Appendix A5
Cost Center Allocation Summary
Revised Structure
FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget FY 17/18 Budget Personnel (Fully Burdened) 2,539,909$ 3,478,485$ 3,609,309$ 3,066,414$ 4,199,551$ 4,357,494$ 160,384$ 219,651$ 227,912$ 702,715$ 962,391$ 998,585$ 6,469,422$ 8,860,078$ 9,193,300$ Materials, Services, Supplies 1,321,977$ 1,170,512$ 939,205$ 1,596,014$ 1,413,151$ 1,133,895$ 83,477$ 73,913$ 59,307$ 365,751$ 323,845$ 259,849$ 3,367,218$ 2,981,420$ 2,392,256$ Capital 9,984$ 26,415$ 47,015$ 9,984$ 26,415$ 47,015$ Equipment 126,185$ -$ 5,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 126,185$ -$ 5,500$ Debt -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Transfers Out -$ -$ 321,220$ 313,793$ 353,438$ 107,073$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 313,793$ 353,438$ 428,293$ Indirect Overhead -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Expenditures 3,988,071$ 4,648,997$ 4,875,234$ 4,986,205$ 5,992,555$ 5,645,477$ 243,861$ 293,563$ 287,218$ 1,068,466$ 1,286,235$ 1,258,435$ 10,286,602$ 12,221,351$ 12,066,364$ Total Revenues 2,596,794$ 2,643,983$ 2,693,354$ 3,763,971$ 4,445,639$ 4,458,872$ 269,971$ 117,576$ 123,598$ 536,453$ 765,154$ 541,540$ 7,167,189$ 7,972,352$ 7,817,364$ County General Fund Contrib. 1,391,276$ 2,005,014$ 2,181,880$ 1,222,234$ 1,546,916$ 1,186,605$ (26,110)$ 175,988$ 163,620$ 532,012$ 521,081$ 716,895$ 3,119,413$ 4,248,999$ 4,249,000$ Contrib. Percentage 34.9% 43.1% 44.8% 24.5% 25.8% 21.0% -10.7% 59.9% 57.0% 49.8% 40.5% 57.0% 30.3% 34.8% 35.2% Percentage of Total
Budget/Actual 33% 39% 40% 41% 50% 47% 2% 2% 2% 9% 11% 10% Component TotalCost Center Allocation
Field Services Shelter Center Operations Support Services Administration
Appendix A6
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Summary Based on FY 16/17 Activity Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of Animals
Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of Animals
Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of Animals
Sheltered / Calls for
Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of Animals
Sheltered / Calls for
Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Brentwood 58,784 349,177$ 14.86 2,175 634 349,177$ 101,182$ 214,107$ 283,619$ 328,428$ 117,167$ 328,428$ 44,959$ 33,940$ 32,079$ 89,919$ 587,494$ 250,428$ 701,966$ (238,317)$ 98,749$ (352,789)$ Clayton 11,209 66,581$ 3.84 351 121 66,581$ 26,160$ 34,552$ 54,081$ 62,625$ 30,293$ 62,625$ 8,573$ 5,477$ 8,294$ 17,146$ 105,750$ 64,747$ 133,852$ (39,169)$ 1,834$ (67,270)$ Concord 129,707 770,460$ 30.54 5,331 1,399 770,460$ 207,946$ 524,783$ 625,805$ 724,677$ 240,800$ 724,677$ 99,203$ 83,189$ 65,928$ 198,406$ 1,348,663$ 514,674$ 1,548,889$ (578,204)$ 255,785$ (778,429)$ Danville 42,865 254,618$ 18.08 1,279 462 254,618$ 123,106$ 125,905$ 206,813$ 239,488$ 142,556$ 239,488$ 32,784$ 19,958$ 39,030$ 65,568$ 398,177$ 304,693$ 511,870$ (143,559)$ (50,074)$ (257,252)$ El Cerrito 24,378 144,805$ 3.66 815 121 144,805$ 24,894$ 80,228$ 117,618$ 136,201$ 28,827$ 136,201$ 18,645$ 12,718$ 7,892$ 37,290$ 235,074$ 61,613$ 291,109$ (90,269)$ 83,193$ (146,303)$ Hercules 24,791 147,259$ 19.98 777 267 147,259$ 136,044$ 76,488$ 119,611$ 138,508$ 157,537$ 138,508$ 18,961$ 12,125$ 43,131$ 37,922$ 233,957$ 336,712$ 296,040$ (86,698)$ (189,454)$ (148,782)$ Lafayette 24,924 148,049$ 15.21 1,118 269 148,049$ 103,565$ 110,056$ 120,252$ 139,251$ 119,927$ 139,251$ 19,063$ 17,446$ 32,834$ 38,125$ 268,369$ 256,326$ 297,629$ (120,321)$ (108,277)$ (149,580)$ Martinez 37,057 220,119$ 13.63 2,323 400 220,119$ 92,806$ 228,676$ 178,791$ 207,039$ 107,469$ 207,039$ 28,342$ 36,250$ 29,424$ 56,684$ 464,057$ 229,699$ 442,514$ (243,938)$ (9,580)$ (222,395)$ Moraga 16,513 98,087$ 9.47 436 178 98,087$ 64,488$ 42,920$ 79,671$ 92,259$ 74,676$ 92,259$ 12,630$ 6,804$ 20,445$ 25,259$ 147,808$ 159,610$ 197,189$ (49,721)$ (61,522)$ (99,102)$ Oakley 40,141 238,438$ 16.17 2,690 433 238,438$ 110,101$ 264,803$ 193,671$ 224,269$ 127,496$ 224,269$ 30,701$ 41,977$ 34,907$ 61,402$ 519,773$ 272,504$ 479,341$ (281,336)$ (34,067)$ (240,904)$ Orinda 18,749 111,369$ 12.87 847 202 111,369$ 87,632$ 83,379$ 90,459$ 104,751$ 101,477$ 104,751$ 14,340$ 13,217$ 27,783$ 28,679$ 202,470$ 216,891$ 223,890$ (91,100)$ (105,522)$ (112,521)$ Pinole 18,739 111,310$ 11.76 1,266 202 111,310$ 80,074$ 124,625$ 90,411$ 104,695$ 92,725$ 104,695$ 14,332$ 19,756$ 25,387$ 28,664$ 243,652$ 198,185$ 223,771$ (132,343)$ (86,875)$ (112,461)$ Pittsburg 67,817 402,833$ 19.15 4,963 732 402,833$ 130,392$ 488,557$ 327,201$ 378,896$ 150,993$ 