Richmond City Council
May 24, 2022

From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments- Open Forum
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2022 3:34:15 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 have some Comments for the Record

1. I am in full support of O.3.a on the Consent Calendar

2. for the June 28th Agenda, the Council should consider having Sabrina Landreth to provide a presentation on How
Park services been impacted by Co-vid
Sincerely
Cordell
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments- Q.3 Study Session
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2022 3:41:29 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 have some comments to share I do appreciate the Hard work that the employees do for our City on a daily Basis what I am suggesting is that Either a Floral Bouquet or a Party to honor Staff Sincerely
Cordell
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments- Q.5 Study Session
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2022 3:46:14 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,
would ask that the City Manager to Release the Class and Comp study as Directed Sincerely
Cordell
From: Annie Wright
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item Q.6. Contra Costa County Increasing Per Capita Cost for Animal Services in County Cities
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:49:35 PM
Attachments: 5-24-22 Letter to Richmond City Council.pdf Copy of Measure X Proposal 12.01.2021.pdf
47237_Attachment D - Additional Programs EM.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,
The attached letter and documents are for the

Public Comments Agenda Item Q.6.

Thank you very much for your assistance!
Dear Mayor Butt, City Manager Curl and City Council:

Contra Costa Animal Services Director, Beth Ward’s proposed agreement to the 18 Cities is not fair, humane or equitable. We urge you to revise the agreement to be a mutually agreeable, Joint City-County Collaboration. We agree that increased city funding is needed. A well-written humane agreement is required, outlining services and reinstating eliminated ones. City representatives, rescue groups and community members should be involved with creating a new Agreement.

We recommend that you continue to use CCAS'S existing contract to the Cities from 2006, as you have been doing for 16 years. It is written on the contract that a 90-day notice is required by either party to cancel the contract.

It's crucial that specific details and definitions are outlined in the proposed Agreement.

Clarification of provided services with a description and how they are achieved. Such as, stray animal patrols. Performance metrics are something added to the new agreement. Is there accountability for the performance data? If CCAS dispatch receives 11,000 calls for loose dogs, injured animals, animal cruelty complaints, etc. how many resulted in a resolution? Is this included in the data? How many reports of animal cruelty and how many cases were prosecuted? Are the field response times adequate? Does the response times present public safety issues? Is the burden of responding to Dangerous Animal calls being placed on the police departments? How will these field services improve?
We have concerns with many of the items below and throughout the Presentation.

This information is from CCAS'S Presentation posted to the Richmond Agenda, 5-24-22:

The updated agreement provides much greater detail regarding service levels, including *Defining what is covered under deceased animal services Codifying performance reporting within the agreement, including an annual review and needs assessment.

Creating accountability by listing target response times for each activity type Animals At Large/Impoundment of Stray Animals
Stray & Aggressive Animal Patrols (Inc. Livestock)
Deceased Animal Impoundment
Deceased animals located on the public right of way.

Deceased animals on private property
*From CCAS'S website, 5-23-22: We prioritize all of our Field Service calls based on public safety. Deceased animal reports will be handled as quickly as possible, though it may take up to seven days for removal. Please note that CCAS will not perform deceased animal pickups in areas that pose a safety risk to our officers. These areas include crawl spaces, attics, cliffs, condemned buildings, creek beds, hillsides and other unsafe locations. *Please Note: CCAS will not conduct deceased wild animal pickups on private property. CCAS will not conduct deceased animal pickups for owned deceased animals.
2 | P a g e

Providing a service that may take 7 days to pick up a deceased animal is a disservice, unacceptable and presents a public health risk.

Another public health and safety concern from CCAS’S Presentation:

Sick and injured referred to CA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Vector Control or citizen may transport directly to Wildlife Rehabilitation Agency such as Lindsey Wildlife Experience.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife advises: It is important to note that wild animals – even young ones – can cause serious injury with their sharp claws, hooves and teeth, especially when injured and scared. They may also carry ticks, fleas and lice, and can transmit diseases to humans, including rabies and tularemia.

We have a question regarding this information from the Presentation. Why is the year 2020 in all 3 activities when the title is from 2021?
The top activities CCAS responded to in the City of Richmond in 2021 are as follows:
• Stray Animal Activities: 1,187 (1,127 in 2020)
o Includes aggressive stray animals, confined stray animals and stray animal patrols.
• Investigation Activities: 767 (579 in 2020)
o Includes bite investigations and inhumane investigations. • Deceased Animal Activities: 440 (500 in 2020)
o Includes wild and domestic.

There is documentation that the County CAO, Monica Nino, sent an email to county department heads including Animal Services, with instructions on presenting to the Measure X Community Advisory Board (MXCAB). Although Beth Ward drafted a proposal, (attached) it wasn't done until December 2021, after all of the presentations were heard ending in July 2021. The Assessment Needs process was completed. The initial Measure X funds were already allocated in October 2021. There were 12.5 million unallocated funds available, however CCAS was not considered due to not submitting the proposal on time or presenting to MXCAB.

It's very important that Beth Ward stated the Agreement is for mandated services.

Documentation reflects Cities paid a percentage for discretionary services, 21%, is one figure. This information was included in ARC's presentation to the Richmond City Council on May 17, 2022.

