns regarding the visibility, accessibility, and operational limitations of the existing site and suggested that full redevelopment may ultimately be preferable to incremental renovation of outdated kennel infrastructure. Conversely, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians expressed support for phased expansion efforts, emphasizing the immediate need for additional animal holding and care space regardless of implementation strategy.

In conclusion, the existing facility’s limited kennel capacity represents a fundamental constraint on its ability to meet current and projected service demands. The combined findings from historical intake analysis, LOS-based modeling, seasonal variability, and regional stakeholder outreach collectively demonstrate that the current facility is substantially undersized relative to both present and future operational needs. Addressing this gap—whether through reconfiguration, expansion, redevelopment, or development of a new regional facility—will be essential to providing a sustainable, modern, and effective animal shelter system for the City of Banning and surrounding service areas. 45 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

SECTION 5. PROGRAM OF SPACES

5.1 Summary
The Program of Spaces for the proposed improvements to the animal shelter facility is developed using a data-driven and scenario-based methodology that aligns operational needs with spatial requirements.

This approach ensures that the resulting program is responsive to current service demands, adaptable to future growth, and grounded in measurable and defensible criteria.

For the City of Banning, this methodology is particularly important given the dual objectives of evaluating the existing facility for continued use and assessing its potential role as an interim or expanded regional resource.

5.2 Methodology
Operational Data as the Foundation
The development of the space program begins with an evaluation of operational data rather than predefined building sizes. Key inputs include historical animal intake, species distribution, and average Length of Stay (LOS). These metrics establish a clear understanding of how the shelter currently functions and provide a baseline for projecting future needs.

By grounding the analysis in actual operational performance, the program reflects the realities of shelter use and avoids reliance on generalized assumptions that may not be applicable to the specific context.

Scenario-Based Capacity Modeling
To account for uncertainty and support informed decision-making, multiple operational scenarios are evaluated. These typically include:
• A baseline scenario reflecting current intake levels and LOS • An optimized scenario incorporating improved operational practices and reduced LOS • An expanded or regional scenario reflecting increased intake from a broader service area Each scenario is used to calculate the Average Daily Population (ADP), which represents the number of animals that must be accommodated on a typical day. A peak demand factor is applied to account for seasonal fluctuations and unexpected surges, ensuring that the facility is adequately sized to maintain functionality under varying conditions.
46 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Translation of Capacity into Functional Requirements
The calculated capacity forms the basis for defining the functional components of the facility. These components reflect the full range of activities required to support animal care and shelter operations, including intake, housing, medical treatment, adoption, and administrative functions.

Each functional area is defined in terms of its purpose, operational requirements, and relationship to other spaces. This step ensures that the program supports efficient workflow, appropriate separation of uses, and safe interaction between staff, animals, and the public.

Application of Space Standards
Industry-informed planning metrics are applied to convert functional requirements into spatial needs.

These include space allowances for animal housing, medical and isolation areas, staff workspaces, and support functions.

Rather than relying on a single standard, a range of space allowances is considered to reflect varying levels of service, from basic interim improvements to more comprehensive, modern shelter models. This flexibility allows the program to be adjusted based on project goals, budget considerations, and long-term planning objectives.

Quantification of Space Requirements
The number of required functional units—such as kennels, cages, and exam rooms—is multiplied by applicable space standards to generate the total area required for each program component. Additional allowances are included for circulation, building systems, and structural elements to determine overall building area.

The result is a comprehensive program expressed in both assignable and gross square footage, providing a clear basis for design and cost evaluation.

Evaluation of Existing Facilities
A key component of the methodology is the comparison of the proposed program against the existing facility. The current buildings—including the administration structure, kennel areas, and support spaces— are evaluated to determine their ability to accommodate program requirements.

This assessment identifies which elements of the existing facility can be retained and upgraded, which require significant modification, and which may need to be replaced. It also highlights constraints related to building configuration, site layout, and infrastructure capacity. 47 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Integration of Operational Efficiency
Operational efficiency is incorporated into the methodology as a critical factor influencing space requirements. In particular, LOS is recognized as a primary driver of capacity. Reductions in LOS through improved operational practices can significantly decrease required facility size, while longer LOS increases spatial demands.

By evaluating multiple LOS scenarios, the methodology allows for a balanced assessment of capital investment versus operational improvements.

Phasing and Expansion Considerations
Given the potential need to maintain ongoing operations during improvements, the program is developed with consideration for phased implementation. This includes identifying short-term upgrades, intermediate expansions, and long-term buildout options.

