Written Public Comments Received 5-17-2022 — Richmond City Council, May 17, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

From: alexandra davidman
To: Eduardo Martinez; Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Melvin Willis; Trina Jackson-Lincoln; Gayle McLaughlin; Nat Bates; [email protected]; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Point Molate <3
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:01:14 AM
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.

Hi,
Point Molate means something. It means something to the open spaces needed for people and wildlife, it means something to have such a place exist in Richmond. Point Molate was the meeting spot for me and my children and our friend when we searched for an open space we could meet with distance in the early days of Covid. My life is blessed with countless photos he takes of the magical bird life he has discovered there! Please make a decision that allows for the people of our community to keep coming to open, beautiful, special places like this. This place is to be enjoyed by expanding numbers of people who value a natural wonder in these times and places. Consider future generations, the irreplaceable nature of these shorelines, and the "priceless" gift you can deliver to the people of Richmond and the bay area!
Thank you, thank you for hearing my interests and concerns.

Best,
Alexandra (Alya) Davidman
From: Alicia House
To: Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Melvin Willis; Trina Jackson-Lincoln; Gayle McLaughlin; Eduardo Martinez; Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:59:44 AM
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 Council,
I ask that POINT MOLATE not be sold to SunCal and NO extension for SunCal.

POINT MOLATE should remain a beautiful and crucial park in the community, a treasured land and critical habitat for important species to continue to live and thrive.

Sincerely,
A concerned Richmond resident,
Alicia
From: anne fulmer
To: Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Demnlus Johnson; Claudia Jimenez; Tom Butt; [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:03:26 AM
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:

Please do not sell Point Molate to SunCal, nor approve an extension for SunCal. Protect the shores of SF Bay for future generations, while preserving Point Molate's wildlife, habitat, natural beauty and importance.

Do the right thing, please.

Thank you,
Anne Enright
From: David Kafton
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: David Kafton
Subject: "Public Comment, Closed Session, Pt. Molate"
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 12:25:11 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.

Dear Mayor & Councilmembers,
Greetings! Thank you very much for all you do to help make Richmond a better place to live.

We strongly urge you to oppose the sale of Pt. Molate to Suncal.

We strongly oppose a 2,000 unit residential development at Pt. Molate for several reasons:

1. The development would be situated in a VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD AREA. This past weekend in Laguna Niguel, located close to the Southern California coast, at least 20 multimillion dollar homes were destroyed in a wildfire. The chances of wildfires at Pt. Molate are supposed to increase as the climate gets warmer in this area.

2. Escape from Pt. Molate during wildfires, accidents at the adjacent Chevron refinery, or earthquakes are very problematic because egress from Pt. Molate is along a very narrow road ending at an unusually difficult entry onto Highway 580. How will 2,000 cars get out?

3. A 2,000 unit residential development with 4,000-5,000 residents and about 2,000 cars will have a negative impact on this fragile environment including hundreds of bird species as well as other animal and plant species.

4. The current proposed 2,000 unit residential development is likely to cost the City of Richmond millions of dollars.

5. The Pt. Molate Alliance, a broad coalition of individuals and organizations, opposes selling Pt. Molate to Suncal. They favor implementing their Community Plan which we support.

We moved to Marina Bay a few years ago from North Berkeley.

We love it here, especially the Open Space at Pt. Molate as well as the hundreds of acres of Open Space between Marina Bay and Pt. Isabel. We to conserve it and use it wisely.

Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.

All the best,
David & Toni Kafton

Kafton Real Estate
[email protected]
www.kaftonrealestate.com
510.524.8973
From: Deborah Bayer
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Fwd: Point Molate development
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 12:57:31 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.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Deborah Bayer <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:50 AM
Subject: Point Molate development
To: Butt, Tom <[email protected]
>, Nathaniel Bates <[email protected]>, Demnlus
Johnson III <[email protected]>, Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>, claudia jimenez <[email protected]>, Melvin Willis <[email protected]>, Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]> Dear Mayor and Council Members:

Please do not vote to finalize the development agreement with SunCal. I agree with many of Dave Aleshire's points included in the agenda documents: the failure of SunCal to come up with adequate financing in the wake of your vote against the CFD (they have had two years to figure this out, and the last minute doubling of the amount of the bond from $150 million to $298 million was the kind of bait and switch they are known for), the lack of an adequate phasing timeline so we can have an idea of when houses will be ready to be sold in an attempt to back up SunCal's assurances that enough houses would be sold in enough time to reach a "break even" point, the unequal amount of taxes residents of Point Molate would be paying for city services, the cost of running a fire station, the history of SunCal's bankruptcies -- all these are reason enough to squelch the deal at the current time. In addition there are the outstanding issues of building housing outside of the financial capacity of Richmond residents, traffic and greenhouse gas increases, lack of evacuation plans in case of disaster (we have been told all along this process that an evacuation plan would be produced), the inevitable destruction of the eel beds which provide an essential nursery to crabs and marine life, and finally the failure to acknowledge that in the face of impending climate disaster, the best thing we can all do is to hang on to the bits of nature we have left. In addition I would ask you to look at the grading maps presented in SunCal's plan. Once graded areas are accounted for, only 40%, not 70% of open space is provided. The loss of the Beach Park will close off access to one of the best places in Richmond for families and individuals to find a refuge from urban life and enjoy the restorative beauty of nature.

SunCal does not deserve an extension. They have squandered their time and you should not feel compelled to offer them more. Instead I would propose you take a serious look at the compromise settlement outlined by Robert Cheasty in his letter to Dave Aleshire. Upstream and the Tribe would like their money. There is a lot of state and NGO money for parks right now, and enthusiasm to preserve public land.

With the backing of the EBRPD and the city, I believe we can pull off a deal that would work for everyone.

Sincerely,
Deborah Bayer
510-685-5999
From: Wolf Mehling
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Point Molate
Date: Monday, May 16, 2022 10:08:11 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Please do not give point Molate to developers. We need it as park! Debra & Wolf Mehling, MD
Professor at UCSF
Sent from my iPhone
From: Doria Mueller
To: Tom Butt - external; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Demnlus Johnson; City Clerk Dept User; Trina Jackson-Lincoln
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 3:56:07 PM
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.

Do Not Sell Point Molate to SunCal and NO extension for SunCal! Dear City Council Members, Mayor, City Clerk and Staff, I believe that preserving the remaining open "natural" space on Point Molate would provide the most meaningful and significant value now and into the future. It is true whether one considers Climate Change, Pandemics, Public and Environmental Health, Property Values, Use of City Taxes or the Desirability of Richmond as a place of residence into the future.

Please see link below.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2021.797179/full I also agree with the positions of the Point Molate Alliance.

Respectfully,
Doria Mueller-Beilschmidt
Richmond/Bay Area Resident
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Monday, May 16, 2022 11:09:22 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.

Esteemed City Council,
VOTE NO EXTENSION FOR SUNCAL!
Don't give Point Molate to SunCal in a sweetheart deal.

Don't rip off Richmond residents of what could be a quality regional park.

Don't bankrupt our city over a speculator's ridiculous scheme.

The damage would be irreversible.

STOP IT!
Sincerely angry,
Elsa Stevens
Richmond voter
From: [email protected]
To: Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Demnlus Johnson; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis
Cc: City Clerk Dept User; Gail Seymour
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:55:42 AM
Attachments: Point Molate_Richmond City Council_17May2022.pdf 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Please see my attached letter.