378,896$ 51,868$ 77,446$ 41,340$ 103,736$ 919,321$ 322,725$ 809,833$ (516,488)$ 80,108$ (407,000)$ Pleasant Hill 34,077 202,417$ 7.08 1,195 362 202,417$ 48,187$ 117,636$ 164,413$ 190,389$ 55,800$ 190,389$ 26,063$ 18,648$ 15,277$ 52,126$ 334,088$ 119,265$ 406,929$ (131,670)$ 83,153$ (204,511)$ Richmond 110,378 655,645$ 52.51 7,268 1,191 655,645$ 357,540$ 715,461$ 532,548$ 616,685$ 414,028$ 616,685$ 84,420$ 113,415$ 113,355$ 168,840$ 1,416,566$ 884,923$ 1,318,073$ (760,921)$ (229,277)$ (662,427)$ San Pablo 30,829 183,124$ 2.63 1,586 839 183,124$ 17,901$ 156,126$ 148,743$ 172,243$ 20,729$ 172,243$ 23,579$ 24,749$ 5,675$ 47,158$ 351,947$ 44,305$ 368,143$ (168,823)$ 138,819$ (185,019)$ San Ramon 78,363 465,476$ 18.64 1,729 223 465,476$ 126,919$ 170,203$ 378,083$ 437,817$ 146,972$ 437,817$ 59,934$ 26,981$ 40,239$ 119,868$ 667,953$ 314,130$ 935,767$ (202,477)$ 151,346$ (470,291)$ Walnut Creek 70,018 415,907$ 19.77 2,686 312 415,907$ 134,614$ 264,409$ 337,820$ 391,193$ 155,881$ 391,193$ 53,552$ 41,914$ 42,678$ 107,103$ 709,154$ 333,173$ 836,116$ (293,247)$ 82,734$ (420,209)$ Contract Cities Total 839,339 4,985,674$ 290 38,835 8,347 4,985,674$ 1,973,550$ 3,822,912$ 4,049,611$ 4,689,413$ 2,285,354$ 4,689,413$ 641,948$ 606,011$ 625,698$ 1,283,895$ 9,154,273$ 4,884,602$ 10,022,919$ (4,168,599)$ 101,072$ (5,037,246)$ Balance of County (Less Antioch) 171,122 1,016,465$ 413 10,690 1,711 1,016,465$ 2,900,791$ 1,361,452$ 825,623$ 1,419,760$ 3,360,594$ 956,064$ 130,878$ 267,283$ 920,375$ 261,757$ 2,912,090$ 7,181,761$ 2,043,444$ (80,865)$ (4,350,536)$ 787,781$ Total (If Balance of County Service
Area Were Treated like Contract
Cities)
1,010,461 6,002,138$ 703 49,525 10,058 6,002,138$ 4,874,342$ 5,184,364$ 4,875,234$ 6,109,173$ 5,645,948$ 5,645,477$ 772,826$ 873,294$ 1,546,072$ 1,545,652$ 12,066,363$ 12,066,363$ 12,066,363$ (4,249,464)$ (4,249,464)$ (4,249,464)$ Total FY 17/18 Expenditure Budget 12,066,363$
Net FY 17/18 Budgeted County
Subsidy (6,064,225)$
FY 17/18 Per-Capita Charge 5.94$
FY 17/18 Budgeted Other Revenue 2,831,772$
FY 16/17 Actual Other Revenue 2,239,004$
Total Service Area 1,010,461 703 49,525 10,058 4,874,342$ 5,184,364$ 4,875,234$ 6,109,173$ 5,645,948$ 5,645,477$ 772,826$ 873,294$ 1,546,072$ 1,545,652$ 12,066,363$ 12,066,363$ 12,066,363$ (4,249,464)$ (4,249,464)$ (4,249,464)$ Animals
Sheltered
(CY 16)
Total FY17/18
Revenue
Budgeted
Field Services Shelter Center Operations Support Services Administration Total Jurisdiction
Current Population
Used by The
Department for
Contract Charge
Current Annual
Service Charge
($5.94 Per Capita)
City Square
Mileage
City Calls
for Service
(CY 16)
Appendix A7
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Brentwood
Population 58,784
Square Miles 14.86
Services Calls 2,175
Animals Sheltered 634
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals
Sheltered
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals
Sheltered
Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals
Sheltered / Calls
for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals
Sheltered / Calls
for Service
Dog/Cat
Population Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
349,177$ 101,182$ 214,107$ 283,619$ 328,428$ 117,167$ 328,428$ 44,959$ 33,940$ 32,079$ 89,919$ 587,494$ 250,428$ 701,966$ (238,317)$ 349,177$ 98,749$ (352,789)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus
Cost Allocation Factors
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services
Appendix A8
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Clayton
Population 11,209
Square Miles 3.84
Services Calls 351
Animals Sheltered 121
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
66,581$ 26,160$ 34,552$ 54,081$ 62,625$ 30,293$ 62,625$ 8,573$ 5,477$ 8,294$ 17,146$ 105,750$ 64,747$ 133,852$ (39,169)$ 1,834$ (67,270)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) 5.94$
without Overhead 4.82$ 5.59$ 1.53$ 11.94$ without Overhead 11.88$ 13.76$ 3.77$ 29.41$ Average Cost per Square Mile 6,809$ 7,885$ 2,159$ 16,852$ Average Cost per Call 98.44$ 15.60$ 114.04$ Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) 518$ 71$ 589$ FY 17/18 Budget 12,066,363$
Field Services 4,875,234$
Shelter Services 5,645,477$
Administration / Support Services 1,545,652$
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/Surplus Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Factors
Appendix A9
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Concord
Population 129,707
Square Miles 31
Services Calls 5,331
Animals Sheltered 1,399
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
