ANIMAL SERVICES
COST OF SERVICES
(USER FEE)
STUDY
for
FINAL REPORT
April 10, 2023
WOHLFORD CONSULTING
(916) 205-7050
[email protected]
Attachment 1
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _____________________________________________ ________1 Table: Summary Results.................................................................1 Table: Sample Unit Fee Cost Results.............................................2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ____________________________________________________3 Purpose and Intent.................................................................................................3 Scope of the Study ..................................................................................................4 Purpose of the Report............................................................................................4 About Wohlford Consulting .................................................................................4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT USER FEE ISSUES ______________________________ ______5 User Fees Defined...................................................................................................5 Fee Background .....................................................................................................5 Impetus for User Fees and Increased Scrutiny ...................................................6 Basic User Fee Principles ......................................................................................8 PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ______________________________ __10 Conceptual Approach..........................................................................................10 Summary Steps of the Study...............................................................................11 Basic Assumptions and Standards .....................................................................13 Quality Control ....................................................................................................16 FINDINGS AND RESULTS __________________________________________ _________17 Basis.......................................................................................................................17 Summary Results .................................................................................................17 Table: Annualized Cost Results Summary...................................17 Graph: Current Funding Sources of Fee Services ......................18 Individual Program Results................................................................................19 Table: Cost Results by Animal Services Program .......................19 Graph: Current Funding Sources for each Animal Services Program _______20 Other Results Information and Explanations ...................................................20 Opportunities for Greater Cost Recovery .........................................................22 Impact of Fee Activity Levels ..............................................................................23 Results for Staff Hourly Rates (Cost Recovery Rates) .....................................23 Potential Cost Changes from Prior Studies and Fee-Setting ...........................27 Considerations Concerning Recommended Fees..............................................27 Limitations for Use of Revenue Results.............................................................28 Other Beneficial Outcomes of the Study ............................................................28 Wohlford Consulting i April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
OTHER ISSUES AND INFORMATION_________________________________________30 Fee Setting Considerations..................................................................................30 Fee Comparison Issues ........................................................................................32 Cost “Reasonableness” ........................................................................................33 Enhanced Fee Flexibility .....................................................................................34 Implementation Issues.........................................................................................35 Potential Implementation Strategies ..................................................................36 Future Updates.....................................................................................................39 CLOSING COMMENTS ______________________________________________________42 Thank You to Animal Services and Sonoma County Staff ..............................42 Final Thoughts .....................................................................................................42 APPENDIX ___________________________________________________________________ Appendix: Cost Results
Wohlford Consulting ii April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The County of Sonoma engaged Wohlford Consulting to conduct an objective analysis of the full costs incurred by the Animal Services Section for various activities for which the County charges user fees. In order to ensure accuracy and establish a clear nexus between the cost of those services and the fees, the study utilized a unit cost build-up methodolo gy to identify the full cost for individual fee activities, based upon staff time and associated direct and indirect costs. By projecting an estimated average annual volume for each fee acti vity, the study also identified the annual cost of the services and the potential annual revenue for the fee activities at full cost levels.
Through comparisons of the full costs and current fees, the study identified existing unit and annual subsidies.
The following table illustrates the results for Animal Services:
Summary Results
FULL COST:
Annual Cost of
Fee-Related
Services
PROJECTED
REVENUE AT
CURRENT
FEES
PROJECTED
SURPLUS /
(DEFICIT)
PROJECTED
COST
RECOVERY
RATE
$ 2,474,000 $ 1,202,000 $ (1,272,000) 49%
As the table shows, the current total cost of fee activities included in this study is approximately $2.5 million annually. Given the current fee levels charged by Animal Services, the potential annual revenue (assuming a consistent activity level and comple te collection) is $1.2 million, which represents a current cost-recovery ratio of 49% overall and an annual fund deficit (subsidy) of $1.3 million.
The potential revenue at current fees shown in the table above assumes that Animal Services will staff at a minimum professional standard level and charge exist ing fees in all possible instances.
However, for practical and custom er service reasons (to facilit ate good community relations and encourage overall compliance), as well as collection inefficiencies, Animal Services likely would not actually charge for every situation where fees could be levied. Consequently, projected current fee revenues and full cost recovery levels will most likely be less than shown in the table, so the table figures should be considered the maximum potential amounts from fee-related services.
The overall annual cost recovery is comprised of approximately 118 individual fee results calculated in the study. In most instances (108/118 or 92%), the current unit fees are less than the full cost of providing the service, resulting in fee subsidies. The remainder recover at or over the full cost of service. Some exam ples of this situation are presented in the table below:
Wohlford Consulting Page 1 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Sample Unit Fee Cost Results
Program and Fee Title
Current
Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy)
per Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Adoption: Dog - 17 weeks to <6 years $ 144.03 $ 330.48 $ (186.45) 44% Adoption: Cat - 17 weeks to <6 years $ 90.30 $ 231.47 $ (141.17) 39% Boarding: Dog - Per Day at Shelter $ 28.42 $ 48.59 $ (20.17) 58% Impound: Dog - 1st Impound (Licensed) $ 77.73 $ 421.13 $ (343.40) 18% Impound: Large Livestock – 300 lbs and
over/head - 1st impound $ 70.87 $ 601.34 $ (530.47) 12% Commercial Kennel Permit $ 223.97 $ 546.77 $ (322.80) 41% License: Dog (Altered) $ 28.42 $ 19.52 $ 8.90 146%
Owner Surrender: Large $ 69.35 $ 73.12 $ (3.77) 95%
Dangerous Dog Registration: 1st Year -
Cour
t-Ordered $ 69.35 $ 5,400.97 $ (5,331.62) 1%
Rabies Quarantine: Home (up to 10 days) $ 42.07 $ 331.81 $ (289.74) 13% Spay/Neuter: Dog - Spay: 31-75 lbs $ 80.01 $ 549.99 $ (469.98) 15% Spay/Neuter: Cat - Neuter $ 28.58 $ 343.06 $ (314.48) 8% Rabies control Test (owner request) - Up
to and including 300 pounds $ 139.84 $ 722.93 $ (583.09) 19% Veterinary Exam $ 84.59 $ 90.96 $ (6.37) 93%
Average Program Hourly Rate - Division-
wide New $ 180.55
Field Services Hourly Rate - Burdened New $ 187.69
Shelter Services Hourly Rate - Burdened New $ 160.27
While the average cost recovery rate for all fees is 49%, the individual recovery rates for subsidized fees vary widely. Some potential fee services are at 0% cost recovery (i.e., no current fee exists), and some fee levels are currently greater than the cost of services (over 100%). The appendix to this report presents the results for each fee and service in a format similar to the above table.
The study results demonstrate the potential for improved cost recovery and revenue enhancement through fee increases (offset by some potential decreases). The reality of the local government fee environment, however, is that large increases to achieve 100% c ost recovery in a single year are often not feasible, desirable, or appropriate. In addition, so me of the “fee” activities, while technically possible to establish as full cost fees, may not be feasible to charge full cost. In recognition of this situation in Sonoma County, Animal Services staff may develop recommended fees that could result in less than full cost recovery in the first year. The annual amount of revenue from the recommended fees and the actual cost-recovery ratio wi ll not be known until staff prepares their analysis and submits recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
It is important to note that these results do not represent the entire budget and operations of Animal Services, which operates some non-fee programs and/or services intentionally funded by grants, state funds, other external sour ces, or the General Fund. The results section of this report will address these broader results in more detail. The details and explanations behind these summary results are contained in the body of this report and the appendix.
Wohlford Consulting Page 2 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Purpose and Intent
In its effort to manage resources wisely, meet service demands, and meet regulatory obligations, Sonoma County utilizes a variety of tools to ensure that it has the best information to make good decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees, affect revenues, maintain compliance with state law and local policies, and address the needs of County administration and the public. Given the limitations on raising revenue in local government, the Sonoma County Healt h Services Department and the Animal Services Section recognized that a Cost of Service (User Fee) Study is the most cost- effective way to understand its total cost of services and identify potential fee changes and revenue impacts.
A quality Cost of Service Study is much more than a method to i dentify the cost of service and potential fee increases. This type of analysis can also become a management tool, providing information and perspectives tha t can help Animal Services better understand its operations and financial circumstances. Other important outcomes from the study processes and results include the ability to:
Calculate specific fee subsidies and revenue impacts of current and potential fees; Identify new fees and cost recovery strategies and delete obsolete or ineffective fees; Enhance internal understanding of program operations and support activities; Allow the County to compare its costs or fee levels with neighboring jurisdictions; Quantify productivity and staffing shortages, inefficiencies, or overages; Measure the distribution of staff effort of specific positions to individual tasks and service areas, which can help managers more effectively prioritize work tasks; Ensure that fees are fair and defensible;
Ensure that Animal Services fees are consistent with state law; Ensure that fees are defensible to the public, interest groups, and the courts; and Foster a better understanding of workflow and staff involvement in specific activities.
The principal goal of the consul tant study was to determine the full cost of the services provided by Animal Services—particularly in programs where fees are charged for those services. Other objectives of the project included:
Establish objective and transparent fee information
Develop insight and a rational basis for setting fees Understand individual fee subsidies and overall funding deficits Balance revenues and/or cost-recovery
Understand the context and principles of user fees
Improve fairness and equity
Ensure compliance with state law
Wohlford Consulting Page 3 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
The County can use the study results to better understand its true costs and as the basis for making informed policy decisions regarding the most appropriate charge s (fees), if any, to levy against individuals and organizations tha t require discretionary or reg ulatory services from Animal Services.
Scope of the Study
The study involved the identificat ion of existing and potential new fees in Animal Services, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, project management, and calculation of individual service costs (fees).
The Study focused on the cost of Animal Services activities at anticipated service and staffing levels. This study was not a management study intended to identify, evaluate, or quantify potential cost savings opportunities, effic iency and effec tiveness improv ements, performance or productivity, staffing or organizational structure, process changes, risk mitigation, or other factors that could later influence operating practices and the cost of the services. The analysis did not seek to compare the service levels, fee structures, quality, or operating practices of Animal Services to the programs in other counties or cities. This stu dy also did not address potential economic or social impacts of possible fee increases on the community.
Purpose of the Report
This report presents a summary of the study results and a general description of the approach and methods used to determine the cost of services. Some issues ar e presented as background for the results and the study processes. However, the report is not intended to document all of the issues and discussions involved with the study, nor is it intended to provide persuasive discourse on the relative merits of the tools, techniques, methods, or other approaches used in the study. The main source of detailed information fr om this study is the series of worksheets and workbooks that contain the source data and calculations that lead to the final results.
About Wohlford Consulting
The consultant for this study, Chad Wohlford, has over 36 years of experience analyzing and managing government costs and operations, including 12 years of direct government management and analytical service. He has personally engaged in over 250 cost analysis studies with more than 80 different government clients (many of them for multiple projects) in at least eight states. Before founding Wohlford Consulting, Chad Wohlford was a state director of the cost services practice for a large international consulting corporation.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT USER FEE ISSUES
User Fees Defined
A User Fee is:
A fee or rate charged to an individual or group that receives a private benefit from services provided by the County.
The defining principle behind a user fee is the nature of the individual or private benefit that results from the service for which the fee is charged. With the inflexibility and categorical requirements of many funding sources, taxes (as embodied by the General Fund ) are generally levied and used to pay for services that benefit the public as a whole (i.e., community benefit). Of course, a number of gray areas exist to complicate the specific categorization o f charges, since many services that appear to benefit a single group may have secondary benefits to others. It is the prerogative of the Board of Supervisors or other governing body to determine the final fee levels that reflect the local policies and intent regarding cost recovery and subsidies.
As a point of clarification, utility rates are a type of local government fees that are similar in nature to, but otherwise separated from, user fees. Utility rates seek to recover for the usage of a particular commodity provided by the government agency, such as water or s ewage treatment. In contrast, the traditional user fees addressed in this study relate to ser vices for which employee time is the most prominent feature of the service and regulatory approval i s the normal product of the transaction. Sonoma County Animal Services does not charge uti lity rates or fees.
Development Impact Fees (DIFs) are also sometimes confused or m istakenly conflated with user fees, since they are usually charged in association with develo pment-related fees. However, impact fees are also not “user fees,” because DIFs are designed to fund future infrastructure (capital) costs and are prohibited from being applied to normal operating costs and services.
Fee Background
As part of an overall funding stra tegy, local government relies upon user fees to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the c ommunity as a whole. With rising demands for services and restric tions on most other funding sou rces, counties and cities have increased scrutiny of subsidies provided by the General Fund (o r external funding sources or reserves) to other funds and to service recipients that reap a disproportionate share of the benefits.
To the extent that the government uses general tax monies (General Fund) or othe r non-fee funds to provide an individual with a private benefit and not require the individual to pay the cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the government is unable to use those resources to provide benefits to the community as a whole. In effect, then, the government is using community funds to pay for a private benefit. Unlike other revenue sourc es, counties and cities have greater control over the amount of user fees they charge to recover costs.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Impetus for User Fees and Increased Scrutiny
Prior to Proposition 13, California counties and cities were not as concerned as they are today with potential subsidies and recovering the cost of their services from individual fee payers. In times of fiscal shortages, cities could raise property taxes, which f unded everything from code enforcement, animal control, public safety, and recreation, to development-related services.
However, this situation changed with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
Proposition 13 ushered in the era of revenue limitation in Cali fornia local government. In subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues.
Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the imposition of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote in order to enact or increase taxes. Since significant resistance usually emerges to any efforts to raise local government taxes, cities have little control and very few successful options for new revenues.
To compound the revenue problems faced by local government, the state of California took a series of actions in the 1990s and 2000s to improve the state’s fiscal situation—at the expense of local government. The “Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund” (ERAF) take-away of property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees severely reduced local tax revenues.
Cities (and counties) faced significant funding troubles in the face of rising and sometimes uncontrollable costs, increased citizen demands, and continued imposition of state mandates. The flexibility of local government budgets to address their own priorities was hampered by categorical grants, earmarked funds, mandates, maintenance of effort requir ements, and funding match requirements. As expected, cities and counties sought relief.
To cope with the funding shortages, local government was forced to enact service reductions, seek reimbursement from the state for more and more mandated service s (SB 90 Mandated Cost Reimbursement), and impose a wider range and higher levels of user fees and impact fees. In turn, to placate local government and transfer some control and responsibility, the state delegated more authority to charge user fees. The state also codified limitat ions to user fee levels and administration and put more of the responsibility and liability for user fees to the local level.
With greater need and authority to charge fees, many local governments took to the concept readily and enacted new and increased fees. After a series of real and/or perceived abuses, a focused and influential user fee backlash occurred in the mid-1990s that required further clarification and limitation of user fee practices. Special interest groups challenged fees (primarily development- related) in a number of cities and counties, resulting in a series of lawsuits, special studies, and formal opinions from the California Attorney General (1995) and Legislative Counsel of California (1997).
The end result of all of these user fee actions is an environment of significant scrutiny of any and all fee actions. Local government has been forced to pay great er attention to the methods and bases for new fees, since they can be readily challenged. The focus of fee-setting decisions has shifted from the revenue needs to the actual cost of the services provided. “Pay to play” principles Wohlford Consulting Page 6 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
have become more prominent as a way to ensure equity and fairness for all citizens. In addition, the issue of subsidies has come to the forefront, since it has become less tolerable to use general taxpayer funds to subsidize the private activities and profits of developers (for example), business owners, and other individual be neficiaries of County services—a t the expense of more public safety and social services.
Most Recent Major Change: Proposition 26
In 2010 the trend to limit fee progression continued when California voters approved Proposition
26. This measure attempted to further define and clarify which local government charges are to be considered taxes (subject to public vote) and which are fees (subject only to Board of Supervisors or City Council approval). In summary, the measure established that any “levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government” is a tax, unless it falls into one of seven categories (exceptions):
(1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.
(2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
(3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.
(4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property or the purchase rental or lease of local government property.
(5) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judici al branch of government or a local government as a result of a violation of law, including late payment fees, fees imposed under administrative citation o rdinances, parking violations, etc.
(6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development. (7) Assessments and property related fees imposed in accordance wit h the provisions of Article XIII D (Proposition 218).
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
According to analyses by the League of California Cities , the “vast majority of fees that cities would seek to adopt will most likely fall into one or more of these exemptions.”1 County fees fall under the same general status and conditions, so the analysis should be applicable to counties also, so most or all properly structured and calculated user fees will be exempt from Proposition 26”2 under exception numbers one, two, three or six.
As a cost of services study, this analysis sought to evaluate t he cost of a wide range of services and activities conducted by Animal Services regardless of whether the services are associated with specific fees. While this study includes cost analysis of services that could be considered for fee adoptions, it does not, in and of itself, establish fees or fee levels for Animal Services, which is the purview of the Board of Supervisors. If recommended fees are p rovided in the study, the types of fees and charges that are likely to be considered “taxes” under Proposition 26 are normally and intentionally excluded. (Note: In rare instances where a recom mendation would be provided to set a cost recovery level for a service considered a “tax” under Proposition 26 definitions, the recommendation assumes that the County will implement those taxes in compliance with state law.
