Concord City Council
June 28, 2022

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Executive Summary page 7
Recommendation #19: Consider entering into discussions to revise, by addendum, current city contracts to reflect the full scope of animal services provided by the Department.

Recommendation #20: Provide clarity to the Department’s contract cities regarding the way that mandated services are provided and the methodology through which their costs are determined.

Recommendation #21: Establish an Enterprise Fund for the Department operations.

STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
A list of Citygate’s recommendations and a blueprint for implementation are presented in the Strategic Action Plan in Section 5.3. This Plan contains:

1. The priority of each recommendation.

2. The responsible party/ies.

3. The relative resource requirement.

4. The suggested implementation time frame.

5. The anticipated benefits.

This page was intentionally left blank

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 1—Introduction and Background page 9
SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY
Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) is pleased to present this field operations and sheltering practices cost analysis that has been prepared for the Contra Costa County (County) Animal Services Department (Department). Citygate listened to the Department needs and concerns expressed by the Director and Administrative Services Officer, each of whom is fairly new in their tenure with the Department. Citygate and the Department discussed how best to move the Department forward in the midst of challenging financial and operational issues. Citygate identified the study tasks necessary to determine whether the Department’s current service delivery policies and practices align with the expectations of the 18 cities in Contra Costa County with which it contracts. Citygate formed a knowledgeable panel of experienced professionals who could accomplish the study tasks within the time frame needed by the new administration. The study results serve as a first phase and provide an understanding of the business structure underlying the delivery of animal services in Contra Costa County. A logical second phase of work, for which this study provides a strong financial basis, would be for the County to analyze in considerably more detail the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the Department.

This study is an intricate cost analysis. Some of the tools utilized by Citygate to conduct this analysis include:
 Year-to-year budgeted versus actual expenditures

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 1—Introduction and Background page 10
 Year-to-year budgeted versus actual revenues
 Five-year comparison of major expenditures by category  Analysis of the subsidy provided to the Department by the County’s General Fund  Summary of the Department’s cost center allocation system.

The analysis produced financial information not previously available to the Director of Animal Services or the Administrative Services Officer. The information produced from Citygate’s independent accounting and financial expertise will add credibility to the financial information produced by the Department now and in the future.

Also included in this cost analysis is an overview of field and shelter operations. Although this particular study has not delved deeply into the operational efficiency, effectiveness, and cost efficacy of the Department, the study recommendations and best practice suggestions are intended to assist the Department as it addresses current issues related to staffing, retention, dispatch services, and field and shelter operations. This study also provides a foundation for improved understanding of the cost of services currently rendered to the 18 contracted cities in Contra Costa County and the level of subsidy borne by the County’s General Fund.

1.2 DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
The Department serves a dense urban population of over one million residents. The County totals 804 square miles and includes 19 incorporated cities, 18 of which contract with the County for animal services. The service area also includes significant unincorporated County development within a mixture of urban and rural neighborhoods.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 1—Introduction and Background page 11
Figure 2—Map of Contra Costa County Animal Services Shelters

1.2.1 History of the Department and Relationship with Incorporated Cities The Department has a long history in Contra Costa County. In the 1940s, animal services were provided in the individual cities by the local “dog catcher,” who was an individual hired or contracted by a city to deal with stray animals. In the 1950s, animal services became a Countywide function of the Agriculture Department. In 1980, Contra Costa County Animal Services became its own County department (the Animal Services Department) due to the increased demand for animal services resulting from the County’s population growth. In the 30 years or so prior to 1981, the County provided animal services without any charge to the participating cities and unincorporated area.

The County has invested significantly in animal shelter facilities by constructing and equipping two new facilities that each opened in 2005. The shelter facility in Martinez was funded using only County capital and General Fund support and cost approximately $8 million. The Pinole facility was constructed through an exchange with the City of Pinole where it was intended to function as an annex facility. Funding for the Pinole construction was provided through the exchange agreement between the County and the City of Pinole and did not include funding support from the contract cities.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 1—Introduction and Background page 12

1.2.2 Post-Great-Recession Rebuild
There is ample evidence in historical information reviewed by Citygate to conclude that the Department once enjoyed a larger staff of field service personnel than is now allocated and that, during the 1980s and 1990s, the Department had robust practices of recordkeeping, field services report metrics, and staff training manuals and practices.

In the years since 2006, due in part to the Great Recession of 2008, the Department has experienced a steady loss of staffing resources, significant turnover in leadership, budget cuts, and retention and recruiting difficulties. This cascade of organizational change has left the agency with a significant loss of institutional knowledge. This experience is similar to that of many city and county agencies in California and throughout the nation. However, where many other agencies have begun to emerge from these difficulties by a combination of restored staffing and adaptive operational processes, the Department has not yet had that opportunity.

The recommendations and information contained in this report provide a process by which the Department can begin to align and adapt its service delivery and operational processes with the resources necessary to protect health and safety.

The timing of the Great Recession and its accompanying financial constrictions occurred for the Department at the same time as the demand for animal protection and animal services was on the rise and the population of the County was increasing. As the Department has been forced to eliminate expenses to balance annual budgets, the population has grown and the community expectations for delivery of compassionate, efficient, and effective services has increased.

Public sector animal control agencies are often under public and advocate pressure to achieve a “no-kill” status. The challenge facing public agencies is that they operate open admission shelters and are required by law to accept any stray animal from the jurisdiction(s) that they serve. Many of the animals received in public agencies have extensive medical or behavioral needs which require resources to treat. Alternatively, humane societies and other private agencies can be selective about which animals they accept, whereas a public animal services operation, such as that operated by the Department, must accept all animals and protect public health and safety. The private facilities can and do refuse to accept animals requiring extensive resources and only take in animals that will require few or no resources to become adoptable. Additionally, public agencies must prioritize the public’s health and safety and must not release animals that pose a safety risk to the community.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
Because this report is centered on providing a field services and sheltering cost analysis, it has been organized in a fashion similar to that used for annual financial reports and audits. First, the current structure of the Department and a description of its service delivery model is provided in

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 1—Introduction and Background page 13
Section 2. This is followed by the financial analysis in Sections 3 and 4, which include a detailed analysis of revenues, expenditures, budgeting, financial records, and processes the Department uses to facilitate its business model.

As is common in annual reports and audit documents, the organizational structure, operations, and cost analysis sections each include comments on current practices, industry standards, best practices, and improvement suggestions. The description of the baseline services and current structure of the Department in Section 2 is presented from the point of view of operations and the services model in place, and the financial analysis is focused on business practices around accounting, budgeting, forecasting, cash management, and collections that are undertaken in support of the services provided by the Department.

The County requested that the financial analysis include a comparative analysis and discussion of best practices. References to best practices are made throughout Sections 2 through 4 to present them alongside the analysis commentary. Additional best practices are also included in the final segments of Section 4.

The comparative analysis is included in Section 4 and includes a discussion of both per-capita rates and agency comparisons as a type of benchmark for animal services as provided by operations of similar size to the Department.

In Section 5, Citygate further enumerates a series of findings and recommendations to provide the Department with a plan of action based on the analysis conducted during this study. These findings and recommendations are presented in two themes upon which the Department can address future action.

Volume 2—Cost Analysis Appendices is separately bound for the convenience of the reader and includes numerous detailed financial data tables that are referenced often.

1.3.1 Theme One: Strengthen Core Financial and Operational Activities Findings and recommendations included in Theme One are based on actions the Department can take with its current resources and staff. The Department can act to strengthen its core financial and operational activities now by following steps recommended for forecasting and budgeting of revenues and expenditures, applying cost allocation, establishing fees, developing and using policies and procedures, and reaching out to promote licensing, fill vacant positions, and conduct training for employees.

1.3.2 Theme Two: Address the Impacts of Population Growth and Service Demands
Findings and recommendations included in Theme Two are those that will help to position the Department to address the current and future impacts of changing population growth and service demands with Contra Costa County administration and outside agencies. Action items within this

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 1—Introduction and Background page 14
theme include planning for shelter needs, working with contract cities to provide service data and information, creating strong intergovernmental relationships, clarifying service costs, and possibly setting up animal services as an enterprise.

1.4 SCOPE OF WORK: CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS
As defined in Citygate’s contracted scope of work with the County, Citygate reviewed the structure of the current Animal Services Department and the data and documentation provided by the County regarding the delivery of services.

Using the information provided, Citygate prepared a description of the baseline service delivery model. Citygate performed a comparative analysis of the Department to other local animal control agencies and developed a financial analysis report, which included four tasks as defined in our contract.

1.4.1 Phase 1: Project Administration
 Project Meetings: Citygate prepared and coordinated initial and ongoing project planning meetings with Department executive staff to review the scope of work, discuss project objectives, gather information regarding the services currently provided to the contract cities, and establish and coordinate project timelines.  Status Reports: Citygate provided monthly status reports by the 5th of each month to outline work completed in the prior month, plans for following month, challenges identified, and any potential changes to the project timeline or scope.

Citygate conducted initial meetings to determine the project scope and discern the needs of the Department and critical financial information. A half-day mid-project review discussion with the Citygate panel, Director of Animal Services, and Administrative Services Officer was held to review preliminary information. Citygate prepared a project review document for this discussion.

1.4.2 Phase 2: Review Data, Documentation, and Information Citygate reviewed pertinent Department documents, including, but not limited to, organization charts, policies and procedures, call logs, as well as documents related to response times, customer service programs, and public education strategies. Using these documents, Citygate developed a profile of current activities and workload.

Citygate reviewed the Department’s mission, goals, objectives, and philosophy, and interviewed the Animal Services Director, Administrative Services Officer, and other individuals within leadership positions.

Interviews were conducted by groups of Citygate Project Team members on-site and through numerous phone contacts. Some of those contacts were specifically related to obtaining the data

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 1—Introduction and Background page 15
requested. Citygate is aware that the Department maintained many extensive records, including reports from the Chameleon database, policies and procedures, field services statistics, and office manuals through approximately 2006. However, it appears that, since the mid-2000s, those routine practices have been interrupted and/or discontinued, perhaps due to staff turnover, staff reductions, increased service demands, and/or loss of institutional knowledge. Recommendations to reestablish use of metrics and improved use of Chameleon to track those metrics are contained in this report to assist the Department in reinvigorating its data and report practices.

1.4.3 Phase 3: Cost and Operational Analysis
To perform the cost and operational analysis, Citygate:
 Reviewed and analyzed expenses and revenues for prior fiscal years and the new proposed structure for fiscal year (FY) 2017/2018.
 Reviewed budget detail preparation documents to identify costs by category, including personnel, material/services/supplies, equipment, capital, and transfers out.
 Analyzed revenues, billing process, delinquencies, collection process, Animal Benefits Fund donations, and volunteer impact on costs.  Researched and compared services provided by other similar animal control agencies by assessing these agencies’ costs and revenues, including, but not limited to, personnel, operations, service delivery models, and other services that support their mission, goals, and objectives.
 Performed a cost analysis of each division, including personnel and operation expenses and revenues.
 Determined allocation of methodologies, per jurisdiction, that includes calls for service, patrol time in jurisdiction, square mileage of jurisdiction, average number of animals in shelter, and average time in shelter based on industry standards and current per-capita methodology identifying strengths, weaknesses, and net costs to County.
 Made recommendations regarding organizational structure areas that can be improved through reorganization.
 Made recommendations on best operational and financial practices.

1.4.4 Phase 4: Reporting
 Action Plan: Citygate has developed an Action Plan that includes a strategy to implement best practices to reduce cost and maximize services.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 1—Introduction and Background page 16
 Draft Report Review: Citygate reviewed the Draft Report with Department executive staff. The Department provided feedback to Citygate’s Draft Report within 30 working days from the submittal of the Draft Report presentation meeting.
 Final Report: Citygate considered and incorporated changes and comments requested by the Department into the Final Report and will deliver an oral presentation discussing its findings and recommendations at a County meeting to be selected by the Director of Animal Services.

1.5 DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED BY CITYGATE
In varying degrees, dependent upon the amount of information available, Citygate examined the following:
 Mission, policies, and goals of the Department
 Communication among staff, contract cities, and customers  Current and future performance measures
 Sheltering population and service delivery
 Support systems
 Organization structure
 Customer satisfaction
 Allocation of employees and other resources
 Personnel management, supervision, and reporting
 Staffing, budgeting, and continuous improvement programming  Workload trends
 Management information available through this function’s information technology, such as Chameleon, Crystal Reports, etc.
 Physical condition of the shelters, vehicle fleet, and equipment  Animal euthanasia history and trends.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 1—Introduction and Background page 17

1.6 LOCATION OF REQUESTED SCOPE ITEMS WITHIN THIS REPORT Citygate recognizes this report to be heavily analytical and that it contains many financial tables and graphs. To provide a narrative report that assists the reader in working through these financial presentations, data may be presented in an order different to that found in the service contract. The location of requested scope items are presented in Table 1.

Table 1—Location of Requested Scope Items within Report Scope Items Location
Baseline Service Delivery Model Section 2
Section 3
Expenses and Revenues Prior Fiscal Years and FY 2017/18 Section 3 Review Budget Detail/Cost Categories Section 3
Analyze Revenue, Billing, Delinquencies, Collections, Animal Benefits Fund Donations, Volunteers Section 3
Comparative Analysis of Other Similar Local Animal Control Agencies Section 4 Cost Analysis of Department Divisions Section 3
Allocation Methodologies Section 4
Organizational Structure Recommendations Sections 2–5
Best Operational and Financial Practices Sections 2–5

1.6.1 Fiscal Assumptions
Citygate’s review includes many fiscal assumptions that were required either because the data needed to complete the analysis was unavailable from Department staff or because it was considered reasonable by Citygate to make presentation of the data more understandable. The financial assumptions used are as follows:
 Personnel costs are based on the current report provided by the County to Citygate.

No assumption is being made regarding new hires, terminations, promotions, or demotions occurring after the report information was provided.  The vacant position analysis was only performed on FY 17/18 information due to unavailability of detailed position data for years prior.  The total animals going through shelters exceeds 10,000 annually, having averaged 11,628 for 2014, 2015, and 2016.
 Proposed operational structure amounts were determined by percentage of personnel methodology applied to all other expenses.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 1—Introduction and Background page 18
 The personnel allocation for the proposed organizational structure was developed by review of job descriptions.
 Data analysis assumes that accounting postings were performed correctly.  Numbers are rounded where the word “approximately” is used in the County report.  Budget estimates used are from originally adopted budget.  The financial analysis was completed using financial reports provided as of September 15, 2017. Citygate understands that, given the financial operations of local government, the financial report for FY 16-17 would not, necessarily, include all closing entries that may result as Contra Costa County finalizes its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). However, based on discussions with Department staff, Citygate believes that any closing entries will not materially impact the findings and recommendations outlined in this report.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 19 SECTION 2—ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT STRUCTURE AND

SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL

2.1 MISSION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PHILOSOPHY
The mission of the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department, and the outline of efforts it will undertake in accomplishing that mission, reflects the Department’s commitment and appreciation of current trends in the animal services industry that place an emphasis on providing animal services with a delivery system which trends toward saving animal lives. That effort must be conducted with a balance of protecting the health and safety of the human population as well.

The mission statement of the Department is as follows:

Contra Costa County Animal Services Department is committed to protecting the health, safety and well-being of all people and animals in our community through enforcement of state and local laws, providing compassionate care for every animal regardless of its temperament or condition, and reducing the number of animals that enter our County shelters.

We will prioritize lifesaving; shelter homeless, abandoned and lost animals; work to keep and place animals in safe, caring homes; and provide education and services to enhance the lives of people, their animal companions, and to strengthen the human-animal bond.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 20 Contra Costa County Animal Services Department will accomplish its mission by:
 Protecting the citizens of Contra Costa County from animal related diseases and from animal injury.
 Preventing animal cruelty, abuse and neglect.
 Keeping animals in their homes by providing resources and active counseling for owners looking to surrender their family companions.  Striving to decrease our shelter intake, increase our live release rates and to reserve euthanasia only for animals that have serious medical conditions with great suffering, or behavior issues that pose a threat to the public’s health and safety and the animal’s well-being.
 Providing humane care and treatment of all animals in accordance with the Association of Shelter Veterinarians Guidelines and striving to follow the Five Freedoms.
 Increasing licensing and micro-chipping efforts to assist owners in reuniting with their lost pets.
 Providing spay/neuter services to reduce pet overpopulation.  Educating the public about responsible pet ownership, including preventative medicine, spay/neuter, and vaccinations.
 Providing high-quality customer service and treating our customers with respect, professional courtesy, and integrity.
 Creating collaborative partnerships that further our mission and increase our ability to serve the people and animals of Contra Costa County.

2.2 PROFILE OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND WORKLOAD

2.2.1 Organizational Structure and Service Activities
The Department is comprised of two shelters and 89 employees, including field officers, veterinary staff, shelter staff, clerical staff, and administration. The Department is currently organized by four budgetary divisions. The four divisions are: The Animal Services Operations Division (added in FY 14/15), the Animal Licensing Division, the Animal Services Centers Division, and the Spay/Neuter Clinic Division. To address operational issues concerning ineffective data collection and recording, the Department initiated the restructuring of the Department divisions. However, this restructuring was not included in the FY 17/18 budget.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 21 The Department has four positions that are considered management and are exempt from overtime.

These positions (which have a separate management resolution) are the Director, the Deputy Director, the Executive Secretary, and the Animal Clinic Veterinarian. The balance of the Department employees are represented by four labor groups: Local 1, Local 21, Local 512, and Local 2700 (Public Employees Union). The Department’s operations are also supported by over 300 committed volunteers who play a variety of critical roles that contribute to the enrichment, well-being, and placement of sheltered animals.

The Department serves a population of over one million people in a service area of 774 square miles, and shelters over 10,000 animals annually. In the last three years, the total animal intake numbers have trended down from 12,489 in 2014, 11,534 in 2015, and 10,861 in 2016, or an average of 11,628 over the last three years. The Department’s service area includes 18 of the 19 incorporated cities in Contra Costa County, as well as the unincorporated County area. The City of Antioch operates its own animal services function. Population growth for the incorporated portions of the service area was 5.2 percent from FY 12/13 to FY 17/18. The unincorporated service area population growth for this same period was 5.0 percent.

The services provided by the Department include statutorily mandated services such as rabies control and stray animal sheltering, as well as a multitude of other services, including animal licensing, animal impound and adoption, investigations of neglect or cruelty, enforcement of animal-related laws, animal bite investigations and quarantines, activities involving wildlife, animal noise complaints, dead animal removal, public spay and neuter services, acceptance of owner surrender animals, and education. These services are currently administered through the Department’s four divisions.

Citygate developed the following table to show animal service activities by contract City.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 22 Table 2—Animal Service Activities by City in 2016
City Activities Animals
Dead on
Arrival
Brentwood 889 440 180
Clayton 143 87 56
Concord 2,373 1,467 327
Danville 635 141 188
El Cerrito 416 121 89
Hercules 350 241 79
Lafayette 575 105 211
Martinez 1,026 750 269
Moraga 204 31 61
Oakley 1,041 563 151
Orinda 401 65 155
Pinole 701 469 100
Pittsburg 1,957 1,343 290
Pleasant Hill 548 362 139
Richmond 3,110 2,150 434
San Pablo 686 839 130
San Ramon 743 223 167
Walnut Creek 1,285 312 315
Unincorporated County* 4,736 1,694 512
Other 98 72 12
Total 21,917 11,475 3,864
* The unincorporated territory of Alamo appeared in the data that was provided for this table. However, since Alamo did not appear separately in other data used for this study, Alamo’s count has been included in the Unincorporated County number.

2.2.2 Staffing
There are 89 approved staff positions in the Department for FY 17/18. Of these, there are currently 25 vacancies. The high vacancy rate in positions key to operations impact the agency’s ability to perform efficiently. The Animal Services Officer positions are authorized at 22, but there are currently eight vacancies. This vacancy rate causes delayed response times for field activities that directly affect the level of service provided to the cities and the unincorporated County. Out of 10 approved Animal Care Technician positions, there are currently four vacancies. This diminishes the quality of care provided the animals in the shelters, as well the customer service provided to

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 23 people visiting the shelter. It is difficult to assess whether the staffing level of 89 is adequate for the operation because the Department’s authorized positions have been under-filled for such a long period. Historically, the Department has been unable to fill all its vacant positions.

The following staffing organization chart reflects the supervisory organization of the Department, and was provided by the Department for this report. It is not reflective of budgetary and/or organizational divisions within the Department.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 24 Figure 3—Staffing Organization Chart
Source: Contra Costa County Animal Services

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 25

2.2.3 Personnel Management, Supervision, and Reporting
As it currently operates, the organizational structure of the Department is generally effective. The number of direct reports to the Director (currently five) is a reasonable number. The continual high vacancy rate adversely affects operations and most likely results in supervisory staff working at a lower classification to compensate for vacancies and to provide necessary services. This is not an efficient use of staff and should be rectified by filling vacant positions.

Training
Citygate was provided a draft Policy and Procedures Manual on September 27, 2017, along with draft New Hire Information documents. The Department is currently engaged in developing both a training manual and orientation documents for new staff. Development of a consistent written training program that covers each classification, along with a current Policy and Procedures Manual, is needed for operations to be strengthened. Citygate was not provided any training logs or information on a formal training program for staff or volunteers.

A training program outline should be developed for each position and should include checklists to be completed as training is provided. A training record should be maintained as a part of each employee’s record. Senior staff should be designated as trainers for their respective divisions. A method for communicating changes in procedures should be developed and added to the Procedures Manual.

Citygate requested information on records management systems and was provided the Chameleon manual from 1998. The Department has likely modified the way it utilizes the database and these systems should be documented in a training manual delineating procedures. Citygate encourages the Department to continue its efforts drafting a Policy and Procedures Manual. A comprehensive Policy and Procedures Manual will include sections on administration, shelter operations, field operations, veterinary medical operations, volunteer services, and safety, and would provide a training and reference resource for staff as the first step in development of a training program. The Policy and Procedures Manual would also provide a crucial resource as the Department develops processes for continuous improvement of its programs.

Workload
Citygate has compiled extensive analyses of the positions and tasks necessary to provide shelter and field services in Sections 3 and 4 of this report, along with best practices outlined (see Section

4.3). Although Citygate’s request for data included data related to workload within the Department, data that would have allowed Citygate to evaluate current operational workload(s) was not provided. Department staff were very cooperative with Citygate in providing much of the data requested for this study, and the fact that workload data could not be readily obtained and shared is an indicator of the need for the Department to invest in developing the metrics necessary to understand workload efforts within both the field and shelter services.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 26

2.2.4 Current Department Performance Metrics
Live Release Rate Discussion
Due to the state mandate to accept stray animals, most public-sector agencies are open admission, and accept any animal brought to them, which results in many challenging animals admitted into shelters. These animals can require extensive resources to get them to be an adoptable animal as defined by the California Food and Agricultural Code 17005 which reads, “Adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal’s health in the future.” Certain animals coming into municipal shelters have behaviors that may pose public safety risks, making them unadoptable. Many animals have extreme medical care needs that are expensive to treat and may require lifelong, ongoing medical care. Other animals may require resources in the form of behavioral modification, training, and a high degree of owner responsibility and management to make it safe for the animal to be released back into the community. A public agency must balance these challenges and determine the best use of its limited resources as it manages the animal populations it shelters. While there has been a lot of emphasis placed on live release statistics, public safety and sound business practices should be considered as well when policies are established.

The Department provided animal intake and outcome data to Citygate, as well as the calculated live release rate for recent years. The live release reports indicate a positive upward trend, showing 2014 at 63 percent, 2015 at 73 percent, and 2016 at 76 percent. While live release rates are an area of focus for some animal advocates and members of the public, shelters that hold open admission, like this Department, have a continual challenge to ensure public safety and evaluate release of animals that may pose a health and safety risk. There must be a balance between releasing potentially dangerous or vicious animals and ensuring responsible pet ownership to keep the public safe.

Spay and Neuter Surgeries
A proactive animal control program includes a strong component for spaying and neutering adoption animals, which is required by law for dogs and cats, and opportunities for the public to access affordable, subsidized, or free spay and neuter surgeries for owned dogs and cats.