770,460$ 207,946$ 524,783$ 625,805$ 724,677$ 240,800$ 724,677$ 99,203$ 83,189$ 65,928$ 198,406$ 1,348,663$ 514,674$ 1,548,889$ (578,203.52)$ 255,785$ (778,429)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A10
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Danville
Cost Allocation Factors
Population 42,865
Square Miles 18.08
Services Calls 1,279
Animals Sheltered 462
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
254,618$ 123,106$ 125,905$ 206,813$ 239,488$ 142,556$ 239,488$ 32,784$ 19,958$ 39,030$ 65,568$ 398,177$ 304,693$ 511,870$ (143,559)$ (50,074)$ (257,252)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A11
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of El Cerrito
Population 24,378
Square Miles 3.66
Services Calls 815
Animals Sheltered 263
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
144,805$ 24,894$ 80,228$ 117,618$ 136,201$ 28,827$ 136,201$ 18,645$ 12,718$ 7,892$ 37,290$ 235,074$ 61,613$ 291,109$ (90,269)$ 83,193$ (146,303)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A12
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Hercules
Cost Allocation Factors
Population 24,791
Square Miles 19.98
Services Calls 777
Animals Sheltered 267
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
147,259$ 136,044$ 76,488$ 119,611$ 138,508$ 157,537$ 138,508$ 18,961$ 12,125$ 43,131$ 37,922$ 233,957$ 336,712$ 296,040$ (86,698)$ (189,454)$ (148,782)$ Components Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A13
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Lafayette
Population 24,924
Square Miles 15.21
Services Calls 1,118
Animals Sheltered 269
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
148,049$ 103,565$ 110,056$ 120,252$ 139,251$ 119,927$ 139,251$ 19,063$ 17,446$ 32,834$ 38,125$ 268,369$ 256,326$ 297,629$ (120,321)$ (108,277)$ (149,580)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A14
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Martinez
Population 37,057
Square Miles 13.63
Services Calls 2,323
Animals Sheltered 400
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
220,119$ 92,806$ 228,676$ 178,791$ 207,039$ 107,469$ 207,039$ 28,342$ 36,250$ 29,424$ 56,684$ 464,057$ 229,699$ 442,514$ (243,938)$ (9,580)$ (222,395)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A15
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Moraga
Population 16,513
Square Miles 9.47
Services Calls 436
Animals Sheltered 178
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
98,087$ 64,488$ 42,920$ 79,671$ 92,259$ 74,676$ 92,259$ 12,630$ 6,804$ 20,445$ 25,259$ 147,808$ 159,610$ 197,189$ (49,721)$ (61,522)$ (99,102)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
(Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals
Appendix A16
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Oakley
Population 40,141
Square Miles 16.17
Services Calls 2,690
Animals Sheltered 433
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
238,438$ 110,101$ 264,803$ 193,671$ 224,269$ 127,496$ 224,269$ 30,701$ 41,977$ 34,907$ 61,402$ 519,773$ 272,504$ 479,341$ (281,336)$ (34,067)$ (240,904)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A17
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Orinda
Population 18,749
Square Miles 12.89
Services Calls 847
Animals Sheltered 202
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
111,369$ 87,768$ 83,379$ 90,459$ 104,751$ 101,634$ 104,751$ 14,340$ 13,217$ 27,826$ 28,679$ 202,470$ 217,228$ 223,890$ (91,100)$ (105,859)$ (112,521)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A18
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Pinole
Population 18,739
Square Miles 11.76
Services Calls 1,266
Animals Sheltered 202
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
111,310$ 80,074$ 124,625$ 90,411$ 104,695$ 92,725$ 104,695$ 14,332$ 19,756$ 25,387$ 28,664$ 243,652$ 198,185$ 223,771$ (132,343)$ (86,875)$ (112,461)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A19
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Pittsburg
Population 67,817
Square Miles 19.15
Services Calls 4,963
Animals Sheltered 732
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
402,833$ 130,392$ 488,557$ 327,201$ 378,896$ 150,993$ 378,896$ 51,868$ 77,446$ 41,340$ 103,736$ 919,321$ 322,725$ 809,833$ (516,488)$ 80,108$ (407,000)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Factors
Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Appendix A20
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Pleasant Hill
Population 34,077
Square Miles 7.08
Services Calls 1,195