Director Ward stated that discretionary services are paid from the general fund. Why isn’t the County contributing enough to provide an adequate number of desperately needed low cost spay, neuter, and vaccinations appointments? A high volume of Trap/Neuter/Return surgeries for the Community Cat Program is necessary to tackle the explosive growth of homeless cats.

There are no plans to provide mobile van adoption or vaccination events. Contra Costa’s 3 | P a g e

population is nearly 1.2 million and the service area for CCAS is 774 square miles. Rescue volunteers and many non-profit rescue groups cannot sustain being the safety net for Contra Costa County Animal Services without sufficient services or support. Many volunteers pay out of pocket to rescue and care for animals in our communities. It’s a huge financial burden, stressful and physically demanding. This is a crisis situation and we would like our City leaders and communities to know how serious this situation is.

Beth Ward stated that deceased animal services are not mandated, but they are providing them based on the Cities needs. Insured wildlife services are not being reinstated. Why are deceased animals a priority and live, injured ones are not?

We recommend a review of the Citygate report. In 2017, Animal Services hired the firm Citygate Associates to perform a cost analysis of the County's animal services operations for the contracted cities. This report cost the cities and county over $100,000 dollars, paid from the Animal Services Budget:

Citygate recommended to evaluate all contracted services for effectiveness and cost efficiency, to revise the current City-Animal Services agreement, review current shelter practices to ensure maximum use of shelter space and maximum customer access to the Pinole and Martinez shelters. Most of these recommendations are not reflected in the agreement.

Animal Services vacancies in Fiscal years 12/13 through FY 16/17 resulted in a $3.1 million surplus. Citygate recommended to fill the current vacancies. This could be done without an increase to the budget, due to the budget surplus. However, CCAS removed all 12 positions, stating the long-term vacancies will have no impact on operations. Citygate outlined ways to improve overall service levels without increasing the budget.

ARC Presented this info: The per capita rate is based on the TOTAL budget for each Shelter, including all revenue received, such as dog licences and fees for services. The per capita rate for CCAS is $11.77. (From Citygate table). In the 2022 Animal Services presentation to the cities, CCAS slide shows per capita rate of $6.79, stating it is low in comparison to other shelters. This is not accurate and we should not compare the “$6.79 city fees” to the per capita rate of other Animal Services using their total budget.

The Citygate report included many recommendations and improvements. However, Animal Services summarized the City Gate findings to the Board of Supervisors and simply reported “the cities fees need to increase”.

Citygate summarized: 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 4 | P a g e

organizational change has left the agency with a significant loss of institutional knowledge and the need to rebuild and retool.

The Citygate report included many recommendations and improvements. However, Animal Services summarized the City Gate findings to the Board of Supervisors and simply reported “the cities fees need to increase”.

In August 2020, the Board of Supervisors voted in favor of a recommendation by Animal Services Director, Beth Ward, to close the Pinole Shelter to consolidate services at the Martinez Shelter. This decision, was part of a savings measure approved to close a $35 million budget deficit for fiscal year 20-21. There were on-going budget issues and the Shelter closure was considered for years. The Pinole Shelter closure has been a devastating loss for West County.

This is an urgent animal welfare and community issue that will require further examination, discussion and scrutiny of the Agreement and provided services by CCAS.

Thank you very much for your time, attention and effort given to this matter.

Animal Rights Coalition (ARC)
[email protected]

1 Attachment D

Animal Services

The Animal Services Department provides animal control, sheltering, and other related programs and services for the unincorporated area of the County and the cities that have agreements with the County.

The contract cities are charged an amount based on a per capita fee.

The Department has continuously experienced several challenges in the Field Services division related to dead animal pick-ups, call response times, and wild animal service calls. With competing priorities in the field, the Department has been unable to meet their targeted response time consistently. Prioritizing staff resources on the Department’s mandated functions required the Department to cease responding to injured wildlife calls. Another significant issue voiced by the partner cities and the community is lack of timely dead animal pick-ups. Unfortunately, it has been a challenge for the Department to respond to the number of dead animal pick-ups required throughout the County with the current staffing levels in the Department (one utility worker). On average, one utility worker can pick-up six dead animals per day although, per the attached report of dead animal calls, it is evident that the actual calls exceed what one utility worker can handle.

To address the concerns with dead animal pick-ups, the Board of Supervisors approved the addition of one utility worker position on July 13, 2021. The cities agreed to fund this position and the associated fleet cost totaling $104,000. This position is currently vacant, but the Department is actively recruiting for this position.

Animal Services also recently met with local City Mangers via the Public Managers Association to inform them of increased fees for the upcoming fiscal year. A few of the smaller cities voiced concern with their inability to absorb the additional costs. In response, the Department is currently developing a phased approach to spread the fee increase over a few years which should lessen the fiscal impacts to cities while providing the funding necessary to maintain the current service levels and to address the above concerns.

Regarding animal control and sheltering services, the Animal Services Department is committed to working collaboratively with the cities to adequately service the community. At this time, the Department is projecting that the increased funding through the increased fees will be sufficient to provide the level of these services required by the city agreements. However, the agreements with the cities have not been finalized.

The Department and the County Administrator’s staff will continue to monitor funding levels and operational needs and will return to the Board of Supervisors should additional funding be required.

