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 TotalCost 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 TotalCost 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 - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field 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 - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services
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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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
(Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services
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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services
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
(Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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
(Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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 - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services 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
(Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments V.4 New Business
Date: Friday, May 13, 2022 10:32:26 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Good Evening Mayor Butt, Council Members and Staff,
I would Direct the City Manager to Release the Class and Comp Study Sincerely
Cordell
From: Janis Hashe
To: Gayle McLaughlin; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Melvin Willis; [email protected]; Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates
Cc: City Clerk Dept User; Dave Aleshire; Shasa Curl
Subject: City Council Agenda Item V6
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:10:58 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected].
Learn why this is important
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Re: Point Molate
As a Richmond resident who has closely followed the situation regarding Point Molate, I strongly urge the council to pay urgent attention to the City Attorney's letter listing the multiple ways SunCal is NOT in compliance with their stated agreement, despite having had two years to comply.
This letter lists the following ways SunCal is still not in compliance:
No written assurance of Transfer of Remediation Responsibility required by the Development Agreement.
No proof of “Guaranty” or “Initial Project Performance and Payment Security for the first Site Improvement Phase required by the Development Agreement No Final Financing Plan required by the Development Agreement: their preliminary plan requested a $292 million Community Financing District bond. The City Council prudently disapproved this proposal because of the millions of dollars of impacts to the City’s General Fund. SunCal came back with the same plan.
No Payment of Fees and Costs required by the Development Agreement: at the March 18 meeting outstanding fees and costs owed to the City were identified. These costs have still not been paid. Remaining Closing Issues:
i. FF&E Specifications for Fire/Police Station. This needs to be completed. ii. Status of Proposed Final Plans for First Site Improvement Phase. iii. Evidence of Availability of Funds needs to be provided.
The fate of Point Molate impacts all Richmond residents, as well as the environment.
SunCal clearly cannot be trusted to adhere to any promises or contractual obligations they have made. Please vote accordingly.
Sincerely yours,
Janis Hashe
336 W. Bissell Ave.
Richmond, CA 94801
From: Jeannette Kortz
To: claudia jimenez; Melvin Willis; Gayle McLaughlin; richcityservant; Demnlus Johnson; Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external
Cc: City Clerk Dept User; Dave Aleshire; Shasa Curl
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT, AGENDA ITEM V6.
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 12:52:26 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected].
Learn why this is important
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear City Council,
I once again write to you today, this time about Agenda Item V6.
You must not agree to sell Point Molate to SunCal, and the following reasons have been pointed out by our City Attorney, David Alshire.
1)
There is no written assurance of Transfer of Remediation Responsibility required by the Development Agreement.
2)
There is no proof of “Guaranty” or “Initial Project Performance and Payment Security for the first Site Improvement Phase required by the Development Agreement.
3)
There is no Final Financing Plan required by the Development Agreement. Their preliminary plan requested a $292 million Community Financing District Bond. The City Council rightly disapproved of this proposal because of the millions of dollars and impacts to the City’s general fund. SunCal came back with the same plan. 4)
There is no payment of Fees and Costs required by the Development Agreement: at the March 18th meeting, outstanding fees and costs owed to the City were identified.
These costs and fees still have not been paid.
5)
The following are remaining closing issues:
-FF&E specifications for the Fire and Police stations need to be completed. -Status of Proposed Final Plans for First Site Improvement Phase.
Evidence of Availability of Funds needs to be provided.