The methodology also accounts for the potential expansion of the facility onto adjacent parcels, allowing for future growth and adaptation to changing service demands.

Integration with Feasibility Analysis
The final Program of Spaces serves as a foundational element of the overall feasibility analysis. It informs conceptual site planning, supports cost estimating, and provides a consistent basis for comparing development alternatives, including maintaining the existing facility, expanding onsite, or developing a new regional facility.

5.4 Recommendations
Tier I (Immediate Repair):

Tier 1 improvements represent the most critical and time-sensitive interventions necessary to maintain safe, functional, and compliant operations at the existing animal shelter facility. These measures are intended to address deficiencies that pose immediate risks to staff safety, animal health, and continuity of operations.

For the City of Banning, Tier 1 actions are focused on stabilizing existing facilities and infrastructure to ensure that the shelter can continue to operate effectively in the near term, regardless of long-term decisions regarding expansion or replacement.
48 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Purpose of Tier 1 Improvements
The primary objective of Tier 1 improvements is to correct critical deficiencies rather than expand capacity or introduce new program elements. These repairs are essential to:
• Maintain minimum operational standards
• Reduce risk to staff and animals
• Address code, health, and safety concerns
• Prevent further deterioration of existing structures and systems These measures are considered necessary under all future scenarios, including continued use, interim operation, or phased redevelopment.

Critical Building and System Repairs
Immediate attention should be given to the repair or replacement of failing building systems and structural components. These may include:
• Mechanical Systems (HVAC)
Repair or replacement of inadequate or non-functioning ventilation systems, particularly within kennel and isolation areas, to improve air quality and reduce disease transmission. • Plumbing Systems
Correction of drainage deficiencies, repair of fixtures, and improvements to support effective cleaning and sanitation.
• Electrical Systems
Upgrades to ensure reliable power, safe operation of equipment, and compliance with current standards.
• Building Envelope
Repair of roofs, walls, doors, and windows to prevent water intrusion, improve security, mitigate rodent control, and maintain environmental control.

These upgrades are essential to stabilize the facility and support basic operational needs.

Animal Housing and Safety Improvements
Targeted improvements to existing animal housing areas should focus on safety, sanitation, and functionality:
49 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Repair or replacement of damaged kennel components, including doors, latches, and partitions • Improvements to surfaces to ensure they are durable and easily cleanable • Correction of drainage and slope issues within kennel runs • Installation or repair of barriers to reduce animal-to-animal contact where appropriate These measures help reduce injury risk, improve hygiene, and support more effective daily operations.

Isolation and Biosecurity Enhancements
Given the importance of disease control, immediate improvements should be made to isolation areas:
• Repair and secure existing isolation enclosures
• Improve separation between isolation and general population areas • Implement basic measures to support controlled access and reduce cross-contamination While full modernization may require larger capital investment, these interim steps are critical to mitigating health risks.

Site and Operational Safety
Site-related improvements should address immediate operational and safety concerns:
• Repair of fencing and gates to ensure secure containment • Improvements to lighting for safety and visibility
• Correction of trip hazards and uneven surfaces
• Basic enhancements to circulation areas to reduce conflicts between vehicles, staff, and the public These upgrades are necessary to maintain a safe working environment and secure facility.

Staff and Operational Support
Limited but essential improvements to staff support areas should be considered, including:
• Minor upgrades to existing administrative and workspaces to improve functionality • Provision of basic storage solutions to reduce clutter and improve organization • Repairs to restrooms and break areas to maintain usability These enhancements support staff efficiency and well-being without requiring major expansion. 50 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Limitations of Tier 1 Improvements
It is important to note that Tier 1 improvements are not intended to address long-term capacity limitations or fully modernize the facility. Due to the age, size, and configuration of existing structures, these repairs will not resolve:
• Insufficient overall building area
• Inefficient site layout and building separation
• Limited ability to expand services or accommodate regional demand As such, Tier 1 actions should be viewed as stabilization measures that enable continued operation while more comprehensive improvements are planned.

Role in Phased Implementation
Tier 1 improvements form the foundation of a phased approach to facility development. By addressing the most urgent deficiencies first, the City can:
• Maintain uninterrupted operations
• Reduce immediate risks
• Extend the useful life of existing facilities
• Provide time for planning and funding of larger capital improvements These actions are expected to be implemented in the short term and are considered a prerequisite for any subsequent phases of renovation or expansion.