Sincerely,
Gail Yamamoto Seymour
May 17, 2022 Richmond City Council 440 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804 Dear Mayor Butt, Councilmember Bates, Councilmember Jimenez, Councilmember Johnson, Councilmember Martinez, Councilmember McLaughlin, Councilmember Willis: Re: Public Comment Closed Session, Point Molate I am writing to urge you to vote against giving SunCal Co. an extension to submit its financial plan and to cancel the sale of Point Molate to SunCal Co. The justifications for cancelling this deal are many and have been discussed and debated for years. I am not aware of one positive reason for selling to SunCal, developing the property with luxury residences and converting this public property into a wealthy private enclave. Point Molate is rich in ecological biodiversity and its unique and rare eelgrass beds are critical to the ecological and economic health of the SF Bay area and the State. According to the World Health Organization, healthy human communities rely on well-functioning, bio-diverse ecosystems. Biodiversity is needed for clean air, fresh water, medicines and food security. It reduces disease and stabilizes the climate. Faced with the effects of climate change, it is dangerous to over-develop our landscapes. Richmond is home to underserved and marginalized communities. Public open spaces are crucial for community health and luxury home development at the expense of public health and economic stability should not be the Council’s priority or even a consideration. The economic analyses of the proposed development of Point Molate confirm that such development will negatively impact Richmond’s general fund and place a long-term financial burden on the people of Richmond. Not only will there be no benefit to the public, hardships will be created because public funds will be needed to subsidize the development’s costs at the expense of essential public services. Even if high-income buyers purchase the proposed luxury residences in an area unsafe for residential use, taxpayers outside of the Point Molate development will carry the debt for the required infrastructure. Taking public land, open space and biodiversity from the people of Richmond and allowing it to become private property for the wealthy is a direct assault on social justice. Principals of social justice include, community and the common good, equity, fairness, and access. SunCal has had more than enough time ( two years ?) to present and confirm its financial plan for Point Molate. If it is a reputable and stable company as it advertises, it wouldn’t need an extension. It is not a company that can be depended on. SunCal’s integrity is questionable based on information readily available. Its history includes multiple foreclosures. Of course if its intention it to buy and flip the property, it may avoid any financial hardship.

Selling Point Molate to SunCal will most definitely result in litigation for environmental, economic, and social justice issues. The cumulative negative impacts on the people of Richmond and the biodiversity of this ecological treasure will be your legacy if this sale goes through. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gail Yamamoto Seymour Environmental Scientist From: Jean Peters
To: Tom Butt - external
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 2:07:22 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.

Dear Mayor Butt,
Please DO NOT SELL POINT MOLATE to SunCal and NO EXTENSION for SunCal! This property is better used as a park for the community and as a Nature Center.

Regards,
Jean Peters
Former Park Ranger
East Bay Regional Parks
From: Jeannette Kortz
To: Melvin Willis; Gayle McLaughlin; richcityservant; claudia jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - CLOSED SESSION - POINT MOLATE Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:13:40 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.

Dear City Council,
I am writing first and foremost that you do not allow the sale of Point Molate to SunCal. Point Molate is a precious resource and should be left as public open space and could be a world class park that would bring tourists and dollars to Richmond. If the sale happens, we will lose that open space. The claims that there will be 75% open space is a ruse.

Let me explain. When you place the development map from the approved SEIR which includes grading boundaries (notated in black), as well as the grading map itself, there definitely is not 75% open space. All you have to do is take the development map from the SEIR (fig.3-10) and overlay it on a Google Earth map which calculates that only 40% would be retained as acceptable open space. The development area is nowhere near 30%. This is because the development parcels in the Final Map do not account for heavy cuts of the slopes and filling of drainages.

Steep engineered slopes are not acceptable open space. These engineered slopes would be bordered by up to five condo buildings and are unsuitable for the public or nature’s use.

In reality, this leaves the public with only 40% true open space. This is just one of multitude of reasons, which include that this development is fiscally damaging to the City’s General Fund, plus it will cause the loss of habitat for a multitude of bird and animal species, plant species, damages to the eelgrass and the fish and other species that rely on the eelgrass, and most of all takes away the public’s land by 60%! Richmond is an underserved, under-parked city.

Do the right thing for the people of Richmond. Do not allow the sale of Point Molate to a developer that has a history of multiple bankruptcies and flipping of property.

Thank you for your time.

Jeanne Kortz
Richmond Resident

From: Kathleen Maclay
To: Melvin Willis
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comment, Closed Session, Pt. MOLATE
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:35:39 AM
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.

Save Pt. Molate for public open space and park use, don't sell it to the highest bidder to make a buck. These are precious resources in your hands.

Do the right thing.

Kathleen Maclay
Richmond
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: kelly hammargren
To: Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Melvin Willis; Trina Jackson-Lincoln; Gayle McLaughlin; Eduardo Martinez; Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 12:58:04 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 Mayor Butt , Councilmembers and staff,
This afternoon you will be discussing and possibly taking action on Point Molate.

Some years ago, a little more than a decade, H. Roger Smith, Ph.D a professor of Urban and Regional Studies in south central Minnesota said to me, "We cannot continue to cover our farmland with housing and expect to survive as a nation."
As I have learned more about climate, ecosystems, habitat, species, in the intervening years, I understand that we cannot survive as a species if we continue to cover open land with development including housing.

Governor Newsom issued the executive order N-82 - 20 to conserve 30% of California's lands and resources to combat climate change.

Point Molate with its plain scrubby land largely untouched by herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and few structures is the kind of site we need to preserve untouched. as public land for the public The focus of development needs to shift internally to the downtown turning existing buildings into new uses or deconstructing existing buildings and constructing new housing on these sites where there are existing utilities and services. This not only saves the City of Richmond from financial risk and hardship, it is responsible use of land. kelly hammargren
From: Lisa Park
To: Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Demnlus Johnson; Claudia Jimenez
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 6:10:25 AM
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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Richmond City Council,
Please do not give SunCal an extension on Point Molate.

Make Point Molate into a park that we all can enjoy!
Thank you,
Lisa Park
5626 Bayview Avenue
Richmond, CA 94804
From: Matt Duckworth
To: Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Demnlus Johnson; Claudia Jimenez
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:51:16 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Richmond City Mayor Butt and Richmond City Council Members, Please save Point Molate for the residents of the greater Richmond area to use through recreation and minimal development. Follow the Community Plan, please! Do not sell Point Molate to the SunCal developers, please!
I have been a resident in the San Pablo/Richmond area for almost all of my 60 years.

I learned to swim at the Richmond Plunge in 1964, and I was a swim instructor/lifeguard there during the mid-1980s.

I have lived in the City of Richmond itself since the 1990s. My wife and I are proud supporters of the Richmond Progressive Alliance.

I have roots here, and I and my family have been visitors to Point Molate over and over through all of those years. Recently, I have paddled there, observing the wildlife in the water and on the land. Point Molate is a unique place.

Please help the residents of the city of Richmond save Point Molate for all of the people to enjoy for recreation and minimal, respectful, community-based development. Create a park worthy of the City of Richmond.

Thank you,
Matt Duckworth
Community College Instructor
Resident
From: Michelle Puckett
To: Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Trina Jackson-Lincoln; Melvin Willis; Demnlus Johnson; Claudia Jimenez
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 12:21:21 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.

Hello Council Members,
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the sale of Point Molate to SunCal. I live in Atchison, Village, just over the hill from Point Molate, and I would be heartbroken if this deal goes through. That land should be cared for, remain open to the public, and be allowed to be the beacon it is for the fossil fuel free future we desperately need to be creating right now. My friend, Sam Wallen, and I spent all of April during National Poetry Writing Month collaborating on a series of poems about Point Molate which can be found beginning here: https://medium.com/@samwallen/riparian-the-banks-of-our-love-ad0d246ce1cc It's simply not true that no one cares about Point Molate. Many of us do. The eelgrass alone, and their carbon sequestration, is enough of a reason to not develop this land. Respecting the wishes of the Lisjan Ohlone people to not disturb their ancestors remains is enough of a reason. The children of Richmond needing space to play and be in nature is enough of a reason. The crime of sticking working-class and poor Richmonders with the bill for infrastucture build out for luxury housing is enough of a reason. All of these, together, make it indisputable that this deal is the wrong way to go.

Please do the right thing and vote NO on sale or extension for SunCal.

Sincerely,
Michelle Puckett
From: Pam Stello
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: RE Closed Session Agenda Item: Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:05:42 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.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
The Point Molate Alliance urges you to say No to SunCal and to accept the settlement offer from our attorney, Cheasty, Cheasty & Malik, LLP, that was sent to the City Attorney, David Aleshire, on May 10, 2022. This is a link to the letter: https://tinyurl.com/2p9678u4 Richmond has Ospreys and Bald Eagles at Point Molate but no cranes on McDonald Avenue. Of course, in the latter case we’re talking about construction cranes.