Community outreach and education on the benefits of spaying and neutering, and the availability of resources for residents, are crucial to a successful spay and neuter program. As shown in Figure 4, Contra Costa County’s five-year trend for spay and neuter surgeries has trended down. The number of in-house surgeries shows a slight increase, while the surgeries provided to the public have trended down. The Department should consider evaluating why there has been a marked

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 27 decrease over the last five years to determine how best to increase spay and neuter services for the public.

Figure 4—Summary of Spay and Neuter Surgeries
Field Officer Activities
In response to Citygate’s request for field officer activity statistics for the last five years, Citygate was provided lists of animal control activities by officer. Additionally, annual compilations of animal activities and actions data were provided for 2014, 2015, and 2016. The following table shows the reported total activities by year, number of associated actions, and data on selected types of activities, including bites, humane investigations, aggressive animals, injured animals, and dead animals. The column labeled “Telephone” showed highly variable data in 2016 versus 2014 and 2015, resulting in the appearance that there was a substantial drop in total activities in 2016. The final column shows an adjusted amount with “Telephone” subtracted from total activities for comparison.
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
In House Public

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 28 Table 3—Total Activities by Year
Year
Total
Activities
Number
of Calls
and
Actions
Related
to
Activities
Animal
Bites
Humane
Investigations
Stray
Aggressive
Animal
Injured/Sick
Animal
Dead
Animal Telephone
Total
Activities
Less
Telephone
2014 39,502 66,918 1,440 1,317 1,642 3,350 4,933 17,907 21,595 2015 32,874 59,576 1,398 1,206 1,458 3,149 4,869 12,780 20,094 2016 20,703 50,288 1,580 1,096 1,431 3,361 4,947* 1,391 19,312 * The total shown differs from total Dead Animals Handled shown in Table 2 because this data is reporting Activity by Type, not the results. Some activities for dead animals do not result in the actual pick-up of a dead animal, such as an instance when a reported dead animal is not found.

There is a wealth of information that can be easily accessed from the Chameleon database, if properly input, that would provide metrics for the Department to begin analysis of field operations efficiencies. Chameleon has the capability of multiple reporting functions, including types and numbers of field officer activities, response time, activity results, activities by jurisdiction, etc.

In discussions with staff, it was stated that the Department does not utilize a call priority system for field activities. Prioritization of field activities is an important component of field operations and provides guidelines for staff in their performance of duties. Setting goals and performance measures helps staff focus and meet established priorities. These are also easily tracked in Chameleon.

The following is a general example for prioritizing activities, listing priority from highest to lowest:
 Call priorities as follows:
➢ Stray bite or vicious animal at large
➢ Stray injured animal
➢ Animal in distress (depending on situation)
➢ Assist law enforcement agency (depending on nature of assistance requested)
➢ Animal at large causing a traffic hazard
➢ Loose livestock
➢ Dog in trap
➢ Cat in trap

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 29 ➢ Stray sick animal
➢ Animal at a school
➢ Animal in custody
➢ Cruelty or neglect complaint (depends on circumstances, may be higher if urgent circumstances)
➢ Animal at large
➢ Owned animal for relinquishment
➢ Dead animal
➢ Dog license compliance/license check
➢ Noise complaint
➢ City code violation
➢ Sanitation problem.
 Officers are responsible to prioritize calls using the listed guidelines and their knowledge and experience. Good judgment should be used to respond to the highest priority first. It is acceptable to take the location into consideration when determining response priorities.
 Officers are expected to pick up all contained live animals within the shift during which they were assigned the activity.
 The Department has a productivity goal of completing all activities in the dispatch screen each day.

An important component of the field officers’ training program is criteria to inform the officers on setting priorities. This should be reviewed regularly and discussed in staff meetings. Metrics can be developed to measure response times to the various priority levels as one way to evaluate effectiveness and customer service.

Some metrics to consider tracking on a monthly or quarterly basis for field services would include:
 Response times
 Response times by priority of activity
 Completed activities by officer
 Completed activities by month
 Number of sequences per activity.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 30 Activity volume by city and in the unincorporated zones would assist in deployment of officers as well as in identifying any notable trends.

Dispatch Function
The Department currently performs in-house dispatch functions on the days it is open for business, which are Tuesdays through Saturdays. After regular business hours and on Sundays, Mondays, and holidays, requests for an animal control officer response go through the Sheriff’s Department dispatch. The Chameleon program supports data entry of field activities and has a dedicated dispatch function. If this function is properly utilized by trained and experienced staff, the efficiency of field operations can be greatly enhanced. A dedicated dispatcher can effectively monitor the movement of Animal Services Officers in the field, enhancing officer safety and effectiveness. Citygate recommends that the Department evaluate the benefit of maintaining and strengthening in-house dispatch which could be facilitated with staff training and filling long-term vacancies.

Reports to Contract Cities
Contract cities are provided a monthly summary of animal activities and actions, and a summary of dead and live animals handled in their respective city limits. Citygate was provided these monthly reports for each contract city in 2016 as well as a 2016 annual summary report for each contract city, the unincorporated County, and out of County (“Other”) incidents. It is unclear how the Department uses the annual report data. As metrics are developed for analyzing field services, each city’s data should be reviewed annually. It will be helpful to summarize any trends or unique services to formulate plans tailored to meet the needs of each contract city.

As the Department begins to update operations and procedures, a plan should be developed to actively engage with the contract partner cities. Specific senior staff should be designated as liaisons with city partners to expand the rapport with the cities and build stronger “customer” relationships by meeting with city partners on a regular schedule, not just when contracts near expiration. This will demonstrate the Department’s commitment to providing a high level of responsive service to its partner cities.

Shelter Services
Citygate briefly visited the Pinole Shelter and the Martinez Shelter on September 15, 2017. Both shelters were very full in regard to dog populations. The Pinole Shelter housed a small number of cats (6–8) and one rabbit. The Pinole dog kennels were very full, with some large dogs housed back to back and multiple small dogs (four or more in some cases) housed communally. The Pinole Shelter visit was before business hours and no clients were present. At the Martinez Shelter, there were multiple clients waiting in line in the reception area and patrons visiting shelter animal areas.

The shelter areas visited at both locations were clean, and there were no observations of clinically ill animals in any of the kennel areas toured.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 31 Outcome statistics provided by the Department on October 20, 2017 indicate positive outcome trends for animals admitted in the past three calendar years. The following table shows a compilation of total intakes of dogs and cats and outcomes of adoption, redeemed to owner (RTO), transferred to another agency, and cats returned to field or “working” cats, classified as community cats in this table. The community cats program appears to be a new program. The overall trend shows lower intake numbers and higher percentages of positive outcomes for animals.

Table 4—Total Intake for Dogs and Cats Compared to Positive Outcomes – 2014–2016 Category
2016
Number
2016
Percentage
2015
Number
2015
Percentage
2014
Number
2014
Percentage
Dogs
Total Dog Intakes 5,304 6,044 6,450
Dogs Adopted 1,732 33% 1,646 27% 1,372 21%
Dogs RTO* 1,364 26% 1,349 22% 1,362 21%
Dogs Transferred 1,551 29% 1,855 31% 1,892 29%
Total Percentage 88% 80% 71%
Cats
Total Cat Intakes 4,435 4,442 4,952
Cats Adopted 1,580 36% 1,588 36% 1,447 29%
Cats RTO* 135 3% 166 4% 123 2%
Cats Transferred 1,407 32% 1,622 37% 1,489 30%
Cats – Community 427 10% 0 0
Total Percentage 81% 77% 61%
* Redeemed to owner
The euthanasia trend is also positive, with an overall reduction in the percentage and actual numbers of animals euthanized. The following table shows the number and percentage of animals euthanized compared to total intake. Animals euthanized as a service for the owner are not included in this count.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 32 Table 5—Total Intake for Dogs and Cats Compared to Quantity Euthanized – 2014–2016 Category
2016
Number
2016
Percentage
2015
Number
2015
Percentage
2014
Number
2014
Percentage
Dogs
Total Dog Intakes 5,304 6,044 6,450
Dogs Euthanized 459 9% 1,141 19% 1,562 29%
Cats
Total Cat Intakes 4,435 4,442 4,952
Cats Euthanized 696 16% 971 22% 1,747 35%
Shelter services for the public are comprised of adoptions, lost and found, and incoming phone traffic with a myriad of questions and concerns, including requests for field services activities, sales of animal licenses, and animal intake processes. The shelter services operations were not evaluated as they are outside the scope of the project.

The Department has a pet retention program in place and accepts owner-surrender animals by appointment when there is space available. This is a proactive approach to managing intakes and is appropriate as public agencies are not mandated to accept owned animals.

Based on the statistics provided, it appears that the Department began a community cat program in 2016. This is considered a best practice, with the recommendation that each program is carefully evaluated to ensure it fits with the local community values. The statistics show increased positive outcomes for both dogs and cats over the last three calendar years.

Creating a plan of action for each animal upon intake can decrease length of stay and consequently help address overcrowding. Certain animals can easily be “fast-tracked,” and early identification of these animals frees up resources for animals that will need to be held longer. A vibrant foster program is also part of the planning process, as certain animals may need to go into immediate foster care.

Pet Licensing Program Compliance
In its FY 15/16 report, the American Pet Products Association (APPA) estimated that approximately 44 percent of all households in the United States have a dog, and 35 percent have a cat. Those households with dogs or cats, on average, have approximately 1.6 dogs or 2.1 cats.

Based on the State of California Department of Finance E5 report for 2017, Contra Costa County has 394,730 households. Excluding the City of Antioch, which is not in the Department service area, that leaves 359,890 households in the Department service area. Based on the APPA formula, there are approximately 254,000 dogs and approximately 265,000 cats in the Department service area.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 33 Based on data provided by the Department, which Citygate used for this study, and national formulas for estimating dog and cat populations, the estimated dog license compliance in the Department’s service area is about 16.5 percent. Just prior to completion of this Final Report, the Department provided a figure of 109,075 dog licenses, representing licenses covering multiple years, that would indicate compliance in dog licenses nearer to 43 percent. Citygate was unable to verify this data, but notes that the Department can work to utilize features of Chameleon to improve the availability and understanding of data contained in the system for future compliance performance monitoring.

These dog licensing figures are estimates; however, they highlight the opportunity for growth in compliance for the Department. Higher levels of compliance for licensing and animals wearing tags are beneficial to public safety as more animals are vaccinated for rabies and easily identified as owned, with a tag that traces back to the owner. This allows for the animal to be reunited more quickly with the owner. Higher license compliance also leads to a lower burden to the General Fund and general taxpayers due to increased animal-specific revenues coming into the animal services program.

Dog licensing is a state mandate and an important component of public sector animal control programs. Information about pet licensing goes hand in hand with education about responsible pet ownership, including vaccinating, licensing, spaying, neutering, and microchipping. The Department licensing program deserves a review and plan for revisions to make the program more vital and successful. Consideration should be given to the development of a license canvassing program and an outreach program focused on the benefits of being responsible, including the licensing requirement. Maintaining the licensing program in-house allows the Department the ability to manage it, adjust it to local needs, provide local vaccine clinics in contract cities, and capitalize on opportunities to build local relationships. The Department’s dog licensing compliance is estimated to be relatively low, indicating an opportunity for growth and enhanced revenues if it were improved. Citygate is aware of agencies that outsourced their licensing programs and subsequently decided to bring them back in-house due to lower licensing compliance results, increased costs charged by the provider, and poor customer service.

State Rabies Activities Report
There is a state mandate to provide certain statistics and an annual report to the California Department of Public Health regarding activities involving rabies. Citygate reviewed five years of the State Rabies Activities Report submitted by the Department. In recent years, the reporting responsibility has been shifted from the Department Office Manager to Contra Costa County Health Services. As a result, it appears the Department follows that requirement.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 34

2.2.5 Technology: Chameleon
The Department uses the Chameleon CMS software system for its shelter and field operations. The Chameleon system is used by many animal services agencies throughout the country and is considered a standard for animal services function support. Chameleon has an integrated software system that tracks people, animals, lost-and-found reports, financial transactions, field activities, citations, veterinary care, behavior assessments, movement of animals in and out of the shelter, and cash accounting functions. When data is properly entered, all animals, people, receipts, activities, tags, and addresses that are interrelated are linked. The system is designed to be a fullservice system for animal services agencies.

Optimal utilization of Chameleon requires ongoing training and skill development for staff and any other Chameleon users within the agency. Chameleon offers a free training seminar every year and extensive support as part of its contract. Most agencies using the program have designated “super users” who are leads and serve as the go-to designees for questions about Chameleon. In an agency the size of the Department, it would be appropriate to designate two to three staff leads for Chameleon. These staff are crucial to keeping the database consistent and would be responsible for extracting data and statistics from Chameleon and providing ongoing training.

2.2.6 Physical Condition of Shelters
The Martinez Shelter was opened in 2005 and replaced an older, smaller facility. The facility is aesthetically pleasing and encompasses over 38,000 square feet on two acres. The complex includes a public lobby; expansive animal housing, including adoption areas; quarantine and isolation areas; spay and neuter clinic; staff areas for clerical, field, administrative, and volunteer staff; intake rooms; get-acquainted areas; a temperament testing area; exam and treatment rooms; outdoor runs; a classroom; and a barn and corral area. The facility appears to be in a reasonable physical condition, but this was not a focus for Citygate’s review.

The Pinole Shelter is much smaller and considered to be a sub-station to serve the west County. It was constructed about 12 years ago to function as an annex facility. The facility is located within a business complex and currently holds healthy, uninjured, and non-aggressive animals. If aggressive animals or animals in need of medical care are impounded at the Pinole Shelter, the Department transfers them to the Martinez Shelter. The lobby area is very small and does not have an emergency escape route if there were a dangerous client in the office. There are no outdoor areas to show or exercise animals. If an animal is adopted from the Pinole Shelter, it is transported to Martinez for spay or neuter and the client picks the animal up from that location. There is no place for staff and volunteers to take breaks in this facility. The Pinole Shelter needs renovation, and possibly expansion, to make it a more serviceable and functional facility.

Neither shelter is designed for long-term housing of animals. This is not unexpected as the trend to hold animals longer in shelters has increased over the last decade and would not have been a

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model page 35 common practice when these two shelters were designed and built. While there are physical plant issues at both the Department facilities, Citygate sees operations as a higher priority for focus over the next two to three years.

2.2.7 Vehicle Fleet
Citygate was provided a list of vehicles for the Department. The fleet is comprised of 22 F250 trucks ranging from 2008 to 2016 models. These are presumed to be the field response vehicles equipped for animal control. Based on the years and mileage shown, it appears that Contra Costa County has a system by which vehicles are maintained and replaced on a regular basis. Additional vehicles in the listing included a 2016 CMAX, a 2014 Interceptor, and a 2016 Transit, all of which have relatively low mileage and are assumed to be used by administrative staff. A 1998 F250 on the list shows only about 74,000 miles and is assumed to be a pick-up truck used for miscellaneous tasks.

The condition of the vehicle fleet was not evaluated. Recommendations for best practices would include safety equipment on all field use vehicles, including highly visible light bars, a hoist or lift gate to assist with removal of dead animals (the Department handles many deceased deer), traffic cones, safety vests for drivers, back-up alarms and cameras, and GPS. For animal comfort, all animal compartments should be climate controlled.

This page was intentionally left blank

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 37
SECTION 3—FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
This section details Citygate’s budget and cost analysis for the current and prior fiscal years, costs and revenues for each division (cost center) under the current operating structure, and analysis of the billing/collection process. Section 4 outlines cost and revenues for each of Citygate’s proposed cost centers, alternative cost allocation methodologies for each contract city, and a financial comparison to best practices. Specific recommendations based on the analyses in Sections 3 and 4 will be discussed in Section 5.

3.1 BUDGET AND COST ANALYSIS – PRIOR FISCAL YEARS
Citygate reviewed actual revenues and expenditures versus budgeted revenues and expenditures for FY 12/13 through FY 16/17 to identify trend information. Revenues and personnel-related expenditures were reviewed at a line-item level. The Services/Supplies, Other Charges – Equipment, Other Charges – Capital Improvements, and Transfers Out were reviewed in category summary because the detailed data available was not in a format that was easily analyzed and would have been time consuming to reformat. Position detail was unavailable per Department staff, so Citygate’s analysis did not include individual position analysis for fiscal years prior to FY 17/18.

3.1.1 Revenues
Budgeted or estimated revenues increased from approximately $7.3 million in FY 12/13 to approximately $7.97 million in FY 16/17, or 9.2 percent, while actual revenues collected increased

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 38
from approximately $6.98 million in FY 12/13 to approximately $7.17 million in FY 16/17, or 2.7 percent. Detailed revenue activity for FY 12/13 through FY 16/17 are provided in Appendix A1.

Cumulatively, Department revenues generated a budget shortfall of over $2 million during this five-year period. The primary reasons for revenue shortfalls are overestimating revenues and issues with the collection of revenues. Based on the five years reviewed, the budget shortfalls were primarily in the areas of animal licensing ($1.3 million shortfall), miscellaneous humane services ($677,332 shortfall), and spay/neuter fees ($454,716 shortfall).

Table 6—Department Revenue
Revenue FY 12/13
Actual
FY 13/14
Actual
FY 14/15
Actual
FY 15/16
Actual
FY 16/17
Actual
Animal Licenses $1,511,832 $1,494,565 $1,495,466 $1,803,832 $1,439,083 Spay Clinic Fees $368,544 $387,982 $381,793 $283,538 $168,888 Contract Humane
Services $4,205,024 $4,240,671 $4,278,920 $4,343,225 $4,928,185 Miscellaneous
Humane Services $752,262 $757,094 $849,155 $650,897 $473,529 Drinking Driver
Program Fee - $ (67) - - -
Sale of Animals $32,578 $31,736 $29,663 $28,730 $19,783 Sundry Taxable Sale $11,398 $(4,904) $4,114 $10,397 $ (12,178) Sundry Non-Taxable
Sale $446 $538 $610 $933 $958
Reimbursements
Gov/Gov $100,029 $66,022 $162,440 $29,897 $1,149
Transfers In - - - $166,803 $147,796
Restricted Donations - - - - $(5)
Total $6,982,113 $6,973,638 $7,202,161 $7,318,251 $7,167,189 Animal licensing, spay clinic fees, contract humane services (contract city charge), and miscellaneous humane services made up approximately 98 percent of the Department’s total revenues collected in FY 16/17. Consequently, Citygate’s analysis concentrated on these major revenue sources. Additionally, although not a major revenue source, the donations received through the Animal Benefits Fund were reviewed due to the fund’s special function.

Department Cash Handling Process
Citygate also reviewed, at a high level, the cash handling procedures for impacts on shortfalls. As described by Department staff, the cash handling process is outlined in the following paragraphs.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 39
Cash can be collected by Animal Services Officers in the field and Clerks at the shelters. When debit or credit card payments are received in the field, the field officers use the mobile device that is used by the rest of the County to post in-field transactions. When cash is received in the field, the Animal Services Officers provide handwritten receipts to the customers. These handwritten receipts (F Receipts) are in receipt books and are pre-numbered. The transactions posted via the mobile device are posted to the Chameleon system through electronic upload. The F Receipts are submitted with cash and checks at the end of the Animal Services Officers’ shifts to the office clerical staff assigned to reconcile the transactions and prepare the daily deposit.

Collecting cash in the field is not a best practice. This practice can lead to errors due to potential confusion resulting from field officers dealing with issues concerning the animal and its owner while trying to collect the correct amount of cash. In a worst-case scenario, this practice could lead to fraud and a breakdown of internal controls. The latest internal audit performed by the County Auditor-Controller’s office recommended eliminating this practice. Citygate concurs with this recommendation.

As reported by Department staff, when cash is received at the shelters, the Clerk Specialist, Clerk Supervisor, or Office Manager positions are responsible for reconciling all transactions for the day.

Temporary employees do not reconcile cash. Once the transactions are reconciled, the transactions are posted into the Chameleon system and cash and supporting receipt documentation are sent to the Auditor-Controller’s office to be processed into the County PeopleSoft financial system.

Reconciliation is typically completed daily. If reconciliation cannot be completed by the second day, the unreconciled cash, checks, and other documents are sent to the Auditor-Controller’s office to be posted into the PeopleSoft financial system to meet County cash handling policies. This process, as outlined by Department staff, should be documented to identify unprocessed cash/checks and supporting documentation that may be lost and should discourage non-daily reconciliations. Additionally, all reconciliations of deposits should only be performed by individuals that are not involved in collecting cash or the billing process. Department staff have informed Citygate that individuals responsible for collecting cash are not also responsible for the billing process.

Animal Licensing
Department animal licensing revenues averaged $1.55 million per year over the past five years.

However, the average annual amount budgeted was $1.8 million, resulting in an average shortfall of almost $300,000 per year. Residents have the option of purchasing a one-, two-, or three-year license for their dog or cat, with a 50 percent discount for individuals 65 and over.

Analysis of this revenue source indicates poor budget estimates throughout the five-year period.

Of course, there can always be anomalies that are unforeseen, but a process that included reviewing past-year licensing numbers, service area population growth estimates, and multiple past-year collection trends could have helped develop a revenue budget number that would have been closer

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 40
to the actual amount collected. The current process used to estimate revenues is limited to the review of prior-year activity only. Review of the prior year only is not sufficient to develop trends and can fail to identify anomalies that occurred in a year other than the prior year.

Spay Clinic Fees
The Department spay clinic revenues averaged $318,149 per year over the past five years.

However, the average annual amount budgeted was $409,092, resulting in an average shortfall of almost $91,000 per year. Spay clinic fees are charged by animal gender and weight. Analysis shows that there seems to be a pattern of poor budgeting processes. The budget estimate for FY 12/13 through FY 14/15 remained the same for each year and each year had a shortfall.

Additionally, the actual collections declined in both FY 15/16 and FY 16/17. However, for FY 15/16, the budget estimate was increased by $10,000 to $415,000 and used again as the FY 16/17 budget estimate. Given the past collection history, and unless there was some realistic knowledge of foreseen increases, the budget estimate should have been more conservative, especially in FY 15/16 and FY 16/17.

Contract Humane Services (Contract City Charge)
Department Contract Humane Services (contract city charge) revenues averaged $4.4 million per year over the past five years. The average annual amount budgeted was also $4.4 million. The Department contracts with 18 of the 19 cities in Contra Costa County to provide animal services.

The Department service area does not include the City of Antioch because Antioch operates its own animal services function. These contracts have been in existence since 1985. The charge for each city is the same, flat per-capita rate multiplied by each city’s population as estimated by the State Department of Finance each year. The flat per-capita rate is increased by Bay Area Consumer Price Index each year. Each city must pay its fee quarterly. Estimation of these revenues is straightforward as indicated by the lack of a budget-to-actual variance. The details of this calculation, by city, for FY 17/18 are included in the following table and in Appendix A2.

The population totals used for the Department are slightly different than current Department of Finance E-1 due to the State’s practice of providing preliminary and final numbers at different times.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 41
Table 7—Contract City Charge for FY 17/18
Jurisdiction
Population Used for
Contract Charge
FY 17/18 Annual
Service Charge1
Brentwood 58,784 $349,177
Clayton 11,209 $66,581
Concord 129,707 $770,460
Danville 42,865 $254,618
El Cerrito 24,378 $144,805
Hercules 24,791 $147,259
Lafayette 24,924 $148,049
Martinez 37,057 $220,119
Moraga 16,513 $98,087
Oakley 40,141 $238,438
Orinda 18,749 $111,369
Pinole 18,739 $111,310
Pittsburg 67,817 $402,833
Pleasant Hill 34,077 $202,417
Richmond 110,378 $655,645
San Pablo 30,829 $183,124
San Ramon 78,363 $465,476
Walnut Creek 70,018 $415,907
Contract Cities Total 839,339 $4,985,674
Antioch (Not in Service Area) 112,968
Balance of County 171,122
Total County2 1,123,429
Total Department Service Area 1,010,461
1 $5.94 per Capita
2 Source: Preliminary Department of Finance Population List Miscellaneous Humane Services
The Department’s miscellaneous humane services revenues averaged $696,587 per year over the past five years. However, the average annual amount budgeted was $832,054, resulting in an average shortfall of almost $136,000 per year. These fees consist of charges for other miscellaneous services, such as impound fees, board fees, quarantine fees, surrender fees, disposal fees, vaccination fees, etc. Analysis indicates that, as was the case with the spay clinic fee estimate,

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 42
there does not seem to be any analysis that is performed to determine the estimate from year to year. The budget estimate remained the same for each year over the five-year period resulting in a shortfall in every year except FY 14/15. Given the past collection history and, unless there was some realistic indication that the estimate could be achieved, the budget estimates should have been more conservative.