There are no such instances in this study for Sonoma County.) While the study evaluates the cost of many direct services, including some that are unrecoverable and/or may not ever become recommended fees, the fees likely to be adopted are designed to recover the reasonable cost of providing the service to the ind ividual fee payers. As noted above and as defined in Proposition 26, these fees fall within the definitions of the exceptions. However, it is unknown to the consultant whether Proposition 26 has yet been subject to review by the courts, so some uncertainties exist regarding its application. Prior to any new fee implementation, it would be prudent for Animal Services’ own legal counsel to evaluate the impact of Proposition 26 (and all other related laws) to ensure full compliance with state law.
Basic User Fee Principles
The definition of a user fee, the modern environment for their existence and administration, and general public administration concepts all affect a Cost of Services Study. Wohlford Consulting considered a variety of related principles to assist Animal Services in the determination of user fee structures, service costs, and implementation. Under these principles, User Fees should be:
• Based on the Cost of Services:
Not arbitrary
Not unintentionally subsidized
Not unfairly subsidized
• Fair and Equitable
• Consistent with County, Department and Animal Services Goals / Objectives • Compliant with State Law
• Dynamic (for updates & anomalies)
1 Living with Proposition 26 of 2010: Many Local Fees Will Fit Within Seven Categories of Exemptions, November 2010, Page 1
2 Proposition 26 Implementation Guide, April 2011, Page 43 Wohlford Consulting Page 8 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
For most development-related user fees, state law establishes t hat “…fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of pr oviding the service for which th e fee is charged…” (Government Code §66014). The “fee” exceptions in Proposition 26 also state that the charge must “not exceed the reasonable costs” to provide the service. Although it spec ifically applies to development- related fees, and Animal Services fees are not property-related, this code and associated sections are commonly referenced for other fee areas, so this general admonition is the dominating principle in this User Fee Study. Other sections of state law authorize charges for costs incurred in undertaking the activity, with the general guidance that fees and charges not be greater than the cost of the services. The methodology, approach, data collection, quality control, and other efforts of the study are intended to establish compliance with these principles. The costs calculated in the study represent the estimated r easonable full cost for each service and, therefore, the maximum fee Animal Services may charge for its services.
User fee activities are primarily discretionary services provided only to those who request the services or cause the services to be required. These services are not provided to the public at large, which is why local government and taxpayers often consider it appropriate to recover the full cost of the services from those appl icants that receive the services . The alternative is for taxpayers (through the General Fund, typically) to subsidize the services on behalf of the individuals or entities that benefit directly from the services.
Wohlford Consulting Page 9 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Conceptual Approach
The basic concept of a User Fee Study is to determine the full cost of each service provided by Animal Services for which the County charges a user fee. The f ull cost may not necessarily become Animal Services’ fee, but it serves as the objective basis from which the County can make informed decisions regarding the final fee level.
In order to determine the full cost for each fee service, the cost analysis incorporates the following “full cost” components:
Direct Salaries & Benefits Department / Division / Section Services and Supplies Administration
Indirect and Support Countywide Administration
Activities Facility Use
Supervision and Support Capital (annualized)
Cross-division Support Anticipated Growth
A critical method to ensure full cost recovery rates is to establish annual billable (productive / available) hours for staff. The Study reduces the full-time annual hours (2,080) for each position classification by non-billable hours, such as holiday, vacation , and sick leave, staff meetings, mandated breaks, and training. In studies conducted by Wohlfor d Consulting, the typical number of billable hours for the average full-time employee is approximately 1,400 hours per year, but this figure might normally range from 1,200 to 1,600, depending on t he type of position. The study included a calculation of the billable hour total for each position classification in the study, and the average for all positions was approximately 1,479. By using the billable hours, rather than the full 2,080 hours of full-time pay, the Study ensures that hourly rates and the resultant costs reflect the levels necessary to recover the full cost of services in a particular year given the practical availability of staff to provide services.
The standard fee limitation we abided in this study is the “reasonable cost” principle. In order to maintain compliance with this standard, every major component of the fee study process included a related review. The use of budget figures and time estimates indicates reliance upon estimates for some data. The key to the defensibility of the study, ther efore, is a dedication to the reasonableness of the data and results. The quality control measures implemented ensure the study satisfies the reasonableness standard. The study does not utilize arbitrary data or other information that would not satisfy the estimated/reasonable standard.
In those cases where it was possible to establish reasonably consistent time/workload standards for specific services, the analysis develops the cost of the se rvice as a “flat” or “fixed” fee. In addition to providing consistent cost information, this approach is the most common method for developing the full cost of Animal Services activities.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
The alternative to fixed fees is to track actual staff time for every staff member for every service.
This approach creates an adminis trative burden and leaves Animal Services and the fee payer unable to predict the final fee amount. An “actual staff time” billing approach is appropriate, however, when the fee activity varies widely between occurrences and would thus cause fixed fees to be unfair and unreasonable in a significant number of cases. In those cases where actual time billing might be most effective, Animal Services can choose to require a deposit to ensure a minimum fee is received. The Study established a number of the se fees to be based on actual billing charges, by using staff time estimates for common service levels, and the resulting amount calculated for the “fees” could be used as potential deposit levels.
The cost figures used as the basis for the study were from Animal Services’ FY 2023-24 proposed budget.
Summary Steps of the Study
The methodology used to determin e individual user fee costs is straightforward. This analysis employs a “unit cost build-up” approach to determine the cost of individual services. The approach uses the following factors:
• Staff time to complete activities and services
• Direct cost of individual staff positions (converted to productive hourly rates) • Rational distribution of overhead and support costs
Multiplying the first two factors (# of hours by hourly rate) i dentifies the direct cost for each service. By distributing the remaining indirect/overhead costs, the analysis establishes the full cost. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps:
Fee Study Process Outline
1. Establish the inventory of fee services (current and potential)
2. Identify the staff positions that work on each fee service
3. Calculate the direct productive hourly rate for each position
4. Determine the time necessary for each position to perform fee tasks
5. Calculate the direct cost of the staff time for each fee
6. Distribute indirect and overhead costs to each fee
7. Sub-allocate supporting activities to fee services
8. Perform quality control processes (constant)
9. Calculate revenue impacts
10. Perform the “gap analysis” (unit and total subsidies/deficits)
11. Perform review processes
12. Document and present results
To ensure a high degree of accuracy and thoroughness for the st udy, each of these steps in the process involves a rigorous set of subtasks, iterations, reviews, and quality control requirements.
Both Animal Services staff/manage ment and the consultant were i nvolved with the performance and/or review of each of these steps.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
The following table illustrates the methodology using hypothetical information in a simplified format:
Simplified Unit Cost Calculation (hypothetical)
Service ("Fee“ or
Program) /
Activity
Time to
Complete
1 Activity
(hours)
X
Productive
Hourly
Rate
=
Full Cost
(per Unit
of Fee
Activity)
X
Annual
Volume
of
Activity
=
Annual
Cost or
Potential
Annual
Revenue
FEE #1: 1 0
Intake 0.5 $ 100 $ 50 10 $ 500
Plan Check 1 $ 100 $ 100 10 $ 1,000
Inspection 2 $ 100 $ 200 10 $ 2,000
Filing 0.5 $ 100 $ 50 10 $ 500
Salaries &
Benefits Total: 4 $ 100 $ 400 10 $ 4,000
Indirect Costs $ 50 10 $ 500
TOTAL COST $ 450 10 $ 4,500
The above table of hypothetical data indicates that Fee #1 take s staff a total of four hours to complete the necessary services, so at $100 per hour, the direct staff cost is $400 per unit. The addition of $50 for indirect and overhead costs brings the total unit cost to $450. With 10 units a year, the total annual cost for the service is $4,500.
It is important to note that this simple example indicates only a single position at four hours consumed per unit. The actual time analysis is much more detai led, and includes individual time estimates for each task for each employee who works on each service for which Animal Services charges a fee. Consequently, there were thousands of individua l time datum identified for these studies.
By multiplying the unit costs by the annual number of fee activities, the analysis estimates the total annual cost of the fee-related activities. By using the same a nnual activity volumes and multiplying them by current fees, the Study establishes potential cost recovery from current fees.
The difference between the two figures is the actual cost-curre nt fee gap. If the current fees are greater than the actual cost, the gap is an over collection or profit. If the full cost is greater than the current fees, the gap repr esents a subsidy, or individual fee deficit. The following table illustrates a simplified example of a gap analysis:
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Simplified Annual Subsidy/Gap Analysis (hypothetical)
Fee
Annual
Volume
of
Activity
X Current
Fee =
Annual
Revenue @
Current
Fee
-
Annual
Revenue
@ Full
Cost
=
Current
Annual
(Subsidy) /
Surplus
Fee #1 10 $ 100 $ 1,000 $ 4,500 ($ 3,500)
Fee #2 15 $ 75 $ 1,125 $ 2,000 ($ 875)
Fee #3 20 $ 50 $ 1,000 $ 500 $ 500
Fee #4 25 $ 25 $ 625 $ 100 $ 525
Total: $ 3,750 $ 7,100 ($ 3,350)
The above table indicates that hypothetical Fee #1 is currently subsidized $3,500 per year, while Animal Services is charging fee payers $500 more per year than the cost for the service represented by Fee #4.
Basic Assumptions and Standards
The study relied upon a series of underlying assumptions and basic considerations to achieve the results. These issues are described below:
Time Data &
Estimates: One of the principal building blocks of this cost analysis wa s the time data provided by Animal Services staff to repre sent their workload related to each fe e servic e and/or subordinate activity. The principal source of the time data was the program area staff. For the individual time data points for each servi ce, qualified staff provided time estimates based upon their professional experience. The use of staff- provided time estimates is necessary in the absence of actual time data, such as the kind that could be developed through a long-term time and motio n study or other more formal methods. A study to determine actual time consumed for each project type is not feasible for a local government user fee study, as it would take several years for every service and project type to occur (in order to collect the associated data), and the variability between instances of each type would render the actual data unreliable anyway. Furthermore, the cost to conduct such an analysis to achieve useful data would be ext ensive and would greatly offset any value of the User Fee Study—all without improving the acceptability, defensibility, or accuracy of the cost study results.
If conscientiously considered by qualified staff, time estimate s should satisfy the standard that a fee must not exceed the “reasonable cost” of pr oviding the service for which the fee is charged. For this study, Animal Services staff provided time estimates that represent a normal level of effort for each fee activity, as determined by past experience, and necessary to perform an acceptable prof essional level of Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
service. This data was reviewed by other experienced staff in the organization, in order to utilize other perspectives and experiences and further ensure reasonableness. This approach i s “industry standard” for cost of service and user fee analysis.
Full Cost: The study determines the full cost of services. To this end, the analysis includes all direct costs for Animal Services activities, such as the salari es and benefits of the employees who perform the service s. The analysis also includes the appropriate distribution of legitimate indi rect and overhead costs that sup port the operations and personnel that perform the services. These costs include g eneral supplies and services, utilities, insurance, facility and equipment costs, technology upgrades, County, Department, Division, and/or Animal Services overhead, and Countywide overhead (cost allocation)—all whe never applicable. Countywide overhead is comprised of central service costs, such as County Executive, F inance, County Counsel, and Human Resources. These costs are universally acce pted as components to be included in service cost (fee) calculations, because the underlying services provide the organiza tional and operational support nec essary for the employees and administrative infrastructure to exist and conduct the fee activities.
It is important to note that all of these costs are distributed to the fee-related services, as well as the non-fee-related services. In other words, the costs for fee- related services are not burdened with all of the cost, but only their fair share of the cost. The costs assigned to most direct non-fee services are c onsidered unrecoverable.
Non-Fee
Services: As a full cost of service analy sis, the study also calculates the cost of non-fee services. These services include areas such as public informat ion, general public services, investigations and response, and support to other program areas, which do not necessarily have associated fees. The purpose of including these other services is to ensure the fair and appropriate distribution of overhead and indirect costs to all areas, instead of concentrating these costs only on the fee-related activities. This approach also allows the analysis to distribute staff hours acr oss all activities to ensure a true picture of the utilization of staff time and cost and provide a quality control check. The detailed study results in the appendices in dicate whether a summary total includes “All Ser vices” (including non-fee catego ries) or “Fee Services Only” (excluding non-fee services). The figures in th e body of this report only include the “Fee Services” totals.
Service Level
Assumptions: The entire analysis was based upon the current organization and business practices in Animal Services at the time of the study. The study assumed continued consistency in the time consumption for each service, as well as future staffing, quality, productivity, efficiency , and all other qualitative and quantitative standards.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
The analysis is also based upon a level of service determined b y Animal Services management to be the minimum professional standard. As a result, in some cases, the time estimates may represent a higher level of service than that of the current Animal Services organization and business practices. The study assumed consistency in the future time consumption for each service, as w e l l a s f u t u r e staffing, quality, productivity, efficiency, and all other qualitative and quantitative standards.
Consistent
Workload: Most of the service costs in this study were developed as “fl at” or fixed fees. Under this approach, the Study calculate s the cost of the services af ter assuming that all services for a specific fee will require the same workload (tim e), regardless of the characteristics of the particula r fee activity or the applicant . Time estimates that reflect the “typical” level of effort required for a particular fee activity. The flat fee approach ignores the variance in time that may exist from applicant to applicant, due to qualitative or other diffe rences in the applicants themselves or their submitted materials. The overa ll efficacy of this approach rel ies upon the assumption that the variances will average out over the course of time, resulting in a consistent and reasonably fair fee for all.
Subsidy: A deficit exists when the cost of a particular service is greater than the fee charged and recovered for that service. This deficit creates the need for a subsidy from another funding source, so the use of either term in this repor t or in subsequent discussions is appropriate for the same meaning.
Individual fee subsidies can take different forms. In cases where different size fees within the same category are set at different cost-recovery levels, one fee payer may subsidize another for the same type of service. This situation exists where the individual fees are not each priced to recover the individual c osts of the services (i.e., one payer is overcharged and one is undercharged). In t hese instances, there is a basic imbalance and/or unfai rness between fee payers built into the system.
Other fee subsidies are more general or larger in overall scope, such as when all of the fee levels are set below the costs of the individual services. The overall cost of services is very real, so if the recipients of the services are not asked to pay full cost, the balance must be borne by one or more County funding s ources, so the concept of a subsidy is not just theoretical. In local governm ent, subsidies are normally covered by General Fund revenues, since most other funding sources are limited in what they can be used to fund.
This reliance upon General Fund revenues or reserves to fund pr ivate-benefit services creates some criticism, since it reduces the availabil ity of those revenues for other public benefit service s or priorities. However, subs idies can also reflect positive public policy goals, since they can be used to encourage or reward certain desired activities.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
This study identifies existing subsidies for individual fee ac tivities, as well as the resulting annual operating defici ts for Animal Services for all fee activities. The purpose of the subsidy analysis is to inform Animal Services re garding current subsidy levels and give County leaders information to help make informed fee setting and policy decisions.
Costs vs.
Fees: The study materials and this re port and appendices reference “fees” in titles and descriptions. In the context of the full cost analysis, the terms “cost” and “fees” are interchangeable. The full cost of a service serves as the potential fee until the County has an opportunity to review the results and establish n ew fee levels for implementation. This study does not presume to establish Count y fees, since the decisions about fee levels are the purview of the Board of Supervisors and require additional information (e.g., community input, economic impacts, etc.) that was not evaluated by the consultant as part of this study.
Quality Control
The quality of a cost study is dependent on the data that is us ed for the analysis. All study components are interrelated, so it is critical that the study utilize good data. To avoid accuracy problems and other quality flaws , the study incorporated a rigorous quality control process with checks at every step in the analysis. The quality control measures ensure that the study covers all of the issues, appropriately accounts for positions and resources in the models, and factors all other data fairly and accurately. The e lements of the quality control process used for the User Fee calculations include:
Quality Control Steps / Initiatives
Involvement of knowledgeable Normalcy/expectation ranges Animal Services staff and managers (data inputs and results) Clear instructions and guidance to Challenge and questioning Animal Services staff and managers Utilization of staff hours Process checklists FTE balancing
Reasonableness tests and validation Internal and external reviews Cross-checking
Wohlford Consulting Page 16 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Basis
The Animal Services programs an alyzed through this cost study c harge fees to the citizens and businesses of Sonoma County that receive various discretionary services from Animal Services, such as permit/license issuance, animal care and treatment, inspections, and adoptions. These fees primarily consist of a flat (fixed) fees, with some other fees based on and time and materials (variable @ staff hourly rates). In this study, for those fees where the staff could identify a typical or standard project with only slight variability of staff effort (i.e., cost) between projects, we established fixed costs. In cont rast, services where significa nt variability of staff effort exists between projects were designated as “actual staff time”. For the actual time fees, we used the calculated staff hourly rates to establish the “cost” of a typical project (which can also be used as a starting deposit).
