14-E — Bellflower City Council, July 13, 2026

Page 1 of 4 ends

14-E

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

ATTENTION: Ryan Smoot, City Manager

FROM: Brian McNerney, Director of Public Safety

SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to compensate Southeast Area Animal Control Authority(“SEAACA”) for fiscal years 2025-26 and 2026-27, in accordance with Agreement File Number (“AFN”) 200.9.

DATE: July 13, 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The services provided by SEAACA to the City of Bellflower (“City”) and its residents have been the subject of many complaints and discussions for multiple years. Despite these concerns the City has continued to meet its obligations under prior agreements. In 2024, the City Council approved a new 5-year agreement with SEAACA that includes, among other provisions, specific service provision metrics and a specific methodology for allocation of license fee revenues and directed staff to continue to work with SEAACA to verify service provision and contract compliance. In 2025, SEAACA proposed a revised fee structure and methodology for allocation of the license fee revenues, to which the City did not agree. The City has been in communication with SEAACA’s administrative staff to verify compliance with the agreement’s service provisions requirements, but to date, SEAACA has been unable to provide verification. Throughout the discussions, and in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, since at least July of 2025, the City has repeatedly requested monthly invoices based on the agreed upon fee structure which the City has not received. While discussions have been ongoing and SEAACA has not provided complete data to verify specific service provisions, positive steps have been made to address the City’s concerns and to improve SEAACA’s services. While not all deficiencies have been resolved, a path forward has been established with clear and distinct milestones and operational changes by SEAACA. As the City and SEAACA prepare to close out fiscal year 2025-26, and in recognition of progress made through ongoing discussions and the additional information provided by SEAACA that has, at least in part, demonstrated compliance with the Agreement, City staff is recommending to compensate SEAACA in the amount of $641,880 for FY 2025-26 to allow both parties to close their accounting and maintain ongoing services.

Staff Report – SEAACA Compensation for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 July 13, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

1) Authorize the City Manager to compensate SEAACA in the invoiced amount of $641,880 for FY 2025-26 (same amount as FY 2024-25) to close out the fiscal year and to maintain ongoing services; and

2) Authorize the City Manager to review contractual compliance for FY 2026-27 and make future recommendations to Council for payment; or

3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

FISCAL IMPACT

SEAACA provided the City with a revised agreement for FY 2025-26 in July 2025 at a cost of $814,974, which included a revised fee structure altering the long-standing revenue sharing structure in previous agreements; the City Council did not approve the revised agreement. Following many months of discussions, and at the request of City staff, a revised invoice was provided by SEAACA in June 2026 with a total amount due of $667,021.55 (this includes $641,880 for services at the last agreed upon rate from FY 2024-25, plus $25,141.55 in late fees for nonpayment). In subsequent conversations with SEAACA, they agreed that the assessed late fee charges would be removed pending payment of the FY 2025-26 amount, $641,880. SEAACA has also informed staff that the SEAACA Board of Commissioners will need to approve the City’s payment of $641,880 as it amounts to a reduction from the FY 2025-26 revised agreement provided to the City which was not approved.

Sufficient funding has been allocated in the approved budget in Account No. 010-42100- 2230 for FY 2025-26.

An invoice for FY 2026-27 has not yet been received but SEAACA informed its contracted cities that they should expect to see no cost increase from the 2025-26 agreement amount. The City has not approved that agreement and its amount of $814,974. Sufficient funding is not available in Account No. 010-42100-2230 to account for this expenditure.

DISCUSSION

Since at least August 2024, the City has been engaged in ongoing discussions with SEAACA regarding service delivery, operational performance, and contractual compliance. During this period, City staff have received and communicated concerns regarding the quality, consistency, and accountability of services provided to Bellflower residents.

Common concerns raised by residents and observed by City staff include delayed response times (or non-response) to service requests, inconsistent follow-up inspections after initial field responses, limited proactive patrols of parks and other public spaces, and the absence of license canvassing activities. These and similar concerns have also been raised by other contracting agencies served by SEAACA. The reduction in licensing enforcement efforts has contributed to declining license revenues and reduced community compliance. The current agreement between the City and SEAACA guarantees the City $138,000 in license revenue; however, for 2025, license revenues totaled only $44,559 based on SEAACA’s records.

Staff Report – SEAACA Compensation for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 July 13, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

DISCUSSION - Continued

Throughout 2024 and 2025, City staff met with SEAACA representatives on multiple occasions to discuss these concerns and seek corrective action. While SEAACA acknowledged many of the operational challenges identified by member and contract cities, progress toward resolving these issues was slower than anticipated. In January 2026, SEAACA experienced a transition in executive leadership, requiring City staff to reestablish discussions and continue efforts to address longstanding operational deficiencies. The interim leadership at SEAACA has recognized service challenges and begun the process of making improvements both to its ability to provide services and to verify its compliance with agreement requirements.

A significant component of these discussions has focused on contract compliance and performance accountability. SEAACA has provided information intended to demonstrate compliance with contractual obligations; however, both parties acknowledge that SEAACA's current service-tracking system has significant limitations. The agency continues to rely primarily on handwritten field logs that do not comprehensively capture response times, officer activity, travel time, the amount of time officers spend transporting animals, the completion of impound documentation, and required cleaning and sanitization activities following service calls. As a result, it has been difficult for both SEAACA and its contracting cities to independently evaluate service levels and verify compliance with contractual performance expectations.

As an example of SEAACA’s service tracking limitations, City staff conducted an analysis of animal control officer logs provided by SEAACA for 2025 to determine if the City was receiving a 40-hour per week officer as required by AFN 200.9. The analysis revealed on a month-to-month basis SEAACA provided between 13.4% and 30.2% of the required 40-hour per week officer. This assessment, however, does not take into account the additional time spent by animal control officers outside the City in relation to services for Bellflower. Because there is no complete tracking of time, verification of this time is not possible.

With the transition in leadership at SEAACA and partly based on the efforts of Bellflower and other contract cities, SEAACA’s Board of Directors authorized an independent evaluation and audit of its service provision and financial condition and practices. Many of the concerns previously mentioned have now been independently validated through “Part A of SEAACA's Performance Audit,” completed by GPP Analytics in April 2026 and attached hereto. The audit identified deficiencies in SEAACA's financial management, budgeting practices, transparency, governance, and organizational capacity, while also recommending improvements in financial reporting, budgeting methodology, public transparency, and management oversight. The audit further concluded that SEAACA should strengthen its financial management structure, improve budget-to-actual reporting, modernize its budgeting process, and provide greater transparency to its member and contract cities. Importantly, audit findings related to service agreements with member and contract cities have been withheld by SEAACA pending discussions by its Board of Directors in closed session as it may expose them to litigation risks.

Staff Report – SEAACA Compensation for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 July 13, 2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

DISCUSSION - Continued

The audit also recognized significant organizational challenges resulting from executive turnover and key management vacancies during the audit period, while noting that SEAACA has begun implementing corrective actions and that management has agreed with the audit's findings and recommendations. SEAACA has committed itself to implementing organizational, financial, and operational improvements designed to strengthen its accountability and service delivery.

In addition to the recommendations contained in the independent audit, and while that audit was being conducted, SEAACA has proactively undertaken several operational initiatives over the past six months intended to improve service delivery, including:

 Hiring additional animal control officers, increasing field staffing to 12 officers;  Initiating replacement of its outdated service-tracking and operational software to improve accountability and reporting;
 Completing Part B of its independent performance audit; and  Increasing communication and collaboration with member and contract cities regarding operational performance and organizational priorities.

While staff recognizes that additional improvements remain necessary, SEAACA has demonstrated greater commitment to addressing the concerns raised by Bellflower and the other participating agencies. The independent audit provides a roadmap for organizational improvements and establishes measurable recommendations that City staff can monitor over the coming months. Staff believes these actions, combined with continued oversight by the SEAACA Board of Commissioners and member agencies, provide a reasonable basis for continued participation and discussion with SEAACA while holding SEAACA accountable for achieving measurable improvements.

Accordingly, staff is recommending the City Council authorize the City Manager to compensate SEAACA for FY 2025-26 in the amount of $641,880 and monitor services for FY 2026-27 for future recommendation to Council for compensation.

Attached to this report are summaries of SEAACA’s operations within the City of Bellflower for calendar year 2025 and year-to-date 2026, and Part A of the SEAACA Performance Audit.

ATTACHMENTS

SEACCA’s Performance Audit (Part A) ........................................................................... 5 SEAACA’s Summary of Data ........................................................................................ 37 SEAACA Invoice for FY 2025-26 .................................................................................. 40 AFN 200.9 ..................................................................................................................... 41

1 Performance Audit of the Southeast
Area Animal Control Authority
(SEAACA)
Part A: Financial Management
for the SEAACA Board of Commissioners
April 2026
GPP Analytics Inc.
(805)242-2071
[email protected]
5 2

Table of Contents
Transmittal Letter ................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 Findings .................................................................................................................................. 7 Finding 1: Budgeting Practices Have Produced Persistent Annual Surpluses and Reduced Budget Transparency ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Finding 2: [Closed Session] ..................................................................................................................... 13 Finding 3: License Fees Should Be Standardized .................................................................................... 14 Finding 4: [Closed Session] ..................................................................................................................... 18 Finding 5: Transparency Practices Do Not Support Effective Governance ............................................ 19 Finding 6: Financial Management Capacity Should Be Strengthened to Support Budgeting, Cost Allocation, and Reporting ...................................................................................................................... 24 Index Of Recommendations .................................................................................................. 29 Management Response ........................................................................................................ 31

6 3
Transmittal Letter
March 13, 2026
Board of Commissioners Southeast Area Animal Control Authority, We are pleased to present Part A of the performance audit of the Southeast Area Animal Control Authority (SEAACA), conducted by GPP Analytics Inc. at the request of the SEAACA Board of Commissioners. Our audit was conducted in compliance with the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) of the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

At the direction of SEAACA, this audit has been organized into two parts so that high-level financial management issues can be reported as early as possible. Part A (this report) focuses on SEAACA’s financial management practices, including budgeting, cost allocation, service agreements, fee-setting, transparency, and organizational capacity for financial oversight. We are concurrently working on Part B, which will assess other topics such as organizational structure, operations, risks of fraud, waste, and abuse, animal control officer call analysis, utilization of services by jurisdiction, and peer comparables, among others.