Animal Benefit Fund Donations
The Department’s Animal Benefit Fund was created in 1988 to allow for the receipt of donations and grants from individuals, businesses, and animal welfare organizations. These donations and grants are used to pay for unfunded services/supplies relating to animals impounded at the Department shelters. Over the past five years, the Department has received $1,015,205 as compared to expenditures for the same period of $699,038, resulting in a net profit of approximately $316,000, as detailed in the following table. For FY 17/18, the budgeted revenue amount of $300,000 was erroneously duplicated in the General Fund which will result in a shortfall in the General Fund unless corrected via a budget adjustment during FY 17/18.

Table 8—Contra Costa County Animal Benefits Fund Activity Fiscal Year Revenues Expenditures
Net
Income/(Loss)
2012/13 $90,529 $173,841 $(83,312)
2013/14 $454,572 $195,700 $258,872
2014/15 $136,838 $163,440 $(26,602)
2015/16 $171,539 $66,022 $105,517
2016/17 $161,727 $100,029 $61,698
Total $1,015,205 $699,032 $316,173
Overall Prior Years Revenue Observations
Extra care should be taken when estimating revenues because they support the expenditures to provide services. In developing an accurate estimate, factors such as historical collection activity; number of dogs licensed, less some factor for increases and decreases in animal population for the year the estimation is being made; analysis of animal activity reports; and discussions with contract cities and other relevant agencies about trends that could affect revenue should be reviewed. These steps will help minimize overestimation of revenues.

Even with an accurate revenue estimate, another factor that could lead to revenue shortfalls is the under-collection of revenues due to ineffective collection processes. Ensuring that effective billing, collection, and regular revenue monitoring processes are in place is equally as important. Best practices include documented processes regarding the way revenues are billed so that the

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 43
Department knows what it is owed, documenting what steps are used to ensure that the revenues are collected on time once billed, and monitoring and addressing delinquencies to ensure that the length of time that a billing or other receivable is delinquent is minimized. Department staff have developed a draft billing/collection procedure, but it has not been finalized and is not being used.

This should be finalized and used as soon as possible.

The following graph reflects the Department’s budgeted versus actual revenues for the past five fiscal years.

Figure 5—Budgeted versus Actual Revenues – FY 12/13 through 16/17

3.1.2 Expenditures
Citygate reviewed Department expenditures for FY 12/13 through FY 16/17. Conversely to what was found with revenues, expenditures reflected overall budget-versus-actual savings for the last five years. During this period, budgeted or estimated expenditures increased from approximately $10.5 million in FY 12/13 to approximately $12.2 million in FY 16/17, or 16.2 percent, while actual expenditures increased from approximately $10.2 million in FY 12/13 to approximately $10.3 million in FY 16/17, or 0.9 percent. This represents a cumulative expenditure savings of $6,400,000
$6,600,000
$6,800,000
$7,000,000
$7,200,000
$7,400,000
$7,600,000
$7,800,000
$8,000,000
$8,200,000
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17
Budgeted Revenues Actual Revenues

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 44
over $3.1 million during this period. Analysis indicates that the primary reason for this savings amount is over-estimation of budget amounts and salary savings resulting from vacancies remaining unfilled for several years. Based on the five years reviewed, the primary reason for the expenditure savings was salary saving ($6.3 million surplus), which was partially offset by deficits in the services/supplies category ($2.9 million deficit). The detail of the expenditure activity for FY 12/13 through FY 16/17 are included in Appendix A1.

The following is a graph that reflects the Department budget versus actual expenditure activity for FY 12/13 through FY 16/17.

Figure 6—Budgeted versus Actual Expenditures – FY12/13 through 16/17 Personnel, services/supplies, and transfers out make up approximately 99 percent of actual FY 16/17 expenditures. Consequently, these areas were the focus of Citygate’s analysis.

Personnel
Department staffing has remained relatively flat in the past five years, going from 78 budgeted positions in FY 12/13 to 89 budgeted positions in FY 17/18. The number of full-time equivalents $0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17
Budgeted Expenditures Actual Expenditures

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 45
(FTEs) reflected in the online adopted budget was in error per Department personnel. The reason for this is explained later in this report.

The following table provides a high-level, per-employee comparison to some other agencies that provide animal services.

Table 9—High Level Personnel Comparison
Agency
Service Area
Population1
Gross Cost FY
17/18 Budget FTEs
Average
Total
Comparison
per FTE
Personnel
Budget
Personnel
Budget
Percentage
City of Sacramento 493,025 $4,787,698 47 $81,755 $3,842,485 80% Sacramento County 869,348 $11,302,357 54 $90,463 $4,885,002 43% City of Clovis 110,762 $1,652,000 7 $127,757 $894,299 54% City of Antioch 114,241 $1,066,353 6 $135,322 $838,996 79% San Joaquin County 149,672 $1,745,670 9 $83,680 $753,120 43% Agency Average 347,410 $4,110,816 25 $103,795 $2,242,780 60% Contra Costa County 1,025,272 $12,066,364 89 $103,296 $9,193,300 76% 1 Taken from 1/1/2017 DOF E-1
Personnel costs of comparable agencies were approximately 60 percent of FY 17/18 operations budgets. Department personnel costs are 76 percent of the FY 17/18 operations budget. This is high when compared to the agencies shown in Table 9. However, a comparison of actual Department personnel costs as a percentage of actual Department operational costs averaged 68 percent annually over the past five years. This difference is caused primarily by vacant positions.

A further discussion of vacant positions is presented later in this report.

Personnel costs for the Department consists of the following categories:
 Salaries (Permanent and Temporary)
 Permanent Overtime
 Deferred Compensation (County Contribution)
 Compensation and SDI Recoveries
 Retirement (CalPERS, FICA/Medicare, Pre-1997 Retirees)  Employee Group Insurance (Health, Dental, Life, Retiree Health Contribution)  Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Pre-Pay

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 46
 Unemployment Insurance
 Workers’ Compensation Insurance.

Although the online budget documents indicate a growth of six full-time equivalents (FTEs) over the last five years, per Department staff, 11 budgeted FTEs have been added to the Department operation since FY 12/13, consisting of the following:
 Five utility workers
 One Community and Media Relations Coordinator
 One Animal Clinic Veterinarian
 Six Veterinarian Assistant positions with the elimination of one Lieutenant position and one Sergeant position.

The FTE changes were approved to address increased service requirements caused by increases in population. The past and current structure of Department operations does not allocate these FTEs in a typical or effective manner. Per the budget document, most of the FTEs (92 percent) are allocated to the Animal Services Centers Division with no real rationale. This practice has made analyzing prior-year activity very difficult because it would require the review of every transaction to determine which best-practice cost center allocation would be applicable. Consequently, Citygate reviewed and analyzed the prior-year activity in summary.

Compensation for the employees of the Department ranks about average when compared to the agencies shown in Table 9. Citygate did not perform a total compensation review because it was outside of the scope of this project. The major benefit cost for the Department employees, as is the case with most public-sector agencies, is retirement. Contra Costa County administers its own retirement system, the Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association, which includes medical and dental benefits. Each employee and retiree may be covered only by a single County health (and/or dental) plan, including a CalPERS plan, as governed by the California Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA).

These and other benefits are a function of labor unit negotiations and other factors.

A summary review of Department personnel costs over the last five years revealed that budgeted personnel costs have increased by an average of 2.8 percent per year. The average annual amount budgeted for personnel (including fringe benefits) for the last five years was $8.4 million. The average annual actual expenditure for personnel was only $7.1 million, resulting in average annual salary saving of approximately $1.3 million. Citygate was unable to examine position detail data for the past five years due to it being inaccessible by Department staff. Consequently, Citygate was unable to analyze the number of vacancies by position to determine the salary savings by cost center. Per Department staff, the complaints that are received from contract cities are tied to the

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 47
lack of personnel. However, a general review of the Department operations indicate that inefficient processes and personnel utilization also contribute to these complaints.

Another factor is the delay in filling vacant positions. Although Citygate was unable to review detailed personnel data for fiscal years prior to FY 17/18, the detailed data for FY 17/18 submitted by Department staff reflected 25 vacancies, or 28 percent of the 89 allocated positions for the Department. The FY 17/18 budget document, however, only reflects 85 budgeted positions for the Department in error. According to Department staff, the four-position difference is due the elimination of a Lieutenant and a Sergeant position and the addition of six Veterinary Assistant positions that were approved by the County Administrative Office (CAO) and inadvertently left out of the printed budget document. This is discussed in more detail later in this report.

According to staff, this level of vacancies has been in place for many years. Additionally, it was noted that, during the period reviewed, the temporary services line item was consistently overspent from a low of $135,222 in FY 16/17 to a high of $396,119 in FY 15/16. This indicates that temporary services were used as a substitution for hiring but was not included in the temporary services budget estimate over the period reviewed. This is an issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. Since there is not a formal hiring freeze at the Department, the salary savings results from a combination of the decision to intentionally delay filling positions and a cumbersome human resources process that delays hiring. Another factor that should be reviewed is potentially non-competitive total compensation package that could be determined by conducting a total compensation study. Citygate’s high-level review indicates that the Department salaries/benefits are comparable to other agencies.

Salary savings helped to reduce the subsidy that the County was required to contribute and helped to address the revenue shortfalls during this five-year period. The downside to this is, in the view of the contract cities, the degradation of service that has resulted.

Continuing to budget for positions with little or no intention on filling them is a budgeting practice that is inconsistent with best practice and should be corrected. If the reasons for this are County Human Resources hiring practices that are too cumbersome, they should be reviewed and adjusted to assist the Department to fill the positions necessary to provide acceptable service levels. If, however, the reason is a deliberate action to hold positions vacant, the Department should cease this practice. Since the positions are budgeted every year and the Department continues to receive complaints regarding service provision, filling vacant positions in conjunction with improving processes and procedures for personnel utilization should significantly improve operations, response times, and customer satisfaction.

Services/Supplies
The cost of services/supplies consist of the various costs that are required to operate and does not include personnel, equipment, capital, or transfers out. Examples include utilities, animal food,

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 48
general maintenance, equipment maintenance, office supplies, etc. The Department’s budgeted services/supplies costs have averaged $2.4 million per year over the past five years. However, the average actual annual amount has averaged $3 million, resulting in an average annual deficit of approximately $600,000. Analysis indicates that the budget estimation process for this category also needs improvement. Some services/supplies line items were consistently over-spent, again indicating poor budget development practices. Reviewing multiple prior-year activity and discussing this activity with the individuals providing the service prior to finalizing a budget number, among other procedures, should improve the budget accuracy of these expenditures.

Transfers Out
The Department’s budgeted transfers out costs have averaged $352,225 per year over the past five years. The average annual amount budgeted has averaged $352,803, resulting in a minimal average annual deficit of approximately $600. Transfers out include lease charges for maintenance and replacement of Department vehicles. Transfers out budget versus actual is typically close because once the amount is determined during the budget process, a simple accounting entry is made either monthly, quarterly, or annually for the amount budgeted.

The following graph reflects the activity for the personnel, services/supplies, and transfers out over the last five years.

Figure 7—Major Expenditure Categories – FY 12/13 through 16/17 $0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
$8.0
$9.0
$10.0
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Millions of Dollars Personnel - Budgeted Personnel - Actual Services/Supplies Budgeted Services/Supplies Actual Transfers Out Transfers Actual

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 49
Overall Prior-Year Expenditure Observations
Developing accurate expenditure estimates is an essential, useful tool to operate efficiently. Large budget-to-actual variances indicate inefficient budgeting practices that should be addressed.

The National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting and the Government Finance Officers Association have established that the mission of the budget process is “to help decision makers make informed choices about the provision of services and capital assets and to promote stakeholder participation in the process.” The same group identifies the key characteristics of the budget process. The budget process:
 Incorporates a long-term perspective
 Establishes linkages to broad organizational goals
 Focuses budget decisions on results and outcomes
 Involves and promotes effective communication with stakeholders  Provides incentives to government management and employees.

3.1.3 Subsidy by County General Fund – Prior Years
In every fiscal year, the Department operation was subsidized by the County’s General Fund. The actual subsidy ranged from a low of approximately $3.1 million in FY 16/17 to a high of approximately $4 million in FY 15/16. In each of the years reviewed, a County General Fund subsidy was anticipated and budgeted. The budgeted subsidy ranged from a low of approximately $3.2 million in FY 12/13 to a high of approximately $4.2 million in FY 16/17. Table 10 provides a comparison of budget versus actual subsidy amounts from FY 12/13 through FY 16/17.

Table 10—Department County General Fund Subsidy
Fiscal Year Budgeted Subsidy Actual Subsidy Difference
2012/13 $3,200,000 $3,198,770 $1,230
2013/14 $3,216,816 $3,285,042 $(68,226)
2014/15 $3,330,000 $3,274,547 $55,453
2015/16 $3,925,000 $3,990,645 $(65,645)
2016/17 $4,248,999 $3,119,413 $1,129,586
Total $17,920,815 $16,868,416 $1,052,399
The actual subsidy required by the County’s General Fund was lower than anticipated in every one of the years reviewed except FY 13/14 and FY 15/16. However, the amount of subsidy necessary

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 50
from the County’s General Fund seems to be a major contributing factor to the service degradation complaints received from contract cities, as well as an indication of poor budgeting practices.

Figure 8 presents budgeted revenues versus budgeted expenditures and the budgeted subsidy for six years, including FY 17/18.

Figure 8—Budgeted Revenues versus Expenditures – FY 12/13 through 17/18 Figure 9 presents actual revenues versus actual expenditures and the actual subsidy for the last five years.
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17-18
Budgeted Revenues Budgeted Expenditures Budgeted Subsidy

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 51
Figure 9—Actual Revenues versus Expenditures – FY 12/13 through 16/17 For discussion purposes, Citygate calculated how the County’s General Fund subsidy would be allocated if the remainder of the Department service area (County population minus Antioch and contract cities’ population) would have been charged the same per-capita rate as the other contract cities. The following table reflects this calculation.
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Millions of Dollars Millions of Dollars Actual Revenues Actual Expenditures Actual Subsidy

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 52
Table 11—County General Fund Actual Subsidy Distribution Fiscal
Year
Allocable to
Contract Cities
Allocable to
Unincorporated
County (Except
Antioch) Total
2012/13 $2,342,861 $855,909 $3,198,770
2013/14 $2,419,284 $865,758 $3,285,042
2014/15 $2,401,628 $872,919 $3,274,547
2015/16 $3,019,652 $970,993 $3,990,645
2016/17 $2,126,852 $992,561 $3,119,413
Total $12,310,277 $4,558,139 $16,868,416

3.2 BUDGET AND COST ANALYSIS – CURRENT FISCAL YEAR (FY 17/18) For FY 17/18, the Department has a budget of approximately $12.1 million with a staff of 89 budgeted positions. As of the adoption of the FY 17/18 budget, 25 of the 89 budgeted positions, or approximately 28 percent, were vacant. According to Department staff, the Department was authorized 89 positions by the County Administrative Office (CAO). However, these additional positions were inadvertently left out of the online and printed budget document. The Department service area includes all areas within Contra Costa County except for Antioch, which operates its own animal services function. The Department service area consists of over 774 square miles and serves a population of over one million people, per information from the State Department of Finance website. The Department’s adopted FY 17/18 budget segregates its functions into four cost centers, which include: Animal Services Operations, Animal Licensing, Animal Services Centers, and Spay/Neuter Clinic. Although Department staff have informed Citygate that preliminary work had begun to restructure the cost centers to make them more transparent, the restructuring has not been completed. Citygate has developed a proposed restructure model for Department operations. The analysis in this section uses the existing structure that was included in the current budget document:

Per the FY 17/18 budget document, the following summarizes the basic cost center responsibilities of the Department.

Animal Services Operations (Budgeted Staffing: 10) – Where general administrative costs are reflected in the budget document. The published budget document does not reflect any FTEs in this cost center.

Animal Licensing (Budgeted Staffing: 1) – Responsible for the administration of the Department animal licensing function, which includes the issuance of animal licenses and the collection of licensing revenues.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 53
Animal Services Centers (Budgeted Staffing: 82 (50 Shelter; 32 Field)) – Responsible for the administration of the shelter operations for both Department animal shelter facilities, including field services; animal impound and care; back-of-office functions, such as payroll, accounts payable, accounts receivable, purchasing, and general accounting; and administration.

Spay/Neuter Clinic (Budgeted Staffing: 2) – Responsible for providing spay/neuter services to the public including conducting spay/neuter clinics throughout the Department service area.

As indicated by Table 12, most of the expenditures, approximately 92 percent, are budgeted and expended in the Animal Services Centers cost center. Although there are four distinct cost centers identified in current and past budget documents, the Animal Services Centers cost center has been treated, for the most part, as a catch-all for all animal services function costs. Consequently, it has been very difficult to accurately identify costs that would be helpful and useful to the County and its contract cities.

Table 12—Department Cost Center Summary for FY 17/18
Cost Center
FY 17/18 Expected
Budget
Animal Services Operations $440,856
Animal Licensing $173,946
Animal Services Centers $11,070,773
Spay/Neuter Clinic $380,790
Total $12,066,364
Citygate was told by Department staff that, in FY 17/18, an effort was made to create a more appropriate operational structure for the Department. New cost centers were identified; however, associated costs have not been appropriately allocated to these new cost centers. Under the new Department staff structure, 92 percent of costs are allocated to an administration cost center instead of animal services centers. This remains an inaccurate allocation methodology. Citygate has developed a proposed new operational structure, including a cost estimate for each new cost center.

3.2.1 Revenues
Revenue Summary
Budgeted revenues for FY 17/18 total $7,817,364. This represents a decrease of approximately $155,000, or two percent, when compared to the FY 16/17 budget. Compared to FY 16/17 actuals, however, the FY 17/18 budget estimate is approximately $650,000, or 9.1 percent, higher. The primary reason for this increase is the inclusion of a $300,000 estimate of restricted donations that was not budgeted or collected in the prior fiscal year. Analysis indicates that this is a duplication error that will result in an overestimation of revenues for the General Fund. This should be

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 54
corrected through a budget amendment as soon as possible. Given the past revenue collection history, overall, the revenue estimate seems optimistic.

In FY 17/18, animal licensing, spay clinic fees, contract humane services (contract city charge), miscellaneous humane services, and restricted donations make up approximately 99.5 percent of Department total revenues anticipated. Consequently, Citygate’s analysis concentrated on these major revenue sources. Additionally, although not a major revenue source, the donations received through the Animal Benefits Fund was reviewed due to the fund’s special function.

Animal Licensing
Animal licensing revenues are budgeted at $1.6 million for FY 17/18. This represents a decrease of $100,000, or 5.9 percent, when compared to the FY 16/17 budget estimate. Although this estimate does seem to consider prior year actual collections, it is still 11 percent higher than what was collected in FY 16/17. Over the past five years, animal licensing revenue has averaged $1.55 million. Since population growth is estimated to be approximately one percent, the FY 17/18 budget estimate seems optimistic unless changes in the collection/billing process are anticipated.

Spay Clinic Fees
Spay clinic fees are budgeted at $225,000 for FY 17/18. This represents a decrease of $190,000, or 46 percent, when compared to FY 16/17. This estimate is optimistic given that prior year collections totaled $168,888, which was a decline from the prior year, unless increased clinic activity is anticipated. The FY 17/18 budget estimate is 33 percent over what was collected in FY 16/17.

Contract Humane Services (Contract City Charge)
Contract humane services for FY 17/18 were budgeted at $4,985,592, which represents a $242,919, or 5.1 percent, increase over the prior year. This estimate is developed based on a set formula, and contract cities have consistently paid the amount billed in prior years. Consequently, the estimate is realistic.

The following graph reflects the FY 17/18 charge for each contract City.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 55
Figure 10—Annual Service Charge – FY 17/18
Miscellaneous Humane Services
Miscellaneous humane services for FY 17/18 is budgeted at $668,147, which is a decrease of $163,907, or 19.7 percent, from the prior year. This estimate is realistic based on a prior five-year average of $696,000; however, this is $194,618, or 41 percent, above what was collected in the prior year. As a result, a more realistic estimate would be lower than what was budgeted for FY 17/18.

Restricted Donations (Animal Benefits Fund)
Restricted donations are reflected as a revenue anticipated to be received from the Animal Benefits Fund. However, for FY 17/18, $300,000 was reflected in revenue in the General Fund in error caused by the duplication of the amount that was also reflected in the Animal Benefits Fund. In the prior year, the amount anticipated was $180,000 per budget documents, resulting in an anticipated donation increase of $120,000, or 67 percent, over the prior year. This revenue estimate is unrealistic based on average collection of the past five years of approximately $200,000 and the prior year’s collection of approximately $162,000.
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900
Clayton
Moraga
Pinole
Orinda
El Cerrito
Hercules
Lafayette
San Pablo
Pleasant Hill
Martinez
Oakley
Danville
Brentwood
Pittsburg
Walnut Creek
San Ramon
Richmond
Concord
Thousands of Dollars
Current Annual Service Charge ($5.94 Per Capita)

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 56
Improving Revenues
Budgeted and actual revenues are not sufficient to cover the costs of providing animal services for the Department service area. This is not unusual when compared to other animal services agencies.

This is due primarily to the various statutory requirements of providing animal services and the reluctance on the part of various cities which contract for these services to pay the actual costs.

Consequently, collection of revenues owed for animal services must be maximized. The results of Citygate’s analysis of Department revenues indicate several revenue areas where improvements could be made to increase collections. The most obvious area is the need to review the fee amounts charged. The fee amounts used by the Department are based on a 2012 review. The fee schedule should be updated based on a current cost and other information. Other areas for improvement that would not result from an increase in fees are the collection activity in the areas of animal licensing, spay/neuter clinic fees, miscellaneous humane services, and sale of animals. Improvement in the billing and collection process could result in an overall increase in revenue collected without an increase in the fee amount. Still another area for improvement is the waiver of fees. Strict guidelines should be developed and followed to ensure fees that could and should be collected are not unnecessarily lost.

Animal Licensing Fees
In FY 16/17, the Department sold approximately 42,000 dog licenses and approximately 1,100 cat licenses according to data provided to and reviewed by Citygate during the study. Given that the County may contain as many as 254,000 dogs, and 265,000 cats at any given time, this is an area where improvement is needed for both annual and multi-year license sales. If the number of dogs and cats licensed for one year could be increased just 10 percent, assuming past collections remain constant, over $130,000 in additional revenue could be realized. This assumes an average fee of $30 (average of the one-year regular fee of $40 and one-year senior fee of $20). This would increase Department revenue in this area by 9 percent when compared to FY 16/17 collections without increasing fees.

Increasing the number of animals licensed could be accomplished through a formal canvassing program. The cost for the canvassing program could be addressed by the additional revenues that would be generated in the first year, and the continuing increased revenues would be a 100 percent benefit to the Department. Another method could be through an amnesty program like the Department has conducted in the past. The amnesty program would not generate much revenue in the first year, but it would allow the Department to build its database for billings in future years.

Spay/Neuter Clinic Fees
The Department offers 30 to 40 spay/neuter clinics per year. The cost for the FY 16/17 spay/neuter process was approximately $86,000 and generated approximately $40,000 in revenues, resulting in an operating loss of approximately $46,000. The Department contracts with several

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 57
Veterinarians to provide services at its on-site spay/neuter clinic facilities. The Department provides these services at its Martinez facility, but does not provide or sponsor spay/neuter clinics within the various cities within its service area. Per Department staff, no complaints have been received from contract cities regarding not having clinics in their respective jurisdictions; however, this might be something to explore as an enhanced service for contract cities if a cost-neutral process can be developed. Grant funding is available to public agencies to subsidize affordable or free spays and neuters for the public. There may be a non-profit partner that the Department could work with to provide mobile clinics in the contract cities.

Miscellaneous Humane Services
The miscellaneous humane services revenue includes many revenue sources, such as adoptions and impound fees. Consideration should be given to the creation of separate revenue line items for the larger, revenue-generating fees of this category. This would allow for an easier analysis on the part of Department staff when answering questions of contract cities. Given the current overcrowding in the shelters, a review of fees, such as adoption fees, should be performed to assess if these fees could be reduced to encourage increased adoptions. The loss resulting from the decrease in the fee amounts could be offset by the increase in the number of adoptions.

