city of elk grove city council staff report · an animal shelter. staff has toured multiple...

AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.2

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

AGENDA TITLE: Animal Shelter Next Steps MEETING DATE: January 13, 2016 PREPARED BY: Maureen McCann, Animal Control Supervisor Joe Young, Lieutenant Kara Reddig, Deputy City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD: Robert Lehner, Chief of Police RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Review staff’s efforts to date to advance the Animal Shelter project; and

2. Provide input on staff’s next steps related to the project.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Elk Grove assumed control over Animal Control Services from the County of Sacramento on September 1, 2005. Since that time, the City’s Animal Control services have been split into two main functions of shelter and field services. The shelter function has historically been contracted out to third party agencies. The field service function has been provided in-house by City staff. Following is a chronological timeline of the shelter function to date: • February 16, 2005 – City entered into a Master Service Agreement with

the Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA). Over the next eight years the City and SSPCA partnered to shelter and care for abandoned and unwanted animals.

• April 2011 – City advertised a Request for Proposal for Animal

Sheltering services. Various interested agencies were notified of the RFP, but no proposals were submitted for consideration.

1

Elk Grove City Council January 13, 2016 of 9

• February 2013 - City received written notice from the SSPCA advising staff of its intention to terminate the contract effective December 31, 2013.

• Spring 2013 – City decided to not conduct another RFP process

because the previous one conducted in 2011 yielded no potential proposals and no other entities had indicated an interest. Based on those results, staff determined, consistent with Elk Grove Municipal Code section 3.42.180(B)(3), that it would be in the City’s best interest not to go through the proposal process a second time, and to begin a dialogue with the County of Sacramento for animal sheltering services.

• October 4, 2013 - Staff met with County Animal Care stakeholders to

discuss the proposed contract and address questions regarding the City’s potential impact on the County’s shelter. Both City and County staff stated their commitment to partnering and implementing new programs that would focus on reducing the number of animals entering the County’s facility from the City of Elk Grove.

• October 23, 2013 – A staff report was presented to Council for the

following actions: 1) dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a five and one-half year agreement with the County of Sacramento to provide animal sheltering through the Department of Animal Care and Regulations, and 2) amend the Animal Control Fee Schedule. At that meeting, several attendees voiced concerns regarding current and future sheltering needs for the City. By a 5-0 vote, Council approved entering into a Master Services Agreement with the County of Sacramento Animal Care and Regulation for sheltering services. The term of the contract was for five and one-half years and began on January 1, 2014. Under the Master Services Agreement, either the City or County may terminate the contract upon 90 days written notice to the other party without penalty.

• December 31, 2013 - SSPCA contract was terminated.

• January 1, 2014 – County of Sacramento Animal Care and Regulation

Sheltering contract began. • Spring 2014 – City entered into a contract with Indigo/Hammond &

Playle Architects, LLP and the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine Koret Shelter Medicine Program to conduct an Animal Shelter Needs

2


Assessment Study to determine the most effective operating models available to deliver animal shelter services in Elk Grove.

• Summer 2014 – Winter 2015 –The city-retained consultants conducted

and prepared the Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study. Two public meetings were extensively advertised regarding the study and were held on September 22 and November 13, 2014. Turnout was high at both meetings, and attendees provided their thoughts and ideas on how animal sheltering should operate in Elk Grove.

• January 28, 2015 – Staff presented the findings of the Animal Shelter

Needs Assessment Study to Council. The study analyzed three models that could be utilized to provide shelter services to the City. Those included:

o Model A – continue to contract for services o Model B – new City of Elk Grove animal shelter; includes a future

option to contract with other cities o Model C – new Joint Power Authority shelter with regional cities

Staff received the following direction:

o Conduct outreach to other government organizations, non-profits, or

private interests to see if there is any interest in considering taking over sheltering services; and

o Evaluate potential existing buildings in Elk Grove to support Model B, which is a City of Elk Grove shelter that may or may not include a future option to contract with other cities. Council was interested in seeing if a remodel option was feasible within Model B.

As a reminder, Model B pros/cons include: Pros: • The City would maintain control over all animal services • Shelter would be located in Elk Grove • Additional programming could potentially be available, including

o Longer operating hours for the public o Licensing, micro chipping, spay and neuter programs o Animal training and education programs o Grooming services and adoption events

• Future option of providing contract services to other cities

3


Cons: • Construction and operating costs to build and maintain a shelter • Capital expenditure would require funding methods to be identified • Currently the City has limited funds to build a shelter

• Throughout 2015 – Since January 2015, staff has conducted bi-weekly

real estate reviews of potential exiting buildings that could be suitable for an animal shelter. Staff has toured multiple buildings to see if they could be retrofitted for a shelter and, to date, has not found any suitable options. Staff has concluded that, unless something new comes onto the market, there are currently no suitable existing locations for an animal shelter.

• Staff has also had several conversations with the County of

Sacramento, City of Sacramento, local veterinarians, and private / non-profit organizations to gauge interest in potential partnerships and/or organizations that may be interested in taking over shelter services. Staff has not had any organization come forward seeking or wanting to partner to provide this service. As staff continues to work on the Animal Shelter project, it will be beneficial to have continuous dialogue with any entity that may be interested in contracting with or for shelter services. For example, the City of Galt recently entered into a three-year agreement with the County that is effective until June 30, 2018 to provide both their shelter and limited field services. The City should consider reaching out to Galt once our plans become more solidified to see if there is a potential partnership opportunity between our two cities.

Next Steps: In order to advance the project to the next level, staff recommends the following next steps: Step 1 - Refine Intake Numbers: Refine intake numbers based on historical data we now have with the County. In the January 2015 staff report, staff outlined concerns with the 2013 SSPCA intake numbers as compared to the 2014 County of Sacramento study estimate intake numbers as shown in the following table. Intake numbers will need to be carefully studied and examined if a future facility is built to avoid over- or under-sizing. The variance in animal intake numbers is concerning when forecasting the building size required to house these animals.

4

Elk Grove City Council January 13, 2016 of 9 Now that the City is beginning year three of the County contract, staff can generate monthly reports to compare intake numbers each month, by year. This will help the City gain a better understanding of intake accuracy, as well as evaluate impacts to the County shelter.

Intake Numbers Entity/Animal Type Year Live Intake Difference Sacramento County Elk Grove Dogs

2014 816 (study estimate) 40% Decrease

between 2013 and 2014 SSPCA

Elk Grove Dogs 2013 1357

(actual data) Sacramento County Elk Grove Cats



Elk Grove Cats 2013 1030

(actual data) While staff believes that the SPCA numbers are high, they also recognize that the County numbers may be somewhat low. There may be a segment of the population who is not using the County facility because of the distance or other unknown reasons. Staff believes that, if the City were to open a shelter, intake numbers will increase for the first three years. However, those numbers could be stabilized by providing services to the community such as low to no cost spay/neuter, low to no cost veterinary services such as vaccination and microchip clinics, behavior classes and other resources to ensure animals stay in their homes. Step 2 - Further Refine Model B based on new intake numbers (6-8 week process: Once staff analyzes and determines the appropriate intake numbers to use moving forward, staff recommends further refining Model B based on the data within the study. This would include right sizing the building and land assumptions based on recommended program areas as determined by the Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study. Based on the new intake data, all assumptions would be analyzed and site program areas would be evaluated. Of utmost importance is for the City to decide the need for outdoor programming elements, such as a barn and pens. If the City determines that it should have the ability to shelter large animals at its new facility, staff will determine how much land is needed when considering locations for the shelter. Staff will evaluate current demand for sheltering large animals and the subsequent need for outdoor space to help determine future need.

5

Elk Grove City Council January 13, 2016 of 9 Once staff analyzes the data and revises the building and site areas, the capital costs and operating budgets (including staffing and maintenance costs) will need to be reevaluated utilizing values established in the Needs Assessment Study. Step 3 – Identify Suitable Sites and Prepare Conceptual Site Plan Studies (2-3 weeks per site location) Currently, staff is evaluating the feasibility of the parcel of land located at the corner of Iron Rock Way and Union Park Way. This City-owned land was previously identified as a potential animal shelter site in the City’s Corporation Yard Master Plan; however, it is smaller than the site needs identified in the current Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study. Staff is also exploring the possibility of repurposing the adjacent Police Fleet building/land to possibly serve as a potential Phase 1 of the animal shelter. If the City were to move the Police Fleet building and related amenities, such as the fueling station and K-9 yard, staff would need to find a suitable alternative location for these purposes. Staff will work with the City architect to prepare conceptual site plan studies for this site to analyze how the updated site and building program would fit. Step 4 - Public Meeting After the intake numbers have been refined, Model B has been right sized to scale with the numbers, and staff has prepared a Conceptual Site Plan, staff proposes to hold a public meeting to solicit input. Based on the feedback received, staff would re-evaluate the plan to determine if any revisions to the building and/or site plan is warranted. Step 5 - Return to Council Staff will return to Council after the Conceptual Site Plan and operating and capital budgets are finalized. At this time, staff seeks input and/or feedback from Council regarding steps one through five which will occur throughout Spring 2016.

6

Elk Grove City Council January 13, 2016 of 9 FISCAL IMPACT: Any change in the City’s current operating model would impact two main areas: operating costs and capital costs. Capital Costs - Fixed, one-time expenses incurred for the purchase of land or buildings, construction, and equipment used in the production of goods or in the rendering of services. The estimated capital costs for Model B (Elk Grove-only Shelter), based on the intake assumptions in the Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study, are shown in Appendix H to the Needs Assessment Study: APPENDIX H - ELK GROVE ONLY SHELTER* ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTPROJECT DATA

Total Site Area (5.0 acres): 217,800 SFTotal Building Area: 22,500 SFCovered Exterior Area: 9,500 SF

COSTSSite Acquisition 1,590,000$ Construction 11,292,000$ Equipment Allowance 750,000$ Indirect Soft Costs 1,620,880$ Contingencies 1,525,300$ Escalation 381,325$

TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-MIDDLE RANGE 17,200,000$ ROUNDEDTOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-LOW RANGE 13,760,000$ TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-HIGH RANGE 20,640,000$ * New construction project will be subject to utility impact fees up to $500,000.00depending upon location, in addition to Total Project Development Costs shown.

Escalation: includes 2.5% escalation for site acquisition, direct construction, equipment allowance and indirect costs. Escalation figure is in 2015 dollars.

There are a variety of ways to fund an animal shelter, which include the General Fund, Capital Facility Fees (CFF), a new revenue measure, municipal bonds, private donations, and grant funding. The City has established the Animal Shelter as a Capital Project with $3.1 million dollars allocated over the current and next fiscal years. Funding is coming from the Police CFF, a fee on new development’s share of the construction or land acquisition of police facilities, vehicles, and related equipment. However, it is important to note that utilizing this funding for an

7

Elk Grove City Council January 13, 2016 of 9 animal shelter and not another specific police capital project would limit funding for other police projects. In addition, the cost of the animal shelter will exceed the total revenue anticipated from the Police CFF ($8,711,799 in 2009 dollars). The City’s Corporation Yard CFF also includes components for an animal shelter. The Corporation Yard fee components fund the improvements of select facilities and the purchase and installation of equipment required to support maintenance operations generated by the need for additional space to serve new development. The animal shelter is identified in this CFF as a qualifying facility. The CFF Nexus Study update in 2009 included a total of $3,461,850 in 2009 dollars. In current dollars, that is $3,978,372 in potential funding. However, allocating the full $3.9 million towards an animal shelter may limit the City’s ability to provide for all facilities in the City’s Corporation Yard Master Plan. If the Council were to decide to allocate all of the available Police and Corporation Yard CFF revenues to the project ($7,078,372), there would still be a funding deficit between $6.7 million and $13.6 million based on current cost estimates. Operating Costs - Ongoing operational expenses of a business or function, exclusive of capital costs. They are the cost of resources used by an organization to maintain the program. Current and probable annual operating costs are shown in the table below for the current model, Model A (contract) and Model B (Elk Grove Only Shelter). Yearly operating and maintenance costs could range from $1.6 to $2.6 million. Note that operation and maintenance figures could vary by as much as 20 percent due to factors not yet identified. Other unknown factors affecting cost are site acquisition, final space program definition, staffing, programs and services. The net cost increase between the current model and Model A accounts for estimated increases in expenses between FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16. These estimates include costs for animal shelter and field services.

Current Model Contract (FY14/15)

Model A Contract (FY15/16

Estimates)

Model B New Elk Grove

Shelter

Expense $1,705,331 $1,872,213 $2,779,300 Revenue $141,571 $150,065 $180,000 Net Cost ($1,563,760) ($1,722,148) ($2,599,300) Cost Increase** $0 $158,388 $1,035,540

**This represents the increase in net costs from the current model.

8

Elk Grove City Council January 13, 2016 of 9 The net cost for Animal Control to operate today in the City is $1.6 million, which is paid from the General Fund. Operating costs would increase by approximately $1 million if the City were to move from the current Model/Model A to Model B. This is primarily due to the large increase in staffing needed to maintain the shelter. Staff routinely prepares a five-year General Fund forecast related to expense projections. Due to Revenue Neutrality with the County of Sacramento adjusting in FY2018-19, current projections show approximately $1.4 million in unprogrammed revenues. This amount increases annually from FY 2018-19 to FY2024-25 based on a favorable neutrality schedule that provides the City with a larger share of property tax each year during this time. These unprogrammed revenues would be sufficient to fund the animal control shelter at any option noted above on an ongoing basis, not considering capital costs. However, the City currently has other projects that require funding identification, such as the Southeast Policy Area Infrastructure, Civic Center components, additional Police personnel, and a multisport complex. These competing interests are all priorities for the City. Increasing the animal control services costs beyond the current financial forecast could jeopardize or prohibit funding for these other projects. It is also against the City’s Fund Balance policy and best practices to utilize fund balance to pay for ongoing operational expenses. ATTACHMENT:

1. Staff Report dated January 28, 2015 (includes Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study)

9

AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.2

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

AGENDA TITLE: Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study MEETING DATE: January 28, 2015 PREPARED BY: Maureen McCann, Animal Control Supervisor Joe Young, Lieutenant Kara Reddig, Deputy City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD: Laura S. Gill, City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Review and consider the various project model options and provide feedback and direction.

2. Direct staff to explore and return to Council with identified interim

measures that could be initiated quickly.

Depending on Council’s direction, staff will return with a budget amendment.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Elk Grove assumed control over Animal Control Services from the County of Sacramento on September 1, 2005. Since that time, the City’s Animal Control functions have been split into two main functions - shelter and field services. The shelter function has been historically contracted out to third party agencies. The field service function has been provided in-house by City staff. Following is a chronological timeline of the shelter function:

ATTACHMENT 1

10

Elk Grove City Council January 28, 2015 Page 2 of 12

• February 16, 2005 – City entered into a Master Service Agreement with the Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA). Over the next eight years the City and SSPCA partnered to shelter and care for abandoned and unwanted animals.

• April 2011 – City advertised a Request for Proposal for Animal

Sheltering services. Various interested agencies were notified of the RFP, but no proposals were submitted for consideration.

• February 2013 - City received written notice from the SSPCA advising staff of its intention to terminate the contract effective December 31, 2013.

• Spring 2013 – City decided to not conduct another RFP because the last

one conducted in 2011 yielded no potential proposals and no other entities had indicated an interest. Based on those results, staff determined, consistent with Elk Grove Municipal Code section 3.42.180(B)(3), that it would be in the City’s best interest not to go through this proposal process a second time, and to begin a dialogue with the County of Sacramento for animal sheltering services.

• October 4, 2013 - staff met with County Animal Care stakeholders to

discuss the proposed contract and address questions regarding the City’s potential impact on the County’s shelter. Both City and County staff stated their commitment to partnering and implementing new programs that would focus on reducing the number of animals entering the County’s facility from the City of Elk Grove.

• October 23, 2013 – A staff report was presented to Council for the

following actions: 1) dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a five-year agreement with the County of Sacramento to provide animal sheltering through the Department of Animal Care and Regulations, and 2) amend the Animal Control Fee Schedule. At that meeting, several attendees voiced concerns regarding current and future sheltering needs for the City. By a 5-0 vote, Council approved entering into a Master Services Agreement with the County of Sacramento Animal Care and Regulation for sheltering services. The term of the contract was for five and one-half years and began on January 1, 2014.

• December 31, 2013 - SSPCA contract was terminated.

11

Elk Grove City Council January 28, 2015 Page 3 of 12 • January 1, 2014 – County of Sacramento Animal Care and Regulation

Sheltering contract began. • Spring 2014 – City entered into a contract with Indigo/Hammond &

Playle Architects, LLP and the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine to conduct an Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study to determine the most effective operating models available to deliver animal shelter services in Elk Grove.

• Summer 2014 – Winter 2015 –The city-retained consultants conducted

and prepared the Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study. Two public meetings were extensively advertised regarding the study and were held on September 22 and November 13. Turnout was high at both meetings, and attendees provided their thoughts and ideas on how animal sheltering should operate in Elk Grove.

ANALYSIS: Report Highlights The Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study is a very broad document covering all aspects of animal sheltering. It includes a review of existing conditions, best practices, facility design, animal care options, cost and funding alternatives, and more. While the study is thorough and provides in-depth discussion and analysis, below are some highlights:

• Confirmation that animals taken to the Sacramento County shelter are well cared for, which is of utmost importance to the City.

• The Sacramento County facility appears to be at or beyond its holding capacity much of the time for dogs and cats under current conditions.

• Fewer Elk Grove animals have been served at the Sacramento County facility in 2014 than in previous sheltering contracts (see section below regarding Intake numbers for more details).

• Facility requirements to meet future animal capacity needs would require a new or remodeled facility, or expansion of the existing County facility. A remodel scenario, with a phased approach, was considered in order to develop a lower cost option for delivering sheltering needs. This option could reduce capital outlay costs by as much as 50-60 percent, compared to the cost of a new facility, assuming a building and site exists within the City’s limits that is suitable for the programming needs and is owned by a willing seller.

12

Elk Grove City Council January 28, 2015 Page 4 of 12 Models Studied The study analyzed three models that could be utilized to provide shelter services to the City. Those include:

Model A – continue to contract for services Model B – new City of Elk Grove shelter; includes a future option to contract with other cities Model C – new Joint Power Authority Shelter with regional cities

The complete report, which outlines the various options, is provided as Attachment 1. Staff has broken out the various model option pros/cons for discussion purposes below: Model A – Continue to contract for services (to County or another party) Pros: • The least amount of capital expenditure is required • The cost of building and operating a shelter is deferred • Animal Control field services operate efficiently within the City Cons: • City lacks control over animal sheltering services, programs, and quality • Sheltering services provided by Sacramento County are uncertain

beyond the current contract • County shelter is presently at capacity with no future plans to expand • Periodic shelter overcrowding may cause temporary closures and

diminished quality of animal care • Future contracting costs with the County are unpredictable • Distance to shelter could be considered a hindrance to its use Model B – Construct new City of Elk Grove shelter, with the option to contractually provide services to other cities Pros: • The City would maintain control over all animal services • Shelter would be located in Elk Grove • Additional programming would be available

o Potential for longer hours for the public o Licensing, micro chipping, spay and neuter programs o Animal training and education programs o Grooming services and adoption events

• Future option of providing contract services to other cities

13


Cons: • Construction and operating costs of building and maintaining a shelter • Capital expenditure would require funding methods to be identified • Currently the City has limited funds to build a shelter Model C – New Joint Power Authority Shelter with regional cities Pros: • Sharing of costs for construction, operation, and maintenance of shelter • Facility could be in or closer to Elk Grove compared to current County

Shelter location Cons: • Construction and operating costs of building and maintaining a shelter • Control of shelter is shared with JPA partners • Currently the City has limited funds to build a shelter • Limited discussions have occurred with potential JPA partners such as

Sacramento County, Rancho Cordova, Galt and Isleton • Time needed to allow for discussion and formation of the JPA – could be

a year or more While not studied extensively in the report, the City also has the option to build a shelter and let a third party operate it. That third party could include the County, non-profit organization, SSPCA, or another willing operator. This option would be a similar model to how the Sacramento Public Library operates. The main Elk Grove library operates out of a City owned building; however, all library functions are completed by the Sacramento Public Library staff. The Sacramento Public Library Authority is governed by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Sacramento and the Cities of Citrus Heights, Galt, Isleton, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento. Intake totals within Study For this study, 2013 statistics provided by the Sacramento Society for the Prevention of the Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) were used as a starting point to calculate future animal intake by the City. There are two important items that are necessary to highlight regarding the total intake figures and how they are referenced moving forward.

14

Elk Grove City Council January 28, 2015 Page 6 of 12 There is a substantial difference in the 2013 SSPCA intake numbers as compared to the 2014 County of Sacramento intake numbers, as shown in the following table. Intake numbers will need to be carefully studied and examined if a future facility is built to avoid over- or under-sizing. The variance in animal intake numbers is concerning when forecasting building size required to house these animals. Now that the City is on year two of the County contract, staff can generate monthly reports to compare intake numbers each month, by year. This will help the City gain a better understanding of intake accuracy, as well as evaluate impacts to the County shelter.