Animal Services staff and the consultant worked together to dev elop the fees through a unit cost build-up approach, whereby the analysis calculated the cost of each unit of service (e.g., permitting process, inspections, animal care and treatment) using staff time and cost-recovery hourly rates.
To develop the annual deficit or surplus figures, the analysis multiplied the unit costs and current unit fees by the anticipated annual volume of each service. This extrapolation of the unit fees into a one-year period indicates the potential revenue impacts to Animal Services.
Summary Results
The current total cost of County fee activities included in this study is approximately $2.5 million annually. Given the current fee levels charged by Animal Servi ces, the potential annual revenue (assuming a consistent activity level and complete collection) is $1.2 million, which represents a current cost-recovery ratio of 49% overall and an annual fund deficit (subsidy) of $1.3 million. In other words, if Animal Services set fee levels at the full cost of each service, (100% cost-recovery) Animal Services could collect an additional $1.3 million in revenue from fee activities each year.
The following table illustrates these results for Animal Services:
Annualized Cost Results Summary
FULL COST:
Annual Cost of
Fee-Related
Services
PROJECTED
REVENUE AT
CURRENT
FEES
PROJECTED
SURPLUS /
(DEFICIT)
PROJECTED
COST
RECOVERY
RATE
$ 2,474,000 $ 1,202,000 $ (1,272,000) 49%
In addition to the overall annual funding deficit (subsidy), 108 out of 118 (92%) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus pro viding individual subsidies to fee payers. The remaining 10 current fees are set equal to or higher than full cost. If Animal Services Wohlford Consulting Page 17 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), most of the current fees would increase, and some might be reduced. Giv en the projected annual volume o f permit activity for the individual fees, Animal Services would experience an overall in crease in annual revenue of approximately $1.3 million.
Another way to view these results is to consider the funding sources for the full cost of fee-related activities. In the following chart, the blue portion represent s the amount of the fees funded by current fees, and the red portion represents the funding provided by the General Fund, reserves, or other non-fee sources:
Current Funding Sources of Fee Services
CURRENT FEE
REVENUE =
$1,202,000
FUND
SUBSIDY =
$1,272,000
The potential (“Projected”) reve nue at current fees shown in th e table and chart above assumes that Animal Services will charge existing fees in all possible instances. However, for practical and customer service reasons (to facilitate good community relation s and encourage overall compliance), as well as collection inefficiencies, Animal Services likely does not actually charge for every situation where fees could be levied. Consequently, projected current fee revenues and full cost recovery levels will most likely be less than shown in the table, so the table figures should be considered the maximum potential amounts.
The reality of the local government fee environment, however, i s that large increases to achieve 100% cost recovery are often not feasible, desirable, or appropriate. In recognition of this situation in Sonoma County, Animal Services and Department staff may deve lop recommended fees that will initially result in less than full cost recovery. The ann ual amount of revenue from the recommended fees and the actual cost-recovery ratio will not be known until Animal Services staff prepares their analysis and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
Wohlford Consulting Page 18 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
In a cost of service (user fee) analysis, the principal output and findings are the full cost figures for the fee activities. The appendix to this report contains the unit cost results for each service in Animal Services, as well as the summary/annualized results. To achieve these results, the consultant prepared and utilized a variety of worksheets to doc ument and calculate the full costs of each service. Printouts or electronic files of these materi als comprise the background documentation of the study and were provided separately to Animal Services.
Individual Program Results
By grouping the fee services for each program in Animal Services, we can identify the fee-related cost-recovery performance of each individual program. These program results are presented in the following table:
Cost Results by Animal Services Program
PROGRAM AREA FULL COST
PROJECTED
REVENUE
FROM
CURRENT
FEES
SURPLUS /
(SUBSIDY)
CURRENT
COST
RECOVERY
RATE
(Current /
Full Cost)
Adoption $ 176,000 $ 75,000 $ 101,000 43%
Boarding $ 155,000 $ 97,000 $ 58,000 63%
Impound $ 419,000 $ 89,000 $ 330,000 21%
Kennel / Pet Fancier
Permits $ 34,000 $ 11,000 $ 23,000 32%
License Fees $ 625,000 $ 788,000 $ (163,000) 126%
Owner Surrender $ 44,000 $ 21,000 $ 23,000 48%
Dangerous Dog $ 1320,000 $ 7,000 $ 123,000 5%
Rabies Quarantine $ 350,000 $ 20,000 $ 330,000 6%
Spay / Neuter $ 304,000 $ 40,000 $ 264,000 13%
Vaccination / Testing /
Microchips $ 134,000 $ 55,000 $ 79,000 41%
Other Veterinary Care $ 100,000 $ 0 $ 100,000 0%
Non-Fee / Other $ 2,000 $ 0 $ 2,000 0%
TOTALS* $ 2,473,000 $ 1,203,000 $ 1,270,000 49%
* Rounding at different levels may cause totals between tables to vary slightly.
As the table shows for all but one of the programs, the cost of the program services exceeds the fee revenues under the current fees, so these programs in Animal Services operate with a subsidy from the General Fund, other prog ram areas, or other external sources. The Licensing Program, overall, is projected to operate at a surplus, which can be red uced or used to fund reserves for future fee offsets or capital expenditures. Conceivably, adjus tments to all fees to full cost would result in increases to many fees, along with reductions in others to eliminate surpluses.
Wohlford Consulting Page 19 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
The following chart demonstrates the funding sources for the full cost of fee-related activities. The blue (solid) portion represents the amount of the fees funded by current fees, and the red (striped) portion represents the funding provided by the General Fund, reserves, or other non-fee sources:
Current Funding Sources for each Animal Services Program $(200,000)
$(100,000)
$‐
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
FUND SUBSIDY
PROJECTED REVENUE FROM
CURRENT FEES
Other Results Information and Explanations
Clarifications
It should be noted that the “full cost” figures presented in th e tables reflect only the total annual cost of the fee-related activities. Animal Services also has some non-fee activities or services funded by external sources that are not included in this table. Therefore, the table’s focused cost figures will not match any budgets or othe r financial documents that include every component of Animal Services.
T h i s r e p o r t p r e s e n t s a v a r i e t y o f c o s t a n d r e v e n u e f i g u r e s t o demonstrate and explain various elements of Animal Serv ices’ costs and revenues. Given the complex revenue situation, the different figures presented, and the potential f or confusion, it may be beneficial to briefly clarify some of the key revenue issues at this point in the report:
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
The results presented focus on the fee-related services provided by Animal Services, so most cost figures represent only th ose services, and not the entire Animal Services budget.
The summary revenues and costs shown in the tables in this repo rt are based only on the fee-related services.
The revenues are “potential” levels, based on the assumption that Animal Services will charge the appropriate fees for each eligible instance, with no waivers. The revenues are “potential” levels, based on the assumed collection of all fees. Animal Services does not always charge for all fee-related services, in order to meet customer service and operational policy goals, so the actual revenue collections have been less than the potential fees would indicate.
Non-fee-related services were included in the analysis and form the overall picture of Animal Services costs, revenues, and subsidies.
Table titles and descriptions in the paragraphs differentiate between the results being discussed.
Cost Study Results vs. The Budget
It is important to note that the subsidies identified in the st udy may differ from any previously identified or existi ng budget subsidies, because the analysis included factors that are not necessarily part of the budget process. These fac tors may include: direct staff support, updated annual workload data, and anticipated service and staffing levels, which may differ from previous assumptions employed for the budget.
Definition of Results
The results of this Study reflect the full cost of fee-related services provided by Animal Services. The results are not necessarily the fees that Animal Services will charge. The Board of Supervisors has the aut hority and responsibility to set the fee levels following receipt of staff recommendations, public meetings, and delibera tions, and the process for development of recommended fee levels for Board consideration will occur later.
Potential Utilization Gap Revenue Adjustment
In order to establish the cost o f providing individual services , key Animal Services staff were instructed to provide time estimates or data to indicate the typical time it takes to complete one unit of each service. In many instances the time associated with the current typical level of service was ins ufficient to provide an adequat e or acceptable quality or service level according to a “minimum professional standard” of Animal Services staff and management. The most likely cau s e f o r t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s a l a c k of sufficient resources (primarily, staff hours available) to provide the minimum standard of service.
Rather than collect time estimates that would establish fee/cost levels at this unacceptable level (and perpetuate funding at the deficient level), the data collectors agreed to provide time estimates that would meet the minimum professional standar d. Since these time Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
estimates sometimes exceeded the actual current efforts, the annualized projection of staff utilization for some positions ultimately exceeded the available time of the staff, resulting in a “utilization gap” in the study. In those cases, the overu tilization shown in the study represents an amount of additional staff resources necessary to meet the minimum professional standard of service.
However, the cost for these st aff hours/positions does not currently reside in Animal Services budgets. Instead, they represent additional resource needs that could be funded by the potential fee levels demonstrated in the study. As a result, the total full cost shown in the summary results exceeds the actual cost inputs by the am ount represented by the utilization gap—although it represents the true cost of providing the services indicated.
More specifically, the total cost of the extra position time in the study is approximately $0.2 million. The impacts of these additional costs are includ ed in the base unit costs shown in the results, as well as the annualized results. In ot her words, the $2.5 million in overall costs (seen in the summary tables) includes the $0.2 million cost associated with the additional time estimates included in the study for over-utilized positions.
Inclusion of the utilization gap costs into the summary tables is necessary to understand the true cost of the services provided by Animal Services at minimum professional standard levels. However, it may create an apparent inconsistency if so meone were to attempt to compare the total costs from the study with Animal Services’ bu dget along with other reasonable cost inputs. Therefore, the following table is presented to show the costs from the study if the utilization gap cost was discounted from the overall totals:
Summary Results Adjusted for Overutilization (Annual)
COST AREA FULL COST
CURRENT
REVENUE:
@ Current Fees
POTENTIAL
FEE REVENUE
CHANGE
COST
RECOVERY
RATE
Full Cost Study Results $ 2,474,000 $ 1,202,000 $ (1,272,000) 48.6% Potential Utilization Gap
Adjustments $ (234,000) $ 0 $ 234,000 0 %
Adjusted Study Total $ 2,240,000 $ 1,202,000 $ (1,038,000) 53.7% The resultant net cost shown in the above table is more consist ent with Animal Services’ approved current budget. Neverthel ess, all of the results disc ussed in this report refer to the original cost and revenue figures, which include the utilization gap totals.
Opportunities for Greater Cost Recovery
The results shown in this study de monstrate the existence of subsidies for the majority of the services provided by Animal Services. Opportunities exist for Animal Services to enhance the recovery of costs for individual services and programs through increases to existing fees. The major source of potential new revenue identified by this study is through fee increases from current levels to full cost, as opposed to many areas with no current fees.
Wohlford Consulting Page 22 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
It is important to note, however, that some of the potential fe e-related revenues identified in this study would come from “new” fees. In some of these cases, Anim al Services is providing the service, but does not have a fee currently authorized, and would need to seek Board of Supervisors approval to set the fee. (These fees can be identified in the appendices through the absence of a current fee in the results.)
The revenue results presented in this report assume that Animal Services will set fees for all potential fee-related services at 100% of full cost. If Animal Services maintains its current cost- recovery practices and does not attempt to recover the cost for all services (e.g., no fees, full subsidy, fee waivers), the potential revenues will be less than indicated by the results shown in the tables of this report.
Impact of Fee Activity Levels
To the extent that Animal Services increases its fees to the fu ll cost levels, revenue from fee services could increase by the amount described. However, it i s important to note that permit or service activity levels will have the greatest impact on the fi nal revenues resulting from fee changes. In addition to the final fee levels, the annual volum e of fees (e.g., number of activities or permits, length of impound or boarding) will principally drive the revenues.
The study calculated potential revenues based upon the fee activity projections / assumptions provided by Animal Services, which were based on past experience, current trends, and anticipated changes. The potential for additional cost recovery is grounde d in a consistent comparison between the current fees and the full cost fees at the same act ivity levels. Consequently, if economic activity and the resultant fee workload (service demand) decline, Animal Services would experience an overall drop in fee revenues that is unconnected to the results of this study.
Results for Staff Hourly Rates (Cost Recovery Rates)
Full Cost Recovery Hourly Rates (Position-specific)
The study results include a series of “Full Cost Recovery Rates ” associated with various position classifications (e.g., Animal Control Officer, Animal Health Technician). These rates are calculated to recover 100% of each position’s fully loaded cost within the hours available to perform billable/d irect services to customers and other direct program activities (both fee and non-fee) . The cost components factore d into these rates are the same as the costs included in the unit fees, as described in th e “Full Cost” section above.
In addition, these rates take into account the available billable hours for each position. For example, if a position’s fully burdened cost is $150,000, and t he position’s billable hours are 1,500, the full cost recovery rate would be $100 per hour.
These rates should not be confused with pay or other compensation rates. Due to the cost burden added to these rates (e.g., overhead, operating expenditures, indirect costs) and use of billable hours, a Full Cost Recovery rate typically ranges f rom three to four times the hourly pay rate of the employee.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Animal Services can use these rates to recover full costs whenever an actual cost billing situation is present for fees or charges to grants or other external sources. A salary-only or salary+benefits rate would fail to recover the full cost of the position.
Standard Blended Rates (Blended Positions)
The study results include standar d blended hourly rates that ar e not specific to any particular position (e.g., “Field Services Hourly Rate” or “Shelter Services Hourly Rate”).
These rates enable Animal Services to utilize a general rate for actual direct staff time when specific employee rates are not feasible or desirable, such as when Animal Services is attempting to provide an estimate of cost when the actual employee assignments or project complexity is not fully known or to provide simplified billing to external funding sources.
The study calculated each blended rate by using portions of the hourly cost of multiple direct positions that are typically involved in hourly fees, totaling one hour, as well as portions of support or administra tive positions as overhead to these rates. To determine the relative portions from each position, the study used a ratio that generally corresponds to the typical work assignments of those employees.
Individual Program Hourly Rates
The study results include hourly r ates specific to individual p rograms. These rates apply only to direct field staff time w ithin each program and are fully burdened with associated support staff time. These rates can be used for "Actual Time" fees in each program.
The study calculated each program rate using the total cost of each program area (from the fee analysis) divided by the tim e data for the direct positions operating in that program area. These rates include the direct cost of the field positions, as well as portions of support or administrative positions as overhead to these rates. These rates can vary between programs, even with the same direct staff, due to differences i n direct expenditures, overhead support, and other indirect costs consumed in each program.
Variable (Hourly) Fee Deposits
For some fee-related services (especially anomalous situations) the Animal Services may choose to track actual staff time consumed by the project and c harge full cost-recovery hourly rates to establish the specific fee level. This “actual staff time billing” process may require the applicant to pay an initial deposit (i.e., down pay ment) to ensure that Animal Services will collect a base amount of fees for the project. I f the project consumes more time/cost than the initial deposit, Animal Services will reques t an additional infusion of funds from the applicant. Ultimately, the applicant will pay t he full cost of all staff time devoted to the project.
This cost analysis calculated the typical cost of each service, which appears in the results as the resultant full cost. If Animal Services wants to establish deposits, instead of fixed fees, the unit costs identified in this study can serve as the deposit levels. When considering Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
fee setting, Animal Services does not need to establish the deposit at this level to ensure full cost recovery, because the fees charged will be based upon the actual time consumed— not the deposit level. The deposit merely serves as the first payment.
Animal Services may choose to use the results from the cost study as the basis to set the deposit levels, since they represent “typical” projects. This approach may not be desirable, however, because it could result in a greater number of necessary refunds of overpayments, and because it would “front load” fee payments for projects whi ch have a longer review process.
Issues Regarding Comparisons with External Hourly Rates Local government hourly rates are occasionally compared to the rates charged by private contractors or other external ag encies, in order to ascertain the “reasonableness” of the counties’ or cities’ rates. Although an attempt is usually mad e to compare equivalent positions, the government rates are commonly higher than those from private enterprises and non-profit organizations. There are a variety of valid rea sons for the differences in rates, which contribute to the potential assessment of whether the rates are reasonable.
Even when the services and products are similar, significant differences exist in the costs and operations between government agencies and private enterpri ses, regardless of the purported impacts of employee efficiency, performance, or effectiveness. The differences are most evident in their organizational missions, cost structures, and service levels.
Most significantly, the differences are due to the fact that pr ivate firms typically do not have to account for the same underlying costs as a government agency, including:
Permit system (purchase and maintenance)—in addition to a standard financial accounting system
Board of Supervisors (or other committees and boards) support/meetings (attendance, status reports, etc.)
Supporting plans or documentation (development and maintenance), such as policies and procedures, emergency planning and management, incident response plans, and code updates.
Emergency response and investigations
Code enforcement
Public information (pre-project support)
Routine non-technical training (e.g., sexual harassment, workplace violence) Administrative oversight tasks (e.g., Economic Interest statements) Fee studies performed by outside contractors
Employer contributions to defined benefit retirement plans (vs. 401K or no plan) Competitive comprehensive health insurance coverage and post-employment benefits
Recruitment processes that require extra steps (e.g., exams and formal applications) to ensure fairness and equity, and review processes to prevent issues Wohlford Consulting Page 25 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
such as nepotism. (Pri vate firms can use whatever processes they want and can hire anybody they want.)