3.2.2 Expenditures
Budgeted expenditures for FY 17/18 totaled $12,066,364, which is $555,737, or a 4.5 percent decrease when compared to the prior year. The primary cause of this change was an increase in anticipated personnel costs ($333,221), a decrease in services/supplies costs (-$989,914), and an increase in transfers out ($74,855). Personnel, services/supplies, and transfers out make up 99.5 percent of budgeted expenditures. Consequently, these are the categories that were analyzed by Citygate.

Personnel
FY 17/18 budgeted $9,133,300 for personnel costs. This is $333,221, or 3.8 percent, above the prior year. The budget amount includes funding for all filled and vacant positions. Permanent salaries increased by $479,582, or 10.6 percent. About half of this increase was offset by a decrease of $227,664, or 62 percent, in the temporary services budget. The increase in permanent salaries and their related benefits is reasonable given the required wage increases per the current labor agreements and the various other increases related to benefits. It also seems that the budget for temporary services was adjusted downward in anticipation of filling vacancies.

Vacancies
The staff positions charged with the administration of the animal services function are itemized in Table 13.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 58
Table 13—Staff Positions Summary – FY 17/18
Position Title Total Filled Vacant
Administrative Analyst 2 1 1
Administrative Services Office 1 1
Animal Center Operations Supervisor 1 1
Animal Center Operations Manager 1 1
Animal Center Technician 10 6 4
Animal Clinic Veterinarian 1 1
Animal Services Clerk 8 6 2
Animal Services Lieutenant 3 3
Animal Services Officer 22 14 8
Animal Services Sergeant 4 4
Animal Services Utility Worker 7 5 2
Animal Services Volunteer Coordinator 1 1
Animal Services Admission and Adoption 1 1
Clerical Supervisor 1 1
Clerk–Experienced Level 1 1
Clerk–Senior Level 4 4
Clerk–Specialist Level 3 3
Departmental Communications and Media Relations 1 1
Deputy Director Animal Services 1 1
Director of Animal Services–Exempt 1 1
Executive Secretary–Exempt 1 1
Office Manager 1 1
Registered Veterinary Technician 5 5
Senior Animal Center Technician 2 2
Veterinary Assistant (6 positions not budgeted) 6 6
Total Staff 89 64 25
As Table 13 reflects, there are 25 vacancies listed as of the adoption of the FY 17/18 budget. Per Department staff, the budget document is in error when listing 85 authorized FTEs. The correct amount should be 89 FTEs. The error was caused by last-minute staffing changes that did not affect the total dollar amount budgeted but did impact the FTE count. The changes included the elimination of one Lieutenant position and one Sergeant position and the addition of six Veterinary Assistant positions resulting in a net increase of four FTEs from what is reflected in the budget

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 59
document. These changes were authorized by the CAO’s office with the understanding that two Animal Services Officer positions would be left vacant to address the funding difference. Almost a third of the vacancies in the Department are in the field services area. This is the area that receives most of the complaints of backlog and service level degradation from the contract cities. Given the area of complaint, immediate attention should be placed on filling vacant field positions to address contract city complaints.

Services/Supplies
The FY 17/18 budget for services/supplies totaled $2,392,256. This is a decrease of $989,914, or 30 percent, when compared to the prior year. The primary cause of this decrease consists of decreases in medical supplies ($100,000), computer supplies ($53,000), building maintenance cost (140,000), non-County professional specific costs ($306,000), and data process and other specialized costs ($74,000). The services/supplies budget has consistently over-spent by large amounts in the past, except for last year. Based on this past trend, it seems unlikely that the decreased budget estimates for the various services/supplies line items are realistic.

Transfers Out – Reimbursement – Gov/Gov
The transfers out FY 17/18 budget is $428,293, which is $74,859, or 21 percent, above the prior year. This expenditure is made to pay for fleet maintenance provided by the County’s internal fleet department. The charge is provided to the Department and is taken in even increments throughout the year. Consequently, estimates are typically accurate.

Equipment – Rolling Stock
As of FY 17/18, the Department has 29 pieces of rolling stock ranging from one to 19 years old, with the majority being less than six years old. The rolling stock inventory is reflected in Appendix A3. Contra Costa County operates a centralized fleet operation function for which its departments pay a lease charge for their rolling stock. The lease charge covers repair/maintenance, fuel, and rolling stock equipment replacement. A cursory review of the internal fleet program indicates that it adequately addresses the rolling stock equipment needs of the Department. In FY 15/16, approximately $164,000 was expended in addition to the annual lease charge for additional trucks that were needed to address the addition of field personnel. In FY 16/17, approximately $126,000 of office equipment and furniture was purchased to upgrade shelter facilities. Because of these large expenditures, no major purchase of equipment was budgeted for FY 17/18.

Capital Improvements
The Department has two shelters: one in Martinez and one in Pinole. The Martinez Shelter is the main shelter and the Pinole Shelter was originally built as an annex. Both buildings are more than 10 years old and consideration should be given to long-term maintenance of these facilities as they age, along with budgeting for repairs and maintenance efforts. Given the desire to minimize

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 60
euthanasia rates by the Department, tactics such as making adoptions easier and less expensive, or increasing efforts to collaborate with other animal services agencies, should be implemented to preserve the space and utility available in these structures. The budget for FY 17/18 contains approximately $47,000 for shelter capital improvements. This is another approach to help improve overall operational conditions.

3.2.3 Subsidy by County General Fund – FY 17/18
The budgeted subsidy for Department FY 17/18 operations is $4,249,000. However, if the County were charged for its unincorporated area within the Department service area the same as the other 18 contract cities, that charge would be $1,016,464, bringing the subsidy down to $3,232,536. The County General Fund continues to subsidize the Department to provide animal services to contract cities. This subsidy would be significantly increased if not for the various unpaid volunteers who provide animal services to the Department.

3.2.4 Department Volunteer Program
The Department has over 300 unpaid volunteers. These volunteers provide many services for the Department. Although Citygate understands that some records are being kept regarding volunteer services, Citygate was unable to obtain the hard cost data necessary to provide the budgeted amount for the FY 17/18 volunteer program in time for inclusion into this study. There was no way for Citygate to calculate the average hourly rate that the Department would have paid for services rendered by volunteers with the data supplied. Department staff were very helpful in supplying much of the information necessary for this study, and the fact that it was difficult to submit the material requested regarding volunteer services suggests that the Department needs to focus on developing metrics essential to tracking the number of hours volunteer services are provided to the Department. It is also important for the Department to be able to readily respond to how it recruits volunteers and to be able to compute the total value of volunteer services to the overall animal services programs. The volunteer program is administered by the Animal Services Volunteer Coordinator, which is a fulltime position within the Department, but that position is currently vacant at the time of this report, according to information supplied by the Department.

3.2.5 Costs and Revenues for Each Division (Cost Center) under the Current Operating Structure
A breakdown of the FY 17/18 budgeted revenue and expenditure costs are itemized in Appendix A4. The data reflects FY 17/18 budgeted expenditures, as well as FY 16/17 actual and budgeted expenditures itemized by expenditure type within each cost center under the current operational structure. Appendix A4 also reflects summary revenues for each cost center based upon documents received from Department staff. Department staff have begun the process of developing a more useful operational structure but has not finalized it. The current structure does little to provide management or contract cities with an understanding of what areas of service are being provided

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 61
and the revenues received for those costs. This is primarily caused by the practice of budgeting and coding expenditures in the Animal Services Centers cost center regardless of the nature of the expenditure or the revenue received. As can be seen in Appendix A4, there does not seem to be any rationale for the revenue or cost allocation for FY 16/17 and FY 17/18. This practice should be replaced as soon as possible, and a new operational structure should be established to more accurately provide a true allocation of costs and revenues based on the services provided.

3.3 BILLING/COLLECTION PROCESS

3.3.1 Licensing
Department staff sends renewal bills for previously licensed animal owners either annually, biannually, or every three years, depending on the license purchased. The renewal bill is generated in the Chameleon system approximately 30 days before the renewal is due. The billings are mailed based on the owner information contained in the system. When licensing payments are received, Department staff reconciles and posts them into the Chameleon system. After posting, Department staff sends cash, checks, credit card payments, and the supporting documentation to the County Auditor-Controller’s office to be processed into the County’s PeopleSoft system. The reconciliation process, per Department staff, takes one to two days. If the information is unable to be reconciled within two days, the funds and documentation, with a notation of the unreconciled amount, is sent to the Auditor-Controller to be processed in the PeopleSoft system. The unreconciled balance is then reviewed by supervisory personnel in the Department to determine if any disciplinary action is required. Department staff reviews outstanding accounts every 30 days and calls/writes owners regarding the reason the license was not renewed. No animal tags are issued unless payment has been received in full. This process for licensing is standard throughout the animal services industry. To maximize revenue in this area, it is essential that billing and collection processes are timely and consistent. Per discussions with Department staff, renewal notices are typically late by one week. One factor contributing to this issue is that staff responsible for this function have relegated it to a secondary function due to their other responsibilities.

Operational responsibilities and their priority needs to be clearly defined and communicated to staff by Department management.

3.3.2 Other Billing/Collection
Department policy is to use billing as a last resort for fees other than licensing fees. Individuals are encouraged to use credit cards when cash or checks are not available. If billing is allowed, payment of half the balance due must be paid by individual up front. There are certain fees that Department policy prohibits from being billed. These include:
 Owner surrenders, or owner euthanasia requests. (If animal(s) is(are) being surrendered because of impound, confiscation, bite, potential dangers animal / dangers animal review, or similar circumstance, billing may be permitted.)

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 62
 Disposal fees for animals being brought in over the counter.  Home quarantine fees. These fees must be collected at the time the animal is placed under home quarantine. In extreme circumstances (i.e., owner states they will surrender if cannot be billed), billing can be offered, but at least 50 percent must be collected up front. Failure to pay the home quarantine fee up front may result in the impoundment of the animal for quarantine at the shelter at the owner’s expense.

Department staff processes billing payments in the same manner as licensing. Billing accounts are reviewed every 30 days to determine if they should be sent to the third-party collection agency, Rash Curtis. Department staff send a late notice approximately 30 days before the account is sent to Rash Curtis. Under the terms of the agreement with Rash Curtis, 20 percent of any balance collected will be retained and 80 percent will be paid to the Department. In the case of litigated accounts, Rash Curtis retains 30 percent of the balance due. The Rash Curtis agreement is renewed every year in March. Retaining a third-party collection agency to handle outstanding billing is a common practice. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the analysis performed before accounts are sent should include the identification of accounts where 100 percent collection could be achieved with a simple, strongly-worded follow-up letter. Over the past 16 months, Rash Curtis has collected, within 60 days, approximately 67 percent of the debts sent to them. This seems to be a good return. However, without a more detailed analysis of the specifics of each account, a definitive determination cannot be made.

3.3.3 Waived Fees
Another procedure that has impacted revenue collection is the process used by the Department to waive certain fees. In previous years, almost any staff member had the ability to waive fees for a customer. As far as could be identified by Citygate, there was not a formal policy giving authority to waive any fees. This is not a best practice and, per Department staff, this practice has been discontinued for the most part. The current informal practice is that only the Director, Assistant Director, and on-duty Sergeant can authorize the waiver of fees. The Department has contracted with the Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF), a non-profit animal assistance group headquartered in Walnut Creek, partnering to administer a pet retention program developed to assist pet owners with hardships to retain their pets at home rather than in a shelter. Under the contract, the Department annually pays a maximum of $50,000 to ARF to help fund the program. The Department funds this amount through the Animal Benefits Fund. ARF provides a funding match consisting of $15,000 in direct funds and an in-kind amount of approximately $42,000 in the form of one FTE. The basics of the program consists of ARF evaluating a billing prepared by the Department to a service area resident which the resident says that they cannot afford. If ARF determines that the resident qualifies for some relief, the Department will only bill the resident for the reduced amount agreed upon by ARF. ARF then provide subsidies to the resident within the agreement guidelines to assist with pet retention. ARF bills the Department monthly for expenses

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 3—Financial Analysis page 63
related to the pet retention program for the previous month. Although there is some cost benefit for the Department in incentivizing pet owners to retain their pets as opposed to leaving them at the shelter, Department management should have a good understanding of the criteria used by ARF to minimize unnecessary incentives. For the last six months of the 2016 calendar year, the Department lost approximately $438,000 in fees due to fee waivers.

3.3.4 Delinquencies
The Department does not produce a summary aging report by contract city. Instead, a report that lists the detail activity for each account is produced. This report makes it difficult to develop an efficient analysis regarding where and why the delinquencies are occurring. Understanding where and why delinquencies are occurring can help Department staff develop a plan to address delinquencies, which would include communicating with the contract cities to solicit their help in improving delinquency rates. Since Citygate was unable obtain delinquency information and was thus unable to perform an analysis in this area, it is recommended that the Department develop and maintain a summarized aging report by contract city and develop a plan to address delinquency issues.

3.3.5 Animal Benefits Fund
The Animal Benefits Fund was created in 1988 to collect funds from donors and grants to be used to address unfunded needs of the Department shelter functions. The Department should consider developing a formalized program to enhance collections in this area. Additionally, data collection to show what funds are collected and where they are spent should be easily accessible to show donors and grantors, when requested.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 64
SECTION 4—FISCAL PROCESS

4.1 COSTS AND REVENUES FOR EACH NEW CITYGATE-PROPOSED DIVISION Citygate reviewed the structures of other agencies that provide animal services; the general operational guidelines from national organizations, such as the National Animal Control Association (NACA); and the preliminary structure developed by Department staff. Based on this review, Citygate has identified the following Divisions (cost centers) as a better structure to provide the County, the Department, and contract cities with a better understanding of the Department operations. As an initial step, Citygate revised the existing FY 17/18 budget for both revenues and expenditures based on this new cost center structure.

The Department operations should be broken into four revised Divisions:
 Field Services Division – All field-related services provided by the Department.

This would include calls for service for animal attacks/bites, the rabies program, dead animal retrieval, strays, dispatch, and other related field activities. All personnel, services/supplies, equipment, and any other costs associated with field activity would be allocated to this cost center. Contract city revenue would be allocated to this cost center based on the percentage of the Department’s budget that form the total costs for this cost center. Any revenue specifically generated by the field services cost center would be allocated 100 percent. FY 17/18 budget:

Expense $4,875,233; Revenues $2,693,354; FTEs 31.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 65
 Shelter Services Division – All shelter-related services provided by the Department, including shelter staff, veterinarian staff, maintenance staff, spay/neuter staff, adoption program staff, etc., along with applicable services/supplies, equipment, capital improvements, and other applicable costs.

Any revenue specifically generated by the shelter services cost center would be allocated 100 percent. FY 17/18 budget: Expense $5,645,477; Revenues $4,458,872; FTEs 49.
 Support Services Division – All costs that result from the technical support of the Department operation. Examples of these costs would be media relations and volunteer coordination, along with applicable services/supplies, equipment, capital improvements, and other applicable costs. A percentage allocation of revenues would be applied based on the personnel percentage of the total Department personnel. Any revenue specifically generated by the support services cost center would be allocated 100 percent. FY 17/18 budget: Expense $287,218; Revenues $123,598; FTEs 2.
 Administration Division – General administrative costs required to operate the Department functions. These costs would be general administration costs not specifically tied to any of the other costs centers. This would include management staff, general clerical support staff, accounting back-of-office staff, accounting functions, licensing, etc., including the respective services/supplies and other related costs. General revenues would also be allocated to this cost center that are not specifically generated by the other cost center functions. FY 17/18 budget:

Expense $1,258,435; Revenues $541,540; FTEs 7.

A breakdown of the FY 17/18 budgeted revenues and expenditures under the Citygate-revised operational structure are itemized in Appendix A5. The data reflects FY 17/18 budgeted expenditures as well as FY 16/17 actual and budgeted expenditures itemized by expenditure type within each cost center under the revised operational structure. Appendix A5 also reflects summary revenues for each cost center based upon the new cost center descriptions. The rational used by Citygate consisted of the development of cost center titles and descriptions, then a review of the existing Department personnel job descriptions to see where the position best fit in the new structure. Next, the cost of the positions was determined based on information received for Department staff and placed in the appropriate revised cost center. Then, based on the personnel cost percentage for the various cost centers, services/supplies, other charges-equipment, other charges-capital, and transfers out costs were allocated to the various revised cost centers. Revenues were allocated to the revised cost centers based on their description and, in the case of revenues that should be allocated across cost centers, the applicable percentage of personnel was used for the allocation. The revised structure reflects that shelter services receive more allocation than field services, which is contrary to the needs of the contract cities.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 66
Citygate then determined recommendations for changes to the FY 17/18 budget and operations.

The following is a discussion of the analysis, the analysis results, and Citygate’s recommendations relating to the financial operations of the Department. The analysis focused on field and shelter services because they make up the majority of costs in addition to administration span of control.

4.1.1 Field Services Division
The following is an overview of the recommended field service personnel for the Department:
 The FY 17/18 budget provides for 22 Animal Services Officers, four Sergeants, and three Lieutenants.
 The Department provides field services to approximately 1,025,000 residents encompassing approximately 774 square miles (Representing 804 square miles with square mileage for Antioch deducted).
 Each eight-hour Animal Control position requires 2080 hours to fill one shift for 365 days.
 Officer availability for staffing is determined by deducting from 2,080 hours (the maximum for one year) the time required for vacation, sick leave, court time, “flex” days, and training. In using this model, the average number of hours dedicated to Animal Control for field time will be 1,832 hours (a standardized ratio), or 229 days.

A relief factor was determined (relating to the number of officers needed to fill one position for the entire year) by dividing the number of days of work required for each field area in a year (365) by the average number of days officers work in a year (229). In using this ratio, Citygate determined a need for 1.60 officers to fill one eight-hour shift for 365 days.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 67
Table 14—Field Services Staffing
Desired
Staffing
Field
Officers
Needed
(Using 1.6:1
Ratio)
Population
per Officer*
14 22 73,454.55
16 25 64,640.00
19 30 53,866.67
22 35 45,909.09
25 40 40,400.00
30 48 33,666.67
35 56 28,857.14
40 64 25,250.00
45 72 22,444.44
50 80 20,200.00
55 88 18,363.64
60 96 16,833.33
* Based on service area population of 1,010,000.

Table 14 shows the relationship between a desired staffing level and the number of employees needed to attain that staffing level at a 1.6 to 1 ratio. If the Department wishes to have 22 Animal Control Officers available 365 days a year, it must staff 35 FTEs and enough kennel staff so that Officers are not required to work in the shelter.

A 1997 study conducted by the NACA found the average ratio of field animal control officers to citizens was one officer for every 16,000 to 18,000 persons. Although this study took place some time ago, its findings remain valid within the field of animal services and are included here as a guide for the Department in its ongoing efforts to appropriately staff its services. To determine optimum field staffing, local governments must factor in population, the size of the service area, and enforcement responsibilities. Meeting this ratio would be cost prohibitive for the Department and is not being recommended by Citygate. The desired level of staffing needs to be determined by the County and the Department through discussions with its contract cities. However, as Table 14 illustrates, the Department’s current staffing level of 22 Animal Services Officers equates to an actual field staffing level of 14 FTEs. Consequently, if the Department desires a field service level of 22 officers, 13 additional field officers would need to be hired. At an average fully burdened cost per Animal Service Officer of $104,000, this alone would result in a personnel cost of

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 68
$1,352,000. This does not include equipment and other support costs which could increase this total to as much as $1.5 million.

Another factor that must be considered is the technological advances over the last decade. Field service requests can now be submitted more quickly with cell phones and other handheld devices.

This can significantly increase calls for services and field officer workloads.

Since field services seems to be the main area of issue for contract cities, an increased effort to fill all vacant Animal Services Officers, at a minimum, should be initiated.

4.1.2 Shelter Services
The number of personnel needed to staff an animal shelter is dependent on the following variables:
 The physical size of the facility
 The number of kennels
 The number of cages
 The number of animal intakes
 The number of owner returns
 The number of adoptions
 The number of animals euthanized
 The hours the shelter is open to the public
 The cleaning protocols adopted
 The frequency of standard and extraordinary cleaning
 The number of sick animals held
 The length of stray holding
 The length of adoption holding
 The availability of veterinary care (i.e., on-site or off-site)  The availability of spay/neuter services (i.e., on-site or off-site)  Other assigned duties not specific to a typical kennel (i.e., adoption counseling, lost and found assistance, clerical duties, etc.)

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 69
 Temperament testing of dogs prior to placing them up for adoption (if this is a shelter practice)
 The availability of a dedicated computer system.

The NACA recommends that each shelter and animal care facility be staffed each day with the appropriate number of kennel personnel to ensure that every animal is properly cared for in a safe and humane manner and to maintain a safe working environment for employees.

This recommendation is based on the premise that caring for sheltered animals requires daily cleaning and sanitation to reduce the spread of disease, maintain the health of the shelter population, and maintain a clean and odor-free facility. Shelters and animal care facilities must maintain an appropriate daily feeding schedule for each animal in its care and ensure there is adequate staff and time to complete all the other duties and responsibilities of caring for sheltered animals, including, but not limited to, laundry, dish washing, lost and found, stocking and inventory of supplies, janitorial, and supplemental waste removal throughout the day. It is the responsibility of every animal shelter and animal care facility to meet or exceed the minimum standards of animal care for all impounded animals by maintaining a staffing level that ensures that the minimum animal care standards are adhered to daily without putting staff at risk of injury.

The most time-consuming activity for animal care workers is cleaning. Animal enclosure cleaning generally requires removal of the animal from the space to be cleaned, cleaning and/or replacement of food and water containers, disinfection of the area, time to dry in dog kennels that are hosed, replacement of litter pans for cats, and cleaning or replacement of bedding. Additionally, for proper disease control, all areas of the animal shelter must be cleaned periodically.

The following is a list of areas that should be cleaned in an animal shelter:
 Office areas
 Main lobbies and hallways
 Dog runs, including central walkways, walls, doors, gates, drains, food, and water bowls
 Cat rooms, including cages, floors, walls, doorknobs, food, water, and litter receptacles
 Quarantine areas
 Isolation areas
 Medical/surgical areas, including instruments and equipment  Other animal areas, such as grooming, treatment rooms, intake rooms, visiting rooms, and training areas

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 70
 Exercise yards or other outside animal areas
 Vehicles
 Carriers and transport cages
 Bedding
 Toys
 Tools, such as pooper scoopers and mops
 Ventilation and heating ducts
 Storage areas.

The time it takes to complete the listed cleaning tasks is dependent on the frequency of occurrence, the size of the facility, the number of rooms, the number of animals, and the distance between work areas.

An animal shelter operates 365 days per year. Although not all the listed functions are performed each day, daily presence is a necessity. Staffing requirements are determined by deducting from 2,080 hours (the maximum for one year), the time required for vacation, sick leave, “flex” days and training. In using this model, the average number of hours available for actual work will be 1,832 hours (a standardized ratio), or 229 days.

Determine the relief factor (relating to the number of staff needed to fill one position for the entire year) by dividing the number of days of work required in a year (365) by the average number of days staff actually works in a year (229). In using this ratio, the 365 divided by 229 equals 1.6 personnel to fill one eight-hour shift for 365 days.

The NACA developed the following formula for determining the number of staff needed in a shelter to feed and water the animals and clean the animal enclosures.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 71
Table 15—NACA Formula for Determining Kennel Staffing – Feeding and Cleaning Only Indicator Value Formula Value Indicator
Incoming Animals per
Year
A ÷ 365 days = AA Incoming Animals per
Day
Incoming Animals per
Day
AA x Average Hold Period = BB Animals in Shelter per
Day
Animals in Shelter per
Day
BB x 10 Minutes per Animal = CC Number of Minutes
Needed
Minutes Needed CC ÷ 60 minutes = DD Number of Hours
Needed
Number of Hours
Needed
DD ÷ 3 hours = EE Staff Needed per Day
Based on the formula in Table 15, assuming the current level of 10,900 animals per year, and assuming an average hold time ranging from 5 to 20 days, the Department shelter staffing for feeding and cleaning should range between eight to 33 FTEs. The Department currently has approximately 11 FTEs assigned to this function.

