HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/5/2001 - STAFF REPORTS (27) CVAG �� �
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
Blythe Cathedral City • Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells • Indio • La Quinta • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage
County of Riverside • Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
MEMORANDUM
f �
TO: HUMAN AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES COMMITTEE
FROM: Aurora Kerr, Director at
Human and Community Resources
DATE: June 18, 2001
RE: FINAL REPORT - PROPOSED VALLEY-WIDE ANIMAL CAMPUS
Enclosed is the Final Report from consultant, John Heiss, on funding options for the proposed
Valley-wide Animal Campus. Please review this information carefully and bring this report to the
July 6°i HCR Committee meeting. Mr. Heiss will make a brief presentation. We will be taking
action as to whether this report is now ready to move to CVAG's Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) and Executive Committee for consideration.
Thank you. Feel free to call me should you have any questions.
:enclosure
62Y 4
73-710 Fred Waring Drive,Suite 200 • Palm Desert, CA 92260 • (7601 346-1 1 27 • FAX(760)340-5949
Department of Finance
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 2, 2001
MEMO TO: City Manager K
FROM: Director of Finance& Treasurer
RE: CVAG Animal Campus
Per your request, I reviewed the Hughes, Perry and Associated evaluation of CVAG's Animal
Services Campus Alternatives. The report outlined various scenarios and service levels: Status
Quo, Full Scope, and Reduced Scope alternatives; staffing via a County contract or by a Joint
Powers Authority; holding animals for a minimum of 5 days or for 10 days.
The only relevant scenario to the City of Palm Springs is the Full Scope Alternative. This would
include all 9 Coachella Valley cities plus Riverside County.
The difference in staffing levels between a County contract and a JPA is 3 administrative positions.
(See Exhibit III, p. 19). The County proposes 37 positions, with the administrative duties being
covered by a County overhead charge. The JPA proposes 40 positions. Because of the County's
lower pay structure, their salary costs are about $100,000 less than the JPA. (See Exhibit III, p. 19).
The construction costs for a 27,363 sq. ft. building (5-day holding) are $5,828,376. For a 33,997 sq.
ft. building (10-day holding), the cost is $7,182,338. (See Exhibit V (2), p. 27).
Attached are copies of the relevant pages in the Hughes report, and a worksheet, which compares
the various scenarios.
I think the following items need additional clarification:
1) Does the construction of a Valley-wide Animal Campus presume that the Palm Springs
Shelter would be closed down? If not, who would operate it? Are those costs included in the
cost estimates?
2) Who administers the dog license programs? Who gets the revenue?
3) A pro forma operating budget should be prepared, including animal food, building and
grounds maintenance, utilities, office expense, insurance, vehicle costs, etc. The report only
shows operating expenses as 25% of staffing costs. (See Exhibit III, p. 19). My guess is that
the operating expenses, especially for the County, are understated.
t�V
Page 2
The report also did not address issues specific to the City of Palm Springs that would have to be
considered in deciding whether or not to be a part of the Valley-wide campus. E.G, if the PS Shelter
closes, what additional costs would our Police Department have in transporting animals to Thousand
Palms? How convenient will this be for P.S. citizens? Would the City's administrative expenses go
down? If the City opts to have its own Animal Shelter, what are the costs of remodeling and/or
rebuilding?
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, or need additional information.
animalshel REVIEW OF CVAG PROPOSED ANIMAL CAMPUS
7/2/01 COMPARISON OF OPERATING and CAPITAL COSTS
City Budget County Contract JPA
Total Costs N/A $ 1,799,000 $ 2,109,000
Staffing 4.75 37.00 40.00
City'sAllocation 375,592 302,154 353,857
Less Revenue:
Dog Licenses (25,000) - -
Shelter Fees (50,000) - -
Net Cost $ 300,592 $ 302,154 $ 353,857
Existing Shelter 5 Day 10day
Construction Costs N/A $ 5,828,376 $ 7,182,338
City's Allocation N/A $ 701,000 $ 864,000
•
Hughes, Perry & Associates
• MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
•
•
Evaluation of Animal Services
Campus Alternatives
COACHELLA VALLEY
ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS
Hughes, Perry & Associates
Sea Ranch, California
San Mateo, California June, 2001
•
•
•
Table of Contents
Page •
Section Title Number
Executive Summary E - 1
1. Major Planning Assumptions 1
•
2. Shelter Capacity Projection Assumptions
and Approach 4
3. Shelter Capacity Projections 7
4. Projected Annual Operating Costs for Each •
Alternative 10
5. Projected Capital Costs for Each
Alternative 23
•
6. Methods for Allocating Capital and
Operating Costs 29
Appendix-Space Program and
Construction Cost Estimate from the •
Original CVAG Study
•
•
Hughes, Perry &Associates •
•
•
•
!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE
EVALUATION OF ANIMAL SERVICE CAMPUS
ALTERNATIVES STUDY •
The report which follows provides our evaluation of animal services
campus alternatives requested by CVAG. Our study focused on reviewing
and evaluating the draft Proposed Animal Campus Studv prepared by CVAG
and dated April 6, 2001. The study documented in the report which follows •
had the following principal objectives:
• Evaluate and validate facility capacity projections, and adjust
them as required.
• Evaluate capital cost projections and adjust them as necessary •
to reflect any modifications in facility size as well as the design,
construction and construction cost estimates for developing a
joint animal care facility.
• Develop and evaluate alternative operating models including •
refining the multi-tier structure identified in the CVAG report
and prepare annual operating cost estimates.
• Develop and evaluate alternative cost allocation formulas for
both capital and operating costs and illustrate specific impact on
potential participating jurisdictions. •
This executive summary highlights the major findings which are
presented in more detail in the main body of the report.
1. MAJOR PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS. •
Based on discussion with the project steering committee, a series of
assumptions were developed and agreed to related to the various
combinations of jurisdictions potentially participating in a joint animal
campus and program; holding periods for animals; and other issues were •
developed to support evaluation of alternatives and allocations of costs for
facility development and operations. Those assumptions were as follows:
• Participating Jurisdictions. Three different_ scenarios or
alternatives were identified to provide a basis for projecting •
operating and capital costs for shelter and field animal control
operations.
A "status quo" model which was based on the Valley
jurisdictions participating in shelter and/or animal control
services as shown in the table which follows on the next •
page:
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page E - 1 •
•
•
•
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMAI Y
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Executive Summary for the
Joint Animal Campus Evaluation
Participating In
Jurisdiction Shelter Animal Control
• Palm Desert X X
Rancho Mirage X
Indian Wells X X
La Quinta X
Coachella X
Indio X
• Cathedral City X X
Palm Springs Not Participating
Desert Hot Springs X X
Riverside County X
The table shown above differs slightly from the
• configuration originally discussed with the project
committee because Riverside County has not been
included in the field animal control service. We believe it
would not be cost effective for the County to provide
contract services to Indio and Coachella, which are not
• participants for field services in this model, and join the
consortium for field services delivery.
- A "full service" model which would include all
jurisdictions participating for both shelter and animal
control services. This would include the City of Palm
• Springs.
A "reduced scope" model which would except Indio, La
Quinta, and Coachella from participation and would
consist of the other jurisdictions participating in shelter
and field animal control services as follows:
Participating In
Jurisdiction Shelter Animal Control
Palm Desert X X
Rancho Mirage X
- Indian Wells X X
La Quints, Not Participating
Coachella Not Participating
Indio Not Participating
Cathedral City X I X
Palm Springs Not Participating
Desert Hot Springs X I - X
Riverside County Not Participating
Initially, this alternative was to include Riverside county
as a participant. However, it was subsequently
determined that it was impractical, under this
alternative, to expect Riverside County to participate as a
member agency (sharing capital and operating costs for a
joint animal services campus) if Indio, La Quinta, and
Coachella did not participate because the County would
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page E -2
Executive Summary for the •
Joint Animal Campus Evaluation
probably operate the Indio shelter and field patrol service
under this alternative, and there would be no advantage
to the County of being a member of the joint animal •
services program to use the Facility and program as a
basis for housing animals from the unincorporated area.
2. ANIMAL SHELTER CAPACITY PROJECTIONS.
The two length of stay assumptions discussed with and agreed to by •
the committee were then employed to convert intakes to shelter capacity
needs for each of the three alternatives. Those holding periods were:
• Minimum holding period consistent with State law and as
described in the next table. •
Category SB 1785 Specified Bolding Period
Strays Six business days with the following exceptions:
• Four business days if either the shelter is open one weekday
evening until 7:00 PM or the shelter is open one weekend day. •
• The shelter has fewer than three employees.
The day of intake is not counted in the holding periods specified
above.
•
Owner Surrendered Two business days.
Animals
Again,the day of intake is not counted in the holding periods
specified above.
•
Since the shelter would be open in the evening and on one
weekend day, the shorter holding period would apply. Thus, the
minimum holding period to calculate shelter capacity would be
five days —the four days required by law and the intake day.
• A maximum holding period of ten days. •
Shelter capacity projections for each of the alternatives were developed
and are explained in detail in the main body of the report. Capacity
projections for each of the three alternatives are as follows:
•
Factor Maximum Five Day Holding Period Maximum Ten Day Holding Period
Dogs Cats Dogs Cats
Alternative One-
All Agencies Except 84 38 155 76
Palm Springs
Shelter Spaces
Required
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page E - 3
•
Executive Summary for the
Joint Animal Campus Evaluation
Factor Maximum Five Day Holding Period Maximum Ten Day Holding Period
• Dogs Cats Dogs Cats
Alternative Two-
All Jurisdictions 99 51 183 101
Shelter Spaces
Required
Alternative Three
• Reduced Scope 33 15 61 29
Alternative Shelter
Spaces Required
The shelter capacity projections compare to those contained in the
original CVAG planning study as shown in the table which follows below. It
• should be noted that the comparison is limited to shelter space for dogs
because the study (and space program) did not include a specific
identification of the number of cats to be accommodated and simply allocated
space for a room for cat cages.
• Number of Shelter Spaces for Dogs
Projection 5 Day Maximum 10 Day Maximum
Holding Period Holding Period
CVAG Study 75 75
Alternative One 84 155
Alternative Two 99 183
Alternative Three 33 61
As can be seen from the table, the alternatives identified by the
committee differ from the original CVAG study, especially when the longer
holding period is incorporated into the assumptions and projections.
• 3. PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS.
To project annual operating costs for each of the alternatives, we
developed estimated staffing plans consistent with projected facility capacity,
and based on the number of jurisdictions assumed to be participants for
shelter and/or field services under each. Costs were projected based on two
administrative models: (1) The shelter would be operated for the JPA under
contract with Riverside County; and (2) The shelter would be operated by
personnel employed directly by the JPA. Basic assumptions for each model
and staffing plan were as follows:
• Administration: Two basic "models" were employed to
estimate administrative staffing requirements:
Under one approach, it was assumed that the joint
campus and field program would be operated under
contract with Riverside County Animal Services.
- Under an approach which assumed that the campus
would be operated by a Joint Powers Agency, it was
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page E - 4
Executive Summary for the 0
Joint.Animal Campus Evaluation
assumed that administrative staff would include a
Director and support staff (e.g. Administrative Analyst)
who would handle basic accounting, personnel, and other
administrative duties which would be required, The
number and type of staff assumed for these functions was
varied based on the size of the organization (number of
staff) projected for each of the alternatives,
• Shelter Operations: Staffing assumptions for each operating •
model were based on providing kennel staff sufficient to provide
coverage seven days per week for animal care; and assist with
customer service during the six days per week when the kennel
would be open to the public.
• Field Operations: Were projected based on replicating current 0
service hours as reported by each of the jurisdictions, and based
on the assumed number of jurisdictions participating in field
services (second tier services) as previously discussed.
• Staff Salaries and Benefit Costis. Staffing costs under the •
County contract assumption were projected based on mid-range
compensation for all positions. County benefit costs, as shown
in the CVAG feasibility study report, were used to estimate
benefit costs. Salaries and benefit costs for the JPA operated
program were estimated based on a methodology which 0
projected compensation costs for animal services personnel
which were consistent with compensation levels for Coachella
Valley cities.
The next table shows our estimates of annual operating costs.