Conclusion
Tier 1 – Immediate Repairs are essential to ensuring the continued functionality and safety of the existing animal shelter facility. While limited in scope, these improvements address the most critical deficiencies affecting daily operations and provide a necessary baseline for future investment.

For the City of Banning, timely implementation of these measures will help stabilize the facility and support ongoing service delivery as longer-term solutions are evaluated and advanced.

Tier II (Long-Term Solutions)
Tier 2 improvements represent a comprehensive strategy for modernizing and expanding the existing animal shelter facility to better meet current standards and projected future demands. In addition to reconfiguring and upgrading existing structures, this tier considers the strategic expansion of the facility onto adjacent undeveloped parcels, where available, to address space limitations and improve overall functionality.
51 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

For the City of Banning, this approach provides an opportunity to significantly enhance operational efficiency, increase capacity, and improve animal care outcomes while leveraging existing site assets and infrastructure.

Purpose of Tier 2 Improvements
The objective of Tier 2 improvements is to move beyond basic repairs and implement meaningful, longterm enhancements that:
• Increase animal housing capacity to meet projected demand • Improve operational flow and efficiency
• Provide modern, purpose-designed spaces for staff and public interaction • Enhance animal health, safety, and behavioral outcomes • Utilize available land to overcome limitations of the existing facility footprint This tier represents a balanced approach between maintaining the current facility and pursuing a fully new regional development.

Reconfiguration and Consolidation of Existing Facilities A primary component of this approach is the reorganization of existing buildings to improve functional relationships and workflow. Improvements may include:
• Consolidation of fragmented program elements into more cohesive operational zones • Reconfiguration of kennel areas to improve visibility, supervision, and sanitation • Creation of a clearly defined intake and processing area with appropriate separation from general population housing
Where feasible, existing structures may be renovated and repurposed to support administrative functions, support services, or lower-intensity uses.

Expansion of Animal Housing Capacity
To address current and projected capacity needs, Tier 2 includes the expansion of animal housing through a combination of renovation and new construction:
• Replacement of outdated kennel structures with modern, efficient housing • Addition of new kennel and cage areas on adjacent parcels • Improved housing configurations that support sanitation, durability, and enrichment Expansion areas should be planned to allow for:
• Separation of species (dogs, cats, others)
52 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Flexible housing arrangements to accommodate varying intake levels • Improved environmental conditions, including ventilation and noise control Development of New Program Elements
Expansion of the site provides the opportunity to introduce program elements that may not be feasible within the existing footprint, including:
• Dedicated medical and treatment areas, including exam and procedure rooms • Expanded isolation and quarantine facilities with appropriate environmental controls • Adoption and community engagement spaces, including meet-and-greet rooms and public viewing areas
• Volunteer and foster program support areas
These additions support a more comprehensive and service-oriented shelter model.

Improved Public Interface
As part of site expansion, the public-facing components of the facility can be significantly enhanced:
• Development of a clearly identifiable and accessible entry and reception area • Separation of public access from operational and service zones • Creation of welcoming and functional adoption spaces
These improvements contribute to a more positive user experience and can improve adoption rates and community engagement.

Staff Support and Operational Efficiency
Expansion and reconfiguration efforts should include improved staff facilities and operational infrastructure:
• Adequate office and administrative space
• Dedicated break rooms, lockers, and restrooms
• Improved proximity of support spaces to operational areas • Enhanced circulation paths to reduce travel time and increase efficiency A more efficient layout can reduce staffing strain and improve overall performance.

Building Systems and Infrastructure Enhancements
Tier 2 improvements include comprehensive upgrades to building systems to support expanded operations:
53 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Modern HVAC systems designed for animal care environments • Upgraded plumbing systems to support sanitation and drainage • Electrical system improvements to accommodate expanded facilities and equipment Site infrastructure upgrades may include:
• Expanded utility capacity to support new construction • Improved drainage and grading
• Enhanced lighting and security systems
Site Planning and Circulation
Expansion onto adjacent parcels allows for a more effective and organized site layout:
• Separation of public, staff, and service vehicle circulation • Designated intake and animal control vehicle areas
• Expanded parking capacity
• Improved internal circulation between buildings
A well-planned site layout enhances safety, efficiency, and user experience.

Phasing and Implementation
Tier 2 improvements can be implemented in phases to allow continued operation of the facility during construction. Phasing strategies may include:
• Construction of new buildings on adjacent parcels prior to renovation of existing structures • Relocation of functions to minimize disruption
• Sequenced demolition and replacement of outdated facilities This approach supports operational continuity while enabling significant upgrades over time.