Purchasing processes that require extra steps to ensure fairness and protect public money (i.e., formal bidding processes). (Private firms can purchase however they choose.)
Additional administrative support, such as Auditor-Controller and Finance Departments that must track public funds and prepare/publish reports with greater detail than required in private firms (to protect public money and ensure public access to information).
All of the above costs (in parti al amounts) may be allocated to County fees and cost- recovery rates established in the studies (with exceptions for some positions).
Consequently, even when salaries are equal, total County employ ee costs are greater than private firm employee costs. Even if Animal Services “privatiz ed” some or all of the fee services, most of these costs would still exist in Animal Services and would have to be recovered. Therefore, private fi rms would have to either raise their rates or bill for more hours—or Animal Services would have to add a premium/surcharge to the private fees.
Either way, the cost would be gre ater than simple public-privat e rate comparisons would indicate.
In some cases, non-profit and other non-governmental agencies m ay receive general discretionary revenue or material donations from charitable contributions, sponsorships, endowments, or other funding sources that offset costs that wou ld otherwise be borne by fee payers.
In addition, the fees (based on worker time) also have the following built into them:
Review and approval processes to ensure accountability and protect the public. Systems and processes designed for fairness and equity among customers (can create inefficiencies). (Private firms can provide different service levels to different customers.)
Standard fees must also include services to difficult projects and customers, because Animal Services must serve everyone equally and cannot refuse to serve any customers. (Private firms can avoid “unprofitable” or overly burdensome customers.)
In summary, private enterprises and other external agencies generally do not have the same level of cost inputs that need to be recovered in rates charged by a County, in order to recover costs and avoid subsidies from non-fee sources. Conversion to privatized services would not necessarily eliminate those additional costs, as Animal Services would still incur many of them regardless of the final service provider.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Potential Cost Changes from Prior Studies and Fee-Setting This cost analysis identified significant gaps (subsidies) between the full cost of individual services (as calculated in the study) and the current fees for almost all fees in the study. This finding may surprise those who assume that Animal Services is already charging full cost for its services.
Animal Services conducted a fee study in recent years, but full cost fees were not implemented at that time. Current Animal Services staff are unaware of any other comprehensive Animal Services fee studies from prior years. Nevertheless, even if Animal Services established user fees at 100% of full cost following a previous study, and regularly applied an inflation factor, there are a variety of reasons why the cost calcula tions from this study would identify significant gaps between the current fees and the full cost. This study did not attempt to evaluate and quantify factors that resulted in changes to the gap, but common variables include:
New or changes to state or federal regulatory requirements that must be implemented or enforced through Animal Services programs
Current fees may not have been previously set at full cost (policy decisions). Increases in per-unit workload (i.e., time required to complete tasks) due to new codes and regulations that add complexity and additional required checks and services to tasks. Increases in Animal Services costs that exceed inflationary measures (e.g., CPI) such as:
o Employee salaries (COLA’s, step increases)
o Employee benefits (retirement, healthcare)
o Services and supplies (electricity, fuel, insurance)
o Countywide overhead costs (Cost Allocation Plan results) Inclusion of new costs not in existence or identified in the previous study, such as:
o Internal administrative and supervision costs (department, division, Animal Services, and county overhead)
o Annualized capital or asset replacement costs
o Cross-division/department support costs
o Support functions authorized to be included in user fees Changes in technology and/or business processes
Staff turnover resulting in reduced personnel costs.
Improved analytical methodologies with enhanced rigor and comprehensiveness Improved recognition of the role and treatment of productive / billable hours factors (direct vs. indirect work hours)
Potential decreases due to streamlining/expenditure reductions Considerations Concerning Recommended Fees
If Animal Services’ primary goal is to maximize cost recovery from user fees, Wohlford Consulting would recommend setting user fees at 100% of the full cost identified in the study, with few exceptions. This approach would reduce the burden on exter nal funding sources. This position reflects a general philosophy that fee payers should pay the full share for the services they consume from Animal Services for their private benefit.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Maximizing cost recovery may not be the only goal of a User Fee Study, however, and sometimes full-cost recovery is not neede d, desired, or appropriate. Oth er Department and County goals, Board of Supervisors priorities, policy initiatives, past exper ience, implementation issues, community expectations, and other internal and external factors may influence staff recommendations and Board of Supervisors decisions.
In recognition of these other issues, staff will work to develo p recommended fees that address Animal Services’ current needs. Wohlford Consulting anticipates that the Board of Supervisors may provide further direction to staff regarding acceptable fee levels. In the meantime, the cost recovery results shown in the Study are based upon fu ll cost calculations and do not reflect any specific or general fee recommendations provided by Wohlford Consulting.
Limitations for Use of Revenue Results
The annual results are based upon an estimated annual volume of activity provided by Animal Services staff during the study. The purpose of these total fi gures is to provide a sense of scale that puts the fund deficit and other results in context. These figures are not perfect, since a number of variables will ultimately alter the final cost recovery totals. Variables include:
Fees set at less than full cost
Increased or decreased activity from assumed levels
Change in the blend of service types and fees
Timing of the implementation of the fees and revenue collection Service activities and fee collections that cross multiple fiscal years Project tasks (activity volume count) and fee collection which occur in different years This Study presents the potential cost recovery figures and annual costs only to provide a basis for comparison of current fee levels to full cost (as well as a basis to establish recommended fees).
Since the impacts of these variable factors are unknown, Wohlfo rd Consulting cautions Animal Services against using the annua lized figures for the purpose of revenue projections or other budgeting decisions.
Other Beneficial Outcomes of the Study
Although it is the primary focus of the Study, the cost analysi s is not the only part of this effort that can benefit Animal Services. A series of secondary outcomes and benefits resulted from the steps of the processes used in the Study, the analysis of data, and the myriad of discussions between the consultant and staff.
Since these secondary benefits are not the focus of the Study, the descriptions presented below are not intended to fully explain and document all of the elements and benefits of these outcomes.
Instead, the intent of the descriptions is to briefly describe their existence and to encourage follow- up in some cases.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Orientation and Training
The long-term success of the project is affected by the ability of Animal Services staff to continue to understand, use, and explain the study methodologie s and results after the project concludes and the consultant had departed. Consequently, as part of the study process, staff spent a considerable amount of time working with the consultant to learn the conceptual and practical elements of the data collection, analysis, and calculations. This informal training process not only ensures the future success o f the project, but it also facilitated effective data collection and Animal Services’ internal review of the results.
Management Information
The processes of data collection, analysis, and validation prod uce beneficial management information. The background docum entation and fee models, as w ell as the discussions with the consultant, highlighted information that is beneficial for managers who wish to pursue additional in-house analysis. Animal Services managers have access to the auxiliary information developed and documented during the Study , including current and potential:
• Utilization of Time and Staff (productivity and staffing needs) • Revenue Impacts (potential new revenue)
• Distribution of Staff Effort across Services (who does what and for how long) • Total Time for Each Service (workload impacts)
• General Staff Productivity (direct vs. indirect activities) Intangibles
During the course of this Study, the consultant provided Animal Services with experience- based advice intended to help Animal Services best achieve its current and future fee objectives. Staff and the consultant discussed implementation strategies and alternatives, future steps, common questions and complaints, public policy co nsiderations, economic considerations, legal considerations, how to address criticism and support the study, other analysis needed, and update techniques. These discussions and the other contributions from the consultant do not necessarily appear elsewhere in the formal documentation, such as this report.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
OTHER ISSUES AND INFORMATION
Fee Setting Considerations
The principal goal of this Study is to identify the cost of Sonoma County Animal Services activities to help the County make informed decisions regarding fee levels and charges. Determining appropriate fee levels is an involved and dynamic process. Sta ff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the Board of Supervisors must consider those issues and more in making final decisions.
Animal Services staff will develop fee level recommendations to present to the Board of Supervisors. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules t o guide Animal Services, since the most important issues are subject to administrative and politic a l d i s c r e t i o n . T o a s s i s t A n i m a l Services’ deliberations, Wohlford Consulting offers the following general considerations:
Subsidization
Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. One general principle is that indivi duals or groups that receive a purely private benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In contrast, servic es that provide a purely public benefit should be funded entirel y by tax dollars. The complica t i n g r e a l i t y f o r l o c a l government is that a large number of services fall into the ran g e b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o extremes. The following graphic illustrates the potential decision basis:
Source of Service Funding
100%
User
Fees
Taxes
(GF)
User
Fees
Taxes
(GF)
User
Fees
Taxes
(GF)
Examples:
(1) Development
Permits
(2) Youth Programs
(3) Long Range
Planning
0% (4) Sheriff Patrol
100% Some Some 100%
Private Public Private Public
Benefit Benefit Benefit Benefit
(1) (2) (3) (4)
A common justification for subsidizing certain fees with general fund contributions is that some fee-related services provide a “public benefit” to the lar ger community, in addition to the private benefits obtained by the applicants. This approach assumes that, for example, subsidized development activities provide economic, cultural, quality of life, or other community benefits that equal or exceed the costs to Animal Services.
Wohlford Consulting Page 30 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Subsidization can also be an effective public policy tool, since it can be used to reduce fees to encourage certain activities or allow some people to afford services they otherwise could not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies may be appropriat e to allow citizens access to services (such as appeals) without burdensome costs.
Regardless of the intent, it is important for County leaders and the public to understand that subsidies must be covered by another revenue source, such as th e General Fund (taxes), Realignment funds, grants, or res erves. Therefore, the general taxpayer will potentially help to fund private benefits, and/or other County services will not receive funds that would otherwise be available.
Consistency with County Public Policy and Objectives
User fees are part of the fabric of County administration. The fee levels and policies should be consistent with other established policy objectives, strategies, and statements. If the County espouses cost recovery and fairness, County fees should reflect those standards by minimizing subsidies. If the County has stated a desire to encourage specific activities or industries, Animal Services fee st ructures should make allowanc es to encourage those activities and businesses. In summary, the existing policy stances should influence the fee decisions.
Fairness and Equity
The fees should be fair and equitable to all fee payers. Some fee payers should not pay more than the full cost, in order to offset the lower/subsidized fees of others. If County leadership wants to provide subsidies, the extra funding should come from a general source external to Animal Services’ fee revenues, such as the General Fund or other distributed revenues, not from other individual fee payers who are already paying their fair share. This general principle is also generally backed by California law, as established through Propositions 218 and 26.
Impact on Demand (Elasticity)
Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually depress the demand for the services. Lower fees may create an incentive to purchase the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these conditions may be a desirable effect to the County. However, the level of the fees that would cause demand changes is entirely unknown, and the monopolistic nature of som e County services (citizens can’t go elsewhere for lower prices) could also influ ence demand in unknown ways. The User Fee Study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or behavioral impacts of higher fees, but the County should consider the potential im pacts of these issues when deciding on fee levels.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Compliance with Legal Standards
By following a non-profit ethic and the applicable general standards (e.g., reasonable cost) set forth in the Government Code, this cost study identified the full-cost-recovery fee levels that Animal Services can use to establish fees in compliance with both the spirit and letter of established legal standards. (Note: Nothing herein should be construed as legal advice, and Animal Services should consult its own counsel for questions of a legal nature.) Constituencies Affected
As a public body of elected officials, the Board of Supervisors may wish to consider various political issues and constituent concerns that could arise from fee changes. For example, the Board of Supervisors may want to benchmark certain fees to neighboring communities, in order to avoid appearing to b e “expensive” or overly generous with subsidies. Also, some fee changes will impact specific constituencies that may a ttempt to influence decision-making.
Fee Comparison Issues
With the availability of the cost results from this study, a comparison of Animal Services’ service costs and/or proposed fees to f ees from neighboring jurisdictio n is often an attractive concept to local government. However, Animal Services should recognize a number of significant limitations that affect the validity and reliability of comparisons.
With the potential for numerous factors to affect the differences in fee levels between counties, it is important to realize that the value of a fee comparison is g enerally limited to market-based decision-making. There is very little relevance of current fee levels in other counties to the actual costs in Sonoma County, since fee schedules tend to be highly variable expressions of local policy, rather than true barometers of service costs or cost-recovery intent.
Direct comparisons of fee levels across surveyed counties are u sually somewhat limited, due to wide differences in fee structures, definitions, and program types. The value of a comparison may be to allow Animal Services, Depa rtment, and County leadership to develop a sense of the County’s place in the range of fee levels among comparative jurisdictions, but it does not establish a clear understanding of Animal Services’ specific cost circums tances, including actual cost, service levels, or cost-recovery performance. This situation may exist for a variety of reasons, including:
Many counties and cities have not conducted an actual cost study, so their fees may be based upon historical or other subjective factors unrelated to actual cost. Most counties and cities do not publish their subsidy rates, so their fees may be subsidized (knowingly or unknowingly). Even if they have completed a cost study, there is often no way to know whether cost subsidies exist. The services included in fees may be combined in some counties and separated in others, thus making direct comparisons unreliable.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
The methodology used to determine the fees in other counties may be deficient or designed to recover less than full cost.
Other jurisdictions may have diff erent policy goals and conside rations that affect the level of cost they desire to recover.
Even if the studies treated the costs equally, there are number of additional qualifying factors that would create legitimate and reas onable variances in costs betwe en different counties and cities.
These cost factors include:
Salaries and benefits
Services and supplies
Overhead levels (Department, division, section, program, county, and administrative)
Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB)
Leave time (holiday, vacation, sick)
Other non-direct time (training, meetings, breaks)
Capital costs (annualized)
Cross-division/department costs
Cost-recovery of associated services (e.g., patrol, code enforcement, incident response, investigations, epidemiology)
Reserve contributions
Staff longevity (affects the time necessary to complete tasks) Service levels (affect the number of associated tasks and the overall time necessary to complete fee services)
Efficiency
Cost “Reasonableness”
A common question posed at the conclusion of a User Fee Study, particularly when reviewing the results, is whether the data and results are reasonable. Altho ugh the scope of this study did not include an evaluation of the service levels in Animal Services, the following discussion addresses this question and related issues.
The notion of “reasonableness” i s a function of different defin itions and assumptions. The most basic consideration is whether the reasonableness standard applies to the cost of the service or to the fee charged--which can be two entirely different issues.
The reasonableness of a fee is largely a policy matter after cost has been established, since each individual’s perspective influences his or her definition of reasonableness. For example, whether a particular fee is considered reasonable certainly depends on whether one is the person paying the fee or a disinterested party. C oncepts of subsidization are also important to consider, particularly when the fee payer will realize a profit as a result of Animal Services’ action (e.g., private businesses or citizens). Political considerations, jurisdictional comparisons, economic sympathy, desired incentives and disincentives, and historical trends may also play a part in the determination of fee reasonableness.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
A User Fee Study establishes the true cost of providing individ ual services. The most common standard for this analysis, as directed by the California Gover nment Code, is that the fees can be no greater than the “estimated reasonable cost” of providing the service for which a fee is charged.
However, there is no best practice or specific “reasonableness” definition or standard for providing individual services—and, by extension, there is no best cost le vel. Often, the only commonality across different jurisdictions is difference. Attempts to creat e a standard through rough statistical analysis of past data from other jurisdictions are problematic, and imply a level of accuracy and meaningfulness that does not exist. The cost components, servi ce structures, staffing arrangements, services levels, overhead levels, and many other factors vary widely (and legitimately) among even neighboring jurisdictions.
Animal Services’ User Fee Study em ployed quality control measur es to ensure that the analysis identified the most accurate costs for Animal Services’ current operations, which represents one commonly accepted measure of reasonableness.
However, if Animal Services expands its definition of reasonableness to include consideration of the most efficient and effective operational practices, it is im portant to note that the scope of this User Fee Study focused on the current operational costs of Animal Services activities only and did not delve into issues of service performance or quality. In contrast, a true best practices evaluation and determination of cost reasonableness based upon an idealized service approach requires a more robust management and operations study. To be successful, this type of study should involve meaningful observations and eval uations of business processes and management practices, operational reviews, comprehensive line staff interviews, concept definition processes, and a wider scope and intensity of investigation and analysis. Anything sh ort of this full analysis would lack credibility, utility, and relevance.
Enhanced Fee Flexibility
The time data in this study represent the best estimates for the level of effort necessary to complete each of the fee activities, based on past experience and meeting a minimum professional standard.
Since unforeseen circumstances and requests are possible, there is a need for flexibility in fees to address new or anomalous situatio ns. In these situations, Anim al Services can identify the need for additional staff time and apply standard or individual position hourly rates to establish charges.
The Study calculated full-cost recovery rates for all key positions. To facilitate use of these rates, the Board of Supervisors should grant the authority to charge these supplemental rates by including them in the approved fee ordinance or resolution.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Implementation Issues
Following Board of Supervisors approval of a new fee schedule, Animal Services will be faced with the practical task of implementing the new fees. As part of the process to develops an implementation plan, Animal Services may wish to consider the information and issues presented below.