Projected Annual Operating Cost (000)
Program Status Quo Full Scope Reduced Scope
Alternative Alternative Alternative
County JPA County JPA County JPA
Contract Staffed Contract Staffed Contract Staffed
Administration* $ 126 $357 $ 126 $ 357 $ 101 $ 273 49
Shelter* 435 529 547 667 299 367
Field* 354 427 901 1,085 323 389
Indirect Overhead 128 - 225 - 103 -
Total $ 1,043 $ 1,313 $ 1,799 $2,109 $826 $ 1,029
* Salaries, benefits, and operating expense. Shelter program includes contract 0
veterinary services.
As can be seen from review of the information shown in the table and
the exhibits, the JPA staffed alternatives are projected to be significantly
more expensive than the County contract approach because of differences 40
between Coachella Valley cities' compensation plans and the Riverside
County compensation schedule for animal services employees.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page E - 5
i
Executive Summary for the
Joint Animal Campus Evaluation
The main body of the report outlines a methodology for allocating
administrative costs to the two major programs — shelter and field services so
that a "tiered" service approach could be implemented. The next table shows
the costs of the two tiers for each of the alternatives and compares them to
the original CVAG study estimate.
Alternative County Contract JPA Operation
Operation
Field Shelter Field Shelter
Status Quo $582,000 $461,000 $ 725,000 $588,000
Full Scope 681,000 1,118,000 803,000 1,306,000
Reduced Scope 396,000 430,000 501,000 528,000
Original CVAG Estimate 385,366 1,168,750 385,366 1,168,750
4. PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS.
We reviewed and analyzed the space program and construction budget
included in the CVAG Proposed Animal Campus Study, dated April 6, 2001
and also provided as an Appendix to this report. Our findings were as
follows:
• The basic space program is sound and based on accepted space
standards for animal services facilities. We found no need to
make major changes in the space program. Adjustments needed
were limited to those required to reflect shelter capacity and
staffing differences between and among the three alternatives
defined by the committee. Those changes were as follows:
Adjusted shelter space to reflect the different population
levels associated with each of the alternatives since the
space program, as outlined in the CVAG report, was
predicated on a capacity for holding 72 dogs.
Made some limited changes to the administrative spaces
outlined in the programs to provide the needed number of
work stations consistent with the staffing plans developed
for each of the alternatives, and previously described.
• The construction cost estimates contained in the-CVAG report
were reviewed and we found the following:
The original construction cost estimate is based on the
following per square foot construction costs:
Administrative space: $ 134 per square foot.
Clinic space (shell only — to be finished at a later
date): $ 65 per square foot.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page E - 6
Executive Summary for the •
Joint Animal Campus Evaluation
Kennel space: $ 130 per square foot.
If the unfinished clinic space is excluded, the construction •
cost estimate reflects an average per square foot cost of
$ 131.
In our work involving animal care facilities over the last
three years, we have found that construction costs for new •
animal care facilities comparable to the one being
considered by the CVAG jurisdictions range from $ 140 to
$ 180 per square foot (enclosed kennel space). While the
upper end of the range involves development of a "state of
the art" facility with expansive public areas and high •
quality surface finishes, the lower end of the range
reflects the type of facility described in the study and as
discussed with the committee.
As a result, we think it would be prudent to project construction
costs at the $ 140 per square foot level rather than the $ 131 per •
square foot cost employed in the CVAG study.
The main body of the report provides detailed estimates of construction
and other project development costs for each of the alternatives. Those
projected costs are summarized in the next tablle and also compared to the •
original CVAG estimate.
Projected Construction and Development Costs
Alternative Capacity Based on Five: Capacity Based on Ten
Day Day
Holding Period Holding Period •
Status Quo Alternative $5,454,042 $ 6,573,027
Full Scope Alternative 5,828,376 7,182,338
Reduced Scope Alternative 4,522,038 4,805,559
Original CVAG Estimate $4,900,631 $4,900,631
As can be seen from review of the information presented in the exhibit •
and the tables, extending the holding period has a significant impact on
facility cost— especially for the larger facility alternatives.
It should also be noted that facility capacity and resulting facility
costs are predicated on housing dogs on a one per kennel basis. We have
found that this is a current planning standard for new animal services
facilities because individual housing for dogs and cats is reported to reduce
spread of illness within shelters, and also limit ,injuries to both animals and
kennel staff. Costs could be reduced by double housing dogs, and that is a
policy issue which will need to be addressed as planning for the joint animal •
campus proceeds.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page E - 7
•
Executive Summary for the
Joint Animal Campus Evaluation
5. COST ALLOCATION APPROACHES.
• The main body of the report discusses and describes various cost
allocation approaches which could be employed to allocate shelter and field
service program costs under a tiered approach under which a jurisdiction
could select the services (shelter and/or field) in which it would participate.
We have recommended that cost allocation formulas for operating and capital
• costs be structured as follows:
We recommend the following approach for allocating operating
costs for shelter and field services:
• Shelter cost allocation: Base this amount, to the extent
• possible, on proportional use of the facility by member
jurisdictions including potential use and actual use. Illustrative
approaches could include: (1) Use of a single cost allocation
variable (shelter days used by each jurisdiction) — this approach
is currently used by Orange county to allocate costs to
participating jurisdictions for their animal services programs; (2)
Use two variables like population and shelter days used which
would combine potential and actual use; or (3) Use of three
variables like population, licensed dogs, and shelter days which
combine factors reflecting actual use and potential use of the
program. When multiple variables are used, they could be
weighted equally or given different weights based on negotiation.
We believe the two variable approach best balances use and
potential use. Those would be population, and shelter intakes.
The allocation of costs could be based on according equal value or
weights to both variable, or weighting one variable more heavily
than the other. For example, if the policy is that the cost
allocation should be more closely related to actual (versus
potential) use, then the use variable (intakes) would be more
heavily weighted than the population variable.
• Field Services. Variables used would depend on services
provided by the program. If the program included by both
patrol, enforcement and licensing, multiple variables like
licensed animals, patrol service hours, and service calls would
provide a balanced allocation approach. If the program were
limited to field patrol, then target service hours for each
participating jurisdiction would provide an allocation method
which allocated costs based on actual use. and agreed upon
service/coverage levels.
The next tables, on the following page, show illustrative cost
allocations for each of the alternatives employing the approaches summarized
above and explained in more detail in the main body of the report.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page E - 8
Executive Summary for the •
Joint Animal Campus Evaluation
Program Operated Under Contract By
Riverside County •
Alternative One Alternative'Trvo Alternative Three
Jurisdiction Status Quo Full Scope Reduced Scope
Shelter Field Shelter I Field Shelter Field
(Dollars 000)
Cathedral City $ 80 $124 $ 83 $ 100 $ 145 $ 116 •
Coachella 44 - 45 98 - -
Desert Hot Springs 31 207 32 167 56 193
Indian Wells 7 6 7 5 13 6
Indio 92 - 95 186 - -
La Quinta 47 - 49 167 - -
Palm Desert 76 124 78 100 137 116 •
Palm Springs - - 81 221 -
Rancho Mirage 25 26 25 45
Riverside County 180 185 49 -
Program Operated Under Directly •
By The JPA
Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three
Jurisdiction Status Quo Full Scoloe Reduced Scope
Shelter Field Shelter I Field Shelter Field
(Dollars 000) •
Cathedral City $ 100 $ 158 $ 97 $ 117 $ 184 $ 142
Coachella 57 - 55 115 - -
Desert Hot Springs 40 264 39 195 74 237
Indian Wells 9 8 9 6 16 7
Indio 114 - 112 218 - -
La Quinta 59 - 57 195 - - •
Palm Desert 93 158 91 117 171 142
Palm Springs - - 97 258 - -
Rancho Mirage 30 30 29 56
Riverside County 223 217 57 -
We recommend that the equally weighted variables of population •
(potential demand); shelter intakes (actual demand); and licensed animals
(potential demand) be employed to allocate capital costs between and
among participating jurisdictions. Because licensed animals by jurisdiction
data are unavailable at this time, two variables (intakes and population)
have been employed for illustrative purposes in the capital cost allocations •
shown in the main body of the report. The table:, which follows on the next
page, shows construction cost allocation for a facility sized based on a five day
maximum holding period for a ten day maximum holding period for each of
the alternatives.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page E - 9
Executive Summary for the
Joint Animal Campus Evaluation
Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three
Jurisdiction Status Quo Full Scope Reduced Scope
5 Day 10 Day 5 Day 10 Day 5 Day 10 Day
Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding Holding
Period Period Period Period Period Period
(Dollars 000)
Cathedral City $ 725 $907 $ 707 $872 $ 1,662 $ 1,767
Coachella 425 512 400 493 - -
Desert Hot Springs 301 363 283 349 665 706
Indian Wells 66 79 62 76 146 155
Indio 861 1,038 809 997 - -
La Quinta 444 535 417 514 - -
Palm Desert 699 842 657 810 1,544 1,641
Palm Springs - - 701 864 - -
Rancho Mirage 229 276 215 265 505 537
Riverside County 1,677 2,021 1,577 1,943 - -
The main body of the report which follows presents these findings in
detail.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page E - 10
•
•
•
FINAL REPORT
•
•
•
•
•
EVALUATION OF ANIMAL SERVICE CAMPUS
ALTERNATIVES
•
The report which follows provides our evaluation of animal services
campus alternatives requested by CVAG. Our study focused on reviewing
and evaluating the draft Proposed Animal Campus Study prepared by CVAG
• and dated April 6, 2001. The study documented in the report which follows
had the following principal objectives:
• Evaluate and validate facility capacity projections, and adjust
• them as required.
• Evaluate capital cost projections and adjust them as necessary
to reflect any modifications in facility size as well as the design,
construction and construction cost estimates for developing a
joint animal care facility.
•
• Develop and evaluate alternative operating models including
refining the multi-tier structure identified in the CVAG report
and prepare annual operating cost estimates.
• • Develop and evaluate alternative cost allocation formulas for
both capital and operating costs and illustrate specific impact on
potential participating jurisdictions.
The report opens with a summary of the major planning assumptions
developed to support the analysis.
1. MAJOR PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS.
Based on discussion with the project steering committee, a series of
assumptions were developed and agreed to related to the various
combinations of jurisdictions potentially participating in a joint animal
campus and program; holding periods for animals; and other issues were
developed to support evaluation of alternatives and allocations of costs for
facility development and operations. Those assumptions were as follows:
• Participating Jurisdictions. Three different scenarios or
alternatives were identified to provide a basis for projecting
operating and capital costs for shelter and field animal control
operations.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 1
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives
A "status quo' model which -was based on the Valley
jurisdictions participating in shelter and/or animal control
services as shown in the table which follows on the next
page:
Participating In
Jurisdiction Shelter Animal Control
Palm Desert X X
Rancho Mirage _ X •
Indian Wells X X
La Quinta X
Coachella X
Indio X
Cathedral City X X
Palm Springs Not Participating
Desert Hot Springs X I X
Riverside County X
The table shown above differs slightly from the
configuration originally discussed with the project
committee because Riverside County has not been
included in the field animal control service. We believe it
would not be cost effective for the County to provide
contract services to Indio and Coachella, which are not
participants for field services in this model, and join the
consortium for field services delivery.
•
A "full service" model which would include all
jurisdictions participating for both shelter and animal
control services. This would. include the City of Palm
Springs.
A "reduced scope" model which would except Indio, La •
Quinta, and Coachella from, participation and would
consist of the other jurisdictions participating in shelter
and field animal control services as follows:
Participating In •
Jurisdiction Shelter Animal Control
Palm Desert X X
Rancho Mirage X
Indian wens X X
La Quinta Not Participating
Coachella Not Participating •
Indio Not Participating
Cathedral City X I X
Palm Springs Not Participating
Desert Hot Springs X I X
Riverside County Not Participating
•
Initially, this alternative was to include Riverside county
as a participant. However, it was subsequently
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 2 •
•
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives
determined that it was impractical, under this
alternative, to expect Riverside County to participate as a
member agency (sharing capital and operating costs for a
joint animal services campus) if Indio, La Quinta, and
Coachella did not participate because the County would
probably operate the Indio shelter and field patrol service
under this alternative, and there would be no advantage
• to the County of being a member of the joint animal
services program to use the facility and program as a
basis for housing animals from the unincorporated area.
• Holding Periods for Animals. Shelter capacity for each of the
scenarios was tested based on two holding period assumptions
• as follows:
Minimum holding period consistent with State law.
A maximum holding period of ten days.