The following is a summary of the audit findings in this report:

Finding 1: Budgeting Practices Have Produced Persistent Annual Surpluses and Reduced Budget Transparency. SEAACA’s annual budget is used to set the annual fees charged to member and contract cities. For FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25, SEAACA budgeted $39.2 million but spent $29.0 million, a cumulative variance of about $10.2 million (about $2.0 million per year on average). Contributing factors include budgeting for 100% staffing despite persistent vacancies, non-personnel budgets set above prior spending, absence of fund balance and capital policies, and a budget format that reduces transparency.

Finding 2: [Closed Session]. This finding has been separated from the public report and will be presented in closed session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (d)(4) due to risk of litigation. The full text will be released publicly following Board approval.

Finding 3: License Fees Should Be Standardized. Each city served by SEAACA sets its own dog license fee, resulting in a wide range of fees for the same type of license. Altered dog fees range from $14 to $35 and unaltered dog fees range from $28 to $100. A uniform, cost-based fee schedule adopted across all SEAACA cities would reduce complexity, strengthen compliance, and reduce legal risk under California’s Proposition 26.

Finding 4: [Closed Session]. This finding has been separated from the public report and will be presented in closed session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6 due to items that could relate to ongoing labor negotiations. The full text will be released publicly following Board approval.

Finding 5: Transparency Practices Do Not Support Effective Governance. Key financial documents such as the budget and audited financial statements are not posted online, nor are agenda packets or meeting minutes. The budget is consistently adopted just ten to 13 days before the fiscal year starts, after most member cities have already finalized their own budgets, leaving virtually no time for city councils to review or influence SEAACA’s spending plan.

Finding 6: Financial Management Capacity Should Be Strengthened to Support Budgeting, Cost Allocation, and Reporting. The issues identified in Findings 1 through 5 indicate that SEAACA needs stronger in-house financial leadership to manage and communicate financial information, 7 4
develop cost-based methodologies, and support the Executive Director and Board. The current outsourced model with the City of Downey handles transactions but does not provide the strategic finance functions needed.

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by SEAACA staff and the City of Downey. Their support was instrumental in the successful completion of this phase of the audit.

Sincerely,

Julian Metcalf, CEO
GPP Analytics Inc.
(805) 242-2071
[email protected]

8 5
Introduction
This report presents the results of Part A of the Performance Audit of the Southeast Area Animal Control Authority (SEAACA), conducted by GPP Analytics Inc. at the request of the SEAACA Board of Commissioners.

SEAACA is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) established to provide animal control, sheltering, and related services to member and contract cities in the southeast Los Angeles County area. The Authority serves eight member cities: Bell Gardens, Downey, Montebello, Norwalk, Paramount, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, and South El Monte, and six contract cities: Bellflower, Buena Park, La Palma, Lakewood, South Gate, and Vernon. SEAACA is funded primarily by annual fees charged to these cities and is governed by a Board of Commissioners representing the member jurisdictions.

About This Audit
At the direction of the SEAACA Board, this audit has been organized into two parts so that high-level financial management issues can be reported as early as possible. Part A (this report) addresses SEAACA’s budgeting practices, cost allocation, service agreements with member and contract cities, fee- setting, transparency, and organizational capacity for financial oversight. We are concurrently working on Part B, which will assess other topics including operations, risks of fraud, waste, and abuse, animal control officer (ACO) call analysis, utilization of services by jurisdiction, and peer comparables, to name a few.

Standards of Audit
This audit was conducted in accordance with the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS), 2024 Revision. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions. We conducted the audit in accordance with applicable independence and ethical requirements.

Audit Objec5ves
The primary objectives of this performance audit were the following:
a. Evaluate SEAACA’s budgeting practices, including the accuracy of budget estimates, the relationship between budgeted and actual expenditures, and the transparency of budget presentation.
b. Assess the alignment of service agreements with current practices and the equity of cost allocation among member and contract cities.
c. Evaluate license fee structures and the consistency of fee-setting practices across jurisdictions. d. Assess SEAACA’s recruitment practices and their effectiveness in addressing staff vacancies. e. Evaluate the transparency and accessibility of SEAACA’s financial and governance information. f. Determine whether SEAACA’s financial management capacity is sufficient to support the level of budgeting, cost allocation, and reporting rigor expected of a multi-jurisdictional public agency.

These objectives were established based on the scope defined in the engagement agreement and were refined during the planning phase of the audit. A written report of findings and recommendations has been prepared in accordance with GAGAS reporting standards as the culmination of Part A of this audit. 9 6
Audit Timeline and Methods
Phase I: GPP Analytics Inc. and SEAACA leadership held an entrance conference on December 10, 2025, to establish the scope, timeline, and logistics for the engagement. Following the entrance conference, the GPP team initiated a series of interviews with SEAACA staff and management, member city representatives, and other stakeholders. In parallel, we gathered and reviewed a range of internal documentation including budgets, financial statements, service agreements, board resolutions, organizational policies, and operational data. Phase I was completed with a formal Risk Assessment & Planning Memorandum, which set the detailed testing plan and finalized the engagement risk assessment. During this phase, SEAACA experienced significant management turnover, including the resignation of the Manager of Human Resources/Finance and the departure of the Executive Director.

Phase II: After Phase I’s risk assessment and planning activities concluded, GPP launched Phase II by putting the testing plan into action. The GPP team analyzed five years of financial data (FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25), examined budget development processes and actual spending patterns, reviewed service agreements and fee-setting practices, benchmarked compensation data against peer organizations, evaluated transparency and governance practices, and assessed the organizational capacity for financial management.

Phase III: We developed findings and recommendations addressing the key financial management issues identified during our testing. We held an exit conference and review with the Interim Director of Operations on March 6, 2026, followed by a second review meeting with the Interim Executive Director on March 11, 2026. A revised draft was transmitted to the Interim Executive Director on March 12, 2026, with a request for a management response. On April 3, 2026, we received direction to separate Finding 2 and Finding 4 for the previously stated purposes to be heard in closed session. We received the management response on April 14, 2026, and transmitted the final report with their response on April 14, 2026.

During Phase III, we began concurrently working on Part B, which will assess other topics such as operations, organizational structure, risks of fraud, waste, and abuse, animal control officer call analysis, utilization of services by jurisdiction, and peer comparables, among others. A risk assessment is anticipated for Part B in the coming weeks.

Report Structure
This report contains six findings organized around key financial management themes. Each finding follows a consistent structure: “Why This Matters” provides the importance and context of the issue; “Relevant Criteria and Guidance” identifies the standards and best practices that apply; “What We Found” presents specific observations from our testing; and “Recommendations” suggests actions to address the finding.

10 7
Findings

11 8
Finding 1: Budge,ng Prac,ces Have Produced Persistent Annual Surpluses and Reduced Budget Transparency

WHY THIS MATTERS
SEAACA’s annual budget is used to set the
annual fees charged to member and contract
cities. When budgeted expenditures
consistently exceed actual expenditures, cities
pay more than is needed to fund operations,
resulting in unexpended balances that
accumulate over time. For FY 2020-21 through
FY 2024-25, SEAACA budgeted $39.2 million but
spent $29.0 million, a cumulative variance of
about $10.2 million (about $2.0 million per year
on average).

RELEVANT CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE

1. Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) – Personnel Budgeting: Recommends
governments build a baseline personnel budget
that reflects the full salary and benefit cost of
approved positions and then adjust for factors
such as expected vacancies.1

2. Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) – Fund Balance Guidelines for the
General Fund: Recommends governments
adopt a formal policy on the level of
unrestricted fund balance to be maintained,
including a framework for how the entity will
increase or decrease fund balance over time.2

WHAT WE FOUND
SEAACA’s budgeting and budget presentation
practices have not resulted in an accurate
estimation of annual spending needs, the
document’s presentation does not
communicate information transparently.

Charges to Member and Contract Ci2es
Exceed Actual Needs
Each year for the last five years, SEAACA has
spent about $2 million less than it budgeted.

This is important because the annual budget is
used to determine the annual fees charged to
member and contract cities. The variance
between SEAACA’s budgeted and actual
expenses demonstrates that the budget process
has not resulted in an accurate estimation of
expenses to be incurred in the coming year, as
shown in the table below. See Figure 1.1 below.

These year-end balances have accumulated in a
growing fund balance. This growth is displayed
in Figure 1.2 on the following page.