4.1.3 Proposed Reallocation of Resources
Citygate proposes that the Department fill all current vacancies as soon as possible, as a key first step, without a reallocation of resources at this point. Analysis indicates that the decision to intentionally hold vacancies has led to service degradation and overall operational deficiencies that, if it has not already happened, can lead to poor employee morale. The area of field services should be given top priority. Addressing the field call backlog is an essential first step to address contract city concerns. This first step can be accomplished without increases to the Department budget and therefore no increase to the budgeted County General Fund subsidy. This would provide a “win-win” situation for all concerned. Using the Citygate-recommended structure and other recommendations outlined in this report will help to improve overall service levels and communication between the Department and its service users without impacting the Department or County General Fund budget requirements over the next year. Establishing, monitoring, reporting, and adjusting, where necessary, the goals and objectives should be the foundation of the Department operations.

4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGIES FOR

EACH CONTRACT CITY
Citygate identified alternative cost allocation methodologies that could be used to allocate costs to the various contract cities. These alternatives included calls for service, animals sheltered, jurisdiction square mileage, and per capita using actual cost of service. Citygate developed a set

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 72
of cost factors for all the Department costs and identified the variables related to each cost factor by contract city. Then, using these elements, costs were identified for each of the alternative methodologies for each of the contract cities and the unincorporated area of the Department service area. The current policy used by the Department is that all revenues collected related to animal services are retained by the Department to help offset costs of providing services.

Appendix A6 through A25 contains the results of these alternative FY 17/18 cost and revenue allocation methodologies for each contract city and the unincorporated County within the Department service area. This exercise was completed to show the different cost allocation methodology outcomes. These alternative allocation methods were developed based on a highlevel analysis for discussion purposes only. Before considering any of these alternative methods, a more detailed analysis must be performed to address anomalies. For example, calls for service numbers do not include services performed that were not a result of a call or report, or a contract city could have a small number of jurisdictional square miles but a high concentration of animalrelated service needs.

4.2.1 History of the Department Contracts with Cities
Contra Costa County adopted a comprehensive animal services ordinance in December 1980. For the next five years, the County provided services to the cities under the terms of a non-financial agreement. Contra Costa County absorbed all costs. In 1985, as the complexity and cost of providing animal services increased, the County entered into agreements with the cities to reimburse the County for services provided. The Department entered into contracts with 18 of the 19 incorporated cities in Contra Costa County.

The cities are as follows:
 Brentwood
 Clayton
 Concord
 Danville
 El Cerrito
 Hercules
 Lafayette
 Martinez
 Moraga
 Oakley

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 73
 Orinda
 Pinole
 Pittsburg
 Pleasant Hill
 Richmond
 San Pablo
 San Ramon
 Walnut Creek.

The contract provided for reimbursement on a per-capita basis, adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For 20 years, from 1985 to 2005, the costs for animal services increased 96 cents, from $1.25 to $2.21 per capita. This low rate was unprecedented and dramatically lower than what other agencies were paying for animal services, both locally and throughout the State.

The County may have been able to handle the continued low rates a bit longer were it not for the passage of Senate Bill 1785, the Hayden Bill, on July 1, 1999. That legislation forever changed the animal services profession, significantly raising the standards of animal care in California shelters. Cities and counties that have not, or do not, meet these standards find themselves facing serious political and/or legal problems.

The structure of the contracts with each city are the same format but are very general. Each agreement is three pages long and lists sections such as term, parties, payment terms, due dates, and service levels. However, the service level description states only that service levels will be provided at the same level as the prior year. The service levels for the prior year are not identified or discussed. The contracts are renewed annually with basically the same language. The current contract charge is $5.94 per capita. This amount results from the formula established in 1985 with a base charge of $1.25 per capita grown by Bay Area CPI and other cost factors.

The following graph reflects the populations of each contract city used for the contract city charge for FY 17/18.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 74
Figure 11—FY 17/18 Contract City Population
The following graph shows a comparison of the contract city charge compared to the budgeted expenditures from FY 12/13 to FY 17/18.
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000
Clayton
Moraga
Pinole
Orinda
El Cerrito
Hercules
Lafayette
San Pablo
Pleasant Hill
Martinez
Oakley
Danville
Brentwood
Pittsburg
Walnut Creek
San Ramon
Richmond
Concord
Current Population Used by the Department for Contract Charge

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 75
Figure 12—Contract City Charge versus Budgeted Expenditures – FY 12/13 through 17/18

4.2.2 Comparable Analysis
Per-Capita Tables
In 2009, Citygate was hired by the City of Antioch to review its animal services operation. As a part of that analysis, Citygate conducted a survey of 16 different agencies that provided animal services. The survey identified the cost of providing animal services and the service area population to determine the per-capita cost of funding the animal services function. Given the proximity of the two agencies and some operational similarities, Citygate updated the 2009 survey, which included the Department, to compare the Department to similar agencies in addition to showing the way the Department’s ranking has changed over the past eight years. Two per-capita tables have been developed by Citygate to provide this comparative information.

Table 16 represents animal services per-capita costs sorted from highest to lowest for the 16 different agencies compared. The Department’s per-capita cost, at $11.77, is the seventh lowest of the 16 agencies surveyed and falls nearly in the middle of those agencies surveyed for FY 17/18. $5.0
$5.1
$5.2
$5.3
$5.4
$5.5
$5.6
$5.7
$5.8
$9.5
$10.0
$10.5
$11.0
$11.5
$12.0
$12.5
FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Millions of Dollars Department Budgeted Expenditures Per-Capita Rate Charged by the Department

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 76
Table 16—Animal Services Cost Per Capita – Highest to Lowest Agency
Service Area
Population
DOF Jan 17
E-1
Gross Cost FY
17/18 Budget
Cost Per
Capita
City of Clovis 110,762 $1,652,000.00 $14.91
Sacramento County 869,348 $11,302,357.00 $13.00
City of Berkeley 163,363 $2,116,265.00 $12.95
Marin County – Operation 263,604 $3,279,234.00 $12.44
Yuba City 67,445 $835,464.00 $12.39
Yolo County 218,896 $2,683,355.00 $12.26
Contra Costa County 1,025,272 $12,066,364.00 $11.77
San Joaquin County 149,672 $1,745,670.00 $11.66
Sonoma County* 505,120 $5,327,976.00 $10.55
City of Stockton 320,554 $3,235,881.00 $10.09
City of Sacramento 493,025 $4,787,698.00 $9.71
City of Antioch 114,241 $1,066,353.00 $9.33
City of Redding 90,653 $708,740.00 $7.82
City of San Jose 1,046,079 $7,012,683.00 $6.70
Daly City 109,287 $699,044.00 $6.40
City of Richmond** 111,785 $655,645.00 $5.87
* Amount billed by the Department was based on $5.94 per-capita charge, but the population number used was Jan 16 DOF E-1
** FY 17 gross cost used
No revenue offsets included in these tables
Table 17 shows the percentage change when comparing the per-capita data collected by Citygate for these 16 agencies in 2009 to the FY 17/18 data collected. In that comparison, the Department has one of the lowest percentage changes, at 5.7 percent increase over the past eight years, ranking fourth lowest amongst the 16 different agencies surveyed.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 77
Table 17—Animal Services Cost Per Capita Change – Lowest to Highest Agency
Service Area
Population
DOF Jan 17
E-1
Gross Cost FY
17/18 Budget
Cost per
Capita
Per-Capita
Amount per
2009 Citygate
Report
Percentage
Change from
2009 Report
Daly City 109,287 $699,044.00 $6.40 $6.49 -1.4%
City of Berkeley 163,363 $2,116,265.00 $12.95 $12.63 2.6% City of Redding 90,653 $708,740.00 $7.82 $7.55 3.6%
Contra Costa County 1,025,272 $12,066,364.00 $11.77 $11.13 5.7% Sonoma County** 505,120 $5,327,976.00 $10.55 $9.78 7.9% Marin County – Operation 263,604 $3,279,234.00 $12.44 $11.48 8.4% City of Antioch 114,241 $1,066,353.00 $9.33 $8.32 12.2% Yolo County 218,896 $2,683,355.00 $12.26 $10.66 15.0%
San Joaquin County 149,672 $1,745,670.00 $11.66 $9.94 17.3% City of Richmond 111,785 $655,645.00 $5.87 $4.76 23.2%
City of Sacramento 493,025 $4,787,698.00 $9.71 $7.17 35.4% City of Stockton 320,554 $3,235,881.00 $10.09 $6.47 56.0% Sacramento County 869,348 $11,302,357.00 $13.00 $8.06 61.3% Yuba City 67,445 $835,464.00 $12.39 $6.87 80.3%
City of Clovis 110,762 $1,652,000.00 $14.91 $7.09 110.4% City of San Jose 1,046,079 $7,012,683.00 $6.70 N/A N/A
The survey indicates that the Department’s animal services costs are about average and that it has managed to keep the growth of overall operating costs to a minimum when compared to other agencies.

Similar Agency Comparison Table
The following table shows comparisons to other California animal services agencies that have similarities to Contra Costa County’s animal services program. Agencies were chosen for comparison based on governance (a County entity contracting with cities like that of Contra Costa County) and operations of both field and shelter programs in some capacity. When compared to these four other agencies, Contra Costa County has the lowest square mileage to cover of any of the other four and is second highest in the number of full-time employees, being second to Riverside County, which has 220 compared to Contra Costa’s authorized positions of 89. Riverside County serves a population of 1.6 million as compared to Contra Costa’s population of 1.025

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 78
million. Contra Costa’s annual budget is most like Sacramento County, which budgeted $11.3 million for animal services in FY 17/18, as compared to Contra Costa County budgeting $12 million; although the population served in Sacramento County is about 76 percent of Contra Costa County’s population.

Table 18—Animal Services Comparative
Entity
Annual
Budget
(Time
Frame)
Human
Population
Served
Governance
Model
Square
Mileage
Regular
FTE
Number
of
Contract
Cities
Intake
Dogs and
Cats Programs/Services
Sacramento
County
$11,302,257
(FY 17/18) 782,335
County
contracts for
services with 3
cities and
serves the
unincorporated
County
965 54 3
12,601
(FY 16/17)
Animal Care and Regulation
Services for 3 contract cities
and unincorporated County,
full-service shelter and field
programs, animal licensing,
1 animal shelter, open
admission, co-located nonprofit spay/neuter clinic
Riverside
County
$22,807,496
(FY 17/18) 1,652,298
County
contracts for
services with
16 cities, 11
full service, 5
sheltering
services only;
2 cities are
outside of the
County
7206
(whole
county)
220 16 12,457
(FY 16/17)
Animal Care and Control
Services for 16 contract
cities and unincorporated
County, full-service shelter
and field programs, animal
licensing, 4 animal shelters,
open admission,
spay/neuter clinic
San Luis
Obispo
County
$2,697,767
(FY 17/18) 280,101
County
contracts for
services with
all 7 cities in
County
3299 20 7
3283
(2016)
Animal Care and Control
Services for entire County,
full-service shelter and field
programs, animal licensing,
humane education and
outreach, one animal
shelter, open admission
Ventura
County
$7,915,363
(FY 17/18) 725,929
County
provides
contract
services to 8
contract cities
and
unincorporated
County (not
Thousand
Oaks)
1843 72 8
7602
(2016)
Animal Care and Control
Services for 8 contract cities
and unincorporated County,
full-service shelter and field
programs, animal licensing,
pet retention program, 2
animal shelters
Contra
Costa
County
$12,066,364
(FY 17/18) 1,025,272
County
provides
contract
services to 18
contract cities
and the
unincorporated
County
774 out
of 804 89 18 9,739 (2016)
Animal Care and Control
Services for 18 contract
cities and unincorporated
County, full-service shelter
and field programs, animal
licensing, pet retention
program, 2 animal shelters,
open admission,
spay/neuter clinic

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 79

4.3 BEST PRACTICES
Wikipedia defines best practices as the most efficient (least amount of effort) and effective (best results) way of accomplishing a task based on repeatable procedures that have proven themselves over time for large numbers of people.

Several national animal organizations publish documents on recommendations for process improvements and best practices in various animal control operations. The following list of bestpractice components is not intended to be all inclusive, but can serve as a guide to be used by management to identify areas of deficiency and to map out a strategy for improving the Department. Many of these best practices would be applicable to any government agency and are as follows:
 A strategic plan that maps a future direction for the organization  A clearly defined mission statement and goals and objectives  Clearly defined performance standards and goals
 Current, regularly updated Policies and Procedures Manual  A standardized training program specific to individual job duties  Spay and neuter program and outreach
 Regular staff meetings and communications between all layers of the organization  A structured volunteer program with policies and guidelines  An emphasis on excellent customer service
 Professional and knowledgeable leadership
 Infrastructure that supports necessary administrative functions, such as responding to the press; processing requests for information; responding to surveys, program analysis, and report writing; filing of SB 90 claims; and answering Grand Jury inquiries
 Appropriate use of information technology
 A well-designed and informative website
 Publications that are informative and cover essential animal control topics  Public-accessible business hours
 Financial resources adequate to support the program

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 80
 Cost recovery efforts that seek to reduce the percentage of general fund support  Adequate facilities
 A safety program specific to the requirements of an animal control program  An education program that supports the mission statement and goals and objectives of the agency.

4.3.1 Organizational Structure
A rule of thumb is for each manager or supervisor to have three to six direct reports. Consideration is also given to the way the organizational chart is laid out in relation to business functions. As currently organized, the Department organization appears to make sense regarding direct reports.

It is recommended to evaluate the placement of the animal care functions for possible reorganization.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 81
Figure 13—Staffing Organization Chart
Source: Contra Costa County Animal Services

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 82
The number of FTEs needed for a public-sector animal control agency is generally determined by assessment of the overall field operations, analysis of field activity data and beat zones covered, assessment of sheltering needs based on animal types and numbers received, average length of stay, agency programs for care and placement of animals, spay and neuter activities, volunteer program needs, and other programs unique to a public-sector agency. It is difficult to assess whether the current staffing level at the Department is adequate for the operation as it is historically under filled, with significant impacts to the service levels provided by the agency.

4.3.2 Operational/Financial Practices
Accurately recording and understanding the financial activity of any organization is a key best practice. This allows the managers of the organization to explain and justify, when necessary, the effectiveness of the operation. It also provides service users with the confidence that the management of the operations will be able to foresee and address issues that may arise. Analysis of the Department operation indicates that this area needs to be improved. The financial activity is currently recorded in an ambiguous and inconsistent manner. The direction given to the Department by County administration concerning the recording of the Department financial transactions regarding cost center allocation is insufficient to meet the needs and requirements of the contract cities receiving services.

A best practice would entail Department staff talking with contract cities to identify and document their needs and then develop financial systems and processes that best meets those needs within the financial restrictions that exist.

As providers of animal services, Department staff must take responsibility for service provision issues. Plans should be developed that provide the best balance between the wants and needs of the contract cities and the financial and/or operational restriction of the Department. These plans should be developed through conversations between contract cities, County administration, and Department staff. Once developed and implemented, the Department should be responsible for plan outcomes. This responsibility would include the accurate recording and reporting of financial and operational activity. If the County is unwilling to adjust its financial system, a subsidiary system, such as the Chameleon system, should be used to address the needs of the plan, although that solution is far from ideal.

A current and comprehensive Policy and Procedures Manual is key to training and setting guidelines and expectations for staff. There should be a process by which policies are updated regularly and changes are communicated to all staff. The entire manual should be reviewed on no more than a three-year cycle. The manual is a cornerstone to the staff training program and serves as an ongoing resource.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 4—Fiscal Process page 83

4.3.3 Best Practices Metrics
Field Services metrics that are tracked and communicated to staff on regular intervals will establish expectations and feedback mechanisms. Some metrics to consider tracking on a monthly or quarterly basis for field services would include:
 Response times
 Response times by priority of activity
 Completed activities by officer
 Completed activities by month
 Number of sequences per activity.

Analysis of activity volume by city and in the unincorporated zones would assist in deployment of officers and creation of appropriate beat zones to increase efficiency as well as allow for the recognition of any notable trends.

This page was intentionally left blank

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 85 SECTION 5—STRATEGIC FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND

ACTION PLAN

5.1 THEME ONE – STRENGTHEN CORE FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES Finding #1: Financial practices within the Department can be improved to reduce variance in budgeted revenues and expenditures versus actuals to provide for improved cost allocation within the Field Services Division and Shelter Services Division and to more accurately assess the true cost of providing these services.

Recommendation #1: Reduce variance occurring in the Department’s budgeted revenues and expenditures; use multi-year data to
develop both revenue and expenditure trends; review
with sources internal and external to the Department.

Variances in budgeted revenues and expenditures between actuals make assessment of true annual revenues and costs difficult. These variances also impact the Department’s ability to accurately access costs of services provided both in field and shelter services and to address revenue and cost

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 86 trends. Best practices are to develop a multi-year focus on an operational budget, one that includes cost analysis for divisional service areas such as field services and shelter services. The benefits of reducing budget variances will provide the Department with the annual data necessary to perform mid-year reviews, operational adjustments, and identify issues that may affect future year estimates and costs in addition to providing users with increased confidence in the cost of services being provided.

Recommendation #2: Establish subaccounts and full cost allocation systems within the Department and within the County’s
accounting systems, as appropriate.

The deficiencies in cost allocation make it difficult to provide true cost assessments for the various services provided by the Department. Creation of subaccounts to identify mandatory, statutory costs and revenues will provide the Department an opportunity to identify and track the entirety of costs associated with delivery of field and shelter services. This could be accomplished utilizing a project code system in the PeopleSoft software system or the Chameleon system in use by Contra Costa County.

The County should ensure that the Department is allocated applicable County-wide and Department overhead. Even though this overhead cannot be charged to contract cities per federal and state law, knowing the true total cost of providing services will provide both the Department and the County the information necessary for both the ongoing cost management of the programs as well as a discussion of future services and service models with contracted cities. Best practices are to track all costs associated with the delivery of public services. This provides the data necessary for ongoing current service delivery as well as future service delivery planning and provides true cost information for decision makers and stakeholders. The benefit of greater understanding and data-based cost information will be improved business-based information for service administrators and managers, service partners, elected officials, and service users.

Finding #2: Revenues for the Department may be enhanced by improving the animal licensing program and implementation of an updated consumer fee study and fee schedule.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 87 Recommendation #3: Reorganize the licensing program to include outreach components such as offsite vaccine and licensing clinics, brochures, posters, press releases, and a formal
canvassing program.

The best practice goal is to achieve the highest amount of license revenue, which results in greater safety for the community and a healthier animal population, as well as the important ability to identify animal owners when pets are lost or injured. Use of this best practice results in less burden on the general taxpayer, increased revenues for conducting both shelter and field services, and strengthening of the resources available for the Department.

Recommendations for expansion of the licensing program would include outreach components such as targeted canvassing programs followed by offsite vaccine and licensing clinics, brochures on the benefits of licensing, posters, PSAs, mobile spay/neuter clinics (may be provided by partner agencies), and press releases about the outreach activities and canvassing efforts. In addition, the Department could invite a local reporter to ride along with the canvassing team and use the opportunity to let the public know that licenses are required by law and the Department makes it easy to license pets.

The current licensing program and fee schedule each leave room for possible increased revenue for the Department. As shown in both the operational and financial analysis discussions, there appears to be untapped license revenue if more animals were licensed, either in a single year, or over multiple years. By increasing the amount of licensing revenue, the subsidy from the general fund may be reduced over time.

Best practices are to achieve higher levels of compliance for licensing and animals wearing tags.

Higher levels of compliance are beneficial to public safety as more animals are vaccinated for rabies and easily identified as owned with a tag that traces back to the owner. The benefits of a higher level of compliance include that animals are reunited more quickly with their owners.

Higher license compliance also leads to a lower burden to the General Fund by increased revenues for the Department.

Recommendation #4: Conduct a fee study to update the schedule adopted in 2012.

Current fees charged for services have not been updated since 2012. Where fees have not kept pace with expenditure increases, the burden of making up the gap falls to the general taxpayer.

Also, if fees are allowed to fall behind the cost of services for multiple years at a time, there is inevitably a difficult and painful process entailed in raising those fees. It is a better practice to make regular, small fee increases for public services rather than to wait and be required to adjust

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 88 them by large percentages at some future date. This comes as a shock to consumers who feel blindsided by large fee increases and wonder why they could not be more incremental.

Finding #3: Establishing a formalized collection policy, an improved cost allocation system, and providing for expanded internal audit mechanisms can strengthen the Department’s ability to provide a strong business basis for its delivery of services.

Recommendation #5: Develop and adopt a formalized collection policy for the Department.

A formalized collection policy and set of procedures need to be created and adopted by the Department. If such a County-wide policy and set of procedures exists, they should be followed by the Department. To the extent that any County-wide policies/procedures do not meet the needs of the Department, a separate policy/procedure should be developed. Such a policy/procedure should not conflict with applicable County-wide policies/procedures. Best practice is to maximize the revenues collected ensuring that funds owed to the Department are collected on a timely and regular basis. It is a matter of fairness to those who pay fees on time to ensure that others also are required to pay on as timely a basis as collections will allow. The benefits of timely collections ensure that revenues owed to the Department contribute to reducing the overall general taxpayer burden as well as ensure that all users of animal services pay for those services.

Recommendation #6: Establish and refine a new accounting system to allocate expenses and revenues by service divisions.

Establishing a new accounting system to allocate expenses and revenues by service divisions is a step toward understanding costs of field and shelter services essential to providing contract cities with cost metrics, as well as evaluating service delivery options. All staff will need to be engaged, trained, and monitored to ensure that revenue and expenditure allocations are performed correctly and consistently. Challenges to fully implementing the cost allocation exist within the County’s PeopleSoft accounting system, as well as in the adoption by Department staff. Initial indications are that the Auditor-Controller may not allow revisions of the existing County-wide system to the extent needed by the Department but that a shadow system could be introduced to address this recommendation, possibly through use of data obtained through Crystal reports from Chameleon.

Best practice is to know exactly what the services being provided cost and identifying the revenues that allow those services to be provided. The benefits of knowing these financial parameters

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 89 include the ability to show contract cities the services being rendered for the per-capita cost provided.

Recommendation #7: Work with the County internal auditor to review accounting and operational activity of the Department in greater detail than what previous audits have performed.

Prior audits of the Department were at a very high level, which has contributed to lack of useable information needed for both internal decision making and for sharing with contracted cities.

Through an audit that includes review of the Department’s compliance with both County policies and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the Animal Services Director and Administrative Services Officer can receive valuable information for conducting financial record keeping in tune with best practices, as well as valuable information upon which to base future business recommendations and decisions.

Finding #4: The Department is not currently emphasizing staff training or compliance and as such it will not be successful in implementing new cost accounting, improved record keeping, and operational systems.

Recommendation #8: Develop, maintain, and use an updated Policy and Procedures Manual to strengthen the Department’s
financial and operational systems.

Recommendation #9: Re-establish an in-house Policy and Procedures Manual training program for new hires; provide ongoing refresher training for existing staff.

Currently, the Department is updating its policies and procedures, and Citygate recommends this become a high priority. Without updated policies and procedures, there can be a wide variance in how work is conducted and executed, with some employees relying on past practices and others being unaware of what those practices are or why they were originally adopted. Development of updated policies and procedures gives the current staff members an opportunity to review operational and organizational systems to focus on the most efficient and effective means of completing tasks in the current organization. Updated policies and procedures form the onPage 132 of 195 Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 90 boarding and orientation curriculum for training of new employees and allow all Department employees to follow the same set of procedures and policies in uniformity.

Training and monitoring of staff is required to ensure that new revenue and expenditure allocations are performed correctly and consistently using the new structure. The process for this staff training needs to be evaluated for consistency and comprehensiveness, and a review of training protocols for all positions is needed.

Best practices indicate that an updated and comprehensive Policy and Procedures Manual provides the basis for initial staff training and is a typical staff training tool. The benefits of training and monitoring staff to implement an updated Policy and Procedures Manual will be improved institutional knowledge and improved staff ability to resolve issues and take action throughout the organization, as well as consistency of operations and procedures for efficiency and effectiveness.

Finding #5: All authorized but vacant positions allocated in the FY 17/18 Department budget need to be filled.

Recommendation #10: Fill all vacant positions; consult with the Human Resources Director and the County Administrator;
develop an 18-month schedule that delineates hiring
milestones; report to the County Administrator on a
regular basis.