•
• Veterinary Services. After some discussion, it was agreed
that operating cost estimates would include a provision for
contract veterinary services. These services were estimated at $
40 per hour with number of hours varied based on shelter
• size/animal population levels associated with the three scenarios
outlined above.
• Shelter Service Hours. It was assumed that the shelter
would be open to the public six days per week with service hours
as follows:
Monday—Friday: 10 AM— 7 PM.
Saturday: 8 AM— 3 PM.
Staffing coverage and costs were estimated accordingly.
• Organizational/Governance Models. It was assumed that
the Animal Campus program will be organized and managed as
a Joint Powers Agency. Operating costs for the JPA will be
estimated under two different approaches as follows:
With the JPA directly employing staff with representative
public sector salaries and fringe benefits in the Coachella
Valley employed to estimate costs.
With the JPA contracting with Riverside County to staff
and operate the shelter and field animal control program.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 3
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives •
• Construction Management. For the purposes of the analysis,
it was assumed that a contract construction manager would be
retained to oversee and manage construction of the facility.
•
2. SHELTER CAPACITY PROJECTION ASSUMPTIONS AND
APPROACH.
Major steps employed to project shelter capacity for each of the
alternatives were as follows: •
• Animal intakes reported for each of the potential participating
jurisdictions were employed as the basis for projecting shelter
populations. Intake data are based on calendar year 2000
experience. The table which follows shows total intakes for dogs •
and cats for each of the shelter alternatives previously
described.
Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three
Jurisdiction Intakes Intakes Intakes •
Dogs Cats Dogs Cats Dogs Cats
Desert Hot
Springs 1,077 339 1,077 339 1,077 339
Coachella 523 139 523 139 Not Participating
Indio 807 396 807 396 Not Participating
Palm Springs Not Participating 1,053 785 Not Participating
La Quinta 633 229 633 229 Not Participating
Cathedral 946 470 946 470 946 470
City
Rancho
Mirage 52 53 52 53 52 53
Indian Wells 11 6 11 6 11 6
Palm Desert 239 195 239 195 239 195 •
Unincorp.
Riverside Not Participating
County 1,658 520 1,658 520
TOTAL
INTAKES 5,946 2,347 6,999 3,132 2,325 1,063
•
• Intake data were reviewed to identify disposition of intakes for
both dogs and cats to determine the number of animals
reclaimed by owners; number adopted; and number euthanized.
Alternative dispositions need to be considered because we have
found, in our previous work with other jurisdictions, that owner •
claimed animals are typically held significantly less time than
animals which are ultimately adopted or euthanized. Review of
2000 patterns for the various reporting CVAG jurisdictions
indicated that disposition patterns by species were as shown in
the table which follows on the next page: •
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 4 •
•
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives
Disposition Dogs Cats
• Adopted 15.1% 15.3%
Returned to Owner 19.6% 2.6%
Euthanized 65.3% 82.1%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%
• Our experience in working with other jurisdictions and review
of monthly intake patterns for Palm Springs, Riverside County
Animal control — Indio, and Animal Care indicates that intakes
also fluctuate by species in the Coachella Valley. As intakes
fluctuate, shelter populations will also fluctuate and thus,
capacity planning needs to accommodate those fluctuations to
• avoid chronic overcrowding during higher intake volume
periods. To estimate an "allowance for shelter population
fluctuation, we accomplished the following:
- Analyzed intake volume by month, by species for the most
recent twelve months available.
- Calculated average monthly intakes for the period.
- Calculated fluctuations above and below the average for
each month.
•
- Took the annual average for each monthly fluctuation to
calculate a planning allowance for estimating shelter
capacity which accommodates animal population
fluctuations in the shelter. The adjustments calculated
were as follows:
Dogs: 9.7%
Cats: 20.1%
Then, these adjustments were applied to intakes to
adjust for population fluctuation impact on shelter
capacity needs.
• The two length of stay assumptions discussed with and agreed
to by the committee were then employed to convert intakes to
shelter capacity needs for each of the three alternatives. Those
holding periods were:
Minimum holding period consistent with State law. The
provisions of SB 1785 and subsequent legislation are as
described in the table which follows on the next page:
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 5
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives •
Category SB 1785 Specified Holding Period
Strays Six business days with the following exceptions:
•
• Four business days if either the shelter is open one weekday
evening until 7:00 PM or the shelter is open one weekend day.
• The shelter has fewer than three employees.
The day of intake is not counted in the holding periods specified •
above.
Owner Surrendered Two business days.
Animals
Again,the day of intake is not counted in the holding periods •
specified above.
Since the shelter would be open in the evening and on one
weekend day, the shorter holding period would apply.
Thus, the minimum holding period to calculate shelter •
capacity would be five days -- the four days required by
law and the intake day which needs to be included in the
calculation because animals would occupy shelter space
shortly following intake.
A maximum holding period of ten days. •
Detailed data related to holding periods of animals by
disposition are not available. However, in our work with other
jurisdictions we found that:
Owner re-claimed animals are typically held for shorter
periods than adopted or euthanized animals.
Adopted animals average holding periods which generally
exceed the five and ten day periods identified by the
committee for capacity planning assumptions. •
Euthanized animals would stay for the maximum holding
period.
For the purposes of the capacity projections for each of the •
alternatives, we have assumed that the length of stay patterns
for owner reclaimed animals as documented in our recent work
for other jurisdictions will be used for CVAG to avoid overstating
capacity needs by applying the same length of stay to all
intakes. Data from Santa Clara County and Orange County
indicated that holding periods for owner re-claimed dogs and •
cats were similar. These data have been employed for this
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 6 •
•
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives
analysis and are as follows: Owner Returned Dogs and Cats —
Average length of stay of 3.5 days.
•
Given the assumptions described above, capacity for each of the
alternatives were calculated as follows:
• 0 Annual intakes by species were multiplied by the fluctuation
adjustment factor. Then, adjusted intakes, by species, were
multiplied by the owner returned factor to estimate the
proportion of animals which would be returned to owners and
have a shorter stay and the proportion which would stay for the
specified maximum holding period.
•
• Once intakes were separated by disposition, each category of
disposition was multiplied by average shelter days per intake
and totaled to estimate total annual shelter days by species.
• • The resulting totals were divided by 365 to calculate average
daily shelter population for each alternative to include the
adjustment for population fluctuations.
The next section shows shelter capacity needs projected based on the
approach and assumptions described above.
3. SHELTER CAPACITY PROJECTIONS
Shelter capacity projections for each of the alternatives are as follows:
Alternative One
All Agencies Except Palm Springs
Factor Maximum Five Day Holding Period Maximum Ten Day Holding Period
Dogs Cats Dogs Cats
Intakes Including
Adjustment Factor 6,523 2,347 6,623 2,347
Number Owner
Redeemed 1,305 85 1,305 85
Number Held for
Maximum Period 5,218 2,734 5,218 2,734
Projected Shelter days
for Owner Redeemed
4,568 298 4,568 298
Projected Shelter Days
Others 26,090 13,670 52,180 27,340
Total Annual Shelter
Days 30,748 13,968 56,748 27,638
(Total shelter Days
Divided by 365)
Shelter Spaces
Required 84 38 155 76
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 7
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives 0
Alternative Two
All Jurisdictions
Factor Maximum Five Day Holding Period Maximum Ten Day Holding Period
Dogs Cats Dogs Cats
Intakes Including
Adjustment Factor 7,678 3,762 7,678 3,762
Number Owner
Redeemed 1,536 113 1,536 113
Number field for
Maximum Period 6,142 3,649 6,142 3,649
Projected Shelter days
for Owner Redeemed
5,376 396 _ 5,376 396
Projected Shelter Days r
Others 30,710 18,245 _ 61,420 36,490
Total Annual Shelter
Days
(Total shelter Days 36,086 18,641 66,796 36,886
Divided by 365)
Shelter Spaces +
Required 99 51 183 101
Alternative Three
Reduced Scope Alternative
Factor Maximum Five Day Holding Period Maximum Ten Day Holding Period
Dogs Cats Dogs Cats
Intakes Including
Adjustment Factor 2,551 1,063 2,551 1,063
Number Owner
Redeemed 510 32 510 32
Number Held for
Maximum Period 2,041 1,031 2,041 1,031
Projected Shelter days
for Owner Redeemed 1,785 112 1,785 112
Projected Shelter Days
Others 10,205 5,155 20,410 10,310
Total Annual Shelter
Days
(Total shelter Days 11,990 45,267 22,195 10,422
Divided by 365)
Shelter Spaces
Required 33 15 61 29
The shelter capacity projections compare to those contained in the •
original CVAG planning study as shown in the table which follows on the
next page. It should be noted that the comparison is limited to shelter space
for dogs because the study (and space program) did not include a specific
identification of the number of cats to be accommodated and simply allocated 0
space for a room for cat cages.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 8
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives
Number of Shelter Spaces for Dogs
Projection 5 Day Maximum 10 Day Maximum -
Holding Period Holding Period
CVAG Study 75 75
Alternative One 84 155
Alternative Two 99 183
Alternative Three 33 61
As can be seen from the table, the alternatives identified by the
committee differ from the original CVAG study, especially when the longer
holding period is incorporated into the assumption and projection.
r
As previously noted, current law requires that owner surrendered
animals need be held only two business days before being euthanized. Since
we assume that one of the principal objectives of developing a new animal
campus and program would be to reduce euthanizing of animals, capacity
projections have been based on the five and ten day holding period
assumption, including the assumption that owner surrendered animals,
unless sick or injured, would be held for the maximum period if not adopted
or reclaimed prior to the end of the maximum period. For informational
purposes, we did estimate the impact of a reduced holding period (to that
consistent with State law, as follows:
• While we did not have complete data on owner surrendered
animals as a proportion of total indicates, we have found from
our work with other jurisdictions that owner surrenders
generally account for about 30% of total intakes.
• If this assumption is applied to the Coachella Valley
alternatives, impact on projected shelter capacity needs for dogs
under the five day holding period assumption as shown in the
table which follows on the next page:
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 9
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives
Factor Status Quo FuII Scale Reduced Scope
Alternative Alternative Alternative
Intakes 5,946 6,999 2,325
Owner Surrendered
at 30% 1,784 2,100 697
Other Intakes 4,162 4,899 1,628
Projected Holding Days
Owner Surrendered
at 2 Days 3,568 4,200 1,394 v
Reclaimed by
Owners—20%of
Other Intakes and 2,912 3,430 1,140
3.5 days
Held for Maximum
Five Day Period 16,650 19,595 6,510
Sub-Total Annual
Shelter Days for
Dogs 23,130 27,225 9,044
Total Annual
Projected Shelter r
Days Including
Adjustment for
Population
Fluctuations 25,374 29,866 9,921
Divided by 365 to
Project Capacity r
Needed If Owner
Surrendered Animals
Held for 2 Days and
Other for a
Maximum of 5 Days 70 82 27
Capacity Projected If
All Animals Held for
Maximum of 5 Days 84 99 33
As noted above, operating cost and facility projections have been based
on five and ten day holding assumptions for all animals not reclaimed or
adopted prior to that time. If the shorter holding period for owner
surrendered animals is subsequently determined to be an appropriate policy,
capacity projections can be modified accordingly.
4. PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR EACH
ALTERNATIVE.
To project annual operating costs for each of the alternatives, we
developed estimated staffing plans consistent with projected facility capacity,
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 10
•
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives
and based on the number of jurisdictions assumed to be participants for
r shelter and/or field services under each. Basic assumptions for each model
and staffing plan were as follows:
• Administration: Two basic "models" were employed to
estimate administrative staffing requirements:
•
Under one approach, it was assumed that the joint
campus and field program would be operated under
contract with Riverside County Animal Services and,
based on discussion with County representatives, that an
• on-site manager at the Operations Chief level would be
provided to manage the operation. Under a County
contract service situation, all support services (personnel,
payroll, accounting, information services, etc.) would
provided by the County and covered by indirect service
charges.
Under the approach which assumed that the campus
would be operated by a Joint Powers Agency, it was
assumed that administrative staff would include a
Director and support staff (e.g. Administrative Analyst)
who would handle basic accounting, personnel, and other
administrative duties which would be required. The
number and type of staff assumed for these functions was
varied based on the size of the organization (number of
staff) projected for each of the alternatives.