McDonald Avenue used to be the vibrant center of Richmond, California, with restaurants, movie theaters, department stores, transportation and affordable housing until it saw divestment after the racial strife of the 1960s. MacDonald Avenue could be that cultural and economic hive again!

Downtown Oakland and other Bay Area cities are booming with new “infill” construction cranes, “infill” being a term for building where infrastructure like water, power and roads exist along with transportation including BART, buses and bike lanes.

That’s both the sensible and environmentally sound way to meet California’s housing crisis while allowing for a mix of affordable and more expensive housing as most people, regardless of race or class, want to live where the action is and a revitalized downtown could provide that.

Of course, if you want to use the housing crisis as an excuse to gentrify a low-income community of color, you’d follow the development model Richmond has promoted under lame duck Mayor Tom Butt - development of shoreline projects at “market value” (meaning unaffordable to most Richmond residents) in areas such as Point Richmond where he lives, already the highest income part of the city and natural areas like Point Molate. This is a continuance of a history of environmental and economic racism in Richmond, California.

Two egregious examples are: The Astra-Zeneca site plan to build housing on a super-fund site in the Marina Bay area (rather than fully cleaning up the toxic stew already leaching into the Bay) and the plan by the southern California developer SunCal for up to 2,000 units of luxury housing at Point Molate, over 400 acres of city owned land that is the last unprotected natural headland on San Francisco Bay.

The Point Molate site is a biological wonder with over 700 species of life plus enough open space for youth sports recreational playing fields, family picnics, hiking and other cultural amenities – such as a permanent home for the Richmond Pow Wow - that the city is desperately lacking.

This is the same site the people of Richmond voted overwhelmingly not to allow to be developed as a Mega-Casino in 2010. Years later the mayor cut a deal with the failed casino developer to sell it to SunCal or else give it to the casino consortium to market with final deadlines set for later this month.

Meanwhile, the East Bay Regional Park District and dozens of Richmond community groups coordinated by the Point Molate Alliance, fair housing groups, commercial fishermen (because the development could destroy the bay's most productive eelgrass beds) and others would like to see it designated as a public park for the people.

With support from the park agency, the state (under its pledge to protect 30 percent of California by 2030 and serve under-parked communities such as Richmond) a settlement could be reached with the developers to allow for the land to become a park.

Recently the city council voted down a proposed $292 million dollar bond to build infrastructure on the isolated peninsula for SunCal, realizing this could economically damage the city - costing some $300 million over 50 years according to an independent analysis.

Parks by contrast have historically been shown to generate revenue and employment for the cities they're based in. The Presidio in San Francisco is just one example among many. Richmond's Rosy the Riveter national park is a more local example drawing visitors and helping support restaurants and an events venue by the park’s visitor center.

While time is short the tide is turning. On Earth Day last month supporters of the park rallied, played music, hiked, viewed nesting Ospreys and planned for a better future while just offshore a river otter with more immediate plans killed a leopard shark for a late lunch (his or her become a local online sensation). These are the kind of moments and surprises Richmond’s residents, especially our youth, deserve today and in the future.

Richmond Needs Ospreys, Eagles and Construction Cranes.

Sincerely,
Andres Soto, Courtney Cummings, Roshni “Taye” McGee, Toney Wright, Pam Stello and David Helvarg
The Point Molate Alliance Steering Committee
From: Regina Gilligan
To: Tom Butt - external; Claudia Jimenez; Melvin Willis; Demnlus Johnson; Gayle McLaughlin; Eduardo Martinez; Nat Bates
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Monday, May 16, 2022 10:42:22 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the Deal to sell Point Molate to Suncal. On Earth Day we had a celebration at Point Molate and it was postponed for over an hour because of an accident on the bridge. Folks could neither leave nor arrive. What happens when a fire or an explosion happens and coincidentally there’s an accident on the bridge. With only a single egress lives will be lost. Houses are required to have 2 means of egress how is this even legal for so many homes to be built that have only one exit. The infrastructure alone will saddle the city and us Richmond residents with debt for years. What I have found on the internet about this contractor is they have declared bankruptcy in the past and they have been sued by other municipalities. Why think things will be different here.

A park makes so much more sense and we have the East Bay Park District ready and able to buy the land and turn it into something that the community can enjoy for years to come and there will be no threat to the health of the bay from the construction and redesigning of the hillside with run-off endangering the wildlife of the bay and hillside.

Please reconsider and do not go forward with this untenable plan. Look only to Marin and San Francisco and their immense revenues from the Presidio and the Headlands and other Fort and military conversions to park s.

Regina Gilligan, Richmond resident
From: Sally Tobin
To: City Clerk Dept User; Gayle McLaughlin; Eduardo Martinez; Melvin Willis; Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates
Cc: Dave Aleshire
Subject: Do Not Sell Point Molate to SunCal/Winehaven
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:03:52 PM
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.

Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

The previous City Council and the Mayor have tied themselves in knots to give the appearance of protecting Point Molate as a public resource for the people of Richmond, but that disguise is falling apart before our very eyes. In the beginning, the base plan introduced the concept of “70% open space” that would be dedicated to recreation for the public. While this was inadequate, then things got even worse. The Emergency Plan says that “open space” can be bulldozed, destroying the complex plant and animal life that has evolved over thousands (if not millions) of years.

After bulldozing, a few plants may be put in, but this will not restore what has been lost. The DDA and the DA refer to “open space” to designate 70% of the land, but the Vesting Tentative Map for the overall grading shows that areas to be bulldozed extend well outside the 30% of the property that the public has been assured would be developed.

Plus how can deep cuts between retaining walls and multi-story buildings be considered “open space?” The public (and the bird and animal life) will be left with only shreds of the original land that belongs to them now. And all this destruction is only dedicated to make millions for an unreliable, dishonest developer who intends to flip the property and walk away with the money. The developer consistently fails to meet legal obligations and disrespects Richmond (as listed by the City Attorney).

The simple truth is that the steep land, the last undeveloped headland on the Bay, cannot accommodate enough housing units to pay for the infrastructure and fire station for this isolated, automobile-centric suburb. The development would completely destabilize the City of Richmond financially and would increase injustice as the City’s current residents have their services cut because of the expensive fire station. There is no way that this development can benefit the City. Yet the developer bluffs and threatens and underperforms legal obligations, completely taking Richmond for granted in the process.

I believe that the basis for this disrespect is the settlement negotiated by the mayor, who set up the current situation in which the “sky is falling” if the development deal does not go through. I think that this developer has amply demonstrated that it is not up to the task of adhering to its contract. It is time for something new. The mayor has set up this situation. Let’s go with Upstream and the tribe. To the best of my knowledge, they have not lied to us, and that is genuinely refreshing.

Best regards,
Sally Tobin
From: Sara Sunstein
To: Nat Bates; Demnlus Johnson; Melvin Willis; Gayle McLaughlin; Tom Butt - external; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez
Cc: Dave Aleshire; Shasa Curl; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Pt Molate and SunCal/Winehaven Legacy
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 3:05:03 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear City Council Members, Mayor, and officials in the city, I’m sorry my email and comments are later than the regular deadline, but this is the soonest I could get to email. I hope you will still consider my opinion as a resident of Richmond.

My understanding is that SunCal aka Winehaven Legacy LLC is out of compliance with many of the prerequisites for going ahead with this transfer of property. And they aren’t minor issues but have to due with financial plans that haven’t been okayed by the city council and actually have been disapproved. Infrastructure fees of an estimated $130 million from the first building phase are supposed to be guaranteed, and they have yet to do that. Nor have they paid outstanding fees and costs to the city that were cited 2 months ago at the 3/8/22 Council Meeting.

Without even looking at SunCal’s history of major debacles, their current record with the City of Richmond does not bode well for our city. It forecasts major debts to our residents, perhaps a project never completed, as well as needless and predicted devastation to an environmental treasure.