Intake Numbers Entity/Animal Type Year Live Intake Difference Sacramento County Elk Grove Dogs



Elk Grove Dogs 2013 1357

Sacramento County Elk Grove Cats

2014 560 (study estimate )

46% Decrease

between 2013 and 2014

SSPCA Elk Grove Cats

2013 1030

Animal Control staff has some concern with the SSPCA numbers. During the City’s eight-year relationship with the SSPCA, yearly audits were performed by staff to address concerns and questions regarding overall intake numbers reported by the SSPCA. Audits performed for years 2006 to 2010 revealed multiple areas in which the City was being charged for animals that were received from outside the City’s limits. City staff feels that the County of Sacramento numbers are the figures the City should ultimately utilize when determining an ultimate building size. Regardless of the difference in intake numbers, the City will need to further study and forecast appropriate intake numbers to utilize moving forward. Interim Measures The City has a progressive Animal Control Department, with excellent existing programs, as well as some new programs based on recent feedback received during the Animal Shelter Study process. The City implemented the Bring Them Home campaign in October 2008 to help reunite lost pets with their owners. This program allows for a stray

15

Elk Grove City Council January 28, 2015 Page 7 of 12 animal located by officers that is wearing any type of identification or microchip to be returned home. The City just recently began formally tracking these statistics. A total of 88 animals were reunited with their families from September 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. These animals were not taken to the shelter. Animal Control staff will continue to keep and maintain these statistics. In October 2012, the City received a grant from PetSmart Charities in the amount of $68,750. This grant provided financial funding for the Feral Freedom and Community Cats programs. These programs reduced the number of cats that would have entered the shelter system and had a negative outcome (euthanasia) by a total of 656 cats. This grant ended on October 15, 2014; however, the City has continued funding these programs through collected unaltered license fees. In September 2014, the City became more connected to the community through social media to reunite lost pets with their owners. Staff now uses Facebook to notify residents of found animals. They also utilize a “What’s on board” posting that provides a list of all animals that have been found by officers within the City each day. When humanely possible, officers will keep found pets on board their vehicle for longer time periods while in the City. This allows the opportunity for owners to contact the City to report their missing pet in hopes of reunification. This is currently posted to our Facebook page; however, staff is working with other organizations to expand the visibility to other social networking sites. The report also identifies potential interim measures that could be further evaluated and possibly implemented, such as:

• Adoption annex in Elk Grove • Engage community volunteers locally • More social media outreach • Training Classes • Adoption events • Expanded community education and outreach

Future Programs In order to reduce animal intake at the shelter, staff has plans to implement new programs:

16

Elk Grove City Council January 28, 2015 Page 8 of 12 Voucher Program – The program would provide spay/neuter, rabies vaccine, microchip, and a one year altered animal license at no cost to low income Elk Grove residents. Funding for this program has been identified through the City’s Spay/Neuter Program. Spay/Neuter Program for Specific Dog Breeds - Most shelters, including local ones within our area, are experiencing a large intake of stray and unwanted Pit Bulls and Chihuahuas. The City has also seen an increase in calls related specifically to these two types of dog breeds. Staff is currently working on a voucher program that will address this issue by offering owners a resource to have their animal spayed/neutered at no cost. A funding source has already been identified through the Spay/Neuter Program. Owner Surrender Program - In 2013, 404 dogs and 267 cats were surrendered by Elk Grove residents. In reviewing the reasons why these 671 animals were surrendered, staff has found that the provision of certain resources to these owners would have resulted in approximately 75% of these animals remaining in the household. Staff is exploring the development of a program to assist distressed pet owners with resources. FISCAL IMPACT: Any change in the City’s current operating model would impact two main areas: operating costs and capital costs. Capital Costs - Fixed, one-time expenses incurred for the purchase of land or buildings, construction, and equipment used in the production of goods or in the rendering of services. There are no capital costs shown for Model A as that model remains a contract only model. Below are estimated capital costs for Model B (Elk Grove Only Shelter), Model C (Regional Shelter), as well as a Remodel Option (for purposes of this study, it is an Elk Grove only option). For each model, there is a low, middle, and high range. Please reference pages 63 through 71 of Attachment 1 for a full breakdown of estimated capital costs per model. Capital costs range from a low of $8.4 million to a high of $24.6 million. The $8.4 million is the low end range of a remodel scenario for an Elk Grove only shelter. The $24.6 million is the high end range of new construction of a regional shelter built to serve Elk Grove as well as other regional cities. These costs are total project development costs.

17

Elk Grove City Council January 28, 2015 Page 9 of 12 APPENDIX H - ELK GROVE ONLY SHELTER* ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTPROJECT DATA




APPENDIX I - REGIONAL SHELTER* ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTPROJECT DATA




18


APPENDIX J - REMODEL OPTION ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTPROJECT DATA


COSTSSite Acquisition 2,903,000$ Construction 5,081,000$ Equipment Allowance 575,000$ Indirect Soft Costs 762,150$ Contingencies 932,200$ Escalation 233,050$

TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-MIDDLE RANGE 10,500,000$ ROUNDEDTOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-LOW RANGE 8,400,000$ TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-HIGH RANGE 12,600,000$

There are a variety of potential ways to fund an animal shelter, which are outlined beginning on page 40 of Attachment 1. These potential funding sources include the General Fund, a special tax measure, municipal bonds, private donations and grant funding. The Capital Facilities Fee specific to police, which funds new development’s share of the construction/acquisition of police facilities and related equipment is another potential option. Currently, the Police CFF’s available fund balance is approximately $900,000. However, it is important to note that utilizing this funding for an animal shelter and not another specific police capital project could hinder future police projects that the City may wish to pursue. Operating Costs - Ongoing operational expenses of a business or function, exclusive of capital costs. They are the cost of resources used by an organization just to maintain the program. Below are the current and probable operating yearly costs for the current model, Model A (contract), Model B (Elk Grove Only Shelter), and Model C (JPA Regional Shelter). Please reference pages 61 and 62 of Attachment 1 for a full breakdown of expenses and revenues per model. Yearly operating and maintenance costs could range from $1.6 to $2.6 million, depending on the operational model selected. Note that operation and maintenance figures could vary by as much as 20 percent due to factors not yet identified. Other unknown factors affecting cost are site acquisition, final

19

Elk Grove City Council January 28, 2015 Page 11 of 12 space program definition, staffing, programs and services. The net cost increase between the current model and Model A accounts for estimated increases in expenses between FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16.

Current Model Model A Contract

Model B New Elk Grove

Shelter

Model C New Regional

Shelter Expense $1,705,331 $1,872,213 $2,779,300 $3,644,200 Revenue $141,571 $150,065 $180,000 $1,045,000* Net Cost ($1,563,760) ($1,722,148) ($2,599,300) ($2,599,200)

Cost Increase**

$0 $158,388 $1,035,540 $1,035,540

*The revenue is significantly higher in this model due to the fact that the revenue is controlled to keep Elk Grove’s yearly net costs the same as the Elk Grove-only shelter model. This figure includes $860,000 which would be needed from JPA partners, at a minimum, to keep net costs to the City of Elk Grove the same. **This represents the increase in net costs from the current model. The net cost for Animal Control to operate today in the City is $1.6 million paid from the General Fund. Operating costs would increase by approximately $1 million if the City were to move from the Current Model/Model A to Model B or Model C. This is primarily due to the large increase in staffing needed to maintain the shelter. Staff routinely prepares a five-year General Fund forecast related to expense projections. Due to Revenue Neutrality with the County of Sacramento adjusting in FY2018-19, current projections show approximately $1.4 million in unprogrammed revenues. This amount increases annually from FY 2018-19 to FY2024-25 based on a favorable neutrality schedule that provides the City with a larger share of property tax each year during this time. These unprogrammed revenues would be sufficient to fund the animal control shelter at any option noted above on an ongoing basis, not considering capital costs. However, the City currently has various competing projects that require funding identification, such as the Southeast Policy Area Infrastructure, Civic Center components, additional Police personnel, and soccer stadium/fields. These competing interests are all priorities for the City. Increasing the animal control services costs beyond what is in the current financial forecast could jeopardize or prohibit funding for these other projects. It is also against the City’s Fund Balance policy and best practices to utilize fund balance to pay for ongoing operational expenses.

20

Elk Grove City Council January 28, 2015 Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT:

1. Final Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study

21

ANIMAL SHELTER NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY For the

CITY OF ELK GROVE

January 12, 2015

Prepared By:

with

22

jlindgren

Typewritten Text

jlindgren

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 1

City of Elk Grove Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study

Indigo | Hammond + Playle Architects i January 12, 2015 Koret Shelter Medicine Program

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1

2. Methodology & Background……..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4

3. Goals & Objectives……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6

4. Existing Conditions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

5. Population & Trend Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13

Relation to General Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 Population Projections……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13 Review of Animal Intakes………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17 Population and Trends Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19 Projected Animal Capacities……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19

6. Best Practices for Shelter Medicine & Animal Care….……………………………………………………………………………. 22

Staffing…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..... 23 Considerations for Contractee..……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 Programmatic Elements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 Facility…………………………………………………………..........…………………………………………………………………………. 24 Primary Housing………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………… 25 Number of Housing Units…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 26

7. Facility Design & Environment….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27

8. Animal Care Options, Operating Model & Management Structures………………………………………………………. 30 Current Model…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………… 30 Model A – Contract-out Continued..………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30 Model B – New Elk Grove Shelter……………..……………………………………………………………………………………… 32 Model C – New Regional Shelter………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34 Remodel Option – Elk Grove Only Shelter…………………………………………………………………………………………. 35

9. Facility Area & Staffing….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37 Program Components………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37 Projected Building Area………..……...…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37 Projected Site Area……………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38 Staffing Needs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……… 38 Phasing……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……… 39

10. Cost & Funding Alternatives………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40

11. Comparative Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42

Comparison Matrix…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 43

12. Community Input………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45

23


Indigo | Hammond + Playle Architects ii January 12, 2015 Koret Shelter Medicine Program

Appendix A: Notes from Public Meeting No. 1………………………………………………………………………….…………… 46

Appendix B: Notes from Public Meeting No. 2…………….………………………………………………………………………… 50

Appendix C: Documentation of Additional Public Comments Received………………………………..................... 53

Appendix D: Site Area Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 56

Appendix E: Program Area Summary – Elk Grove Only Shelter………………………………………………………………. 57

Appendix F: Program Area Summary – Regional Shelter……………………………………………………………………..... 59

Appendix G: Projected Operating Budget Comparison…………………………………………………………………………… 61

Appendix H: Estimate of Probable Cost – Elk Grove Only Shelter………………………………………………………...... 63

Appendix I: Estimate of Probable Cost – Regional Shelter…………………………………………………………..………… 66

Appendix J: Estimate of Probable Cost – Remodel Option…………………………………….……………………..………… 69

Appendix K: Public Meeting No. 1 PowerPoint slideshow, “Healthy Environments for Elk Grove”…………. 72

24


Indigo | Hammond + Playle Architects 1 of 80 January 12, 2015 Koret Shelter Medicine Program

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Study was commissioned by the City of Elk Grove in order to determine the best method of delivering animal sheltering services for the City of Elk Grove based on current and future needs. The study is meant to provide guidance to the City to be able to make an informed decision as to the best direction for animal sheltering and field services that would be best suited to the unique needs, expectations, challenges and opportunities of this community. The study included the following methodology:

Defining goals and objectives for animal care and sheltering for the City of Elk Grove Data Collection & Analysis Determine Existing Conditions Population & Trend Analysis Identify animal care options, operating model & management structures Conduct two community interest meetings Facility requirements Cost and funding alternatives Comparative Analysis Recommendations outlining the preferred animal shelter model for the City of Elk Grove.

The animal capacity calculations are based on 2013 intake numbers with future animal capacity projections for

the City of Elk Grove based on population projections in a 20 year planning horizon. Recommended total animal

intake designed for a 20 year planning horizon are 4,274 with 2,430 being dogs and 1,844 being cats. This then

translates into housing recommendations for 89 dog housing units and 61 cat housing units. A detailed

description and breakdown can be found under section 5.

Facility requirements to meet future animal capacity needs would require a new or remodeled facility, or

expansion of the existing County facility. Estimated project development costs to build a new facility to serve

future capacity needs for the City of Elk Grove only could range anywhere from $13.8 million up to $20.6 million.

Direct construction costs (excluding indirect costs which included City administration fees, inspections,

contingencies and escalation, etc.) could range between $9 million up to $15.6 million. Direct construction cost

is the bid amount the City would see from the contractor. If building a regional facility or if Elk Grove decided to

accept contracts with other cities the facility would need to be slightly larger, thereby increasing the facility size

and costs proportionately by approximately $4 million. Yearly operating and maintenance costs could range

from $1.6 to $2.6 million depending on the operational model selected. Note that operation and maintenance

figures could vary by as much as 20% due to factors not yet decided. Other unknown factors affecting cost are

site acquisition, final space program definition, staffing, programs and services, etc.

A remodel scenario, with a phased approach was looked at in order to develop a lower cost option for delivering

sheltering needs. This option could reduce costs by as much as 50-60%, assuming a building and site exists

within City limits suited to animal sheltering program needs. More detail can be found describing this option

under section 8 with an estimate of probable cost under Appendix J.

25



A hypothetical space program was developed for both the Elk Grove only model and the Regional model (see

Appendix E and F), based on housing capacity recommendations and anticipated support spaces; however, these

figures could go up or down by as much as 20% once a project is realized and an actual program defined. For

example, the City may decide that a phased approach is necessary due to budget constraints, and certain

program elements may be put into a future phase (i.e. vet clinic, a future animal housing wing, multi-purpose

space, agility yard, as just some examples). The facility sized to meet Elk Grove’s 20 year horizon future capacity

needs is approximately 22,500 (not including exterior covered areas) with an additional 5,300 sf needed if a

regional facility is built. The site development area required could range between 5 and 5.5 acres and could also

be a newly developed site or previously developed site if one was found that could serve a shelter’s needs.

Location within the city will be important to improve access to the shelter as well as improve the image of a

shelter within community.

Model A offers a contract-out model continued with the County of Sacramento or other entity if one comes

forward. Currently the County is the only option that exists. The City continues to provide Animal Control

services which is operating efficiently. Model A does not have a cost associated with a new facility, only the

operation and maintenance costs which would be similar to what the City incurs now. Operation and

maintenance costs under Model A would be approximately $1.9 million. O&M costs currently are approximately

$1.7 million. The slight increase is attributed to moderate increases in expenses, salaries, and sheltering contract

cost. Small increase in revenue is also seen for animal licensing and fees and citations. This model relies heavily

on interim measures to bridge the gap for unmet needs and stretched capacity until a new shelter can be built

or new contract entity surfaces. Under this model the City can expect diminishing quality of animal care over

time as the County facility becomes more over crowded.

Model B describes a new shelter serving the City of Elk Grove only, with a future option to bring other

neighboring cities under contract for sheltering and/or animal control services. A new shelter facility, serving

just the City of Elk Grove and sized for a 20 year out planning horizon would be approximately 22,500 sf (not

including exterior covered areas). The total project development cost for a new facility of this size could range

between $13.8 and $20.6 million depending on the factors described under Model A. Purchase of an existing

building and site with remodel instead of building new has been discussed. This could significantly reduce cost of

construction. The challenge will be finding a building and site in a desirable location that is suitable for reuse as

an animal shelter without significant cost needed to upgrade. More about this remodel option is described in

section 8. Operation and maintenance costs in Model B would be around $2.6 million and could range 20% up or

down depending on final facility size and staffing. Approximately 27 full time staff, not including volunteers

would be required for both shelter and field services. The advantage to this Model is that the City would have

local control of all animal care services and the shelter could be integrated into the community to best reflect

the community’s needs and unique qualities. The disadvantage is the higher capital expenditure required

compared with contracting out for animal sheltering services. No funding method has been determined at this

time.

Model C is similar to Model B, but utilizes a joint powers authority (JPA) to build a regional shelter facility that

would serve the south County area. The facility would be sized slightly larger to serve the higher capacity needs

with the JPA partnering cities. The facility would need to be approximately 27,800 sf (not including exterior

covered areas) and would require around 5.5 acres of site. Total project development costs to build a new

26



facility would be in the range of $16.4 to $24.6 million. Again, renovation of an existing building could bring the

cost down significantly. More description can be found for a remodel option under section 8. Operation and

maintenance costs in Model C would be around $2.6 million and could range 20% up or down depending on final

facility size and staffing. Staff needs will increase under this model due to a larger shelter for 36 full time staff,

not including volunteers. The advantage to this model is that full sharing of costs would be across the JPA

partners. The disadvantage is reduced control over operational and program decisions, but it still would be

better than no control in the contract out model.

Put simply, to serve Elk Grove’s future animal sheltering needs, additional space would be needed to serve the

larger animal capacity needs in any scenario. Whether this space is delivered by a contract entity, by the City, a

non-profit partner, or through a JPA is what needs deciding. More space is needed in any scenario, with slightly

more space needed to serve the south County area if a Regional Model is selected. Either option could be

delivered in multiple ways, with many options for funding.

Next steps for the City are to decide direction on an operational Model that best serves the community’s and

City’s needs, to define a funding method, to initiate with community partners interim programs that could be

put into place now, and to start planning for how to deliver space for future sheltering needs.

27



2 METHODOLOGY & BACKGROUND

Indigo | Hammond + Playle Architects, LLP was hired by the City of Elk Grove to provide an animal shelter needs

assessment study. The scope of the study was built around 11 steps:

Step 1: Set goals and objectives. The City of Elk Grove Animal Shelter Working Group met to discuss the

work plan along with goals and objectives for the study. These goals and objectives were enhanced by

input received at each public meeting.

Step 2: Data Collection and Analysis. Indigo along with the Koret Shelter Medicine Program (KSMP)

reviewed all shelter data available and worked with the City to select other comparable California cities

for dog/cat/other animals per capita, intake, length of stay (LOS) and live release rates in order to

compare them with the City’s current data.

Step 3: Determine Existing Conditions. Current capacities for dogs and cats were identified which was

the first step in making future capacity need projections along with housing recommendations.

Step 4: Population and Trend Analysis. Population data was gathered for the City of Elk Grove, while

reviewing the General Plan for a 20-year planning horizon which next translated into future capacity

recommendations. Best shelter practices and sheltering trends for the future were presented and

discussed at each public meeting.

Step 5: Identify Animal Care Options, Operating Model & Management Structures. Different models

were evaluated for delivering sheltering, medical treatment and adoption services.

Step 6: Community Interest Meeting #1. The first public interest meeting presented the various

operating models generally, with a brief presentation by Dr. Kate Hurley, the director of the KSMP, on

animal shelter best practices. Most of the time was spent listening to input and receiving comments.

Step 7: Facility Requirements. Indigo along with KSMP developed space programs in order to size a

hypothetical facility along with a site area calculation for both an Elk Grove only and a Regional model.

Spaces were based on recommended best practices for a new shelter, along with input received from

the community and the Shelter Working Group.

Step 8: Cost and Funding Alternatives. Operating and maintenance cost data was collected and

evaluated and applied to each model. Different financing options were discussed with the Shelter

Working Group, including the role of non-profit assistance.

Step 9: Comparative Analysis. A matrix was developed, allowing each model option to be described and

compared. Disadvantages and advantages are described for each.

Step 10: Community Interest Meeting #2. The second public meeting presented the animal capacity

numbers in more depth, with further explanation on how the calculations were determined and the

housing recommendations that then resulted. These were presented by Dr. Denae Wagner from the

KSMP. The operating models were then presented in more detail along with the advantages and

disadvantages of each. The general consensus among those in attendance at each meeting was for a

new shelter serving just the City of Elk Grove.

Step 11: Providing recommendations and clearly identifying an action plan. It was decided by the

Animal Shelter Working Group to not provide an action plan at this time in order to allow City Council

and staff the greatest flexibility in analyzing the facts and determining the best course of action moving

28



forward. For this reason, each Model identified is presented in the report to include advantages and

disadvantages, projected cost, facility size, staffing, operation and maintenance costs and program

implications.

Background

Currently, the City contracts with the County of Sacramento to provide shelter and care for all found stray and

surrendered animals within the City limits, as well as animal adoptions, foster and rescue programs, and

maintaining licensing and statistical computer information and software. The contract with the County started

on January 1, 2014. The County contract does not cover low cost spay/neutering services or any other veterinary

services.

The Animal Control unit is under the Community Resources Division of the Elk Grove Police Department. The

unit provides field services for the City which is comprised of a combination of rural and suburban areas. The

City considers animal intake to include officer (field) impounds, citizen impounds, and owner surrenders. In 2013,

the City’s intake total was 2,387, composed of 1,030 (43%) cats and 1,357 (57%) dogs.

The City of Elk Grove brought Animal Services division in-house for animal control in September of 2005. Prior to

2005 the County of Sacramento provided animal control services.

Prior to the contract with the County for sheltering services, the City had a Master Service Agreement with the

Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA), entered into in February 2005. Over the

next eight years the City and SSPCA partnered to shelter and care for abandoned and unwanted animals. SPCA

during this time also provided low-cost spay/neuter services. In February 2013, the City received written notice

from the SSPCA advising staff of its intention to terminate the contract effective December 31, 2013.