Timing
To ensure more accurate revenue and service expectations, it is important for Animal Services to recognize the realistic limitations to a speedy implementation of new fees.
1. Animal Services may be subject to mandated noticing and public hearing requirements to seek approval by t he Board of Supervisors and c ommence implementation. Animal Services should consult its own counsel for determination of applicable legal requirements, if any.
2. Based on initial public or leader s h i p r e a c t i o n t o t h e i n i t i a l fee proposals, The County may identify the need for additional public hearings/meetings, which would add time for additional noticing and hearing requirements that could also delay full implementation.
3. Animal Services will also be faced with a series of practical and customer service limitations. Fee schedules must be produced and published in t he usual places (brochures and handouts, website, staff handbooks). The County ’s permit, licensing, and/or tracking system s must be updated to reflect t he new fee levels.
Staff must be trained on new fee structures and/or procedures in some instances.
Fortunately, if planned effectiv ely, County staff can complete many of these administrative tasks while waiting for any applicable waiting periods to pass.
Permit Systems
The User Fee Study did more than calculate the full cost of exi sting services. In some cases, the consultant and Animal Services staff reorganized or otherwise modified the existing fee structures. We adde d new fees, deleted obsolete f ees, combined fees, and established entirely new approaches for some. As a result, Animal Services will need to modify the structure and organi zation of the fees in the permit ting/licensing or tracking systems and structures used by Animal Services before any new fees go into effect.
Phasing
Due to the large gaps between some current fees and their full cost recovery levels identified in the study, many of Animal Services’ fees may be subject to significant increases. If implemented all at once, these increases may sur prise local businesses, developers, community-based organizations, citizens, and other fee-payers, and could conceivably have an adverse impact on the local economy. If An imal Services plans to Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
institute significant fee increases for these services, phasing in the fee increases helps to minimize impacts to the community and to give it a chance to plan for, budget, and adapt to, the increases.
There are, however, two key downsides to enacting a phased approach to fee increases.
The first issue is the delay of cost recovery, since fees will continue to be subsidized at higher levels until the full cost (or desired cost-recovery goal) fee levels are achieved. The second issue is the potential for additional administrative and/or operational cost resulting from more frequent fee changes. Each fee change can result in the need for additional contracted services to modify p ermit systems, supplemental staf f training, reprinting of forms or other documentation, and other additional internal workload.
Public Outreach
Public and interest group acceptance of new or increased fees c a n o f t e n b e i m p r o v e d through an awareness campaign and direct communication with aff ected parties. Having the opportunity to review the fees (and perhaps the analysis behind them) builds confidence in the credibility of the analysis and reduces objections. Conversely, last-minute notices cause the community to question the veracity of the fee analysi s and County motives behind the apparently rushed approval process.
The public outreach needs associated with fee changes vary by Animal Services and by the types of fees. Animal Services should develop a public notification and outreach plan that is appropriate for the types of fees affected, the degree of potential fee changes, and the customer base and others affected by the changes.
Potential Implementation Strategies
Wohlford Consulting generally recommends setting fees at 100% o f cost and implementing the new fees as soon as possible. This approach for Animal Service s would result in a large number of individual fee increases, a smaller number of fee decreases, and a significant overall increase in annual revenue.
This standard recommendation would minimize individual fee subs idies and maximize cost recovery. However, Wohlford Cons ulting understands that curren t economic conditions, and Animal Services’ desire to attain community support, warrant the consideration of alternative fee implementation approaches and timing. We recognize that a decline in economic activity and vitality, political desire to s pur economic recovery, and antic ipated criticism and extraordinary resistance to fee increases, may make the typical fee implementation approach especially difficult.
Consequently, Wohlford Consulting has identified several approa ches for Animal Services to consider that will facilitate imp lementation and achievement of Animal Services’ cost-recovery objectives. The alternativ es are presented below:
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Option 1: Adopt the Fee Schedule at 100% Cost-Recovery
Under this option, Animal Services would implement almost all f ees at 100% of full cost as soon as possible, with a limited number of reasonable exceptions determined by Animal Services for critical areas of public safety or public involvement. This approach would result in the maximum cost recovery (i.e., new revenue gains), absent any impact of price elasticity (which is unknown), and is the only approach that will mitigate the underfunding of Animal Services activities. However, the full cost recovery approach may not be the most palatable option to Animal Services, as d iscussed above, so one of the ot her options may be more appropriate.
Option 2: Increase Selected Fees Only
Under this option, Animal Services would select a limited number of fees to increase. To select the fees targeted for increase, Animal Services should consider a variety of factors that affect progress towards revenue, subsidy, or policy goals. These factors may include which fees are burdensome to customers, which ones are the most frequently charged, which ones are the least successful at current cost recovery (i.e., most subsidized), potential controversy and opposition, targeted customers, and past experience.
While this approach will not res ult in full cost recovery and w ill perpetuate subsidization of fee-related services, it may be the most practical and achievable option. It may also result in greater overall success for Animal Services. A successful partial implementation may achieve greater overall cost recovery gains and subsidy reduction than a failed complete implementation. Before selecting this approach, Animal Services should evaluate whether the determination of targeted fees would require a significant secondary analysis that may, in itself, cause considerable controversy and opposition.
Option 3: Standard Discount
If full cost recovery is not inte nded, the easiest option to ad minister is to apply a standard discount to the cost results. For example, the Board of Superv isors could decide to charge a specified percentage (e.g., 80%) of full cost for all fees. Un der this scenario, Animal Services would increase fees that are currently less than the specified percentage of full cost and decrease any fees that are currently greater than that percentage.
Even if the percentage cost-recovery rate is standardized, the rate of change for individual fees could be inconsistent, to the extent that these fees are not cu rrently set at a consistent ratio to full cost. As a result, the fe e payers could still experience sticker shock and see significant percentage and/or dollar increas es to individual fees. However , the notion of a discount applied to fees may have strong appeal to customers and other interested parties.
Option 4: Capped Increase
Under this option, the Board of Supervisors would limit individ ual fee increase to a specified percentage increase (cap) above its current level (e.g., a 50% increase only).
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
This approach applies an understandable consistency to the increases, but it separates the fees from a relationship with full co st. Depending on the cap selec ted, this approach can prevent significant increases to fees that would occur under a full-cost-recovery scenario. However, it also could limit the cost-recovery performance of individual fees, and thus result in continued underfunding of services.
Option 5: Phased Implementation
The option to phase the implementation of fee changes over time is applicable to each of the other options. Under this approach, Animal Services would select a period of years over which to achieve its overall goal. For example, Animal Services coul d decide to achieve full cost recovery over a period of three years (or some other desired period), rather than all in the first year. To achieve a “full cost in three years” goal, Animal Services would increase the fees by 33% of the gap between current fees and full cost each year for three years. The County should also consider annual inflation into the annual phased growth factors, to ensure that full cost is included for the duration of the phasing.
This approach would smooth out the fee increases, which might allow customers to adjust their business plans, plan for future development projects, absorb the increases over time, and build the increases into their cost calculations. This approach may also stimulate some development activity, as customers schedule their projects earlier to take advantage of reduced fees.
However, this approach will also maintain a level of deficit for a longer duration and perpetuate an underfunding of services.
Option 6: Hybrid Approach
Animal Services has the option to mix and match the components of each of the options to establish a process and an outcome that best meets its needs. Further evaluation and understanding of County objectives would be necessary to more f ully define the most appropriate recommendation for Animal Services.
Consultant’s Recommendation Regarding Implementation Strategies The ideal fee implementation strategy for Sonoma County can onl y be determined through careful evaluation of Board of Supervisors priorities, communit y input, future County budget conditions, County policy, and potential community impact and r esponse. Most of this information is unavailable at this time and is likely to change periodically; so, in order to provide a recommendation in the absence of this direct knowledge, Wohlford Consulting must rely upon successful experiences with other communities and knowledge of Animal Services gained through this Study.
To improve the cost-recovery performance of Animal Services, Wo hlford Consulting recommends a blended, or hybrid, implementation approach that combines the full-cost-recovery goals of Option #1 with the cus tomer and community-centric features of a phased approach from Option #5.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
In recognition that the Board of Supervisors may not want to set all fees at full cost, this general recommended approach is flexible and acknowledges that the Coun ty will likely seek 100% cost-recovery only for certain fees. In addition, the County w ill likely set different phasing schedules for individual fees, ra nging from immediate implement ation at 100% of cost to a schedule of increases over many years to achieve a level of full-cost recovery in the future.
The phased approach is intended to “soften” the larger fee increases, including many that could increase from zero to hundreds or thousands of dollars at full cost. The potential for “sticker shock” and customer frustration is real, and a phased approach may help the County achieve community acceptance of the fees with less controversy and ranc or. The County’s revenue goals and financial condition should be the primary driver for determining the specific time frame for the phased approach.
Wohlford Consulting believes that this blended/hybrid approach would be most beneficial to the County, because the County can maintain the relationship between fees and full cost (thus facilitating future adjustments), as well as maintain focus on an overall goal of full cost recovery—while retaining flexibility to adapt to changing local conditions. In addition, the phasing of some fee changes will make it easier for customers to accept and adjust to the cost increases, and it will allow time for the economy to continue to recover before the full impact of the final fee increases is borne by customers.
Note: This recommendation also recognizes the potential need to continue subsidizing a few specific services, in order to ensure continued public safety a nd/or reasonable public involvement in some processes.
Future Updates
This Study represents a snapshot in time of the costs to provide fee related services. The cost factors are from the FY 2023/24 Proposed Budget, including the staffing and budgeted expenditures, for Animal Services. However, the study’s specif ic applicability to the budget and current costs will effectively end when Animal Services experie nces significant budget changes.
With budget/cost increases over time, the fee levels would fall further behind in future years.
Consequently, Animal Services needs a method to keep the fees relatively current with changes in costs over time. Some of the most common approaches include:
Status Quo: Many counties and cities simply allow their fees to remain con stant over the years. Not only does this approach negatively affect revenue recovery, it also causes potentially dramatic increases when the next update is c ompleted.
Wohlford Consulting recommends against the status quo approach.
Full Review: Animal Services can elect to conduct a complete User Fee Study each year.
This would be the most accurate and defensible update strategy, but it would be the most expensive and time consuming. The payback for this le vel of effort and scrutiny does not usually warrant this approach, so Wohlfor d Consulting does not recommend it.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Minor Update: A minor update would involve changing only the basic cost fact ors in the existing fee models to recalculate fees at the new levels. Time estimates, allocation bases, staffing levels , and other key components wou ld remain the same. This level of analysis w ould require the re-involvement of a consultant.
This approach would be more cost-effective than a full review, since consultant fees would be merely a fraction of the cost of an entire study. Wohlford Consulting recommends the minor update approach as the optimal way to stay current and remain defensible.
Inflation Factor: One of the easiest and least expensive update approaches is to apply an inflation factor to existing fees in an attempt to mirror cost increases over time. This method simply entails the development of a spreadsheet to apply a percentage increase to current fees. The flaw in this approach is the pot ential inaccuracy of any inflation factor applied generically to a wide range of cost types.
However, this approach is generally accepted (and seldom challe nged) as a convenient and reasonable way to modify fees in future years. For this reason, Wohlford Consulting recommends the inflation factor approach, if Animal Services does not wish to conduct a minor update.
The key to an effective inflation factor approach is to select the right factor. A variety of CPI-type factors are available for Animal Services t o use, with the most common and recognized source being the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cpi).
The average annual inflation grow th in most California indexes over the past 10 years was approximately 3%, and the annual increases in the top indexes have exceeded 3.5% only two or three times. The West Urban Are a CPI (All Urban Consumers, All Items), for example, has experienced an an nual rate of increase of 3.0% or less for most of the last decade—and actually demonstrated an overall decline of .4% in 2009—and only exceeded 3% twice in over 10 years (2018 – 3.3%, 2021 – 4.5%, and 2022 – 8.0%). Last two years have been anomalous, and current trends are showing decreases in inflation for the current year. The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CPI index has averaged slightly higher over the same period (3.2% over 10 years), but has still been under 4% each year for the past decade or so, except for the anomaly at 5.6% in 2022.
Like the West index, the Bay Area index is showing a decline in inflation for the current year.
Considering energy, health care, retirement, insurance, and othe r k e y l o c a l government costs, the actual costs for Animal Services have pro bably far exceeded a 3-4% average annual growth over the past decade. Ba sed on this assumption, Wohlford Consulting recommends that Animal Services establish its own inflation factor that represents local cost growth. Th e use of an average factor would mitigate radical swings from year to year. The basis for this factor could be one of the following:
Wohlford Consulting Page 40 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
1. County labor costs. Labor costs (salaries and benefits) comprise the majority of operating costs and the largest component of fees for Animal Services, so they are the key dr iver for overall cost increases . In addition, these costs are the most predictable costs, which wil l allow Animal Services to calculate prospective fee modifications sooner.
With faster base information, Animal Services will be able to increase fees earlier and more accurately, which will help to maximize cost recovery performance. To create this factor, Animal Services c an calculate the overall percentage increases to salaries and bene fits from year to year and apply this same percentage increase to existin g fee levels. If there is concern that the labor costs have increase d without a corresponding increase in all other budgeted costs, Animal Services can moderate the labor cost factor, by determining the specific ratio of labor costs to all other costs, and a pplying this ratio to reduce the labor cost factor accordingly. For example, if labor costs are 80% of tot al costs, and the labor costs increase 10% from one year to the next, Ani mal Services can apply an 8% increase to all fees.
2. Total Budget Costs. The County could calculate the overall percentage increases to the budget and apply this increase to existing fee levels.
These costs may also be predictable, but Animal Services must t ake special care to exclude cost components from the calculations t hat are not related to fee activities, as was done in the original fee study.
Wohlford Consulting Page 41 of 42 April 10, 2023
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
CLOSING COMMENTS
Thank You to Animal Services and Sonoma County Staff
As part of the study process, the consultant received tremendou s support and cooperation from Animal Services and other Department of Health Services staff, who contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including:
Staffing structures, budgets, and other cost data
Clarification of individual budget line-items
Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions Time estimates to complete work tasks
Activity statistics (fee volumes) and current fee levels Multiple reviews of draft results and other documentation Information and characterizations of existing relevant issues and policies This User Fee Study required significant involvement of the man agers and staff from Animal Services—on top of their existi ng workloads and competing prior ities. The contributions of County staff were critical to the success of the study. It is especially worthy to note that this study had an extremely accelerated timeline which required a particularly intense level of effort and timeliness from County staff. T he following individuals should be commended for their assistance, professionalism, po sitive attitudes, helpful sugges tions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation:
Brian Whipple Michelle Rene Eduardo Cruz-Guzman
Chanel Brock Emma Diemert Andy O’Brien
Alex Carni Michael Jones Missy Paik
Kevin Davis Melanie McCall-Parker Skyler Timko
Char Mendoza
Final Thoughts
The Sonoma County Department of Health Services and the Animal Services Section engaged Wohlford Consulting to conduct an objective analysis of the full costs incurred in support of various activities for which Animal Services charges user fees. The consultant used high-quality study processes and a unit cost build-up methodology to identif y the full cost for individual fee activities.
Through this study, Sonoma County now has a more complete understanding of the full cost to provide user fee services to the community. With this informat ion, County leadership can more fully consider the public policy and financial implications of its current approach to cost recovery for these services. The end result can be a new fee schedule t hat is based upon informed consideration and rational decisions.
Wohlford Consulting
Animal Services Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX:
COST RESULTS DETAILS
The follow pages contain a summary of the results from the analysis of Animal Services fee services.