I urge you all to vote against going forward at all with Winehaven Legacy LLC nor SunCal.

Cut the losses and push them out the door!
Sincerely,
Sara Sunstein
1664 San Benito, 94804
Sara Sunstein
Ortho-Bionomy®, Somatic therapy
510.526.5414
http://www.sarasunstein.com
"As the soft yield of water cleaves obstinate stone, so to yield with life solves the insoluble." Lao Tzu Please note: If you're emailing about an appointment that is within 24 hours, I may not see it. Please call instead. Thank you.

From: tmastel
To: Tom Butt - external
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Monday, May 16, 2022 9:40:25 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.

Dear Mayor Butt,
I do not support your plan to sell Pt. Molate for condomium development. Do Not Sell Point Molate to SunCal! NO extension for SunCal! Pt. Molate is important habitat that needs to be protected from development for future generations of both people and animals.

Thank you,
Tabea Mastel
3018 Roosevelt Ave.

Richmond, CA
From: Teddi Baggins
To: City Clerk Dept User; Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Trina Jackson-Lincoln; Demnlus Johnson; Claudia Jimenez
Subject: Public comment, closed session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:08:22 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.

Dear Richmond City Council,
Please vote No to SunCal!
We need more parks, not luxury housing that will cost the city of Richmond untold millions.

Be smart, build parks.

Sincerely,
Teddi Baggins
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Toni Hanna
To: Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Trina Jackson-Lincoln; Melvin Willis; Demnlus Johnson; Claudia Jimenez Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Monday, May 16, 2022 6:20:57 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.

Dear Richmond City Council:

I am opposed to the sale of Point Molate to SunCal or to any other private entity.

Point Molate should be a park for ALL to last for the ages. It should not be sold on the cheap to private, out-of-town speculators who do not care about our community at all.

Some of you know that I am a Realtor in this community (#1 Compass agent in Marina Bay), and my professional opinion (shared by 100% of my ethical colleagues) is that it would be both a financially and ethically unwise idea to try to build and sell luxury condos in this location. The ramifications of such a sale for the city and for the local environment are catastrophic.

Since the infrastructure bill was sensibly voted down, I foresee that if our land were sold to SunCal they would most likely flip it into the hands of other speculators/overseas money launderers/private equity people. Anything but what it's meant to be, which is a beautiful, natural space for our city and region, something Richmond could be proud of, and an important habitat for many species, both plant and animal.

My e-signature has a Berkeley address but for the past nearly 20 years I have lived and worked in Richmond.

Thank you,
Toni Hanna
Richmond, CA

New! East Bay Home Price Map
Compass Curated Bay Area Market Report

From: Virginia Reinhart
To: Eduardo Martinez; Nat Bates; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Demnlus Johnson; Claudia Jimenez Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:56:31 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Councilmembers,
I understand that Point Molate is on the closed session agenda today. As a resident of Richmond, I respectfully call on you to vote against any decision that would sell off Point Molate or provide an extension for the developer SunCal. This land should be a public park, not a luxury development for a wealthy few. Please do everything you can to protect it for the people of Richmond.

Thank you,
Virginia Reinhart
From: Janette P. RUSSEY
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: "Public Comment, Closed Session, Point Molate".

Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:35:11 AM
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.

Dear city council members,
Pt. Molate is a valuable and beautiful location. To allow the development of luxury homes at a potentially ruinous cost to the city in general would be an abrogation of your obligations as managers of the fiscal and social future of Richmond on a colossal scale.

The City has been committed to a general plan that encourages population growth through infill; that is greater density in currently populated neighborhoods. A larger population will mean more parks will be required to service their recreational needs. Pt. Molate is natural for that. It would not require expensive infrastructure upgrades, it has a natural beauty and sense of serenity, and its history, both urban and natural, lends itself to educational considerations.

We, as lifelong citizens of Richmond, encourage and implore you to vote against the sale of Point Molate to SunCal. Please keep this valuable resource for the people of Richmond. sincerely,
Walt and Janette Russey
529 Dimm St, Richmond
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments- Open Forum
Date: Friday, May 13, 2022 10:24:31 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 have some comments for the Record

1. for the June 28th Agenda, the Council Should Invite Lavonna Martin to Provide an Update on Homelessness

2. Also to Have Tim Haile to Provide a Presentation on Electric Charging Stations Sincerely
Cordell
From: Annie Wright
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENTS, NEW BUSINESS ITEM V.1, ARC PRESENTATION: AGENDA MAY 17, 2022, CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:33:25 AM
Attachments: CCC Civil Grand Jury Report.pdf
Vol 1 - Contra Costa County Animal Services Final Report (02-21-18).pdf Vol 2 - Contra Costa County Animal Services Final Report Appendix (02-21-18) Redacted (1).pdf 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.

Dear City Clerk,
If possible, I am requesting to add the 3 attached documents as additional items for the May 17 Agenda. I believe there is a section on the agenda where this may be appropriate.

Please reference Animal Rights Coalition Presentation documents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Annie Wright
ARC

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 1 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Contact: Samil Beret
Foreperson
(925) 608-2621

Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 2105
Improving Animal Services in Contra Costa County

TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
City Council of Antioch

SUMMARY
Currently, Contra Costa County (County) Animal Services are centralized in one facility located at the northern edge of this large County, which creates logistical barriers to providing efficient service. The County can improve animal services by sharing resources and geographically distributing animal services.

Public and private animal shelters are experiencing pressure from the explosive growth in the homeless animal and abandoned pet populations. Community outreach and education are high priorities for both Contra Costa and Antioch Animal Services, the two public animal shelters within the County.

Wildlife retrieval provided by the County Animal Services is one of its most valuable services, especially in those areas of the County that border large open spaces. Recent funding restrictions have severely undermined the ability of Animal Services to retrieve live, wounded, or dead animals.

The Grand Jury recommends that Contra Costa Animal Services (CCAS) engage a consulting firm for guidance on the possible redistribution of animal services that could be achieved by a gradual process of cost-sharing and shelter co-ordination. A comparable consolidation currently underway between Monterey County and the City of Salinas Animal Shelters provides a possible model for the integration of Contra Costa and Antioch Animal Shelter services (CCAS and AAS). An example of countywide cooperative agreement already exists. The County Sheriff’s Office has a model for distributed services throughout the County. The Grand Jury recommends that CCAS consider specific, tailored regional service agreements between the cities and the County for animal services rather than a common countywide contract.

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 2 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

The Grand Jury further recommends that both public animal shelters enhance their emphasis on community outreach to confront homeless animal overpopulation. The full array of services available can be communicated to the public including the existing inexpensive spay and neuter and vaccination programs. Increased staffing is necessary to implement expanded educational programs.

The Grand Jury recommends that CCAS selectively enhance community outreach to the contracted cities. Responses from the contracted cities stated that their residents are unaware of the broad range of field services provided by CCAS. The Grand Jury also recommends that CCAS increase public awareness of the importance of proper pet medical attention such as vaccination and spay and neuter procedures.

METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury used the following investigative methods:
 Reviewed compliance with the two previous Grand Jury investigations of the Antioch Animal Shelter (GJ Reports 1205 and 1708).
 Received twenty-three Requests for Information.
 Conducted nine personal interviews.
 Visited AAS.
 Conducted an online search of available databases, news articles, and web sites of regional and national rescue organizations and shelters.  Contacted personnel managing animal shelters in other jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND
Two facilities provide public animal services in Contra Costa County: the Contra Costa Animal Shelter (CCAS) located in Martinez and the Antioch Animal Shelter (AAS) managed by the Antioch Police Department. These facilities provide a broad range of services such as licensing, wildlife retrieval, live and dead animal pickup, and spay and neuter clinics. The facilities offer community education and outreach programs, which emphasize responsible pet care.

The County shelter is on the northern edge of the County removed from the main population centers. This imbalance results in logistical difficulties for residents and CCAS personnel. For example, traffic congestion sometimes delays response times for live animal retrieval and noisy animal complaints.