Summary of Deceased Animals
by City
CONTRA
COSTA
ANIMAL
SERVICES For the Period: 07/01/2020 - 6/30/2021
TotalCAT DOG LIVESTOCK BIRD DEER COYOTE BAT OTHERS*
BRENTWOOD 41 11 1 5 2 7 0 60 127
CLAYTON 4 1 1 4 4 2 0 7 23
CONCORD 142 30 8 25 24 8 2 145 384
DANVILLE 7 5 1 9 75 0 0 44 141
EL CERRITO 10 2 0 3 14 0 0 18 47
HERCULES 19 6 0 6 8 0 0 28 67
LAFAYETTE 7 4 0 10 63 3 4 31 122
MARTINEZ 47 11 1 11 45
5 0 73 193
MORAGA 4 2 0 3 17 2 1 11 40
OAKLEY 48 14 1 2 0 0 1 73 139
ORINDA 5 1 0 2 39 4 4 19 74
PINOLE 44 4 0 9 10 1 0 44 112
PITTSBURG 91 47 3 5 0 3 0 72 221
PLEASANT HILL 15 6 0 5 8 1 2 31 68
RICHMOND 126 58 1 25 30 4 3 98 345
SAN PABLO 41 19 0 3 6 1 0 21 91
SAN RAMON 11 3 1 12 28
3 1 35 94
UNINCORPORATED 122 48 19 38 120 12 10 254 623
WALNUT CREEK 18 7 0 23 83 7 1 52 191
Total 802 279 37 200 576 63 29 1,116 3,102
Note: This report includes injured animals that have been euthanized in the field. * Animal type of OTHERS includes:

ARMADILLO, BOBCAT, FOX, GUINEA PIG, OPOSSUM, OTTER, RABBIT, RACCOON, RAT, SKUNK, SNAKE, SQUIRREL, etc. 10/18/2021
C:\Program Files\Chameleon Software\Chameleon\Crystal\F3 Reports\Stats for Cities - Deceased Animals_RS.rpt Attachment D
2 3
Attach
ment D
Childcare Slots
At the M
ay 26, 2021 MXCAB meeting, First 5 Contra Costa, Cocokids, and staff from the Community Services Bureau of the Employment and Human Services Department requested allocations towards early childhood supports, providers and systems. The shortage of childcare slots, including those for children ages 0-5 who are eligible for subsidized childcare, and the lack of early care and education providers has only worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If ap
proved, the Measure X funds would cover up to 500 childcare slots, primarily for infants and toddlers, for families who are over-income and do not currently qualify for a childcare subsidy. Funding would support the proposal to pay local rates for childcare (based on the local Regional Market Rate) using a voucher system similar to the system used by CalWorks Stages 1, 2 and 3, but with a higher income ceiling that better aligns with the cost of living in the Bay Area.

Acce
ss and availability of quality childcare is contingent on the availability of a stable early childhood workforce. Inclusion of funding to support the early childhood workforce is a pre-requisite to building back a stable and affordable childcare system for working families. Providing additional compensation to providers who hold non-traditional hours of care such as weekends and evenings and those who care for infants, children with special needs and other special populations, is also included in the proposal as an immediate retention strategy to help keep the workforce afloat until a more permanent solution to the issue of compensation is created.

These pr
oposals would not require additional facilities and would be administered through a partnership between CocoKids (the resource and referral agency for the county) and the Employment and Human Services, Community Services and Workforce Services Bureaus (administrators of the the CalWorks programs), since all agencies have existing mechanisms in place to support a system like this. The Early Learning and Leadership Group (ELLG), comprised of the core early childhood services entities throughout the county, would support the planning and implementation of a local childcare voucher model in year one.

The a
nnual estimated cost to fully fund the proposal would be $6.1 million. This includes the cost of planning, implementing, and administering the voucher program for non-subsidized families at an approximate cost of $4.5 million and $1.6 million would be used for the additional provider compensation as described above.

Ongoi
ng Measure X funding would help families get quality care they cannot afford otherwise, boost the childcare work industry with fair wages, and lay the foundation for the establishment of universal access to early care and education.
4 Attach
ment D
Early Childhood Mental Health Services
At the M
ay 26, 2021 MXCAB meeting, First 5 Contra Costa presented a proposal to implement a Request for Applications (RFA) process to support the Early Childhood Prevention and Intervention Coalition (ECPIC), a local coalition of early intervention and prevention service partners.

The p
roposal would support children birth to six years old, who experience emotional, relational, or behavioral disturbances that require mental health intervention. If granted MXCAB funding, First 5 Contra Costa would plan and implement an RFA process for grants to community-based service providers. The funding would leverage existing programs and funds dedicated to supporting mental services for children and families.

The ann
ual estimated cost to fully fund the proposal would be $2 million and would be used to address the immediate and unmet early childhood mental health needs of children in Contra Costa, which is estimated at 7,000 to 10,000 children.
5 Attach
ment D
Supporting Children with Disabilities
At the M
ay 26, 2021 Measure X Community Advisory Body (MXCAB) meeting, First 5 Contra Costa, Cocokids, and staff from the Community Services Bureau of the Employment and Human Services Department requested allocations towards supporting children with disabilities. As described in the report to the MXCAB, there is a service gap in services for children ages birth to 3 with disabilities.