Under both approaches, it was assumed that the
organization would staff a Volunteer Coordinator position
with time commitment varying based on program size.
• Shelter Operations: Staffing assumptions for each operating
model were based on providing kennel staff sufficient to provide
coverage seven days per week for animal care; and assist with
customer service during the six days per week the kennel would
be open to the public (e.g. moving animals; receiving animals;
etc). The number of staff required to cover positions was
estimated based on 2,080 gross hours per position-per year; net
availability to work after leaves are considered of 85% (typical
availability for public sector employees); and a net of 1,768 work
hours per position. Exhibit I, which follows this page, shows
how we assumed that kennel staff would be deployed under each
alternative. We also assumed that kennel operations would be
directed by a Kennel Supervisor who would also provide
coverage as required to back-up other staff.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 11
EXHIBIT I
Kennel Staff Required for Each Alternative
Time Period I Kennel Technicians On Duty
i Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesd2z Thursda Frida Saturday
STATUS QUO ALTERNATIVE
8AM-4PM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 Noon—8
PM
9 AM-5PM 1 1 1 1 1
Staff Required to Provide Coverage
The above schedule requires 152 work hours per week to cover,or 7,904 person hours annually. 7,904 person hours divided by 1,768 equals
4.5 FTE positions.
FULL SCOPE ALTERNATIVE
8AM-4PM 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
121 oon—8
PM 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
9AM-5PM
Staff Required to Provide Coverage
The above schedule requires 232 work hours per week to cover,or 12,064 person hours annually. 12,064 person hours divided by 1,768
equals 6.6 r i positions.
REDUCED SCOPE ALTERNATIVE
8AM-4PM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 Noon—8
PM 1 1 1 1 1
9AM-5PM 1 1 1 1 1
Staff Required to Provide Coverage
The above schedule requires 96 work hours per week to cover, or 4,992 person hours annually. 4,992 person hours divided by 1,768 equals 3
FTE positions.
Hughes, Perry &Associates
• • s 0 0 41 s s s •
•
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives
Each alternative also assumed that a Veterinary Technician
• would be assigned to the shelter under each alternative and
would handle intake examination; basic treatment; and
euthanizations. Under the reduced scope alternative, it was
assumed that, because of the reduced facility size, one of the
Kennel Technician positions would be filled by a Veterinary
Technician who would have dual responsibilities.
Kennel operations under each alternative provide for Public
Services staff(at the Office Assistant Level) who would provide
counter service; process adoptions and owner surrenders; and
other comparable services. Staffing needs in this category were
• determined under the same approach as that taken to estimate
Kennel Technician staffing needs based on scheduled coverage
given assumed Shelter public service hours. It was also
assumed that Public Service staff would also support field
operations (dispatch; licensing processing; etc.), and positions
were allocated between the two programs (shelter and field)
under the tiered approach suggested by the committee.
U Field Operations: Were projected based on replicating current
service hours as reported by each of the jurisdictions, and based
on the assumed number of jurisdictions participating in field
services (second tier services) as previously discussed. The next
table provides our understanding of current annual service
hours of field patrol for each of the jurisdictions which are
potential participants in each of the alternatives
Jurisdiction Field Patrol Services Current Level of Field
Currently Provided By Patrol Coverage
Palm Desert Provided under contract with 6 hours per day,354 days per
California Animal Care. year. 2,124 hours per year of
annual coverage.
Rancho Mirage Provided under contract with 10 hours of patrol per week. 520
California Animal Care. hours per year of annual
coverage.
Indian Wells Provided under contract with 2 hours per week or 104 hours
California Animal Services. per year of annual coverage.
La Quints Provided by in-house City staff. 2 positions allocated to field
patrol. Assume 2,080 gross
work hours per year per
position,and once vacation,
sick, and other leaves are
considered(estimated at 85%-
average for most public
agencies),net availability to
work in the field would be 1,768
net work hours per position.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 13
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives 0
Jurisdiction Field Patrol Services Current Level of Field
Currently Provided By Patrol Coverage
La Quints. With two positions dedicated to r
(continued) field patrol,this would
represent 3,536 total field patrol
hours annually or about 68
average person hours per week.
Coachella Provided under contract by Noted in response as 40 hours
Riverside County. per week, or 2,080 hours of
coverage annually
Indio Provided under contract by 3,952 hours per year or 76 hours
Riverside County. per week.
Cathedral City Provided under contract with 6 hours per day, 354 days per
California Animal Care. year. 2,124 hours per year of .
annual coverage.
Palm Springs In-house animal control 80 to 100 hours per week. For
program. purposes of this analysis,will
assume 90 hours per week or
4,1080 person hours of field
patrol annually. 0
Desert Hot Springs Provided by in-house staff with 2 positions allocated to field
two positions currently patrol. Assume 2,080 gross
authorized. work hours per year per
position, and once vacation,
sick, and other leaves are
considered(estimated at 85%-
average for most public
agencies),net availability to
work in the field would be 1,768
net work hours per position.
With two positions dedicated to
field patrol,this would
represent 3,536 total field patrol
hours annually or about 68
average person hours per week.
Riverside County County staff working out of the The four animal control staff
Indio shelter. Animal control serve both Indio and Coachella
staff include 1 AC Supv and 3 and the unincorporated area. r
ACO's. They provide coverage Assuming the four staff have
from Monday to Friday from 2,080 gross work hours each
7:30 am to 4:30 PM. annually; and net availability to
M and F—2 deployed work of 85%(1,768 net work
T,W,Th—3 deployed. hours annually),the four
positions would have 7,072 total i
They provide coverage for Indio work hours annually to serve
and Coachella under contract, Coachella,Indio, and the
and also serve the surrounding imincorporated area. Since
unincorporated area with these Coachella and Indio contract for
staff. a total of 6,032 hours annually
as noted above,this would leave 46
a net of 1,040 hours per year to
cover the unincorporated area.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 14 0
•
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives
• These data were employed to estimate field patrol staffing needs
as shown in the next table:
Jurisdiction Annual Field Animal Control Service Hours
Status Quo Full Scope Reduced Scope
• Alternative Alternative Alternative
Palm Desert 2,124 2,124 2,124
Indian Wells 104 104 104
Cathedral City 2,124 2,124 2,124
Desert Hot Springs 3,536 3,536 3,536
Rancho Mirage 520
• La Quinta 3,536
Coachella 2,080
Indio 3,952
Palm Springs 4,680
Riverside County 1,040
• Total Annual 7,888 23,696 7,888
Hours
Total Annual
Hours Divided by
1,768 Net Work
Hours Per Position 4.5 FTE 13.4 FTE 4.5 FTE
Equals Number of
Animal Control
Officers Required
Staffing for field services was projected based on providing a
field patrol supervisor for each alternative, and under the Status
Quo and Reduced Scope alternatives, it was assumed that the
supervisor would also provide field patrol services on a part-time
basis.
The field services staffing component for each alternative also
included staffing for dispatch and licensing by Public Service
Technician type positions, and varying number of Licensing
Inspectors based on the number of jurisdictions assumed to be
participating in the field services related service components.
It should be noted that the original CVAG study projected a two tier
system which was structured as follows:
• Tier One would include basic shelter operations including
animal housing, adoptions, treatment, euthanasia, public
education, and a volunteer program.
• Tier Two would include field patrol, licensing, enforcement of
animal related laws and ordinances, and investigations.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 15
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives r
We found that this was a logical separation of services and have
employed the same basic service delineation to estimate operating costs in •
this study.
Once staffing plans were developed, annual operating costs for each
were determined under both operating assumptions (County contract and
JPA staffed and operated). Basic assumptions employed to project costs were
as follows:
• Staff Salaries and Benefit Costs. Staffing costs under the S
County contract assumption were projected based on mid-range
compensation for all positions. County benefit costs, as shown
in the CVAG feasibility study report, were used to estimate
benefit costs.
Salaries and benefit costs for the JPA operated program were r
estimated as follows:
Compensation data for the Coachella Valley cities for
several common positions (e.g% planner, office assistant,
accountant, etc.) and where authorized, animal control
positions were obtained.
These data were then analyzed to determine proportional
relationships between the animal services series and the
other common classifications.
•
Data were adjusted to estimate "average" compensation
for the non-animal control series positions in the
Coachella Valley jurisdictions surveyed.
Then, based on the proportional relationships between
animal control positions and the other common positions,
a salary level (at mid-step) for an animal control officer
was estimated. This salary level assumed that the JPA
would compensate staff at a level consistent with
compensation patterns for Valley cities.
Then, the proportional relationships between the animal
control officer level and other animal services positions we
have documented in other jurisdictions with full service
animal control and service programs were employed to
estimate salary ranges for the other animal service
positions.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 16
•
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives
All salaries were projected at mid-range.
• 0 Annual Operating Expense. Estimated as 25% of staffing
costs based on relationships between staffing costs (salaries plus
benefits) we have documented in our work with other animal
services agencies.
• 0 County Indirect Overhead. Projected for the County contract
model based on calculations developed in our analysis of the
previous CVAG feasibility report which indicated that the
previous cost estimates for Tier One and Tier Two services
included County indirect charges for accounting/payroll,
personnel/human resource services, and information systems
• support averaged 18.4% of salary and benefit costs.
• Veterinary Services. It was assumed that these services
would be provided by a private veterinarian on contract at $ 40
dollars per hour as previously discussed with the committee.
• Service hours were varied based on shelter population
levels/capacity.
Exhibits II, III, and IV, which follow this page show projected annual
operating costs developed based on the capacity, staffing, and cost
assumptions previously described.
The data shown in the exhibit indicate that the projected annual cost
of each alternative would be as follows:
Projected Annual Operating Cost(000)
Program Status Quo bill Scope Reduced Scope
Alternative Alternative Alternative
County JPA County JPA County JPA
Contract Staffed Contract Staffed Contract Staffed
Administration* $ 126 $357 $ 126 $357 $ 101 $273
Shelter* 435 529 547 667 299 367
Field* 354 427 901 1,085 323 389
Indirect Overhead 128 - 225 - 103 -
Total $ 1,043 $ 1,313 $ 1,799 $2,109 $826 $ 1,029
* Salaries, benefits, and operating expense. Shelter program includes contract
veterinary services.