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 3 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

The City of Antioch voted in 1978 to establish its own shelter. In recent years, public concern about pet overpopulation at the Antioch Animal Shelter led to a 2017 Grand Jury investigation (Report 1708) that outlined deficiencies in shelter management, operations, and the physical facility. The current Grand Jury investigated the Shelter’s compliance with those previous recommendations and concluded that improvements in the management, facility, and operating procedures have successfully addressed the earlier concerns. Notably, a private rescue facility assisted the City of Antioch in the implementation of the recommended changes.

However, the current Grand Jury noted that one difficulty, cited in the earlier Grand Jury report, remains. Based on Grand Jury interviews, the proximity of Antioch to the underserved eastern areas of the County leads to persistent problems with animal abandonment at the Antioch Shelter from residents outside the City of Antioch.

Although there is an informal working relationship between CCAS and AAS personnel on this issue, a more formal agreement between AAS and CCAS would facilitate abandoned pet retrieval at both shelters.

As noted above, information collected by the Grand Jury identified the importance of wildlife retrieval by both animal services, especially in those parts of the County that border open space. Indeed, this function is often cited by cities with CCAS contracts as the most significant role of County animal services since it is a general service and not necessarily linked to pet ownership.

CCAS receives funding from the County’s General Fund and has the responsibility to provide animal services in the unincorporated communities in the County. CCAS also provides services to eighteen incorporated cities and towns through individual contracts.

These contracts stipulate that the funding increase permitted to CCAS be based upon the Consumer Price Index percentage and the individual municipality’s population growth. If this total funding is insufficient, then service restrictions might result and were indeed realized in September 2020. These countywide service changes were  the number of officers allocated to Field Services decreased from sixteen to ten  CCAS’s Field Services reduced its operating hours
 On-call coverage was eliminated
 Deceased wild animal retrieval on private property was stopped  All live wildlife calls were referred to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 4 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Animal shelters currently face conflicting demands. Public opinion increasingly opposes euthanasia, but abandoned pets lead to animal shelter overpopulation. Overpopulation is the primary reason cited for euthanasia at shelters nationwide.1 According to the American Humane Society’s position statement,2 all cats and dogs adopted from public or private animal care should be spayed or neutered to reduce euthanasia rates most effectively. Furthermore, the statement emphasizes that public awareness and cooperation with this approach is crucial. Information gathered by the Grand Jury corroborated these statements for both public animal shelters.

The cost of spaying and neutering pets can be a contributing factor to pet abandonment. AAS charges a flat fee of $90 for feline spay and neuter and $150 for canine spay and neuter operations. CCAS fees range between $50 and $74 for felines and $121 to $172 for canines. Although these fees compare favorably to private veterinarian fees, they still present a financial obstacle for many pet owners. No quantitative survey data on the possible efficacy of subsidized spay and neuter clinics within the County exists. Data from subsidized pilot programs in several other states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Texas) correlate with increased spay and neuter rates and declines in shelter populations.

DISCUSSION
Service Distribution
Geographic separation presents obstacles to efficient CCAS service. As the schematic map in Figure 1 highlights, the two public animal shelters are in the northern portion of the County. The County Board of Supervisors approved the closure of the Pinole facility, which was never designed for long-term animal housing, in September 2020.

1 A. Kleinfeldt, “Overview of Animal Euthanasia”, https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-animal-euthanasia. 2 https://www.americanhumane.org/position-statement/animal-population-control.

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 5 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

A single large facility, CCAS, is located far from the eastern and southern portions of the County increasing the commute time for resident’s access to public services. The recent closure of the Pinole facility reduces ready access to CCAS in-person services for the western part of the County. By comparison, Alameda County has seven public shelters serving an area nearly comparable (739 square miles) to Contra Costa County (716 square miles). These public shelters are listed in Table 1.

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 6 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Table 1
Bay Area government shelters in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The Pinole facility closed in September 2020.

Public Shelter Name City Owner pet
surrenders?
Contra Costa County
Antioch Animal Shelter Antioch Y
Contra Costa County Animal
Services
Martinez Y
Contra Costa County Animal
Services
Pinole
(closed)
NA

Alameda County
Alameda Animal Shelter Alameda Y
Berkeley City Animal Shelter Berkeley Y
East County Animal Shelter Dublin Y
Fairmont Animal Shelter San Leandro Y
Hayward Animal Control Hayward Y
Oakland Animal Shelter Oakland Y
Tri-City Animal Shelter Fremont Y

Table 2
Bay Area nonprofit animal shelters in Contra Costa and Alameda and Alameda Counties.

Organization Name City Owner pet
surrenders?
Contra Costa County
Animal Rescue Foundation Walnut Creek N
Milo Foundation Point Richmond Call
Contra Costa Humane Society Pleasant Hill N
Contra Costa SPCA Concord Call

Alameda County
Berkeley Humane Society Berkeley Y
East Bay SPCA - Tri-Valley Dublin Y
Oakland East Bay SPCA Oakland Y
Ohlone Humane Society Fremont N

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 7 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

The nonprofit animal shelters in both counties are listed in Table 2. Although Alameda County’s population of 1.67 million is approximately 45% larger than Contra Costa’s, the per capita access to public animal services in Alameda County is more evenly distributed than in Contra Costa County.

Both Tables include a column indicating whether the shelter accepts owner-surrendered pets -- that is, pets whose owners are relinquishing ownership of an animal to the shelter. The centrally located Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF) nonprofit, animal shelter in Contra Costa County, does not accept owner-surrendered animals. In the western part of the County, the Milo Foundation nonprofit animal shelter will accept and hold selected owner-surrendered pets. The Point Richmond Adoption Center, operated by the Milo Foundation, has existing physical resources for animal sheltering including a small 5,000 square foot physical space in Point Richmond. The Milo Foundation also manages a large, 283-acre, animal sanctuary in Mendocino County.

Resource Sharing
There is an existing instance of a decentralized countywide resource. The County Sheriff’s Office maintains a Patrol Division that operates from five station houses throughout the County to patrol unincorporated areas and a Special Operations Division which leverages County assets to support several incorporated municipalities (Danville, Lafayette, and Orinda). Each station house has its own Lieutenant with a variable number of deputies and staff support. The incorporated municipalities contract with the Sheriff’s Office but retain local control over police operation. This contractual arrangement leads to standardized training and the sharing of staff resources.

The decentralized structure of the County Sheriff’s services suggests that a similar redistribution of CCAS services might be possible and result in more efficient service.

Such an approach need not require construction of additional facilities. Animal service personnel could be stationed at suitable existing County and city buildings to improve response times. The cities in the County have different needs so the additional flexibility in requested animal services might be beneficial and cost-effective. CCAS currently has an identical contract agreement with each of the municipalities. This contract structure might be modified to maintain universal basic services to all contracted cities but offer enhanced services for those cities with differing needs ranging from noise complaints to roaming feral pigs. Increased communication between CCAS management and the individual city managers is necessary to explore these possibilities.

In the special case of the City of Antioch, information gathered by the Grand Jury also suggests that resource sharing between CCAS and AAS could be beneficial.

Establishing a partnership between AAS and CCAS for a low-cost spay and neuter clinic was cited as an example. This service would help control the pet and community cat population in the eastern part of the County. More extensive cooperation between the two public shelters, such as operating both shelters as one program, was

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 8 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

recommended but would require agreement from the management of both shelters to fund a comprehensive feasibility study.

A similar precedent for merging county and city animal services is the ongoing consolidation of animal services between the City of Salinas and Monterey County who contracted an independent consulting firm, Management Partners, in 2015, to provide options for the consolidation of services. The resulting comprehensive report outlined four options, one of which recommended the formation of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the County of Monterey and the City of Salinas. The selection of the JPA option facilitated the gradual merging of the two shelters in April 2020. Similarly, CCAS could engage a consulting firm to assist in determining how to proceed.

In Contra Costa County, the Antioch Animal Shelter has a proportionally larger animal intake than CCAS. See Table 3.

Table 3
Total live animal intake population by AAS and CCAS per year.