Figure 1.1: Variance Between Budgeted and Actual Expenditures, FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25 Fiscal Year Budgeted
Expenditures Actual Expenditures Variance
(Budget – Actual)
2024-25 $9,055,216 $6,906,292 $2,148,924
2023-24 $8,433,122 $6,183,497 $2,249,625
2022-23 $7,399,205 $5,679,863 $1,719,342
2021-22 $7,354,834 $5,378,170 $1,976,664
2020-21 $6,987,486 $4,878,081 $2,109,405
5-Year Total $39,229,863 $29,025,903 $10,203,960
Source: Auditor analysis of financial data provided by the City of Downey.

1 Government Finance Officers Association, Best Practice: Personnel Budgeting, https://www.gfoa.org/bp-personnel-budgeting 2 Government Finance Officers Association, Fund Balance Guidelines for the General Fund, https://www.gfoa.org/materials/fund-balance- guidelines-for-the-general-fund

12 9
Figure 1.2: Annual and CumulaDve Fund
Balance
Fiscal Year Unexpended Funds at
Year End
Cumulative Fund
Balance
2024-25 $1,446,356 $11,032,898
2023-24 $1,516,162 $9,586,542
2022-23 $823,055 $8,070,380
2021-22 $1,325,148 $7,247,325
2020-21 $1,388,702 $5,922,177
5-Year Total $6,499,423
Source: Auditor analysis of financial data provided by the City of Downey.

Certain practices and the lack of certain policies
have contributed to the variance between
budgeted and actual expenditures.

SEAACA Budgets Personnel Costs Assuming
100% Staffing
One practice that contributes to the annual
budget variance is budgeting for 100% full
staffing. In developing its budget, SEAACA has
assumed each of the authorized 61 full-time
and 16 extra-help positions will be filled for all
52 weeks of the year. However, filling vacant
positions is a challenge and, as a result, many
budgeted positions remain vacant for portions
of the year. For example, as of February 2,
2026, ten of 49 non-management positions
(20%) were vacant. Additionally, the Executive
Director and HR/Financial Manager positions
were vacant. See Figure 1.3 below.

Figure 1.3: Comparison of Annual Budgeted
to Actual Personnel Expenditures
Fiscal Year Personnel
Budget
Personnel
Expenditures
Personnel
Variance
2024-25 $4,413,616 $3,674,564 $739,052
2023-24 $4,300,947 $3,225,329 $1,075,618
2022-23 $3,706,063 $3,270,742 $435,321
2021-22 $3,695,297 $2,809,392 $885,905
2020-21 $3,801,691 $2,806,832 $994,859
5-Year Total $19,917,614 $15,786,859 $4,130,755
Source: Auditor analysis of financial data provided by the City of Downey.

In contrast to budgeting for 100% staffing,
GFOA’s personnel budgeting guidance
recommends that governments build a baseline
personnel budget and adjust it for cost drivers
and known factors (including expected
vacancies).

Non-Personnel Budgets Were Consistently Set
Above Prior Spending
Variances in non-personnel costs also
contributed to the overall annual variance. Due
to management turnover, we could not
determine the method used to develop
non-personnel budgets. However, as illustrated
in the table below, SEAACA consistently
budgeted for materials and supplies in amounts
that exceeded prior actual spending. See Figure

1.4 below.

Figure 1.4 Comparison of Actual
Expenditures to the Following Year’s Budget
for Materials and Supplies
Fiscal
Years Budget Prior Year
Actuals Variance
2024-25 $4,641,600 $2,894,133 $1,747,467
2023-24 $4,132,175 $2,342,878 $1,789,297
2022-23 $3,693,142 $2,568,778 $1,124,364
2021-22 $3,659,537 $2,071,249 $1,588,288
4-Year
Total
$16,126,454 $9,877,039 $6,249,415
Source: Auditor analysis of financial data provided by the City of Downey.

SEAACA Has Not Adopted Key Reserve and
Capital Policies
The lack of a fund balance policy may have
contributed to SEAACA’s approach to
budgeting. The ability to retain unspent end-of-
year balances can reduce the incentive to
prepare more precises budgets or to reconcile
fees to actual spending. Establishing formal
policies can clarify the intended purpose, target
level, and permitted uses of accumulated
balances.

GFOA recommends that governments establish
a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund
balance that should be maintained and
13 10
articulate a framework and process for how the
government would increase or decrease fund
balance over time.

Lack of a capital improvement plan (CIP) and
also a vehicle replacement fund (VRF) policy
may also have contributed to the variance
between SEAACA’s budget and its annual needs.

Without an adopted CIP and VRF policy,
amounts set aside for capital and fleet needs
can continue to grow without a clear linkage to
planned replacement schedules and cost
estimates.

The Budget Document’s Structure Reduces
Transparency and Makes Oversight More
Difficult
The manner in which the budget is presented
impedes transparency and therefore makes
governance more challenging than it needs to
be. The budget document does not present
costs and revenue sources in a manner that
accurately portrays the expenses and revenues
associated with each activity. As a result, a
review of the budget does not clearly portray
the full cost of each type of activity performed
by SEAACA.

For example, in reporting budgeted expenses,
one of SEAACA’s budget practices is to include
certain compensation-related line-item
expenses as part of the category Administrative
Services – Operating Charges and Services.

These line items are: 630 – Unemployment
Insurance; 740 – Health/Life/Dental Insurance;
760 – Workers Compensation Insurance; 765 –
Disability Insurance; and 780 – Part-Time
Employees Retirement. Jointly, these expenses
accounted for almost $800,000 of the $9.5
million FY 2025-26 budget (about 8%).

In contrast, common budgeting practice is to
classify these costs as part of personnel services
because they are inherently tied to
compensation and directly correlate to staffing
levels and payroll volume. As noted on the first
page of the finding, GFOA’s personnel
budgeting guidance emphasizes establishing a
baseline personnel budget that includes
salary/wages and benefits for approved
positions.

Including these expenses in personnel services
would show that SEAACA plans on spending
about $5.7 million for personnel, not $4.9
million, increasing personnel’s share of the
budget from about 51% to about 60%.

Moreover, the total dollar value of these
expenses are presented in the Administrative
Services budget and not allocated among the
Field Services (Animal Control), Front Office,
Kennel, Veterinary, and Licensing divisions. This
practice obscures the true cost of providing
each service. See Figure 1.5 below.

Figure 1.5 AllocaDon of
CompensaDon-Related Expenses Among
Divisions (IllustraDve)
Division Personnel
Services
Percent of
Total
Personnel
Budgets
Allocation of
Compensation-
Related
Expenses
Administrative
Support
$868,235 18% $140,964
Field Operations $1,228,499 25% $199,456
Front Office
Services
$504,718 10% $81,945
Kennel Operations $706,576 14% $114,718
Veterinary Services $927,996 19% $150,667
Licensing Services $673,242 14% $109,306
SEAACA Total $4,909,266 100% $797,056
Source: FY 2025-26 approved SEAACA budget (auditor
analysis).

The revenue portion of the budget document
presents required member city fees in a manner
that is more confusing than it needs to be. The
fees charged to each city are listed in three
separate categories even though the same
“per-capita” funding formula is used for all
three.

SEAACA’s practice is to list the general charge to
each city under the category “Member City Fees
Adopted by Resolution 149.” The budget then
lists “Member City Fees Adopted by Resolution
157,” which refers to the contractual
14 11
arrangement by which the City of Downey
provides administrative and financial services to
SEAACA for an agreed-upon fee. Lastly,
“Member City Fees Adopted by Resolution 186”
refers to a contractual arrangement between
SEAACA and a firm providing marketing and
public affairs services.

There is no apparent reason why revenues
received from the member cities to pay for the
services incurred in conjunction with
Resolutions 157 and 186 must be separated
from revenues associated with Resolution 149,
especially as the amounts are not material.

However, if SEAACA chooses to present these
separately, the details could be combined and
presented in one table, as illustrated below.

Figure 1.6: FY 2025-26 Member City Revenue
per Adopted ResoluDons
City Resolution
149
Resolution
157
Resolution
186 City Total
Bell
Gardens
$288,472 $6,089 $413 $294,974
Downey $837,981 $17,707 $1,201 $856,889
Montebello $465,466 $9,929 $674 $476,069
Norwalk $760,409 $15,998 $1,085 $777,492
Paramount $391,982 $8,289 $562 $400,833
Pico
Rivera
$457,123 $9,632 $654 $467,409
Santa Fe
Springs
$140,098 $2,957 $201 $143,256
South El
Monte
$146,119 $3,092 $210 $149,421
TOTAL $3,487,650 $73,693 $5,000 $3,566,343
Source: FY 2025-26 SEAACA budget (rounded; auditor
analysis).

Similarly, revenue SEAACA anticipates earning
from member city elective services agreements
is presented in more detail than necessary. For
example, the budget separately presents
“Licensing Administrative Agreements” and
“License Canvassing Agreements.” This
presentation suggests the existence of separate
agreements for administration and canvassing;
however, there is one agreement between
SEAACA and each city that elects to pay for and
receive licensing support.

This practice of separating the revenue into two
categories likely began for the purpose of
isolating license canvassing activity from
administrative activity. However, conditions
have changed over time, and the activities
cannot be meaningfully separated.

One additional observation involves both the
revenue and expense portions of the budget.

The budget presents licensing revenue that
SEAACA will collect from the public and from
Docupet.com (a third-party online licensing
platform) as both revenue to SEAACA and as an
operating line-item expense of the Licensing
division.