Animals Sheltered 368
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
202,417$ 48,187$ 117,636$ 164,413$ 190,389$ 55,800$ 190,389$ 26,063$ 18,648$ 15,277$ 52,126$ 334,088$ 119,265$ 406,929$ (131,670)$ 83,153$ (204,511)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter ServicesCost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A21
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Richmond
Population 110,378
Square Miles 52.51
Services Calls 7,268
Animals Sheltered 1,191
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
655,645$ 357,540$ 715,461$ 532,548$ 616,685$ 414,028$ 616,685$ 84,420$ 113,415$ 113,355$ 168,840$ 1,416,566$ 884,923$ 1,318,073$ (760,921)$ (229,277)$ (662,427)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
(Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Factors
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals
Appendix A22
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of San Pablo
Population 30,829
Square Miles 2.63
Services Calls 1,586
Animals Sheltered 333
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
183,124$ 17,901$ 156,126$ 148,743$ 172,243$ 20,729$ 172,243$ 23,579$ 24,749$ 5,675$ 47,158$ 351,947$ 44,305$ 368,143$ (168,823)$ 138,819$ (185,019)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Cost Allocation Factors
Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A23
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of San Ramon
Population 78,363
Square Miles 18.64
Services Calls 1,729
Animals Sheltered 845
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
465,476$ 126,919$ 170,203$ 378,083$ 437,817$ 146,972$ 437,817$ 59,934$ 26,981$ 40,239$ 119,868$ 667,953$ 314,130$ 935,767$ (202,477)$ 151,346$ (470,291)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
(Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Factors
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals
Appendix A24
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity City of Walnut Creek
Population 70,018
Square Miles 19.77
Services Calls 2,686
Animals Sheltered 755
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
415,907$ 134,614$ 264,409$ 337,820$ 391,193$ 155,881$ 391,193$ 53,552$ 41,914$ 42,678$ 107,103$ 709,154$ 333,173$ 836,116$ (293,247)$ 82,734$ (420,209)$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals (Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Factors
Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
Appendix A25
Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Based on FY 16/17 Activity Contra Costa County Remaining Service Area
Population 171,122
Square Miles 413.04
Services Calls 10,690
Animals Sheltered 1,846
Square Miles Calls for Service Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered Calls for Service Square Miles Actual Per-Capita Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
Number of
Animals Sheltered
/ Calls for Service
Square Miles Actual Per-Capita
Cost
2,831,225$ 2,900,791$ 1,361,452$ 825,623$ 1,419,760$ 3,360,594$ 956,064$ 130,878$ 267,283$ 920,375$ 261,757$ 2,912,090$ 7,181,761$ 2,043,444$ (80,865)$ (4,350,536)$ 787,781$ Component Field Services Shelter Services Administration / Support Services Total
Current Per-Capita Charge (FY 17/18 Budget) $ 5.94 without Overhead $ 4.82 $ 5.59 $ 1.53 $ 11.94 without Overhead $ 11.88 $ 13.76 $ 3.77 $ 29.41 Average Cost per Square Mile $ 6,809 $ 7,885 $ 2,159 $ 16,852 Average Cost per Call $ 98.44 $ 15.60 $ 114.04 Average Cost to Shelter an Animal (Shelter Services
& Administration/Support) $ 517.93 $ 70.90 $ 588.84 FY 17/18 Budget $ 12,066,363
Field Services $ 4,875,234
Shelter Services $ 5,645,477
Administration / Support Services $ 1,545,652
Contract City Total Population 839,339
Balance of County Except Antioch Total 171,122
Total Service Area Population 1,010,461
Total Dog/Cat Population 410,284
Square Miles in Service Area 716
CY 16 Animals Sheltered 10,900
CY 16 Call for Service 49,525
Contra Costa County Overall Animal Services Cost Allocation Factors Based on FY 17/18 Budget Cost Allocation Factors
(Subsidy)/SurplusCost Allocation Options - Shelter Services Cost Allocation Options - Support/Administration Services Cost Allocation Options - Totals Total Revenue Allocated (FY 17/18)
Cost Allocation Options - Field Services
From: Bonnie Andrews, BRE #01085442
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: BOS Meeting 5/24/22 Item QA5 AND QA
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:51:13 PM
Attachments: ANIMAL SHELTER 5 24 22.docx
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.