Year AAS CCAS
2018 2,786 8,454
2019 2,577 8,673
2020 1,366 5,015

Although CCAS handles about three times the total number of animals as AAS, the Antioch shelter has a disproportionately large live animal intake given its much smaller resident population.

This additional animal intake burden on AAS is reflected in the higher cost per capita, $15.44, for animal services for the residents of Antioch. As noted in Table 4, the overall per capita cost, $12.02, for CCAS services is comparable to other selected public animal shelters, but the individual fee rate for those cities that contract with CCAS is $6.54, less than half of the City of Antioch rate. The lower CCAS rate for the contracted cities is possible due to distributed base funding through the County’s General Fund and User Fee Revenue. Interviews conducted by the Grand Jury suggested that CCAS and AAS could share personnel and facility space to provide more access to low-cost rabies vaccination and spay and neutering services for East County residents.

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 9 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Table 4
Per capita cost for selected public animal shelters.

Public Shelter FY 20/21 Per Capita Rate
Solano County $11.11
Sacramento County $13.10
City of Oakland $12.09
City of Antioch $15.44

Contra Costa County (total) $12.02
Contra Costa County
(Cities) $6.54

Partnership with nonprofit animal rescue organizations might also be an effective means of distributing resources. As noted in Table 2, there are two nonprofit shelters in Contra Costa County, ARF in Walnut Creek and the Milo Foundation in Point Richmond. ARF was historically instrumental in providing oversight in the reorganization of AAS and, according to information supplied to the Grand Jury, it has maintained a favorable working relationship with both AAS and CCAS. Further coordination and expansion of mutual animal services can be beneficial.

Another nonprofit animal shelter located in Dublin is operated by East Bay SPCA (Table 2). Although this facility is within Alameda County, its stated mission is to provide services to both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Its proximity to the southern and eastern parts of Contra Costa County suggests that CCAS management could promote an enhanced working relationship between CCAS and East Bay SPCA. Similarly, CCAS management should consider resource sharing with the Milo Foundation, which maintains a 5,000 square foot facility in Point Richmond.

Funding
A possible new funding source available to CCAS is Measure X. County voters approved this measure in November 2020, increasing the sales tax in Contra Costa County by 0.5% for twenty years, which will generate an estimated $81 million per year for essential services. Allocation of these funds is overseen by an Advisory Board, which creates a detailed priority list of the top ten service gaps and submits a recommended list to the Board of Supervisors.

Current cost increases are placing a greater burden on some of the contracted cities given CCAS’s per capita cost structure. Effective July 1, 2022, the CCAS service fee will increase from $6.79 to $9.11 per capita. Measure X funding could supply funding to

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 10 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

offset this rate increase. Additional CCAS funding might also restore sick and wildlife animal retrieval and support distributed low-cost veterinarian services.

Community Outreach

Based on information gathered from Requests for Information and interviews, both AAS and CCAS struggle with community outreach and education. Outreach programs are essential to address the underlying cause of stress on animal services due to the increasing homeless pet population. Personnel at both facilities are aware of this deficiency but are hampered by lack of adequate staffing. Beyond staffing concerns, low-cost options for pet medical treatment would lead to a decrease in abandoned pets for those owners unable to afford proper pet care. Community awareness of the importance of spaying and neutering pets is also a key component of outreach programs.

Information collated from a Grand Jury survey indicated that most cities were “satisfied” (40%) or “somewhat satisfied” (40%) with existing CCAS services. However, there were common complaints from the cities responding as “unsatisfied” (20%). For example, existing CCAS services to some of the contracted cities are not adequately communicated to residents. Therefore, increased communication with the community would be beneficial especially concerning wildlife management and the availability of veterinary services.

The CCAS response to reports of dangerous, deceased, or distressed animals is considered by some of the contracted cities to be inadequate despite the recent (January 7, 2020) fee increase to the city contracts approved by the Board of Supervisors. Many municipality respondents noted that deceased and diseased animal retrieval is of special importance throughout the County due to public health and traffic safety concerns.

Volunteers

Based on interviews and site visits, assistance from volunteers is essential to animal care at CCAS and AAS due to the limited funding received by each facility. At CCAS, volunteers receive formal and practical training from experienced volunteers and staff.

Although AAS has created a Volunteer Coordinator / Community Outreach position, it is unfilled due to lack of funding. In many instances, volunteers are not assigned specific tasks and are left to establish their own work schedules. A redistribution of animal shelter services throughout the County would also increase the pool of potential volunteers in the County. The need to travel to Martinez could be an impediment to volunteering at the CCAS for people residing in the eastern, western, or southern parts of the county.

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 11 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

FINDINGS
F1. There is a need for improved animal services throughout the County.

F2. CCAS facilities are concentrated in the northern part of the County.

F3. AAS volunteers are often not assigned specific tasks and lack direction.

F4. AAS does not have funding for a Volunteer Coordinator / Community Outreach staff position.

F5. In some of the contracted municipalities, residents are not aware of CCAS- provided services, especially wildlife retrieval.

F6. Funding reductions to the CCAS budget have hindered live wildlife retrieval and rescue.

F7. A satisfaction survey of the 18 CCAS-contracted cities revealed 40% satisfied, 40% somewhat satisfied, and 20% unsatisfied with the quality of overall CCAS services supplied.

F8. All CCAS contracts with municipalities provide identical services at the same cost per capita.

F9. Additional vaccination and spay and neuter clinics would reduce the number of homeless and surrendered animals in the shelters.

F10. There are private animal shelter facilities, The Milo Foundation and ARF, in the western and central parts of the County, respectively.

F11. A private animal shelter in Alameda County, East Bay SPCA, is located near the southern part of Contra Costa County.

F12. Measure X funding has not been allocated for CCAS operations.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recommends that the following be implemented by June 2022:

R1. The Antioch City Council allocate funding to fill the staff position of Volunteer Coordinator / Community Outreach at AAS.

R2. AAS improve volunteer training.

R3. The County Board of Supervisors allocate additional funding to provide outreach to educate residents about available CCAS services.

Contra Costa County 2020-2021 Civil Grand Jury Report 2105 Page 12 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

R4. CCAS explore embedding Animal Control Officers at selected police stations to expand services, such as wildlife retrieval, throughout the county.

R5. CCAS engage a consulting firm to obtain guidance on the possible redistribution of animal services within the County.

R6. CCAS pursue a Memorandum of Understanding with ARF to coordinate resource sharing.

R7. CCAS pursue a Memorandum of Understanding with the Milo Foundation to coordinate resource sharing.

R8. CCAS pursue a Memorandum of Understanding with East Bay SPCA to coordinate resource sharing.

R9. CCAS management and City Managers pursue customization of the Animal Services contracts to include basic service plus extended services for an additional fee.

R10. AAS and CCAS explore sharing of resources for low-cost animal care clinics in the eastern part of the County.

R11. The County Board of Supervisors request that CCAS apply for Measure X funding to lower the projected increased financial cost to CCAS-contracted cities and to support additional low-cost spay and neuter services.