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Final Results April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
1 SHELTER Program Overhead, Support, and
General Expenditures (annual) [suballocated] - $ - $ - $ - 0% 2 SHELTER Maintenance and Repair (annual)
[suballocated] - $ - $ - $ - 0%
3 ADOPTION: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
4 Dog Adoption: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
5 Dogs 6 years and older 18.00 $ 107.45 $ 330.48 $ (223.03) 33% 6 Dogs 6 years old and older, that have been
available for adoption a minimum of two weeks
(optional)
1.00 $ 53.72 $ 330.48 $ (276.76) 16%
7 Dogs over 17 weeks to 5 years 11 months 41.00 $ 144.03 $ 330.48 $ (186.45) 44% 8 Dogs 17 weeks to 5 years 11 months, that have
been available for adoption a minimum of two
weeks (optional)
1.00 $ 72.01 $ 330.48 $ (258.47) 22%
9 Dogs 8 to 16 weeks old 165.00 $ 192.03 $ 330.48 $ (138.45) 58% 10 Dogs 8 to 16 weeks old, that have been
available for adoption a minimum of two weeks
(optional)
1.00 $ 96.02 $ 330.48 $ (234.46) 29%
11 Cat Adoption: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
12 Cats 6 years and older 15.00 $ 60.58 $ 231.47 $ (170.89) 26% 13 Cats 6 years old and older, that have been
available for adoption a minimum of two weeks
(optional)
1.00 $ 29.72 $ 231.49 $ (201.77) 13%
14 Cats over 17 weeks to 5 years 11 months 118.00 $ 90.30 $ 231.47 $ (141.17) 39% 15 Cats 17 weeks to 5 years 11 months, that have
been available for adoption a minimum of two
weeks (optional)
1.00 $ 45.72 $ 231.49 $ (185.77) 20%
16 Cats 8 to 16 weeks old 165.00 $ 126.20 $ 231.47 $ (105.27) 55% 17 Cats 8 to 16 weeks old, that have been
available for adoption a minimum of two weeks
(optional)
1.00 $ 75.44 $ 231.49 $ (156.05) 33%
18 Special / Promotional cat or dog adoption fee
(due to space or animals' condition): - $ - $ - $ - 0%
19 Special / Promotional dog adoption fee (due to
space or animals' condition) 56.00 $ 25.00 $ 330.48 $ (305.48) 8% 20 Special / Promotional cat adoption fee (due to
space or animals' condition) 36.00 $ 25.00 $ 231.47 $ (206.47) 11% Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 1 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
21 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
22 Other Adoption: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
23 Small Mammals / Rodents / Fowl 7.00 $ 12.57 $ 169.95 $ (157.38) 7% 24 Livestock / Exotic Animals (Fee is equal to the
full market value of the animal, as determined
by SCAS)
9.00 $ - $ 155.55 $ (155.55) 0%
25 Rabbits 9.00 $ 24.00 $ 114.38 $ (90.38) 21%
26 All other Animal types - assigned a category at
the discretion of the Program Manager (Fee is
equal to the full market value of the animal, as
determined by SCAS)
9.00 $ - $ 99.97 $ (99.97) 0%
27 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
28 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 2 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
29 BOARDING: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
30 Dog - Annual Cost of Boarding (annual) - $ - $ 1,321,939.66 $ (1,321,939.66) 0% 31 Dog - Per Day at shelter [No time or cost
assigned to this service. We will calculate the
daily amount based on the
annual/monthly/weekly cost determined.]
2,756.00 $ 28.42 $ 48.59 $ (20.17) 58%
32 Cat - Annual Cost of Boarding (annual) - $ - $ 364,539.77 $ (364,539.77) 0% 33 Cat - Per Day at shelter [No time or cost
assigned to this service. We will calculate the
daily amount based on the
annual/monthly/weekly cost determined.]
657.00 $ 22.74 $ 25.70 $ (2.96) 88%
34 Livestock - Annual Cost of Boarding (annual) - $ - $ 8,989.03 $ (8,989.03) 0% 35 Livestock - Per Day per Head at shelter, Plus
cost of feed and materials [No time or cost
assigned to this service. We will calculate the
daily amount based on the
annual/monthly/weekly cost determined.]
85.00 $ 42.09 $ 51.66 $ (9.57) 81%
36 Small Animals (Rabbits, Hamsters, Parakeets,
Rodents Etc.) - Annual Cost of Boarding
(annual)
- $ - $ 57,931.36 $ (57,931.36) 0%
37 Small Animals (Rabbits, Hamsters, Parakeets,
Rodents Etc.) - Per Day per Head at shelter,
Plus cost of feed and materials [No time or cost
assigned to this service. We will calculate the
daily amount based on the
annual/monthly/weekly cost determined.]
20.00 $ - $ 13.40 $ (13.40) 0%
38 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
39 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 3 of 30 April 10, 2023 Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity Current Fee
Level / Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
40 IMPOUND: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
41 Dog Impound (ACO): - $ - $ - $ - 0%
42 1st Impound – Licensed 78.00 $ 77.73 $ 421.13 $ (343.40) 18% 43 1st Impound – Unlicensed 154.00 $ 97.16 $ 435.88 $ (338.72) 22% 44 Additional Impounds (within one year) 50.00 $ 162.32 $ 421.13 $ (258.81) 39% 45 Dog Impound (Public): - $ - $ - $ - 0%
46 1st Impound – Licensed 118.00 $ 77.73 $ 178.89 $ (101.16) 43% 47 1st Impound – Unlicensed 219.00 $ 97.16 $ 193.63 $ (96.47) 50% 48 Additional Impounds (within one year) 75.00 $ 162.32 $ 178.89 $ (16.57) 91% 49 Dog Impounds without RTO - $ - $ 82.62 $ (82.62) 0%
50 Cat Impound (ACO): - $ - $ - $ - 0%
51 Impound – Altered 192.00 $ 26.29 $ 403.83 $ (377.54) 7% 52 Impound – Unaltered (spay/neuter deposit of
$40) 181.00 $ 32.01 $ 403.83 $ (371.82) 8%
53 Cat Impound (Public): - $ - $ - $ - 0%
54 Impound – Altered 106.00 $ 26.29 $ 142.02 $ (115.73) 19% 55 Impound – Unaltered (spay/neuter deposit of
$40) 37.00 $ 32.01 $ 142.02 $ (110.01) 23%
56 Cat Impounds without RTO - $ - $ 98.61 $ (98.61) 0%
57 Livestock Impound: - $ - $ -
$ - 0%
58 Large Livestock – 300 lbs and over/head (same
household) plus transportation time, 1st
impound
9.00 $ 70.87 $ 601.34 $ (530.47) 12%
59 Large Livestock – 300 lbs and over/head (same
household) plus transportation time, 2nd
impound
-
$ - $ 585.32 $ (585.32) 0%
60 Large Livestock – 300 lbs and over/head (same
household) plus transportation time, 3rd
impound
-
$ - $ 585.32 $ (585.32) 0%
61 Small Livestock – under 300 lbs and over/head
(same household) plus transportation time, 1st
impound
26.00 $ 32.01 $ 623.96 $ (591.95) 5%
62 Small Livestock – under 300 lbs and over/head
(same household) plus transportation time, 2nd
impound
-
$ - $ 601.37 $ (601.37) 0%
63 Small Livestock – under300 lbs and over/head
(same household) plus transportation time, 3rd
impound
- $ - $ 601.37 $ (601.37) 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 4 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
64 Exotic - $ 55.75 $ 81.51 $ (25.76) 68%
65 Animal Control Officer Assistance - Stray
Livestock - Actual Officer Time at Cost-
Recovery Hourly Rate (including response time)
[Hours and Calculated cost represent a sample
incident and potential deposit level.]
2.00 $ 335.39 $ 404.73 $ (69.34) 83%
66 Impound Other: Small Mammals and Birds - $ - $ - $ - 0% 67 Small Animals - ACO (e.g., Rabbits, Hamsters,
Parakeets, Rodents, etc.) 44.00 $ - $ 315.75 $ (315.75) 0% 68 Small Animals - Public (e.g., Rabbits,
Hamsters, Parakeets, Rodents, etc.) 35.00 $ - $ 71.40 $ (71.40) 0% 69 Small Animal Impounds without RTO - $ - $ 17.77 $ (17.77) 0% 70 Field Release (by Animal Control Officer): - $ - $ - $ - 0% 71 Unlicensed (or required for alteration) Animal -
Field Release - Potential New Fee 50.00 $ - $ 219.43 $ (219.43) 0% 72 Licensed Animal - Field Release - No Charge - $ - $ 219.43 $ (219.43) 0% 73 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
74 FIELD Program Overhead, Support, and
General Expenditures (annual) [suballocated] - $ - $ - $ - 0% Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 5 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
75 KENNEL / PET FANCIER PERMITS - Annual
(January 1 - December 31), includes initial
inspection, annual fee:
- $ - $ - $ - 0%
76 Commercial Kennel Permit 30.00 $ 223.97 $ 546.77 $ (322.80) 41% 77 Hobby Kennel (grandfathered) 7.00 $ 223.97 $ 546.77 $ (322.80) 41% 78 Pet Shop - $ 223.97 $ 452.50 $ (228.53) 49%
79 Pet Fancier Kennel (Dog); - $ - $ - $ - 0%
80 Up to 10 altered dogs (must purchase individual
dog licenses) 15.00 $ 49.15 $ 402.98 $ (353.83) 12%
81 Up to 10 unaltered (or combination of unaltered
and altered) dogs (must purchase individual
dog licenses)
20.00 $ 99.45 $ 402.98 $ (303.53) 25%
82 Pet Fancier Kennel (Cat): - $ - $ - $ - 0%
83 Up to 10 altered cats (individual cat licenses
optional) - $ 25.15 $ 353.79 $ (328.64) 7%
84 Up to 10 unaltered (or combination of unaltered
and altered) cats (individual cat licenses
optional)
- $ 49.15 $ 353.79 $ (304.64) 14%
85 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
86 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
87 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
88 Additional Inspections & Services: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
89 Transfer inspection - $ 167.12 $ 229.70 $ (62.58) 73% 90 Periodic Inspection - $ 167.12 $ 229.70 $ (62.58) 73% 91 Reinspection, per visit, required within permit
year due to violations - $ 167.12 $ 229.70 $ (62.58) 73% 92 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
93 Late Penalty (50% of fee) - $ - $ - $ - 0%
94 0 -
$ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 6 of 30 April 10, 2023 Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
95 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Program Overhead,
Support, and General Expenditures (annual)
[suballocated]
- $ - $ - $ - 0%
96 LICENSE FEES: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
97 Dog: Altered (annual) 18,950.00 $ 28.42 $ 19.52 $ 8.90 146% 98 Dog: Altered-Owners 62 years and older
(annual) 9,384.00 $ 16.00 $ 19.52 $ (3.52) 82%
99 Dog: Unaltered (annual) 3,035.00 $ 28.42 $ 19.52 $ 8.90 146% 100 Cat: Altered (permanent license) 183.00 $ 13.64 $ 12.78 $ 0.86 107% 101 Cat: Unaltered (permanent license) 1.00 $ 13.64 $ 12.78 $ 0.86 107% 102 Transfer / Replacement License - Dog or Cat 798.00 $ 13.64 $ 12.78 $ 0.86 107% 103 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
104 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
105 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
106 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
107
Late License Penalty (not on current fee
schedule) - Should be 50% of license fee, per
code
- $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 7 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
108 OWNER SURRENDER: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
109
Large Animal (Each Dog, Cat, Livestock,
Exotic, etc., or each litter of dogs or cats) - In
Jurisdiction
178.00 $ 69.35 $ 73.12 $ (3.77) 95%
110
Large Animal (Each Dog, Cat, Livestock,
Exotic, etc., or each litter of dogs or cats) - Out
of Jurisdiction
6.00 $ 84.13 $ 73.12 $ 11.01 115%
111 Small Animal/Other (Each small animal/other or
litter) - In Jurisdiction 9.00 $ - $ 64.78 $ (64.78) 0% 112 Small Animal/Other (Each small animal/other or
litter) - Out of Jurisdiction 1.00 $ - $ 64.81 $ (64.81) 0% 113 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
114
Euthanasia of PDD/VDD Animals - Owner
Request - Potential New Fee (currently use
surrender fee)
17.00 $ - $ 124.00 $ (124.00) 0%
115 Animal Disposal - Owner Request - Potential
New Fee (currently use surrender fee) 123.00 $ - $ 22.18 $ (22.18) 0% 116 Large Animal Disposal / Rendering Fee 188.00 $ 42.07 $ 44.56 $ (2.49) 94% 117 Officer Assist Owner Surrender Field (New
Fee) 47.00 $ - $ 345.58 $ (345.58) 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 8 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
118 DANGEROUS DOG REGISTRATION: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
119 Potentially Dangerous / Vicious 1st Year -
Voluntary (New Fee) 6.00 $ 69.35 $ 3,359.54 $ (3,290.19) 2% 120 Potentially Dangerous / Vicious 1st Year - Court-
Ordered (New Fee) 3.00 $ 69.35 $ 5,400.97 $ (5,331.62) 1% 121 Potentially Dangerous Dog (annual fee - each
for year 2 and year 3) 75.00 $ 69.35 $ 1,011.96 $ (942.61) 7% 122 Vicious Dog (annual fee for life of the dog after
year 1) 12.00 $ 69.35 $ 1,011.48 $ (942.13) 7%
123 PDD/VDD Collar, Leash, and Sign (New Fee) 30.00 $ - $ 188.84 $ (188.84) 0% 124 PROTECTION DOG OPERATOR: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
125 Registration (annual) - $ 28.42 $ 101.80 $ (73.38) 28% 126 Inspection (periodic) - $ 167.12 $ 101.80 $ 65.32 164% 127 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
128 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 9 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
129 RABIES QUARANTINE - All Animals: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
130 Quarantine - Home (up to 10 days) 444.00 $ 42.07 $ 331.81 $ (289.74) 13% 131 Quarantine - 6 month Home (including monthly
inspections) 7.00 $ 167.12 $ 1,802.98 $ (1,635.86) 9%
132 Quarantine Board - Standard 10 days at County
shelter 517.00 $ - $ 353.63 $ (353.63) 0%
133
Other Quarantine (longer duration, home or
board, etc.) - As determined by the Program
Manager
19.00 $ - $ 396.45 $ (396.45) 0%
134
Quarantine Board - Per Day at shelter [No time
or cost assigned to this service. We will
calculate the daily amount based on the
standard 10-day cost is determined.]
- $ 42.07 $ - $ 42.07 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 10 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
135 SPAY / NEUTER: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
136
SPAY / NEUTER Program Overhead, Support,
and General Expenditures (annual)
[suballocated]
- $ - $ - $ - 0%
137 Dog - Spay: 2-30 lbs 48.00 $ 68.58 $ 472.78 $ (404.20) 15% 138 Dog - Spay: 31-75 lbs 111.00 $ 80.01 $ 549.99 $ (469.98) 15% 139 Dog - Spay: over 75 lbs 4.00 $ 102.88 $ 627.21 $ (524.33) 16% 140 Dog - Neuter: 2-30 lbs 59.00 $ 68.58 $ 434.41 $ (365.83) 16% 141 Dog - Neuter: 31-75 lbs 106.00 $ 80.01 $ 434.41 $ (354.40) 18% 142 Dog - Neuter: over 75 lbs 13.00 $ 102.88 $ 434.41 $ (331.53) 24% 143 Cat: Spay 189.00 $ 45.72 $ 383.28 $ (337.56) 12%
144 Cat: Neuter 188.00 $ 28.58 $ 343.06 $ (314.48) 8%
145 Rabbit 19.00 $ - $ 179.39 $ (179.39) 0%
146
UNALTERED FINES - Dog & Cat - Required
by State Law (In conjunction with
Impounds) - Passthrough to the State:
- $ - $ - $ - 0%
147 Unaltered 1st Impound - $ 35.00 $ - $ 35.00 0%
148 Unaltered 2nd Impound (within one year) - $ 50.00 $ - $ 50.00 0% 149 Unaltered 3rd Impound (within one year) - $ 100.00 $ - $ 100.00 0% 150 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 11 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
151 VACCINATION / TESTING / MICROCHIPS: - $ - $ - $ - 0% 152 Bordatella (included in adoption / spay / neuter
fees) 333.00 $ 28.42 $ 16.58 $ 11.84 171%
153
DHLPP (Distemper, Parvo Virus, Parainfuenza
Vaccines) (included in adoption/spay/neuter
fees) [Including +C until discontinued]
666.00 $ 28.42 $ 22.23 $ 6.19 128%
154
FELV/FIV Test (Feline Leukemia
Virus/Immunodeficiency Virus) (owner request;
included in adoption)
- $ 28.42 $ 148.04 $ (119.62) 19%
155
FVRCP (Panluekepenia, Feline Viral
Rhinotracyitis, Calici Virus Vaccines) (included
in adoption/spay/neuter fees)
102.00 $ 28.42 $ 15.62 $ 12.80 182%
156 Rabies (owner request; included in
adoption/spay/neuter fees) - $ 28.42 $ 28.83 $ (0.41) 99% 157 Microchip (included in adoption/spay/neuter)
fees 69.00 $ 28.42 $ 34.40 $ (5.98) 83%
158 Heartworm Test (owner request; included in
adoption fee) 38.00 $ 28.42 $ 125.67 $ (97.25) 23%
159 Rabies control Test (owner request) - Up to and
including 300 pounds 145.00 $ 139.84 $ 722.93 $ (583.09) 19% 160 Rabies Control Test (owner request) - Over 300
pounds - $ 223.97 $ 469.02 $ (245.05) 48%
161 ERAVAC (Rabbits) - $ - $ 86.69 $ (86.69) 0%
162 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 12 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
163
VETERINARY CARE SERVICES (Non-
Spay/Neuter, Vaccination, Microchip, or
Testing):
- $ - $ - $ - 0%
164
VETERINARY CARE Program Overhead,
Support, and General Expenditures (annual)
[suballocated]
- $ - $ - $ - 0%
165
Non-Specific Veterinary Care - All general
veterinary services not included in specific
individual fees (annual) [suballocated]
- $ - $ - $ - 0%
166 Prescription Medication Issuance Fee (plus
actual cost of medication) [new fee structure] 2,535.00 $ - $ 38.31 $ (38.31) 0% 167 Exam - $ 84.59 $ 90.96 $ (6.37) 93%
168 Outside Lab Work Processing Fee (Plus actual
cost from provider) [new fee structure] 11.00 $ - $ 243.00 $ (243.00) 0% 169 Outside Lab Work Comprehensive [deleted] - $ - $ - $ - 0% 170 In House Lab Work - $ 42.29 $ 253.79 $ (211.50) 17% 171 Sedation - $ 111.42 $ 266.24 $ (154.82) 42%
172 General Anesthesia - $ 126.88 $ 470.36 $ (343.48) 27% 173 Surgery Level 1 - $ 84.59 $ 316.18 $ (231.59) 27%
174 Surgery Level 2 - $ 167.12 $ 397.76 $ (230.64) 42%
175 Surgery Level 3 - $ 251.25 $ 609.38 $ (358.13) 41%
176 Veterinary Treatment Level 1 - $ 84.13 $ 276.10 $ (191.97) 30% 177 Veterinary Treatment Level 2 - $ 126.88 $ 340.12 $ (213.24) 37% 178 Veterinary Treatment Level 3 - $ 167.12 $ 474.47 $ (307.35) 35% 179 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
180
Other (veterinary services not listed) - Actual
Time at Staff Hourly Rates, Plus actual cost of
materials and supplies. [Hours and Calculated
cost represent a sample incident and potential
deposit level.]