29



3 GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Indigo Architects and KSMP met with City of Elk Grove Animal Shelter Working Group to discuss the work plan

and review the goals and objectives to complete the Needs Assessment Study. In general, the City needs to

provide shelter and care of both stray and unwanted animals that are found within the Elk Grove city limits.

Whether owned and/or operated by the City or another entity, the City’s primary concern is not who owns and

operates the facility but rather there be a facility with adequate capacity for holding animals in a humane

manner the promotes good health, prevents the transmission of contagious diseases and provides an adequate

opportunity for each adoptable animal to find a home with a responsible individual or family.

The following specific goals were identified: 1. Maintain and operate an “animal shelter” with sufficient capacity and resources to provide shelter

services for all animals, strayed, abandoned or otherwise deposited to its care from within the City of Elk Grove, to include feeding, boarding, exercise, and non-emergency veterinary care of those animals.

2. Provide humane treatment for unwanted and stray animals delivered to the shelter by an Elk Grove Animal Control Officer(s), designees of the City, or residents residing within Elk Grove city limits.

3. Provide designated holding areas for animals that are placed in protective custody and/or need to be placed in rabies quarantine or isolation, while including sufficient capacity to hold animals for an appropriate amount of time to protect quality of life and animal health.

4. Provide sufficient receiving/intake staff to accept and process the animals received from the City of Elk Grove.

5. Collect all animal-related fees imposed by the City and State, including but not limited to license fees, impoundment fees, redemption fees, veterinary fees, and State mandate unaltered animal fees.

6. Maintain a software system designed specifically for shelters and animal licensing. 7. Maintain adequate staffing levels. 8. Offer low-cost spay/neuter, vaccination and microchip services. 9. Treatment room should be part of non-emergency veterinary services. City contracts out with local

veterinarians for emergency services and City intends to continue with this method. 10. Provide flexible space for community education, grooming, and training.

Other community member goals were identified through the public input process and are as follows (those duplicated from above are not listed again):

1. Provide a shelter for the City of Elk Grove that reflects the image and values of the community.

2. The shelter should provide services to the unincorporated and outlying areas around Elk Grove.

3. Make shelter a positive influence in community.

4. Implement interim programs and services immediately to improve animal care needs.

5. Provide space for other animals (ie wildlife, exotics, etc.), not just dogs and cats.

6. Improve community involvement.

7. Provide enough services and capacity to never have to turn away animals.

8. Provide more volunteer opportunities.

9. Build a facility that supports animal well-being.

10. Build a facility that delivers programs and will meet community needs for years to come.

30



11. “Right size” the facility. Undersizing creates overcrowding and unmet needs while oversizing creates

increased length of stay while not improving adoptions or services.

12. Design flexible spaces that can serve many needs and be converted to housing when needed.

13. Provide flexibility in housing types (ie group rooms, kennels, indoor/outdoor, etc).

31



4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

A site visit was made on October 15th, 2014 to

the Sacramento County Animal Care and

Regulation Animal Shelter. The facility was

clean and animals appeared comfortable and

well cared for. The majority of dogs were

housed individually in double sided kennels

which are optimal for dog health and well-

being as well as efficiency of care. Co-housing

was occurring in a few kennels that were

housing small dogs. The majority of cats were

housed in single cages that were double

compartment. Cats in group rooms appeared

content and the housing capacity within the

rooms appeared to be within the standards

acceptable in the Guidelines for Standards of

Care in Animal Shelters. The facility appeared to

be at housing capacity at the time of this visit.

There is an on-site veterinary treatment and surgical facility with a

single surgery suite. Currently 12-15 spay/neuter surgeries are

performed daily for approximately 2,500- 4,000 sterilization

procedures annually. In general it can be expected that about 90% of

the live outcome population of a shelter will be in need of spay/neuter

surgery services. The 2013 intake for this facility was approximately

11,000 animals with a combined dog and cat live release rate of

approximately 70%. At this live release rate over 7,000 animals would

be expected to need spay/neuter surgical services. As live release rate

grows so will surgical service needs. Although the shelter’s surgical capacity appears to be severely limited there

is a mobile surgical unit that the County owns and could utilize at the shelter. There is also an adjoining

spay/neuter facility that is independently operated and shelter animal surgeries may be performed when there

is space and with an added expense. It should be expected that any increases in live release and/or animal

intake in this facility will require surgical services beyond the current capacity. If improvements in live release

and/or increases in animal intakes are expected the increased surgical needs should be quantified and planned

for prior to said changes. Limited surgical capacity can adversely affect shelter capacity and animal health due to

backlogs of animals waiting for surgery which can extend average length of stay.

The stated daily capacity for cats at this facility is 250 and at minimum there are 250 housing spaces for cats

within the facility. The majority of cat housing is double compartment cage units which are important for cat

health and well-being. Ideally all the cages used for housing would be double compartment. Housing for feral

cats is either in individual or double compartment cages. This type of housing is not ideal for feral cats but is

Main Entry into Sac County shelter

Cat Adoption display & Cat Group Rooms

32



commonly found in many animal shelters. Depending on the length of stay and

expected outcome, group housing (outdoor or indoor) may provide a good

alternative to cage housing of feral cats.

The average length of stay (LOS) for cats is 11 days. The 2013 live cat intake was

4,762, with live outcomes of about 2,640 cats and a live release (LR) rate of 55%,

2,068 were euthanized and 46 died. The trend for cat intake across animal

sheltering for the last 5-10 years, in general, has been increasing. Intake is often

accompanied by a near linear increase in the number of cats euthanasized,

however these trends are changing due to a better understanding of cats that

end up in shelters. Redirecting healthy cats at risk for euthanasia to programs

that ultimately result in live outcomes such as returning cats to the location

where they were found (with sterilization and vaccination) is commonly referred

to “return to field” (RTF). This is a program the Sacramento County Shelter has

pioneered locally with about 650 cats RTF’d in 2013 alone. The County has

included only feral cats in this program up to this point and is considering

extending this program to friendly cats that would otherwise end up in their euthanasia statistics. Extending this

program to cats that would otherwise be euthanized has the potential to return more cats to their owners

(many owners or partial owners of cats do not come to animal shelters to look for their cats) as well as reduce

the daily cat population in this facility and associated daily cat care and euthanasia needs for staff.

For dogs the Sacramento County Shelter has a total of 108 individual housing units that meet the guidelines for

standards of care for dogs: 84 double sided kennels (hold and adoption), 12 real life rooms in adoption, 6 small

dog cages and 6 double sided kennels for custody cases. The 2013 live dog intake was 4,510 dogs, with live

outcomes of about 3,273 and a live LR rate of 72%, 1208 dogs were euthanized and 26 died. The County states

they have a dog holding capacity of 168 dogs. This is 60 dogs beyond the housing number that meets best

practices: 108. At a capacity of 168 dogs in this shelter approximately 50-70% of the dog population would be

housed in less than best practices standards (co-housed and or providing dogs ½ of a double sided kennel for

individual housing). For example to individually house 168 dogs in the shelter,

60 of the 108 kennels would need to be operated as single sided units(guillotine

doors closed) for housing 120 dogs with the remaining 48 kennels continuing to

be operated normally(as a double sided kennel) for housing 48 dogs.

At a maximum capacity of 168 dogs with an 11 day average LOS this facility could

accommodate approximately 5,500 dogs annually. Although co-housing of

puppies from the same litter is often recommended, co-housing of dogs at

intake is generally not recommended. Housing dogs in ½ of a double kennel

does achieve individual housing but results in several averse conditions: higher

dog densities in dog housing areas which increase disease and disease

transmission risks, decreased overall space for the dog which increases

individual dog confinement, no ability for dogs to eliminate (defecate and

urinate) away from where their bed, food and water is located which is a

behavior most dogs prefer to display. Single kennel housing also presents a

Typical Kennel with Area Drain

Co-housing of several small dogs on our 10/15/14 visit.

.

33



challenge for staff to provide safe, efficient care as every dog

needs to be handled and moved out of their kennel for daily

cleaning.

If the available housing is used in a manner that meets best

practices, then approximately 108 individual housing spaces –

most of which meet best practices standards would be used.

Under these conditions with an 11 day average LOS this facility

could maximally accommodate approximately 3,600 dogs

annually. Expected dog intake for Elk Grove dogs at the County

facility for 2014 looks like it will reach 800 dogs. If the County’s

intake for 2014 is similar to 2013 then the total intake for 2014

will likely approach 5,300 dogs.

Some compromises in the quality of dog housing should be

expected whenever the facility is above the 108 dog capacity.

When at the stated capacity of 168 dogs about 25% of the dog

population will be experiencing less then best practices housing

environments (cohoused or ½ a double sided run) along with

the associated risks that accompany that type of housing -

increased disease and disease transmission risks, increased dog

stress, less efficient care, decreased staff safety.

The 2013 live intake per capita (PC) for dogs is 6.6 (based on the

served population in the county of about 680,000 people). The

California PC average is 12.5 (based on 2011 rabies data) and the

low range of PC intake come out of counties such as Marin: 3.4

and San Francisco: 4.3. These PC intake, although lower than

Sacramento County, indicate that the County is doing reasonably

well on a per capita intake basis and although there may be

some room for further improvement or reduction in PC of dog

intake in the Sacramento County facility, it is less likely to move

dramatically in this direction. This is critical information in

planning for the future. We expect dog intake from the County to remain steady for a short period of time and

then begin to grow.

With a relatively low PC intake already occurring and a large growth in human population expected we believe

the county facility will see increases in dog intake numbers in the near future. If the status quo continues the

current facility can expect to be severely strained for dog housing capacity within just a few years.

Outdoor Dog Kennels 1

Vet Clinic

Barn & Livestock area

34



We expect live dog intake for 2014 to be near 5,300 at this facility (4,500 County and 800 Elk Grove). Given an

average 11 day LOS, and only looking at County dog intake - this facility exceeds our recommended capacity by

900 dogs annually. Including what is expected to be Elk Grove’s contribution to dog intake the recommended

capacity is exceeded by 1,700 dogs. This exceeds our recommended capacity, given an 11 day average LOS, by

1,700 dogs. Simply stated the County facility is beyond their dog capacity when best practices are met for dog

housing. Clearly the county is stretching itself in order to accommodate the intake needs of the City of Elk Grove

which is not in the best interest of the County’s or City of Elk Grove’s dogs.

The county has limited options for providing more dog housing capacity at this facility and those that are the

easiest to do in the short term (co-housing dogs and closing guillotine doors to increase kennel numbers) results

in increased risks for dog health and well-being and a greater amount of work and reduced safety for staff. At

this time there appears to be no County plans for expansion of the dog housing capacity through onsite or

offsite construction projects.

If facility expansion were determined to be desired it could occur onsite or offsite at another location. There are

several limitations to an onsite expansion. The facility serves a live intake of about 9,300 animals annually with

likely growth in dog intake as the communities served grow. Serving a large population of animals can be

complex and challenging to manage vs. smaller populations. Larger populations of animals tend to have more

exposure to other animals through the common tasks of daily care and risks associated with larger population-

staff is often asked to care for more animals sometimes without increases in staffing so time to carefully observe

animals for illness, injury or disease can become limited which can be challenging for matching desires for

providing good care with actual good animal care and welfare. Large central animal sheltering facilities can be

difficult for citizens from more distant communities to access. Finally a single large facility can see a leveling off

of positive outcomes with increasing intakes – likely due to limitations of a single location to serve all the

adoption needs of a large intake population.

Other than expansion to relieve dog capacity needs at this facility the only other options really depend on

reducing intake and/or average length of stay. It seems possible that as dog housing capacity is stretched

further there may be a need to reduce intake through a reduction of contracts. However, that was never

mentioned by the County officials though it might be reasonable to expect.

Existing Conditions Summary

The Sacramento County facility appears to be at or beyond its animal holding capacity much of the time

for dogs and cats under current conditions.

The per capita intake for dogs at the County Shelter is low for the population served. This indicates less

opportunity for reductions in intake to solve the County’s dog capacity issues. The County’s population

served is expected to grow in the future and with that dog intakes are likely to increase. This will result

in further dog capacity issues at this facility.

No expansions are planned for the Sacramento County facility at this time.

35



Animals appear well cared for while in this facility. Housing areas were clean. Beds, bedding, food and

water were provided to all animals.

The County has contracted animal sheltering services with the Citrus Heights, Galt and Elk Grove

communities. It is feasible that a reduction in contracts could be considered to reduce animal intakes

and address capacity issues.

In house surgical facility is limited due to having a single surgical suite. Additional spay/neuter services

may be available with cost in an adjacent stand-alone surgical facility, independently operated. The

county also has a mobile spay/neuter surgical unit.

Fewer Elk Grove animals have been served at the Sacramento County facility in 2014 than in City of Elk

Grove sheltering contracts of previous years.

Distance to the Sacramento County facility from the Elk Grove community is about 13 miles. This

distance may limit use of the facility by Elk Grove citizens. It also limits the efficiency of the City’s

Animal Control Field Services due to time on the road and associated costs. No decrease in percentage

of dogs returned to owners for dogs was noted in the 2014 vs. 2013 statistics for Elk Grove dogs.

Floor Plan – Sacramento County Shelter

36



5 POPULATION & TREND ANALYSIS

The City of Elk Grove incorporated on July 1, 2000 and is the second-largest city in Sacramento County. Elk

Grove’s current population is 160,688 with 52,000 housing units in an area of 42 square miles. The Planning

Horizon used in the General Plan is 20 years, the needs assessment uses the same horizon for projecting animal

data and facility size.

Relation to General Plan

The General Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2003 and reflects amendments through July 22, 2009. Some

interesting facts out of the general plan: between 1990 and 2000, the population of what would become the

City of Elk Grove increased by 71% (see pg. 85 in General Plan).

Population Projections

City of Elk Grove planning staff recommended using a 2% growth rate per year off the existing population. The

results are as follows:

Year Date Est. Annual Growth Rate

Est. Population

0 1/1/2014 2% 160,688 1 1/1/2015 2% 163,902 2 1/1/2016 2% 167,180 3 1/1/2017 2% 170,523 4 1/1/2018 2% 173,934 5 1/1/2019 2% 177,413 6 1/1/2020 2% 180,961 7 1/1/2021 2% 184,580 8 1/1/2022 2% 188,272 9 1/1/2023 2% 192,037

10 1/1/2024 2% 195,878 11 1/1/2025 2% 199,795 12 1/1/2026 2% 203,791 13 1/1/2027 2% 207,867 14 1/1/2028 2% 212,024 15 1/1/2029 2% 216,265 16 1/1/2030 2% 220,590 17 1/1/2031 2% 225,002 18 1/1/2032 2% 229,502 19 1/1/2033 2% 234,092 20 1/1/2034 2% 238,774

37



Note that the population at the 20 year planning horizon is 238,774, a 48% increase from 2014. At the 10 year

planning horizon the population is 195,878, 21% increase from 2014. A 10-year planning horizon could be used

to size a new facility, with a phasing plan for future growth.

The cities of Rancho Cordova, Galt, and Isleton were also looked at in order to project animal capacity needs

which are used when looking at potential future partnerships for sheltering. These three cities were selected by

the working group as most likely candidates for partnering. The 2014 estimated populations for these cities are

as follows:

Rancho Cordova 66,872 Galt 24,274 Isleton 814 Elk Grove 160,000 Total 251,960

Looking at a projected 20 year horizon (2034) population and using a 2% growth as was applied to the City of Elk

Grove population data above, the total regional population in 2034 (using Rancho Cordova, Galt and Isleton) is

374,399. There is a 33% increase in population over 2014 numbers.

Comparison Cities Review

The City of Elk Grove has requested a comparison of cities in this review process of animal sheltering needs and

although helpful in understanding animal sheltering as it exists in each of these communities the expectations

and desires of a progressive animal advocating community may not necessarily be reflected in the data of some

or all of the comparison communities. The 2013 data shows Elk Grove with a PC intake of dogs of 8.5 and cats of

6.4, these are reasonable PC intakes when compared across these communities.

The expectation for the Elk Grove community is to have progressive programs in place to curb animal

overpopulation, return animals as quickly as possible to their owners and provide services that help to address

the needs of people in the community that have pets but may be in need of animal care services. Essentially,

and in a variety of ways, these programs have been established and are already in place in the City of Elk Grove.

What Elk Grove does not have is an actual facility to serve its animal sheltering needs. The chart below is a list of

cities and counties in the Sacramento region along with their number of animal intakes and outcome and their

per capita numbers. Per capita calculations are calculations (intake or outcomes) based per 1,000 people in the

community. It should be noted that although a wide selection of communities are included, the complexity of

animal sheltering is marked and the results are varied.

38

City

of E

lk G

rove

An

imal

She

lter N

eeds

Ass

essm

ent S

tudy

Indi

go |

Ham

mon

d +

Play

le A

rchi

tect

s

15 o

f 80

Jan

uary

12,

201

5 Ko

ret S

helte

r Med

icin

e Pr

ogra

m

Calif

orni

a St

ate

Aver

age

Dogs

201

2:

Loca

le/s

peci

esLi

ve

inta

keLi

ve

inta

ke P

CRe

clai

med

Recl

aim

ed

PCAd

opte

dAd

opte

d PC

Tran

sfer

red

Tran

sfer

red

PCLi

ve

Rele

ase

Live

Re

leas

e PC

Euth

aniz

edEu

than

ized

PC

Med

ian

Inco

me

2006

-201

0

Tota

l Hum

an

Popu

latio

n (2

010-

2012

Ce

nsus

)

CA S

tate

Ave

rage

Dog

s 201

112

.52.

23.

70.

86.

74.

7$6

1,40

038

,332

,521

Elk

Grov

e Co

unty

YTD

_ Au

g 20

1449

8_

185

_20

6_

39_

430

_66

_$7

9,55

916

0,00

0

Elk

Grov

e SP

CA 2

013

1357

8.5

451

2.8

483

3.0

134

0.8

1068

6.7

287

1.8

$79,

559

160,

000

Ranc

ho C

ordo

va 2

013

(Rab

ies R

epor

t)45

36.

813

82.

170

1.0

00.

020

83.

125

03.

7$5

3,31

366

,872

Ga

lt 20

1310

84.

419

0.8

451.

931

1.3

953.

927

1.1

$56,

976

24,2

74

Isle

ton

2013

1518

.40

0.0

33.

70

0.0

33.

710

12.3

$30,

061

814

Ro

sevi

lle 2

013(

incl

udes

inta

ke o

utsi

de o

f city

)13

9911

.241

33.

369

15.

662

0.5

1166

9.4

294

2.4

$74,

579

124,

372

St

ockt

on C

ity 2

013

5112

17.2

607

2.0

882

3.0

1248

4.2

2737

9.2

2259

7.6

$47,

246

297,

239

Sa

cram

ento

Cou

nty

2013

4510

6.6

1024

1.5

1692

2.5

557

0.8

3273

4.8

1209

1.8

$56,

439

680,

000

Tr

acy

2013

1014

12.0

351

4.2

128

1.5

302

3.6

781

9.3

233

2.8

$75,

259

84,4

06

Yolo

201

128

8414

.010

805.

236

31.

810

915.

325

3412

.359

82.

9$5

7,07

720

5,87

6

Yolo

201

325

2012

.012

165.

853

22.

551

52.

522

6310

.813

80.

7$5

7,62

020

9,81

6

W

oodl

and

1072

19.1

605

10.8

206

3.7

226

4.0

1037

18.4

400.

7$5

5,13

956

,215

Dav

is

263

4.0

135

2.1

450.

729

0.4

209

3.2

70.

1$6

1,53

565

,796

Wes

t Sac

ram

ento

509

10.3

212

4.3

121

2.4

117

2.4

450

9.1

410.

8$4

9,56

449

,564

Cou

nty

562

21.4

205

7.8

128

4.9

60.

233

912

.944

1.7

26,2

23

39

City

of E

lk G

rove

An

imal

She

lter N

eeds

Ass

essm

ent S

tudy

Indi

go |

Ham

mon

d +

Play

le A

rchi

tect

s

16 o

f 80

Jan

uary

12,

201

5 Ko

ret S

helte

r Med

icin

e Pr

ogra

m

Calif

orni

a St

ate

Aver

age

Cats

201

2:

Loca

le/s

peci

esLi

ve

inta

keLi

ve

inta

ke P

CRe

clai

med

Recl

aim

ed

PCAd

opte

dAd

opte

d PC

Tran

sfer

red

Tran

sfer

red

PCLi

ve

Rele

ase

Live

Re

leas

e PC

Euth

aniz

edEu

than

ized

PC

Med

ian

Inco

me

2006

-201

0To

tal H

uman

Po

pula

tion

2012

CA S

tate

Ave

rage

Cat

s 201

110

.20.

22.

10.

52.

86.

3$6

1,40

038

,332

,521

Elk

Grov

e Co

unty

YTD

_Aug

201

432

2_

13_

105

_74

_19

2_

127

_$7

9,55

916

0,00

0

Elk

Grov

e SP

CA 2

013

1030

6.4

300.

231

42.

017

61.

152

03.

350

33.