Thank you for your time,
Jeanne Kortz
Richmond Resident
From: Katrinka Ruk
To: City Clerk Dept User; Tom Butt - external; Eduardo Martinez; Nat Bates; claudia jimenez; Demnlus Johnson III; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis
Cc: Bob Connolly; Scott Sexton; Scott Sexton; Aaron Winer; Hakim Johnson; Julie Abate; Maryann Moran; Barbara O"Neill; Desiree Heveroh; Fred Glueck; Bob Connolly; Stan Teaderman; Jill Rodby; Bielle Moore; Larry Ficken; James Lee; John Ziesenhenne
Subject: Public Comment: Subject: Item V.6,“Point Molate DDA Closing Issues with Winehaven Legacy, LLC.REVIEW the latest submittals from SunCal and provide direction
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 5:36:52 PM
Attachments: 05.17.22 Item V6 PtMolate DDA.docx
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
COUNCIL OF INDUSTRIES
P.O. BOX 70088, PT. RICHMOND, CA 94807
(510)215-9325
501(C)(6) FED ID# 94-0672760
May 17, 2022
TO: Richmond City Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council, City Clerk
Subject: Item V.6,“Point Molate DDA Closing Issues with Winehaven Legacy, LLC.REVIEW the latest submittals from SunCal and provide direction – City Attorney’s Office (Dave Aleshire 510-620-6509)
The following comments are being submitted on behalf of the Council of Business and Industries:
The City Council voted to not approve the first essential step (Resolution of Intent) to form a Community Facilities District (CFD) to finance the infrastructure of the Pt.
Molate Development. This is a common tool widely used in large scale development projects. Case-in-point, CFDs were used to finance the infrastructure at Marina Bay.
The refusal of the City Council to move forward with the CFD is largely based on an argument that the projected sales prices of units are too high, based on a one -page analysis by an ex-city planner who ignored the 2 fiscal studies completed in 2020, and which were accepted by the city. The only thing that has changed is a City Council who doesn't want new development.
This project will provide fiscal benefits to the city. Currently there is no revenue generated from the property and it costs the City more than $1 million a year to maintain. The project will deliver an estimated General Fund surplus of approximately $1.4 million annually. At buildout, the estimated General Fund surplus is approximately $6.8 million annually.
In addition, the one-time Property Transfer Tax Revenues to the City’s General Fund are estimated at approximately $24.8 million to $37.8 million. All new property transfers in the Project will generate new property transfer tax revenues to the City in future years.
Regarding employment opportunities - the project is slated to create 5,000 jobs over the course of the development. Without the development, that is jobs lost. Many of these are local Richmond jobs.
Should this not move forward, what will happen to the plan to rehabilitate 300,000 SF of 100+ year-old historic buildings in the Winehaven Historic District- listed on the National Register of Historic Places? Will it continue to erode and not be preserved or will the City have to now step in to preserve the National historic district? <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
The City needs to seriously consider, i
f SunCal and the City of Richmond do not close
on May 21, then Upstream and the Guidiville Tribe have the right to buy all of the development areas for $400 and they will inherit all of the existing entitlements earned by SunCal for development. And what type of development will these developers consider for the site?
What remains outstanding is how is the City of Richmond exposed to legal claims if the project is denied? Has the City Attorney explained this to Council and to the residents, property owners, businesses and community?
Overall, what are we losing without the Pt. Molate development? <!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->The clean-up of the entire site;
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->public accessibility to open space; <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->removal of twelve 2-million-gallon fuel tanks; <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->an expanded beach park 4X larger than the current park;
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->a restored Winehaven historic district; <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->completion of the bay trail; and <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->affordable housing.
To convert Pt. Molate to a park still remains unclear – this would require a land trust or park district to purchase the site for $45 million which is highly unlikely.
The city needs to seriously evaluate the merits of the Suncal development project.
Regards,
Katrinka Ruk
Executive Director
Cc: COI Board, Richmond Chamber President.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
Katrinka Ruk
Executive Director
Council of Business & Industries
510)260-4820 cell
http://www.councilofindustries.com
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer immediately. Thank you.
From: Marge Atkinson
To: Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Claudia Jimenez; Melvin Willis Cc: City Clerk Dept User; Dave Aleshire; Shasa Curl
Subject: Say NO to SunCal developers
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 5:48:49 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Honorable Martinez and Honorable McLaughlin,
Please reject the SunCal deal as this company is derelict in it's duties to the City and has a negative reputation as to how it does business.
They have NOT MET the basic development agreement requirements even after two years! They have avoided specifics and have given no credible evidence that could ever follow through with their promises. Of particular concern in their lack of transparency of having the Availability of Funds required to bring the project forward with any success. They are untrustworthy!
Please reject this attempt as stonewalling from a this company that would destroy a part of Richmond for their own greed and definitelynot in the interest of the people of Richmond.