As can be seen from review of the information shown in the table and
the exhibits, the JPA staffed alternatives are projected to be significantly
more expensive than the County contract approach because of differences
between Coachella Valley cities' compensation plans and the
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 17
EXIBBIT 13
Projected Annual Operating Costs for"Status Quo"
Alternative
Position/Function Program Operated by County Under Contract Program Operated by a JPA
Cost Per Annual Cost Per n 1
Administration Numb Position Total Number Position TOW
Director/Operations Chief 1 $46,428 $46,428 1
$69,907 $69,907
Administrative Analyst 0 0 1 50,255 50,255
Account Clerk 0 0 1 32,700 32,700
Office Assistant II 0 0 1 29,316 29,316
Volunteer Coordinator 1 30,960 30.960 1 37,262 37,262
Sub-Total $77.388 $219.44
Shelter
Public Services Supervisor 0.68 $23,658 $16,087 0.68 $29,316 $19,935
Public Services Specialist 2.7 21,528 58,126 2.7 26,094 70,454
Kennel Supervisor 1 28,550 28,550 1 38,658 38,658
Kennel Technician 5 22,776 113,880 5 28,027 140,136
Veterinary Technician 1 25,132 25,132 1
30,926 0 . 0s
Sub-Total 24 3 0 1
Field/Other Tier 2
Supervising ACO 1 $33,552 $33,552 1 $40,269 $40,269
r',uiu,al Control Officer 4 26,766 107,064 4 32,215 128,860
Licensing Inspector 2 20,904 41,808 2 25,160 50.320
Public Services Supervisor 0.32 23,658 7,571 0.32 29,316 9,381
Public Services Specialist 1.3 21,528 27.986 1.3 26,094 33.922
Sub-Total $217.99
Salary Total 78
5 144 25
00
Denflts at 30"/° $161,143
Staff Total 69 87 101$ 16. 90
99
Operating Expense at 25%of Staffing Costs $174,572
$254,248
Allocated County Overhead at 18.4%of Staffing Costs 228,485
Contract Veterinarian at 20 Hours Per Week at$40 Per Hour 41,600 41,600
TOTAL $1.042.944
1 3 2 83
Hughes,Perry dssociafes
EDIT III
Projected Annual Operating Costs for"Full Scope"
Alternative
Position/Function Program Operated by County Under Contract Program Operated by a JPA
Cost Per Annual Cost Per Annual
Administration Numb Position Total Number Position Tot
Director/Operations Chief 1 $46,428 $46,428 1 $69,907 $69,907
Administrative Analyst 0 0 1 50,255 50,255
Account Clerk 0 0 1 32,700 32,700
Office Assistant H 0 0 1 29,316 29,316
Volunteer Coordinator 1 30,960 30.960 1 37,262 37,262
Sub-Total $77,388 $219.44
Shelter
Public Services Supervisor 0.5 $23,658 $11,829 0.5 $29,316 $14,658
Public Services Specialist 4 21,528 86,112 4 26,094 104,376
Kennel Supervisor 1 28,550 28,550 1 38,658 38,658
Kennel Technician 7 22,776 159,432 7 28,027 196,189
Veterinary Technician 1 25,132 25,132 1 30,926 30,926
Sub-Total $311.055 $394,807
Field/Other Tier 2
Supervising ACO 1 $33,552 $33,552 1 $40,269 $40,269
Senior ACO 2 30,159 60,318 2 $36,242 72,484
Animal Control Officer 12 26,766 321,192 12 32,215 386,580
Licensing Inspector 3 20,904 62,712 3 25,160 75,480
Public Services Supervisor 0.5 23,658 11,829 0.5 29,316 14,658
Public Services Specialist 3 21,528 64,584 3 26,094 Mul
Sub-Total $554.187 $607,153
Salary Total $942,630 $1,272.000
Benfits at 30% $282,789 $381,600
Staff Total $1,225.419 $1,653.600
Operating Expense at 25%of Staffing Costs $306,355 $413,400
Allocated County Overhead at 18.4%of Staffing Costs 225,477
Contract Veterinarian at 20 Hours Per Week at$40 Per Hour 41,600 41,600
TOTAL $1,798.851 $2,108.600
Hughes,Perry Associates
EXHIBIT IV
Projected Axamal Operating Costs for'07.educed Scope"
Alternative
Position/Function _ Program Operated by Countv Under Contract Program Operated by a JPA
Cost Per Annual Cost Per Annual
Administration Numb Position Total Number Position Totai
Director/Operations Chief 1 $46,428 $46,428 1 $69,907 $69,907
Administrative Analyst 0 0 1 50,255 50,255
Office Assistant II 0 0 1 29,316 29,316
Volunteer Coordinator 0.5 30,960 15,480 0.5 37,262 18,631
Sub-Total $61.90S
$168.10
Shelter
Public Services Supervisor 0.68 $23,658 $16,087 0.68 $29,316 $19,935
Public Services Specialist 2.6 21,528 55,973 2.6 26,094 67,844
Kennel Supervisor 1 28,550 28,550 1 38,658 38,658
Kennel Technician 2 22,776 45,552 2 28,027 56,054
Veterinary Technician 1 25,132 25.13 1 30,926 30.926
Sub-Total
$171.294 2 4
F7eld/Other Tier 2
Supervising ACO 1 $33,552 $33,552 1 $40,269 $40,269
Animal Control Officer 4 26,766 107,064 4 32,215 128,860
Licensing Inspector 2 20,904 41.808 2 25,160 50,320
Public Services Supervisor 0.32 23,658 7,571 0.32 29,316 9,381
Public Services Specialist 0.4 21,528 MU 0.4 26,094 10,438
Sub-Total $128.606 $230,268
Salary Total $431.90 $620, s
Benfits at 300/c $129,542 $186,238
Staff Total $561.35
8 7 032
Operating Expense at 25%of Staffing Costs $140,338 $201,758
Allocated County Overhead at 18.4%of Staffing Costs 103,288
Contract Veterinarian at 10 Hours Per Week at$40 Per Hour 20,800 20,800
TOTAL $825,776 0 9 590
Hughes,Perry Associates
0 0 0 0
•
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives
Riverside County compensation schedules for animal service personnel.
To estimate the fully "loaded" cost of "tiered" services which can be
employed to allocate tier or program costs to participating jurisdictions later
in this report, these data were used as follows:
• The two principal tiers employed in the analysis are shelter and
field services.
- Shelter services include kennel operations, animal care
and feeding, public service counter operation related to
turn-ins, adoptions, and the like.
Field services include field patrol, dispatch, licensing, and
w licensing enforcement.
• Administrative costs (Director/Operations Chief, other support
staff such as administrative and accounting personnel, and the
Volunteer Coordinator need to be allocated to both tiers since
they support both programs. The most practical basis for
allocation is the proportional relationship between the two tiers.
In the County contract example, the indirect/overhead charges
would also be allocated in this fashion.
The tables which follow on the next page show the estimated cost of
the two tiers for each of the alternatives based on total cost projections shown
in detail in Exhibits II through IV and the allocation methodology noted
above.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 21
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives •
County Contract Operation '
Status Quo Full Scope Reduced Scope
Factor Alternative Alternative Alternative •
Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent
(000) (000) (000)
Shelter Program
Costs $435 58% $ 547 38% $299 48%
Field Service •
Program Costs 354 42% 901 62% 323 52%
Total $747 100% $ 1,448 100% $622 100%
Administration Costs $126 allocated based $126 allocated based $101 allocated based
Allocated Based on on percentages noted on percentages noted on percentages noted
the Percentages above: above: above:
Noted Above •
Shelter: 58%=$73 Shelter: 38% =_$48 Shelter: 48%=$48
Field:42%=$53 Field: 62%=$ 78 Field: 52%=$53
Indirect Costs $128 allocated to $225 allocated to $103 allocated to
Allocated Based on based on percentages based on percentages based on percentages
the Percentages noted above: noted above: noted above:
Noted Above •
Shelter: 58%=$74 Shelter:38%==$86 Shelter:48%=$49
Field:42%=$54 Field: 62%=$139 Field: 52%=$54
Tier or Program Costs with Allocated Management and Overhead
Shelter $582 $681 $396
Field I 461 1,118 430
Program Total $1,043 $1,799 $826 •
The table which follows on the next page shows the same allocations
for a program directly organized and staffed by a JPA.
JPA Operation
•
Status Quo Full Scope Reduced Scope
Factor Alternative Alternative Alternative
Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent
(000) (000) (000)
Shelter Program
Costs* $529 55% $667 38% $367 49% •
Field Service
Program Costs* 427 45% 1,085 62% 389 51%
Total $956 100% $1,752 100% $756 100%
Administration Costs $357 allocated based $357 allocated based $273 allocated based
Allocated Based on on percentages noted on percentages noted on percentages noted
the Percentages above: above: above:
Noted Above
Shelter: 55%=$196 Shelter: 38%=$136 Shelter:49%=$134
Field:45%=$161 Field: 62%4221 Field: 51%=$139
Tier or Program Costs with Allocated Management
Shelter $725 803 $501 •
Field I 588 1,306 528
Program Total $1,313 $2,109 1 $1,029
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 22
A
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives
Operating costs as projected in the previous tables compare to the
original CVAG estimate as follows:
Alternative County Contract JPA Operation
Operation•
Field Shelter Field Shelter
Status Quo $ 582,000 $461,000 $ 725,000 $ 588,000
Full Scope 681,000 1,118,000 803,000 1,306,000
Reduced Scope 396,000 430,000 501,000 528,000
Original CVAG Estimate 385,366 1,168,750 385,366 1,168,750
• Methods for allocating these program or tier costs will be discussed
later in this report.
5. PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE.
We reviewed and analyzed the space program and construction budget
included in the CVAG Proposed Animal Campus Study, dated April 6, 2001
and also provided as an Appendix to this report. Our findings were as
follows:
• The basic space program is sound and based on accepted space
standards for animal services facilities. This includes the
number and types of spaces included in the preliminary space
program, the standards employed to project space needs by
function, and the space allocations by use/function for both
internal and external spaces. We found no need to make major
changes in the space program. Adjustments needed were
limited to those required to reflect shelter capacity and staffing
differences between and among the three alternatives defined by
the committee. Those changes were as follows:
Adjusted shelter space to reflect the different population
levels associated with each of the alternatives since the
space program, as outlined in the CVAG report, was
predicated on a capacity for holding 72 dogs.
Made some limited changes to the administrative spaces
outlined in the programs to provide the needed number of
work stations consistent with the staffing plans developed
for each of the alternatives, and previously described in
Section 4 of this report.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 23
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives •
The table which follows summarizes the adjustments made to
the space program.
Space Type Status Quo Full Scope Reduced Scope
Alternative Alternative Alternative
Administrative Add three additional Add seven additional Delete one work
Space work stations and work stations and station and
circulation factor circulation factor associated circulation
totaling an totaling an factor and reduce •
additional 600 additional 1,400 administrative space
square feet. square feet. projection by 200
square feet.
Kennel Space Add from 12 to 83 Add from 21 to 111 Reduce dog kennel
additional dog additional dog space from that
kennel spaces based kennel spaces based projected in the
on the five and ten on the five and ten CVAG report as
day maximum day maximum follows:
holding period holding period
assumptions. Adds assumptions. Adds • For the five day
912 square feet to 2,052 square feet to holding period
the kennel for the the kennel',for the assumption,reduce
five day holding five day holding kennel space by 39
period assumption, period assumption, kennels and 2,964
and 6,308 square feet and 8,436 square feet square feet.
for the ten day for the ten day
maximum holding maximum Bolding • For the ten day
period assumption. period assumption. holding period
assumption,reduce
For the more For the more kennel space by 11
extended ten day extended ten day kennels and 836
holding period, add holding period,add square feet.
75 additional square 250 additional
feet to the cat room. square feet.to the cat
room.
• The construction cost estimates contained in the CVAG report r
were reviewed and we found the folllowing:
The original construction cost estimate is based on the
following per square foot construction costs:-
Administrative space: $ 134 per square foot.
Clinic space (shell only — to be finished at a later
date): $ 65 per square foot.
Kennel space: $ 130 per square foot.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 24
•
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives
If the unfinished clinic space is excluded, the construction
cost estimate reflects an average per square foot cost of
• $ 131.
In our work involving animal care facilities over the last
three years, we have found that construction costs for new
animal care facilities comparable to the one being
• evaluated by the committee range from $ 140 to $ 180 per
square foot (enclosed kennel space). While the upper end
of the range involves development of "state of the art"
facility with expansive public areas and high quality
surface finishes, the lower end of the range reflects the
type of facility described in the study and as discussed
• with the committee.
As a result, we think it would be prudent to project construction
costs at the $ 140 per square foot level rather than the $ 131 per
square foot cost employed in the CVAG study.
•
• The factors and costs employed in the CVAG study to project
architect and engineering costs, interior finishes, as well as
finishing external spaces, are also consistent with accepted
construction cost estimation practices and guidelines with the
exception of the following:
The original study provided for a $ 125,000 lump sum
estimate for kennel equipment/finish. Our previous work
has indicated that dog kennels currently cost about $
2,200 each and cat cages range from $ 250 to $ 450 each.
Cost estimates for each of the alternative were adjusted
as follows: Facility capacities for cats and dogs were
multiplied by these amounts and the resulting amount
(either above or below $ 125,000) was added to or
deducted from the cost estimate as appropriate.
- As discussed with the committee, an estimate for
construction management was added at 5% of
construction costs.