Capacity and Operational Implications
Through a combination of reconfiguration and expansion, Tier 2 improvements can:
• Substantially increase animal housing capacity
• Improve operational efficiency and workflow
• Enhance ability to manage intake fluctuations and peak demand However, while expansion improves capacity, the site may still face long-term limitations related to overall size, configuration, and ability to fully support a large-scale regional model. 54 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Role in Long-Term Planning
Tier 2 improvements with site expansion provide a viable long-term solution for enhancing local service delivery and may support limited regional participation. This approach allows the City to:
• Maximize the value of existing land and infrastructure • Defer or reduce the need for immediate large-scale capital investment • Implement improvements incrementally based on funding availability At the same time, this strategy should be evaluated alongside the potential development of a purposebuilt regional facility to ensure alignment with long-term goals.

Conclusion
Tier 2 – Long-Term Solutions, including expansion of the existing site, offer a comprehensive approach to improving the functionality, capacity, and quality of the animal shelter facility. By combining targeted renovation with strategic new construction, the City can significantly enhance service delivery while maintaining operational continuity.

For the City of Banning, this approach represents a practical and flexible pathway forward, balancing immediate needs with long-term planning considerations. While not without limitations, Tier 2 improvements provide a meaningful opportunity to modernize the facility and better serve the community in the years ahead.

Additional Considerations
To be determined
55 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

SECTION 6. SITE & FLOOR PLAN DIAGRAMS

6.1 Summary
The Tier I site and floor plan diagrams depict the minimum, essential improvements required to safely and lawfully return the existing City of Banning Animal Shelter to operational status. These diagrams are intended to support City Council deliberation and external funding review by clearly demonstrating how targeted, cost‑conscious investments can address critical deficiencies without expanding program scope or capacity.

Tier I improvements focus exclusively on stabilization and risk mitigation. The diagrams illustrate how existing buildings and site features can be reactivated to meet basic operational, health, and safety requirements, while deferring major capital expansion or modernization decisions to future phases.

Specifically, the diagrams show:
• Immediate corrections to conditions that pose risks to animal welfare, staff safety, and public access
• Minimal reconfiguration necessary to support essential intake, housing, care, and administration functions
• Operational layouts that comply with fundamental biosecurity and sanitation principles • Improvements that preserve the City’s ability to pursue long‑term facility solutions without incurring stranded costs
For funding and policy purposes, Tier I improvements are considered necessary under all future scenarios, including continued operation, interim use, phased redevelopment, or eventual replacement of the facility.

6.2 Methodology
Purpose-Driven, Minimum-Scope Planning
The Tier I diagrams were developed using a “minimum required improvement” methodology, intentionally limited to actions needed to restore safe, functional operations. This approach aligns with City Council and grant‑review priorities by:
• Controlling costs
• Addressing immediate liabilities
• Avoiding investment in features not required for near‑term service delivery No capacity expansion, new program elements, or discretionary enhancements are assumed or depicted. 56 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Existing Conditions as the Governing Constraint
All planning decisions reflected in the diagrams are anchored in the current physical condition of the facility and site. Existing building footprints, structural systems, utilities, and circulation patterns were treated as fixed constraints, with interventions limited to:
• Repairs and replacements necessary to correct failures • Minor reassignments of space to resolve operational conflicts • Selective improvements to surfaces, barriers, and access control This ensures the diagrams reflect implementable actions that can be undertaken quickly and realistically.

Tier I Assumptions
The diagrams assume completion of core Tier I measures, including:
• Restoration of essential mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems sufficient for occupancy and animal care
• Repair of kennel components, doors, partitions, and enclosures to ensure secure containment
• Improvements to sanitation through durable, cleanable surfaces and corrected drainage • Basic isolation functionality to reduce disease transmission risk • Immediate site safety upgrades such as fencing, gates, and lighting The diagrams do not assume full compliance with modern shelter best practices where those standards would require substantial expansion or reconstruction.

Functional Zoning for Safety and Risk Reduction
Within existing space limitations, the diagrams prioritize functional separation necessary to reduce risk, including:
• Distinction between intake, general population, and limited isolation areas • Controlled access to animal housing and support spaces • Separation of staff work areas from public circulation where feasible These measures are shown using minimal physical intervention—primarily through reorganization, access control, and selective separation—rather than major renovation.

Site Considerations Focused on Immediate Operational Safety The Tier I site diagrams address only those site elements that directly affect daily operations and safety, including:
57 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Secure perimeter containment
• Clear and safe circulation paths for staff, animals, and service vehicles • Improved visibility and lighting for security
• Correction of trip hazards and unsafe surfaces
No additional parking, public amenity features, or site expansion is included at the Tier I level.