Per SEAACA’s elective services agreements,
SEAACA has no rights to these amounts and
remits the receipts to the appropriate member
cities. Because the revenue and expense net to
zero, this practice does not change SEAACA’s
bottom line; however, it obscures the cost and
benefit to SEAACA of providing licensing
services.

To improve clarity, pass-through revenues that
are not available to support SEAACA programs
should be excluded from the operating budget
or presented separately in a schedule that
clearly distinguishes agency/trust activity from
SEAACA’s operating revenues and expenses.

15 12
Recommenda5ons
SEAACA should:

1.1 Update the annual budget development methodology to improve forecasting accuracy by (a) incorporating a vacancy factor and realistic hiring assumptions when budgeting personnel costs, and (b) requiring documented justification for material year-over-year increases in non-personnel line items and reserves.

1.2 Perform and present routine budget-to-actual variance analyses to the Board and member cities (at least quarterly) and use those analyses to inform the subsequent year’s fee setting and budget assumptions.

1.3 Adopt Board-approved financial policies that define (a) a target range for unrestricted fund balance and the permitted uses of amounts above that range, and (b) capital and fleet planning policies (e.g., a CIP and vehicle replacement plan) that tie reserve contributions to planned needs and replacement schedules.

1.4 Revise the budget document to improve transparency and full-cost reporting by: (a) budgeting employee benefits in personnel services and allocating them to divisions; (b) simplifying member city fee revenue presentation (e.g., one consolidated table that clearly shows total member-city charges); (c) combining licensing agreement revenue categories that are based on a single elective services agreement; and (d) excluding pass-through licensing revenues/expenses from the operating budget (or clearly segregating them in a memo schedule).

16 13
Finding 2: [Closed Session]

Note: Finding 2 addresses matters related to SEAACA’s service agreements with member and contract cities, including provisions that may expose the Authority to litigation risk. Because public discussion of this finding could prejudice SEAACA’s legal position in potential or pending litigation, this finding has been separated from the public report and will be presented in closed session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (d)(4) (conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated or significant exposure to litigation).

The full text of Finding 2, including detailed observations and recommendations, will be released publicly following Board approval.

17 14
Finding 3: License Fees Should Be Standardized

WHY THIS MATTERS
Under California law, dog licensing is directly
tied to rabies vaccination compliance. When the
licensing process is confusing or inconsistent
across cities, fewer dogs may get licensed,
undermining a key public health program.

Currently, each city served by SEAACA sets its
own dog license fee, resulting in a wide range of
fees for the same type of license. This
inconsistency increases the risk of public
confusion, adds to staff workload, and may
expose cities to legal risk if fees are not
supported by documented costs. A uniform,
cost-based fee schedule adopted across all
SEAACA cities would reduce complexity and
strengthen compliance.

RELEVANT CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE

1. California Constitution, Article XIII C, Section
1(e): Charges for a specific service or product
must not exceed the reasonable costs to the
local government of providing that service or
product. Regulatory charges must be limited to
reasonable regulatory costs for issuing licenses
and related activities. The Constitution places
the burden on local government to prove the
charge is not a tax, that the amount is no more
than necessary to cover reasonable costs, and
that cost allocation bears a fair and reasonable
relationship to the payor’s burdens and
benefits.3

2. Operational and governance best practices:

For multi-jurisdiction service delivery, good
practice is to maintain a documented cost-of-
service methodology (including overhead
allocation) for services funded by user charges
and to use that methodology to adopt a
consistent fee-setting logic.4

3 California Constitution, Article XIII C, Section 1, as amended by Proposition 26 (2010), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&article=XIII+C 4 Government Finance Officers Association, Establishing Government Charges and Fees, https://www.gfoa.org/materials/user-fee-policy

WHAT WE FOUND
Dog License Fees Vary Widely Across SEAACA
Ci2es
Currently, each city served by SEAACA sets its
own dog license fee through its City Council.

Among SEAACA cities, altered dog fees range
from $14 to $35 and unaltered dog fees range
from $28 to $100. Among nearby peer
communities, altered dog fees range from $20
to $36 and unaltered dog fees range from $60
to $250. Because SEAACA administers licensing
on behalf of all participating cities through the
same staff and systems, a uniform fee schedule
would reduce complexity and ensure
consistency. The Board could recommend a
uniform schedule for adoption by each City
Council, or alternatively, the member cities
could amend the JPA agreement to delegate
fee-setting authority directly to SEAACA, which
would simplify administration because SEAACA,
as the service provider, is best positioned to
document the cost of services. Figure 3.1 on the
following page presents the fee charged by
each city.

18 15
Figure 3.1: Dog License Fees by City
City Altered Dog Unaltered Dog
SEAACA Member Cities
Bell Gardens $15 $30
Downey $20 $40
Montebello $35 $65
Norwalk $30 $60
Paramount $20 $40
Pico Rivera $24 $100
Santa Fe Springs $23 $60
South El Monte $25 $60
SEAACA Contract Cities
Bellflower $15 $42
Buena Park $20 $60
La Palma $20 $40
Lakewood $14 $28
South Gate $30 $58
Vernon $30 $30
Peer Communities
LA County DACC $20 $60
Long Beach $28 $250
OC Animal Care $28 $159
Riverside County $25 $120
San Gabriel Valley HS $36 $60
Inland Valley HS $30 $100
Source: SEAACA work papers and peer community licensing schedules.

Decentralized Fee-SeQng Increases Risk of
Inequity and Non-Compliance
Residents pay materially different fees for the
same license type depending on their city,
which can drive perceptions of unfairness and
reduce willingness to comply. Staff must apply
different city rules, fees, senior thresholds, and
processes, and must redirect residents in some
cities to other agencies, raising the likelihood of
miscommunication and rework.

Under California law, dog licensing is directly
tied to rabies vaccination compliance.5 Licensing
also supports returning dogs to owners in the
field. Barriers or confusion in the licensing
process may undermine these public health and
safety outcomes. Additionally, if fees exceed
reasonable costs or lack a defensible allocation
basis, they may be vulnerable to challenge
under Proposition 26 principles and related fee-
adoption requirements.

5 California Health and Safety Code, Section 121690, requires rabies vaccination as a prerequisite to dog licensing. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=121690 When fees and processes vary without a unified
cost model, it becomes difficult to demonstrate
that one city’s fee payors are not subsidizing
costs attributable to other activities or other
jurisdictions. These conditions point to the need
for a uniform, cost-based fee schedule, whether
adopted by each city council on the Board’s
recommendation or set directly by SEAACA
under delegated authority, with adequate
documentation and periodic review to maintain
compliance with California fee-adoption
requirements.

Not All Ci2es Provide Consistent Licensing
Access
SEAACA provides licensing services to all but
three cities that collectively represent about
15% of the population served by SEAACA. The
remaining 85% of the population served by
SEAACA can license their pets online at
19 16
SEAACA’s DocuPet portal and also by phone,
mail, or in-person at SEAACA.

The SEAACA website does include licensing links
for residents of the other three cities. A
member of the public clicking on the Norwalk
link will be brought to a Norwalk city page that
provides an online DocuPet link. However,
Santa Fe Springs link opens to a page that
informs the viewer that the only method for
licensing dogs in Santa Fe Springs is through in-
person licensing at the Police Services Center.

Also, the Vernon link routes to a general Animal
Control page that provides service FAQs but
does not present a clear dog licensing pathway.

These inconsistencies indicate that SEAACA
should work with Santa Fe Springs and Vernon
to ensure residents of all service area cities
have consistent and accessible licensing
pathways.

20 17
Recommenda5ons
SEAACA should:

3.1 Direct SEAACA management to develop a uniform, cost-based licensing fee schedule and present it to the Board of Commissioners for approval. Once approved, recommend the schedule to each member and contract city council for adoption. Alternatively, the Board could consider whether the member cities should amend the JPA agreement to delegate fee-setting authority directly to SEAACA, which would streamline administration because SEAACA, as the service provider, is best positioned to document and justify the cost of services.

3.2 Establish a periodic reconciliation of licensing program revenues to costs, including an adjustment to fees if over-recovery occurs, to ensure (and document) that each city is in compliance with state law.

3.3 Work with Santa Fe Springs, and Vernon to ensure that residents of all cities within SEAACA’s service area have consistent and accessible licensing pathways.

21 18
Finding 4: [Closed Session]

Note: Finding 4 addresses SEAACA’s recruitment strategy, compensation benchmarking, and staffing vacancies, including salary and benefits comparisons that relate to matters within the scope of ongoing labor negotiations. Because public discussion of this finding could compromise SEAACA’s position in current or upcoming collective bargaining, this finding has been separated from the public report and will be presented in closed session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6 (conference with labor negotiators regarding salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits).

The full text of Finding 4, including detailed observations and recommendations, will be released publicly following Board approval.

22 19
Finding 5: Transparency Prac,ces Do Not Support Effec,ve Governance

WHY THIS MATTERS
SEAACA’s lack of transparency hinders effective
governance, as the public and member cities
cannot easily access information about agency
management, fee setting, or resource use. Key
financial documents like the budget and audited
statements are not posted online. In addition,
while Board meeting agendas are posted, they
appear without the supporting materials
(agenda packets) or subsequent meeting
minutes that would allow the public to
meaningfully review the materials without
attending the meeting in-person.

Further hindering oversight, SEAACA adopts its
budget just before the fiscal year starts, after
most cities finalize their own budgets, which
gives city councils little chance to review or
influence spending plans. Since SEAACA’s
budget sets annual fees for cities, these gaps
prevent timely evaluation of costs and don’t
provide sufficient time for oversight by the
Board.