1$7

9,55

916

0,00

0

Ranc

ho C

ordo

va 2

013

(Rab

ies r

epor

t)76

111

.412

0.2

480.

70

0.0

600.

952

07.

8$5

3,31

366

,872

Galt

2013

964.

05

0.2

341.

418

0.7

572.

323

0.9

$56,

976

24,2

74Is

leto

n 20

130

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0$3

0,06

181

4Ro

sevi

lle 2

013(

incl

udes

inta

ke o

utsi

de o

f city

)21

4917

.367

0.5

1535

12.3

182

1.5

1784

14.3

294

2.4

$74,

579

124,

372

Stoc

kton

City

201

336

1212

.221

0.1

130

0.4

1984

6.7

2135

7.2

1335

4.5

$47,

246

297,

239

Sacr

amen

to C

ount

y 20

1347

627.

077

0.1

1555

2.3

1008

1.5

2640

3.9

2068

3.0

$56,

439

680,

000

Trac

y 20

1310

1912

.130

0.4

941.

127

23.

239

64.

762

37.

4$7

5,25

984

,406

Yolo

201

124

9512

.177

0.4

252

1.2

565

2.7

894

4.3

1415

6.9

$57,

077

205,

876

Yolo

201

318

548.

869

0.3

392

1.9

1185

5.6

1646

7.8

185

0.9

$57,

620

209,

816

W

oodl

and

742

13.2

330.

624

24.

333

66.

061

110

.911

72.

1$5

5,13

956

,215

D

avis

31

54.

819

0.3

169

2.6

941.

428

24.

324

0.4

$61,

535

65,7

96

Wes

t Sac

ram

ento

404

8.2

120.

217

33.

516

13.

234

67.

054

1.1

$49,

564

49,5

64

Cou

nty

423

16.1

60.

216

16.

119

17.

335

813

.753

2.0

26,2

23

40


Indigo | Hammond + Playle Architects 17 of 80 January 12, 2015

Koret Shelter Medicine Program

Overall animals sheltered from the City of Elk Grove - compared to California as a whole – have done better in

regard to lower dog and cat euthanasia - 1.8 PC vs 4.7 PC for the State for dogs and 3.1 PC vs 6.3 PC for the

State for cats, (based on 2012 California Department of Health Local Rabies Control Data located at

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Pages/LocalRabiesControlActivities.aspx). However there may be

room for continued improvement.

Using the service area population provided (160,000) to calculate per capita values, Elk Grove animals ranked

11th out of 37 counties with population greater > 100,000 for canine euthanasia (a first place ranking has the

lowest number of euthanasia’s on a per capita basis), 15/34 (note not every county has feline services) for feline

euthanasia. (There may be some accuracy and reporting issues with the data set, so these numbers are

estimates only.)

Note: the 2014 live intake numbers at the County facility are down by about 40-45% over the previous

year’s intakes (Sacramento SPCA) for both dogs and cats. This may be due to community perceptions of

the County facility, location of services (though it is not much farther from the Elk Grove community than

the Sacramento SPCA facility), limited hours of operation and the general public knowledge that capacity

at the county facility is often full. Relative to the dog intake numbers are the actions of services being

provided in the City of Elk Grove by the Elk Grove Animal Control Officers that allow the return of

animals in the field when they are properly identified or microchipped. Returns occuring in the field are

not recorded as an intake into the animal sheltering system because they never arrive at the shelter for

intake. For the months of September through November 2014, 85 dogs were returned to their owners in

the field. Although the collection of this data is recent the actions have been ongoing – about 1 year

(information provided by Elk Grove Animal Control Services). Extrapolation of the monthly data over the

year results in a total count of about 250 dogs being returned home in the field. This is great news for

the community of Elk Grove and this accounts for nearly 20% of the 2013 dog intake numbers at the

Sacramento SPCA resulting in an approximately 20% overall reduction of dog intake in 2014 vs.

Sacramento SPCA dog intake numbers- still a decrease but not as marked.

Review of Animal Intakes:

Entity Year Annual

Live Intake

Elk Grove Dogs at Sacramento County

2014

498 -through August *Annual Estimate 816

plus returns in field ~250 total estimated live “served” 1066

Elk Grove Dogs at Sacramento SPCA

2013 1357

Sacramento County Dogs 2013 4510

Elk Grove Cats at Sacramento County

2014 322 -through August

*Annual Estimate 560

Elk Grove Cats at Sacramento SPCA

2013 1030

Sacramento County Cats 2013 4762

41

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Pages/LocalRabiesControlActivities.aspx




The contracted shelter services provided for Elk Grove animals have been reasonably good in both the

Sacramento SPCA and Sacramento County animal shelter facilities, however if the City had control of animal

sheltering services we would expect improved animal sheltering statistics.

Live release for Elk Grove dogs: 2013 Sacramento SPCA 79% and YTD- Aug Sacramento County 86%.

Live release for Elk Grove cats: 2013 Sacramento SPCA 50% and YTD- Aug Sacramento County 54%.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Adoption Died Euthanasia RTO Transferred

Outcome DOGS: Sacramento SPCA 2013 (Live intake 1,357) & Sacramento County 2014 YTD-August (Live intake 498)

SacramentoSPCA

SacramentoCounty

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Adoption Died Euthanasia RTO Transferred

Outcome CATS: Sacramento SPCA (Live intake 1,030) & Sacramento County 2014 YTD-Aug (Live intake 322)

SacramentoSPCA

SacramentoCounty

42




Population and Trends Summary

Animal sheltering facility services have been provided to the City of Elk Grove through contract at the

Sacramento SPCA up through 2013 and at the Sacramento County Animal Services for 2014.

Per capita intakes for dogs and cats in 2013 were below California State averages.

Per capita euthanasia rates for dogs and cats are below California State averages.

Live release rate for Elk Grove dogs has been 79% and 86% (2013 and YTD Aug. 2014)

Live release rate for Elk Grove cats has been 50% and 54%(2013 and YTD Aug. 2014)

Although total animals served at the Sacramento County facility in 2014 appear to be less than at the

Sacramento SPCA in 2013, the outcomes on a percentage basis for the Elk Grove animals served at the

County facility are comparable or better.

Projected Animal Capacities

It is not a given that intake will increase in proportion to human population and this holds true for Elk Grove

animals entering contracted shelter services. This graph shows a slight downward trend in intakes over the last 3

years. This is commonly seen in other California communities especially in respect to dog intakes. In some

communities cat intake continues to rise.

2013 Sacramento SPCA Animal Intake

0

500

1000

1500

2011 2012 2013

Elk Grove Animal Intake Sacramento SPCA

2011-2013

Dog

cat

Linear (Dog)

Linear (cat)

43




In calculating the capacity for a facility to serve the community of Elk Grove the 2013 intakes from the

Sacramento SPCA were used as the starting point. They are the most recent yearly data available and provide

more history to the community’s animal sheltering needs than the 2014 YTD data. Instead of using the outcome

pathways of recent contract providers, a pathway plan for Elk Grove animals is suggested as follows:

Proposed pathway 2013 Outcomes

Return to owner:

Adoption (rescue and transfer):

Return to Field: Euthanasia:

DOGS CATS 50% 10%

40% 50%

N/A 25-30% 10% 10-15%

DOGS CATS 33% 3%

45% 48%

- - 21% 49%

Pathways & Outcomes

Length of stay has a marked effect on housing capacities needed in animal sheltering. The following average LOS

were used when calculating the housing capacities for this needs assessment: return to owner and return to

field, 3 days; euthanasia, 6 days; adoption, 10-14 days. Isolation was determined to be approximately 10% of

housing capacity. Given these parameters calculations were done to determine the dog and cat holding and

adoption capacity needed (number of housing units).

In the Tables below the first column displays the number of housing spaces needed for cats and dogs given the

2013 live intake numbers, the second column includes additional housing spaces needed such that normal

operations occur near 80% or less of full capacity to provide flexibility for fluctuations in intake as often occurs

day to day in shelter operations. The third column is an additional 20% of housing needed for an expected or

likely increase in intake should the shelter facility be located within the community of Elk Grove. The fourth

column is the housing capacity needs expected in 20 years based on human population growth of about 47%

and applying this to the intake calculations of the third column.

The expected number of intakes and per capita information is also reported.

Note: The capacity calculations done at this time are based solely on 2013 intakes. This may be an over

or underestimate depending on ongoing programs that either support or lack in supporting further

reductions in animal intake as the community grows (i.e. spay neuter programs available within the

community, % returns to owner occurring in the field, % cats returned to field, animal help desk services

and resources and other progressive animal sheltering programs). It should be expected that there may

be changes in capacity recommendations should this actually go to a building project.

44




Housing Units

Elk Grove 2013 Elk Grove 2013

@ 80% occupancy

Elk Grove 2013 plus 20% increase intake (use @80%

capacity)

Elk Grove Future 20 year (use

@80% capacity)

Dog Cat Dog Cat Dog Cat Dog Cat

Hold (includes confiscate and quarantine) 20 10 25 13 30 15 45 22

Adoption 15 14 19 18 23 21 34 31

Isolation 4 4 6 4 6 4 10 8

Live Intake 1357 1030 1357 1030 1628 1236 2430 1844

per capita 8.5 6.4 8.5 6.4 10.2 7.7 10.2 7.7

Total animal intake 2387 2387 2864 4274 Elk-Grove Only Animal Capacities & Housing Recommendations

For determining the housing capacities needed for a regional type facility (for this scenario: Elk Grove, Isleton,

Galt and Rancho Cordova) the live animal intake numbers were collected from the sheltering facilities serving

those communities in 2013. The same pathway parameters were used as above along with the same expected

human population growth rate of 2%. The following housing capacities were calculated:

Housing Units

Regional 2013 Regional 2013

(use @ 80% capacity)

Regional 2013 +20% increase intake (@80%

capacity)

Regional Future 20 year (use

@80% capacity)

Dog Cat Dog Cat Dog Cat Dog Cat

Hold (includes confiscate and quarantine) 34 15 43 19 51 23 76 34

Adoption 26 22 32 27 38 32 57 48

Isolation 8 6 10 6 12 8 16 10

Live Intake 1933 1887 1933 1887 2320 2264 3447 3365

per capita 7.7 7.5 7.7 7.5 9.2 9.0 9.2 9.0

Total animal intake 3820 3820 4584 6812 Regional Animal Capacities & Housing Recommendations

*The reduction in PC numbers vs Elk Grove only data is a reflection of a larger total human population in

comparison to the number of animals entering as live intakes resulting in lower PC numbers.

45




6 BEST PRACTICES FOR SHELTER MEDICINE & ANIMAL CARE

The best and minimum acceptable practices for care of animals within a shelter have been well defined in the

Association of Shelter Veterinarian’s Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. These are predicated

on meeting or exceeding the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare, defined as:

1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst 2. Freedom from Discomfort 3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease 4. Freedom from Fear and Distress 5. Freedom to Express Normal Behavior

The guidelines emphasize that meeting these Freedoms requires staffing and programmatic elements as well as

an adequately sized and configured facility.

Staffing

Adequacy of staffing depends on the number, training, skill level and performance of the staff. Staffing elements

of an animal services program include:

Leadership and management: Designated, empowered and supported leadership and management are

essential to maintain best practices as the sheltering industry evolves, provide guidance and

accountability for staff, monitor data and maintain fiscal responsibility and agency accountability.

Front office and customer service: A well trained and effectively supervised Front Office/Customer

Service Department is instrumental in controlling shelter intake, supporting positive outcomes for

animals and providing information to community members about animal-related issues. Customer

service staff will greatly influence the visitor experience at the shelter as well as the public interacting by

phone or electronic interface.

Animal care and sheltering service: Animal care and shelter staff maintain the well-being and health of

animals and ensure operation of a safe, sanitary and welcoming environment. Staff in this area also

interface with visitors and move animals efficiently through the shelter to the best possible outcome.

Veterinary medical and spay/neuter service: Whether provided internally or externally, medical and

spay/neuter services are required to provide care for sick and injured animals, provide wellness services,

set and oversee protocols for animal care and health, attend to the victims of animal cruelty and neglect,

and perform sterilization and other surgeries as needed. Additionally, shelter medical programs may

offer services such as vaccination, micro chipping and spay/neuter surgery for publically owned animals

and community cats as part of an overall effort to reduce pet overpopulation and improve community

health.

Volunteer program: Volunteers can reduce costs and enhance shelter operations by assisting with any

or all of the areas listed above. Additionally, volunteer programs can improve engagement and support

for the shelter and provide community members with social, educational, health and other benefits

from interacting with animals and shelter visitors in a positive way.

Outreach and development: Public outreach and engagement is an important element of solving pet

animal problems and improving public health and animal wellness in the community. In addition, a

46




robust outreach and development program can raise significant funds to offset the costs of operating a

shelter and animal service program.

Field service: In addition to providing the law enforcement, nuisance abatement and primary public

health/rabies control aspects of an animal services program, field officers can provide outreach to

community members. In the course of responding to calls and patrolling neighborhoods, field officers

will have contact with a wide variety of citizens and can provide educational resources, assist with

resolution of nuisance and welfare situations, promote spay/neuter, vaccination and responsible animal

care, and generally raise awareness of the shelter’s programs and service.

Considerations for contractee

Clearly, the shelter staff at all levels will exert a tremendous influence on the visitor and animal experience as

well as the success of overall programs. In turn, the recruitment process, compensation structure, training and

workplace environment associated with an animal service program will influence the quality and retention of

staff.

Field services staff are already hired directly by the City of Elk Grove. The “Ask Elk Grove” online service could be

used to enhance the customer services provided, particularly in regard to community-specific resources to keep

animals in their homes and reunite lost pets with their owners. Although an uncommon model, an outreach and

development program could also be operated independent of whether a sheltering facility is built by or in the

city.

The remaining staffing elements are typically linked to the shelter facility itself, hired and trained under the

auspices of the same organization that operates the facility. Well-trained and high-performing staff can be found

in sheltering programs of all types, whether operated publically or privately. However, different operational

models (contract, JPA, or direct services) offer varying levels of influence over staffing, with a contract providing

the least control and direct services providing the most opportunity to determine staffing levels and conditions

on an ongoing basis.

Programmatic elements

Programmatic elements will also determine the cost as well as short and long term success of a community

animal service program. Programmatic elements in addition to basic field services and animal care include those

directed at both community and animal well-being, including:

Dog and cat licensing

Humane education

Low-cost wellness services (vaccination and identification)

Low-cost public spay/neuter

Trap/neuter/return for un-owned cats

Lost and found matchmaking programs, e.g. online, outreach to neighborhoods with fliers

Enrichment programs in the shelter, e.g. playgroups, training, socialization

Foster care programs for under-age animals or those with special needs

47




Programs to increase owner-reclaim such as payment plans or adopt-back policies

Programs to enhance animal adoption, including off site programs, progressive adoption policies, active

marketing, and flexible pricing

Partnerships with rescue groups and other shelters to increase animal transfer

Return to Field (vaccinate/sterilize/ear tip/return) to increase live release for healthy stray cats

impounded at the shelter

Data collection, analysis and reporting to facilitate efficiency, transparency and accountability

As with staffing, all the above listed programmatic elements can be found (or not) in animal service programs

operated by either public or private entities under a variety of contractual and management structures. As

noted, some of these programs are already operated by the City of Elk Grove. Others could be added or

expanded, such as public spay/neuter, trap/neuter/return, and low cost wellness services developed at an

available veterinary facility or through a mobile unit.

If satellite adoption locations can be identified within the City of Elk Grove, owners needing to surrender their

pets could be directed to these locations when possible. In case of a future facility in closer proximity, these

locations could continue to serve as additional adoption venues.

The remaining programs related to animal care and outcomes are necessarily linked to the sheltering facility

itself and will generally be determined by the organization operating that facility. The contractee may be able to

exert a certain degree of influence as contracts are negotiated, and may even be able to negotiate different

policies for the animals from their own jurisdiction, for instance authorizing or requiring Return to Field for

healthy community cats.

However, as with staffing, operating an animal sheltering services program directly would give the maximum

opportunity to determine which programmatic elements will be offered or emphasized as well as tailor these

offerings to the community’s unique characteristics. A local facility may be able to better leverage community

support to offset costs. If a JPA is formed it will be important to ensure agreement not only on facility size and

location, but also on the programmatic mix and funding structure for each desired element of the animal

services program.

Facility

The shelter facility and the housing there-in has implications far beyond the shelter walls. The design of the

facility will impact disease levels, behavioral health, staffing needs and the daily cost of care. Although excellent

husbandry can make up for some deficiencies, a poorly designed facility exacts a daily toll in staff labor and

animal stress and illness. A well designed facility, on the other hand, provides for animal health and wellness

with maximum efficiency. It also allows for flexibility in meeting the changing needs of a community and the

evolving mission of an organization. It allows for successful response to diseases and outbreaks as well as

opportunities such as volunteer and educational programs.

Detailed recommendations for shelter facility and environment (excerpted from the ASV Guidelines for

Standards of Care in Animal Shelters) are provided in section 7, Facility Design & Environment. Key elements are

highlighted following.

48




Primary housing

The primary housing environment will impact each animal’s chances of staying healthy (or getting better),

maintaining behavioral well-being and leaving the shelter alive. At minimum, the Guidelines for Standards of

Care require that primary enclosures “provide sufficient space to allow each animal, regardless of species, to

make normal postural adjustments, e.g., to turn freely and to easily stand, sit, stretch, move their head, without

touching the top of the enclosure, lie in a comfortable position with limbs extended, move about and assume a

comfortable posture for feeding, drinking, urinating and defecating.”

In addition, the Guidelines state that the primary enclosure must allow animals to sit, sleep and eat away from

areas of the enclosure where they defecate and urinate. For animals housed longer term, additional

opportunities for play, interaction and exercise must be provided.

Adequate primary housing not only provides for the safety and basic behavioral needs of animals, but it will

facilitate the optimal presentation of animals for adoption. Studies have demonstrated that behavioral

presentation is a primary determinant of the decision to adopt. Adequately sized and structured housing will

facilitate friendly, outgoing behavior. Even the location of the cage or condo (at eye level) or the location of the

animal within the kennel (towards the front) will influence the animal’s chances to attract the adopter’s

attention and leave the shelter alive.

Best practices for animal housing to facilitate efficiency, health, behavioral wellness and adoption include:

Double compartment housing for dogs and cats in all areas of the shelter

o Back-to-back for dogs

o Side-to-side for cats in stray holding areas

o Up-to-down (and side-to-side where possible) for cats in adoption areas

Adequately and appropriately sized housing

o At least 9 square feet of floor space for single housed cats

o At least 18 square feet of floor space for group housed cats

o Adequate floor space for dogs to provide a bed, food and water dishes, allow for normal

movement and clear segregation between eating/sleeping areas and urination/defecation

o Group housing for cats that allows for periodic complete turnover of the group and minimizes

frequency of introduction of new individuals

Adequate segregation of species and individuals

o Complete segregation between dogs, cats and small animals (and segregation of predators and

prey within pocket pet and non-domestic species)

o Housing tailored to small versus large dogs, and quiet areas of dog housing for older, shy, and

special needs dogs

49




o Housing for mothers and under-age animals awaiting transfer to foster care

Enrichment within each housing unit to provide for behavioral needs of animals

o Beds, toys, elevated perches/shelves, and visual protection benefit both dogs and cats

Number of housing units

In addition to providing adequate housing type and variety to meet the needs of all animals passing through the

shelter’s care, providing an optimal number of housing units is critical. In an undersized shelter, animals must

either be chronically crowded together, denied admission or euthanized for want of space. Increased disease,

endless stress for humans and animals alike, and reduced chances for live release will be the inevitable result.

Though it may be less intuitively obvious, too large a shelter can be equally problematic – trying to build our way

out of pet overpopulation is not only ineffective, it can be dangerously counterproductive. An over-sized facility

results in elevated care costs and needlessly prolonged lengths of stay. Long stays in turn increase risk for

disease and behavioral problems, further increasing costs and daily care requirements. In the worst case

scenario, overextended staff and volunteers are unable to keep up with cleaning and care or effectively serving

the public. Again the nearly inevitable result is disease, stress and reduced live release.

Ideally, the number of housing units reflects predicted intake and the shortest optimal length of stay for each

intake category. Management to minimize length of stay to the appropriate outcome for each animal results in a

cost effective and humane shelter program. Detailed capacity planning by species, age, intake, ideal length of

stay and predicted outcome type is a key element of the facility design process.

The current provider of services, Sacramento County, operates a shelter that was designed and built prior to

publication of the ASV Guidelines for Standards of Care. While the building is in good repair and best practices

available at the time were clearly considered, important elements of housing are not available in some cases

(e.g. size of primary enclosures in cat holding areas). Others are not possible at the current intake load with the

current length of stay (e.g. providing each dog with a double compartment enclosure that allows urination and

defecation away from the eating and sleeping area).

A new facility, whether built and operated by the City of Elk Grove or a JPA, or under contract with Sacramento

County or another contractor, would allow for incorporation of current best practices and development of

capacity and length of stay tailored to the anticipated intake load.