Curren
tly there are 783 infant and toddlers and 2,371 preschool children with a diagnosed disability in Contra Costa County, and this number may be undercounted. According to the Health Services Department, developmental screenings for children 0-11 fell from approximately 62% in January 2020 to approximately 55% in April 2021. This lack of screening compounded by decreased well-child visits present a highly significant barrier to preventive care and families’ access to an entire system of early childhood resources.

As pr
oposed, the MXCAB funding request of $2 million would be allocated as grants to providers, on behalf of families, for necessary disability support services and provide $450,000 for childcare providers to receive consultation and guidance to modify their services and programs to be inclusive of all children. The proposal goal seeks to improve access to comprehensive services that support children with disabilities as needed to be independent and included in society. The funding proposal would leverage existing programs and funds dedicated to supporting disabilities services for families. 6 Attach
ment D
Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative
The Nor
thern Waterfront Economic Development InitiativeTM is a regional cluster-based economic development strategy with the goals of creating more good jobs closer to home, reducing congestion and emissions, and making communities more vibrant. There are five target industries: Advanced Manufacturing, Biosciences, Agriscience & Specialty Foods, Transportation Technologies, and Clean Tech.

The Ini
tiative is a collaboration between the County and seven partner cities, who work together on diverse actions to enhance the economic vitality of the region. The eight partners have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to implement the Initiative as a team. The Initiative has been formalized in a Strategic Action Plan, adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in 2019.

An ann
ual allocation of $500,000 is proposed to implement the Strategic Action Plan. The slate of example actions below is aligned with the Strategic Action Plan and illustrate a potential preliminary work plan that would require approximately $500,000 (some actions would take up to two years to complete; new actions would be launched with subsequent funding while these actions were completed). Cultivating new industries as part of a broader strategy to retain and expand the County’s jobs base during the transition away from fossil fuels will be a key priority for this work for many years to come.
• Acqu
ire and compile current post-pandemic business data with industry trends and impacts (countywide);
• Complete market research, economic feasibility, and business plan for establishing a bioscience incubator, on a County-owned site in Hercules, to further stimulate commercialization within the region’s bioscience cluster;
• Develop a regional Northern Waterfront target industry-oriented marketing program including unified website, branding, and collateral;
• Support advance transportation technology cluster support at one or both of two sites in the Northern Waterfront area to foster an environment that can retain and attract such businesses in future regional development: GoMentum Station (privately owned vehicle technology testing site) on the Concord Naval Weapons Station and Buchanan Airport (publicly owned commercial airport with aviation technology space available);
• Implement and/or expand on the findings of the Water Emergency Transport Agency Strategic Business Plan/Feasibility Study as they relate to ferry service along the Northern Waterfront corridor.

The Nor
thern Waterfront Initiative (now called the Just Transition Economic Revitalization Plan Project) is currently included at $750,000 in the list of Community Project Funding requests for inclusion in the federal fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills. Although not yet approved by Congress, the project has the support of Congressman DeSaulnier and the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives. In anticipation of receiving federal funding, no Measure X funds are recommended at this time.
7 Attach
ment D
Assistance to Crime Victims
Progra
ms to support the underserved population of crime victims in Contra Costa County has been identified as a current service area gap in our criminal justice system.

The f
ollowing information was gathered from a proposal provided to the County by the non-profit “getVOCAL for Victims” (getVocal) and can serve as a program example to address this service gap.

Histo
rically, the criminal justice system in the United States has sought to balance the constitutional rights of criminal defendants versus the constitutional rights of victims of crime through the participation of the District Attorney and defense attorneys. In this system, the District Attorney's Office represents the People of the State of California. Criminal defendants who cannot afford their own legal representation are represented by court-appointed, fee-free attorneys to protect their constitutional rights. However, victims of crime, who have guaranteed constitutional rights co-equal to those of the defendants, are the only party in the criminal justice process who do not have the right to fee-free legal representation. Unless a victim of crime has the financial means to hire an attorney to represent them, crime victims' constitutional rights in the criminal justice may be overlooked.

In 2008,
California voters enacted "Marsy's Law", which amended the California State Constitution to create constitutional rights for victims and families of victims to be heard throughout the criminal justice system. The majority of crime victims come from economically disadvantaged, underserved communities and cannot afford to hire a victims' rights attorney to represent them. For those victims fortunate enough to have the means to hire an attorney, there are few attorneys who practice victims' rights law. With the lack of attorneys to represent them, victims' voices are frequently not heard in the criminal justice process.

Curren
tly in Contra Costa County, crime victims have access to Victim Witness Advocates who work inside the District Attorney's Office and assist victims throughout the pendency of the prosecution. The advocates assist victims in obtaining counseling and services, they accompany victims to court, they assist victims compiling evidence for a restitution order, and often provide a bridge between the prosecutor and the victim.