Please find the attached letter for the above meeting tonight. Thank you. Bonnie Bonnie Andrews | Realtor
BRE License #01085442
Windermere Rowland Realty
930 San Pablo Ave. Suite A
Pinole, CA 94564
OFFICE (510) 222-9150
CELL (510) 478-8266
FAX (510) 222-9165
May 24, 2022
City of Richmond
RE: BOS Meeting 5/24/22 Item QA5 AND QA
After reviewing the proposed changes in Animal Services I am completely in shock. I am a resident of El Sobrante, have worked at a vet clinic for 17 years, and volunteered many of the past years for rescue groups in our area including the Martinez Animal Shelter volunteer program with Sue Underwood.
When Dr. Bachman was there, I have nothing but good memories, he was compassionate and cared so much about the animals, he always went the extra mile to help an animal be saved. As the years have past I have seen nothing but the animal shelter go down hill, including the closing of the Pinole Shelter, lack of staffing to help with incidences with animals, and the care of the animals. I have continued to hear the name Beth Ward, but a lot is not great, no one wants to rock the boat with her in fear of being retaliated on. I cannot personally say as I do not know her. I recently heard that her salary is 300k, and her associates is also high, if this is true, shame on all of you. How can a county pay that type of salary(for one open shelter) and close a shelter that is so important to so many animals. It would appear that the financial advisor is not doing their job. I am also told that payroll is over 70%, if that is correct, where is the staffing for that much payroll, it certainly is not in our area, or certain employess are obtaining the majority of this, that is stopping from proper staffing in our area.
First I would like to address the closing of the Pinole Shelter, on this side which services many cities, some that are not as wealthy as others, there is an increase of abandoned animals, people moving and leaving their animals or just releasing them, there is no where to take them, and most of these animal owners are not going to drive to Martinez, most don’t have transportation or gas. You have created an extremely dangerous area for us to live in with these abandoned animals and unthinkable situations for the animals. The stress you have put on the rescue groups who are trying so hard to take up the slack is enormous, and I guarantee you they are not making 300k a year. They have kept their focus on trying to save the animals, help pay for medical, spay and neutering. The shelter had stopped taking in feral cats, I asked what I should tell people that were trapping and trying to help the population by spaying and neutering, I was told to release them. Really, the shelter that gets funding and has a surplus for the general fund each year, cannot accommodate the needs of our county. I am questioning whoever is in charge and making these decisions is not taking the needs of our animals seriously. Some of the rescues have had to go to other counties to obtain animals for adoption due to the shelter does not have adequate organization to keep adoption times opened for our area. There was a mobile to be used, but here again, it is work in progress, WHEN DOES THE WORK FINALLY GET COMPLETED TO GET THIS IN MOTION?
Second, as I read the time limits for the county to respond to priority 1-3 calls is ridiculous, hire more field employees, by the time they are able to get there, an animal has already been suffering way to long, a child or someone has already gotten bit, or the animal is gone, there should be transportation for birds, there needs to be in place quick response for wild animals so that they are not dying for hours or days because we do not have staffing. With the part time add for new hires is also a joke, does Beth Ward realize how large we are over here, with Richmond alone paying over 800k for services, not counting the other areas, we certainly could afford many more employees to serve our area. We need services for this side of the county, not Martinez and further out. It seems like the payments are coming, but we are not getting much for the money put in. In Richmond alone you could probably use 2 full time field agents at least, I would like Beth Ward to drive in Richmond and see the amount of animals on the streets, loose dogs, cats, puppies. Homeless with animals that need help. Not to mention the other cities that are struggling with cat and dog population problems. Please, come into our real world and take a good look at the problems that have been caused by closing the shelter, no spay/neuter help in our area. Again, people can’t get to Martinez. I also work in the complex where the Pinole shelter was, I see people come there all the time, to just see that they are closed, they NEED HELP! Third, there needs to be more assistance with spays and neuters for rescues or clients with these animals. The reproduction of kittens and puppies is on the rise with not being able to have enough openings for surgeries. The waiting time is allowing more dogs and cats to get pregnant; I do not remember the shelter ever turning animals away, this is a disgrace for our county.
I am asking that the Pinole Shelter be opened back up, we must have a facility in our area. Medical attention must be given to animals in need, and there must be adequate staffing to field calls. I am asking for an audit be done on your books and an outside person with experience be consulted to have a program that will help all of our animals in need.
Please do not sign this new agreement, you can keep working of the 2006 agreement and let acceptable revisions continue to be worked on, and when this new agreement really shows where your money is going, and it will adequately take care of our area, then sign.
Thank you,
Bonnie Andrews
From: KarenKidwell
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments agenda item # Q.6
Date: Monday, May 23, 2022 10:44:35 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 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 City Council Members,
I am a resident of the city of Richmond who cares about animals, both domestic and wild. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed City-County Animal Services Agreement. The proposed Agreement does not include essential community services that protect our animal companions, community cats, and wild animals.
It appears that the proposed agreement does not include implementing operational Pet Retention, Transfer Partners, and Adoption programs. As a result, impounded adoptable animals would be in danger of being killed rather than returned to their owners, transferred to rescues, or adopted into safe and loving homes. All services for injured wildlife were eliminated in 2020 and should be reinstated.
This proposed agreement's scope of services and standard of care are unclear and vague. A well-written humane agreement is required, outlining services and reinstating eliminated ones. For example, the agreement doesn’t specify how many spay/neuter appointments will be provided. As of March 12, 2022, the CCAS website states that all appointments have already been booked until late June. We need to increase funding and expand services for more spay/neuter appointments, especially for those least able to afford them, to help decrease the number of feral and abandoned pets left to roam in the community.