50




7 FACILITY DESIGN & ENVIRONMENT

Below are some guidelines as found in the Association of Shelter Veterinarians Guidelines for Standards of Care

in Animal Shelters: Facility Design and Environment. These would be considered best practices and would be

recommended for any new shelter.

Avoid the use of unattended "drop boxes" where live animals are placed by the public in receptacles for

later intake, as it may result in animal suffering or death. Provide alternatives (e.g., drop-off

arrangements with police department or veterinary emergency clinics).

Do not use cages or crates intended for short-term, temporary confinement or travel (e.g., airline crates,

transport carriers, cages or crates designed to restrict mobility during a defined period for recovery or

treatment including small stainless steel cages less than 2 ft. x 2 ft.) as primary enclosures. They are

cruel if used as such.

Do not have wire-mesh bottoms or slatted floors in any cages for primary enclosures for cats and dogs.

Ensure there are no sharp edges, gaps or other defects that could cause an injury to trap a limb or other

body part in primary enclosures.

Ensure that physical and psychological wellbeing of animals is achieved in facilities that are appropriate

for the species, the number of animals receiving care and the expected length of stay.

Ensure that primary enclosures provide sufficient space to allow each animal, regardless of species, to

make normal postural adjustments, e.g., to turn freely and to easily stand, sit, stretch, move their head,

without touching the top of the enclosure, lie in a comfortable position with limbs extended, move

about and assume a comfortable posture for feeding, drinking, urinating and defecating.

Ensure cats and dogs are able to hold their tails erect when in a normal standing position.

Have primary enclosures that are structurally sound and maintained in safe, working condition to

properly confine animals, prevent injury, keep other animals out, and enable the animals to remain dry

and clean.

Use non-porous surfaces that can be easily disinfected and are durable enough to withstand repeated

cleaning in all animal areas

Seal points where walls meet floors.

Have secure latches or other closing devices on primary enclosures.

Space cat cages more than 4 feet apart when facing each other to prevent droplet transmission of

respiratory viruses.

Provide enclosures for recently admitted or ill animals and those who are younger than 20 weeks of age

that permit care and cleaning without removal of the animals (e.g., double-sided or compartmentalized

enclosures) to prevent disease transmission.

Arrange entrances and exits, hallways and rooms so that movement through the facility ("foot traffic")

and cleaning is performed from areas housing the most susceptible to disease and/or healthiest animals

to those who are most likely to be a source of contagious disease.

Make at least 10% of the facility housing capacity available for isolation of animals diagnosed with or

suspected of having infectious diseases.

51




Have primary enclosures which allow animals to see out but also provide at least some opportunity to

avoid visual contact with other animals.

Design the shelter to provide for proper separation of animals by health status, age, gender, species,

temperament, and predator-prey status.

If the organization provides services to privately owned animals (e.g., spay/neuter or veterinary clinics),

separate those animals from shelter animals.

In addition to considering size, ensure proper layout of the primary enclosure in order to maintain

animal health and welfare.

Have primary enclosures that allow animals to sit, sleep and eat away from areas of their enclosures

where they defecate and urinate.

Provide litter boxes for cats that are large enough to comfortably accommodate their entire body.

Do not stack crates or cages upon each other in a manner that increases animal stress and discomfort,

compromises ventilation, or allows waste material to fall from the cage above into the cage below.

Provide food and water bowls or receptacles in primary enclosures.

Make a soft resting place available for all animals to provide comfort and prevent pressure sores from

developing.

Strive to exceed the following dimensions for cat housing, particularly as length of stay increases: 11

square feet of floor space and/or a minimum of 30 cubic feet per cat.

Provide elevated resting places whenever possible, as long as this would not restrict animal movement

within the enclosure.

Give cats a place to hide.

Provide cats with high points to perch upon.

Do not restrict cats to floor level cages, since these are more stressful compared to elevated cages.

As the length of stay increases (e.g., beyond 1-2 weeks), provide space that is both mentally and

physically stimulating. Provide alternatives to traditional housing.

Include opportunities for hiding, playing, resting, feeding, and eliminating for animals housed long-term.

Provide long-term animals with protected indoor-outdoor access.

Provide long-term cats with an environment which allows for scratching, climbing and perching.

Keep ambient temperature above 60F (15.5C) and below 80F (26.6C), and the relative humidity

between 30-70%.

Take necessary measures to ensure animal comfort and safety if animals appear too cold (i.e., shivering

or huddling together for warmth) or too hot (i.e., excessive panting).

Enclose outdoor spaces suitably to protect from adverse weather, vandalism, and prevent escape or

predation.

Provide adequate drainage.

Do not allow waste water to run off into common areas or adjacent kennels.

Design drain covers to prevent toes from being caught in drains.

Gently slope floors to enable wastes and water to run off into drains.

52




Maintain all ventilation systems adequately and monitor air quality at the level of the animal.

Accomplish ventilation without compromising maintenance of appropriate temperatures.

Provide ventilation at a high enough rate such that there is clean air in all areas of the shelter including

primary enclosures.

Adjust ventilation rates, if needed, seasonally and do not rely solely on thermostat control.

Ensure ammonia levels are less than 2ppm, even before morning cleaning.

Have isolation areas for dogs with separate air circulation from the rest of the facility, because canine

respiratory pathogens can be easily transmitted through the air.

Space cages far enough apart to allow ambient light to reflect off the ceiling and floor.

Position enclosures so individual animals can avoid being exposed to excessive amounts of light or

darkness.

Design facilities to offer as much natural light as possible. Whenever artificial light is used, ensure it

closely approximates natural light in both duration and intensity.

Provide light and darkness so that they support the natural (circadian) rhythms of wakefulness and

sleep.

Ensure sound absorbent materials are durable enough to permit repeated cleaning.

Keep sound absorbent materials either out of the animal's reach or resistant to destruction.

Locate noise-producing equipment as far away from the animals as possible.

Design shelters so that cats are not exposed to the noise of barking dogs.

Implement architectural strategies to minimize the impact of noise (e.g., arrangement of caging,

materials selection for cages, doors, and latches) in facility design or when adding to an existing facility.

Do not place radios or other sound systems directly on cages if music is introduced. Ensure the volume

does not exceed conversational levels.

53




8 ANIMAL CARE OPTIONS, OPERATING MODELS & MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES

Current Model

Currently the City contracts with the County of Sacramento to provide shelter and care for all found stray and

surrendered animals within the City limits, as well as animal adoptions, foster and rescue programs, and

maintaining licensing and statistical computer information and software.

Services: The County hours are Wednesday through Friday from 12:30-5:30 and Saturday and Sunday from

12-4:30. They are closed on Monday and Tuesday. City hours for field services are 7 days a week from 7am-

11pm. Emergency veterinary services are contracted out through local veterinarians.

Programs: The City of Elk Grove currently runs many programs that provide resources for the community

including a microchip program, free trap-neuter-return program, animal licensing, “Ask Elk Grove” online

service, and the Bring Them Home Campaign reuniting lost pets with their owners.

The County offers barn cat adoption program, $5 feline Friday adoptions for cats 1 year of age or older,

fostering and rescue programs, regular adoption and fundraising events, off site adoption events, hourly

online updates of adoptable animals, free pet food for low income pet owners, lower adoption fees for

seniors and volunteer opportunities. Although the distance from Elk Grove is a disadvantage it has not

substantially changed from the distance to Sacramento SPCA which served the Elk Grove community needs

in 2013. The County also provides rabies/vaccination and microchip clinics.

Animals: Live intake based on 2013 numbers and adjusted is 1,357 for dogs and 1,030 for cats. This

translates into 39 housing units for dogs and 28 housing units for cats. See section 5 for detailed description

and breakdown.

Facility: The existing Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation Facility is 39,000 sf with an additional

5,000 sf of outdoor covered kennel area. The facility was designed for a total capacity 480 (240 cat, 168 dog)

with a livestock capacity of 6-60 (depending on species and age). Total annual capacity is approximately

15,000. 2014 YTD (August) numbers are 498 for dogs (approximate annual expected is 816) with cats at 322

(approximate annual expected is 560).

Staff: The City’s Animal Control unit is overseen by a Lieutenant and is staffed with one supervisor, one

administrative assistant, one customer service specialist, and four field officers.

Cost: A new shelter facility is not required under this model. Operation and maintenance costs currently are

approximately $1.5 million, $141,500 is revenue received. The County facility construction cost was $18

million. Note that only a portion of the facility is serving Elk Grove animals.

Model A – Contract-out Continued This model is based upon simply continuing the City’s animal control and sheltering program as it is run today.

The City would maintain current staffing levels for Animal Control field services, maintain the contract with the

County, or other entity, for sheltering services while organizationally remain under the Police Department.

Community outreach and education, spay/neuter, veterinary services, and use of volunteers would remain at

current levels.

54




Services: Same as current, see description above. The goal would be that the City would work with the

County to expand hours of operation. Spay/Neuter and non-emergency vet services would be contracted

out as they are now.

Programs: The programs already established within the City would be maintained. This model relies heavily

on the idea that interim measures would need to be established to make things work until the County did

expand, or another contract agency became available that could better serve Elk Grove’s needs, or the City

was ready to move to Model B or C. A variety of interim measures were discussed at both public meetings.

All or some of these ideas could be implemented at any time by the City and/or other community interest

groups. Some of the ideas are as follows:

The City or non-profit to establish an Adoption Annex or storefront in Elk Grove.

Engage community volunteers locally.

Improve social media outreach.

Offer training classes.

Host adoption events.

Expand community education and outreach.

Animals: Model A would continue to use the animal projections shown in the current model. What isn’t

accounted for is growth, as the future service by the County is uncertain. As stated earlier in the report the

County is already operating at or beyond capacity much of the time, especially for dogs, and does not have

any plans at this time for expansion. In recent dialogue between the City and County during the course of

the study the County is open to the idea of a south County annex, although they expressed their needs lie

more in north County.

Facility: The City would continue to utilize the County, or other entity’s facility. When the County can no

longer serve the City’s needs the City may choose to look into Model B or C. It is also a possibility that the

County is able to modify management and use or expand their current facility or build an annex to better

serve Elk Grove, however, no plans are in place for expansion at this time. Conversations have been started

between the City and County and the County so far is very receptive and willing to explore other options to

better serve Elk Grove and outlying areas.

Staff: Under this model the City would maintain the current staffing levels. See the description above under

Current Model. The City could opt at a later time to expand Field Services as the need increases and

population grows.

Cost: There is no cost attributed to building a new facility under this model. The City would continue to

contract out for sheltering services and handle field service within the City as they do now. Expenses are

expected to increase slightly along with revenue compared to the current model. Estimated expenses are

$1.9 million with revenue at $150,000 for a total net cost to the City of $1.7 million. Future expenses are

unknown and the County contract for sheltering services beyond 5 years out is uncertain. The City does put

itself at some risk under this option.

Model Strengths: The primary advantage to this approach is that the least capital expenditure would be

required. Animal Control is operating efficiently within the City and would continue to do so. Sheltering

55




services remain contracted out and the cost burden of building and operating a new shelter in Elk Grove is

deferred.

Model Weaknesses: The disadvantages of this model is that the City will continue to lack control over

animal sheltering services, programs and quality of animal care and animal outcomes. Future Service

availability to meet Elk Grove’s animal capacity needs is uncertain, as the County is already struggling

presently with capacity issues and has no current plans for expansion. Diminishing quality of animal care

over time can be expected as the County facility becomes over-crowded. The future contracting costs with

the County, or with another agency if one becomes available is unpredictable.

Model B – New Elk Grove Shelter

In Model B the City takes control of animal sheltering services and builds a new shelter for the City of Elk Grove.

Under this model there is an option to accept contracts from other cities. This decision would have to be made

ahead of planning and building the new shelter so that the facility could be right sized.

Services: The City would control sheltering and animal control field services to best serve community needs.

Low cost spay/neuter for shelter animals would be offered in-house. Emergency vet services would remain

contracted out. The City now has control to set shelter hours of operation to allow more adoption

opportunities.

Programs: The programs already established in the City would be maintained. The following are programs

recommended for a new facility:

Healthy volunteer base

Foster care program

In-house spay & neuter

Microchip

Trap, Neuter & Return – TNR

“Ask Elk Grove” Online Services, expanded

Animal licensing, continued but improved to tap into more funds not currently being captured

Social Media Outreach

Training Classes, including behavioral

Expanded Community Outreach and Education

Grooming Services

Animal Help Desk

Adoption Events

Animals: The projected animal capacities, estimated for 20-year projected yearly live intake for an Elk Grove

only shelter, are 2,430 dogs and 1,844 cats for a total of 4,274. If contracts were received from Galt, Rancho

Cordova and Isleton (the cities identified as the most likely candidates), numbers would increase to 3,447

dogs, 3,365 cats for a total of 6,812. See page 21 for further description of animal capacities and how these

translate into housing recommendations.

Facility: The recommended program area, based on animal housing recommendations described on page 21,

and including all support and community spaces are based on best practices and input received from the

56




Shelter Working Group and the community during the public input sessions. If this model is put into action,

there would be a detailed program developed, tailored to Elk Grove’s specific needs and wants and designed

to meet the budget once developed. The hypothetical Program Summary can be found under Appendix E.

Projected facility size and site area (rounded) is as follows:

ESTIMATED BUILDING AREA: 22,500 SF

EXTERIOR COVERED AREAS: 9,500 SF

TOTAL INT. & EXT. AREAS: 32,000 SF

TOTAL SITE AREA REQ'D: 5 ACRES

If the City opted to size the facility to serve Galt, Rancho Cordova and Isleton (or other similarly sized

communities) the shelter estimated building area would increase to 27,800 sf. See Model C for breakdown

of all site areas. Site area required would be 5 acres for an Elk Grove only shelter and 5.5 acres for the

slightly larger shelter serving neighboring cities.

Staff: Staff needs would increase significantly in this model, adding 19 full time equivalent (FTE) above the

existing current staff count of 7.8 FTE which includes 1 Supervisor, 4 animal control officers, 2 administrative

and 0.8 sworn staff for a total of 27 (rounded). This excludes volunteers. Currently City staff includes only

animal control as sheltering services are contracted out.

Cost: The cost of building a new shelter is significant. The City does gain total control of operational and

program decisions and is able to provide local control and presence in the community. The low and high end

cost numbers represent 20% above and below the mid-range cost, which is what the estimate under

Appendix H shows. The cost range captures unknowns yet to be determined. The mid-range cost estimates

new construction, incorporating all best practices and recommended spaces. Because there are many

unknowns at this stage, a range was developed to capture this spread. The high end could represent the

best of all materials with no compromises made, perhaps extra program area, a site in an ideal location with

a high acquisition cost that allows for generous exercise yards, etc. The low cost range represents a remodel

or repurposed building with program areas designed tightly with some compromises made that do not

affect animal health and well-being. All of these numbers should be revisited if a project moves forward.

The estimated costs are as follows:

NEW FACILITY, 2015 DOLLARS: LOW END HIGH END TOTAL PROJ. DEV $13.8M $20.6M

YEARLY OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE, 2015 DOLLARS:

LOW END HIGH END

EXPENSE $2.2M $3.3M

REVENUE $144,000 $216,000 NET COST $2.0M $3.1M

Model Strengths: The City is able to maintain local control of all animal care services. This will allow for

integration of a new shelter into the City that reflects the community’s values and goals as well as

directly benefit from animal programs it implements. Depending on the population of animals intended to

57




serve, the City of Elk Grove may have the potential to offer animal sheltering contracts to neighboring cities

to receive revenue to help offset cost.

Model Weaknesses: Construction and operation of an animal shelter facility vs. contract model. Higher

capital expenditures are required under this model and funding methods have yet to be identified. At this

time, the City has not identified any specific funds for a new animal shelter.

Model C – New Regional Shelter

Model C is a regional satellite facility serving the South County area and established through a Joint Powers

Authority (JPA). The shelter would serve the south Sacramento County region and include cities such as Rancho

Cordova, Galt and Isleton. The JPA maintains direct control and is responsible for all sheltering operations with

the City of Elk Grove having a vested interest. This would require higher initial investment for a larger shelter

and somewhat higher operating and maintenance costs than if the City built alone, but the JPA partners would

share the cost.

Services: The shelter would be operated through the JPA to provide animal sheltering services through a

joint effort of the cities involved. The City of Elk Grove may choose to continue to provide animal control

field services or have services provided through the JPA-run facility.

Programs: Programs recommended would be the same as for Model B, except that a wider volunteer base

would be available through the regional cities.

Animals: Projected animal capacities for a regional shelter would be the same as for the Elk Grove only

shelter contracting with Galt, Rancho Cordova and Isleton. These cities have not been contacted at this time

and have only been identified for the purpose of this study as possible cities meeting the criteria for size,

service area and need.

Facility: The recommended program area, based on animal housing recommendations described on page 21,

and including all support and community spaces are based on best practices and input received from the

Shelter Working Group and the community during the public input sessions. If this model is put into action,

there would be a detailed program developed, tailored to meet all JPA Partner needs and wants and

designed to meet the budget once developed. The hypothetical Program Summary can be found under

Appendix F. Projected facility size and site area is as follows:

ESTIMATED BUILDING AREA: 27,800 SF EXTERIOR COVERED AREAS: 11,500 SF TOTAL INT. & EXT. AREAS: 39,300 SF TOTAL SITE AREA REQ'D: 5.5 ACRES

Staff: Staff would increase again by 8 FTE above the Elk Grove only projections for a total of 36 FTE,

excluding volunteers.

Cost: Under this model there would be full sharing of costs both for the build out of a new shelter as well as

the operation and maintenance cost between the JPA partners. See explanation of cost range under Model

B description. See Appendix I for detailed explanation of Probable Costs. Summary is as follows:

58




NEW FACILITY, 2015 DOLLARS:

LOW END HIGH END

TOTAL PROJ. DEV $16.4M $24.6M

YEARLY OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE, 2015 DOLLARS:

LOW END HIGH END

EXPENSE $2.9M $4.4M

REVENUE $0.8M $1.3M NET COST $2.1M $3.1M

Model Strengths: Under this model there would be full sharing of costs both for the build out of a new

shelter as well as the operation and maintenance cost between the JPA partners. The location of the shelter

would most likely be closer to the City of Elk Grove, but the proximity would have to serve the other JPA

partners.

Model Weaknesses: Construction and operation of an animal shelter facility with other entities involved vs.

contract model. The City gains more control than contracting all sheltering services out, but still has to share

control with the JPA partners. The funding method, as in Model B needs identification and has not been

defined. Under this operational model, increased time should be assumed to allow for formation of the JPA

which in some cases has been a year or more.

Remodel Option – Elk Grove Only Shelter

Under any of the operating models, the City could purchase an existing building on already developed land and

renovate to serve the sheltering building. No building or site has yet been identified. The challenge would be to

find a building and site in a desirable location that would fit the needs of a shelter without a significant amount

of remodel work required. The El Dorado Animal Shelter is one case study that did just recently build a shelter in

this way on a very limited budget.

A site visit and tour was made to the El Dorado Animal Shelter on November 17th, 2014. The shelter was just

opened in November of this year. The building and site was purchased for $1.8 million. The building shell was

22,160 sq.ft with 4.7 acre of developed site. Only 17,000 sq.ft. of building was developed for the shelter with the

remainder left as empty warehouse space for future expansion. Total project development cost was $5.7 million

with construction cost at approximately $5 million or $294/sf.

An estimate of probable cost was prepared for a hypothetical Elk Grove shelter of a remodeled building on an

existing site, see Appendix J. Under this option, the renovated tenant improvement (TI) area was reduced to

develop only animal housing to serve current needs with support spaces built to the 20 year projected need.

Veterinarian program areas are built as sized in Model B. The multi-purpose community room is taken out to be

built in a future phase. Future housing needs would be met by building an additional housing wing or further

developing the TI area. This allows approximately 2,800 sq.ft. of building area to be cut from phase 1 which is

significant. Quality is not sacrificed nor any animal health or best practice standards. Total project development

cost can be reduced by 50-60% when compared to Model B. When compared to El Dorado County, which has a

total project development cost of $5.7 million, the hypothetic Elk Grove remodel option is at $10.5 million. Cost

per square foot on total project development cost is $467/sq.ft. for the Elk Grove remodel option vs. $257/sq.ft.

59




for the El Dorado County project. Comparing just construction cost including site development and acquisition

the difference is $294/sq.ft. (Elk Grove) vs. $226/sq.ft. (El Dorado), very close. Somehow El Dorado was able to

deliver a project with very little indirect cost on the project. The difference of $4.8 million can be attributed to

the following factors:

Site & Building Acquisition ($130/sf vs. $84/sf): $1.0 million

Add cost escalation to 2015 bid date: $580,000

Delete prefab indoor dog kennels (44 x $1,500): ($66,000)

Add ext. covered space for outdoor kennels (59 x $4,000): $236,000

Add indoor/outdoor concrete kennels (59 x 9,000): $531,000

Adjust Equipment and Furnishings to higher standard: $400,000

Adjust indirect costs to typical City project ($60/sf vs. $52/sf): $180,000

Add 340sf more (22,500sf vs. 22,160sf) at $467/sf: $160,000

Adjust construction cost to Elk Grove $

($225/sf vs. $150/sf or $75/sf x 22,160 sf): $1.6 million

$4.8 million

While remodel of an existing facility is a cost effective option which can provide the City with a streamlined way

of delivering a project, it may be difficult to find a building and site that will fit the requirements of an animal

shelter. A shelter, although seemingly simple on the surface, has very complex needs. Materials have to hold up

to extreme conditions, mechanical and plumbing systems are critical for the success of disease control, the

design of housing is hugely important for the reduction of stress on the animals and their health and well-being.