Respectfully,
Marge Atkinson
Former Albany Mayor
Board Member Citizens for East Shore Parks
From: pat
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments agenda item #V6
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 12:48:20 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello, I have been following debate over development plans with Suncal at Point Molate. I'm a resident of Point Richmond and don't want sale of Point Molate to go through.
I don't support building single family housing at this location. I think the costs outweigh the benefits, and it's simply not a great location for housing due to narrow access and the need for a fire station. I read Jeff Kilbreth's analysis and find it well argued and compelling.
I noticed an idea for sports fields by Toney Wright and agree that's a good plan with need behind it. I'm a heavy user of the Bay Trail for cycling and see constant use of the shoreline fields in Berkeley that Wright cited as an example. This friday I helped organize a huge cycling event at the new Brickyard Cove park at Berkeley Marina, directly adjacent to there, bringing 1000 users.
Proponents of the housing plan argue that housing prices seem likely to rise infinitely and that it will relieve limits on housing supply; i think it would bring more speculation instead of serving needy people and there is a structural problem behind the whole argument that can not be solved by just building more. We saw one with the 2007 financial crisis. If more housing is built, at least put it in the center of existing services where people who already live here will benefit.
It isn't a bad idea to withhold sale of Point Molate, even if it involves potential litigation or settlement, if a better plan can be done.
Pat lake
312 golden gate ave
Point richmond
From: Roberta Feliciano
To: Bruce Beyaert; City Clerk Dept User; Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external; Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis
Cc: Lina Velasco; Terry Manley; Marcia; Bruce Brubaker
Subject: RE: Public Comments - Agenda Item W1 - Quarry Residential Project Redesign Date: Monday, May 16, 2022 7:03:41 PM
Attachments: C3.0-C3.1-Vesting Tentative Map.pdf
Quarry Single Housing-L4.pdf
Dear Bruce,
Thanks for your comments. Attached are the updated sheets addressing your email below.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Roberta Feliciano
Senior Planner
CITY OF RICHMOND | PLANNING DIVISION
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804
Tel: 510.620.6662 | Fax: 510.620.6858
Web: www.ci.richmond.ca.us/planning
| E-News Signup
Follow us on: Facebook | Twitter | RSS
From: Bruce Beyaert <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 2:36 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User <[email protected]>; Nat Bates <[email protected]>; Tom Butt - external <[email protected]>; Claudia Jimenez <[email protected]>; Demnlus Johnson <[email protected]>; Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>; Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]>
Cc: Lina Velasco <[email protected]>; Roberta Feliciano <[email protected]>; Terry Manley <[email protected]>; Marcia <[email protected]>; Bruce Brubaker <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item W1 - Quarry Residential Project Redesign
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Mayor Butt and City Councilors,
TRAC, the Trails for Richmond Action Committee, would like to point out errors in the Vesting Tentative Map and Drawing L4 as contained in the May 17 agenda report for the redesigned Quarry Residential Project.
Vesting Tentative Map
: The attached Vesting Tentative Map improperly labels the Canal Blvd. trailhead staging area as “Future Staging Area by Others”; however, Condition 44 requires the developer to complete this staging area. This label should be removed.
Miller/Knox Trallhead Parking and Improvements Plan Sheet L4: The attached Drawing L4 improperly labels a required new Bay Trail section as a “Service Road” and has a gate at Canal Blvd. that when closed would block pedestrian and cyclist access to the Bay Trail. The applicants presentation corrected these errors during the April 21 Planning Commission meeting, but they are not corrected in the City Council agenda package.
This Bay Trail section is required by Condition of Approval 25 stating in part:
"Applicant shall construct, or pay the full cost of constructing, a new, paved twelve (12)- foot wide Bay Trail section linking the Condition 21 staging area with the Applicant's improved Bay Trail along Seacliff Drive and the Bay Trail along Canal Blvd in the vicinity of the access road for 1001 Canal Blvd.”
There is no purpose for a “Service Road” at this location, and it’s not part of the EVA for the housing site. Sheet L4 should be revised to change the “Service Road” labels to "Bay Trail”, add a bollard at each end and remove the gate at Canal Blvd. The bollards will landmark the trail entry and also serve to slow cyclists.