RELEVANT CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE
The Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) offers the following opinion on the
topic:

The Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) has long encouraged
governments to demonstrate accountability
and transparency by making financial
information of the highest quality readily
accessible to citizens and other interested
parties. A government’s web site is
especially well suited for this purpose.6

6 Government Finance Officers Association, “Website Posting of Financial Documents,” https://www.gfoa.org/materials/website-posting- financial-documents

WHAT WE FOUND
SEAACA Does Not Post Financial Reports on Its
Website
SEAACA does not post its adopted budget,
audited financial statements, or other routine
financial reporting (such as interim budget-to-
actual reports) on its website. While California
law does not explicitly require Joint Powers
Authorities (JPA) to post budgets or audit
reports on their websites, the audit report must
be filed as a public record with each contracting
agency, the county auditor, and the State
Controller’s Office under Government Code
Section 6505. Website posting of these
documents is, however, a widely adopted
practice among California local governments
and is consistent with GFOA guidance
encouraging governments to use their websites
to make key financial information readily
accessible to the public and other stakeholders.

Common practice has become that these
documents are posted on the website of
governmental organizations, as recommended
by the GFOA. For example, all member cities of
SEAACA post their own respective budgets and
Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports
(audits) online. Similarly, the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles
(SPCALA) publishes its audit report, its Federal
Form 990 (specific to non-profits), and limited
budgetary information.

Governance Informa2on on the SEAACA
Website Is Incomplete and Difficult to Locate
SEAACA’s website provides limited governance
information, but what exists is incomplete and
poorly organized. Board meeting agendas are
posted online, consistent with the Brown Act
requirement under Government Code Section
54954.2 that JPAs with websites post agendas
23 20
at least 72 hours before regular meetings.

However, agenda packets, the supporting
materials that allow the public and Board
members to prepare meaningfully for agenda
items, are not posted. Meeting minutes are not
posted, either. While California law does not
explicitly require website posting of agenda
packets or minutes, it is standard practice
among comparable governmental agencies and
is necessary for meaningful public oversight.

Some Board member information does appear
on the SEAACA website, but it is located within
the “About Us / SEAACA Services” page
(seaaca.org/about-us/seaaca-services) rather
than in a dedicated governance or Board
section. This placement is unintuitive for
members of the public seeking to identify their
representatives or contact the Board. As a
result, the public has limited ability to engage
with the governing body or bring concerns
regarding SEAACA operations or management
to the Board’s attention.

SEAACA’s Budget Timeline Does Not Provide
Member Ci2es Adequate Time for Review
Transparency in the budget process requires
not only that financial information be made
available but also that it be provided in a
timeframe that allows meaningful review and
governance. A review of SEAACA’s budget
adoption history reveals that its budget is
consistently adopted in the final days of June,
leaving member and contract cities virtually no
time to review, question, or influence the
proposed budget before fees are set for the
coming fiscal year.

Over the past seven fiscal years, SEAACA has
adopted its annual operating budget between
June 17 and June 23, consistently just ten to 13
days before the July 1 start of each fiscal year.

The table below summarizes this pattern.

Figure 5.1: SEAACA Budget AdopDon Dates, FY 2019-20 through FY 2025-26 Fiscal Year Adoption Date Resolution No. Days Before FY Start FY 2019-20 June 20, 2019 165 10
FY 2020-21 June 18, 2020 167 12
FY 2021-22 June 17, 2021 169 13
FY 2022-23 June 23, 2022 175 7
FY 2023-24 June 22, 2023 179 8
FY 2024-25 June 20, 2024 185 10
FY 2025-26 June 23, 2025 189 7
Source: Auditor review of SEAACA Annual Operating Budgets, FY 2019-20 through FY 2025-26.

24 21
By comparison, Figure 5.2 below shows when each SEAACA member and contract city adopted its own FY 2025-26 budget. As illustrated, most cities adopted their budgets between June 10 and June 25, 2025, a window that overlaps with or precedes SEAACA’s own June 23 adoption date for that year.

Figure 5.2: Member and Contract City Budget AdopDon Dates, FY 2025-26 City Relationship FY 2025-26 Budget Adoption
Date
Downey Member June 10, 2025
Bell Gardens Member June 23, 2025
Montebello Member June 25, 2025
Paramount Member June 24, 2025
Pico Rivera Member June 24, 2025
South El Monte Member June 17, 2025
Bellflower Contract June 23, 2025
Lakewood Contract June 10, 2025
South Gate Contract June 10, 2025
Vernon Contract June 24, 2025
SEAACA JPA June 23, 2025
Source: Auditor review of city council agendas and adopted budget documents for FY 2025-26.

As Figure 5.2 demonstrates, three cities,
Downey, Lakewood, and South Gate, adopted
their budgets as early as June 10, nearly two
weeks before SEAACA’s June 23 adoption.

South El Monte adopted on June 17, and the
remaining cities adopted between June 23 and
June 25. In each case, these cities had already
finalized or were simultaneously finalizing their
own budgets at the same time SEAACA was
adopting its spending plan. This left no window
for city councils to receive, review, or deliberate
on SEAACA’s proposed fees before committing
their own resources.

This timing is significant because SEAACA’s
budget directly determines the annual fees
charged to member and contract cities. Under a
typical California municipal budget cycle, city
departments submit budget requests in
February or March, the City Manager compiles
and reviews proposals in March and April, the
proposed budget is presented to the City
Council in April or May, and public hearings and
final adoption occur in May or June, all before
June 30. This means that by the time SEAACA’s
budget is adopted in the final week of June,
each member city has already substantially
finalized, or in many cases already adopted, its
own budget for the coming fiscal year.

The practical effect of this timeline is that
member cities cannot exercise meaningful
governance over SEAACA’s spending plan.

Because SEAACA’s proposed budget is not
available to city councils during their own
budget deliberations, elected officials at the city
level have no opportunity to compare SEAACA’s
proposed fees against prior-year actuals,
question line-item assumptions, evaluate
staffing levels, or consider alternatives before
committing their cities’ resources. By the time
SEAACA’s budget is presented, cities are
effectively required to accept the fee amounts
as presented.

No Evidence of Rou2ne Financial Repor2ng
Throughout Year
We see no evidence that the Board has been
receiving routine financial reports (such as
monthly or quarterly budget to actual reports)
throughout the year. This lack of regular
financial reporting to the governing board
further compounds the timing problem: not
only is the budget adopted late, but there is
insufficient interim financial information for
Board members and city officials to monitor
performance throughout the year.

The GFOA recommends that budget
development follow a structured, multi-phase
25 22
process that includes adequate time for
planning, deliberation, and stakeholder
engagement. Best practice for a JPA or similar
regional authority would be to begin the budget
process early enough, no later than January or
February, to produce a preliminary proposed
budget by March or April, allowing member city
councils to review SEAACA’s fee projections
while they are still in the formative stages of
their own budget cycles. The current practice of
finalizing the budget in the last days of June
effectively forecloses this opportunity.

Figure5.3 below compares the current budget
timeline with our recommended change that
would allow the Board of Commissioner
sufficient time to review SEAACA’s proposed
budget.

Figure 5.3: Current Budget Timeline Versus Recommended

CURRENT TIMELINE

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL
No documented budget development activity with Board
Budget Prep &
Board Adoption
(June 17-23) FY Starts Jul 1
⚠ Budget adopted just 7–13 days before fiscal year begins ⚠ Member cities have already finalized their own budgets, no window for review of SEAACA fees

RECOMMENDED TIMELINE

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL
Budget Development & Revenue
Projections
Preliminary
Budget to Board
& Cities

City Review Period (60+ days)
Hearing &
Adoption FY Starts Jul 1
✓ Preliminary budget shared by March/April, before cities begin their own budget cycles ✓ Cities have 60+ days to review SEAACA’s proposed fees and incorporate into their budgets Source: Auditor review of city council agendas and adopted budget documents for FY 2025-26. 26 23
Recommenda5ons
SEAACA should:

5.1 Post all financial documents, including adopted budgets, audited financial statements, and quarterly budget-to-actual reports, on the SEAACA website.

5.2 Create a dedicated Board of Directors page on the SEAACA website that includes Board member names and contact information, meeting schedules, agenda packets (not just agendas), and meeting minutes. Move Board-related content from the “SEAACA Services” page to this dedicated governance section.

5.3 Begin the budget development process no later than January of each year and present a preliminary proposed budget to the Board of Commissioners and member cities no later than April, so that city councils have at least 60 days to review SEAACA’s proposed fees and incorporate them into their own budget deliberations before adoption in June.

27 24
Finding 6: Financial Management Capacity Should Be Strengthened to Support Budge,ng, Cost Alloca,on, and Repor,ng

WHY THIS MATTERS
SEAACA is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) funded
primarily by charges to member and contract
cities. As a result, SEAACA’s budgeting, cost
allocation, and reporting practices directly
determine how much each city pays and
impacts how effectively the Board and member
cities can exercise oversight. Strengthening
financial management capacity is also critical to
implementing the improvements identified in
this audit, such as more accurate budgeting,
cost-based service agreements and fees, and
routine interim financial reporting. Without
dedicated public-sector financial expertise,
SEAACA faces increased risk of over- or under-
recovering costs, reduced transparency, and
delayed decision-making.