These are only a few examples. The City will need to use caution when selecting a building and make sure more

money will not be spent toward renovation then what would be spent to build new. The City conducted a

cursory search on sites that may be currently available. There were no properties on the market currently that

meet the exact building and/or site size identified at this time, but that doesn’t mean something might not come

available in the near future. Both sites that were identified did appear to need significant remodeling to

repurpose for an animal shelter.

60




9 FACILITY AREA & STAFFING

The current study acknowledges that the physical facility at the County is inadequate in its capacity, does not

meet current sheltering best practices, and compromises the City’s ability to adequately serve the community.

Interim measures could be put into place to bridge the gap and minimize shortcomings. For example, a satellite

adoption facility could be established in Elk Grove. For facility sizing, two programs were developed. One for an

Elk Grove only shelter, see Appendix E, and one for a Regional Shelter, see Appendix F. All programs have spaces

assigned that are sized to deliver best animal sheltering practices as well as to provide support, administrative

and community spaces to meet the City’s and community’s goals.

Physical improvements or management improvements of the existing County facility are not made at this time

as the City has no control over these decisions; however, the City could initiate further discussions at a later time

with the County, if the City does decide to stay under contract.

Program Components

The facility space program components assumed for the purpose of this meeting are listed under Appendix E

and F. These are initial recommendations based on best practices for a new shelter and also incorporating input

received during the public meetings.

Areas within a shelter are usually broken down into three areas: public, animal and administrative. Public areas

usually consist of a lobby, donation drop off area, retail space (often run by volunteers), restrooms, a community

room (designed to be flexible and serve a wide range of functions), and dog and cat housing for adoptable

animals.

Animal areas will have dog and cat holding for stray, confiscated, quarantined, and animals in isolation. There

would be holding areas for other animals, including exotics and wildlife. Intake areas are critical in a shelter and

are usually located with one at the public side and one at the staff/secure sallyport side. Animal support areas

typically include food storage and prep, laundry, grooming and general storage.

Administrative areas are the support for all the animal sheltering and animal control field services. Spaces

include offices and work areas for support staff and field officers, volunteer area, locker rooms and restrooms.

A shelter veterinary is currently shown in the program. Space includes office/workspace for 1 shelter vet, 2

veterinary technicians and 1 veterinary assistant. A surgery prep room, pack and surgery room will allow spay

and neuters as well as other non-emergency procedures to occur on site.

Projected Building Area

Building area required is shown in detail in Program Area Summary for both the Elk Grove Only Shelter and the

Regional Shelter models under Appendix E and F. Animal housing is based on housing recommendations

provided by KSMP which relate to the yearly animal capacity projections described under section 6. For an Elk

Grove only shelter a facility of approximately 22,500 sf would be required, along with 9,500 sf of exterior

covered area. For a regional shelter approximately 27,800 sf would be required with 11,500 sf of exterior

covered space.

61




Projected Site Area

The projected site area required for a new facility would range between 5 and 5.5 acres. See Site Area Summary,

Appendix D. Site elements include public parking, secure service yard and staff parking, barn and pasture area,

feral cat pens, storage shed, agility yard and other exercise yards.

Staffing Needs

Two staffing organizational charts are shown below. The Elk Grove-Only chart shows a total projected staff need

of 27, excluding volunteers. The Regional Shelter chart shows a total projected staff need of 36, excluding

volunteers. A shelter is typically headed by a shelter director with field, shelter, medical, customer services as

well as volunteers under the director. See organizational charts below for both an Elk Grove only shelter and

Regional Shelter:

SAMPLE ANIMAL SHELTER ORG CHART

ELK GROVE-ONLY SHELTER

TOTAL 27 STAFF (EXCLUDING VOLUNTEERS)

SHELTER DIRECTOR(1 FTE)

COORDINATOR(1 FTE)

VOLUNTEERS

VOLUNTEERSNON-PAID

(#VARIES, 0 FTE)

FRONT OFFICE SUPERVISOR

(1 FTE)

CUSTOMER SERVICE

FRONT OFFICE CLERK

(3 FTE)

FRONTOFFICE ASST.

(1 FTE)

SUPERVISING FIELD OFFICER

(1 FTE)

FIELDSERVICES

LEAD FIELD

OFFICER(1 FTE)

NON-PROFITSUPPORT

(AS MAY APPLY)

SHELTER MANAGER

(1 FTE)

SHELTER SERVICES

KENNEL CARE ATTENDANTS

(5 FTE)

SHELTER VETERINARIAN

(1 FTE)

MEDICAL SERVICES SPAY/NEUTER

REGISTERED VET TECH

(2 FTE)

NON-LICENSEDVET ASSIST.

(1 FTE,)

PER DIEM VET SERVICES(VARIES)FIELD OFFICERS

(6 FTE)

FIELD DISPATCH OFFICER(1 FTE)

ANIMALBEHAVIORIST

(1 FTE)

62




Phasing

Under any model, phasing can be used to deliver a project with lower initial costs. One strategy could be to size

the shelter to serve capacity for 10 years out, with a phasing plan that would deliver additional housing and

support spaces when the need requires. Other elements of a project can be phased if there is not enough capital

to build everything at once. Other areas that work well to phase are veterinary services (City would contract out

as they do currently until this piece is built), a community meeting room, or agility yard. Smaller pieces like these

work well to do fundraising for and/or have a donor campaign.

REGIONAL SHELTER SAMPLE ANIMAL SHELTER ORG CHART

TOTAL 36 STAFF (EXCLUDING VOLUNTEERS)

SHELTER DIRECTOR(1 FTE)

COORDINATOR(1 FTE)

VOLUNTEERS

VOLUNTEERSNON-PAID

(#VARIES, 0 FTE)

FRONT OFFICE SUPERVISOR

(1 FTE)

CUSTOMER SERVICE

FRONT OFFICE CLERK

(4 FTE)

FRONTOFFICE ASST.

(1 FTE)

SUPERVISING FIELD OFFICER

(1 FTE)

FIELDSERVICES

FIELD OFFICERS(8 FTE)

LEAD FIELD

OFFICER(1 FTE)

NON-PROFITSUPPORT

(AS MAY APPLY)

KENNEL MANAGER

(1 FTE)

SHELTER SERVICES

KENNEL CARE ATTENDANTS

(7 FTE)

ANIMALBEHAVIORIST

(1 FTE,)

SHELTER VETERINARIAN

(2 FTE)

MEDICAL SERVICES SPAY/NEUTER

REGISTERED VET TECH

(4 FTE)

NON-LICENSEDVET ASSIST.

(2 FTE,)

PER DIEM VET SERVICES(VARIES)

FIELD DISPATCH OFFICER(1 FTE)

63




10 COST & FUNDING ALTERNATIVES

As shown in preceding section 8, the City of Elk Grove’s animal care mid-range costs can be expected to range

from $1.7 million to $2.6 million yearly for operations and maintenance depending on whether care is provided

by a contract agency or the City.

In the case a shelter is built, the total capital cost could range from $13.8 million to $24.6 million depending on

numerous factors: site acquisition cost, building new or repurposing an existing building, building a smaller

shelter for Elk-Grove only or a Regional shelter to serve the south County, and defined program and services.

The low and high end cost numbers represent the cost range the project could see once the program, site and

other unknowns are defined. The estimated costs developed for each model, see Appendices H & I, show the

middle range and captures what would be new construction with all best practices and recommended program

functions. The low and high are set at 20% above and below this middle range. The high end could represent the

best of all materials with no adjustments made to space or functional needs, perhaps extra program area, a site

that allows for generous exercise yards, etc. The low cost range represents most likely a remodel scenario with

program areas designed tightly for only what is absolutely needed with some compromises made that do not

affect animal health and well-being.

Stakeholders over the course of the study have expressed concern over the escalation of the City’s costs in

maintaining a contract with the County for sheltering services. The City has no control over future increases in

costs, performance measures or standards of services offered. It was also strongly conveyed that the County is

not serving the numbers of animals in need by the City due to overcrowding, limits of capacity, and distance

away from Elk Grove. It is important to note that contracting out for sheltering services will also be less costly to

the City than building and operating a new shelter. During the first public meeting it was expressed that there

needs to be thought put into the value of the services the City is receiving and how the needs of the community

are being met, not just accounting for the dollars spent. Many of the public supporters for a new shelter felt the

City was not getting enough value contracting with County, as they were not serving the number of animals that

they should be. Although serving fewer in number, the County is serving the animals it receives in a similar

manner (animal care and well-being) and with more positive outcomes than its previous contract with the

Sacramento SPCA.

Many stakeholders, especially individuals involved in Elk Grove’s animal welfare groups, believe that the only

way to serve Elk Grove animals properly is to provide a local shelter, in the City of Elk Grove. Local control will

give the City the ability to make operational and policy decisions and provide a shelter that meets the needs and

values of the Elk Grove community. A local shelter will also allow all animals needing care to be served. A local

shelter can turn the community’s perception of a shelter from a negative into a positive asset for the community.

All have agreed throughout the study that Animal Control has done an exceptional job and would be able to do

an even better, more efficient job with a local shelter.

Currently no funds have been identified or assigned under the fiscal year 2014-15 budget for a new shelter or

for interim programs. The first step is identifying the need that exists in the community, which has been the goal

of this study. This will allow the City to make informed decisions on the next steps needed to meet the animal

64




care and sheltering needs for the City of Elk Grove. The following are ideas for ways an animal shelter, or any

city construction or service project could be funded.

The Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) may be one method of funding all or part of a new shelter. There is a CFF specific to Police which funds new development’s share of the construction/acquisition of police facilities and related equipment. Currently the Police CFF available fund balance is approximately $900,000. This includes total fund balance less $2.4 million in reserves for future debt service payments.

The General Fund, which provides discretionary funds for services is a way large construction projects serving the community are funded. Funds are received at the State and local levels that may be utilized for any purposes. These unallocated funds are acquired through business and property taxes. The single largest source of revenue to the General Fund for Elk Grove is sales tax. Since the funds are not governed by law, a city may use the funds to engage in a variety of activities or projects. The City of Elk Grove’s General Fund budget is $59 million for the 2014-15 fiscal year.

The City could consider a special tax measure that could fund all or part of a new shelter. Its approval by voters could be difficult if presented on the ballot by itself, due to the wide range of public opinion around shelters. The City could possibly group it with other City needs to enhance its prospects of voter appeal. School bond and school parcel tax measures have the highest rates of success, followed by City general taxes. A summary table showing all the local tax and bond measures on the ballot in every county in 2014 (www.caltax.org/101714_elections.html) showed an overwhelming numbers of bond measures for schools, many business tax measures for increased revenue, miscellaneous measures for various taxes and programs, and parcel tax measures mostly to improve city services and programs. None showing funding for new buildings other than schools.

Municipal bonds are another way cities can finance large projects. Municipalities use bonds to raise capital for their day-to-day activities and for specific projects that they might be undertaking (usually pertaining to development of local infrastructure such as roads, sewerage, hospitals, schools, etc.). A new animal shelter would not fall under this type of bond. While putting an animal shelter on its own bond measure would be unlikely to see success, based on the wide range of community support and opinion that would be seen, grouping it with several other community interest public projects may be a way to pass the bond.

Private donations and grant funding can be huge resources in animal sheltering and can fund significant portions of a project. Often, whole pieces of a project can be funded in this way. Some examples of pieces that could be phased in this way are the veterinary clinic, an adoption wing, a community room, or an agility yard. The El Dorado Animal Shelter, just recently opened, had a non-profit partner fund their barn in this way.

65

http://www.caltax.org/101714_elections.html




11 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The following matrix compares the 3 delivery models described in the previous sections. The models, along with

the weaknesses and strengths were presented and discussed at both public meetings as well as reviewed in

depth with the Shelter Working Group.

A preferred or recommended option is not presented at this time in order to allow the City the most flexibility to

use the facts presented in this report to make their own final decision on the best course of action for the City

and community. During each public meeting, those present consistently represented support for a new shelter

within the city. Most present didn’t have strong opinions as to if it should provide contracts to other cities, or

serve as a regional shelter, only that it serve the needs for Elk Grove first and that any other decision support

that cause. Models B or C could also be phased to lessen the first cost of building a new shelter. Interim

measures and programs are also a way to bridge the gap between now and the time it would take for a new

shelter to be built. The low end of the cost numbers given reflect most likely a remodel option on an existing

building with site utility services already in place and established.

66

City

of E

lk G

rove

An

imal

She

lter N

eeds

Ass

essm

ent S

tudy

Indi

go |

Ham

mon

d +

Play

le A

rchi

tect

s

43 o

f 83

De

cem

ber 2

3, 2

014

Kore

t She

lter M

edic

ine

Prog

ram

20-y

ear p

lann

ing

horiz

on

City

Hou

rs: 7

day

s/w

eek,

7am

-11p

mCi

ty H

ours

: 7 d

ays/

wee

k, 7

am-1

1pm

City

Hou

rs: T

BD, s

et to

mee

t com

mun

ity n

eeds

City

Hou

rs: T

BD, s

et to

mee

t com

mun

ity n

eeds

VOLU

NTE

ER O

PPO

RTUN

ITIE

S @

CO

UNTY

VOLU

NTE

ER O

PPO

RTUN

ITIE

S W

ITH

CON

TRAC

TEE

VOLU

NTE

ER O

PPO

RTUN

ITIE

S W

ITH

JPA

VOLU

NTE

ER O

PPO

RTUN

ITIE

S, L

OCA

LVO

LUN

TEER

OPP

ORT

UNIT

IES,

LO

CAL

VOLU

NTE

ER O

PPO

RTUN

ITIE

S, L

OCA

LVO

LUN

TEER

OPP

ORT

UNIT

IES,

LO

CAL

FOST

ER C

ARE

FOST

ER C

ARE

FOST

ER C

ARE

FOST

ER C

ARE

MIC

ROCH

IPM

ICRO

CHIP

MIC

ROCH

IPM

ICRO

CHIP

LOW

/NO

CO

ST S

PAY

& N

EUTE

RLO

W/N

O C

OST

SPA

Y &

NEU

TER

IN-H

OUS

E VE

T SE

RVIC

ES IN

CLUD

ING

SPAY

& N

EUTE

RIN

-HO

USE

VET

SERV

ICES

INCL

UDIN

G SP

AY &

NEU

TER

TRAP

, NEU

TER

& R

ETUR

N -

TNR

TRAP

, NEU

TER

& R

ETUR

N -

TNR

TRAP

, NEU

TER

& R

ETUR

N -

TNR

TRAP

, NEU

TER

& R

ETUR

N -

TNR

"ASK

ELK

GRO

VE"

ON

LIN

E SE

RVIC

ES"A

SK E

LK G

ROVE

" O

NLI

NE

SERV

ICES

"ASK

ELK

GRO

VE"

ON

LIN

E SE

RVIC

ES"A

SK E

LK G

ROVE

" O

NLI

NE

SERV

ICES

ANIM

AL L

ICEN

SIN

GAN

IMAL

LIC

ENSI

NG

ANIM

AL L

ICEN

SIN

GAN

IMAL

LIC

ENSI

NG

SO

CIAL

MED

IA O

UTRE

ACH

SOCI

AL M

EDIA

OUT

REAC

H

TR

AIN

ING

CLAS

SES

TRAI

NIN

G CL

ASSE

S

EX

PAN

DED

COM

MUN

ITY

EDUC

ATIO

N &

OUT

REAC

HEX

PAN

DED

COM

MUN

ITY

EDUC

ATIO

N &

OUT

REAC

H

GR

OO

MIN

GGR

OO

MIN

G

AN

IMAL

HEL

P DE

SKAN

IMAL

HEL

P DE

SK

AD

OPT

ION

EVE

NTS

ADO

PTIO

N E

VEN

TS

THE

CITY

OF

ELK

GRO

VE C

ON

TIN

UES

TO U

TILI

ZE T

HE C

OUN

TY F

ACIL

ITY.

WHE

N T

HE

COUN

TY C

AN N

O L

ON

GER

SERV

E TH

E CI

TY'S

NEE

DS T

HE C

ITY

MAY

CHO

OSE

TO

LO

OK

INTO

MO

DEL'

S B

OR

C. IT

ALS

O M

AY H

APPE

N T

HAT

THE

COUN

TY IS

ABL

E TO

EXP

AND

THEI

R CU

RREN

T FA

CILI

TY O

R BU

ILD

AN A

NN

EX T

O B

ETTE

R SE

RVE

ELK

GRO

VE; H

OW

EVER

, N

O P

LAN

S AR

E IN

PLA

CE A

T TH

IS T

IME.

CON

TRAC

T-O

UT M

ODE

L CO

NTI

NUE

Dpl

anni

ng h

orizo

n, u

nkno

wn

THE

RECO

MM

ENDE

D PR

OGR

AM A

REA

IS B

ASED

ON

PRO

JECT

ED A

NIM

AL H

OUS

ING

UNIT

S N

EEDE

D, IN

CLUD

ING

ALL

SUPP

ORT

& C

OM

MUN

ITY

SPAC

ESTH

E RE

COM

MEN

DED

PRO

GRAM

ARE

A IS

BAS

ED O

N P

ROJE

CTED

AN

IMAL

HO

USIN

G UN

ITS

NEE

DED,

INCL

UDIN

G AL

L SU

PPO

RT &

CO

MM

UNIT

Y SP

ACES

. **

See

Mod

el C

for f

acili

ty si

ze n

eede

d if

cont

ract

s acc

epte

d w

/ Ra

ncho

,Gal

t, Ise

lton

ESTI

MAT

ED B

UILD

ING

AREA

: 27

,800

SF

EXTE

RIO

R CO

VERE

D AR

EAS:

11,

500

SFTO

TAL

INT.

& E

XT.

AREA

S:

39

,300

SF

TOTA

L SI

TE A

REA

REQ

'D:

5.5

ACRE

S

Assu

mes

Elk

Gro

ve w

/ ci

ties o

f Ran

cho,

Gal

t, Isl

eton

DOGS

: 3,4

47

CATS

: 3,3

65

TOTA

L: 6

,812

DO

GS: 2

,428

CAT

S: 1

,844

TO

TAL:

4,2

72

DOGS

: 1,3

57

CATS

: 1,0

30

THE

CITY

OF

ELK

GRO

VE U

TILI

ZES

THE

44,0

00 S

F SA

CRAM

ENTO

CO

UNTY

AN

IMAL

CAR

E FA

CILI

TY A

T 38

39 B

RADS

HAW

RO

AD, S

ACRA

MEN

TO.

THE

FACI

LITY

HAS

APP

ROXI

MAT

E CA

PACI

TY F

OR

168

DOGS

AN

D 25

0 CA

TS A

T AN

Y O

NE

TIM

E. P

RESE

NT

INTA

KE C

APAC

ITY

HAS

BEEN

REA

CHED

FO

R DO

GS A

ND

REQ

UIRE

S CA

REFU

L M

ANAG

EMEN

T O

F TH

E FA

CILI

TY

FOR

ON

GOIN

G O

PERA

TIO

NS.

NO

PLA

NS

ARE

IN P

LACE

FO

R A

NEW

OR

EXPA

NDE

D SH

ELTE

R.

Elk

Grov

e nu

mbe

rs o

nly

(1)

20-Y

r. pr

ojec

ted

year

ly li

ve in

take

, by

2033

2013

SPC

A ye

arly

live

inta

ke

Emer

genc

y Ve

t Ser

vice

s: co

ntra

cted

out

Low

Cos

t Spa

y/N

eute

r: co

ntra

cted

out

THE

PRO

GRAM

S LI

STED

BEL

OW

ARE

ALR

EADY

IN P

LACE

THR

OUG

H TH

E CI

TY.

NEW

ELK

GRO

VE-O

NLY

SHE

LTER

THE

PRO

GRAM

S LI

STED

BEL

OW

ARE

REC

OM

MEN

DED

PRO

GRAM

S FO

R A

NEW

FAC

ILIT

Y.

20-Y

r. pr

ojec

ted

year

ly li

ve in

take

, by

2033

**s

ee M

odel

C fo

r cap

acity

num

bers

if c

ontr

acts

are

acc

epte

d w

/ Ra

ncho

, Gal

t, Ise

lton

ESTI

MAT

ED B

UILD

ING

AREA

: 22

,500

SF

EXTE

RIO

R CO

VERE

D AR

EAS:

9,5

00 S

FTO

TAL

INT.

& E

XT.

AREA

S:

32

,000

SF

TOTA

L SI

TE A

REA

REQ

'D:

5 AC

RES

BUIL

D AN

D O

PERA

TE A

NEW

AN

IMAL

SHE

LTER

FO

R TH

E CI

TY O

F EL

K GR

OVE

. O

PTIO

N T

O

ACCE

PT C

ON

TRAC

TS F

ROM

OTH

ER C

ITIE

S.