Bruce
Bruce Beyaert, TRAC Chair
__________________
Bruce Beyaert, TRAC Chair
[email protected]
tel. 510-235-2835
http://www.pointrichmond.com/baytrail/
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/109/TRAC
Photos: https://sfbaytrailinrichmond.shutterfly.com/pictures/5 .
4 STOP
1325678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243 45464748495152535464656667686970717273747576
4450555657585960616263SEACLIFF DRIVELANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICTAPN 560-330-03111495 OR 791SEACLIFFDRIVE LANDS OF KM PHOENIXHOLDINGS, LLCAPN 560-330-0232016-18306 LANDS OF SEACLIFF AT POINTRICHMOND OWNERS ASSOCIATION2006-0343286CITY OF RICHMOND(1986-212374)LANDS OF RICHMOND COVE 1, INC.PARCEL 2 (2009-0018031)CONSERVATION EASEMENT(2009-0010832)LANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
LANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
LANDS OF EAST BAY REGIONALPARK DISTRICT (2009-0010830)60' WIDE ACCESS &UTILITY EASEMENT
STAGING AREA
CANAL BLVDCANAL BLVD
SLOPE EASEMENT(1986-21237213278 OR 444)
80' WIDE TEMPORARYCONSTRUCTION, GRADING,AND SLOPE EASEMENT 80' SOIL NAILWALL EASEMENTPARCEL APARCEL BPARCEL C
PARCEL D
PARCEL FPROPOSED E.V.A.EASEMENT AREA
PARCEL E
PROPOSED BAY TRAILCONNECTIONRE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.
RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.
PARCEL G
DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:
Sheet Number:
RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:
C3.0THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTVESTING TENTATIVE MAP Graphic Scale (in feet)01 inch = 80 ft.1608080
LEGEND:BOUNDARY LINELOT LINEEXISTING EASEMENTPROPOSED EASEMENTRIGHT OF WAY 41325678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243 45464748495152535464656667686970717273747576
445055565758596061626326'
24' 24'
24'24' 24'
24'
A STREETA STREETA STREET
B STREET
B STREET
C STREETD STREETMAINENTRYSEACLIFF DRIVESEACLIFF DRIVEPROPOASED E.V.A.EASEMENT AREA(AREA = 6,221 SF)EVAROADLANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICTAPN 560-330-03111495 OR 791 LANDS OF KM PHOENIXHOLDINGS, LLCAPN 560-330-0232016-18306 34' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W34' R/W
34' R/W52' R/W
PARCEL APARCEL BPARCEL C
PARCEL D
PARCEL F
10' STORM DRAIN
EASEMENT
10' STORM DRAIN
EASEMENT
10' STORM DRAIN
EASEMENT
10' STORM DRAIN
EASEMENT
PARCEL E
RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.STAGING AREA CONNECTION,SEE SHEET C3.0 24'36' R/W
PARCEL G3 STALLS
3 STALLS
4 STALLS
9 STALLS
10 STALLSPLAY AREA
4' 4'8'62'34'
R/WTRC
4' 4'10'62'34'
R/WTRC
4' 4'8'62'34'
R/WTRC10'
5'
5'
5'
PLAN 1(1,143 SF)PLAN 2(1,120 SF)PLAN 3(1,154 SF)10'
DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:
Sheet Number:
RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:
C3.1THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTVESTING TENTATIVE MAP Graphic Scale (in feet)01 inch = 40 ft.804040
TYPICAL LOT LAYOUTSCALE: 1" = 20'
LEGEND:BOUNDARY LINERIGHT OF WAYLOT LINEEXISTING EASEMENTPROPOSED EASEMENTPROPOSED CURB & SIDEWALKPROPOSED WALLPROPOSED BIORETENTION AREAPROPOSED PAVEMENT NOTES:TYPICAL LOT AREA: 2,108 SFFRONT SETBACK: 5'SIDE SETBACK: 4'REAR SETBACK: 8' STOP
VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN121 PARK PLACEPOINT RICHMOND, CA 94801TELEPHONE 510.237.7745 L4 02040 10 RICHMOND, CA # 2016-0536THE QUARRY
EXISTING VEGETATION WILL BEINVENTORIED AND NATIVE TREES,SHRUBS GRASSES AND FORBSWILL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTEDIN PLACE. ALL NON-NATIVE TREESAND SHRUBS REMOVED.DISTURBED AREAS PLANTED WITHCOAST LIVE OAKS AND AND NATIVEEVERGREEN SHRUBS ANDHYDROSEED WITH NATIVEBUCKWHEAT, GRASSES, ANDCOSTAL SHRUB VEGETATION.SEE SHEET L6 FOR NATIVEHILLSIDE PLANT LIST.