Exhibit V, which follows this page, shows revised space projections and
construction and project development costs for each of the alternatives which
incorporate the adjustments noted above. The exhibit shows space
projections and estimated costs for each of the alternatives defined by the
committee, and based on maximum holding periods for animals of five and
ten days. The table shown on the page following the exhibit shows
comparative costs for each alternative and holding period variation.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 25
EXHIBIT V(1)
Projected Animal Services
Facility Construction and
Development Costs
Descrintion Status Ono Alternative '
5 Day 10 Day
Space Holding Holding
Projected Square Feet
Admin.Projected 5,549 5,549
Adjustment 600 600
Admin.Total 6,149 6.149
Shelter Projected 15,675 15,675
Adjustment 912 6.383
Shelter Total 16 22,058
Clinic Area 2.687 2.681
Building Total 25,423 30,894
Construction Cost Dollars
Admin.And Shelter •
$140 Per Square Foot $3,183,040 $3,948,980
Clinic @$65
Per Square Foot 174,655 174,655
Building Total 4 57.625 $4,123-035
Site Improvements
From CVAG Report $635,000 6 .000
Total $3,992-695 $4,70,635
Contingency @ 10% 399,270 475,864
Construction Total 94,207,625 $4,973,635
Soft Costs from CVAG
Report 215,000 215,000
Soft Cost Adjustments 73,100 242,600
Fees(Architect,
Engineers,Testing
and Inspection, -
Permits)at 19% 758,612 904,141
Construction Mgmt.
at 5%of Construction
Cost 199,635 237,932
PROJECT TOTAL $5 454.042 6. 7 307
Hughes,Perry Associates
s
EXRIBIT V(2)
Projected Animal Services
Facility Construction and
Development Costs
Description Full Scope Alternative
5 Day 10 Day
Space Holdin¢ Holdin¢
Projected Square Feet
Admin.Projected 5,549 5,549
Adjustment 1.400 1.400
Admin.Total 6.949 6.949
Shelter Projected 15,675 15,675
Adjustment 2.052_ 8.686
Shelter Total 17.727 24.361
Clinic Area 2.637 2&E7
Building Total 27,363 33,997
Construction Cost Dollars
Admin.And Shelter
$140 Per Square Foot $3,454,640 $4,383,400
Clinic @$65
Per Square Foot 71 4.655 174,655
Building Total $3,629,295 $4,558,055
Site Improvements
From CVAG Report $635.000 $635,900
Total $4,264,295 $5,193,055
Contingency@10% 426,430 519,306
Construction Total $4,479,295 $5,408,055
Soft Costs from CVAG
Report 215,000 215,000
Soft Cost Adjustments 110,650 312,950
Fees(Architect,
Engineers,Testing
and Inspection,
Permits)at 19% 810,216 986,680
Construction Mgmt.
at 5%of Construction
Cost 213,215 25
PROJECT TOTAL $5,826,376 $7,182 338
Hughes,Perry Associates
EXHIBIT V(3)
Projected Animal Services
Facility Construction and
Development Costs
Description Reduced Scope Alternative
5 Day 10 Day
Space 1191din Holdin
Proiected Square Feet
Admin.Projected 5,549 5,549
Adjustment -200 -200_
Admin.Total 5_,349 5.349 S
Shelter Projected 15,675 15,675
Adjustment -2-964 $3�
Shelter Total 12_7111 14.839
Clinic Area 2,687 2.687
Building Total 2_0,747 22,875
Construction Cost Dollars
Admin.And Shelter
$140 Per Square Foot $2,528,400 $2,826,320
Clinic @$65
Per Square Foot 174,655 5
Building Total 19JUIE5 $3.000.975
Site Improvements
From CVAG Report $635 000 $635,000
Total $3,338.055 93,635,975
Contingency @ 10% 333,806 363,598
Construction Total $3,553055 $3,850,975
Soft Costs from CVAG
Report 215,000 215,000
Soft Cost Adjustments -47,150 19,350
Fees(Architect,
Engineers,Testing
and Inspection,
Permits)at 19% 634,230 570,185
Construction Mgmt.
at 5%of Construction
Cost 166,903 150.049
PROJECT TOTAL $4,522,038 $4,805,559
Hughes,Perry Associates _
•
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives
Projected Construction and Development Costs
• Alternative Capacity Based on Five Capacity Based on Ten
Day Day
Holding Period Holding Period
Status Quo Alternative $ 5,454,042 $ 6,573,027
Full Scope Alternative 5,828,376 7,182,338
• Reduced Scope Alternative 4,522,038 4,805,559
As can be seen from review of the information presented in the exhibit
and the tables, extending the holding period has a significant impact on
• facility cost— especially for the larger facility alternatives.
It should also be noted that facility capacity and resulting facility
costs are predicated on housing dogs on a one per kennel basis. We have
• found that this is a current planning standard for new animal services
facilities because individual housing for dogs and cats is reported to reduce
spread of illness within shelters, and also limit injuries to both animals and
kennel staff. Costs could be reduced by double housing dogs, and that is a
policy issues which will need to be addressed as planning for the joint animal
campus proceeds.
6. METHODS FOR ALLOCATING CAPITAL AND OPERATING
COSTS.
Clearly, any approach to sharing costs for a multi jurisdictional animal
services facility and program would need to be negotiated. Additionally, net
cost impact on participating jurisdictions would be dependent on the number
of jurisdictions participating in the program. Cost allocation for the program
and the facility could be developed based on a combination of variables such
as those described on the next text page which follows Exhibit V.
• Population -- to account for potential demand.
• Licensed animals -- to reflect different levels of animal
ownership in the various jurisdictions.
• Shelter intakes by jurisdiction — Proportional use of the
shelter by jurisdiction.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 29
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives •
• Total animal days at the shelter"by jurisdiction -- to
reflect proportional use of the shelter facility based on
actual use since some communities could have higher •
levels of owner redemption, impacting average length of
stay.
• Field patrol service hours received -- to reflect agreed
upon levels of service.
• Field patrol service calls -- to reflect actual use of the •
service.
Because the potential participants are interested in a tiered service
approach under which a jurisdiction could select to participate in the shelter •
program, but not field patrol, different approaches need to be considered for
each program component. Overall, we recommend, the following:
• Operating Cost Allocation: Principal components of a •
recommended cost allocation approach for operating costs would
be as follows:
- Isolate the costs of each major program component as we
did earlier in this report. For the purposes of our analysis,
we identified the three major components of overall •
management and administration; shelter operations and
services; and field services including patrol, dispatch, and
licensing.
Allocate management and overhead costs to the shelter and •
field programs by adding the costs of field services and the
shelter; dividing the cost of each by that amount; and
employing the resulting percentage to allocate management
and administrative costs to the two principal programs.
- Then, employ different formulas to allocate the costs of •
each of the two programs to the jurisdictions which choose
to participate in them.
We recommend the following approach for shelter and field
services: •
Shelter cost allocation: Base this amount, to the
extent possible, on proportional use of the facility by
member jurisdictions including potential use and
actual use. Illustrative approaches could include: (1)
Use of a single cost allocation variable (shelter days •
used by each jurisdiction) — this approach is currently
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 30 •
•
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives
used by Orange county to ' allocate costs to
participating jurisdictions for their animal services
• programs; (2) Use two variables like population and
shelter days used which would combine potential and
actual use; or (3) Use of three variables like
population, licensed dogs, and shelter days which
combine factors reflecting actual use and potential
• use of the program. When multiple variables are
used, they could be weighted equally or given
different weights based on negotiation.
We believe the two variable approach best balances
use and potential use. Those would be population,
and shelter intakes. Including licensed animals as a
factor would "penalize" jurisdictions with a higher
proportion of licensed animals. Intakes have been
selected because shelter day data are unavailable, by
jurisdiction, at this time.
The allocation of costs could be based on according
equal value or weights to both variable, or weighting
one variable more heavily than the other. For
example, if the policy is that the cost allocation should
be more closely related to actual (versus potential)
use, then the use variable (intakes) would be more
heavily weighted than the population variable.
Cost shares would be calculated as follows:
-- Each jurisdiction's percent share of each of the
variables noted above would be calculated
based on most recent calendar or fiscal year
data.
-- If one variable was weighted more heavily
than the other, the more heavily weighted
variable would be multiplied by the weighting
factor before each jurisdiction's percent share
of the variable was calculated.
Percent shares for each variable for each
jurisdiction would be summed and divided by
two to calculate the composite percent cost
share.
- The resulting percentage would be multiplied
times the total projected annual operating cost
to project individual jurisdiction cost share.
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 31
Evaluation of Animal Service Campus Alternatives •
Field Services. Variables used would depend on
services provided by the program. I£ the program
included by both patrol, enforcement and licensing,
multiple variables like licensed animals, patrol •
service hours, and service calls would provide a
balanced allocation approach. If the program were
limited to field patrol, then calls for service and
target service hours would provide an allocation
method which balanced actual use and agreed upon •
service/coverage levels. Again, cost shares would
be calculated as follows:
Each jurisdiction's percent share of each of
the variables noted above would be
calculated based on most recent calendar or •
fiscal year data and agreed upon field patrol
service levels/coverage.
-- Percent shares for each variable for each
jurisdiction would be summed and divided by •
three to calculate the composite percent cost
share.
-- The resulting percentage would be
multiplied times the total projected annual
operating cost to project individual •
jurisdiction cost share.
Exhibits VI and VII, which follow this page show illustrative
application of these formulas as follows:
Exhibit VI shows allocated operating costs for the three
alternatives under the assumption that the County would
operate the program under contract with the
JPA/participating jurisdictions. The illustrative cost
allocation employs two variables (population and intakes)
and weights population at a 25% level and intakes at a
75% level, to allocate shelter program costs, and field
service costs are allocated based on service hours.
Exhibit VII shows allocated operating costs for the three
alternatives under the assumption that the JPA would •
operate the program directly.
•
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 32
•
In=IT VI (1)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Operating Costs-
Status Quo Alternative
County Contract
1.Status Quo Alternative
Shelter Operations
Allocation Factors
Participating Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 135,366 13.78% $80,213
Coachella 23,950 2,078 73,928 7.53% 43,807
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 52,416 5.34% 31,060
Indian Wells 4,020 17 12,077 1.23% 7,156
Indio 51,500 1,203 155,703 15.85% 92,264
La Quinta 26,300 862 79,762 8.12% 47,264
Palm Desert 42,350 434 127,484 12.98% 75,543
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 41,805 4.26% 24,772
Riverside County 100,483 2,178 303,627 30,91% 179,919
Total 952,168 100.00 $5S2,000
Allocation Factor
Percent Cost
Field Operations Service Hours Share Share
Palm Desert 2,124 26.93% $124,133
Indian Wells 104 1.32% 6,078
Cathedral City 2,124 26.93% 124,133
Desert Hot Springs 3,536 44.83% 206,655
Total 7,888 100.00% $461.000
Hughes,Perry Associates
EXHMIT VI (2)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Operating Costs-
Status Quo Alternative
2.Full Scope Alternative County Contract
Shelter Operations
Allocation Factors
Participating Jurisdiction PopuIation Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 135,366 12.14% $82,646
Coachella 23,950 2,078 73,928 6.63% 45,136
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 52,416 4.70% 32,002
Indian Wells 4,020 17 12,077 1.08% 7,373
Indio 51,500 1,203 155,703 13.96% 95,063
La Quints, 26,300 862 79,762 7.15% 48,698
Palm Desert 42,350 434 127,484 11.43% 77,834
Palm Springs 43,800 1,838 133,238 11.95% 81,347
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 41,805 3.75% 25,524
Riverside County 100,483 2,178 303,627 27,22% 185,376
Total 1,115.406 100.00 $681.000
Allocation Factor
Percent f`nct
Field Operations Service Hours Share Share
Cathedral City 2,124 8.96% $100,212
Coachella 2,080 8.78% 98,136
Desert Hot Springs 3,536 14.92% 166,832
Indian Wells 104 0.44% 4,907
Indio 3,952 16.68% 186,459
La Quinta 3,536 14.92% 166,832
Palm Desert 2,124 8.96% 100,212
Palm Springs 4,680 19.75% 220,807
Rancho Mirage 520 2.19% 24,534
Riverside County 1.040 4 39% 49,068
Total 23,696 100.0 $1,118.000
Hughes,Perry Associates
• 0 9 i
EXHIBIT VI(3)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Operating Costs.