Howev
er, Victim Witness Advocates are not lawyers and are not able to provide legal assistance to victims or to advocate for them in court or to file legal documents on their behalf. Furthermore, prosecutors may have interests which are contrary to the interests of the victim. Consequently, providing an attorney who will appear for the victim in court and who works in collaboration with Victim Witness Advocates and the District Attorney would support efforts to ensure no victim is left unheard in the criminal justice system.
getV
OCAL has developed a training manual which covers every stage of the criminal process to train attorneys who volunteer their time to represent low-income crime victims and provide them with legal resources. getVOCAL would work with private law firms to identify attorneys who are willing to work pro bono (free of charge) to represent crime victims. getVOCAL would collaborate with law schools to create clinics for law students to provide supervised victim representation and getVOCAL would work with the local bar association to connect practicing attorneys in the community with victim clients. 8 To ens
ure crime victims' federal and state constitutional rights are heard in the criminal justice process, crime victims must have access to effective legal representation to advocate on their behalf. While a victims' rights lawyer may not change the outcome of a criminal prosecution, access to one empowers a victim throughout the process and guarantees that their voices will be heard. This will allow the District Attorney to focus on the prosecution of the case with the knowledge that the victim's rights are being protected by the victim’s rights attorney. The Court would also benefit as judges will know that the victim's constitutional rights are being protected at every stage of the proceeding. Ultimately, our community would benefit as victims are empowered throughout the criminal prosecution resulting in true justice for all parties involved in the process.

Cons
ideration to provide fee-free legal representation to low-income victims of crime, would support underserved victims in our criminal justice system.

This
program, which needs further model development, is not included in the proposed expenditure plan at this time.

Financial Impact
Total Annual Cost Impact: $875,000
Total Initiative Cost Impact for 5 years: $4,325,000

Note that we would also be applying for and searching for collaborative partnerships and grants during the first 5 years and beyond to increase the reach of the initiative. Our goal would be to build a plan to reduce the financial impact for support from Measure X funding to allow the initiative to continue and potentially expand past the initial 5 years.

Background
Contra Costa County (CCC) has a population of about 1.165 million people. It is estimated that in our County our residents love and care for approximately 172,000 dogs, 69,000 rabbits and over 450,000 cats. The cat population estimates include indoor only, indoor/outdoor cats and outdoor “community” cats. In Contra Costa County we are experiencing a problem of pet overpopulation due to primarily two reasons: a lack of affordable, accessible spay/neuter and vaccine services across our county and people having to give up their pets or letting them go as strays.

The Pet Over Population problem is exacerbated due to the nation experiencing a veterinarian and Registered Veterinary Technician (RVT) shortage that is being felt here in Contra Costa County and the impacts of the Covid 19 Pandemic that leaves people losing jobs and homes.

Local veterinarians are charging fees to cover their costs for elective procedures like spay/neuter surgeries and vaccines. This places those procedures out of reach financially for many of our residents who need their discretionary funds to be used for things that are needed to support their families. It also puts families in the difficult situations that may cause them to need to relinquish their pets. Some of those issues are around behaviors that could be addressed with spaying or neutering the pet, or even medical conditions that could have been prevented through regular vaccines. Even a rabies vaccine, to prevent a deadly zoonotic concern may be out of someone’s price range, placing the pet, the family and the community at risk. We want Contra Costa County to be a caring community for our human population and the animals they love. This initiative would help provide for the well being of animals in our county and those animals in turn will continue to provide love and companionship for our residents to support their physical and emotional well-being.

Recommendation
Utilize Measure X Funding to help support a Five Year Spay/Neuter and Pet Health Initiative to benefit the residents, the animals in their lives, and the small businesses that support animals in Contra Costa County.

This proposal for a Five Year Spay/Neuter and Pet Health Initiative meets several of the goals of the Measure X Community Advisory Board:

o Goal #1: Mental Well Being. Supports the mental and behavioral health and well-being of all residents. There is mounting evidence that animals can enhance the health of their human caregivers and may this contribute to CCC residents short- and long-term health.
o Goal #2: Equity in Action. Prioritizes equity and removing barriers to receiving spay/neuter and vaccine services caused by economic and demographic challenges.
o Goal #3: Healthy Communities. All residents have access to affordable care for animals in their community. Animals that are in their homes and even those outside of their homes are family. People will often go without care and food to ensure that their animal family can receive appropriate care.

$320,000 Additional staff needs per year to increase capacity and efficiency for the current CCAS medical center for surgery and vaccination services.

Total Staffing Costs: $320,000 annually

Annual Program costs: $30,000 rescues with medical conditions $5,000 relocation
$50,000 community education and marketing support
$20,000 safety net program to help keep
pets in Homes
$200,000 mobile clinics with non-profit
partner (4 per month)
$250,000 grants for local non-profits for
targeted S/N and medical support
with local vet hospitals
$200,000 Voucher Program with local
veterinarians

Total Annual Program Costs: $555,000 annually

The Contra Costa County Spay and Neuter Pet Health Initiative would provide a multi-pronged effort that would include six key programs:
• $320,000 annually to increase staffing at the Contra Costa Animal Services (CCAS) Medical Center to expand current public services for S/N and vaccines. A spay/neuter facility operated by Contra Costa Animal Services that provides services for animals owned by Contra Costa County residents, unowned community cats, as well as animals sheltered at the Martinez Animal Shelter. Procedures performed at the facility, including spays/neuters for dogs, cats and rabbits, vaccinations, micro- chip implantations, ear tipping for community cat program participants and flea- control treatment will be for Contra Costa County residents;