MAY 2022CITY COUNCIL
EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS ROADEAST BAY REGIONALPARK DISTRICT,MILLER/KNOX PARKTRAILHEAD, NEWPARKING AREA,CONNECTED TOEXISTING TRAIL EXISTING SHIPYARD 3 TRAIL
CANAL BOULEVARD
SEACLIFF DRIVE
RETAINED NATIVE SHRUB AREASWITH BACCHARIS, TOYON,COFFEEBERRY AND FESCUEGRASSES. AREAS AREDIAGRAMMATIC AND ILLUSTRATETHE GENERAL CONCEPT OFPROTECTED VEGETATION ZONES EXISTING OVERHEAD POWERLINES. TREES LOCATED TO AVOIDCONFLICT WITH LINES ANDUNDERGROUND UTILITYEASEMENTS
ENLARGEMENT PLANMILLER/KNOX TRAILHEAD PARKINGAND IMPROVEMENTS
OPTIONAL SIDEWALK AND STAIRCONNECTION FROM BAY TRAIL TO EVAROAD COAST LIVE OAK, PLANTED AT24" BOX SIZENATIVE EVERGREEN SHRUB,TOYON, COFFEBERRY, BACCHARISOR CEANOTHUS, PLANTED AT5-GALLON SIZE, MINIMUM HYDROSEED IN DISTURBED AREAS.SEE SHEET L6 FOR NATIVEHILLSIDE PLANT LIST 12'-0" WIDE ASPHALT BAY TRAILWITH 3'-0" WIDE DECOMPOSEDGRANITE SHOULDERS TO EITHERSIDE. CONNECTS TO THE BAYTRAIL ALONG SEACLIFF ROADNEW GATE ANDBOLLARDS INSTALLEDAT TRAIL ENTRANCE PARALLEL PARKINGSTALLS AT TRAIL HEADNEW 5'-0" WIDESIDEWALK INSTALLEDALONG CURB ATPARALLEL PARKINGSTALLS
BOLLARDS INSTALLEDAT BAY TRAIL ENTRANCEPER EBRPD STANDARDDETAILS REINSTALLED 2'x3' INTERPRETIVESIGN PANEL AND FRAME. FINALLOCATION TO BE DETERMINED INCOOPERATION WITH TRAC
CREST TRAIL
BOLLARDS INSTALLEDAT BAY TRAIL PER EBRPDSTANDARD DETAILS You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Roberta Feliciano
To: Sabrina Lundy
Cc: Lina Velasco
Subject: FW: 2022-05-17 Wenter Letter to Velasco and Feliciano re Quarry Residential Project Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:55:55 AM
Attachments: 2022-05-17 Wenter Letter to Velasco and Feliciano re Quarry Residential Project.pdf Hi Sabrina,
Please see attached public comment for Item W.1. Quarry Residential Project Redesign on tonight’s CC agenda.
Best,
Roberta Feliciano
Senior Planner
CITY OF RICHMOND | PLANNING DIVISION
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804
Tel: 510.620.6662 | Fax: 510.620.6858
Web: www.ci.richmond.ca.us/planning
| E-News Signup
Follow us on: Facebook | Twitter | RSS
From: Karen Irias <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:42 AM
To: Lina Velasco <[email protected]>; Roberta Feliciano <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Bryan Wenter <[email protected]> Subject: 2022-05-17 Wenter Letter to Velasco and Feliciano re Quarry Residential Project [IWOV- iManage.FID1049859]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email is sent on behalf of Bryan W. Wenter, AICP.
Replies may be directed to Mr. Wenter at [email protected]. Thank you.
Karen Irias | Miller Starr Regalia
Assistant to Bryan W. Wenter, AICP
1331 North California Boulevard, Fifth Floor, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 t: 925.935.9400 | d: 925.942.4541 | f: 925.933.4126 | [email protected] | www.msrlegal.com
MILLER STARR REGALIA CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This electronic mail message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this message or by telephone. Thank you.