Status Quo Alternative
3.Reduced Scope Alternative County Contract
Shelter Operations
Allocation Factors
Participating Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 135,366 36.67% $145,213
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 52,416 14.20% 56,229
Indian Wells 4,020 17 12,077 3.27% 12,955
Palm Desert 42,350 434 127,484 34.53% 136,757
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 41,805 11.32% 44,846
Total 369.148 100.00% $396,000
Allocation Factor
Percent Cost
Field Operations Service Hours Share Share
Palm Desert 2,124 26.93% $115,786
Indian Wells 104 1.32% 5,669
Cathedral City 2,124 26.93% 115,786
Desert Hot Springs 3,536 44.83% 192,759
Total 7,888 100.00% $430,000
Hughes,Perry Associates
EXEIIBIT VII(1)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Operating Costs-
Status Quo Alternative
JPA Staffed and Operated
1.Status Quo Alternative
Shelter Operations
Allocation Factors
Cost
Participatinc Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes FAllocation
actor Total Percent
Share
1,416 135,366 13.78% $99,922
Cathedral City 44,650 7.53% 54,571
Coachella 23,950 2,078 73,928
17000 1,416 52,416 5.34% 38,692
,
Desert Hot Springs 12,077 1.23% 8,915
Indian Wells 4,020 17
Indio 51,500 1,203 155,703 15.85% 114,934
La Quinta 26,300 862 79,762 8.12% 58,877
Palm Desert 42,350 434 127,484 12.98% 94,104
Rancho Mirage
13,900 105 41,805 4.26% 30,859
Riverside County 100,483 2,178 303,627 30.91% 224,126
982.168 100.00 $725,000
Total
Allocation Factor
Percent Cost
Cn,virw flours
Reid OYe=atiaas --- Share Share
Palm Desert 2,124 26.93% $158,331
Indian Wells 104 1.32% 7,753
Cathedral City 2,124 26.93% 158,331
Desert Hot Springs 3,536 44.83% 263,586
Total 7,888 100.00% $588,000
Hughes,Perry Associates
• • • • • •
EDIT VII(2)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Operating Costs.
Status Quo Alternative
2.Full Scope Alternative JPA Staffed and Operated
Shelter Operations
Allocation Factors
Participating Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 135,366 12.14% $97,452
Coachella 23,950 2,078 73,928 6.63% 53,222
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 52,416 4.70% 37,735
Indian Wells 4,020 17 12,077 1.08% 8,694
Indio 51,500 1,203 155,703 13.96% 112,093
La Quinta 26,300 862 79,762 7.15% 57,422
Palm Desert 42,350 434 127,484 11.43% 91,778
Palm Springs 43,800 1,838 133,238 11.95% 95,920
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 41,805 3.75% 30,096
Riverside County 100,483 2,178 303,627 27 22% 218,586
Total 1,115.406 100.00% $803,000
Allocation Factor
Percent Cost
Field Operations Service Hours Share Share
Cathedral City 2,124 8.96% $117,064
Coachella 2,080 8.78% 114,639
Desert Hot Springs 3,536 14.92% 194,886
Indian Wells 104 0.44% 5,732
Indio 3,952 16.68% 217,814
La Quints 3,536 14.92% 194,886
Palm Desert 2,124 8.96% 117,064
Palm Springs 4,680 19.75% 257,937
Rancho Mirage 520 2.19% 28,660
Riverside County 1.040 4.39% 57,319
Total 23,696 100.00 0 $1,306.000
Hughes,Perry Associates
1NHIRIT V1I(3)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Operating Costs-
Status Quo Alternative
JPA Staffed and Operated
3.Reduced Scope Alternative
Shelter Operations
Allocation Factors
Participating.Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 135,366 36.67% $183,716
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 52,416 14.20% 71,138
Indian Wells 4,020 17 12,077 3.27% 16,391
Palm Desert 42,350 434 127,484 34.53% 173,019
Rancho Mirage
13,900 105 41,805 11.32% 56,737
Total 369.14 100.0 0 501 0
Allocation Factor
Percent Cost
Field Operations Service Hours Share Share
Palm Desert 2,124 26.93% $142,174
Indian Wells 104 1.32% 6,961
Cathedral City 2,124 26.93% 142,174
536 O°m 23s 690
3
Desert Hot Springs 1
Total 7,888 100.00% $528,000
Hughes,Perry Associates
Evaluation ofAnimal Service Campus Alternatives
• Capital Costs. We recommend that the equally weighted
variables of population (potential demand); shelter intakes
(actual demand); and licensed animals (potential demand) be
employed to allocate capital costs between and among
participating jurisdictions. Exhibits VIII and IX, which follow
this page, show illustrative applications of this formula. Again,
because licensed animals by jurisdiction data are unavailable at
this time, two variables (intakes and population) have been
employed for illustrative purposes. Exhibit VIII shows
construction cost allocation for a facility sized based on a five
day maximum holding period, and Exhibit IX for a facility sized
for a ten day maximum holding period.
The appendix which follows at the end of this report, after Exhibits
VIII and IX, contains the space program and cost estimate included in the
•
original CVAG report and adjusted, as previously described, in this study.
•
Hughes, Perry &Associates Page 39
EXHIBIT VM(1)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Capital Costs-Facility Sized for Five Day Stay
1.Status Quo Alternative
Allocation Factors
Participating Jurisdiction PQPwation •Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 46,066 13.80% $752,544
Coachella 23,950 2,078 26,028 7.80% 425,199
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 18,416 5.52% 300,848
Indian Wells 4,020 17 4,037 1.21% 65,949
Indio 51,500 1,203 52,703 15.79% 860,968
La Quints. 26,300 862 27,162 8.14% 443,724
Palm Desert 42,350 434 42,784 12.81% 698,929
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 14,005 4.19% 228,789
Riverside County 100,483 2,178 102,661 30,75% 1,677,092
Total 333,862 100.0 0 $5,454,042
2,Full Scope Alternative
Allocation Factors
Participating Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 46,066 12.140/. $707,483
Coachella 23,950 2,078 26,028 6.86% 399,739 ,
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 18,416 4.85010 282,834
Indian Wells 4,020 17 4,037 1.06% 62,000
Indio 51,500 1,203 52,703 13.89% 809,415
La Quints 26,300 862 27,162 7.16% 417,155
Palm Desert 42,350 434 42,784 11.27% 657,078
Palm Springs 43,800 1,838 45,638 12.03% 700,910
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 14,005 3.69% 215,089
Riverside County 100,483 2,178 102,661 27,05% 1,576,672
Total 279,500 100.000/. $5,828,376
Hughes,Perry Associates
• 0
I, IT VIII(S)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Capital Costs-Facility Sized for Five Day Stay
3.Reduced Scone Alternative
Allocation Factors
Participatine Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 46,066 36.76% $1,662,401
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 18,416 14.70% 664,585
Indian Wells 4,020 17 4,037 3.22% 145,685
Palm Desert 42,350 434 42,784 34.14% 1,543,963
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 14,005 11.18% 505,404
Total 125.30 100.0 $4,522.038
Hughes,Perry Associates
EXHBIT IS(1)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Capital Costs-Facility Sized for Ten Day Stay
1.Status Quo Alternative
Allocation Factors
Participating Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share hare
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 46,066 13.80% $906,979
Coachella 23,950 2,078 26,028 7.80% 512,457
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 18,416 5.52% 362,587
Indian Wells 4,020 17 4,037 1.21% 79,483
Indio 51,500 1,203 52,703 15.79% 1,037,653
La Quints. 26,300 862 27,162 8.14% 534,784
Palm Desert 42,350 434 42,784 12,81% 842,361
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 14,005 4.19% 275,740
Riverside County 100,483 2,178 102,661 30 75%a 2,021,261
Total 333,862 100,00 0 $6,573,307
2.Full Scope Alternative
Allocation Factors
Participating Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Shar Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 46,066 12.14% $871,836
Coachella 23,950 2,078 26,028 6.86% 492,601
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 18,416 4.85% 348,537
Indian Wells 4,020 17 4,037 1.060/0 76,403
Indio 51,500 1,203 52,703 13.69% 997,446
La Quinta 26,300 862 27,162 7.16% 514,062
Palm Desert 42,350 434 42,784 11.27% 809,721
Palm Springs 43,800 1,838 45,638 12.03% 863,785
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 14,005 3.69% 265,056
Riverside County 100,483 2,178 102,661 270 % 1,942,941
Total 379,500 100,00% $7,182,338
Hughes,Perry Associates
0
EXHIBIT IX(2)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Capital Costs-Facility Sized for Ten Day Stay
3.Reduced Scope Alternative
Allocation Factors
ParticivatingJurisdiction Pouulation Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 46,066 36.76% $1,766,630
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 18,416 14.70% 706,253
Indian Wells 4,020 17 4,037 3.22% 154,819
Palm Desert 42,350 434 42,784 34.14% 1,640,765
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 14,005 11.18% 537,091
Total 125.308 100.00% $4,805,559
Hughes,Perry Associates
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX:
SPACE PROGRAM & CONSTRUCTION •
COST ESTIMATE FROM APRIL 6, 2001
CVAG STUDY BY WLC
•
•
•
W L C
ArchifecIs
larry WoIH,AIA • George M.Wiens,AIA • Robert J.Hensley,AIA • James P.DiCamillo,AIA Robert M.Simons,AIA
February 2,2001
FACILITY PROGRAM AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus
Project No. 00-216.01
Introduction:
• The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)is seeking to establish an animal
care campus to serve the communities in the Coachella Valley. CVAG's intent is to establish an
animal care shelter on a site that is also going to be shared with an animal care facility for the
Animal Samaritans of Coachella Valley.
This document is expressly for the establishment of a facility program for the CVAG Shelter,
conceptual design of both site and building layout,corresponding project cost estimate, and
schedule. Although not in specific detail,this document addresses the master planning of the site
for the incorporation of the Animal Samaritan Facility to be constructed as a separate project.
As the number of residents increases in the Coachella Valley,so correspondingly does the animal
population increase in the valley. To establish a facility that is designed to accommodate all of
the facilities necessary for citizens of the community,this document describes the building
improvements needed for services associated with an animal shelter including temporary
habitation,medical treatment,spay/neuter clinic,care and grooming for adoption, and
community-wide educational programs.
The CVAG established a planning committee (committee members are listed in the appendix)
that was responsible for the conceptual ideas and guidance in developing this planning document.
Facility Space Program:
The CVAG Animal Shelter will include both dog and cat indoor kennels, specialty kennels,
veterinarian clinic,adoptions area, grooming and food preparation areas,administrative offices,
and staff service areas. As an option,the dog kennels can be outdoors with roof over and
facilities for heating/cooling the kennels. The following summary outlines the specific areas in
the Shelter that will be developed along with important features of each area that should be
addressed.
Virginia Dare Tower• 10470 Foothill Boulevard•Rancho Cucamonga,California 91730.3754 • Ph:909 987 0909 fax:909 980 9980
1110 Iron Point Road • Suite 200 •Folsom,California 95630.8301 • Ph:916 355 9922 fax:916 355 9950
•
Facility Program and Conceptual Design
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus
Project No. 00-216.01 •
February 2, 2001
Page 2
Dog Kennels
•
The facility should include 72 indoor dog kennels that are constructed of durable, easily
maintainable materials and should be attractive for viewing as a part of the pet adoption process.
Each kennel should be approximately 4'wide x 10'long with a guillotine door dividing the
kennel in half so that the dog can occupy one half of the kennel while the other half is easily
cleaned. The kennel should be constructed of epoxy floor over concrete that slopes to the center
drain system for easy kennel wash down. The kennel walls should be stainless steel cages and
possibly include concrete block partitions in the lower portion of the kennel.
A watering system with an outlet at each dog kennel should bi-,provided. For ease of
maintenance, the floors and lower portion of the walls of the circulation areas outside of the dog •
kennel should also be epoxy surface. There should be an overhead hose reel system for washing
down both kennels and surrounding circulation spaces. The upper walls and ceilings in the
kennel area should also be a smooth surface for easy cleaning.
For sound control, absorptive panels should be mounted on the ceiling to reduce noise to an •
acceptable level.
The kennel area should be divided into two or three rooms so that portions of the space can be
closed off for injured and sick dogs, aggressive dogs, and quarantined dogs. Each of these
kennel spaces,should have its own air circulation system that does not mix air with other portions
of the building to limit the spread of infectious contaminants.
As a design option,the dog kennels can be outdoor facilities. The kennel area would have a roof
overhead and would be of similar construction as the indoor kennels. Heating of the kennels
would be by radiant floor heating system. The kennels would be cooled either by evaporative •
cooling or water misters.
Cat Kennels
The cats in the Shelter should be housed in a room separate from the dog kennels. The room
should contain stainless steel cages,possibly rolling cages, stacked two high, elevated off the •
floor for ease of maintenance and good visibility. The cat room should include a wall mounted
utility sink, epoxy floors with drain, and an overhead hose reel for wash down.
Windows should be provided in the interior walls so that visual access into the cages can be
taken advantage of by the public in the adoption process.
•
Facility Program and Conceptual Design
• Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus
Project No. 00-216.01
February 2, 2001
Page 3
• Veterinarian Clinic (This space to be Shell-In Only, interior improvements are to be a part of a
future project).