• $30,000 annually for grants distributed by CCAS to subsidize costs incurred by registered non-profits when transferring animals with pre-existing medical problems (identified by CCAS Veterinarians) from CCAS into their facilities or networks;

• $5,000 annually to support transportation costs for a relocation program to move animals from CCAS to rescues in communities where they will have better chances of being adopted;

• $20,000 annually for grants distributed by CCAS to support Safety net programs provided by local nonprofits designed to keep animals in their homes by addressing the needs of those at the highest risk of relinquishment due to scarce resources and hindered access to critical services; and

• $250,000 annually in grants to local current registered 501 c 3 partners, including funding for spay/neuter programs and medical care for animals in targeted areas. • $200,000 ($100K Cats, $75K Dogs, $25K Rabbits) annually for a collaborative Spay and Neuter Voucher program through CCAS with a 501c3 to administer the program. This voucher program would support families in Contra Costa County to reduce the financial impact of having their pet (dog, cat, or rabbit) altered at a private Veterinary Clinic located in Contra Costa County. The program would not only support residents to bring S/N and vaccine costs into an affordable range, help to reduce pet overpopulation but also contribute to the financial support of small businesses in CCC.

We would also allocate $50,000 per year to provide community education on these programs and marketing around the services provided by the Contra Costa County Spay/Neuter and Pet Health Initiative.

NOTES

Examples of Performance Measures
Number of altered dogs licensed in CCC increase by 10% first year and 5% each year afterwards Alter 1000 cats, 500 dogs and 250 rabbits each year through voucher program Provide a minimum of 4 mobile S/N and vaccine events per month Maintain or exceed an 88% live release rate of animals at CCAS Decrease the Average Length of Stay for animals at CCAS by 20%.

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.

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

These positions (which have a separate management resolution) are the Director, the Deputy Director, the Executive Secretary, and the Animal 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.

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

Source: Contra Costa County Animal Services

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

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

Training
Citygate was provided a draft Policy and Procedures Manual on September 27, 2017, along with draft New Hire Information documents. The Department is currently engaged in developing both a training manual and orientation documents for new staff. Development of a consistent written training program that covers each classification, 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.

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

Dispatch Function
The Department currently performs in-house dispatch functions on the days it is open for business, which are Tuesdays through Saturdays. After regular business hours and on Sundays, Mondays, and holidays, requests for an animal control officer response go through the Sheriff’s Department dispatch. The 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.

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

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

A formalized collection policy and set of procedures need to be created and adopted by the Department. If such a County-wide policy and set of procedures exists, they should be followed by the Department. To the extent that any County-wide policies/procedures do not meet the needs of the Department, a separate policy/procedure should be developed . Such a policy/procedure should not conflict with applicable County-wide policies/procedures. Best practice is to maximize the revenues collected ensuring that funds owed to the Department are collected on a timely and regular basis. It is a matter of fairness to those who pay fees on time to ensure that others also are required to 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.

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

Recommendation #8: Develop, 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.

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

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

Further discussion is needed 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

LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #3:

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

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

Recommendation #4:

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

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

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis

Strategic Action Plan—page 101

LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #5:

Develop and adopt a formalized collection
policy for the Department.

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

Recommendation #6:

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

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

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis

Strategic Action Plan—page 102

LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #7:

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

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

Recommendation #8:

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

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

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis

Strategic Action Plan—page 103

LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #9:

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

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

Recommendation #10:

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

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

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis

Strategic Action Plan—page 104

LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #11:

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

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

Recommendation #12:

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

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis

Strategic Action Plan—page 105

LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #13:

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

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

LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #15:

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

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

Recommendation #16:

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

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

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis

Strategic Action Plan—page 107

LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #17:

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

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

Recommendation #18:

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

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

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis

Strategic Action Plan—page 108

LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #19:

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

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

Recommendation #20:

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

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

Contra Costa County Animal Services
Field Operations and Sheltering Practices Cost Analysis

Strategic Action Plan—page 109

LEGEND
A Recommendation mandatory or critical
B Strongly recommended
C Not critical, but will improve operations
D Recommended, but additional study required
Recommendation Priority
Responsible
Party/Parties
Relative Resource
Requirement
Time Frame for
Implementation Anticipated Benefits
Recommendation #21:

Establish an Enterprise Fund for the
Department operations.