1.00 $ - $ 372.90 $ (372.90) 0%
181 Vet Services not listed (actual cost passed
throught to the responsible party) - annual - $ - $ - $ - 0% 182 0 -
$ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 13 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
183 FULL COST RECOVERY RATES (HOURLY
STAFF RATES: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
184
Service in Excess of Standard (per hour @ staff
hourly rates and at the discretion of the
Director)
- $ - $ - $ - 0%
185 Average Program Hourly Rate - Division-wide
(per hour) - $ - $ 180.55 $ (180.55) 0%
186 General Animal Control Program - All Positions
Combined / Unburdened (per hour) - $ - $ 172.32 $ (172.32) 0% 187 Field Services Hourly Rate - Burdened (per
hour) 1.00 $ - $ 187.69 $ (187.69) 0%
188 Shelter Services Hourly Rate - Burdened (per
hour) 1.00 $ - $ 160.27 $ (160.27) 0%
189 Administrative Aide (per hour) 1.00 $ - $ 163.12 $ (163.12) 0% 190 Account Clerk (per hour) 1.00 $ - $ 129.41 $ (129.41) 0% 191 Animal Control Officer (per hour) 1.00 $ - $ 187.26 $ (187.26) 0% 192 Supervising Animal Control Officer - Shelter
(per hour) 1.00 $ - $ 191.83 $ (191.83) 0%
193 Supervising Animal Control Officer - Field (per
hour) 1.00 $ - $ 192.43 $ (192.43) 0%
194 Animal Health Technician (per hour) 1.00 $ - $ 166.60 $ (166.60) 0% 195 Animal Care Assistant (per hour) 1.00 $ - $ 150.75 $ (150.75) 0% 196 Program Planning and Evaluation Analyst (per
hour) 1.00 $ - $ 166.27 $ (166.27) 0%
197 Health Program Manager - Animal Services
(per hour) 1.00 $ - $ 219.09 $ (219.09) 0%
198 Veterinarian (per hour) 1.00 $ - $ 213.42 $ (213.42) 0% 199 Animal Services Director (annual) 1.00 $ - $ 270.53 $ (270.53) 0% 200 Fee for services that do not fit into any other
category - Actual time at staff hourly rates. - $ - $ - $ - 0% Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 14 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee Service Information Full Cost Results (Unit)
Fee # Fee Title
Annual
Revenue
Activity
Level
Current Fee
/ Charges
Total Full Cost
per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
201 NON-FEE ACTIVITIES: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
202 Public Information / Counter: Pre-Application or
License Support (annual) [suballocated] - $ - $ - $ - 0% 203 Public Information / Counter: General Public
Info - not recoverable (annual) - $ - $ 20,169.13 $ (20,169.13) 0% 204 Public Education & Communication (annual) - $ - $ 205,471.79 $ (205,471.79) 0% 205 Patrol, Reponse, and Investigations (annual) - $ - $ 1,787,906.25 $ (1,787,906.25) 0% 206 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
207 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
208 Special Projects (annual) - $ - $ 96,444.65 $ (96,444.65) 0% 209 Other County Projects (annual) - $ - $ 3,987.79 $ (3,987.79) 0% 210 Volunteer Support, Training, and Oversight
(annual) - $ - $ 160,810.36 $ (160,810.36) 0%
211 Community Service and Coordination (annual) - $ - $ 19,367.65 $ (19,367.65) 0% 212 Other Non-Fee Activities (annual) - $ - $ 393,222.27 $ (393,222.27) 0% 213 Rabies Response - Wild Animals (annual) - $ - $ 24,330.02 $ (24,330.02) 0% 214 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
215 SUPPPORT TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS /
DIVISIONS: - $ - $ - $ - 0%
216 Support to Environmental Health (annual) - $ - $ 794.45 $ (794.45) 0% 217 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
218 Support to Sheriff (annual) - $ - $ 37,973.51 $ (37,973.51) 0% 219 Support to Code Enforcement (annual) - $ - $ 794.45 $ (794.45) 0% 220 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
221 Support to All Other Departments (annual) - $ - $ 2,383.29 $ (2,383.29) 0% 222 Support to Other Agencies and Jurisdictions
(annual) - $ - $ 4,925.46 $ (4,925.46) 0%
223 0 - $ - $ - $ - 0%
224 END OF ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES - $ - $ - $ - 0%
TOTALS:
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 15 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
1 SHELTER Program Overhead, Support, and
General Expenditures (annual) [suballocated] $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 2 SHELTER Maintenance and Repair (annual)
[suballocated] $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
3 ADOPTION: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
4 Dog Adoption: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
5 Dogs 6 years and older $ 1,934.10 $ 5,948.64 $ (4,014.54) 33% $ 1,934.10 $ 5,948.64 $ (4,014.54) 33% 6 Dogs 6 years old and older, that have been
available for adoption a minimum of two weeks
(optional)
$ 53.72 $ 330.48 $ (276.76) 16% $ 53.72 $ 330.48 $ (276.76) 16% 7 Dogs over 17 weeks to 5 years 11 months $ 5,905.23 $ 13,549.68 $ (7,644.45) 44% $ 5,905.23 $ 13,549.68 $ (7,644.45) 44% 8 Dogs 17 weeks to 5 years 11 months, that have
been available for adoption a minimum of two
weeks (optional)
$ 72.01 $ 330.48 $ (258.47) 22% $ 72.01 $ 330.48 $ (258.47) 22% 9 Dogs 8 to 16 weeks old $ 31,684.95 $ 54,529.20 $ (22,844.25) 58% $ 31,684.95 $ 54,529.20 $ (22,844.25) 58% 10 Dogs 8 to 16 weeks old, that have been
available for adoption a minimum of two weeks
(optional)
$ 96.02 $ 330.48 $ (234.46) 29% $ 96.02 $ 330.48 $ (234.46) 29% 11 Cat Adoption: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
12 Cats 6 years and older $ 908.70 $ 3,472.05 $ (2,563.35) 26% $ 908.70 $ 3,472.05 $ (2,563.35) 26% 13 Cats 6 years old and older, that have been
available for adoption a minimum of two weeks
(optional)
$ 29.72 $ 231.49 $ (201.77) 13% $ 29.72 $ 231.49 $ (201.77) 13% 14 Cats over 17 weeks to 5 years 11 months $ 10,655.40 $ 27,313.46 $ (16,658.06) 39% $ 10,655.40 $ 27,313.46 $ (16,658.06) 39% 15 Cats 17 weeks to 5 years 11 months, that have
been available for adoption a minimum of two
weeks (optional)
$ 45.72 $ 231.49 $ (185.77) 20% $ 45.72 $ 231.49 $ (185.77) 20% 16 Cats 8 to 16 weeks old $ 20,823.00 $ 38,192.55 $ (17,369.55) 55% $ 20,823.00 $ 38,192.55 $ (17,369.55) 55% 17 Cats 8 to 16 weeks old, that have been
available for adoption a minimum of two weeks
(optional)
$ 75.44 $ 231.49 $ (156.05) 33% $ 75.44 $ 231.49 $ (156.05) 33% 18 Special / Promotional cat or dog adoption fee
(due to space or animals' condition): $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 19 Special / Promotional dog adoption fee (due to
space or animals' condition) $ 1,400.00 $ 18,506.88 $ (17,106.88) 8% $ 1,400.00 $ 18,506.88 $ (17,106.88) 8% 20 Special / Promotional cat adoption fee (due to
space or animals' condition) $ 900.00 $ 8,332.92 $ (7,432.92) 11% $ 900.00 $ 8,332.92 $ (7,432.92) 11% Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 16 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
21 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
22 Other Adoption: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
23 Small Mammals / Rodents / Fowl $ 87.99 $ 1,189.65 $ (1,101.66) 7% $ 87.99 $ 1,189.65 $ (1,101.66) 7% 24 Livestock / Exotic Animals (Fee is equal to the
full market value of the animal, as determined
by SCAS)
$ - $ 1,399.95 $ (1,399.95) 0% $ - $ 1,399.95 $ (1,399.95) 0% 25 Rabbits $ 216.00 $ 1,029.42 $ (813.42) 21% $ 216.00 $ 1,029.42 $ (813.42) 21% 26 All other Animal types - assigned a category at
the discretion of the Program Manager (Fee is
equal to the full market value of the animal, as
determined by SCAS)
$ - $ 899.73 $ (899.73) 0% $ - $ 899.73 $ (899.73) 0%
27 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
28 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 17 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
29 BOARDING: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
30 Dog - Annual Cost of Boarding (annual) $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 31 Dog - Per Day at shelter [No time or cost
assigned to this service. We will calculate the
daily amount based on the
annual/monthly/weekly cost determined.]
$ 78,325.52 $ 1,321,939.66 $ (1,243,614.14) 6% $ 78,325.52 $ 133,918.97 $ (55,593.45) 58% 32 Cat - Annual Cost of Boarding (annual) $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 33 Cat - Per Day at shelter [No time or cost
assigned to this service. We will calculate the
daily amount based on the
annual/monthly/weekly cost determined.]
$ 14,940.18 $ 364,539.77 $ (349,599.59) 4% $ 14,940.18 $ 16,885.41 $ (1,945.23) 88% 34 Livestock - Annual Cost of Boarding (annual) $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 35 Livestock - Per Day per Head at shelter, Plus
cost of feed and materials [No time or cost
assigned to this service. We will calculate the
daily amount based on the
annual/monthly/weekly cost determined.]
$ 3,577.65 $ 8,989.03 $ (5,411.38) 40% $ 3,577.65 $ 4,391.19 $ (813.54) 81% 36 Small Animals (Rabbits, Hamsters, Parakeets,
Rodents Etc.) - Annual Cost of Boarding
(annual)
$ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
37 Small Animals (Rabbits, Hamsters, Parakeets,
Rodents Etc.) - Per Day per Head at shelter,
Plus cost of feed and materials [No time or cost
assigned to this service. We will calculate the
daily amount based on the
annual/monthly/weekly cost determined.]
$ - $ 57,931.36 $ (57,931.36) 0% $ - $ 268.08 $ (268.08) 0% 38 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
39 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 18 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
40 IMPOUND: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
41 Dog Impound (ACO): $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
42 1st Impound – Licensed $ 6,062.94 $ 32,848.14 $ (26,785.20) 18% $ 6,062.94 $ 32,848.14 $ (26,785.20) 18% 43 1st Impound – Unlicensed $ 14,962.64 $ 70,176.68 $ (55,214.04) 21% $ 14,962.64 $ 67,125.52 $ (52,162.88) 22% 44 Additional Impounds (within one year) $ 8,116.00 $ 21,056.50 $ (12,940.50) 39% $ 8,116.00 $ 21,056.50 $ (12,940.50) 39% 45 Dog Impound (Public): $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
46 1st Impound – Licensed $ 9,172.14 $ 21,109.02 $ (11,936.88) 43% $ 9,172.14 $ 21,109.02 $ (11,936.88) 43% 47 1st Impound – Unlicensed $ 21,278.04 $ 46,858.46 $ (25,580.42) 45% $ 21,278.04 $ 42,404.97 $ (21,126.93) 50% 48 Additional Impounds (within one year) $ 12,174.00 $ 13,416.75 $ (1,242.75) 91% $ 12,174.00 $ 13,416.75 $ (1,242.75) 91% 49 Dog Impounds without RTO $ - $ 54,198.72 $ (54,198.72) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 50 Cat Impound (ACO): $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
51 Impound – Altered $ 5,047.68 $ 79,554.51 $ (74,506.83) 6% $ 5,047.68 $ 77,535.36 $ (72,487.68) 7% 52 Impound – Unaltered (spay/neuter deposit of
$40) $ 5,793.81 $ 73,093.23 $ (67,299.42) 8% $ 5,793.81 $ 73,093.23 $ (67,299.42) 8% 53 Cat Impound (Public): $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
54 Impound – Altered $ 2,786.74 $ 18,320.58 $ (15,533.84) 15% $ 2,786.74 $ 15,054.12 $ (12,267.38) 19% 55 Impound – Unaltered (spay/neuter deposit of
$40) $ 1,184.37 $ 5,254.74 $ (4,070.37) 23% $ 1,184.37 $ 5,254.74 $ (4,070.37) 23% 56 Cat Impounds without RTO $ - $ 76,915.80 $ (76,915.80) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 57 Livestock Impound: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
58 Large Livestock – 300 lbs and over/head (same
household) plus transportation time, 1st
impound
$ 637.83 $ 5,412.06 $ (4,774.23) 12% $ 637.83 $ 5,412.06 $ (4,774.23) 12% 59 Large Livestock – 300 lbs and over/head (same
household) plus transportation time, 2nd
impound
$ - $ 0.59 $ (0.59) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
60 Large Livestock – 300 lbs and over/head (same
household) plus transportation time, 3rd
impound
$ - $ 0.59 $ (0.59) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
61 Small Livestock – under 300 lbs and over/head
(same household) plus transportation time, 1st
impound
$ 832.26 $ 22,462.56 $ (21,630.30) 4% $ 832.26 $ 16,222.96 $ (15,390.70) 5% 62 Small Livestock – under 300 lbs and over/head
(same household) plus transportation time, 2nd
impound
$ - $ 0.60 $ (0.60) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
63 Small Livestock – under300 lbs and over/head
(same household) plus transportation time, 3rd
impound
$ - $ 0.60 $ (0.60) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 19 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
64 Exotic $ - $ 0.08 $ (0.08) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
65 Animal Control Officer Assistance - Stray
Livestock - Actual Officer Time at Cost-
Recovery Hourly Rate (including response time)
[Hours and Calculated cost represent a sample
incident and potential deposit level.]