Currently, there are eight budgeted but vacant field officer positions and 10 budgeted but vacant shelter personnel, as well as seven budgeted but vacant clerical and administrative positions. The data reviewed on response times of field services personnel indicated that the field staff is unable to clear daily logged items, so response times lag into weeks for many of the calls. To reduce this backlog of service requests, it is important for the Department to reach the full number of the positions authorized for field staff personnel.

By developing an 18-month schedule that delineates hiring milestones, the Department can move forward to fill these positions and engage both Human Resources and County administration in the effort. Filling the positions will place more personnel into the field for responding to service calls, increase the opportunity to clear the daily logs, and grant the ability to begin to assess the adequate number of field staff personnel required to respond to the number of calls being received throughout the County.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 91 Recommendation #11: Review results of exit interviews, recruitment practices and results, workers’ compensation practices, and
compensation information to determine if there are
barriers to retention and recruitment efforts that can be identified and addressed by either the Department
directly or in combination with the County’s Human
Resources Department.

The Department is not alone in encountering difficulty recruiting and retaining valued field service officers, as well as other important clerical and shelter positions. Many public agencies are experiencing this type of hiring challenge. By making filling of all authorized positions a high priority, and by collaborating with the County’s Human Resources Department, the Department can take steps toward successfully removing the barriers that keep frustrating its recruitment efforts. Many barriers were identified by Department staff during this study, including wages, background clearance, officer training timelines, and difficulty retaining hired staff once in place due to wage competition and other regional offers. These may just be the most obvious barriers, and a careful review of exit interviews, recruitment details, workers’ compensation actions, and compensation may well lead to actions that the Department can take to bolster its recruitment and retention efforts.

By taking ownership of this problem, Department staff can collaborate with Human Resources staff to develop a plan of action to fill the positions within the next 18 months. Assignments can be made to have appropriate staff contact similar local agencies (such as Police Chiefs for the 18 different cities) to learn the techniques they are using for recruitment and what they are doing to develop the hiring pool of potential officers within their own communities. Contact can be made with local high schools and community colleges for recruitment and possible training of clerical and technical support staff. Many people welcome the opportunity to compete for a government position, but do not know how best to do so.

Care must be taken that the positions are being well advertised and are reaching the local population that may have great interest but are unaware that these types of positions are available.

Evaluation of alternative mentoring, training, and internship programs should be made to learn if these could result in recruiting potential employees. Because of the challenges being faced by many public agencies in recruitment and retention, there are many new and innovative ideas being tested. The Department needs to explore these and undertake some new approaches to filling its positions. While not all new approaches may work, one or two might, and the Department will learn how best to reach a market of potential recruits as it tests new ideas. The benefits of doing so can mean engaging more members of the Department in this important effort, as well as filling positions.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 92 Finding #6: Current allocated personnel resources can be better maximized, particularly while alternative dispatch and other contracted specialized service providers are considered.

Recommendation #12: Consider using experienced clerical employees to handle dispatch duties; ensure Chameleon’s features are fully
utilized to maximize the use of current field response
personnel.

Experienced dispatchers are necessary to protect officer safety and keep accurate track of all field personnel, and they must be trusted by field personnel for those officers to operate effectively.

Dispatchers should also be able to filter calls to assist officers in the field. Although the extent to which this occurs was not established, Citygate understands that clerical support also handles cash payments and other phone duties and tasks at the counter.

Clerical tasks should always be separated from, and secondary to, ensuring focused, safetyconscious dispatch operations so that the chance for errors either in dispatching or in clerical functions is reduced. While Citygate understands that the Department is in the process of considering alternative dispatch options, use of current clerical support could be improved by ensuring that dispatch and clerical duties are separated. This will isolate an individual performing dispatch duties from simultaneously having to count, receive, or serve customers. Also, use of the full features of the Chameleon system could immediately improve the dispatch capacity and record keeping. Under-utilization of Chameleon features and inconsistent application of the program is likely resulting in inefficiencies that could be remedied with consistent training. Dispatch personnel should be trained to accurately assess, record, and document calls for field services and provide vetting for officers in the field. With this experience, the Department should be able to more fully evaluate the costs and benefits of improving use of Chameleon coupled with focused dispatch against engaging in another form of dispatch provision.

Recommendation #13: Evaluate all contracted services for effectiveness and cost efficiency, including the behavior team, veterinary
services team, and the role of the foster and transfer
partners; consider using temporary assistance workers, as needed, while recruiting to fill vacancies.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 93 Use of contracts to acquire highly specialized services is a technique used to control cost and ensure accessibility to specialized services in the public sector. These services can be expanded and reduced as needed to follow demand and resources available, which provides the Department with the flexibility to meet needs as they arise in the community. The Department has used this technique for the behavior team, veterinary services, and foster and transfer partner roles. The cost/benefit of all such contracts should be evaluated on a regular basis, particularly when providing these types of services through in-house personnel is being considered. Provision of some specialized services in-house can cost the Department more because of benefits and overhead, but also is less elastic than the ability to contract for the service levels required at any given time. Best practice calls for rigorous assessment of contracted cost and services, complete with refreshed market data, to ensure that use of both in-house and contracted specialized resources is maximized. The benefit of fully assessing each arrangement is assurance that services are being rendered at the most cost-effective price point.

5.2 THEME TWO – ADDRESS POPULATION GROWTH AND SERVICE DEMANDS Finding #7: Ongoing population growth patterns in Contra Costa County indicate there may be additional population growth eastward while shelters are located in the west portion of the County. Traffic congestion impacts both the ability to deliver timely services and customer ability for animal drop-off and shelter visits.

Recommendation #14: Review current shelter practices to ensure maximum use of shelter space and maximum customer access to the
Pinole and Martinez shelters.

As reported in Section 2, the last three years of total animal intake numbers have trended down from 12,489 in 2014, 11,534 in 2015, and 10,861 in 2016, while the number of animals cycling through the shelter with lives saved has increased from 63 percent to 76 percent. These trends are in the right direction to achieve the goals outlined in the Department Mission Statement. The Department has undertaken a proactive and best practices approach to saving lives through a pet retention program and a community cat program, in addition to other efforts it is undertaking to reduce the number of animals remaining in the shelters.

The statistics show increased positive outcomes for cats over the last three calendar years, and development of a community cats program contributed to this.

Creating a plan of action for each animal upon intake can decrease length of stay and consequently reduce overcrowding. Certain animals can easily be “fast tracked,” and early identification of these

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 94 animals frees up resources for animals that need to be held longer. A vibrant foster program is also part of the planning process, as certain animals may need to go into immediate foster care. Creating as much space as possible in the existing shelter facilities through a variety of programmatic efforts ensures there is space in the shelter to accept all animals at all times and ensures there is space available when animals that are easier to place have been moved into new homes with owners.

Recommendation #15: Evaluate field efficiencies, response time data, and priority goals to ensure that the services being rendered to the cities are adequate.

The ability of the Department to assess field efficiencies, response time data, and how well priority goals are being met for its contract cities is essential. Only by presenting this data and discussing outcomes with each of the contracted cities can the Department demonstrate the efficacy of the services it is delivering.

Recommendation #16: Evaluate the need for additional shelter locations only after current financial and operational processes are
resolved.

Although Citygate understands that the trends are toward more traffic congestion and population growth within the County eastward, and thus the agency is anxious to begin to address these trends through considering additional facilities, Citygate urges the Department to concentrate first on resolving both the financial and operational issues outlined in this report. Doing so will compile the data necessary to communicate with cities effectively as well as improve service provision.

Finding #8: Current outreach efforts involving presentations to cities, interactions with City Managers, and field services leadership exchanges with Police Chiefs and city police departments can be increased and regularly scheduled. These efforts are essential and form the basis for future information and data exchanges. Monthly reports reflecting services delivered can be improved to provide additional service- and cost-related information.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 95 Recommendation #17: Strengthen working relationships by establishing regular contacts between the Department Director and all 18 City Managers; establish regular and scheduled exchanges
between field staff personnel.

Department staff have made efforts to provide information and outreach to the contract cities.

Efforts have included visits from the Director to each City Manager and Police Chief at the initiation of her tenure, including presentations at City Council meetings by designated staff. These visits have been followed by invitations from some cities to make additional presentations at City Council meetings. In addition, field services leadership has conducted visits with Police Chiefs and police departments. Best practice in contracted services arrangements is to create strong working relationship between those providing the service and those receiving services. Strong working relationships help to dispel conflicts by identifying issues and problems early before they fester. Regular meetings and scheduled exchanges promote strong working relationships, resolve issues early, and help ensure competency and effectiveness of the services being delivered to the cities and areas within Contra Costa County.

Recommendation #18: Provide monthly reports to all the contracted cities that document the animal service activities provided by the
County.

The Department should enhance the monthly field and animal activity reports for the contract cities to include additional data, such as length of stay and animal outcomes. Including this additional information will expand the understanding of the full range of services being rendered by the Department.

Recommendation #19: Consider entering into discussions to revise, by addendum, current city contracts to reflect the full scope of animal services provided by the Department.

There are two important factors to consider regarding the current contracts and contracted services provided by the Department.

The first factor is financial. The current contracts are very general and do not specify items such as the services (and service levels) being provided, regular service hours, after-hours services, shelter hours of operation to the public, and other services. This leaves the contract cities with a lack of clarity regarding what they are receiving. This, in turn, can cause contract cities to question their charge for services.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 96 The second factor is both operational and financial. The Department must operate open admission shelters. The Department is required by law to accept any stray animal from the jurisdictions it serves. Many of the animals received in public agencies have extensive medical or behavioral needs, which require resources to treat. Additionally, public agencies must prioritize the public’s health and safety and not release animals that pose a safety risk to the community. Given these realities, animal services can be likened to those of a fire department, where equipment and responders must be allocated and available to meet daily services as well as immediate emergency response on a 24/7 basis.

Best practices require that the Department standarde its contracts with its contract cities to reflect the base levels of services provided to all cities under contract. As operations and data collection and reporting abilities improve, the contract city contracts can be reviewed and modified accordingly. However, this is not to suggest that cities be allowed to select particular services they desire and not others. Such a process would run counter to the need to fully resource the entire array of services that a public animal services agency, both field and shelter, must provide to ensure the health and safety of the population served.

More fully reflecting services that are being provided to contract cities would reduce confusion and misunderstanding between the service provider and user, provide the user with data to support the cost of services received, and improve understanding and reduce contractual disagreements.

Finding #9: Future business relationships between the Department within the internal County structure and between cities served could be enhanced through clarifying the way mandated costs are covered and by establishing an enterprise fund for the animal services function.

Recommendation #20: Provide clarity to the Department’s contract cities regarding the way that mandated services are provided
and the methodology through which their costs are
determined.

Further discussion is needed regarding the issue of the County’s charge for state-mandated services. Common practice in other counties regarding mandated services can be informative and could impact the calculation of the County subsidy.

Under state law, counties are broadly required to provide a rabies control program, dog licensing, a stray animal shelter, spaying and neutering of adopted animals, enforcement of animal laws, and

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 97 protection of public safety. Senate Bill 1785, passed in 1998, made adoption of shelter animals the policy of the State of California. In accordance with state law, cities can contract with counties to provide mandated services within incorporated city jurisdictions.

Public sector animal control agencies are charged with balancing the provision of mandated services, protecting public safety, and responding to public and community desires for established standards and positive outcomes for shelter animals.

Under California law, the full cost of a service may be charged to contracting cities. While permitted, this may not be what the market or residents can bear. One objective of this project is to develop a methodology that will balance the needs of the contracting jurisdictions, the service demands, the cost of the service, and the charges for the service. Best practice is to review the legal requirements and flexibilities of the provision of mandated services and meet with the contract cities to develop an understanding of how these services will be provided. The benefits of this discussion and policy development will help reduce confusion and misunderstandings.

Recommendation #21: Establish an Enterprise Fund for the Department operations.

The County should commit to an ongoing contribution at least equal to the subsidy amount provided for FY 17/18. The Department function should establish goals and objectives developed from implementation of operational changes recommended by Citygate, including the establishment of an effective accounting system and discussions with contract cities. The goals and objectives should be reviewed and adjusted at least semi-annually for the first three years to ensure positive achievement, and then annually thereafter if a majority of goals are met.

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), which establishes accounting standards for public sector jurisdictions, characterizes business-type activities as those in which users are charged based on the costs of providing a service. The GASB suggests that a business-type operation that relies on external user fees to provide its primary service be classified as an Enterprise Fund. Although the GASB does provide flexibility for those business-type activities that receive significant general government subsidy, Citygate believes that, given the need for the Department to show improvement in data reporting to contract cities, the creation of an Enterprise Fund would significantly improve the existing situation. Additional benefits of creating an Enterprise Fund for the Department include: helping to consolidate the total cost of service and resources available to provide the service within one fund that is easily identifiable by the public and users; maintenance of all operational activity, both surpluses and losses in one fund, which can help to smooth operations from year to year through the use of retained earnings when necessary; and the accumulation of equipment and capital fixed assets within the fund, providing the true value of the operation.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan page 98

5.3 STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
A list of Citygate’s recommendations and a blueprint for implementation are presented in the Strategic Action Plan. This Plan contains:

1. The priority of each recommendation.

2. The responsible party/ies.

3. The relative resource requirement.

4. The suggested implementation time frame.

5. The anticipated benefits.

The legend at the bottom of each page of the Strategic Action Plan defines the level of each priority indicated by the letters “A” through “D.” It is important to note that priorities have been established independent of the suggested time frame. For example, a recommendation may have the highest priority (indicated by the letter “A”) but may require an estimated six months to implement.

Conversely, a recommendation with the letter “C” priority, which indicates that the recommendation is not critical but will improve operations, may have a two-month time frame since the estimated implementation effort would not require an extended period of time.

It is also important to note that an “A” priority, which indicates that the recommendation is deemed “mandatory or critical,” should not be interpreted to mean that the recommendation is “mandated” by a statute or regulation; it is simply an “urgent” recommendation of the highest priority.

The time frames indicated in the Strategic Action Plan do not necessarily mean the anticipated completion dates for the implementation of each recommendation.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 99
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #1:

Reduce variance occurring in the
Department’s budgeted revenues and
expenditures; use multi-year data to
develop both revenue and expenditure
trends; review with sources internal and
external to the Department.

A Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Reducing budget variances
will provide the Department
with the annual data
necessary to perform midyear reviews and
operational adjustments
and identify issues that may
affect future year estimates
and costs, in addition to
providing users with
increased confidence in the
cost of services being
provided.

Recommendation #2:

Establish subaccounts and full cost
allocation systems within the Department
and within the County’s accounting
systems, as appropriate.

A Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Greater understanding and
data-based cost information
with improved businessbased information for
service administrators and
managers, service partners,
elected officials, and service
users.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 100
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #3:

Reorganize the licensing program to
include outreach components such as
offsite vaccine and licensing clinics,
brochures, posters, press releases, and a
formal canvassing program.

A Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
Minimal resources
needed to conduct
canvassing
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
A higher level of compliance
means animals are reunited
more quickly with their
owners. Higher license
compliance also leads to a
lower burden to the General
Fund by increased
revenues coming into the
Department.

Recommendation #4:

Conduct a fee study to update the
schedule adopted in 2012.

A Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
Minimal resources
needed to conduct fee
study
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Use of this best practice
results in less burden on the
general taxpayer, increased
revenues for conducting
both shelter and field
services, and strengthening
of the resources available
for the Department.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 101
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #5:

Develop and adopt a formalized collection
policy for the Department.

B Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Timely collections ensure
that revenues owed to the
Department contribute to
reducing the overall general
taxpayer burden, as well as
ensure that all users of the
Department pay for those
services.

Recommendation #6:

Establish and refine a new accounting
system to allocate expenses and revenues
by service divisions.

B Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Knowing these financial
parameters will show
contract cities what services
are being rendered for the
per-capita cost provided.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 102
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #7:

Work with the County internal auditor to
review accounting and operational activity
of the Department in greater detail than
what previous audits have performed.

C Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed, possibly
additional County
auditor time
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Through an audit that
includes review of the
Department’s compliance
with both County policies
and Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles, the
Animal Services Director
and Administrative Services
Officer can receive valuable
information for conducting
best practices financial
record keeping, as well as
valuable information upon
which to base future
business recommendations
and decisions.

Recommendation #8:

Develop, maintain, and use an updated
Policy and Procedures Manual to
strengthen the Department’s financial and
operational systems.

B Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
Time resources
needed for staff to
develop Policy and
Procedures Manual
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Training and monitoring
staff to implement an
updated Policy and
Procedures Manual will
improve institutional
knowledge and improve
staff ability to resolve issues
and take action throughout
the organization, as well as
consistency of operations
and procedures for
efficiency and effectiveness.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 103
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #9:

Re-establish an in-house Policy and
Procedures Manual training program for
new hires; provide ongoing refresher
training for existing staff.

B Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
Minimal resources
needed to develop
new hire training
program and refresher
training program
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Training and monitoring
staff to implement an
updated Policy and
Procedures Manual will
improve institutional
knowledge and improve
staff ability to resolve issues
and take action throughout
the organization, as well as
consistency of operations
and procedures for
efficiency and effectiveness.

Recommendation #10:

Fill all vacant positions; consult with the
Human Resources Director and the County
Administrator; develop an 18-month
schedule that delineates hiring milestones;
report to the County Administrator on a
regular basis.

A Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
New approaches
needed, not
necessarily additional
resources
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Filling the positions will
place more personnel into
the field for responding to
service calls, increase the
opportunity to clear the daily
logs, and grant the ability to
begin to assess the
adequate number of field
staff personnel required to
respond to the number of
calls being received
throughout the County.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 104
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #11:

Review results of exit interviews,
recruitment practices and results, workers’
compensation practices, and compensation
information to determine if there are
barriers to retention and recruitment efforts
that can be identified and addressed by
either the Department directly or in
combination with the County’s Human
Resources Department.

A Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
Staff time needed to
review results as
outlined
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Reviewing exit interview
results and other
recruitment and retention
information to engage more
members of the Department
in this important effort and
help to fill positions.

Recommendation #12:

Consider using experienced clerical
employees to handle dispatch duties;
ensure Chameleon’s features are fully
utilized to maximize the use of current field
response personnel
A Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
While evaluating use of
alternative dispatching
options, the Department
can improve officer safety
and dispatch accuracy by
acting to separate these
clerical functions. With this
experience, the Department
should be able to more fully
evaluate the cost/benefits of
improving use of
Chameleon coupled with
focused dispatch against
engaging in another form of
dispatch provision.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 105
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #13:

Evaluate all contracted services for
effectiveness and cost efficiency, including
the behavior team, veterinary services
team, and the role of the foster and transfer
partners; consider using temporary
assistance workers, as needed, while
recruiting to fill vacancies.

B Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
3 to 6 months, January
through June 2018
Fully assessing each
arrangement will ensure
that services are being
rendered at the most costeffective price point.

Recommendation #14:

Review current shelter practices to ensure
maximum use of shelter space and
maximum customer access to the Pinole
and Martinez shelters.

C Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
6 to 12 months, January
2018 through January
2019
Creating as much space as
possible in the existing
shelter facilities through a
variety of programmatic
efforts ensures there is
space in the shelter to meet
the demands placed on the
system by needing to
accept all animals at all
times and ensuring there is
space available when
animals that are easier to
place have been moved into
new homes with owners.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 106
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #15:

Evaluate field efficiencies, response time
data, and priority goals to ensure that the
services being rendered to the cities are
adequate.

A Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
6 to 12 months, January
2018 through January
2019
Being able to ensure that
the services being rendered
to cities are adequate helps
demonstrate value to
contracted agencies.

Recommendation #16:

Evaluate the need for additional shelter
locations only after current financial and
operational processes are resolved.

D Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
6 to 12 months, January
2018 through January
2019
Doing so will be compile the
data necessary to talk with
cities effectively, as well as
to improve service provision
prior to undertaking future
planning discussions within
the cities and their particular
communities.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 107
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #17:

Strengthen working relationships by
establishing regular contacts between the
Department Director and all 18 City
Managers; establish regular and scheduled
exchanges between field staff personnel.

A Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
6 to 12 months, January
2018 through January
2019
Regular meetings and
scheduled exchanges
promotes strong working
relationships, resolves
issues early, and helps
ensure competency and
effectiveness of the
services being delivered to
the cities and areas within
the County.

Recommendation #18:

Provide monthly reports to all the
contracted cities that document the animal
service activities provided by the County.

A Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
6 to 12 months, January
2018 through January
2019
Including this additional
information will expand the
understanding of the full
range of services being
rendered by the
Department.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 108
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #19:

Consider entering into discussions to
revise, by addendum, current city contracts
to reflect the full scope of animal services
provided by the Department.

B Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
6 to 12 months, January
2018 through January
2019
More fully reflecting
services that are being
provided to contract cities
would reduce confusion and
misunderstanding between
the service provider and
user, provide the user with
data to support the cost of
services received, and
improve understanding and
reduce contractual
disagreements.

Recommendation #20:

Provide clarity to the Department’s contract
cities regarding the way that mandated
services are provided and the methodology
through which their costs are determined.

B Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
6 to 12 months, January
2018 through January
2019
This clarity and policy
development will help
reduce confusion and
misunderstandings.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Strategic Action Plan—page 109
LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #21:

Establish an Enterprise Fund for the
Department operations.