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Findings Recommendations
City Council of Antioch F1, F3, F4, F9 R1, R2, and R10
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors F1, F5-F12 R3-R11

These responses must be provided in the format and by the date set forth in the cover letter that accompanies this report. An electronic copy of these responses in the form of a Word document should be sent by e-mail and a hard (paper) copy should be sent to:

Civil Grand Jury – Foreperson
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091

This page was intentionally left blank
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 (this volume)
Section Page
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 Analyses Details.................................................................................................................. 2 Finding and Recommendation Themes .............................................................................. 3 Theme One: Strengthen Core Financial and Operational Activities ...................... 3 Theme Two: Address the Impacts of Population Growth and Service Demands ... 4 Findings and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 4 Theme One: Strengthen Core Financial and Operational Activities ...................... 4 Theme Two: Address the Impacts of Population Growth and Service Demands ... 6 Strategic Action Plan .......................................................................................................... 7 Section 1—Introduction and Background ...................................................................................9

1.1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 9

1.2 Department Summary ........................................................................................... 10

1.2.1 History of the Department and Relationship with Incorporated Cities..... 11

1.2.2 Post-Great-Recession Rebuild .................................................................. 12

1.3 Organization of Report ......................................................................................... 12

1.3.1 Theme One: Strengthen Core Financial and Operational Activities ........ 13

1.3.2 Theme Two: Address the Impacts of Population Growth and Service Demands ................................................................................................... 13

1.4 Scope of Work: Contract Obligations ................................................................... 14

1.4.1 Phase 1: Project Administration................................................................ 14

1.4.2 Phase 2: Review Data, Documentation, and Information ......................... 14

1.4.3 Phase 3: Cost and Operational Analysis ................................................... 15

1.4.4 Phase 4: Reporting .................................................................................... 15 Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Table of Contents page ii

1.5 Documentation Reviewed by Citygate ................................................................. 16

1.6 Location of Requested Scope Items within This Report ...................................... 17

1.6.1 Fiscal Assumptions ................................................................................... 17 Section 2—Animal Services Department Structure and Service Delivery Model .................19

2.1 Mission, Goals, Objectives, and Philosophy ........................................................ 19

2.2 Profile of Current Activities and Workload .......................................................... 20

2.2.1 Organizational Structure and Service Activities ....................................... 20

2.2.2 Staffing ...................................................................................................... 22

2.2.3 Personnel Management, Supervision, and Reporting ............................... 25

2.2.4 Current Department Performance Metrics ................................................ 26

2.2.5 Technology: Chameleon ........................................................................... 34

2.2.6 Physical Condition of Shelters .................................................................. 34

2.2.7 Vehicle Fleet ............................................................................................. 35 Section 3—Financial Analysis .....................................................................................................37

3.1 Budget and Cost Analysis – Prior Fiscal Years .................................................... 37

3.1.1 Revenues ................................................................................................... 37

3.1.2 Expenditures ............................................................................................. 43

3.1.3 Subsidy by County General Fund – Prior Years ....................................... 49

3.2 Budget and Cost Analysis – Current Fiscal Year (FY 17/18) .............................. 52

3.2.1 Revenues ................................................................................................... 53

3.2.2 Expenditures ............................................................................................. 57

3.2.3 Subsidy by County General Fund – FY 17/18 .......................................... 60

3.2.4 Department Volunteer Program ................................................................ 60

3.2.5 Costs and Revenues for Each Division (Cost Center) under the Current Operating Structure ................................................................................... 60

3.3 Billing/Collection Process .................................................................................... 61

3.3.1 Licensing ................................................................................................... 61

3.3.2 Other Billing/Collection............................................................................ 61

3.3.3 Waived Fees .............................................................................................. 62

3.3.4 Delinquencies ............................................................................................ 63 Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Table of Contents page iii

3.3.5 Animal Benefits Fund ............................................................................... 63 Section 4—Fiscal Process ............................................................................................................64

4.1 Costs and Revenues for Each New Citygate-Proposed Division.......................... 64

4.1.1 Field Services Division ............................................................................. 66

4.1.2 Shelter Services ......................................................................................... 68

4.1.3 Proposed Reallocation of Resources ......................................................... 71

4.2 Development of Various Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies for Each Contract City ......................................................................................................... 71

4.2.1 History of the Department Contracts with Cities ...................................... 72

4.2.2 Comparable Analysis ................................................................................ 75

4.3 Best Practices ........................................................................................................ 79

4.3.1 Organizational Structure ........................................................................... 80

4.3.2 Operational/Financial Practices ................................................................ 82

4.3.3 Best Practices Metrics ............................................................................... 83 Section 5—Strategic Findings, Recommendations, and Action Plan ......................................85

5.1 Theme One – Strengthen Core Financial and Operational Activities................... 85

5.2 Theme Two – Address Population Growth and Service Demands....................... 93

5.3 Strategic Action Plan ............................................................................................ 98

Table of Tables
Table 1—Location of Requested Scope Items within Report ...................................................... 17 Table 2—Animal Service Activities by City in 2016 ................................................................... 22 Table 3—Total Activities by Year ................................................................................................ 28 Table 4—Total Intake for Dogs and Cats Compared to Positive Outcomes – 2014–2016 .......... 31 Table 5—Total Intake for Dogs and Cats Compared to Quantity Euthanized – 2014–2016 ....... 32 Table 6—Department Revenue..................................................................................................... 38 Table 7—Contract City Charge for FY 17/18 .............................................................................. 41 Table 8—Contra Costa County Animal Benefits Fund Activity .................................................. 42 Table 9—High Level Personnel Comparison ............................................................................... 45 Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Table of Contents page iv
Table 10—Department County General Fund Subsidy ................................................................ 49 Table 11—County General Fund Actual Subsidy Distribution .................................................... 52 Table 12—Department Cost Center Summary for FY 17/18 ....................................................... 53 Table 13—Staff Positions Summary – FY 17/18 ......................................................................... 58 Table 14—Field Services Staffing ................................................................................................ 67 Table 15—NACA Formula for Determining Kennel Staffing – Feeding and Cleaning Only ..... 71 Table 16—Animal Services Cost Per Capita – Highest to Lowest .............................................. 76 Table 17—Animal Services Cost Per Capita Change – Lowest to Highest ................................. 77 Table 18—Animal Services Comparative .................................................................................... 78

Table of Figures
Figure 1—Organizational and Financial Cost Analysis Overlap ................................................... 3 Figure 2—Map of Contra Costa County Animal Services Shelters ............................................. 11 Figure 3—Staffing Organization Chart ........................................................................................ 24 Figure 4—Summary of Spay and Neuter Surgeries ..................................................................... 27 Figure 5—Budgeted versus Actual Revenues – FY 12/13 through 16/17.................................... 43 Figure 6—Budgeted versus Actual Expenditures – FY12/13 through 16/17 ............................... 44 Figure 7—Major Expenditure Categories – FY 12/13 through 16/17 .......................................... 48 Figure 8—Budgeted Revenues versus Expenditures – FY 12/13 through 17/18 ......................... 50 Figure 9—Actual Revenues versus Expenditures – FY 12/13 through 16/17 .............................. 51 Figure 10—Annual Service Charge – FY 17/18........................................................................... 55 Figure 11—FY 17/18 Contract City Population ........................................................................... 74 Figure 12—Contract City Charge versus Budgeted Expenditures – FY 12/13 through 17/18 .... 75 Figure 13—Staffing Organization Chart ...................................................................................... 81

VOLUME 2 of 2 – Cost Analysis Appendices (separately bound) Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Executive Summary page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND
Provision of animal services in Contra Costa County has a long and proud history, and County - wide it began through the Agricultural Department in the 1950s and evolved in the 1980s into the Animal Services Department. Throughout its history, t he officers in field services, the shelter caregivers, the dispatchers, the clerks, the medical team , and the volunteers have dedicated themselves to ensuring public health and safety and humane care of animals. From its beginnings, the Department has faced the challenges associated with providing animal services in a geographic mix of space containing deep agricultural roots, growing cities, densely populated newer and older sub-divisions, suburban neighborhoods, as well as commuter -packed freeways and art erial road networks.

For many public agencies throughout the state, the economy has been marked by the inability of revenue growth to keep pace with public service demands and expense pressures after the Great Recession. This lag in revenues prevents many public agencies from replacing staff and other resources cut from budgets during recessionary years. This has been deemed “the new normal” in public service circles, by the media, and by pundits as a description of an era characterized by the demand to “do more with less.”
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) as a first step to address the ways the Department can recover

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Executive Summary page 2
and adapt to the staffing and resource reductions it suffered. In the nearly 10 years since 2008, the Department has experienced reduced staffing, chronic vacancies, budget cuts, retention problems, recruitment problems, and turnover in key leadership personnel. This succession of organizational change has left the agency with a significant loss of institutional knowledge and the need to rebuild and retool.

Citygate commends the Department and acknowledges that its leaders, managers, and staff have already been engaged in many activities recommended in this report . The Department has been working to address many of the issues in areas involving new budget practices, cost allocation, development of policy procedure s, training, efforts to fill vacancies, use of skill sets within the existing employee resources, and review of contracted services and possible contract changes.