$ 670.78 $ 809.46 $ (138.68) 83% $ 670.78 $ 809.46 $ (138.68) 83% 66 Impound Other: Small Mammals and Birds $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 67 Small Animals - ACO (e.g., Rabbits, Hamsters,
Parakeets, Rodents, etc.) $ - $ 15,156.00 $ (15,156.00) 0% $ - $ 13,893.00 $ (13,893.00) 0% 68 Small Animals - Public (e.g., Rabbits,
Hamsters, Parakeets, Rodents, etc.) $ - $ 2,570.40 $ (2,570.40) 0% $ - $ 2,499.00 $ (2,499.00) 0% 69 Small Animal Impounds without RTO $ - $ 1,510.45 $ (1,510.45) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 70 Field Release (by Animal Control Officer): $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 71 Unlicensed (or required for alteration) Animal -
Field Release - Potential New Fee $ - $ 10,971.50 $ (10,971.50) 0% $ - $ 10,971.50 $ (10,971.50) 0% 72 Licensed Animal - Field Release - No Charge $ - $ 10,971.50 $ (10,971.50) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 73 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
74 FIELD Program Overhead, Support, and
General Expenditures (annual) [suballocated] $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 20 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
75 KENNEL / PET FANCIER PERMITS - Annual
(January 1 - December 31), includes initial
inspection, annual fee:
$ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
76 Commercial Kennel Permit $ 6,719.10 $ 16,403.10 $ (9,684.00) 41% $ 6,719.10 $ 16,403.10 $ (9,684.00) 41% 77 Hobby Kennel (grandfathered) $ 1,567.79 $ 3,827.39 $ (2,259.60) 41% $ 1,567.79 $ 3,827.39 $ (2,259.60) 41% 78 Pet Shop $ - $ 0.45 $ (0.45) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
79 Pet Fancier Kennel (Dog); $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 80 Up to 10 altered dogs (must purchase individual
dog licenses) $ 737.25 $ 6,044.70 $ (5,307.45) 12% $ 737.25 $ 6,044.70 $ (5,307.45) 12% 81 Up to 10 unaltered (or combination of unaltered
and altered) dogs (must purchase individual
dog licenses)
$ 1,989.00 $ 8,059.60 $ (6,070.60) 25% $ 1,989.00 $ 8,059.60 $ (6,070.60) 25% 82 Pet Fancier Kennel (Cat): $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 83 Up to 10 altered cats (individual cat licenses
optional) $ - $ 0.35 $ (0.35) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
84 Up to 10 unaltered (or combination of unaltered
and altered) cats (individual cat licenses
optional)
$ - $ 0.35 $ (0.35) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
85 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
86 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
87 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
88 Additional Inspections & Services: $ - $ - $ - 0%
$ - $ - $ - 0%
89 Transfer inspection $ - $ 0.23 $ (0.23) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 90 Periodic Inspection $ - $ 0.23 $ (0.23) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 91 Reinspection, per visit, required within permit
year due to violations $ - $ 0.23 $ (0.23) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 92 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
93 Late Penalty (50% of fee) $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 94 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 21 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
95 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Program Overhead,
Support, and General Expenditures (annual)
[suballocated]
$ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
96 LICENSE FEES: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
97 Dog: Altered (annual) $ 538,559.00 $ 369,904.00 $ 168,655.00 146% $ 538,559.00 $ 369,904.00 $ 168,655.00 146% 98 Dog: Altered-Owners 62 years and older
(annual) $ 150,144.00 $ 183,175.68 $ (33,031.68) 82% $ 150,144.00 $ 183,175.68 $ (33,031.68) 82% 99 Dog: Unaltered (annual) $ 86,254.70 $ 59,243.20 $ 27,011.50 146% $ 86,254.70 $ 59,243.20 $ 27,011.50 146% 100 Cat: Altered (permanent license) $ 2,496.12 $ 2,338.74 $ 157.38 107% $ 2,496.12 $ 2,338.74 $ 157.38 107% 101 Cat: Unaltered (permanent license) $ 13.64 $ 12.78 $ 0.86 107% $ 13.64 $ 12.78 $ 0.86 107% 102 Transfer / Replacement License - Dog or Cat $ 10,884.72 $ 10,198.44 $ 686.28 107% $ 10,884.72 $ 10,198.44 $ 686.28 107% 103 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
104 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
105 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
106 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
107
Late License Penalty (not on current fee
schedule) - Should be 50% of license fee, per
code
$ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 22 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
108 OWNER SURRENDER: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
109
Large Animal (Each Dog, Cat, Livestock,
Exotic, etc., or each litter of dogs or cats) - In
Jurisdiction
$ 12,344.30 $ 14,843.36 $ (2,499.06) 83% $ 12,344.30 $ 13,015.36 $ (671.06) 95% 110
Large Animal (Each Dog, Cat, Livestock,
Exotic, etc., or each litter of dogs or cats) - Out
of Jurisdiction
$ 504.78 $ 438.72 $ 66.06 115% $ 504.78 $ 438.72 $ 66.06 115% 111 Small Animal/Other (Each small animal/other or
litter) - In Jurisdiction $ - $ 583.02 $ (583.02) 0% $ - $ 583.02 $ (583.02) 0% 112 Small Animal/Other (Each small animal/other or
litter) - Out of Jurisdiction $ - $ 64.81 $ (64.81) 0% $ - $ 64.81 $ (64.81) 0% 113 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
114
Euthanasia of PDD/VDD Animals - Owner
Request - Potential New Fee (currently use
surrender fee)
$ - $ 2,108.00 $ (2,108.00) 0% $ - $ 2,108.00 $ (2,108.00) 0% 115 Animal Disposal - Owner Request - Potential
New Fee (currently use surrender fee) $ - $ 2,728.14 $ (2,728.14) 0% $ - $ 2,728.14 $ (2,728.14) 0% 116 Large Animal Disposal / Rendering Fee $ 7,909.16 $ 8,377.28 $ (468.12) 94% $ 7,909.16 $ 8,377.28 $ (468.12) 94% 117 Officer Assist Owner Surrender Field (New
Fee) $ - $ 16,242.26 $ (16,242.26) 0% $ - $ 16,242.26 $ (16,242.26) 0% Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 23 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
118 DANGEROUS DOG REGISTRATION: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 119 Potentially Dangerous / Vicious 1st Year -
Voluntary (New Fee) $ 416.10 $ 23,516.78 $ (23,100.68) 2% $ 416.10 $ 20,157.24 $ (19,741.14) 2% 120 Potentially Dangerous / Vicious 1st Year - Court-
Ordered (New Fee) $ 208.05 $ 21,603.88 $ (21,395.83) 1% $ 208.05 $ 16,202.91 $ (15,994.86) 1% 121 Potentially Dangerous Dog (annual fee - each
for year 2 and year 3) $ 5,201.25 $ 76,908.96 $ (71,707.71) 7% $ 5,201.25 $ 75,897.00 $ (70,695.75) 7% 122 Vicious Dog (annual fee for life of the dog after
year 1) $ 832.20 $ 12,137.76 $ (11,305.56) 7% $ 832.20 $ 12,137.76 $ (11,305.56) 7% 123 PDD/VDD Collar, Leash, and Sign (New Fee) $ - $ 5,665.20 $ (5,665.20) 0% $ - $ 5,665.20 $ (5,665.20) 0% 124 PROTECTION DOG OPERATOR: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 125 Registration (annual) $ - $ 0.10 $ (0.10) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 126 Inspection (periodic) $ - $ 0.10 $ (0.10) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 127 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
128 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 24 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
129 RABIES QUARANTINE - All Animals: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 130 Quarantine - Home (up to 10 days) $ 18,679.08 $ 238,571.39 $ (219,892.31) 8% $ 18,679.08 $ 147,323.64 $ (128,644.56) 13% 131 Quarantine - 6 month Home (including monthly
inspections) $ 1,169.84 $ 12,620.86 $ (11,451.02) 9% $ 1,169.84 $ 12,620.86 $ (11,451.02) 9% 132 Quarantine Board - Standard 10 days at County
shelter $ - $ 182,826.71 $ (182,826.71) 0% $ - $ 182,826.71 $ (182,826.71) 0% 133
Other Quarantine (longer duration, home or
board, etc.) - As determined by the Program
Manager
$ - $ 7,532.55 $ (7,532.55) 0% $ - $ 7,532.55 $ (7,532.55) 0% 134
Quarantine Board - Per Day at shelter [No time
or cost assigned to this service. We will
calculate the daily amount based on the
standard 10-day cost is determined.]
$ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 25 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
135 SPAY / NEUTER: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
136
SPAY / NEUTER Program Overhead, Support,
and General Expenditures (annual)
[suballocated]
$ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
137 Dog - Spay: 2-30 lbs $ 3,291.84 $ 23,166.22 $ (19,874.38) 14% $ 3,291.84 $ 22,693.44 $ (19,401.60) 15% 138 Dog - Spay: 31-75 lbs $ 8,881.11 $ 61,598.88 $ (52,717.77) 14% $ 8,881.11 $ 61,048.89 $ (52,167.78) 15% 139 Dog - Spay: over 75 lbs $ 411.52 $ 3,136.05 $ (2,724.53) 13% $ 411.52 $ 2,508.84 $ (2,097.32) 16% 140 Dog - Neuter: 2-30 lbs $ 4,046.22 $ 26,064.60 $ (22,018.38) 16% $ 4,046.22 $ 25,630.19 $ (21,583.97) 16% 141 Dog - Neuter: 31-75 lbs $ 8,481.06 $ 46,481.87 $ (38,000.81) 18% $ 8,481.06 $ 46,047.46 $ (37,566.40) 18% 142 Dog - Neuter: over 75 lbs $ 1,337.44 $ 6,081.74 $ (4,744.30) 22% $ 1,337.44 $ 5,647.33 $ (4,309.89) 24% 143 Cat: Spay $ 8,641.08 $ 72,439.92 $ (63,798.84) 12% $ 8,641.08 $ 72,439.92 $ (63,798.84) 12% 144 Cat: Neuter $ 5,373.04 $ 64,495.28 $ (59,122.24) 8% $ 5,373.04 $ 64,495.28 $ (59,122.24) 8% 145 Rabbit $ - $ 3,408.41 $ (3,408.41) 0% $ - $ 3,408.41 $ (3,408.41) 0% 146
UNALTERED FINES - Dog & Cat - Required
by State Law (In conjunction with
Impounds) - Passthrough to the State:
$ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
147 Unaltered 1st Impound $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 148 Unaltered 2nd Impound (within one year) $ -
$ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
149 Unaltered 3rd Impound (within one year) $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 150 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 26 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
151 VACCINATION / TESTING / MICROCHIPS: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 152 Bordatella (included in adoption / spay / neuter
fees) $ 9,463.86 $ 16,397.62 $ (6,933.76) 58% $ 9,463.86 $ 5,521.14 $ 3,942.72 171% 153
DHLPP (Distemper, Parvo Virus, Parainfuenza
Vaccines) (included in adoption/spay/neuter
fees) [Including +C until discontinued]
$ 18,927.72 $ 29,388.06 $ (10,460.34) 64% $ 18,927.72 $ 14,805.18 $ 4,122.54 128% 154
FELV/FIV Test (Feline Leukemia
Virus/Immunodeficiency Virus) (owner request;
included in adoption)
$ - $ 55,218.92 $ (55,218.92) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
155
FVRCP (Panluekepenia, Feline Viral
Rhinotracyitis, Calici Virus Vaccines) (included
in adoption/spay/neuter fees)
$ 2,898.84 $ 13,776.84 $ (10,878.00) 21% $ 2,898.84 $ 1,593.24 $ 1,305.60 182% 156 Rabies (owner request; included in
adoption/spay/neuter fees) $ - $ 21,190.05 $ (21,190.05) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 157 Microchip (included in adoption/spay/neuter)
fees $ 1,960.98 $ 27,279.20 $ (25,318.22) 7% $ 1,960.98 $ 2,373.60 $ (412.62) 83% 158 Heartworm Test (owner request; included in
adoption fee) $ 1,079.96 $ 33,302.55 $ (32,222.59) 3% $ 1,079.96 $ 4,775.46 $ (3,695.50) 23% 159 Rabies control Test (owner request) - Up to and
including 300 pounds $ 20,276.80 $ 104,824.85 $ (84,548.05) 19% $ 20,276.80 $ 104,824.85 $ (84,548.05) 19% 160 Rabies Control Test (owner request) - Over 300
pounds $ - $ 0.47 $ (0.47) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
161 ERAVAC (Rabbits) $ - $ 1,907.18 $ (1,907.18) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 162 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 27 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
163
VETERINARY CARE SERVICES (Non-
Spay/Neuter, Vaccination, Microchip, or
Testing):
$ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
164
VETERINARY CARE Program Overhead,
Support, and General Expenditures (annual)
[suballocated]
$ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
165
Non-Specific Veterinary Care - All general
veterinary services not included in specific
individual fees (annual) [suballocated]
$ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
166 Prescription Medication Issuance Fee (plus
actual cost of medication) [new fee structure] $ - $ 97,115.85 $ (97,115.85) 0% $ - $ 97,115.85 $ (97,115.85) 0% 167 Exam $ - $ 0.09 $ (0.09) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
168 Outside Lab Work Processing Fee (Plus actual
cost from provider) [new fee structure] $ - $ 2,673.00 $ (2,673.00) 0% $ - $ 2,673.00 $ (2,673.00) 0% 169 Outside Lab Work Comprehensive [deleted] $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 170 In House Lab Work $ - $ 0.25 $ (0.25) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 171 Sedation $ - $ 0.27 $ (0.27) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
172 General Anesthesia $ - $ 0.47 $ (0.47) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 173 Surgery Level 1 $ - $ 0.32 $ (0.32) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 174 Surgery Level 2 $ - $ 0.40 $ (0.40) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 175 Surgery Level 3 $ - $ 0.61 $ (0.61) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 176 Veterinary Treatment Level 1 $ - $ 0.28 $ (0.28) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 177 Veterinary Treatment Level 2 $ - $ 0.34 $ (0.34) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 178 Veterinary Treatment Level 3 $ - $ 0.47 $ (0.47) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 179 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
180
Other (veterinary services not listed) - Actual
Time at Staff Hourly Rates, Plus actual cost of
materials and supplies. [Hours and Calculated
cost represent a sample incident and potential
deposit level.]
$ - $ 372.90 $ (372.90) 0% $ - $ 372.90 $ (372.90) 0%
181 Vet Services not listed (actual cost passed
throught to the responsible party) - annual $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 182 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 28 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
183 FULL COST RECOVERY RATES (HOURLY
STAFF RATES: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
184
Service in Excess of Standard (per hour @ staff
hourly rates and at the discretion of the
Director)
$ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
185 Average Program Hourly Rate - Division-wide
(per hour) $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
186 General Animal Control Program - All Positions
Combined / Unburdened (per hour) $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 187 Field Services Hourly Rate - Burdened (per
hour) $ - $ 187.69 $ (187.69) 0% $ - $ 187.69 $ (187.69) 0% 188 Shelter Services Hourly Rate - Burdened (per
hour) $ - $ 160.27 $ (160.27) 0% $ - $ 160.27 $ (160.27) 0% 189 Administrative Aide (per hour) $ - $ 163.12 $ (163.12) 0% $ - $ 163.12 $ (163.12) 0% 190 Account Clerk (per hour) $ - $ 129.41 $ (129.41) 0% $ - $ 129.41 $ (129.41) 0% 191 Animal Control Officer (per hour) $ - $ 187.26 $ (187.26) 0% $ - $ 187.26 $ (187.26) 0% 192 Supervising Animal Control Officer - Shelter
(per hour) $ - $ 191.83 $ (191.83) 0% $ - $ 191.83 $ (191.83) 0% 193 Supervising Animal Control Officer - Field (per
hour) $ - $ 192.43 $ (192.43) 0% $ - $ 192.43 $ (192.43) 0% 194 Animal Health Technician (per hour) $ - $ 166.60 $ (166.60) 0% $ - $ 166.60 $ (166.60) 0% 195 Animal Care Assistant (per hour) $ - $ 150.75 $ (150.75) 0% $ - $ 150.75 $ (150.75) 0% 196 Program Planning and Evaluation Analyst (per
hour) $ -
$ 166.27 $ (166.27) 0% $ - $ 166.27 $ (166.27) 0%
197 Health Program Manager - Animal Services
(per hour) $ - $ 219.09 $ (219.09) 0% $ - $ 219.09 $ (219.09) 0% 198 Veterinarian (per hour) $ - $ 213.42 $ (213.42) 0% $ - $ 213.42 $ (213.42) 0% 199 Animal Services Director (annual) $ - $ 270.53 $ (270.53) 0% $ - $ 270.53 $ (270.53) 0% 200 Fee for services that do not fit into any other
category - Actual time at staff hourly rates. $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 29 of 30 April 10, 2023
Sonoma County
2023 ANIMAL SERVICES USER FEE STUDY
FINAL RESULTS
ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
RESULTS ANALYSIS
Fee #
Fee Service Information
Fee Title
Full Co
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
st Results (Annu
Projected
Annual Full
Cost
al - All Services)
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Potential
Projected
Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Revenue Results
Projected
Annual Revenue
at Full Cost per
Unit
(Fee Services O
Projected
Annual Surplus
/ (Subsidy)
nly)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
201 NON-FEE ACTIVITIES: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
202 Public Information / Counter: Pre-Application or
License Support (annual) [suballocated] $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 203 Public Information / Counter: General Public
Info - not recoverable (annual) $ - $ 20,169.13 $ (20,169.13) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 204 Public Education & Communication (annual) $ - $ 205,471.79 $ (205,471.79) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 205 Patrol, Reponse, and Investigations (annual) $ - $ 1,787,906.25 $ (1,787,906.25) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 206 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
207 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
208 Special Projects (annual) $ - $ 96,444.65 $ (96,444.65) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 209 Other County Projects (annual) $ - $ 3,987.79 $ (3,987.79) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 210 Volunteer Support, Training, and Oversight
(annual) $ - $ 160,810.36 $ (160,810.36) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 211 Community Service and Coordination (annual) $ - $ 19,367.65 $ (19,367.65) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 212 Other Non-Fee Activities (annual) $ - $ 393,222.27 $ (393,222.27) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 213 Rabies Response - Wild Animals (annual) $ - $ 24,330.02 $ (24,330.02) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 214 0 $ -
$ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
215 SUPPPORT TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS /
DIVISIONS: $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
216 Support to Environmental Health (annual) $ - $ 794.45 $ (794.45) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 217 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
218 Support to Sheriff (annual) $ - $ 37,973.51 $ (37,973.51) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 219 Support to Code Enforcement (annual) $ - $ 794.45 $ (794.45) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 220 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
221 Support to All Other Departments (annual) $ - $ 2,383.29 $ (2,383.29) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 222 Support to Other Agencies and Jurisdictions
(annual) $ - $ 4,925.46 $ (4,925.46) 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
223 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
224 END OF ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0%
TOTALS: $ 1,202,152 $ 7,269,402 $ (6,067,250) 17% $ 1,202,152 $ 2,473,723 $ (1,271,571) 49% Revenue Totals Revenue Totals
Wohlford Consulting Appendix - Page 30 of 30 April 10, 2023