COUL

D US

E IN

TERI

M P

ROGR

AMS

& S

ERVI

CES

+ PH

ASED

CO

NST

RUCT

ION

TO

EN

SURE

FE

ASIB

ILIT

Y UN

TIL

A N

EW F

ACIL

ITY

IS B

UILT

.

City

con

trol

s and

pro

vide

s she

lterin

g an

d an

imal

con

trol

serv

ices

to b

est s

ervi

ce

com

mun

ity n

eeds

. Low

cos

t spa

y/ne

uter

in h

ouse

, em

erge

ncy

vet s

ervi

ces c

ontr

acte

d ou

t.

Coun

ty H

ours

: N/A

Emer

genc

y Ve

t Ser

vice

s: co

ntra

cted

out

In h

ouse

vet

serv

ices

incl

. spa

y/ne

uter

: in-

hous

e

Elk

Grov

e O

nly

DESC

RIPT

ION

Coun

ty h

ours

are

subj

ect t

o Co

unty

pol

icy

and

outs

ide

of C

ity c

ontr

ol. C

ount

y m

ay b

e op

en to

exp

andi

ng se

rvic

es in

the

futu

re.

CITY

PRO

VIDE

S AN

IMAL

CO

NTR

OL

SERV

ICES

, CIT

Y CO

NTR

ACTS

-OUT

WIT

H CO

UNTY

OF

SACR

AMEN

TO F

OR

ANIM

AL S

HELT

ERIN

G SE

RVIC

ES

Coun

ty H

ours

: W-F

, 12:

30-5

:30&

Sat

-Su

12-4

:30.

Clo

sed

M, T

.

MO

DEL

A

CON

TRAC

T-M

ODE

L IS

CO

NTI

NUE

D W

ITH

COUN

TY O

R O

THER

EN

TITY

. CUR

REN

TLY

THE

ON

LY E

NTI

TY T

HAT

EXIS

TS IS

SAC

RAM

ENTO

CO

UNTY

FO

R CO

NTR

ACTE

D SH

ELTE

RIN

G SE

RVIC

ES. I

N T

HE F

UTUR

E O

THER

GRO

UPS

MAY

CO

ME

FORW

ARD

THAT

CO

ULD

SERV

E TH

IS R

OLE

.

COUN

TY S

HELT

ER IS

AT

CAPA

CITY

W/

NO

PLA

N T

O E

XPAN

D. D

EVEL

OP

LOCA

L PR

OGR

AMS

UNTI

L A

NEW

FAC

ILIT

Y IS

BUI

LT O

R EX

PAN

SIO

N O

F TH

E EX

ISTI

NG

SHEL

TER

IS

BUIL

T.

City

pro

vide

s ani

mal

con

trol

serv

ices

to c

omm

unity

, con

trol

ove

r the

se se

rvic

es

rem

ains

with

City

as p

opul

atio

n gr

ows a

nd c

omm

unity

nee

ds c

hang

e.

Shel

terin

g Co

ntra

ct P

rovi

der c

ontr

ols a

nim

al in

take

cap

aciti

es a

nd p

ublic

acc

ess h

ours

fo

r she

lter.

Emer

genc

y &

Low

Cos

t Spa

y N

eute

r con

trac

ted

out.

Coun

ty H

ours

: TBD

, goa

l to

expa

nd

20-y

ear p

lann

ing

horiz

on

PRO

GRAM

S

SERV

ICES

CURR

ENT

CON

TRAC

T-O

UT M

ODE

LM

ODE

L B

Emer

genc

y Ve

t Ser

vice

s: co

ntra

cted

out

Low

Cos

t Spa

y/N

eute

r: co

ntra

cted

out

THE

PRO

GRAM

S LI

STED

BEL

OW

ARE

ALR

EADY

IN P

LACE

THR

OUG

H TH

E CI

TY/C

OUN

TY.

MO

DEL

CRE

GIO

NAL

SHE

LTER

REGI

ON

AL S

ATEL

LITE

FAC

ILIT

Y SE

RVIN

G T

HE S

OUT

H CO

UNTY

ARE

A, E

STAB

LISH

ED

THRO

UGH

A JO

INT

POW

ERS

AUTH

ORI

TY (J

PA).

COUL

D US

E IN

TERI

M P

ROGR

AMS

& S

ERVI

CES

+ PH

ASED

CO

NST

RUCT

ION

TO

EN

SURE

FE

ASIB

ILIT

Y UN

TIL

A N

EW F

ACIL

ITY

IS B

UILT

.

Regi

onal

citi

es w

ork

toge

ther

to p

rovi

de fu

ndin

g fo

r new

ani

mal

shel

ter.

She

lter

oper

ated

thro

ugh

JPA

to p

rovi

de a

nim

al sh

elte

ring

serv

ices

thro

ugh

a jo

int e

ffort

of

the

citie

s inv

olve

d. C

ity o

f Elk

Gro

ve m

ay c

hoos

e to

con

tinue

to p

rovi

de a

nim

al c

ontr

ol

serv

ices

or h

ave

serv

ices

pro

vide

d th

roug

h th

e JP

A-ru

n fa

cilit

y.

Coun

ty H

ours

: N/A

Emer

genc

y Ve

t Ser

vice

s: co

ntra

cted

out

In h

ouse

vet

serv

ices

incl

. spa

y/ne

uter

: in-

hous

e

THE

PRO

GRAM

S LI

STED

BEL

OW

ARE

REC

OM

MEN

DED

PRO

GRAM

S FO

R A

NEW

FAC

ILIT

Y.

FACI

LITY

ANIM

ALS

Elk

Grov

e nu

mbe

rs o

nly

(1)

DOGS

: 1,3

57

CATS

: 1,0

30

TO

TAL:

2,3

87

2013

SPC

A ye

arly

live

inta

ke, f

utur

e se

rvic

e un

cert

ain

(1)

TO

TAL:

2,3

87

67

City

of E

lk G

rove

An

imal

She

lter N

eeds

Ass

essm

ent S

tudy

Indi

go |

Ham

mon

d +

Play

le A

rchi

tect

s

44 o

f 83

De

cem

ber 2

3, 2

014

Kore

t She

lter M

edic

ine

Prog

ram

20-y

ear p

lann

ing

horiz

on

Ad

optio

n An

nex

in E

lk G

rove

N/A

Enga

ge c

omm

unity

vol

unte

ers l

ocal

lyN

/AN

/A

So

cial

Med

ia O

utre

ach

Tr

aini

ng C

lass

es

Ad

optio

n Ev

ents

Ex

pand

ed c

omm

unity

edu

catio

n &

out

reac

h

Leas

t cap

ital e

xpen

ditu

re re

quire

d.Lo

cal c

ontr

ol o

f all

anim

al c

are

serv

ices

.Fu

ll sh

arin

g of

cos

ts b

y JP

A pa

rtne

rs.

N/A

Inte

rim p

rogr

ams &

serv

ices

pos

sible

.In

tegr

atio

n of

faci

lity

into

com

mun

ity b

est s

uppo

rts p

ublic

out

reac

h/ed

ucat

ion.

Inte

rim p

rogr

ams,

serv

ices

and

pha

sing

help

ens

ure

feas

ibili

ty.

Fi

eld

serv

ices

ope

ratin

g ef

ficie

ntly

in th

e Ci

ty.

Inte

rim p

rogr

ams,

serv

ices

and

pha

sing

help

ens

ure

feas

ibili

ty.

Impr

oved

acc

ess i

f loc

ated

in E

lk G

rove

.

Rev

enue

from

oth

er c

ities

hel

ps o

ffset

cos

ts.

Lack

of l

ocal

con

trol

of a

nim

al se

rvic

es &

qua

lity

of c

are.

Hi

gher

cap

ital e

xpen

ditu

re re

quire

d.Re

duce

d co

ntro

l of a

nim

al se

rvic

es.

N/A

Futu

re se

rvic

e av

aila

bilit

y un

cert

ain.

Fund

ing

met

hod

need

s ide

ntifi

catio

n.Fu

ndin

g m

etho

d ne

eds i

dent

ifica

tion.

Futu

re c

ontr

actin

g co

sts u

npre

dict

able

.

Tim

e re

quire

d to

form

JPA.

REFE

REN

CE N

OTE

S:

(1)

See

sect

ion

5, P

opul

atio

n an

d Tr

end

Anal

ysis

for d

etai

led

desc

ritpi

on o

ani

mal

cap

aciti

es.

(2)

The

low

and

hig

h en

d co

st n

umbe

rs re

pres

ent t

he c

ost r

ange

the

proj

ect c

ould

see

once

the

prog

ram

, site

and

oth

er u

nkno

wns

are

def

ined

. The

hyp

othe

tical

cos

t est

imat

es d

evel

oped

for e

ach

mod

el, s

ee A

ppen

dice

s H &

I, sh

ow th

e m

iddl

e ra

nge

and

capt

ures

wha

t wou

ld b

e ne

w c

onst

ruct

ion

with

all

best

pra

ctic

es a

nd re

com

men

ded

prog

ram

fu

nctio

ns. T

he lo

w a

nd h

igh

are

set a

t 20%

abo

ve a

nd b

elow

this

mid

dle

rang

e. T

he h

igh

end

coul

d re

pres

ent t

he b

est o

f all

mat

eria

ls w

ith n

o co

mpr

omise

s mad

e, p

erha

ps e

xtra

pro

gram

are

a, a

site

that

allo

ws f

or g

ener

ous e

xerc

ise y

ards

, etc

. The

low

cos

t ran

ge re

pres

ents

mos

t lik

ely

a re

mod

el sc

enar

io w

ith p

rogr

am a

reas

des

igne

d tig

htly

for

only

wha

t is a

bsol

utly

nee

ded

with

som

e co

mpr

omise

s mad

e w

here

not

affe

ctin

g an

imal

hea

lth a

nd w

ell b

eing

.

CON

TRAC

T-O

UT M

ODE

L CO

NTI

NUE

Dpl

anni

ng h

orizo

n, u

nkno

wn

NO

NE

PLAN

NED

$

0

TO

TAL

PRO

J. DE

V

$1

3.8M

$2

0.6M

N/A

City

of E

lk G

rove

ent

ers i

nto

a jo

int p

ower

s aut

horit

y (JP

A) a

gree

men

t for

the

purp

ose

of b

uild

ing,

mai

ntai

ning

and

man

agin

g a

shel

ter w

hich

serv

es th

e so

uth

Sacr

amen

to

Coun

ty re

gion

, inc

ludi

ng c

ities

such

as R

anch

o Co

rdov

a, G

alt a

nd Is

leto

n. T

he JP

A m

aint

ains

dire

ct c

ontr

ol a

nd is

resp

onsib

le fo

r all

oper

atio

ns, w

ith th

e Ci

ty o

f Elk

Gro

ve

havi

ng a

ves

ted

inte

rest

. Th

is re

quire

s a h

ighe

r ini

tial i

nves

tmen

t for

a la

rger

shel

ter

and

som

ewha

t hig

her O

&M

cos

ts th

an if

the

City

bui

lt al

one,

but

the

JPA

agre

emen

t w

ould

dire

ctly

offs

et th

ese

cost

s.

The

exist

ing

Coun

ty fa

cilit

y is

at o

r nea

r cap

acity

, but

the

City

of E

lk G

rove

can

take

in

terim

mea

sure

s loc

ally

to im

prov

e lo

cal a

nim

al se

rvic

es u

ntil

new

shel

terin

g ca

paci

ty

to h

ouse

Elk

Gro

ve's

anim

als c

an b

e bu

ilt.

This

new

cap

acity

cou

ld b

e ex

pans

ion

of th

e ex

istin

g sh

elte

r if f

easib

le, o

r con

stru

ctio

n of

a n

ew sh

elte

r sim

ilar t

o M

odel

B.

Exam

ples

of i

nter

im m

easu

res m

ay in

clud

e: A

nim

al H

elp

Desk

, a S

atel

lite

Adop

tion

Cent

er fe

d by

ani

mal

s fro

m C

ount

y/ o

ther

ent

ity, c

ontr

act o

r pro

vide

for l

ocal

low

cos

t sp

ay n

eute

r ser

vice

s and

pos

sible

inte

grat

ion

of st

oref

ront

serv

ices

.

N/A

City

of E

lk G

rove

bui

lds,

mai

ntai

ns a

nd m

anag

es it

s ow

n sh

elte

r and

con

tinue

s to

prov

ide

anim

al c

ontr

ol se

rvic

es.

City

mai

ntai

ns d

irect

con

trol

and

is re

spon

sible

for a

ll op

erat

ions

. An

opt

ion

exist

s whe

reby

the

City

wou

ld a

ccep

t con

trac

ts fr

om

neig

hbor

ing

citie

s for

ani

mal

serv

ices

. Th

is w

ould

requ

ire in

crea

sed

initi

al in

vest

men

t fo

r a la

rger

shel

ter a

nd so

mew

hat h

ighe

r O&

M c

osts

, but

wou

ld c

reat

e a

reve

nue

stre

am to

offs

et th

ese

adde

d co

sts.

NEW

ELK

GRO

VE-O

NLY

SHE

LTER

Com

mun

ity in

put t

o-da

te is

that

City

ani

mal

con

trol

staf

f is d

oing

wel

l with

wha

t the

y ha

ve, b

ut th

at th

e Co

unty

faci

lity

is to

o fa

r aw

ay a

nd so

met

imes

ani

mal

s bro

ught

ther

e ar

e tu

rned

aw

ay.

Coun

ty h

as re

port

ed to

the

City

ani

mal

con

trol

staf

f tha

t it i

s at

capa

city

on

at le

ast 3

inst

ance

s and

has

no

plan

s for

incr

ease

in c

apac

ity.

Com

mun

ity

mee

ting

inpu

t ind

icat

es a

loca

lly c

ontr

olle

d sh

elte

r is d

esire

d.

CURR

ENT

FACI

LITY

, 201

5 DO

LLAR

S:CU

RREN

T FA

CILI

TY C

ON

TIN

UED,

201

5 DO

LLAR

S:N

EW F

ACIL

ITY,

205

4 DO

LLAR

S (2

):N

EW F

ACIL

ITY,

205

4 DO

LLAR

S (2

):

YEAR

LY O

PERA

TIO

NS

& M

AIN

TEN

ANCE

, 201

5 DO

LLAR

S:YE

ARLY

OPE

RATI

ON

S &

MAI

NTE

NAN

CE, 2

015

DOLL

ARS:

YEAR

LY O

PERA

TIO

NS

& M

AIN

TEN

ANCE

, 201

5 DO

LLAR

S:YE

ARLY

OPE

RATI

ON

S &

MAI

NTE

NAN

CE, 2

015

DOLL

ARS:

L

OW

EN

D

HIG

H E

ND

A

CTUA

L

F

UTUR

E

EXPE

NSE

$1,

872,

213

UN

KNO

WN

REVE

NUE

$150

,065

UN

KNO

WN

NET

CO

ST

$1

,722

,148

UN

KNO

WN

MO

DEL

A20

-yea

r pla

nnin

g ho

rizon

CURR

ENT

CON

TRAC

T-O

UT M

ODE

LM

ODE

L B

MO

DEL

CRE

GIO

NAL

SHE

LTER

L

OW

EN

D

H

IGH

EN

D

EXPE

NSE

$

2.2M

$3.

3M

REVE

NUE

$1

44,0

00

$

216,

000

NET

CO

ST

$2.0

M

$

3.1M

LO

W E

ND

H

IGH

END

TOTA

L PR

OJ.

DEV.

$

16.4

M

$2

4.6M

LO

W E

ND

H

IGH

END

EXPE

NSE

$2.

9M

$4.

4M

REVE

NUE

$0.

8M

$1

.3M

NET

CO

ST

$

2.1M

$3.1

M

ADVA

NTA

GES

DISA

DVAN

TAGE

S

DISC

USSI

ON

INTE

RIM

MEA

SURE

S

N/A

The

City

of E

lk G

rove

has

opp

ortu

nitie

s to

impr

ove

anim

al c

are

serv

ices

, eve

n w

hile

un

der t

he c

urre

nt C

ount

y co

ntra

ct. S

ome

idea

s fol

low

.

ACT

UAL

NO

NE

PLAN

NED

$

0

EXPE

NSE

$

1,70

5,33

1

NET

CO

ST

$

1,56

3,76

0

REVE

NUE

$1

41,5

71

CO

ST

68




12 COMMUNITY INPUT

Community Interest Meeting No. 1

The first public meeting was held on September 22, 2014 from 6-8pm at Elk Grove City Hall Council Chamber.

Attendance was over 50 people. Maureen McCann, Animal Services Manager summarized the current model for

how the City is handling animal sheltering, field services and care. Indigo presented the Comparison Matrix

showing 3 different model options. Dr. Kate Hurley presented a slide show on current animal best practices. The

public in attendance was very passionate about the process and had a lot to say. Additional comments were

received by email or taken at the meeting from various members of the public and can be found under Appendix

A. See Appendix K for the PowerPoint slides that were presented at the meeting.

Community Interest Meeting No. 2

The second public meeting was held on November 13, 2014 from 6-8pm at Elk Grove City Hall Council Chamber.

Attendance was slightly lower than the first meeting. The City had a moderator present that assisted in running

the meeting to make sure the meeting stayed on track and that all the information was presented. A summary

of comments from the first meeting was reviewed with how the comments were addressed, completing the

feedback loop. Dr. Denae Wagner presented in detail the animal capacity numbers and how the housing

recommendations were arrived. Indigo presented each model again in more detail and an hour was left for

public input. Additional comments were received by email or taken at the meeting from various members of the

public and can be found under Appendix B.

69




APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTATION OF PUBLIC MEETING #1

Community Input meeting #1, October 22, 2014 6:00pm-8:00pm

70




AGENDA

Elk Grove Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study

Community Interest Meeting

September 22, 2014

6:00pm – 8:00pm Location: Elk Grove City Hall – Council Chamber

8400 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove CA 95758

6:00 p.m. – 6:05 p.m. Introductions

6:05 p.m. – 6:15 p.m. Elk Grove Animal Services Background & Current Contract

6:15 p.m. – 6:35 p.m. Needs Assessment Overview

6:35 p.m. – 6:55pm Shelter best practices for improved outcomes

6:55 p.m. – 7:15 p.m. City of Elk Grove Animal Care Options, Operating Model & Management Structure

7:15 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Open for questions & comments

71




Summary of Public Input received at Public Meeting #1:

Barn Cats: not a fan of barn cat program. Re-education needed as to what this should be.

A shelter closer to the area it is serving would serve community better.

City of Elk Grove is unique. Shelter should serve unincorporated/outlying areas around Elk Grove.

Multi-purpose room desired for community meetings.

Make shelter a positive influence in community.

City needs it’s own shelter! Shouldn’t be at the mercy of other agency. Reach out to other communities

to provide sheltering services if revenue makes sense.

Could the shelter be phased to reduce cost?

Look at other funding sources, not just tax dollars: ie grants, pubic donations, etc.

Could social media be used now to get animals to owner’s? The City has started this in some capacity

but definitly more opportunities for this to be improved.

Provide a space for other animals (ie wildlife, exotics, etc.)

Add social media to programs that the City provides.

A City shelter could assess animals more efficiently and process adoptions faster.

Elk Grove Pets Lost & Found is a facebook page.

What are County’s animal numbers? How often does overcrowding send animals away? 3x in last month

County has closed doors in last month per Joe Young, Lieutenant Animal Services. How many animals

were diverted and where? What are outcomes?

What is happening now at the County may change next month, next year, and on. City has no control.

SPCA has land they can’t expand for 5 years. Are there other options for buildings other then building

new? Look at temporary structures.

Opinion: County numbers are being grossly underestimated. How to capture turn around rate and

animals never making it to the shelter?

Education piece can start happening now.

Look at the Millpitas Shelter. Really nice. They have a night drop.

Elk Grove Online and Elk Grove Laguna should be linked to Ask Elk Grove.

City does not post to Craigslist.

Need to capture the value of services received for taxdollars spent.

There has been a drop in numbers because animals aren’t being picked up.

Paying double with county with less services being provided.

Goal is to have more community involvement.

Goal to not turn away animals.

Elk Grove is a unique community. Shelter should reflect image and values of the community.

A shelter in Elk Grove would thrive. Volunteer opportunities would be great.

Need a spay/neuter clinic. Possible partnership with UCD interns.

Look at Burlingame Shelter.

Adoption: provide a complete marketing program. Focus on outcome, not just intake.

Is there another choice out there now besides County to provide services? Not really. SPCA is not

accepting business. City has contract with County for 5 years.

72




For adoption City should look at creative ways to improve now: storefront, temporary facility in Elk

Grove, etc. Pacific Grove has a satallite kitten adoption facility run by all volunteers.

Behavior Programs: Build a facility that supports animal well-being. Goal would not be providing long

term rehab.

You have to build a facility that delivers programs and will meet community needs for years to come.

Right sizing of facility is important. Don’t want to undersize yet don’t want to oversize. Oversizing

creates many other issues that negatively affect animals.

Design flexible spaces that can serve many needs and be converted to housing when needed.