RELEVANT CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE

1. Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) – Budget Monitoring: Recommends
governments establish formal processes for
comparing budget-to-actual results to monitor
financial performance and promptly address
significant variances. 7

2. Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) – Timely Financial Reporting:

Recommends that financial reports be available
soon after the end of the reporting period so
they can inform decision-making.8

3. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
– Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government (Green Book), Principle 4 states
“4.01 Management should demonstrate a
commitment to recruit, develop, and retain
competent individuals.”9

7 Government Finance Officers Association. (n.d.). Budget monitoring. https://www.gfoa.org/materials/budget-monitoring 8 Government Finance Officers Association. (n.d.). Timely financial reporting. https://www.gfoa.org/materials/timely-financial-reporting 9 U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014). Standards for internal control in the federal government (GAO-14-704G). https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-704g.pdf

WHAT WE FOUND
SEAACA’s current financial management
structure does not provide sufficient capacity
for the level of budgeting, cost allocation, and
reporting rigor expected of a multi-jurisdictional
agency. While SEAACA receives bookkeeping
and payroll support through its administrative
services arrangement with the City of Downey,
the issues identified in Findings 1 through 5
indicate that SEAACA needs stronger in-house
financial leadership to manage and
communicate financial information, develop
cost-based methodologies, and support the
Executive Director and Board.

SEAACA’s Outsourced Transac2on Processing
Model Does Not Replace the Need for Internal
Finance Leadership
SEAACA’s current model, using the City of
Downey for core transaction processing such as
bookkeeping and payroll, can be an efficient
shared-services approach for a small agency.

Regardless of who performs transaction
processing, SEAACA still needs dedicated
finance leadership to provide the strategic
functions required to improve budgeting
accuracy, build defensible cost allocation
models, develop cost-of-service calculations,
and produce routine management reports
tailored to SEAACA’s governance needs. An
internal finance leader can also ensure that the
information produced through the transaction-
processing function is translated into actionable
analysis for the Executive Director and Board.

28 25
Findings 1–5 Indicate a Need for Stronger
Budge2ng, Cost Alloca2on, and Repor2ng
Exper2se
The recommendations in Findings 1 through 5
require SEAACA to strengthen core government
finance practices, including: (a) improving
budget assumptions and performing routine
budget-to-actual variance analysis; (b) revising
service agreements and fee structures so that
charges to cities are based on the cost of
services provided; and (c) developing a uniform,
cost-based licensing fee schedule supported by
defensible cost allocation. Similarly, Finding 5
highlights the need for routine interim financial
reporting and timely public posting of key
financial documents. These actions typically
require staff with experience in public-sector
budgeting, cost allocation methodologies, and
financial reporting, not just transactional
bookkeeping.

SEAACA recently experienced significant
management turnover and key vacancies. The
Manager of Human Resources/Finance, the
position most directly responsible for SEAACA’s
internal financial management, resigned in early
January 2026. This individual had served as the
primary point of contact between SEAACA and
the City of Downey, channeling all budget
documents, timesheets, accounts payable
requests, and audit support through the
Downey relationship.

This sudden departure of key staff adds risks to
SEAACA, making sustained implementation of
best practices more difficult.

The Manager of Human Resources/Finance
Posi2on Should Require Stronger Financial
Management Creden2als
The Manager of Human Resources/Finance
position is the only SEAACA staff role that
combines financial management responsibilities
with other duties. As the title suggests, the
position has historically been expected to cover
both human resources and financial
management, two distinct professional domains
that each require specialized expertise.

A review of the January 2026 job description for
the Manager of Human Resources and Finance
position does not focus on the essential duties
and expertise typically associated with the
position of Finance Manager. The position’s
essential functions, as detailed in the job
description, are predominantly oriented toward
human resources administration, including
recruitment, examination and testing,
background investigations, payroll processing,
and benefits coordination. Financial duties are
limited to “routine budget tracking and
projections” and accounts payable processing,
with no reference to budget development
methodology, cost allocation, cost-of-service
analysis, fee studies, or management reporting.

The minimum qualifications, as listed in the job
description, further illustrate the gap between
typical financial management qualifications and
what SEAACA has required in the past of
incumbents. The position description requires
either a bachelor’s degree in business or public
administration or five years of related field
experience in “the animal welfare/control
sector” with supervisory experience. Animal
care experience is listed as a preferred
qualification. Notably absent from the
requirements are any governmental accounting
credentials (CPA, CGFM), public-sector
budgeting experience, cost allocation or cost-of-
service expertise, or financial analysis
competencies. The knowledge and abilities
section references general analytical and
communication skills but does not specify
knowledge of governmental accounting
standards, public finance principles, grant
management, or financial reporting
frameworks. The position’s salary range of
approximately $92,000 to $115,000 annually is
also below the market rate typically required to
attract candidates with the depth of public-
sector financial management experience
SEAACA needs.
29 26
In effect, the job description prioritizes animal
welfare sector experience and HR
administration over financial management
expertise. For an organization with a $9+ million
budget serving 14 cities, the financial
management competencies identified in
Findings 1 through 5, budgeting methodology,
cost allocation, fee analysis, compensation
benchmarking, and financial reporting, require
a position specifically designed to attract
candidates with strong public-sector finance
credentials. SEAACA should consider whether
this position needs to be fundamentally
restructured to emphasize financial
management qualifications, or whether a
separate finance leadership role should be
established.

The gaps identified across Findings 1 through 5
indicate that the person filling this role, or a
newly created finance leadership position,
should possess demonstrated experience in the
following areas:

Public-sector budgeting and
forecasting. Developing budget
methodologies that incorporate
vacancy savings factors, historical trend
analysis, and transparent presentation
of assumptions (Finding 1).

Coordinating the budget calendar with
member city timelines so that proposed
fees can be reviewed before cities
finalize their own budgets (Finding 5).

Cost allocation and cost-of-service
analysis. Building defensible cost
allocation models that support service
agreements and fee structures tied to
actual costs of service delivery (Findings
2 and 3). Understanding direct/indirect
cost allocation, overhead rate
development, and compliance with
California’s Proposition 26.

Financial reporting and transparency.

Producing routine budget-to-actual
variance analyses, quarterly
management reports, and public-facing
financial documents consistent with
GFOA best practices (Findings 1 and 5).

Posting financial information on the
SEAACA website and supporting Board
governance.

Financial policy development. Drafting
Board-ready policies for fund balance
targets, capital improvement planning,
vehicle replacement, and other areas
identified in Finding 1 where SEAACA
currently lacks adopted financial
policies.

Compensation and benefits analysis.

Periodically benchmarking SEAACA’s
total compensation against peer
organizations and regional data to
inform recruitment and collective
bargaining.

Service provider coordination.

Managing the Downey relationship (or
any successor arrangement) to ensure
that transaction-processing outputs are
translated into actionable analysis.

Evaluating whether the current service
delivery model continues to meet
SEAACA’s needs or whether
modifications are warranted over time.

The GFOA recommends that every government
have a qualified chief financial officer with
education and experience in governmental
accounting, budgeting, financial management,
and public administration. While SEAACA’s size
may not warrant a standalone CFO, the
organization should ensure that whoever fills
this role, whether in its current form or as a
newly defined finance leadership position, has
the professional qualifications and dedicated
bandwidth to fulfill these functions rather than
treating them as secondary to human resources
administration.

The City of Downey’s Services Provide a Near-
term Cost Savings
Adding stronger financial leadership within
SEAACA does not necessarily mean it has to
immediately forgo the bookkeeping and payroll
30 27
services currently provided by the City of
Downey.

Transitioning SEAACA away from Downey to a
fully independent finance function would likely
require significant one-time and ongoing costs,
including selecting and implementing financial
software, establishing payroll and accounts
payable processes, developing internal controls
and segregation of duties, hiring, and training
staff, and ensuring audit readiness. Given these
costs and implementation risks, establishing a
stronger internal finance leadership role is a
practical near-term step regardless of whether
SEAACA continues the Downey model or
evaluates other service delivery options over
time.

To illustrate, a preliminary cost assessment of
standing up an independent financial system
estimates ongoing annual costs of $115,000 to
$215,000, compared to the current Downey
arrangement at approximately $120,000 per
year. The range reflects choices in cloud-based
governmental accounting software ($25,000–
$75,000 per year for platforms such as Tyler
Munis, OpenGov, or Sage Intacct for
Government), additional accounting staff
($75,000–$100,000 in salary and benefits),
outsourced payroll services ($5,000–$15,000),
and ongoing IT support ($10,000–$25,000).

First-year implementation costs, including data
migration from Downey’s EDEN system,
configuration, and training, would add an
estimated $50,000 to $150,000.

Beyond cost, the transition carries operational
risks: loss of institutional knowledge
accumulated by accounting staff at Downey,
data migration complexity, the need to recruit
and retain qualified accounting staff, the
requirement to develop internal controls
currently embedded in Downey’s processes,
and the organizational strain of implementing a
major systems change concurrently with the
reforms recommended across this report.

For these reasons, a transition to an
independent financial system should be
evaluated as a medium-to-long-term option by
the financial management professional
recommended below, not pursued as an
immediate priority. However, in the short-term
the City of Downey could provide SEAACA’s
leadership with access to view its records in the
EDEN financial system. This will help support
the needed financial maturity and access to
information for SEAACA leadership staff.