The new Agreement increases City fees and decreases community-based services. It's below the basic standard of care in practice by shelters across the country. I urge you to collaborate with your fellow city officials, rescue groups, and community members to revise the agreement to be a mutually agreeable, Joint City-County Collaboration that restores the cuts in services to our pets and wildlife.
It is also troubling that the cities’ per capita fees increase every year while the contribution from the County’s General Fund remains the same. Increased services should be offered in return for increased funding. Please negotiate for a comprehensive, fair, and humane Animal Services Agreement.
Thank you for your consideration of this serious matter.
Sincerely,
Karen
From: Lisa Kirk
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Increased per capita rate animal service contracts.
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 1:42:33 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.
Good evening City Council members,
My name is Lisa Kirk I am a volunteer for the Contra Costa SPCA I have done trap neutered and return in both Sacramento and Contra Costa County for two decades in order to get the cat population under control. I provide volunteer project manager for TNR services. This averages about $45 per cat and this does not include the cost spay and neuters.
Contra Costa Animal Services does not pick up cats for spay and neuters and as of October 2021 officially closed to the intake of healthy cats and kittens.
I have been in a working Community cat group in conjunction with Contra Costa Animal Services since October in order to find an alternative to what Beth Ward now states is an industry standard, non intake of healthy cats and kittens. This is an experimental concept and it's not an industry standard I also deal with Sacramento County shelter that is comparable to Contra Costa and has not turned healthy cats and kittens away but continues to function as a shelter providing mandated and discretionary services.
Our shelter was close to the intake of animals, except in some circumstances, for almost 2 years. Combine with the new policy of non intake of healthy cats and kittens has created a reduction of burden to the shelter.
As a working group we went over the budget for the last 4 years and found almost 2 million that had been put back into the general fund. Although this could be the consequence of the pan epidemic, the reality is since they have stopped providing a service to the community of in taking health cats and kittens this has and will reduce populations at their shelter.
I noticed in the presentation tonight that CCAS stated under section "volunteer unit" that they have 150 volunteers. I do not see listed under that any fostering systems. Which would indicate that they have closed the fostering program for cats.
I believe they have chose to just reach out to non-profits rescues to take the sick kittens that are being brought in. Again creating a reduction of burden and cost. Sacramento County shelter is in taking healthy cats and kittens from the public and providing fostering and care for them.
The question that you need to think about is what is happening to all those cats that are left out unaltered and producing and how is that going to affect your community? The measure X proposal by ccas estimated 450,000 cats in Contra Costa County alone.
Leaving them outside unaltered and unvaccinated will only produce more cats.
The measure X proposal was asking for additional fundings for discretionary services such as low cost spay and neuters. As part of the working cat group with ccas we received an untitled and undated proposal from animal services for Measure X funding. Although the County administrator put out an email to department heads earlier in 202, Beth Ward never wrote a proposal. So nothing was ever introduced to the measure X advisory committee. I believe it was at the urging of the working cat group that she produced an untitled and undated proposal, with full knowledge that it was too little too late. Citizens and nonprofits tried to present this to the board of supervisors because we were aware of the new policy change of not in taking cats and kittens anticipated the overwhelming burden that has now shifted to nonprofits.
Also the fact that they were in negotiations with the cities to increase your per capita rate. I'm unsure if most of you are aware of letters that were sent to your city managers in 2020 and 2021, from Animal Services stating that they were going to reduce services to a minimal mandated level only. At that time they were trying to get a dollar per capita for 5 years.
I have included the report and please note on page 11 outlines what other counties are paying per capita. It is very misleading. The per capita rate for Sacramento County mainly comes out of the general fund. They have few contracted cities.
The line for Contra Costa County only indicates what the 18 contracted cities are paying, not what is contributed by the general fund. If you add the amount from the general fund it is comparable to what other counties have budgeting for Animal Services. Again Sacramento County has not cut dead animal service pickups, has not discontinue the intake of healthy cats and kittens.
Their general fund absorbs the cost of mandated and discretionary services. And they do an excellent job at providing both.
Under the presentation "Updated Agreement Services", it states many food and agricultural codes. These codes are basically a division of regulations regarding licensing and laws regarding dog intake for counties over 100,000.
Otherwise mandated services.
This section goes on to state that they will provide low-cost spay and neuters yet no amount is associated with the estimated 450,000 outdoor cats and 180,000 dogs as pointed out in the measure X. They also point out local agencies which is unclear how they are mandated to provide any services.
If you sign this agreement your cost will go up $3 per capita for the next two years. The formula for 24-25 is unclear. What is the percent that the cities are being asked to pay for personnel, operational and then divided into mandated and discretionary? In previous years, funds we're deposited back into the county's general fund and not refunded to cities. Also levels of service were cut to cities without any input.
At this meeting I would clarify with animal services if contracts are not signed, does your per capita rate remain at $6 79,
including the CPI index per year and will the services that you're now receiving remain the same?
I would suggest that you not sign this contract and instead use some of that amount to provide funding for nonprofits in your areas that are dealing with the horrific animal overpopulation in this County.
The city of Pittsburg is now reimbursing non-profits that assist their citizens in spay and neuters of their Community animals.