Fiscal Responsibility and Grant Readiness
By clearly limiting scope and illustrating only what is required to restore baseline operations, the Tier I diagrams:
• Support transparent cost estimation
• Reduce uncertainty for funding agencies
• Demonstrate prudent stewardship of public resources
• Establish a defensible baseline for evaluating future capital investments The diagrams provide visual confirmation that the City’s immediate funding requests are tied directly to health, safety, and continuity of service, rather than long‑term growth objectives.

Role in City Decision-Making
For City Council and funding partners, the Tier I site and floor plan diagrams serve as:
• Documentation of existing operational deficiencies
• Evidence of a disciplined, phased approach to facility investment • A clear distinction between immediate obligations and discretionary future improvements
Tier I improvements, as illustrated, represent the minimum actions required to keep the facility viable, protect public and animal health, and buy time for informed long‑term planning. 58 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

6.3 Site Plan Diagrams Figure 1: Civil Engineering
59 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Figure 2: Landscape Architecture
60 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

6.4 Floor Plans Figure 3: Architecture & Structural Engineering 61 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Figure 4: Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Engineering 62 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

SECTION 7. BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Summary
Recommended Action for Tier I (immediate Repairs)
Adopt a resolution authorizing funding for Tier I (Immediate Repair) improvements to the existing City of Banning Animal Shelter in order to restore safe, functional, and compliant operations, and direct staff to proceed with design, procurement, and implementation of the identified Tier I scope.

Summary
The existing City of Banning Animal Shelter is currently mothballed due to facility deficiencies that affect public safety, animal welfare, and staff working conditions. Tier I (Immediate Repair) improvements represent the minimum level of investment required to safely return the facility to operational status.

These improvements are limited to essential repairs and upgrades necessary to stabilize existing buildings and site infrastructure. Tier I improvements do not expand capacity, add new program elements, or preclude future decisions regarding expansion, redevelopment, or replacement of the facility.

Approval of Tier I funding will allow the City to reduce operational risk, address deferred maintenance, and maintain continuity of animal control and shelter services while longer-term solutions are evaluated.

Background
A feasibility analysis of the existing animal shelter facility identified multiple critical deficiencies related to:
• Building systems (HVAC, plumbing, electrical)
• Animal housing safety and sanitation
• Isolation and biosecurity
• Site security and circulation
• Staff support spaces
These deficiencies prevent safe and effective operation of the facility in its current condition. Tier I improvements were developed to address only those issues that pose immediate risk or prevent basic shelter operations.
63 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Discussion
Purpose of Tier I Improvements
Tier I improvements are intended to:
• Restore basic operational functionality
• Address immediate health and safety concerns
• Reduce City liability and operational risk
• Stabilize existing assets pending long-term planning decisions These actions are considered necessary under all future scenarios, including continued use, interim operation, phased redevelopment, or eventual replacement of the shelter.

Scope of Tier I Improvements
The Tier I budget is limited to the following categories:

1. Critical Building Systems
Repair or replacement of essential mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems required for occupancy and animal care.

2. Building Envelope and Structural Repairs
Roof, wall, door, and window repairs necessary to prevent water intrusion, maintain security, and limit further deterioration.

3. Animal Housing and Interior Repairs
Repair of kennels, enclosures, doors, finishes, and drainage to support safe containment and sanitation.

4. Isolation and Biosecurity Measures
Restoration of basic isolation functionality to reduce disease transmission risk.

5. Site Safety and Security Improvements
Repairs to fencing, gates, lighting, and walking surfaces to ensure safe circulation and containment.

6. Staff and Operational Support Areas
Limited repairs to administrative, storage, restroom, and break areas to maintain basic functionality.
64 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

No expansion of capacity, modernization beyond minimum standards, or new program elements are included in this scope.

Fiscal Impact
Tier I improvements represent a capital maintenance investment focused on asset stabilization and risk mitigation. While detailed cost estimates are provided elsewhere in the feasibility analysis, the Tier I budget is structured to:
• Minimize expenditures
• Prioritize repair over replacement where feasible
• Maintain eligibility for external grant funding focused on health, safety, and infrastructure Funding sources may include existing capital maintenance funds, deferred maintenance programs, or grant opportunities. Tier I costs are independent of any future Tier II or replacement facility decisions.