A Finance-Focused Deputy Role Would
Support Organiza2onal Maturity and Reduce
Key-Person Risk
Based on Findings 1-5, SEAACA needs to
improve its financial organizational maturity. It
is possible for the Executive Director to hold
this expertise, but more realistically, financial
leadership could reside within a deputy type
role supporting the Executive Director. Such
financial leadership could (1) lead budgeting
and fee-setting support, (2) develop and
maintain cost allocation and cost-of-service
models, (3) produce timely internal and
external financial reports, (4) coordinate
effectively with Downey or other service
providers, and (5) support implementation of
Board-adopted financial policies. Establishing
this capacity would also reduce key-person risk
by ensuring that financial processes,
assumptions, and analyses are documented,
repeatable, and not dependent on a single
individual or an external partner.

31 28

Recommenda5ons
SEAACA should:

6.1 Establish and fill a finance leadership position (e.g., Finance & Administration or Finance Manager) or redesign the Manager of Human Resources/Finance position to require demonstrated public- sector experience in budgeting, cost allocation/cost-of-service methodologies, and management reporting.

6.2 Define and implement a basic financial management framework led by the financial leadership, including (a) a budget calendar aligned with member city timelines, (b) a monthly close process, and (c) routine budget-to-actual and cash/fund balance reporting to the Executive Director and Board (at least quarterly).

6.3 Clarify the division of responsibilities between SEAACA and the City of Downey (or any other finance service provider) by ensuring the administrative services agreement includes clear deliverables, timelines, and data access provisions for management and Board reporting.

6.4 Develop a phased, medium to long-term plan to evaluate SEAACA’s finance service delivery options, including the continued use of Downey, expanded outsourced finance support, or a future transition to an in-house financial system. Any transition away from the current model should be preceded by a cost, staffing, and risk assessment and should be timed to avoid disrupting core functions such as payroll, payables, and audit support.

6.5 Request access permission to view SEAACA’s financial records in the City of Downey’s financial system and provide the ability to run reports from the system.

32 29
Index Of Recommendations
# Recommendation

2.x Finding 2 recommendations are presented in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (d)(4).

3.3 Work with Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, and Vernon to ensure that residents of all cities within SEAACA’s service area have consistent and accessible licensing pathways.

4.x Finding 4 recommendations are presented in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6.

5.1 Post all financial documents, including adopted budgets, audited financial statements, and quarterly budget- to-actual reports, on the SEAACA website.

6.1 Establish and fill a finance leadership position (e.g., Finance & Administration or Finance Manager) or redesign the Manager of Human Resources/Finance position to require demonstrated public-sector experience in budgeting, cost allocation/cost-of-service methodologies, and management reporting.

6.2 Define and implement a basic financial management framework led by the financial leadership, including (a) a budget calendar aligned with member city timelines, (b) a monthly close process, and (c) routine budget- to-actual and cash/fund balance reporting to the Executive Director and Board (at least quarterly). 33 30

6.4 Develop a phased, medium to long-term plan to evaluate SEAACA’s finance service delivery options, including the continued use of Downey, expanded outsourced finance support, or a future transition to an in- house financial system. Any transition away from the current model should be preceded by a cost, staffing, and risk assessment and should be timed to avoid disrupting core functions such as payroll, payables, and audit support.

6.5 Request access permission to view SEAACA’s financial records in the City of Downey’s financial system and provide the ability to run reports from the system.

34 31
Management Response

35 36

Advise/Provide Information 43 Total Live Outcomes 383
Agency Assist 14 Adopted 314
Animal Cruelty Report 8 Claimed by Owner 47
Animal in Custody for Relinquishment 3 Returned to Wild 1 Animal(s) in Distress 6 Transferred 21
Barking Dog Complaint (Letter to be sent)53 Total Deceased Outcomes 600 Check Back 6 Picked up Deceased 440
Disaster Response 3 Deceased in Custody 11
Dog vs Cat Report 4 Humanely Euthanized 149
Dog vs Dog Report 4
Injured Animal 163
Meet at Location 8
Officer Observation 12
Patrol Check 7
Report 3
Report an Animal Bite 30
Report Deceased Animal 474
Report loose animal 154
Sanitation/defication 12
Schedule for Pickup 2
Set and Bait Trap 1
Stray Animal(s) in Custody 83
Traffic Hazzard 3
Vicious Animal 10
Wellfare Check of Animals 63
Cancelled Calls 48
Animal Pickups in Bellflower 2025
Total: 983
Calls for Service in Bellflower 2025
1,217
37 Advise/Provide Information 29 Total Live Outcomes 176 Agency Assist 6 Adopted 148
Animal Cruelty Report 5 Claimed by Owner 23
Animal in Custody for Relinquishment 5 Returned to Wild 1 Animal(s) in Distress 1 Transferred 4
Barking Dog Complaint 22 Total Deceased Outcomes 344
Check Back 8 Picked up Deceased 219
Disaster Response 1 Deceased in Custody 5
Dog vs Dog Report 7 Humanely Euthanized 120
Injured/Sick Animal 113 Currently in Care Center 10
Meet at Location 1 Total: 530
Officer Observation 4
Patrol Check 5
Report an Animal Bite 8
Report Deceased Animal 250
Report loose animal 104
Sanitation/Defication 2
Schedule for Pickup 2
Stray Animal(s) in Custody 47
Vicious Animal 7
Wellfare Check of Animals 20
Total: 647
Animal Pickups in Bellflower 2026Calls for Service in Bellflower 2026 ㌸

SEAACA Bellflower License Activity Report

1. 2024
a. Mailings:

Renewal & Warning Letters- 4,065
Notice to License Letters- 610
Total Mailings: 4,675*
b. Emails:

Renewal & Warning Emails- 8,896
c. Phone Calls:

Renewal Phone Notices- 154
Total 2024 License Activity Actions: *13,725

2. 2025
a. Mailings:

Renewal & Warning Letters- 5,657
Notice to License Letters- 650
Total Mailings: 6,307*
b. Emails:

Renewal & Warning Emails- 6,824
c. Phone Calls:

Renewal Phone Notices- 81
Total 2025 License Activity Actions: *13,212

Total 2024 and 2025 License Activity Actions: *26,937

*Please note that the numbers provided do not include notices mailed by SEAACA. 39 40

AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND SHELTERING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 111 day of July 2024, by and between the SOUTHEAST AREA ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY whose address -is 9777 SEAACA. Street, Downey, California (herein, SEAACA") and 'the CITY .OF BELLFLOWER, a California Corporation, whose address is 16600 Civic Center. Drive, Bellflower, California 90706 (herein "CITY").

RECITALS:

WHEREAS., SEAACA is a public agency organized by the Cities, of Downey, Norwalk, Pico Rivera,..Bell Gard.ohs Mon.tebo:lIo,-. Par0m,ou:.nt, -Santa Fe Springs and 'South El Monte, pursuant to the.. provisions. -of- section. .6500.. et seci- of the California. Government -:Code for the purpose of providing anima]- control...o.nd :Sheltering services wit-hin the -bo nd*ries .of:ththose cities and su-ch -boundaries other municipal.corpQrati.o ns as are: approved. by SEAACA,. ::and WHEREAS-. CITY has .'.rerequestedintoAgreement -and.. vicle- Animal: thawquesa.t.SEAACA%-.enter - this g. nt pro Control -and She'lte'.iing Service:s*to theCITY curing thete-rm tht reof, which are morefully described herein - after, and. WHEREAS
both CITY and -S:EAACA' ;have .-authorized :entering ,into :this Agreement by formal action of their respective govern ing.;b0d ies, taken as properly noticecl meet.. ings; THEREFORE, in consideratioh of: performante by the 0 part[e, f the - covenants and Isethe -- fo.Ildw's: conditionshereincontai-ned'"' s the agree a SECTION].

SEAACA AGRE ES: 1.