Another approach to these contracts would be creating a Joint Powers entity and agreements.The contracted cities are now paying more than half the share of animal services and have no input to have these services are rendered or reductions made. Also these meetings would be open to the public and would bring to table all of the non-profits that are now being asked to provide services to the community.
The grand jury report 'Improving Animal Services in Contra Costa" included many solutions that called upon nonprofits to provide services. A Joint Powers entity would give us footing in this conversation and help explain the complexity of this department to the cities.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lisa Kirk 925-382-5249 Contra Costa Society of prevention of cruelty to animals 40564_40046_CCAS FY 2019-20 City Fee Proposal
final.pdf
From: Susan Mulloy
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Proposed contract between Contra Costa Animal Services and City of Richmond Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:10:31 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.
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I am writing to ask that you do not sign the proposed contract that Director Beth Ward will present at tonight's meeting. The contract will lock Richmond into the present level of services that fall far below what is necessary for animals and the public alike.
Until 2020 when I moved to Oakland and now Fairfax to live in Sec. 8 rent subsidized senior housing, I was a long time resident of Richmond and North Richmond, starting in 1994 in the Richmond Annex, then the Iron Triangle neighborhood, and finally North Richmond. I was a member of Fix Our Ferals and have been a volunteer for the Feral Cat Foundation and Community Concern for Cats )CC4C) for many years. I transcribe and answer many of the hotline calls that CC4C gets from the public. In 2021 we received 1,235 calls for help from the public; included in this total are 207 calls to rehome pets and 516 calls about found kittens and cats.
Here are the problems many of us cat rescue see with the proposed contract:
Issues Under the Proposed City-Animal Services Agreement:
CCAS increases annual fees paid by our tax dollars yet decreases the scope of services.
CCAS no longer responds to calls regarding injured wildlife. Instead, the caller will be instructed to contact California Fish and Wildlife. Meanwhile injured animals will be left to suffer until they die.
The number of Field Services Officers is reduced from sixteen to ten and on-call coverage has been eliminated.
No Animal Care Coordinator positions will be offered to implement life saving programs such as the Pet Retention, Transfer Partner and Adoption programs.
The cities will be locked into the Agreement for two years, followed by automatic renewal for three-year periods unless the City seeks approval by the Board of Supervisors to amend the Agreement.
Calls to CCAS for services not included in the proposed City-County Agreement will be referred to the Cities for resolution.
The contribution amount from the County general fund for Animal Services remains the same annually; however, the City’s per capita fee increases every year.
Impounded adoptable animals are in danger of being euthanized rather than redeemed to their owners, transferred to rescues or adopted out, contrary to the provisions set forth in the Hayden Law.
Public low-cost spay-neuter surgeries are offered at a fraction of the volume of previous years, resulting in a three-month wait for spay-neuter appointments.
Only one low-cost vaccine clinic will be offered a month, which is woefully inadequate for the number of pet owners in the county.
An inadequate number of thirty two trap-neuter-release (TNR) spay-neuter appointments per week has created an eighty person waitlist.
There is no efficient and robust foster program to ensure cats and dogs are adopted into safe, cruelty free homes.
Although I have listed many of the problems above, I appreciate the work done by CCAS staff on a daily basis. I hope that CCAS will receive adequate funding to do the work needed by all of us.
Thank you,
Susan Mulloy
53 Taylor Drive, Apt. 105
Fairfax, CA 94930
510.837.2571
From: Leisa Johnson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: John Gioia; Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates; Shasa Curl Subject: Public Comments for Item Q.7 - A3 Miles Hall Crisis Hub Program Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 8:02:48 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 City Clerk,
Can you please include the below written comments in the supplementary minutes?
Thank you!
Leisa
****************************************************************** Good Evening Mayor, Councilmembers and Staff -
I am strongly in support of a community crisis response program, and I believe everyone in the community supports this endeavor.
As this council knows, I have also been asking for months now for the County and Supervisor Gioia to come and present to you and the Public on how the county will distribute Measure X funds to our City, most recently in April regarding Measure X and the A3 program. So thank you to Supervisor Gioia & CCHS for coming and presenting tonight on the Public’s behalf.
To date, the discussion and action that has been pursued from the beginning by the RPA City Councilmembers and the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force will, in my educated opinion, is irresponsible, puts our City and its residents at further risk, and I have several legitimate concerns.
Why did the City of Richmond do an RFP last month to examine anything other than joining the County’s CCHS A3 program?
There were 3 options that the City and Reimagining Public Safety Task Force pursued in this RFP:
1. An in-house City of Richmond program where all staff are hired and managed by the City, and the City implements the program;
2. A program where the City collaborates with one or more non-profits to implement the program and a “majority” of staff are hired & managed by the non-profit(s); and
3. A program where the City collaborates with the CCC A3 program for implementation and/or staffing.
The County’s A3 program is already funded using Measure X dollars, which Richmond residents and taxpayers already pay into.
Supervisor Gioia has told more than one community person that Richmond is the only City currently not participating in the A3 program and has instead decided to “go it alone”, creating an independent and redundant program.
The City is broke, yet the RPA majority council members are pursuing a separate program with no mechanism to fund it.
Interestingly, these same councilmembers just killed the Community Facilities District for Point Molate, thereby preventing the city from receiving $22.5M this month following its sale, while simultaneously saddling us with millions in legal liability and maintenance costs.