Policy and Strategic Alignment
Approval of Tier I improvements supports the City’s goals to:
• Protect public health and safety
• Ensure humane animal care
• Demonstrate responsible stewardship of City-owned facilities • Maintain flexibility in long-term capital planning
Tier I improvements do not commit the City to continued long-term use of the facility, nor do they limit future policy choices.

Conclusion
Tier I (Immediate Repair) improvements represent the minimum necessary investment to return the City of Banning Animal Shelter to safe, functional operation. These repairs address critical deficiencies, reduce liability, and allow the City to continue providing essential services while evaluating long-term facility options.

Staff recommends City Council approval of Tier I funding and authorization to proceed with implementation.
65 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

7.2 Budget Cost Estimate
66 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

7.3 Budget Considerations
Overall Tier I Cost Summary
Based on the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) construction cost estimate, the total estimated cost for Tier I (Immediate Repair) improvements to the City of Banning Animal Shelter is approximately:

Tier I Total Estimated Cost: $830,000 (ROM)
This estimate reflects the minimum investment required to stabilize the facility and restore basic operational functionality. Costs are limited to essential repairs addressing health, safety, structural integrity, and operational readiness. No capacity expansion, modernization, or discretionary enhancements are included.

Primary Cost Drivers
Tier I costs are concentrated in a limited number of high‑priority repair categories, reflecting the age and deferred maintenance condition of the facility.

Building Systems and Infrastructure
A significant portion of Tier I funding is allocated to mechanical, electrical, and plumbing repairs, which are required to support safe occupancy and animal care operations:
• Mechanical (HVAC) repairs: approximately $100,500
• Electrical repairs and lighting: approximately $122,800 • Plumbing repairs: approximately $89,300
Together, these systems account for over one‑third of the Tier I budget, underscoring the extent of infrastructure deterioration and the necessity of these investments to resume operations.

Architectural and Interior Stabilization
Architectural repairs focus on enclosure integrity, sanitation, and security, including:
• Full roof replacement and localized roof sheathing repair • Interior drywall and ceiling replacement where damaged • Rodent remediation and deep cleaning
• Interior painting
• Exterior door and frame replacement
• Kennel hardware replacement
67 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

Architectural Tier I improvements total approximately $203,000 and are critical to preventing further deterioration and supporting safe animal housing.

Site, Civil, and Safety Improvements
Tier I site‑related costs address drainage, circulation safety, and accessibility, including:
• Site grading and drainage improvements
• Sewer jetting and inspection
• ADA parking adjustments
• Cold patching and striping
Civil and ADA Tier I improvements total approximately $210,000, reflecting the need to correct long‑standing site deficiencies that affect daily operations and safety.

Structural Repairs
• Structural Tier I improvements address localized but critical issues, including:
• Slab settlement repairs
• Masonry anchorage upgrades
• Kennel and isolation pen anchoring improvements
• Limited roof sheathing replacement
Structural Tier I costs total approximately $91,000 and are necessary to ensure safe use of existing buildings.

Budget Characteristics and Risk Considerations
• Non‑Discretionary Nature
The majority of Tier I costs address conditions that must be corrected to legally and safely occupy the facility.
• Repair‑Focused Scope
Costs emphasize repair and limited replacement rather than wholesale reconstruction, reflecting fiscal restraint and near‑term operational goals.
• ROM Level of Certainty
As a ROM estimate, costs reflect planning‑level accuracy. Actual construction costs may vary based on detailed investigation, market conditions, and contractor pricing. 68 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

• Limited Contingency Exposure
While some risk exists due to concealed conditions, the scope is narrowly defined to reduce exposure to cost escalation.

Relationship to Long‑Term Capital Planning
Tier I expenditures should be viewed as stabilization investments, not sunk costs. These improvements:
• Extend the usable life of existing assets
• Reduce immediate operational and liability risks
• Enable interim or continued shelter operations
• Provide time for the City to evaluate Tier II expansion or replacement options Importantly, Tier I investments do not commit the City to long‑term use of the facility nor materially increase replacement costs should a new facility be pursued.

Summary
The Tier I budget of approximately $830,000 represents the lowest reasonable cost threshold for restoring the City of Banning Animal Shelter to safe, functional operation. The cost distribution reflects necessary investment in building systems, structural stability, sanitation, and site safety rather than discretionary improvements.

Timely implementation of Tier I improvements will stabilize the facility, protect public and animal health, and support informed decision‑making regarding future capital investments. 69 Draft Feasibility Analysis Report
Banning Animal Shelter

APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER MEETING PRESENTATION
forthcoming
End of Report
70