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 of 2 – Main Report (separately bound)
VOLUME 2 of 2 – Cost Analysis Appendices (this volume)
Section Page
Appendix A1: Budget versus Actual ...............................................................................................1 Appendix A2: Cost Allocation Summary ........................................................................................2 Appendix A3: Vehicle Fleet ............................................................................................................3 Appendix A4: Cost Center Allocation Summary – Current Structure ............................................4 Appendix A5: Cost Center Allocation Summary – Revised Structure ............................................5 Appendix A6: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies Summary ............................................6 Appendix A7: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Brentwood .......................................7 Appendix A8: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Clayton ............................................8 Appendix A9: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Concord ...........................................9 Appendix A10: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Danville .......................................10 Appendix A11: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – El Cerrito .....................................11 Appendix A12: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Hercules ......................................12 Appendix A13: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Lafayette .....................................13 Appendix A14: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Martinez ......................................14 Appendix A15: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Moraga ........................................15 Appendix A16: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Oakley .........................................16 Appendix A17: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Orinda .........................................17 Appendix A18: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Pinole ..........................................18 Appendix A19: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Pittsburg ......................................19 Appendix A20: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Pleasant Hill ................................20 Appendix A21: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Richmod ......................................21 Appendix A22: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – San Pablo ....................................22 Appendix A23: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – San Ramon ..................................23 Appendix A24: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Walnut Creek ..............................24 Appendix A25: Alternative Cost Allocation Methodologies – Remaining Service Area .............25 Appendix A1
Budget versus Actual
Acct # Revenues FY 12/13 Actuals FY 12/13 Budget Difference FY 13/14 Actuals FY 13/14 Budget Difference FY 14/15 Actuals FY 14/15 Budget Difference FY 15/16 Actual FY 15/16 Budget Difference FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget (Rec.) Difference FY 17-18 Budget
9070 Animal Licenses 1,511,832$ 1,829,058$ (317,226)$ 1,494,565$ 2,013,680$ (519,115)$ 1,495,466$ 2,013,680$ (518,215)$ 1,803,832$ 1,500,000$ 303,832$ 1,439,083$ 1,700,000$ (260,917)$ 1,600,000$ 9721 Spay Clinic Fees 368,544$ 405,154$ (36,610)$ 387,982$ 405,154$ (17,172)$ 381,793$ 405,154$ (23,361)$ 283,538$ 415,000$ (131,462)$ 168,888$ 415,000$ (246,112)$ 225,000$ 9722 Contract Humane Services 4,205,024$ 4,204,813$ 211$ 4,240,671$ 4,239,870$ 801$ 4,278,920$ 4,278,919$ 1$ 4,343,225$ 4,528,647$ (185,422)$ 4,928,185$ 4,742,673$ 185,512$ 4,985,592$ 9725 Miscellaneous Humane Services 752,262$ 832,054$ (79,792)$ 757,094$ 832,054$ (74,960)$ 849,155$ 832,054$ 17,101$ 650,897$ 832,054$ (181,157)$ 473,529$ 832,054$ (358,525)$ 668,147$ 9770 Drinking Driver Program Fee -$ -$ -$ (67)$ -$ (67)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9935 Sale of Animals 32,578$ 30,000$ 2,578$ 31,736$ 30,000$ 1,736$ 29,663$ 30,000$ (337)$ 28,730$ 32,000$ (3,271)$ 19,783$ 32,000$ (12,217)$ 38,625$ 9945 Sundry Taxable Sale 11,398$ 11,398$ (4,904)$ (4,904)$ 4,114$ 4,114$ 10,397$ 10,397$ (12,178)$ 625$ (12,803)$ -$ 9946 Sundry Non-Taxable Sale 446$ 625$ (179)$ 538$ 625$ (87)$ 610$ 625$ (15)$ 933$ 625$ 308$ 958$ -$ 958$ -$ 9951 Reimbursements Gov/Gov 100,029$ 100,029$ 66,022$ 66,022$ 162,440$ 162,440$ 29,897$ 70,000$ (40,103)$ 1,149$ 250,000$ (248,851)$ -$ 9956 Transfers In -$ -$ -$ 166,803$ 166,803$ 147,796$ -$ 147,796$ 9965 Restricted Donations -$ -$ -$ -$ (5)$ -$ (5)$ 300,000$ Total Revenues 6,982,113$ 7,301,704$ (319,591)$ 6,973,638$ 7,521,383$ (547,746)$ 7,202,161$ 7,560,432$ (358,271)$ 7,318,251$ 7,378,326$ (60,075)$ 7,167,189$ 7,972,352$ (805,163)$ 7,817,364$ -4.38% -7.28% -4.74% -0.81% -10.10%