B Animal Services
Director,
Administrative
Services Officer, and
as delegated by
each
No new resources
needed
6 to 12 months, January
2018 through January
2019
Additional benefits of creating
an Enterprise Fund for the
Department include: helping
to consolidate the total cost
of service and resources
available to provide the
service within one fund that is
easily identifiable by the
public and users;
maintenance of all
operational activity, both
surpluses and losses in one
fund, which can help to
smooth operations from year
to year through the use of
retained earnings when
necessary; and the
accumulation of equipment
and capital fixed assets
within the fund, providing the
true value of the operation.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Table of Contents page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 of 2 – Main Report (separately bound)
VOLUME 2 of 2 – Cost Analysis Appendices (this volume)
Section Page
Appendix A1: Budget versus Actual ...............................................................................................1 Appendix A2: Cost Allocation Summary........................................................................................2 Appendix A3: Vehicle Fleet ............................................................................................................3 Appendix A4: Cost Center Allocation Summary – Current Structure ............................................4 Appendix A5: Cost Center Allocation Summary – Revised Structure............................................5 Appendix A6: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Summary............................................6 Appendix A7: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Brentwood.......................................7 Appendix A8: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Clayton............................................8 Appendix A9: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Concord...........................................9 Appendix A10: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Danville.......................................10 Appendix A11: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – El Cerrito.....................................11 Appendix A12: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Hercules ......................................12 Appendix A13: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Lafayette .....................................13 Appendix A14: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Martinez ......................................14 Appendix A15: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Moraga ........................................15 Appendix A16: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Oakley.........................................16 Appendix A17: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Orinda .........................................17 Appendix A18: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Pinole ..........................................18 Appendix A19: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Pittsburg ......................................19 Appendix A20: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Pleasant Hill................................20 Appendix A21: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Richmod......................................21 Appendix A22: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – San Pablo ....................................22 Appendix A23: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – San Ramon..................................23 Appendix A24: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Walnut Creek ..............................24 Appendix A25: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Remaining Service Area .............25

Appendix A1
Budget versus Actual
Acct # Revenues FY 12/13 Actuals FY 12/13 Budget Difference FY 13/14 Actuals FY 13/14 Budget Difference FY 14/15 Actuals FY 14/15 Budget Difference FY 15/16 Actual FY 15/16 Budget Difference FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget (Rec.)
Difference FY 17-18 Budget
9070 Animal Licenses $ 1,511,832 $ 1,829,058 $ (317,226) $ 1,494,565 $ 2,013,680 $ (519,115) $ 1,495,466 $ 2,013,680 $ (518,215) $ 1,803,832 $ 1,500,000 $ 303,832 $ 1,439,083 $ 1,700,000 $ (260,917) $ 1,600,000 9721 Spay Clinic Fees $ 368,544 $ 405,154 $ (36,610) $ 387,982 $ 405,154 $ (17,172) $ 381,793 $ 405,154 $ (23,361) $ 283,538 $ 415,000 $ (131,462) $ 168,888 $ 415,000 $ (246,112) $ 225,000 9722 Contract Humane Services $ 4,205,024 $ 4,204,813 $ 211 $ 4,240,671 $ 4,239,870 $ 801 $ 4,278,920 $ 4,278,919 $ 1 $ 4,343,225 $ 4,528,647 $ (185,422) $ 4,928,185 $ 4,742,673 $ 185,512 $ 4,985,592 9725 Miscellaneous Humane Services $ 752,262 $ 832,054 $ (79,792) $ 757,094 $ 832,054 $ (74,960) $ 849,155 $ 832,054 $ 17,101 $ 650,897 $ 832,054 $ (181,157) $ 473,529 $ 832,054 $ (358,525) $ 668,147 9770 Drinking Driver Program Fee $ - $ - $ - $ (67) $ - $ (67) $ - $ - $ - $ - 9935 Sale of Animals $ 32,578 $ 30,000 $ 2,578 $ 31,736 $ 30,000 $ 1,736 $ 29,663 $ 30,000 $ (337) $ 28,730 $ 32,000 $ (3,271) $ 19,783 $ 32,000 $ (12,217) $ 38,625 9945 Sundry Taxable Sale $ 11,398 $ 11,398 $ (4,904) $ (4,904) $ 4,114 $ 4,114 $ 10,397 $ 10,397 $ (12,178) $ 625 $ (12,803) $ - 9946 Sundry Non-Taxable Sale $ 446 $ 625 $ (179) $ 538 $ 625 $ (87) $ 610 $ 625 $ (15) $ 933 $ 625 $ 308 $ 958 $ - $ 958 $ - 9951 Reimbursements Gov/Gov $ 100,029 $ 100,029 $ 66,022 $ 66,022 $ 162,440 $ 162,440 $ 29,897 $ 70,000 $ (40,103) $ 1,149 $ 250,000 $ (248,851) $ - 9956 Transfers In $ - $ - $ - $ 166,803 $ 166,803 $ 147,796 $ - $ 147,796 9965 Restricted Donations $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (5) $ - $ (5) $ 300,000 Total Revenues $ 6,982,113 $ 7,301,704 $ (319,591) $ 6,973,638 $ 7,521,383 $ (547,746) $ 7,202,161 $ 7,560,432 $ (358,271) $ 7,318,251 $ 7,378,326 $ (60,075) $ 7,167,189 $ 7,972,352 $ (805,163) $ 7,817,364 -4.38% -7.28% -4.74% -0.81% -10.10%
Acct # Expenditures FY 12/13 Actuals FY 12/13 Budget Difference FY 13/14 Actuals FY 13/14 Budget Difference FY 14/15 Actual FY 14/15 Budget Difference FY 15/16 Actual FY 15/16 Budget Difference FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget (Rec.)
Difference FY 17-18 Budget
Permanent Salaries $ 3,620,588 $ 4,139,747 $ 519,159 $ 3,515,775 $ 4,166,062 $ 650,287 $ 3,451,269 $ 4,250,565 $ 799,296 $ 3,638,699 $ 4,419,041 $ 780,342 $ 3,279,594 $ 4,656,432 $ 1,376,838 $ 4,985,514 Temporary Salaries $ 438,060 $ 265,953 $ (172,107) $ 475,870 $ 265,953 $ (209,917) $ 587,959 $ 265,953 $ (322,006) $ 546,119 $ 150,000 $ (396,119) $ 502,469 $ 367,248 $ (135,221) $ 139,584 Permanent Overtime $ 73,523 $ 93,425 $ 19,902 $ 94,792 $ 93,425 $ (1,367) $ 68,330 $ 93,425 $ 25,095 $ 75,176 $ 50,000 $ (25,176) $ 109,816 $ 50,000 $ (59,816) $ 50,000 Deferred Compensation $ 7,988 $ 29,280 $ 21,292 $ 16,830 $ 33,900 $ 17,070 $ 18,600 $ 32,462 $ 13,862 $ 19,375 $ 58,320 $ 38,945 $ 16,674 $ 43,680 $ 27,006 $ 63,480 Comp & SDI Recoveries $ (85,023) $ (4,648) $ 80,375 $ (163,735) $ (4,648) $ 159,087 $ (33,750) $ (4,549) $ 29,201 $ (52,651) $ (4,549) $ 48,102 $ (69,930) $ (4,549) $ 65,381 $ (4,549) FICA/Medicare $ 296,376 $ 317,373 $ 20,997 $ 288,329 $ 319,572 $ 31,243 $ 299,916 $ 325,380 $ 25,464 $ 311,579 $ 337,765 $ 26,186 $ 279,958 $ 363,239 $ 83,281 $ 382,582 Ret. Exp. - Pre-'97 Retirees $ 16,587 $ 17,733 $ 1,146 $ 15,459 $ 17,733 $ 2,274 $ 13,882 $ 17,733 $ 3,851 $ 13,439 $ 17,733 $ 4,294 $ 10,916 $ 17,733 $ 6,817 $ 17,733 Retirement Expense $ 1,306,279 $ 1,464,702 $ 158,423 $ 1,395,998 $ 1,626,495 $ 230,497 $ 1,380,005 $ 1,720,418 $ 340,413 $ 1,211,147 $ 1,509,146 $ 297,999 $ 965,384 $ 1,459,449 $ 494,065 $ 1,520,585 Employee Group Insurance $ 690,619 $ 871,737 $ 181,118 $ 655,405 $ 848,892 $ 193,487 $ 565,718 $ 775,231 $ 209,513 $ 519,385 $ 783,282 $ 263,897 $ 491,691 $ 807,978 $ 316,287 $ 965,263 Retiree Health Insurance $ 398,725 $ 380,055 $ (18,670) $ 436,385 $ 393,823 $ (42,562) $ 409,012 $ 443,446 $ 34,434 $ 388,639 $ 398,465 $ 9,826 $ 347,549 $ 391,920 $ 44,371 $ 379,775 OPEB Pre-Pay $ 203,727 $ 203,727 $ - $ 203,727 $ 203,727 $ - $ 203,727 $ 203,727 $ - $ 203,727 $ 203,727 $ - $ 152,795 $ 203,727 $ 50,932 $ 203,727 Unemployment Insurance $ 15,626 $ 15,896 $ 270 $ 14,858 $ 15,963 $ 1,105 $ 12,365 $ 12,850 $ 485 $ 12,659 $ 13,702 $ 1,043 $ 10,381 $ 20,269 $ 9,888 $ 11,002 Workers Compensation Insurance $ 214,420 $ 215,242 $ 822 $ 193,217 $ 197,648 $ 4,431 $ 257,620 $ 267,066 $ 9,446 $ 518,650 $ 399,358 $ (119,292) $ 372,125 $ 482,952 $ 110,827 $ 478,604 Services and Supplies $ 2,606,233 $ 2,122,415 $ (483,818) $ 2,755,224 $ 2,178,988 $ (576,236) $ 2,855,607 $ 2,207,500 $ (648,107) $ 3,332,164 $ 2,572,609 $ (759,555) $ 3,367,218 $ 2,981,420 $ (385,798) $ 2,392,256 Other Charges - Cap. Impr. $ 8,753 $ - $ (8,753) $ 10,717 $ - $ (10,717) $ 10,444 $ - $ (10,444) $ 10,556 $ - $ (10,556) $ 9,984 $ 26,415 $ 16,431 $ 47,015 Other Charges - Equipment $ - $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 18,445 $ 8,000 $ (10,445) $ 21,719 $ - $ (21,719) $ 164,077 $ - $ (164,077) $ 126,185 $ - $ (126,185) $ 5,500 Expenditure Transfers $ 368,402 $ 361,067 $ (7,335) $ 331,383 $ 372,666 $ 41,283 $ 354,285 $ 279,225 $ (75,060) $ 396,156 $ 394,727 $ (1,429) $ 313,793 $ 353,438 $ 39,645 $ 428,293 Total Expenditures $ 10,180,883 $ 10,501,704 $ 320,821 $ 10,258,679 $ 10,738,199 $ 479,520 $ 10,476,708 $ 10,890,432 $ 413,724 $ 11,308,896 $ 11,303,326 $ (5,570) $ 10,286,602 $ 12,221,351 $ 1,934,749 $ 12,066,364 Gross Subsidy Amount $ 3,198,770 $ 3,200,000 $ 1,230 $ 3,285,042 $ 3,216,816 $ (68,225) $ 3,274,547 $ 3,330,000 $ 55,453 $ 3,990,645 $ 3,925,000 $ (65,645) $ 3,119,413 $ 4,248,999 $ 1,129,586 $ 4,249,000 Gross Subsidy Percentage 31.42% 30.47% 32.02% 29.96% 31.26% 30.58% 35.29% 34.72% 30.33% 34.77% 35.21% Component FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17
Personnel - Budgeted $ 8,010,222 $ 8,178,545 $ 8,403,707 $ 8,335,990 $ 8,860,078 Personnel - Actual $ 7,197,495 $ 7,142,910 $ 7,234,653 $ 7,405,943 $ 6,469,422 Services/Supplies Budgeted $ 2,122,415 $ 2,178,988 $ 2,207,500 $ 2,572,609 $ 2,981,420 Services/Supplies Actual $ 2,606,233 $ 2,755,224 $ 2,855,607 $ 3,332,164 $ 3,367,218 Transfers Out $ 361,067 $ 372,666 $ 279,225 $ 394,727 $ 353,438 Transfers Actual $ 368,402 $ 331,383 $ 354,285 $ 396,156 $ 313,793 Major Expenditure Components

Appendix A2
Cost Allocation Summary
Jurisdiction
Population Used by the
Department for Contract
Charge (Slightly Different than
Current DOF E-1)
FY 17/18 Annual Service
Charge ($5.94 Per Capita)
Brentwood 58,784 $ 349,177
Clayton 11,209 $ 66,581
Concord 129,707 $ 770,460
Danville 42,865 $ 254,618
El Cerrito 24,378 $ 144,805
Hercules 24,791 $ 147,259
Lafayette 24,924 $ 148,049
Martinez 37,057 $ 220,119
Moraga 16,513 $ 98,087
Oakley 40,141 $ 238,438
Orinda 18,749 $ 111,369
Pinole 18,739 $ 111,310
Pittsburg 67,817 $ 402,833
Pleasant Hill 34,077 $ 202,417
Richmond 110,378 $ 655,645
San Pablo 30,829 $ 183,124
San Ramon 78,363 $ 465,476
Walnut Creek 70,018 $ 415,907
Contract Cities Total 839,339 $ 4,985,674
Antioch (Not in Service Area) 112,968
Balance of County 171,122
Total County * 1,123,429
Total Department Service Area 1,010,461
* This Total is from a Preliminary DOF Population List

Appendix A3
Vehicle Fleet
Inventory Count
29 Eq # VIN Number Year Make Model Using Department Using Department 2 Contact Person Class 2 Description Meter Sum of Usage 0969 1FADP5AUXGL111391 2016 FORD CMAX D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 5,864 5,864 3412 1FM5K8AR7EGB02448 2014 FORD INTERCEPTOR D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 43,166 30,847 4743 1FTYE2CM6GKA84791 2016 FORD TRANSIT 150 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 6,741 1,604 5468 1FDSX20R08EC75277 2008 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 95,108 12,284 5471 1FDSX20R78EC75275 2008 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 126,244 18,008 5472 1FDSX20R38EE41811 2008 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 103,958 17,348 5473 1FDSX20R38EE41808 2008 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 82,558 6,046 5474 1FDSX20R18EE41810 2008 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 92,418 22,489 5475 1FDSX20R58EE41812 2008 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 113,616 23,157 5476 1FDSX20R58EE41809 2008 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 113,671 27,925 5477 1FDSX2A50AEB37242 2010 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 73,465 13,336 5478 1FDSX2A50AEB37241 2010 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 86,632 26,043 5479 1FD7X2A66BEB76349 2011 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 110,182 58,588 5480 1FD7X2A62BEB76350 2011 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 89,283 30,123 5481 1FD7X2A64BEB76351 2011 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 49,313 13,528 5482 1FD7X2A66BEB76352 2011 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 88,795 39,126 5483 1FD7X2A67DEA13583 2013 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 37,596 29,947 5484 1FD7X2A69DEA13584 2013 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 31,636 26,631 5485 1FD7X2A60DEA13585 2013 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 51,534 41,208 5486 1FD7X2A61EEA86336 2014 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 41,101 33,501 5487 1FD7X2A65GEB79055 2016 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 6,120 50 5488 1FD7X2A67GEB79056 2016 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 7,835 0 5489 1FD7X2A69GEB79057 2016 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 3,140 0 5491 1FD7X2A62GEB79059 2016 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 320 0 5494 1FD7X2A62GEB79062 2016 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 213 0 6144 1FTPF28L3WNB08843 1998 FORD F-250 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. ISF VEHICLE 73,783 4,539 Eq # VIN Number Year Make Model Using Department Using Department 2 Contact Person Class 2 Description Meter Sum of Usage 6157 1FDXX47SX4EC00672 2004 FORD F-450 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES DeVries, Douglas R. NON ISF VEHICLE 4,973 764 5732 1GDJP32R3W3500508 1998 GMC PARCEL D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES Crosse, Noell R. NON ISF VEHICLE 53,807 -316 5747 1FDXE4FS0FDA28944 2015 FORD E-450 D3330 ANIMAL SERVICES Crosse, Noell R. NON ISF VEHICLE 8,767 8,767

Appendix A4
Cost Center Allocation Summary
Current Structure
FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget Personnel (Fully Burdened) $ 672,304 $ 723,816 $ 284,974 $ - $ 147,402 $ 79,702 $ 5,757,574 $ 7,782,237 $ 8,828,624 $ 39,544 $ 206,623 $ - $ 6,469,422 $ 8,860,078 $ 9,193,300 Materials, Services, Supplies $ 165,060 $ 220,385 $ 176,834 $ 267,422 $ 133,242 $ 106,912 $ 2,488,474 $ 2,089,433 $ 1,676,536 $ 446,262 $ 538,360 $ 431,974 $ 3,367,218 $ 2,981,420 $ 2,392,256 Other Charges - Cap. Impr. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,984 $ 26,415 $ 47,015 $ - $ - $ 9,984 $ 26,415 $ 47,015 Other Charges - Equipment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 126,185 $ - $ 5,500 $ - $ - $ 126,185 $ - $ 5,500 Debt $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Transfers Out $ 313,793 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 353,438 $ 428,293 $ - $ - $ 313,793 $ 353,438 $ 428,293 Indirect Overhead $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Expenditures $ 1,151,157 $ 944,201 $ 461,808 $ 267,422 $ 280,644 $ 186,613 $ 8,382,217 $ 10,251,523 $ 10,985,968 $ 485,806 $ 744,983 $ 431,974 $ 10,286,602 $ 12,221,351 $ 12,066,364 Total Revenues $ 2,184 $ 643,327 $ - $ 1,036,136 $ 233,802 $ 73,019 $ 5,798,297 $ 6,437,779 $ 7,599,345 $ 330,572 $ 657,444 $ 145,000 $ 7,167,189 $ 7,972,352 $ 7,817,364 County General Fund Contrib. $ 1,148,973 $ 300,874 $ 461,808 $ (768,714) $ 46,842 $ 113,594 $ 2,583,920 $ 3,813,744 $ 3,386,623 $ 155,234 $ 87,539 $ 286,974 $ 3,119,413 $ 4,248,999 $ 4,249,000 Contrib. Percentage 99.8% 31.9% 100.0% -287.5% 16.7% 60.9% 30.8% 37.2% 30.8% 32.0% 11.8% 66.4% 30.3% 34.8% 35.2% Percentage of Total Budget/Actual 11% 8% 4% 3% 2% 2% 81% 84% 91% 5% 6% 4% 100% 100% 100% Component
Total Cost Center Allocation
Animal Services Operations Animal Licensing Animal Services Centers Spay and Neuter Clinics

Appendix A5
Cost Center Allocation Summary
Revised Structure
FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget Personnel (Fully Burdened) $ 2,539,909 $ 3,478,485 $ 3,609,309 $ 3,066,414 $ 4,199,551 $ 4,357,494 $ 160,384 $ 219,651 $ 227,912 $ 702,715 $ 962,391 $ 998,585 $ 6,469,422 $ 8,860,078 $ 9,193,300 Materials, Services, Supplies $ 1,321,977 $ 1,170,512 $ 939,205 $ 1,596,014 $ 1,413,151 $ 1,133,895 $ 83,477 $ 73,913 $ 59,307 $ 365,751 $ 323,845 $ 259,849 $ 3,367,218 $ 2,981,420 $ 2,392,256 Capital $ 9,984 $ 26,415 $ 47,015 $ 9,984 $ 26,415 $ 47,015 Equipment $ 126,185 $ - $ 5,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 126,185 $ - $ 5,500 Debt $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Transfers Out $ - $ - $ 321,220 $ 313,793 $ 353,438 $ 107,073 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 313,793 $ 353,438 $ 428,293 Indirect Overhead $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Expenditures $ 3,988,071 $ 4,648,997 $ 4,875,234 $ 4,986,205 $ 5,992,555 $ 5,645,477 $ 243,861 $ 293,563 $ 287,218 $ 1,068,466 $ 1,286,235 $ 1,258,435 $ 10,286,602 $ 12,221,351 $ 12,066,364 Total Revenues $ 2,596,794 $ 2,643,983 $ 2,693,354 $ 3,763,971 $ 4,445,639 $ 4,458,872 $ 269,971 $ 117,576 $ 123,598 $ 536,453 $ 765,154 $ 541,540 $ 7,167,189 $ 7,972,352 $ 7,817,364 County General Fund Contrib. $ 1,391,276 $ 2,005,014 $ 2,181,880 $ 1,222,234 $ 1,546,916 $ 1,186,605 $ (26,110) $ 175,988 $ 163,620 $ 532,012 $ 521,081 $ 716,895 $ 3,119,413 $ 4,248,999 $ 4,249,000 Contrib. Percentage 34.9% 43.1% 44.8% 24.5% 25.8% 21.0% -10.7% 59.9% 57.0% 49.8% 40.5% 57.0% 30.3% 34.8% 35.2% Percentage of Total
Budget/Actual 33% 39% 40% 41% 50% 47% 2% 2% 2% 9% 11% 10% Component
Total Cost Center Allocation
Field Services Shelter Center Operations Support Services Administration

Appendix A6
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Summary Based on FY 16/17 Activity Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of Animals
Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of Animals
Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of Animals
Sheltered / Calls for
Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of Animals
Sheltered / Calls for
Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Brentwood 58,784 $ 349,177 14.86 2,175 634 $ 349,177 $ 101,182 $ 214,107 $ 283,619 $ 328,428 $ 117,167 $ 328,428 $ 44,959 $ 33,940 $ 32,079 $ 89,919 $ 587,494 $ 250,428 $ 701,966 $ (238,317) $ 98,749 $ (352,789) Clayton 11,209 $ 66,581 3.84 351 121 $ 66,581 $ 26,160 $ 34,552 $ 54,081 $ 62,625 $ 30,293 $ 62,625 $ 8,573 $ 5,477 $ 8,294 $ 17,146 $ 105,750 $ 64,747 $ 133,852 $ (39,169) $ 1,834 $ (67,270) Concord 129,707 $ 770,460 30.54 5,331 1,399 $ 770,460 $ 207,946 $ 524,783 $ 625,805 $ 724,677 $ 240,800 $ 724,677 $ 99,203 $ 83,189 $ 65,928 $ 198,406 $ 1,348,663 $ 514,674 $ 1,548,889 $ (578,204) $ 255,785 $ (778,429) Danville 42,865 $ 254,618 18.08 1,279 462 $ 254,618 $ 123,106 $ 125,905 $ 206,813 $ 239,488 $ 142,556 $ 239,488 $ 32,784 $ 19,958 $ 39,030 $ 65,568 $ 398,177 $ 304,693 $ 511,870 $ (143,559) $ (50,074) $ (257,252) El Cerrito 24,378 $ 144,805 3.66 815 121 $ 144,805 $ 24,894 $ 80,228 $ 117,618 $ 136,201 $ 28,827 $ 136,201 $ 18,645 $ 12,718 $ 7,892 $ 37,290 $ 235,074 $ 61,613 $ 291,109 $ (90,269) $ 83,193 $ (146,303) Hercules 24,791 $ 147,259 19.98 777 267 $ 147,259 $ 136,044 $ 76,488 $ 119,611 $ 138,508 $ 157,537 $ 138,508 $ 18,961 $ 12,125 $ 43,131 $ 37,922 $ 233,957 $ 336,712 $ 296,040 $ (86,698) $ (189,454) $ (148,782) Lafayette 24,924 $ 148,049 15.21 1,118 269 $ 148,049 $ 103,565 $ 110,056 $ 120,252 $ 139,251 $ 119,927 $ 139,251 $ 19,063 $ 17,446 $ 32,834 $ 38,125 $ 268,369 $ 256,326 $ 297,629 $ (120,321) $ (108,277) $ (149,580) Martinez 37,057 $ 220,119 13.63 2,323 400 $ 220,119 $ 92,806 $ 228,676 $ 178,791 $ 207,039 $ 107,469 $ 207,039 $ 28,342 $ 36,250 $ 29,424 $ 56,684 $ 464,057 $ 229,699 $ 442,514 $ (243,938) $ (9,580) $ (222,395) Moraga 16,513 $ 98,087 9.47 436 178 $ 98,087 $ 64,488 $ 42,920 $ 79,671 $ 92,259 $ 74,676 $ 92,259 $ 12,630 $ 6,804 $ 20,445 $ 25,259 $ 147,808 $ 159,610 $ 197,189 $ (49,721) $ (61,522) $ (99,102) Oakley 40,141 $ 238,438 16.17 2,690 433 $ 238,438 $ 110,101 $ 264,803 $ 193,671 $ 224,269 $ 127,496 $ 224,269 $ 30,701 $ 41,977 $ 34,907 $ 61,402 $ 519,773 $ 272,504 $ 479,341 $ (281,336) $ (34,067) $ (240,904) Orinda 18,749 $ 111,369 12.87 847 202 $ 111,369 $ 87,632 $ 83,379 $ 90,459 $ 104,751 $ 101,477 $ 104,751 $ 14,340 $ 13,217 $ 27,783 $ 28,679 $ 202,470 $ 216,891 $ 223,890 $ (91,100) $ (105,522) $ (112,521) Pinole 18,739 $ 111,310 11.76 1,266 202 $ 111,310 $ 80,074 $ 124,625 $ 90,411 $ 104,695 $ 92,725 $ 104,695 $ 14,332 $ 19,756 $ 25,387 $ 28,664 $ 243,652 $ 198,185 $ 223,771 $ (132,343) $ (86,875) $ (112,461) Pittsburg 67,817 $ 402,833 19.15 4,963 732 $ 402,833 $ 130,392 $ 488,557 $ 327,201 $ 378,896 $ 150,993 $ 378,896 $ 51,868 $ 77,446 $ 41,340 $ 103,736 $ 919,321 $ 322,725 $ 809,833 $ (516,488) $ 80,108 $ (407,000) Pleasant Hill 34,077 $ 202,417 7.08 1,195 362 $ 202,417 $ 48,187 $ 117,636 $ 164,413 $ 190,389 $ 55,800 $ 190,389 $ 26,063 $ 18,648 $ 15,277 $ 52,126 $ 334,088 $ 119,265 $ 406,929 $ (131,670) $ 83,153 $ (204,511) Richmond 110,378 $ 655,645 52.51 7,268 1,191 $ 655,645 $ 357,540 $ 715,461 $ 532,548 $ 616,685 $ 414,028 $ 616,685 $ 84,420 $ 113,415 $ 113,355 $ 168,840 $ 1,416,566 $ 884,923 $ 1,318,073 $ (760,921) $ (229,277) $ (662,427) San Pablo 30,829 $ 183,124 2.63 1,586 839 $ 183,124 $ 17,901 $ 156,126 $ 148,743 $ 172,243 $ 20,729 $ 172,243 $ 23,579 $ 24,749 $ 5,675 $ 47,158 $ 351,947 $ 44,305 $ 368,143 $ (168,823) $ 138,819 $ (185,019) San Ramon 78,363 $ 465,476 18.64 1,729 223 $ 465,476 $ 126,919 $ 170,203 $ 378,083 $ 437,817 $ 146,972 $ 437,817 $ 59,934 $ 26,981 $ 40,239 $ 119,868 $ 667,953 $ 314,130 $ 935,767 $ (202,477) $ 151,346 $ (470,291) Walnut Creek 70,018 $ 415,907 19.77 2,686 312 $ 415,907 $ 134,614 $ 264,409 $ 337,820 $ 391,193 $ 155,881 $ 391,193 $ 53,552 $ 41,914 $ 42,678 $ 107,103 $ 709,154 $ 333,173 $ 836,116 $ (293,247) $ 82,734 $ (420,209) Contract Cities Total 839,339 $ 4,985,674 290 38,835 8,347 $ 4,985,674 $ 1,973,550 $ 3,822,912 $ 4,049,611 $ 4,689,413 $ 2,285,354 $ 4,689,413 $ 641,948 $ 606,011 $ 625,698 $ 1,283,895 $ 9,154,273 $ 4,884,602 $ 10,022,919 $ (4,168,599) $ 101,072 $ (5,037,246) Balance of County (Less Antioch) 171,122 $ 1,016,465 413 10,690 1,711 $ 1,016,465 $ 2,900,791 $ 1,361,452 $ 825,623 $ 1,419,760 $ 3,360,594 $ 956,064 $ 130,878 $ 267,283 $ 920,375 $ 261,757 $ 2,912,090 $ 7,181,761 $ 2,043,444 $ (80,865) $ (4,350,536) $ 787,781 Total (If Balance of County Service
Area Were Treated like Contract
Cities)
1,010,461 $ 6,002,138 703 49,525 10,058 $ 6,002,138 $ 4,874,342 $ 5,184,364 $ 4,875,234 $ 6,109,173 $ 5,645,948 $ 5,645,477 $ 772,826 $ 873,294 $ 1,546,072 $ 1,545,652 $ 12,066,363 $ 12,066,363 $ 12,066,363 $ (4,249,464) $ (4,249,464) $ (4,249,464) Total FY 17/18 Expenditure Budget $ 12,066,363
Net FY 17/18 Budgeted County
Subsidy $ (6,064,225)
FY 17/18 Per-Capita Charge $ 5.94
FY 17/18 Budgeted Other Revenue $ 2,831,772
FY 16/17 Actual Other Revenue $ 2,239,004
Total Service Area 1,010,461 703 49,525 10,058 $ 4,874,342 $ 5,184,364 $ 4,875,234 $ 6,109,173 $ 5,645,948 $ 5,645,477 $ 772,826 $ 873,294 $ 1,546,072 $ 1,545,652 $ 12,066,363 $ 12,066,363 $ 12,066,363 $ (4,249,464) $ (4,249,464) $ (4,249,464) Animals
Sheltered
(CY 16)
Total FY17/18
Revenue
Budgeted
Field Services Shelter Center Operations Support Services Administration Total Jurisdiction
Current Population
Used by The
Department for
Contract Charge
Current Annual
Service Charge
($5.94 Per Capita)
City Square
Mileage
City Calls
for Service
(CY 16)