The primary use of the clinic is for spaying and neutering both dogs and cats. It will include
exam rooms, surgery preparation area, and surgery rooms. An X-ray room and recovery rooms
• should also be provided.
For the staff and public using the clinic, administrative spaces should be provided and a public
lobby and reception area separate from the main Shelter should be developed.
• Main Public Lobby and Administrative Areas
The Shelter should present a warm and inviting entrance for the public as well as the animals that
are brought into the Shelter through the front door. The entry should be sheltered from elements
in terms of wind, sun, and rain, and windows should be provided in the lobby so that it is a light
and inviting space.
The lobby and reception space should include areas for general waiting, a front counter for
assistance and services provided by staff, public restrooms, educational information displays, and
inviting access to the kennel areas along with conference room and educational spaces.
Administrative Spaces and Office Area
Administrative areas should be centrally located within the facility to provide both physical and
visual access to the entrance and lobby/reception area, along with direct visual access to kennel
portions of the facility. Spaces should include an open office administrative area behind the front
counter,private offices for senior staff, separate office areas for dispatching,report writing, and
supervisors' offices. Open office area should be provided for the kennel technicians and staff
volunteers. Support spaces should include staff restrooms with lockers and showers,electrical
room for both power and voice/data communication systems, staff break room, and storage areas.
Kennel Support Area
These areas need to include a large food storage room, food preparation room, animal grooming
and cleaning room, euthanasia/freezer/crematory area, and general storage and janitorial spaces.
A covered outdoor area should be provided for loading and unloading of animals. The outdoor
area should include easy access to the walk-in freezer, wash down and clean up facilities, outdoor
storage, and deliveries of food and supplies.
•
Facility Program and Conceptual Design
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus
Project No. 00-216.01 •
February 2, 2001
Page 4
Site Development and Building Exterior Features
!
The site that is to be used to develop the CVAG Animal Shelter along with the master plan for a
Good Samaritan Animal Shelter is approximately 10 acres (300 feet long on the street frontage
and approximately 1,000 feet deep). This site will essentially be divided down the middle
lengthwise so that each facility can be developed separately, but can possibly share common
driveways,parking, and outdoor activity and service areas. •
At least two driveway entrances should be developed at the front of the facility with visitor
.parking for approximately 30 vehicles. An access/service drive should be developed down the
middle of the site that will serve both facilities as well as allow public access to the rear portion
of the site for scheduled activities. !
Staff parking should include a minimum of 24 spaces for vehicular parking, along with an
additional 12 spaces for designated service vehicles. An enclosed outdoor service yard should be
provided to contain the animal drop off area, outdoor animal runs, and Iarge animal pens, and
overnight service vehicle parking. This enclosed service area will allow for a variety of animal !
support functions and will maintain security for both the animals housed and facility staff and
equipment. Portions of this area should be sheltered and enclosed from the elements.
Outdoor Activity Areas
At the rear portion of the site, large activity spaces can be provided that will include outdoor !
exercise areas,training and educational programs, and special public events. This portion of the
site should be flexible in its designated program use so that a variety of future activities can be
accommodated.
•
•
Facility Program and Conceptual Design
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus
Project No. 00-216.01
February 2, 2001
Page 5
Summary of Programmed Areas
The following table indicates the various spaces needed throughout the facility and includes both
quantity and size of each space.
• Building Areas
#Spaces SF Each Total Comments
Administration Areas
Lobby/Reception 1 800 800 Includes front counter
Staff Work Area 1 200 200 Includes office machines
• Directors Office 1 200 200
Field Supervisor 1 150 150 Next to dog kennels
Staff Office 3 150 450
Report Writing 1 250 250
• Dispatch 1 200 200 Sound isolated room
Open Office 4 60 240
Equipment Storage 1 60 60
Kennel Techs 1 300 300 Next to dog kennels
Secured Storage 1 100 100 Next to animal control sup.
Janitorial 1 60 60
Public Restrooms 2 150 300 Next to public lobby
Staff Break Rbom 1 300 300
Conference/Education Room 1 500 500 Next to public lobby
Subtotal Administration 4,110
Circulation at 35% 1,439
Total Administration 5,549
Clinic Areas
Clinic Reception/Work Area 1 500 500 Includes reception
Shot Clinic 1 100 100
Exam Room 1 120 120
Surgery Prep Room 1 250 250
Surgery Room 1 200 200
Recovery Room 2 150 300
Vet's Office 1 120 120
X-Ray 1 150 150
Pharmacy/Laboratory 1 150 150
Janitorial 1 100 100
Subtotal Clinic Areas I I I 1,990
Circulation at 35% 697
Total Clinic Areas 2,687
•
Facility Program and Conceptual Design
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus
Project No. 00-216.01 .
February 2, 2001
Page 6
#Spaces SF Each Total Comments
Kennel Areas •
Dog Kennels 72 40 2,880
Puppy Rooms 1 425 425
Cat Rooms 1 425 425
Get Acquainted Rooms 2 75 I50
General Storage 1 150 150 •
Animal Receiving Area 1 150 150 Next to dog kennels
Food Storage 1 400 400 Outdoor access
Food Preparation 1 200 200
Grooming 1 200 200 •
Laundry 1 100 100
Janitorial 1 150 150
Mechanical 1 150 150
Staff Restrooms/Showers 2 200 400
Euthanasia Room 1 200 200 •
Crematorium 1 350 350
Freezer 1 120 120
Covered Vehicle Area 1 1,800 1,800
Subtotal Kennel Areas 8,250
Circulation at 90% 7,425 •
Total Kennel Areas ( I 15,675
GRAND TOTAL BUILDING AREAS 23,910
OUTDOOR AREAS
Vehicle Parking-Staff 24 400 9,600
Vehicle Parking-Public 30 400 12,000 •
Vehicle Parking-Trucks 12 400 4,900
Large Animal Pens 8 600 4,800
Dog Exercise Area 2 2,000 4,000
Large Animal Exercise Area 1 5,000 5,000
Paved Site Access @ 30%of total 1 13,000 13,000 •
Landscaping @ 30%of total 1 13,000 13,000
Building 1 23,910 23,910
TOTAL ( ( ( 90,110
•
•
Facility Program and Conceptual Design
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus
Project No. 00-216.01
February 2, 2001
Page 7
• Project Cost Estimate
The conceptual project cost estimate is developed to help establish an overall budget for all costs
associated with the construction of the new CVAG Animal Care Campus. Although historical
information is used from the design and construction of other animal care shelters in California,
• the actual project costs will vary based upon final facility design, economic factors (construction
cost climate), and construction development process (project phasing, timeline, construction
methods utilized). This project estimate utilizes the different types of spaces and improvements
for the facility as outlined in the space program and site master plan. Costs are reflected on a
square foot basis depending upon the particular type of improvement established. As the project
• is further developed in the final planning and design processes,the cost estimate will be
significantly refined and developed. An overall contingency is provided within the cost estimate
to accommodate fluctuations in project development and inflationary factors.
Estimated costs are indicated in two categories—construction costs and soft costs. Soft costs
• include all project costs except the actual construction contract amount. These costs include
planning and design,permit and review fees, construction testing and inspection, and furniture
and equipment. The construction costs include the construction contracts (bid amounts) and
contingency.
Project Cost Estimate
Construction Costs
Description Unit Cost Amount
Administration
1. Lobby/Reception/Office 3,500 sf $135.00 472,500.00
2. Restrooms 300 sf 200.00 60,000.00
3. Storage/Circulation 1,700 sf 120.00 204,000.00
Subtotal 5,500 $ 736,500.00.
Clinic-Shell-In Only
1. Reception/Work 500 sf 65.00 32,500.00
2. Exam/Surgery/Recovery 1,500 sf 65.00 97,500.00
3. Storage/Circulation 700 65.00 45,500.00
Subtotal 2,700 $ 175,500.00
•
Facility Program and Conceptual Design
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus
Project No. 00-216.01 •
February 2, 2001
Page 8
Construction Costs
Description Unit Cost Amount •
Kennel Areas
1. Dog Kennels 2,880 sf 165.00 $ 475,200.00
2. Puppy Rooms 425 sf 150.00 63,750.00
3. Cat Rooms 425 sf 150.00 63,750.00
4. Grooming/Laundry/Food Prep/Get 650 sf 140.00 91,000.00 •
Acquainted
5. Euthanasia Room 200 sf 150.00 30,000.00
6. Freezer 150 sf 200.00 30,000.00
7. Storage/Circulation/Receiving 9,145 sf 130.00 I,188,850.00
8. Covered Outdoor Area 1,800 sf 50.00 90,000.00 •
Subtotal 15,675 $ 2,032,550.00
Subtotal Building Area 23,875 2,944,550.00
Reduction in cost for optional outdoor 6,340 A 35.00 ($221,900.00)
kennels •
Outdoor Improvements
1. Off-Site Improvements 1 is 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
2. Utilities Its 200,000.00 200,000.00
3. Site Grading 5 acres 25,000.00 125,000.00 •
4. Paving,Walks,Curbs 39,400 if 3.50 137,900.00
5. Large Animal Pens 4,800 sf 4.50 21,600.00
6. Animal Exercise 7,000 sf 3.50 24,500.00
7. Landscaping 13,000 sf 2.00 26,000.00
Subtotal $ 635,000.00
Subtotal Construction Cost 3,579,550.00
Contingency at 10% 357,955.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost 3,937,505.00
Soft Costs •
Equipment and Furniture
1. Office Fumiture and Equipment 6,000 sf 15.00 $ 90,000.00
2. Kennel Equipment ' 1 Is 125,000.00 125,000.00
3. Clinic Equipment N.I.C. 0.00 0.00
Subtotal $ 215,000.00 •
•
Facility Program and Conceptual Design
• Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus
Project No. 00-216.01
February 2, 2001
Page 9
w Construction Costs
Description Unit Cost Amount
Fees,Testing,Inspection(Indicated as a percentage of construction cost)
I. Architect/Engineer 8% $ 315,000.40
• 2. Agency Approvals 2% 78,750.10
3. Connection Fees 6% 236,250.30
4. Testing and Inspection 3% 118,125.15
Subtotal 748,125.95
• TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 4,900,630.95
Project Schedule
The schedule outlined below indicates a typical timeline for how the CVAG Animal Care
• Campus could be developed within a reasonable amount of time if funding is available for the
entire project. If it is determined that the project should be phased over a number of years in
separate increments, the timelines should be adjusted accordingly. The timeline includes
planning and design process, bidding and award of contract process, construction period, and a
facility move-in and commissioning process.
2001 2002
Project Schedule
FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJ
Architect Selection
Site Investigation/Surveys
Architect Design and
Construction Document
Agency Review/Approval ■
Building Department Approval
Bid and Award Contract
Construction
Move-in/Building Commission ■
r
•
Facility Program and Conceptual Design
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus
Project No. 00-216.01
February 2, 2001 •
Page 10
Conclusion
•
This document was developed to provide planning guidance .and direction for the development of
the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Animal Care Campus. The document is only
one of the first steps in a process that can result in an animal shelter that will provide much
needed services for the Coachella Valley for many years. Understanding the importance of
expenditures of public funds,hopefully this document will be the foundation of the design and •
construction of the new shelter. It should not be viewed as a rigid manual on how to design and
construct the new shelter, but as a flexible guide document that can spark new ideas for the final
design and construction of the new shelter.
GMW:sd •
P002l600x3-prg
•
•
•
•
\2000\00216\1-SO\00216A21outdoors.dwg Fri Feb 02 14: 25: 03 2001 (C) Copyright WLC Architects, Inc.
IL
o ;
I � �
• � z
I
I i
f i
I i I
y C
i nnnnn nn nn gg s:L '� �
4-,
ee D �•, � �-.•�.
6Y $iDIED
�, B4 0 ➢ JJ I�
Cd
Cl
If
rg
if 110
aaaaaaaaaaaa �� •➢ 5 �, cri
° =19 U
� 1,,.LL:J111LLLL1 '
CZJ
I Q� r1
; g iQ !➢ I i! i ^ r1
➢➢ y9
�� Q a➢ g- bi �� , Q F� I
ca ^�
' :! -rr-rrrm-
I
j� t �I I �•ij
I r�l
C ii 5➢
I ➢ O O Y _tA. °pCd
o O
9
d—_—jL...... ------ ____II.__.__II.____Il___._>j