To perf r om th-e fol.lowing service r.' servicesCITY within the corporate limits of 'CITY: a) To provide one- assigned off totaling forty: (40) hours perweek. - b) To patrol- the *streets of CITY as many additional hours per -month as necessary t a yoenforce th,.e'.. provisi.o,n*s of. RE LLF LOWE R's Municipal Code relating, to animal control. C) To enforce al"I applicable canine leash law requirements.' p ad) To enforce all applicable standards for anim al 6 lcare. I - e) Tooperate' an animal kennels and premises in -a sanitary al controlshelter* to maintain , condition at all times; to comply p withall applicable laws of the State of California; 1a; andto giveAhe prescribednotices and use humane-e care and destruct' methods for thdestruction .of anyQ animal coming under its jurisdiction. To en orce-
all-applicable fate: -statutes -With:--- ect-t6-thosi-8-e rv-'-c s---ar customarily i :ii 8sesrenderedbySEAACA.. g) To pick
up and impound loose, stray dogs. h) To*pick .
up sick, injured or otherwise physically suffering0 stray animals fromthepublicstreets and private property. i) To pick
up, dead animals within 24 hours or as so -on as reasonably possible. j) To investigate complaints relating to animal cruelty. k) To provide
prompt 24 hours per day emergency service ice response forinjured or vicious animals. 1) To provide
all services and materials -to establish an.d maintain a: licensing and canvassing program. m) To canvass
all delinquent licenses each year and every household in the CITY a minimum Agreement for Animal Control and Sheltering Services FY 2024-2025 Page 1
41 ofon<a. ensu th aUanim n i h|n a d d
licensed.
n) Toprovide licensing services at two rabies clinics each year. o) Tokeep and maintain dudng.theterm ufthis books, and records porainingto the licensing ofdogs, collection of fees, and impounding of animals. Said books and records shall be available for - audit and ekarniMation by the CITY during normal business h a ouns and with reasonablenotice. During
the term ofthi-sAgreerne*nt,SEAA[AWill 'report toCITY the total dollar amount of license fees collected. 5EAACA shall rnainLa1n a record of all complaints received and shall furnish th* e CITY upon request, with a vvrMtenrecord -of the oonn'plaints and the way in which complaints were handled. 2.That if requested in writing by CITY, /ad ditfona|services above those described herein may be performed by SEAACA when SEAACA determines that such additional services wil] not interfere with the maintenance level ofthe animal control services provided elsewhere b«SEAACA.CITY will pay for such additional services insuch arnounts'.asare a reedto SEAACAandC|TY. v SECTIONU. CITY AGREES.: ' 1.To cooperate ,d assist 5EAACA|npOrfomingits obligations hereunder, including
the adoption ofSEAACA'sMod-el Ordinance, ' 2. That for and |nconsideration of the rendition of services pursuant to
this- Agreement: a\ The tota] cost to the CITY for Fiscal Ye'.a-r 20- 24-2025 sh,81:1 be $779,880.00 offset by revenues collected by SEAACA in performance of this Agreement for license fees and penalties. SEAACA guarantees that said reVenuegshaU be$138/000.00. If license revenues exceedthat amount, 5OY6sheUbereturned tothe CITY following the close ofthe fiscal year. b\ The net annual cost to CITY for sai ervices shall not exceed $641,880.00' and shall be paid by CITY to SEAACA upon invoice on the following-schedu|e: $320,940.00 on July l, 2024, and 320,940.00 on Octob-er 1, 2024' Said surnsshal| be paicivvith1n thirty (30) days after receipt of invoice. If payment is not delivered to SEAACA within thirty (30) days after CITY'sreceipt of invoice, SEAACA is entitled to recover interest thereon. Said interest shall be at the rate of ten percent 10%) per year, or any portion thereof, calculated from the last dayofthe month in which the services were performed. If such payment is not- delivered to 3EAACAVvithin the time set forth hereinabove,SEAA[/\ may satisfy such indebtedness, including, interest the'reon,from any funds of the CITY on deposit or to the credit of SEAACA, with -out givi*ng furth-er notice. to -CITY ofSEAACA's intent tudoso. c) SEAACAshaU be entitled to and shall retain all moneys that it collects from residents of the
CITY for i:mpounding, boarding, adoptions, spay/neuter fines and other pe'nalties/fines imposed bythe State ofCalifornia. d) The compensation.n-and financial provisions of subsection's a) and b\ of Paragraph 2 of Section
11, shall be adjusted annual.ly by mutual agreement of the -Parties. Prior tothe end ofeach year of this Agreement, the parties shall commence negotiations to determine the compensation and financial provisions toapply for the next year ofthis Agreement. |fthe Parties are unable to agree, the parties may extend this agreement in writing on a month -to --month basis based on mutually agreeable written temporary compensation and financia| provisions or terminate this Agreement. The compensation and financial provision.s, agreed upon by the Parties after the first year ofthis contract shall bereduced towriting and signed byall Parties. Agreement for Animal Control and Sheltering Services FY 2024-2025 Page 2 42 SECTION VI. TERM,

1. That the term of this Agreement shall be for the period of five years, July 1, 2024,. through Juno 30 2029, inclusive, unless' the A'' s er t "d-'s herein -provided. CITY and SEAACAgreemont] A " mina e a may execute an Agreement at its expiration- for an additional five-year period by mutual written agreement.

2. 5hould SEAACA default: during the term of this Agroomen-t' In the performance of its obligations as set forth herein and fail to cure said defau'ltWit'Mn fifteen (15)`days' written notice to do so, then CITY may terminate -this Agreement. And'. upon . po-n,paym%ent I. to
SEAACA of .-monies owing to* SEAACA,
less any credits to. th.e.,CITY by.,SEAACA, for aatisfactory performances rendered pursuant to this Agreement and -through the -date;of,said terrnonation * -t Ithereafter, there shall be no obligation of the CITY to.SEAACA.. Should CITY fail to pay the sums ow,ing`toSEAACA ,as 'provided hereunder or otherwise default in any pro onof this Agreement and fail to .cure 'said def.a.u.1t within fifte.0n -(15) n days written .notice to do so,,:.th.en S.EAACA may terminate this: Agreemeht a d upon -the effective date .-. toCITY there -.8klall-.be no - of ,the termination.., -and upon. paymet.toCITY o monies owing ,n furth'eri-obligation :
61 SEAACA to the CITY. -S ' 'h t be --ee.med,:;a--wa-ive'r*;of any Such termination ination - shalt a'I 1* not ot --d rightst :SEAACA .:
may" have ...agains. CITY for any sums due th to 'SEAACA.-under0termsof this Agreement... 3. Either- SEAACA
or CITY :may mate this Agreement by -giving the other party -nine y 90} days prior written SECTION VI I.

AMENDMENT: This Agreement shall
not be amended r or breach hereof waived except in"writing .,o any provisioh. riting signed by the parties es, expressly. refer'r[ g to AhisAgreement. n SECTION V I11. :

NOTICE: That any notice required,
to be sent -hereunder ' shall :be -deemed received if - addressed to the address of the parties as set forth.. hereunder and deposited, postage 'prepaid, in the United States Post Office, -or to such other address as the parties may, from time to time, in writing furnish to the other party. IN WITNESS

WHEREOF, THE
CITY OF BELLFLOWER, by order of its 'City -Council caused this Agreement to be signe. d by its :Mayor .and attested to by its Clerk. - a n.d the SOUTHEAST AREA ANIMAL -CONTROL -AUTHORITY; ja. k.a.-SEAACA}; by &d%r-`of Commission,causedhas s - this-- Agreement: tobesigned by its Chairperson- of said Commission. andattested to by S EAACA's Executive Director. Agreement for Animal Control and
Sheltering Services FY 2024-2025 Page 4
43 e)SEAACAshall retain all fee and/or fines collected resulting from Administrative Hearings conducted bv5EAACA. 5ECT|[>
NUi THE PARTIES AGREE: 1.

That the service performed by SEAACA shall only encompass those duties and functions of SEAACAwhich are rendered hvit and which itisauthorized toprovide punsuant,tothe provisions of the Joint Exercise ofPowers Agreement and the statutes ofthis State. 2. That the renditionofservices performed hereunder, the standard ofperformance and other matters inoideMta-1 to the perhzrn a.nce of suc-h .service and control of personnel so employed shall remain in SEAACA. In the event th vv dispute arises between SEAACA and the C'|TY as -to the extent of the cluties.and functions tobe rendered hereun. der or the. manner of the performance of such services, the determination thereof shall be made by the 3EAACA Board of Commissioners. 8. That for the purpose of perforrn|ngall functions, 8EA/\CA shall furnish and supply all necessary labor, supervision , equipment, -and suppUes necessary to provide the level ofservices to beren.dered.hereunder. 4. That a|[ persons employed by SEAACA in the performance of
this Agreement shall be 3EAACA employees and no CITY employee as such shall beta en over by said SEAACA, and no person employed hereunder shall have any CITY pension, civil serv|ce*, orany status orright. 5. The CITY agrees to cooperate and confer with 8EAACA regarding changes in service cl-e||very options toassist with irnp|ernentation-of new programs toenhance services tothe community.

SECTION IV. INDEMNIFICATION: l. That CITY shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the
direct payment of any salaries, wages, or other compensation for any SEAACA personnel performing services hereunder for said SEAACA, or any liability other than that provided for in this Agreement.

Except as herein otherwise specified the CITY shall -not be liable for compensation or indemnity to any SEAACA employee for i-uryorsicknesseris|ng out ofhis/her employment.. 2 That 6 its officers and emnp|oyees, shall not be deemed to assurne any
UabiUty for intentional or negligent- acts of said CITY or of- any officer or- employee thereof, nor for any defective or dangerous condition of City owned real property, and (JTYsha|| hold SEAA[A and its officers and employees harmless from, and shall defend SEAACA and the officers and employees thereof ageinstany claim for damages resulting there. from. 3. That CITY, its oF[icersand employees shall not be cleenned to assume any liability for
intentional or negligent acts ofSEAACA or of any officer or employee thereof, and 3EAAC/\ shall hold CITY and its officers and employees harmless from and sha-11 defend CITY and the officers and employees thereof against any claim for damages resulting there from. SECTION $INSURANCE: SEAACA is a member ofthe California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (California JPk$and participates in self-insurance
and connrnenoia| insurance programs administered by the California JP|A for its members.

Primary Liability Program, including Automobile Liability Coverage Limit is 2,000,000 per oocurrence, Annual Aggregate Limit shall be $2,000,000; Workers' Compensation Program Coverage Limits shall beStetutory,, Employers Liability /s$1,O0O,OOO. Agreement for Animal Control and Sheltering Services FY2o24-2o2s Page
44 AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHEAST AREA ANMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND SHELTERING SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR.2024-2025 Signature Page -

CITY OF BELLFLOWER
BY:

Dan. Loops, Mayor

SOUTHEAST AREA

ANIMAL NTROL AUTHORITY
B
ATTEST: '-
Tony Ay,a(a, airperson
AJ 6 A
Agreement for Animal Control and Sheltering Services FY 2024-2025 Page 5 45

Bellflower City CouncilJuly 13, 2026

Bellflower City Council
July 13, 2026