Appendix A7
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Brentwood
Population 58,784
Square Miles 14.86
Services Calls 2,175
Animals Sheltered 634
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals
Sheltered
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals
Sheltered
Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals
Sheltered / Calls
for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals
Sheltered / Calls
for Service
Dog/Cat
Population
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 349,177 $ 101,182 $ 214,107 $ 283,619 $ 328,428 $ 117,167 $ 328,428 $ 44,959 $ 33,940 $ 32,079 $ 89,919 $ 587,494 $ 250,428 $ 701,966 $ (238,317) $ 349,177 $ 98,749 $ (352,789) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus
Cost Allocation Factors
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services

Appendix A8
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Clayton
Population 11,209
Square Miles 3.84
Services Calls 351
Animals Sheltered 121
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 66,581 $ 26,160 $ 34,552 $ 54,081 $ 62,625 $ 30,293 $ 62,625 $ 8,573 $ 5,477 $ 8,294 $ 17,146 $ 105,750 $ 64,747 $ 133,852 $ (39,169) $ 1,834 $ (67,270) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 518 $ 71 $ 589
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Factors

Appendix A9
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Concord
Population 129,707
Square Miles 31
Services Calls 5,331
Animals Sheltered 1,399
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 770,460 $ 207,946 $ 524,783 $ 625,805 $ 724,677 $ 240,800 $ 724,677 $ 99,203 $ 83,189 $ 65,928 $ 198,406 $ 1,348,663 $ 514,674 $ 1,548,889 $ (578,203.52) $ 255,785 $ (778,429) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services

Appendix A10
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Danville
Cost Allocation Factors
Population 42,865
Square Miles 18.08
Services Calls 1,279
Animals Sheltered 462
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 254,618 $ 123,106 $ 125,905 $ 206,813 $ 239,488 $ 142,556 $ 239,488 $ 32,784 $ 19,958 $ 39,030 $ 65,568 $ 398,177 $ 304,693 $ 511,870 $ (143,559) $ (50,074) $ (257,252) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus

Appendix A11
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of El Cerrito
Population 24,378
Square Miles 3.66
Services Calls 815
Animals Sheltered 263
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 144,805 $ 24,894 $ 80,228 $ 117,618 $ 136,201 $ 28,827 $ 136,201 $ 18,645 $ 12,718 $ 7,892 $ 37,290 $ 235,074 $ 61,613 $ 291,109 $ (90,269) $ 83,193 $ (146,303) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services

Appendix A12
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Hercules
Cost Allocation Factors
Population 24,791
Square Miles 19.98
Services Calls 777
Animals Sheltered 267
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 147,259 $ 136,044 $ 76,488 $ 119,611 $ 138,508 $ 157,537 $ 138,508 $ 18,961 $ 12,125 $ 43,131 $ 37,922 $ 233,957 $ 336,712 $ 296,040 $ (86,698) $ (189,454) $ (148,782) Components Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services

Appendix A13
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Lafayette
Population 24,924
Square Miles 15.21
Services Calls 1,118
Animals Sheltered 269
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 148,049 $ 103,565 $ 110,056 $ 120,252 $ 139,251 $ 119,927 $ 139,251 $ 19,063 $ 17,446 $ 32,834 $ 38,125 $ 268,369 $ 256,326 $ 297,629 $ (120,321) $ (108,277) $ (149,580) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services

Appendix A14
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Martinez
Population 37,057
Square Miles 13.63
Services Calls 2,323
Animals Sheltered 400
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 220,119 $ 92,806 $ 228,676 $ 178,791 $ 207,039 $ 107,469 $ 207,039 $ 28,342 $ 36,250 $ 29,424 $ 56,684 $ 464,057 $ 229,699 $ 442,514 $ (243,938) $ (9,580) $ (222,395) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services

Appendix A15
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Moraga
Population 16,513
Square Miles 9.47
Services Calls 436
Animals Sheltered 178
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 98,087 $ 64,488 $ 42,920 $ 79,671 $ 92,259 $ 74,676 $ 92,259 $ 12,630 $ 6,804 $ 20,445 $ 25,259 $ 147,808 $ 159,610 $ 197,189 $ (49,721) $ (61,522) $ (99,102) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services (Subsidy)/Surplus Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals

Appendix A16
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Oakley
Population 40,141
Square Miles 16.17
Services Calls 2,690
Animals Sheltered 433
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 238,438 $ 110,101 $ 264,803 $ 193,671 $ 224,269 $ 127,496 $ 224,269 $ 30,701 $ 41,977 $ 34,907 $ 61,402 $ 519,773 $ 272,504 $ 479,341 $ (281,336) $ (34,067) $ (240,904) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services

Appendix A17
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Orinda
Population 18,749
Square Miles 12.89
Services Calls 847
Animals Sheltered 202
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 111,369 $ 87,768 $ 83,379 $ 90,459 $ 104,751 $ 101,634 $ 104,751 $ 14,340 $ 13,217 $ 27,826 $ 28,679 $ 202,470 $ 217,228 $ 223,890 $ (91,100) $ (105,859) $ (112,521) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services

Appendix A18
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Pinole
Population 18,739
Square Miles 11.76
Services Calls 1,266
Animals Sheltered 202
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 111,310 $ 80,074 $ 124,625 $ 90,411 $ 104,695 $ 92,725 $ 104,695 $ 14,332 $ 19,756 $ 25,387 $ 28,664 $ 243,652 $ 198,185 $ 223,771 $ (132,343) $ (86,875) $ (112,461) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus

Appendix A19
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Pittsburg
Population 67,817
Square Miles 19.15
Services Calls 4,963
Animals Sheltered 732
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 402,833 $ 130,392 $ 488,557 $ 327,201 $ 378,896 $ 150,993 $ 378,896 $ 51,868 $ 77,446 $ 41,340 $ 103,736 $ 919,321 $ 322,725 $ 809,833 $ (516,488) $ 80,108 $ (407,000) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Factors
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)

Appendix A20
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Pleasant Hill
Population 34,077
Square Miles 7.08
Services Calls 1,195
Animals Sheltered 368
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 202,417 $ 48,187 $ 117,636 $ 164,413 $ 190,389 $ 55,800 $ 190,389 $ 26,063 $ 18,648 $ 15,277 $ 52,126 $ 334,088 $ 119,265 $ 406,929 $ (131,670) $ 83,153 $ (204,511) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus

Appendix A21
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Richmond
Population 110,378
Square Miles 52.51
Services Calls 7,268
Animals Sheltered 1,191
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 655,645 $ 357,540 $ 715,461 $ 532,548 $ 616,685 $ 414,028 $ 616,685 $ 84,420 $ 113,415 $ 113,355 $ 168,840 $ 1,416,566 $ 884,923 $ 1,318,073 $ (760,921) $ (229,277) $ (662,427) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services (Subsidy)/Surplus Cost Allocation Factors
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals

Appendix A22
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of San Pablo
Population 30,829
Square Miles 2.63
Services Calls 1,586
Animals Sheltered 333
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 183,124 $ 17,901 $ 156,126 $ 148,743 $ 172,243 $ 20,729 $ 172,243 $ 23,579 $ 24,749 $ 5,675 $ 47,158 $ 351,947 $ 44,305 $ 368,143 $ (168,823) $ 138,819 $ (185,019) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Factors
Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services

Appendix A23
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of San Ramon
Population 78,363
Square Miles 18.64
Services Calls 1,729
Animals Sheltered 845
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 465,476 $ 126,919 $ 170,203 $ 378,083 $ 437,817 $ 146,972 $ 437,817 $ 59,934 $ 26,981 $ 40,239 $ 119,868 $ 667,953 $ 314,130 $ 935,767 $ (202,477) $ 151,346 $ (470,291) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services (Subsidy)/Surplus Cost Allocation Factors
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals

Appendix A24
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Walnut Creek
Population 70,018
Square Miles 19.77
Services Calls 2,686
Animals Sheltered 755
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 415,907 $ 134,614 $ 264,409 $ 337,820 $ 391,193 $ 155,881 $ 391,193 $ 53,552 $ 41,914 $ 42,678 $ 107,103 $ 709,154 $ 333,173 $ 836,116 $ (293,247) $ 82,734 $ (420,209) Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services

Appendix A25
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity Contra Costa County Remaining Service Area
Population 171,122
Square Miles 413.04
Services Calls 10,690
Animals Sheltered 1,846
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles
Actual Per-Capita
Cost
$ 2,831,225 $ 2,900,791 $ 1,361,452 $ 825,623 $ 1,419,760 $ 3,360,594 $ 956,064 $ 130,878 $ 267,283 $ 920,375 $ 261,757 $ 2,912,090 $ 7,181,761 $ 2,043,444 $ (80,865) $ (4,350,536) $ 787,781 Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94
without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94
without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41
Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04
Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84
FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Factors
Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services

From: Beth Ward
To: Paul Reyes; Lisa Kirk; Peter Wilson
Cc: Sarah Shkidt
Subject: Re: Measure X funding for Contra Costa Animal Services Date: Friday, January 14, 2022 1:56:01 PM
Hello all,
I placed the document in the Community Cat Google Drive after the meeting. Everyone should have access.

Please let us know if you are having trouble accessing the google drive.

Best regards,
Beth
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Paul Reyes <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 12:28:57 PM
To: Lisa Kirk <[email protected]>; Peter Wilson <[email protected]> Cc: Sarah Shkidt <[email protected]>; Beth Ward <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Measure X funding for Contra Costa Animal Services Hi Lisa,
We will find a copy of what was submitted and send it to you. We should be able to send you this info by the end of today, if not we will send it Tuesday (Monday is a holiday).

Thank you,
Paul Reyes
Senior Deputy County Administrator
From: Lisa Kirk <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 10:08 AM
To: Paul Reyes <[email protected]>; Peter Wilson <[email protected]> Subject: Measure X funding for Contra Costa Animal Services Good morning Paul,
At a meeting on January 5th 2022, Beth Ward director of Animal Services stated to a group of nonprofits that she made a proposal and submitted it for measure X funding for her department.

I'm unsure of the process considering that the measure X committee was formed by the board of supervisors. Was this proposal submitted directly to the standing committee or would you have reviewed it also?

I'm trying to obtain a copy of animal services proposal for measure x funding.

Do you have a copy or can you direct me to the appropriate entity to receive one. Do I need to do a public freedom information act? This request will help the nonprofits better understand the direction of animal services and its funding. I'm willing to pay for any cost associated with it.

Please advise,
Thank you Lisa Kirk 925-382-5249

From: Tia Wilborn
To: Dept Heads
Cc: Dennis Bozanich; Enid Mendoza; Julie Enea; Lara DeLaney; Laura Strobel; Paul Reyes Subject: Measure X CAB Presentation Schedule and Guidance Date: Monday, May 3, 2021 9:31:46 AM
Attachments: Memo to department heads - MXCAB presentation schedule and guidance.pdf MXCAB presentation schedule only .pdf
See the below message from the County Administrator.

Good morning Department Heads,
Attached is the Measure X Community Advisory Board (MXCAB) presentation guidance memo and schedule for their meetings. All meetings are on Wednesday evenings beginning at 5:00 PM.

A panel format will be used for presentation:
· Panel of speakers, includes county staff, community-based organizations, issue-specific experts, and residents with lived experience of the need or issue being discussed
· Each panelist has up to 10 minutes to present
· Questions/discussion with MXCAB members and alternates (20-30 minutes) · Public comment
The materials were developed by the MXCAB to guide the development of your presentations. It would be helpful to give some context of the costs associated with your requests, acknowledging that the MXCAB is making funding priority recommendations, which the Board of Supervisors will be making the actual funding allocations. Note that EHSD and Veterans Services Department are scheduled first for May 12th. For those of you not scheduled for the first date, it would be prudent to watch one of the panel discussions before your turn.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Monica Nino

Tia Wilborn
Executive Assistant to the County Administrator
Contra Costa County
1025 Escobar Street, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Phone: (925) 655-2044
This email may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact me immediately and delete the message and its attachments.

From: Lisa Driscoll
To: Candace Andersen
Subject: RE: Measure X Priority List
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:47:00 AM
Yes, good plan for the report – I’m including that.

Regarding Animal Services – highly unlikely Measure X will be available now or in the future (and I can’t count to three on this one). Plan is to track the impact of the added position and include it as a follow-up for general purpose revenue funding in the future. And continue to pursue additional city funding.
……… Lisa
Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director
County Administrator’s Office
1025 Escobar Street, 4th Floor
Martinez, Ca 94553
(925) 655-2047
This document may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please contact me immediately and delete the message and its attachments.

From: Candace Andersen <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:44 AM
To: Lisa Driscoll <[email protected]>
Cc: Jill Ray <[email protected]>; Gayle Israel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Measure X Priority List
Lisa,
One other thought – since I did not put Animal Services on the list in light or our discussion yesterday, but I would like the staff report to address how things that we think could/should be funded by Measure X can be added in the future. Would it be through the $20,000 Consultant we hire including a section on “What might we have missed?”, or a mechanism for Department Heads, BOS members or others to submit ideas for future funding.

Thanks!
Candace
Candace J. Kay Andersen
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
District 2
[email protected]
Tel. 925.957.8860
Cell 925.768.2163
San Ramon Valley Office
309 Diablo Road, Danville, CA 94526
Lamorinda Office
3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Lafayette, CA 94549
From: Candace Andersen <[email protected]> Date: Monday, October 18, 2021 at 2:50 PM
To: Lisa Driscoll <[email protected]>
Cc: Jill Ray <[email protected]>
Subject: Measure X Priority List
Here is my updated priority list. Thank you, Lisa!
-Candace
Candace J. Kay Andersen
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
District 2
San Ramon Valley Office
309 Diablo Road
Danville, CA. 94526
Lamorinda Office
3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd.

Lafayette, CA. 94549
[email protected]
Tel. 925-957-8860

From: Beth Ward
To: Paul Reyes
Cc: "Arturo Castillo"
Subject: FW: Published Agenda Notification
Date: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:18:00 AM
Hi Paul,
As we discussed, I am pulling together a proposal for the use of Measure X Funds to support a Spay and Neuter Initiative for Contra Costa County. Looks like the Finance Committee will be meeting on 12/6 to discuss – when should I have a document ready for submission for the agenda? Thank you,
Beth
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 4:27 PM
To: Beth Ward <[email protected]>
Subject: Published Agenda Notification
Beth Ward
This is an automatic notification that the following agenda has been published and is available online.

Click on the hyperlink below to go directly to the agenda on the public web site. 12/06/21 FINANCE COMMITTEE
You are receiving this notification per your request.

Click on the hyperlink below to unsubscribe.

Unsubscribe

From: Arturo Castillo
To: Beth Ward
Subject: RE: Measure X Proposal
Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 4:17:16 PM
Can we discuss this today?
Arturo Castillo, MPA
Administrative Services Officer
Contra Costa Animal Services
4800 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
925-608-8408
This message, together with any attachments, is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, or copying of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments, from your computer.

From: Beth Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 3:21 PM
To: Arturo Castillo <[email protected]>
Subject: Measure X Proposal
Hi Arturo,
This is greatly delayed but I still would like to move forward and send to Paul – I need some numbers from you for the following:

Costs to increase current clinic capacity:

Add 2 surgery days per week for targeted public surgeries.

Staff needed:
1 Vet (contract) - $100.00 per hour (use this since form what I hear it might take that to do S/N on Saturdays)
1 RVT
3 VA’s
1 Clerk

Cost?
To do 4 vaccine clinics per week for 4 hours/day, 48 weeks per year so 192 clinics. (not sure how this would look on schedule but will need approximate cost for staffing) Vet (use the $100/hr)
2 VA
1 Clerk
Cost?
Thank you,
Beth

From: Beth Ward
To: Arturo Castillo
Subject: Measure X Proposal
Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 3:21:09 PM
Attachments: Measure X.docx
Hi Arturo,
This is greatly delayed but I still would like to move forward and send to Paul – I need some numbers from you for the following:

Costs to increase current clinic capacity:

Add 2 surgery days per week for targeted public surgeries.

Staff needed:
1 Vet (contract) - $100.00 per hour (use this since form what I hear it might take that to do S/N on Saturdays)
1 RVT
3 VA’s
1 Clerk
Cost?
To do 4 vaccine clinics per week for 4 hours/day, 48 weeks per year so 192 clinics. (not sure how this would look on schedule but will need approximate cost for staffing) Vet (use the $100/hr)
2 VA
1 Clerk
Cost?
Thank you,
Beth

From: Paul Reyes
To: Beth Ward
Cc: Arturo Castillo; Sarah Shkidt
Subject: RE: Measure X Funding Proposal for Animal Services Date: Thursday, December 2, 2021 10:36:44 AM
I talked with Monica last night, and they are not taking new proposals.

From: Beth Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 10:33 AM
To: Paul Reyes <[email protected]>
Cc: Arturo Castillo <[email protected]>; Sarah Shkidt <[email protected]> Subject: Measure X Funding Proposal for Animal Services Good morning,
Attached is our proposal for consideration to provide Animal Services with Measure X Funding to expand our ability to provide services to Contra Costa County residents.

Please review and let us know next steps.

Many thanks,
Beth

From: Beth Ward
To: Steve Burdo; Katherine Mills; Arturo Castillo; Jane Andreotti Subject: Re: measure X draft proposal
Date: Thursday, December 2, 2021 12:06:05 PM
Hello all,
I was just informed that after a discussion last night they have decided that they will not be accepting any new proposals.

Disappointing, yes, but we have done the work so we are prepared for when that changes and they begin accepting proposals again.

Thank you all again for you help and support,
Beth
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Beth Ward
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 10:26:32 AM
To: Steve Burdo <[email protected]>; 'Arturo Castillo' <[email protected]>; Katherine Mills <[email protected]>; 'Jane Andreotti' <[email protected]>
Subject: measure X draft proposal
Hello all,
Here is the Measure X proposal that I have sent the CAO’s office for consideration. Thank you for your help and support in making this ask possible.

Best regards,
Beth

From: Lisa Kirk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 7:31 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment regarding the animal service contract Good Evening City Council,
I am a volunteer of the Contra Costa SPCA one of the oldest non-profit animal rescues in Contra Costa County. My volunteer position includes trap neutered return of community cats in East Contra Costa County. This area has no Animal Service facility and has a horrific cat and dog overpopulation.

All volunteer 5013 C's animal rescues have been the safety net for animals in providing both spay and neuter services and adoption for the last 3 years.

In October of 2021 we were told by a Private Foundation that is contracting with Contra Costa Animal Services, that both rescue groups and private citizens will no longer be able to bring healthy cats and kittens to the shelter. CCAS is turning away healthy cats and kittens and leaving them outside unaltered, unvaccinated and producing more unwanted litters.

No resources were offered to nonprofits to deal with this population.

This private foundation and CCAS implied there would be money through our board of supervisors and allocation of Measure X funding. The proposal stated that would be over $350,000 to assist with spay and neuters of 450,000 indoor outdoor cats and 185,000 dogs in this county. This was not supported by the board of supervisors nor did Animal Services even bother to to present the proposal.

The service contract you have before you has no mention of this.

I hope you can understand our concerns regarding the increase in City fees without an actual amount for non-mandated services such as adequate spay and neuters for the population of this County.

The state of California has no agency that oversees the domestic animal population in the state nor do they reimburse shelters for any spay and neuters. More concerning was the grand jury report stating that CCAS should switch nonmandated services to all volunteer non-profits.

Now Animal Services is coming to Cities for an increase of just mandated services. They're calling it a pilot project and saying that they need a new service model for financial sustainability. Yet demanding that Cities sign a three-year contract that automatically renews. The only other option is that Cities provide mandated Services themselves.

Cities are now finding themselves in the same position as small nonprofits.

CCAS did not reimburse the cities for the last 3 years when they clearly had a reduction of burden.

I see nothing in the presentations that they have tried to reduce staffing, increase dog licensing or any cost saving measures except to cut services to the public since 2020. They close the Pinole shelter in 2021 and retain the same amount of staff and management. Currently there is a position of a public information officer that makes over 100,000.

They have contracted out services and still maintain the same staffing levels.

I am a resident of an unincorporated area. When I request a field officer I have to call the sheriff's department, that then puts the call through to Animal Services and I have to wait for a call back. I believe the cost for this is $300,000 a year.

I have seen the emphasis on dead animal pickup. I've not seen numbers for the request of calls and I understand the cities already up their contracts 12 cents to have another utility person at the tune of $75,000 a year. And this services is only for public areas. It baffles me that such a concern over dead animals, while watching the cat population climb to almost three quarters of a million.

As far as injured and sick wildlife, this is a public safety issue. In 2020, I got caught in the middle of "we won't pick up sick wildlife". . Animal Services wouldn't come out, fish and wildlife would not come out. I had to put a barrier around the animal so that children and the neighbors would leave it alone.

The symptoms the raccoon was displaying, could have even been distemper or rabies .

No authority that had the mandate to controlled rabies would come out to retrieve the animal. We were able to sweep the raccoon into a trap and transfer to Lindsay museum where it was euthanize for distemper.

Recently there was an incident in Brentwood with a skunk on the driveway that the people called an exterminator company.

Is unknown if this animal was assessed for rabies because nobody that is mandated to control rabies in this County would come out.

I've included the 2018 performance report by Maddie's submitted by Contra Costa Animal Services. It states in that report that they had 158 reports of wildlife. Yes Animal Services used to come up and pick up sick and injured wildlife. So if CCAS stating that their officers are not trained for wildlife I suggest that they get them trained. Many animal service contracts do not differentiate between cats,dogs or wildlife especially when it comes to rabies control. CCAS is putting your citizens and all citizens in Contra Costa County in danger.