Acct # Expenditures FY 12/13 Actuals FY 12/13 Budget Difference FY 13/14 Actuals FY 13/14 Budget Difference FY 14/15 Actual FY 14/15 Budget Difference FY 15/16 Actual FY 15/16 Budget Difference FY 16/17 Actual FY 16/17 Budget (Rec.) Difference FY 17-18 Budget
Permanent Salaries 3,620,588$ 4,139,747$ 519,159$ 3,515,775$ 4,166,062$ 650,287$ 3,451,269$ 4,250,565$ 799,296$ 3,638,699$ 4,419,041$ 780,342$ 3,279,594$ 4,656,432$ 1,376,838$ 4,985,514$ Temporary Salaries 438,060$ 265,953$ (172,107)$ 475,870$ 265,953$ (209,917)$ 587,959$ 265,953$ (322,006)$ 546,119$ 150,000$ (396,119)$ 502,469$ 367,248$ (135,221)$ 139,584$ Permanent Overtime 73,523$ 93,425$ 19,902$ 94,792$ 93,425$ (1,367)$ 68,330$ 93,425$ 25,095$ 75,176$ 50,000$ (25,176)$ 109,816$ 50,000$ (59,816)$ 50,000$ Deferred Compensation 7,988$ 29,280$ 21,292$ 16,830$ 33,900$ 17,070$ 18,600$ 32,462$ 13,862$ 19,375$ 58,320$ 38,945$ 16,674$ 43,680$ 27,006$ 63,480$ Comp & SDI Recoveries (85,023)$ (4,648)$ 80,375$ (163,735)$ (4,648)$ 159,087$ (33,750)$ (4,549)$ 29,201$ (52,651)$ (4,549)$ 48,102$ (69,930)$ (4,549)$ 65,381$ (4,549)$ FICA/Medicare 296,376$ 317,373$ 20,997$ 288,329$ 319,572$ 31,243$ 299,916$ 325,380$ 25,464$ 311,579$ 337,765$ 26,186$ 279,958$ 363,239$ 83,281$ 382,582$ Ret. Exp. - Pre-'97 Retirees 16,587$ 17,733$ 1,146$ 15,459$ 17,733$ 2,274$ 13,882$ 17,733$ 3,851$ 13,439$ 17,733$ 4,294$ 10,916$ 17,733$ 6,817$ 17,733$ Retirement Expense 1,306,279$ 1,464,702$ 158,423$ 1,395,998$ 1,626,495$ 230,497$ 1,380,005$ 1,720,418$ 340,413$ 1,211,147$ 1,509,146$ 297,999$ 965,384$ 1,459,449$ 494,065$ 1,520,585$ Employee Group Insurance 690,619$ 871,737$ 181,118$ 655,405$ 848,892$ 193,487$ 565,718$ 775,231$ 209,513$ 519,385$ 783,282$ 263,897$ 491,691$ 807,978$ 316,287$ 965,263$ Retiree Health Insurance 398,725$ 380,055$ (18,670)$ 436,385$ 393,823$ (42,562)$ 409,012$ 443,446$ 34,434$ 388,639$ 398,465$ 9,826$ 347,549$ 391,920$ 44,371$ 379,775$ OPEB Pre-Pay 203,727$ 203,727$ -$ 203,727$ 203,727$ -$ 203,727$ 203,727$ -$ 203,727$ 203,727$ -$ 152,795$ 203,727$ 50,932$ 203,727$ Unemployment Insurance 15,626$ 15,896$ 270$ 14,858$ 15,963$ 1,105$ 12,365$ 12,850$ 485$ 12,659$ 13,702$ 1,043$ 10,381$ 20,269$ 9,888$ 11,002$ Workers Compensation Insurance 214,420$ 215,242$ 822$ 193,217$ 197,648$ 4,431$ 257,620$ 267,066$ 9,446$ 518,650$ 399,358$ (119,292)$ 372,125$ 482,952$ 110,827$ 478,604$ Services and Supplies 2,606,233$ 2,122,415$ (483,818)$ 2,755,224$ 2,178,988$ (576,236)$ 2,855,607$ 2,207,500$ (648,107)$ 3,332,164$ 2,572,609$ (759,555)$ 3,367,218$ 2,981,420$ (385,798)$ 2,392,256$ Other Charges - Cap. Impr. 8,753$ -$ (8,753)$ 10,717$ -$ (10,717)$ 10,444$ -$ (10,444)$ 10,556$ -$ (10,556)$ 9,984$ 26,415$ 16,431$ 47,015$ Other Charges - Equipment -$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 18,445$ 8,000$ (10,445)$ 21,719$ -$ (21,719)$ 164,077$ -$ (164,077)$ 126,185$ -$ (126,185)$ 5,500$ Expenditure Transfers 368,402$ 361,067$ (7,335)$ 331,383$ 372,666$ 41,283$ 354,285$ 279,225$ (75,060)$ 396,156$ 394,727$ (1,429)$ 313,793$ 353,438$ 39,645$ 428,293$ Total Expenditures 10,180,883$ 10,501,704$ 320,821$ 10,258,679$ 10,738,199$ 479,520$ 10,476,708$ 10,890,432$ 413,724$ 11,308,896$ 11,303,326$ (5,570)$ 10,286,602$ 12,221,351$ 1,934,749$ 12,066,364$ Gross Subsidy Amount 3,198,770$ 3,200,000$ 1,230$ 3,285,042$ 3,216,816$ (68,225)$ 3,274,547$ 3,330,000$ 55,453$ 3,990,645$ 3,925,000$ (65,645)$ 3,119,413$ 4,248,999$ 1,129,586$ 4,249,000$ Gross Subsidy Percentage 31.42% 30.47% 32.02% 29.96% 31.26% 30.58% 35.29% 34.72% 30.33% 34.77% 35.21% Component FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17
Personnel - Budgeted 8,010,222$ 8,178,545$ 8,403,707$ 8,335,990$ 8,860,078$ Personnel - Actual 7,197,495$ 7,142,910$ 7,234,653$ 7,405,943$ 6,469,422$ Services/Supplies Budgeted 2,122,415$ 2,178,988$ 2,207,500$ 2,572,609$ 2,981,420$ Services/Supplies Actual 2,606,233$ 2,755,224$ 2,855,607$ 3,332,164$ 3,367,218$ Transfers Out 361,067$ 372,666$ 279,225$ 394,727$ 353,438$ Transfers Actual 368,402$ 331,383$ 354,285$ 396,156$ 313,793$ Major Expenditure Components

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

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

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