The Public is presuming that the RPA council will once again propose to cut police and possibly fire to pay for their own program.
The irony of this is that one cannot say they are for supporting & addressing mental health crises within our community when their very actions and policies instead create additional mental health crises for our public safety servants by continuing to cut their budgets, reduce staffing, and increase overtime.
Our police officers and firefighters who are overworked, overtired, and unnecessarily stressed by this council’s antics are suffering as are their families. When they suffer, they not only risk their own safety and lives but those they serve.
Is your goal to leave us with no police and fire once they all quit or retire? We’ve all seen the madness associated with poor policy decisions, including yet another elementary school shooting this evening, resulting in the loss of 18 children and 1 teacher. At what point will this majority council stop putting their own ideology, political pursuits and power grabs above what is in the best interest of everyone in this community.
Respectfully,
Leisa Johnson
22-year Richmond Resident and Community Advocate
From: McCloud, Vanessa
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Engler, Daniel M.; Klein, Linda C.; Sabey, Andrew Subject: Point Molate Mixed-Use Development
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 4:05:16 PM
Attachments: 05 24 Ltr to Council re CFD.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 Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
Attached please find a letter from Mr. Sabey regarding the above-subject matter.
Thank you,
Vanessa
Vanessa A. McCloud
Assistant to Patrick McGovern | Jeff Lapota | Andrew Sabey | Susan Davis Scott Laes | Simmone Ashai |
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
2029 Century Park East | Suite 2100 | Los Angeles, CA 90067 direct:
424.201.2520
main:
310.284.2200 |
fax:
310.284.2100
[email protected] | vcard | website
This communication is intended only for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the addressee, or someone responsible for delivering this document to the addressee, you may not read, copy or distribute it. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please call us promptly and securely dispose of it. Thank you.
www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Andrew B. Sabey
415.262.5103
[email protected]
File No. 083086
May 24, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
City of Richmond City Counsel
Ms. Pamela Christian, City Clerk
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Re: Point Molate Mixed-Use Development
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:
We write to debunk the myth that the Point Molate Project community facilities district (“CFD”) could be found to adversely impact the City’s General Fund. The terms of the CFD were largely negotiated as part of the Project entitlements and recited in the Development Agreement (“DA”) and Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) approved by the City Council in 2020. The actual proposed CFD before the City Council in March 2022 was more protective of the City’s General Fund than the original terms of the DA required. The City’s own expert consultants concluded that the CFD was favorable to the City and its public finances.
Moreover, as a financing tool, CFDs do not put the City’s General Fund at risk; CFDs secure financing against the value of the land Winehaven is purchasing and developing as a new community. The recourse is secured against the land, not the City’s funds.
Based on questionable conclusions, including those from lay people, that failed to use numbers from a certified appraiser and were not peer reviewed, the City found that the Project could require funding for services from the General Fund. Among other details, the City expressed concern that the fire station and police substation were potentially too expensive during the early years of the Project to be completely supported by the Project. Even if someone could level that charge against the Project, the CFD did not cause that nor even contribute to that condition. All these concerns were directed at elements of the Project the City had insisted on, not the CFD. The CFD is a financing tool that protects the City, and the City’s attempt to twist that reality into a concern that the CFD could injure the City’s finances is simply not based in fact.
The City is requiring a fully staffed fire station early in the Project buildout. That is not a requirement of the Project’s environmental impact report (“EIR”), DA, or DDA. Nor does any document require a certain staffing level. As the City is aware, during the entitlement process Winehaven offered to build the fire station and police substation but anticipated that tax revenue from future residents would be used to cover staffing and operations, similar to how such items May 24, 2022
are covered elsewhere in the City. The City wanted the Project to cover those items, however, and in an effort to be an accommodating development partner, Winehaven agreed.
Similarly, the City negotiated for and obtained a commitment for the Project to fund the maintenance of City parks and open space, construct a City park along the shoreline, and provide three million dollars towards the Bay Trail, regardless whether the City needed funds in addition to its grants to complete the Bay Trail Project.
After negotiating for these community benefits, the City then turns around and uses the costs of the benefits as a reason to deny a resolution of intent to form a CFD, under the guise of a concern that the costs would place an “unfair burden” on future residents. No evidence supports that expressed concern. It is an obvious pretext. The burden on future buyers of new homes is well within the normal and customary range for CFD assessments and there is nothing unfair about future buyers sharing in that expense—that is the very nature of a CFD and the City negotiated for a CFD from the outset. There is nothing about the CFD that justified the City Council’s March 2022 about face and refusal to proceed. That decision, despite the attempts to dress it up in financing concerns, was based purely on a political majority not wanting to honor the approvals the prior City Council granted.
The City’s action on the CFD is the epitome of bad faith.
Sincerely,
Andrew B. Sabey
cc: Marc Magstadt
David Soyka
Daniel Engler, Esq.
Linda Klein, Esq.
083086\15033341v4
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public Comments- R.2 Budget Session
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2022 3:54:27 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.
Good Evening Mayor Butt, Council members and Staff,
I do appreciate the hard work that our Fire and Police Department do for Richmond Sincerely
Cordell
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments- R.3 Budget Session
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2022 3:58:11 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.
Good Evening Mayor Butt, Council members and Staff
I do appreciate the hard work that the Community Development and Community services departments Sincerely
Cordell