RDCE-57796\2626988.2
1331 N. California Blvd.
Fifth Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
T 925 935 9400
F 925 933 4126
www.msrlegal.com
Bryan W. Wenter, AICP
Direct Dial: 925 941 3268
[email protected]
Offices: Walnut Creek / San Francisco / Newport Beach
May 17, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Lina Velasco, Director
City of Richmond
Community Development Department
450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor
Richmond, CA 94804
E-Mail: [email protected]
Roberta Feliciano, Senior Planner
City of Richmond
Community Development Department
450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor
Richmond, CA 94804
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Quarry Residential Project Redesign Project (PLN21-327)
Dear Ms. Velasco and Ms. Feliciano:
As you know, this firm represents New West Company (“New West”) in connection with New West’s development of The Quarry, a 76-unit housing development project (“Project”) located on approximately 6.3-acres of an 18.4-acre site in Richmond (“Project Site”). We write to ask for the City Council’s approval of this Project for the reasons explained in your May 17, 2022 staff report, which describes the Project’s eligibility for a density bonus under the controlling provisions of state law (Gov.
Code §§ 65915-65918)1 and the protections that apply to the Project under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) (Gov. Code § 65589.5). We do so in part in response to questions that arose at the April 21, 2022 Planning Commission wherein staff was essentially asked if state law mandates approval of the Project.
As plainly explained in your excellent staff report and briefly elaborated on here, the Project meets all of the City’s applicable, objective development standards and state law therefore does require approval of the Project.
As explained in the agenda materials and as relevant here, the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. As a result, under the provisions of subsection (j) of the HAA, the City cannot lawfully disapprove the Project. Instead, as explained in your staff report and further explained below, the City has a legal obligation to approve the Project.
Subsection (j) of the HAA provides that a decision to disapprove or reduce the density of a housing project that complies with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards”
1 All statutory references are to the California Government Code.
Lina Velasco, Director
Roberta Feliciano, Senior Planner
May 17, 2022
RDCE-57796\2626988.2
must be based on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the project would have “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” and (2) that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid this adverse impact. (§ 65589.5(j)(1)). The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” to mean “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (§ 65589.5(j)(1)(A)).
Section 65589.5(j) thus requires cities to determine whether a project complies with the applicable, objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design standards.
The HAA defines the term “objective” to mean “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (§ 65589.5(h)(8)).
Cities must make this objectivity determination based on a “reasonable person” standard. The HAA expressly provides that a housing development project “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.” (§ 65589.5(f)(4)).
Accordingly, an agency’s subjective standards are irrelevant. If a project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design standards in the eyes of a reasonable person, the project cannot be disapproved or conditioned on a lower density unless, based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, it would have a "specific, adverse impact" upon public health or safety and there is no feasible way to mitigate that impact. If a city’s disapproval or conditional approval is challenged in court, the burden is on the city to prove its decision conformed to all the conditions specified in the HAA. (§ 65589.6).
As you know, the Planning Commission and staff both recommend approval of the Project, including an Addendum to the Final EIR that addressed the original 2018 project approvals, as well as a Major Amendment to an Approved Planned Area Plan, Density Bonus for Waivers, Vesting Tentative Map, and Design Review, subject to certain conditions of approval. All by itself, these recommendations more than satisfy the HAA’s reasonable person standard. In any event and without elaborating further, we appreciate staff’s excellent work in connection with the Project and concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and therefore we respectfully request that the City Council follow that recommendation.
Lina Velasco, Director
Roberta Feliciano, Senior Planner
May 17, 2022
RDCE-57796\2626988.2
We appreciate the opportunity to communicate about this important Project. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
MILLER STARR REGALIA
Bryan W. Wenter
Bryan W. Wenter, AICP
BWW/kli
cc: Terry Manley, CEO
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments- X.1 Budget Session
Date: Friday, May 13, 2022 11:26:25 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Good Evening Mayor Butt, Council Members and Staff,
I do Appreciate the Presentations that the Community Development and Community Services Departments Sincerely
Cordell