Just as improvement has been underway during this study, the data relied upon , such as position vacancy quantities, activity counts, and other data, has been subject to change over the six months of this project effort.

ANALYSES DETAILS
The Animal Services Director and Administrative Services Officer have wisely taken this first step toward adapting and reorganizing. The detailed financial and operational cost analysis contained in this report, comprised of data organized and presented in original documents developed by Citygate for this study, will serve as the factual and analytical base upon w hich critical decisions for the Department’s future can be formed.

With a relatively new Director and new Administrative Services Officer, these study results are intended to provide the operational and financial analysis necessary to begin recovery for t he Department, to strengthen its operational and financial foundation, and to position it for successful future service.

The operational cost analyses completed for this study included assessing 16 different components of field and shelter operations provided by the Department and included all aspects of the agency’s finances, including revenues, expenditures, personnel, operations, equipment and facilities, and financial practices. The financial analyses also included a comparative study and best practices .

At times, the operational and financial analyses overlap within this study; for example, one looks through the operational lens of field services and one assesses those same field services through the lens of revenues, expenditures, and other financial practices.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Executive Summary page 3
Figure 1—Organizational and Financial Cost Analysis Overlap

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION THEMES
The multi -disciplinary Project Team assembled by Citygate to conduct this engagement and formulate study themes, findings, an d recommendations included both an active and a retired County Animal Services Director, a retired local government Finance Director, and two retired City Managers. Two of the consultants on Citygate’s Project Team each have over a decade of experience as consultants with our firm. Citygate’s findings and recommendations stemming from the detailed analyses contained in this study are presented in two theme areas.

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.

Organizational
Cost Analysis
Financial Cost
Analysis
• Organizational structure
• Personnel management,
supervision, and reporting
• Training
• Workload
• Live release rate discussion
• Field Officer activities
• Dispatch function
• Reports to contract cities
• Shelter services
• State Rabies Activities Report
• Technology: Chameleon
• Physical condition of shelters
• Budget and cost analysis
• Revenues
• Contract humane services
(contract city charge)
• Miscellaneous humane services
• Restricted donations (Animal
Benefits Fund)
• Expenditures
• Vacancies
• Services/supplies
• Transfers out – reimbursement –
Gov/Gov
• Capital improvements
• Comparative study (per-capita
and comparative agencies)
• Best practices
• Staffing and
Personnel
• Spay and Neuter
Surgeries / Spay
Clinic Fees
• Pet Licensing
Program and
Animal Licensing
• Vehicle Fleet and
Equipment Rolling
Stock
Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Executive Summary page 4
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 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.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Nine findings from this study are accompanied by 21 recommendations, as follows:

Theme One: Strengthen Core Financial and Operational Activities Finding #1: Financial practices wi thin 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Finding #6: Current allocated personnel resources can be better maximized, particularly while alternative dispatch and other contracted specialized service providers are considered.

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

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Executive Summary page 5
Recommendation #2: Establish subaccounts and full cost allocation systems within the Department and within the County’s accounting systems , as appropriate.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 traini ng for existing staff.

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.

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.

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.

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis Executive Summary page 6
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 partner s; cons ider using temporary assistance workers, as needed, while recruiting to fill vacancies.

Theme Two: Address the Impacts of 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.

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 fo r future information and data exchanges. Monthly reports reflecting services delivered can be improved to provide additional service- and cost-related information.

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

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

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

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.

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

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 service s provided by the Department.

Recommendation #20: Provide clarity to the Department’s contract cities regarding the way that mandate d 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 implementa tion 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 De partment (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 m ove 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 co nduct 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 produce d 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 inform ation 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 provide s 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 County - wide 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 t o 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 ann ex 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 s ervices 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 natio n. 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 c onstrictions 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 bud gets, 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 behavi oral needs which require resources to treat. Alternatively, h umane 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 section s 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 de livery 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 5 th 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 Dep artment 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, de linquencies, 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 methodolo gies, 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 or al 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 exami ned 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 an alytical 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 understa ndable. 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 f inancial analysis was completed usin g 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 Coun ty 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, r eflects 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 res ources 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 suffer ing, 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 Center s 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.

These positions (which have a separate management resolution) are the Director, the Deputy Director, the Executive Secretary, and the Animal C linic 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 a re also supported by over 300 committed volunteers who pla y 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 unincorpor ated 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 an d 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 o perations 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.

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, a long 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 op erational 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 th e 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 hea lth 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 Depa rtment 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” subtra cted 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 capabili ty 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 sy stem 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 establish ed 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 t heir 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.

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 Chame leon 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 effec tively 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 provi ded 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 upd ate operations and procedures, a plan should be developed to actively engage with the contract partner c ities. 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 som e 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 Departmen t 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 service s 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 b y 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 communit y 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 resourc es 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 d og 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. Considera tion 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 f or 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 sh elter, 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 full - service 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 fa cility. 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 with in 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 neute r 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 com prised 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 revenue s and expenditures v ersus 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 ani mal 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 recommende d eliminat ing 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 proces sed 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 polic ies. 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 rema ined 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. E ach 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 cur rent 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 con sist 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 receive d $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 r egular revenue monitoring processes are in place is equally as important. Best practices include documented process es 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 rev enues 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 appro ximately $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 expenditu re 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 budg et 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 categ ory ($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 act ual 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 benefi ts) 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 pa st 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 con tract 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 positio ns. 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 Veterinar y 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 pla ce for many years. Additionally, it was noted that, during the period reviewed , the temporary services line item was consistently over - spent 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 u sed 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 reason s 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, et c. 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 s ervices/supplies line items were c onsistently 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 th e 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 Admin istrative 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 functi ons into four cost centers, which include: Animal Services Operations , Animal Licensing , Animal Service s Centers, and Spay/Neuter Clinic . Although Department staff have informed Citygate that preliminary work had begun to restructure the cost centers to ma ke 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 r epresents 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 co mpared 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, t his 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 a doptions 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 questio ns of contract cities. Given the current over - crowding 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 w as 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. Perma nent 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 r equired 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. T he 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 autho rized 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 C itygate 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 import ant 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 C urrent 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 w ithin 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 ha ve 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 al location 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, bi - annually, 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 Dep artment 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 e uthanasia 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 wit h 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 Marc h. 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 det ailed 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. Al though 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 ince ntives. 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 develo p 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 anima l 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 Div isions (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 r evenue 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 b udget:

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. , a long 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 perso nnel 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, f our Sergeants, and three Lieutenants.
 The Department provides field services to approximately 1,025,000 residents encompassing approximate ly 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 2,0 80 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), o r 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 test ing 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 od or-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 m eet 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 ho sed, 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 an imals, 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 m aximum 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. Ana lysis 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. Thi s 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 w ithout 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 servi ce, 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 th ese 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 Cou nty 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 high - level 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 animal - related 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, t he 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 w ere 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 co st 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 non-
profit 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 best - practice components is not intended to be all inclusive, but can serve as a guide to be used by management to identify areas of d eficiency 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 organiza tion 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 f oresee 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 Cou nty 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 resp onsibility 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 P olicy 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 expenditu res 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 f uture 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 sh elter 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 i nvite a local r eporter 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 in creased 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 ex penditure 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 fe es. 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.

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 pa y 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 b usiness recommendations and decisions.

Recommendation #8: Develop, maint ain, 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 for m the on - 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 curriculu m for training of new employ ees 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 c an 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 gov ernment position, but do not know how best to do so.

Care must be taken that the posi tions 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, on e 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, safety- conscious 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 cost s 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 s ervices, 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 maxim um 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 savin g lives through a pet retention program and a community cat program, in addition to other eff orts 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 ci ties, 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 contract ed cities that document the animal service activit ies 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 other s. 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.

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 r egarding 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 pro vide 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 im prove 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 mid-
year 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 business-
based 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

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

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

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

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

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

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 cost-
effective 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

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

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

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

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

Page 1 ends

Richmond City CouncilMay 17, 2022

Richmond City Council
May 17, 2022