There is an epidemic in Elk Grove of homeless cats. Look into an interim solution.

If City had a shelter that was closer, more people would bring animals in.

Quarantine vs. adoption: provide flexibility in housing types.

73




APPENDIX B: DOCUMENTATION OF PUBLIC MEETING #2

Community Input meeting #2, November 13, 2014 6:00pm-8:00pm

74




AGENDA

Elk Grove Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study

Community Interest Meeting

November 13, 2014

6:00pm – 8:00pm

Location: Elk Grove City Hall – Council Chamber

8400 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove CA 95758

6:00 p.m. – 6:05 p.m. Introductions

6:05 p.m. – 7:15 p.m. Power point presentation consisting of: Summary of input received at September 22nd Community Interest Meeting

Projected Animal Capacities

Goals, Animal Care Options and Operating Models including following for each model:

1. Services 2. Programs 3. Animals 4. Facility

7:15 p.m. – 7:45 pm Discussion and Input

7:45 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Next Steps

75




Summary of Public Input received at Public Meeting No. 2:

Consider “no impound” for feral cats.

Regional shelter makes sense for long term. Easier to fund. But it will take longer to coordinate and

build.

What are costs of C vs. B?

Where would the shelter go? Can empty storefronts be used?

Can Model C not be a JPA? Is there a 4th option? Really sub options off each model.

One disadvantage of JPA is that it is difficult to make decisions around with multiple parties.

Can there be an interim facility on new land?

Have other cities been approached yet?

County shelter is serving animals under its care well, but capacity is an issue.

Goal #2: define “unwanted” more clearly. Need to describe treatment of feral cats.

Model B: City of Elk Grove has to fund. Can a non-profit partner be found? Access to grants? Referenced

El Dorodo County example. Also look at increasing other fees to cover costs of new shelter.

People moving into Elk Grove would be attracted to a successful shelter.

There would be increased educational opportunities with a new shelter.

Look at current expenditures vs. higher costs of Model B or C.

Is there a hybrid model inbetween B and C that would work better?

How can support for interim solutions be tapped into now? How can the community get involved?

Issues with exisiting shelter: distance too far to serve needs of community.

o Can City / other group buy a field trailer?

Location is very important for new shelter.

Officers are wasting a lot of time driving back and forth to County shelter.

Cities and Counties have the potential to do a better job than non-profits running shelters, which seems

to be the case with the Sac County shelter.

City can do a better job enforcing licensing fees. There are a lot of untapped funds available that are not

being collected.

Can more interns or more officers be hired?

Before City was incorporated, fees could be paid at the vet which was convenient. Could the City work

with local vets and do this again?

Do lost animals need to be registered?

Need complete services in Elk Grove.

A lot of progress has been made since first meeting.

Think outside the box.

Consider discounts for 60+/veterans/low-income or disables.

Community will always need a low-cost place to go for spay/neuter. Should this service be provided at

the shelter? Service is intended to be provided for shelter animals only. Service for other animals will be

provided through other contracts as they are now.

How can public help with funding?

Models B and C are planned to have a veterinarian on-site.

76




APPENDIX C: DOCUMENTATION OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED

The following is a summary of input received via letters and emails from the public during the course of this

study. Note that these have not been edited and represent opinions only, sometimes fact.

Provide something fun, like in Folsom. Where you can see the rescued animals, get t-shirts and a

burger; make a donation or ride a small train around the facility.

Another item that would be fantastic is to join the idea with a “mounted” police unit. Organize events

to bring animals to the kids at the local schools; parades could END at the facility so there would always

be a constant flow of folks.

The drop in intake does not necessarily represent success. It also represents failures and a wasting of

taxpayer resources and animals left on the streets rather than being taken to shelters. The City used to

pay 450 thousand a year for 2,600 animals a year at the SSPCA, and now pays MORE money for less than

HALF of the service. Tax money is being wasted by the county and 1,300 animals a year are being denied

the services the taxpayers pay for. As Elk Grove grows, so will the animal population. The county lacks

the resources to run the shelter it now has and even if they expand they will not build in Elk Grove. The

City has some of the highest needs for services (second only to Sacramento, which already has its own

municipal shelter.)

Sacramento County is not going to be able to expand or build additional facilities within Elk Grove and

the problem facing us (being denied services because of overcrowding) is also affecting everyone else in

the County. How did we arrive at the number of 2,052 for predicted intake? Underrepresents our

actual need for services. As a taxpayer and an animal lover, I lament the lack of resources, and mourn

the cost of all the lives not saved and pets not reunited with their owners.

Distance to County shelter takes a toll on our dedicated animal care officers. Refusing a call to pick up a

lost pet because there is no space is difficult. They could do so much more for the exact same pay if they

could just stay here within Elk Grove! It is our moral obligation to do better.

We have a choice to build our own shelter and rely on the good people of Elk Grove and to do right by

our animals.

We have the opportunity to consolidate and even expand resources by sharing with other City resources

(teen center, senior center, food bank, libraries, schools, CRC, CSD and an army of volunteers and

NGO's.)

We must plan for the future or this situation will only get worse and we cannot continue to be at the

mercy of outside agencies controlling our fate and the fate of the animals under our care.

Free vouchers for neutering a feral cat is a good service and should be brought back. Testing for Feline

Aids/Leukemia for all shelter animals is important as well as vaccinations. Educating community about

important and responsibility of neuter/spay is important.

Can the City get out of the County contract? The County seems to have promised more services than

they can provide (2,500 animals processed per year). The fine print states that they would only take

them if they had room. The contract isn’t for an exorbitant sum, but hours they are available and the

number of animals they are turning away is a horrible situation. If nothing else, but it would be nice if

they would use those funds to expand their hours and capabilities.

77




It would be nice to find out from field officers not only how many animals are turned away from the

Bradshaw shelter, but how many stray calls they don’t even TAKE because they know they will be turned

away from Bradshaw shelter. They mentioned at the meeting that they don’t even pick up an animal

that is merely “stray” if there is no room, only a violent or injured one.

Thank you for listening. As a mere “pet owner” up until two months ago when I rescued these starving

cats, I had no idea what you were up against. The City of Elk Grove has really touted its ability to keep its

budget balanced, but I see what sacrifices have been made in staffing and how hard everyone has to

juggle to make that happen. We need to do a better job educating the public about the real costs of

running the City in a way that would make us “admirable” as the one gentleman at the meeting said.

Maybe in every city newsletter feature a department and talk about what it accomplishes and where

budget cuts and shortfalls are hurting the levels of service and what the department would need to

bring it up? You may get volunteers that way, or at least build a buzz that maybe we need some sales tax

revenue or something to improve our City.

More natural light in the hallways where the animals are displayed – all dog kennels should have an

outside run, even kennels that are shared with other dogs.

Provide a map and “you are here” signs.

Cats should have an exercise area like the dogs do – outside, fresh air.

The shelter has NO clocks except in two rooms where office staff and volunteers are. I can’t tell you how

many times I’ve wanted to know what time it was.

Provide keyless access to doors – we keep losing keys and then volunteers can’t get into areas to

clean/exercise animals.

Provide AC on separate systems from zones where the public is. The front habitats are on the same AC

line as the public area. The habitat rooms get really not in summer and too warm in winter. Anything

that has to do with the animal’s environment should not be tied to a human zone.

Provide shade for the habitats on the sunny side – window overhangs, etc.

Provide cages that give cats more room. There should be doors that open between cages so cats that

get along can co-mingle and get some exercise.

Provide a room to take pretty pictures of the cats and dogs to post, not the ones at intake where they

are in cages.

Add a large, dividable public meeting room to the design. Meeting room(s) could be rented out to breed

clubs for their monthly meetings, used for obedience training classes (proceeds going to the shelter), by

trainers on contract, for small cat or dog shows, for fundraising auctions, etc. The more the public uses

the meeting rooms, the more familiar and comfortable they will become with the shelter and the things

that it can do for them and their pets. The more the public is exposed to the shelter, the faster the

adoption rate will be. It would help to cut down the euthanasia rate substantially. At the same time,

rental fees/training fees, etc. could be applied toward yearly operating costs.

Plan extra space for a gift store, should sell multiple brands of pet food in addition to collars, leashes,

books, jewelry, etc. Behavioral books should be displayed prominently; many pets are surrendered

because of behavioral problems. Profits from sales could defray operating costs. The shelter should

become the gold spot for pet food and essential supplies. Sidewalk sales spring and fall should be

combined with adoption marathons.

Classes could be held by animal behavioral experts for a modest fee.

78




Hold monthly vaccination clinics (rabies, FTV, leukemia, bordatella, etc.). Charge reasonable fees.

Occasionally for low income individuals. Also coordinate with the county’s mobile spay/neuter clinic.

Use programs, gift shop, meeting room rentals, and vaccination or spay/neuter clinics to make the

shelter THE go-to place for an animal lover’s needs: food, equipment, training, etc. Instead of Elk Grove

residents going to Petco, PetsMart and Pet Club for those items, teach them to go to the shelter for all

their needs. It would also expose more residents to the joys of volunteering at the shelter, which would

also cut operating costs.

Resist the urge to enlarge the administrative area and/or make it particularly attractive to the public.

Make it more utilitarian and spend the money saved on the animal areas. Possibly design a two-story

facility with most administrative functions on the second floor similar to Placer County’s.

Instead of concrete or composite sidewalks, use pavers so that donors can buy “bricks” with their

donations – maybe as a memorial to a loved one or a pet. And/or have a wall of brass plaques inside the

front door for memorials. Donors could also buy cages; pay the cost for a cat cage or dog kennel and

have a plaque installed with the donor’s name (business) or placed as a memorial.

What Type of Shelter:

o Kill or No-Kill (my preference No-Kill)

o Government Operated Privately Owned & Operated. Private with Government Contract, or

Rescue/Sanctuary (My preference would be Private with government contract and

Rescue/Sanctuary Partnerships)

Animal Services that Our City Needs:

o Affordable and accessible spray/neuter services

o Affordable and accessible pet vaccinations and microchip programs

o Surrender prevention/pet retention programs

o Pet identification/reunification programs

Every Shelter, at a minimum should have the following:

o A comprehensive volunteer program

o An effective foster program

o A network of rescue partners

o Innovative, aggressive adoption programs

o Behavior programs that maximize adoptions

o Medical protocols to reduce the spread of disease and keep sheltered animals healthy

o A positive approach to engaging the community in solving pet homelessness

o Senior and sick community members pet supports

o Low income/senior pet food support

o Senior Pet a kitty/doggy day

79




APPENDIX D: SITE AREA SUMMARY

Below is a hypothetical site area summary prepared for both the Elk-Grove only model and the Regional model

using the building areas developed in Appendix E and F. The site program areas assign space square footage to

typical areas seen in a shelter. The purpose of this exercise was to validate a required acreage needed for a

potential site. Once a project is realized and if the City moves forward a specific site and program should be

developed.

Comments

Description

Elk Grove Shelter-

onlyS.F.

Regional Shelter

S.F. CommentsBuilding Area

Total Interior Areas 22,500 27,800

9,500 11,500

A Subtotal Building Area (rounded) 32,000 39,300

Site Program AreasService yard & staff parking (inc. sallyport) 15,000 17,000

Barn and Barnyard 2,875 2,875

Barn Pasture 20,000 20,000

Animal Exercise Yards 10,000 10,000

Public Parking (incl. driveways & fire access road) 10,000 15,000 assumes 500 sf/space

Agility Yard 20,000 20,000

16,000 19,650

B Subtotal Site Program Areas 93,875 104,525

Site Efficiency Factor of 60%

1 1/.60 = (1.66-1) = .66 x Site Program & Building Area (A+B) 83,078 94,925

C Subtotal Site Efficiency Factor 83,078 94,925

Total Building, Site Program Areas & Efficiency Factor (A+B+C) 208,953 238,750

Site Efficiency (65% or 1.53 x (A+B+C))Total Site & Building Area (rounded) 209,000 238,800

5.00 5.50 acres

Covered Exterior Areas

Site Landscaping & hardscape (50% of bldg. footprint)

80




APPENDIX E: PROGRAM AREA SUMMARY – ELK GROVE ONLY SHELTER

Continued…

Elk Grove-only Animal Shelter S.F. CommentsPublic Areas Lobby (includes reception counter and entry vestibule) 560

Donation Drop Off 110

Small Meeting / Get Acquainted Room 200 1 room

Retail 300

Public Restrooms 250

Janitor’s Closet 65

Multipurpose Room 750

Multipurpose Storage Room 200

Cat Adoptions (16 cats) 320 double sided cages @ 20nsf/cat, incl. viewing area

2 Cat indoor/outdoor Colony Rooms (8 cats) 144 @ 72nsf ea rm, indoor sq.ft. only, see ext. space below

4 cat indoor/outdoor kennels (8 cats) 100 @ 25nsf ea, indoor sq.ft. only, see ext. space below

Dog Adoptions: (34 dogs) 816 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea.

Dog Quiet Room 96 1 room @ 96 nsf ea. room

Public Areas Sub-Total 3911

Animal Areas Sallyport (*Sallyport square footage is only incl. in covered ext.spaces) 1296*

Dog Intake Holding 120

Dog Intake Exam 162

Dog Behavior Assessment 150

Cat Intake Exam & Holding 182

Euthanasia 190

F.R.A. Room (Fluorescent Rabies Antibodies) 120

Cat Holding: Stray, Confiscate & Quarantine (22 cats) 360 3 rms @ 120sf ea. w/ 8 dbl. compart. cages ea rm.

Cat Holding: Special Care Isolation (8 cats) 120 1 room w/ 8 cats

Cat Holding Workroom 120 2 rooms @ 80 nsf ea.

Dog Holding: Stray, Confiscate & Quarantine (45 dogs) 1,080 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea.

Dog Holding: Isolation (10 dogs) 240 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea.

Dog Holding Workroom 324 3 rooms @ 108 nsf ea.

Get Aquainted Room 255 3 rooms @ 85 nsf ea.

Small Mammals/Exotics 170

Central Food Preparation Room 300

Food Storage 400

Laundry 450

Clean Laundry Storage 225

Grooming 200

General Storage 195

Central Cleaning Pump Room 50

Animal Areas Sub-Total 5413

Admin Copy/Supply 125

Front Office Supervisor (1 FTE) 150 1 office

4 admin workstations(4 FTE) 400 4 open workstations

Director's Office (1 FTE) 200 1 office

Manager's Office (1 FTE) 150 1 office

Behaviorist's Office (1 FTE) 150 1 office

Conference Room 150

Main File Storage 320

General Storage 150

81




Elk Grove Only Shelter cont.

Elk Grove-only Animal Shelter S.F. CommentsVolunteer Coordinator (1 FTE) 150 1 office

Volunteer Room 420

Kennel Attendants (5 FTE) 400 5 open workstations

Supervising Field Officer Office (1 FTE) 150 1 office

Field Officer Open Office (6 FTE) 390 6 open workstations @ 65 nsf ea.

Lead Field Officer (1 FTE) 120 1 office

Field Dispatch Officer (1 FTE) 120 1 office

Conference Room 200

Secure Animal Control Storage 50

Field Officer evidence, file, gun Storage Room 145

Field Officer Interview Room 100

Staff Break Room 325

Staff Restrooms/Locker Rooms 1,106

IDF Rooms 200

Staff Quiet Room 100

Administration Areas Sub-Total 5771

Shelter Vet Shelter Veterinary Lobby (including exam and closet) 530

Shelter Veterinary (1 FTE) 150 1 office

Vet Tech (2 FTE) 120 1 shared office, 60 sq.ft. ea.

Vet Assist (1 FTE) 30 open workstation, 30 sq.ft. ea.

Surgery Prep Room 585

Pack 150

Surgery Room 230

Dog Holding 224

Cat Holding 126

Oxygen Room 60

Shelter Veterinary Sub-Total 2205

Interior Spaces Sub-Total 17,300

Circulation, Wall Thickness @ 30% 5,190

Total Interior Areas (rounded) 22,500


Multipurpose Room Covered Patio 400

Staff Break Room Covered Patio 168

Sallyport / Cage Storage 1,296

Exterior Kennel Adoption (34) + Confiscate/Quar/Iso (55) 2,848 outdoor kennel 4'x8' = 32 sq.ft.ea.

Cat Outdoor Kennels 160 4 @ 40 nsf ea.

Cat Colony Porches 144 2 @ 72 nsf ea (8 cats)

Barn 2,160

Covered Exercise Yard 800

Feral Cat Pens 865

Storage Shed 400

Walk In Cooler 255

Total Covered Exterior Areas (rounded) 9,500

TOTAL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR (rounded) 32,000

82




APPENDIX F: PROGRAM AREA SUMMARY – REGIONAL SHELTER

Continued…

Regional Animal Shelter S.F. CommentsPublic Areas Lobby (includes reception counter and entry vestibule) 600

Donation Drop Off 110

Small Meeting / Get Acquainted Room 400 2 rooms

Retail 300

Public Restrooms 400

Janitor’s Closet 130

Multipurpose Room 750

Multipurpose Storage Room 200

Cat Adoptions: double sided cages (28 cats) 560 @ 20 nsf/cat, incl. viewing area

3 Cat indoor/outdoor Colony Rooms (12 cats) 216 @ 72 nsf ea rm, indoor sq.ft. only, see ext. space below

4 cat indoor/outdoor kennels (8 cats) 200 @ 25 nsf ea, indoor sq.ft. only, see ext. space below

Dog Adoptions: (57 dogs) 1,368 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea.

Dog Quiet Room 192 2 rooms @ 96nsf ea.

Public Areas Sub-Total 5426

Animal Areas Sallyport (*Sallyport square footage is only incl. in covered ext. spaces) 1296*

Dog Intake Holding 120

Dog Intake Exam 162

Dog Behavior Assessment 150

Cat Intake Exam & Holding 182

Euthanasia 190

F.R.A. Room (Fluorescent Rabies Antibodies) 120

Cat Holding: Stray, Confiscate & Quarantine (34 cats) 480 4 rms @ 120nsf ea. w/ 8 dbl. compart. cages ea rm.

Cat Holding: Special Care Isolation (10 cats) 240 2 rooms w/ 8 cats (rooms for 6 cats flex growth)

Cat Holding Workroom 120 2 rooms @ 80 nsf ea.

Dog Holding: Stray, Confiscate & Quarantine (76 dogs) 1,824 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea.

Dog Holding: Isolation (16 dogs) 384 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea.

Dog Holding Workroom 324 3 rooms @ 108 nsf ea.

Get Aquainted 255 3 rooms @ 85nsf ea.

Small Mammals/Exotics 340

Central Food Preparation Room 400

Food Storage 600

Laundry 550

Clean Laundry Storage 300

Grooming 200

General Storage 250

Central Cleaning Pump Room 100

Animal Areas Sub-Total 7291

Admin Copy/Supply 125

Front Office Supervisor (1 FTE) 150 1 office

4 admin workstations(4 FTE) 400 4 open workstations

Director's Office (1 FTE) 200 1 office

Manager's Office (1 FTE) 150 1 office

Behaviorist's Office (1 FTE) 150 1 office

Conference Room 150

Main File Storage 320

General Storage 150

83




Regional Shelter cont.

Regional Animal Shelter S.F. CommentsVolunteer Coordinator (1 FTE) 150 1 office

Volunteer Room 520

Kennel Attendants (7 FTE) 485 7 open workstations

Supervising Field Officer Office (1 FTE) 150

Field Officer Open Office (8 FTE) 520 8 open workstations @ 65nsf ea.

Lead Field Officer (1 FTE) 120 1 office

Field Dispatch Officer (1 FTE) 120 1 office

Conference Room 200

Secure Animal Control Storage 50

Field Officer evidence, file, gun Storage Room 145

Field Officer Interview Room 100

Staff Break Room 325

Staff Restrooms/Locker Rooms 1,106

IDF Rooms 200

Staff Quiet Room 100

Administration Areas Sub-Total 6086

Shelter Vet Shelter Veterinary Lobby (including exam and closet) 530

Shelter Veterinary (2 FTE) 300 2 offices

Vet Tech (4 FTE) 240 1 shared office, 60 sq.ft. ea.

Vet Assist (2 FTE) 60 30 sq.ft. ea.

Surgery Prep Room 585

Pack 150

Surgery Room 230

Dog Holding 224

Cat Holding 126

Oxygen Room 60

Shelter Veterinary Sub-Total 2505

Interior Spaces Sub-Total 21,308

Circulation, Wall Thickness @ 30% 6,392

Total Interior Areas (rounded) 27,800


Multipurpose Room Covered Patio 400

Staff Break Room Covered Patio 168

Sallyport / Cage Storage 1,296

Exterior Kennel Adoption (57) + Confiscate/Quar/Iso (92) 4,768 outdoor kennel 4'x8' = 32 sq.ft. ea.

Cat Outdoor Kennels 160 4 @ 40 nsf ea.

Cat Colony Porches 216 3 @ 72 nsf ea (8 cats)

Barn 2,160

Covered Exercise Yard 800

Feral Cat Pens 865

Storage Shed 400

Walk In Cooler 255

Total Covered Exterior Areas (rounded) 11,500

TOTAL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR (rounded) 39,300

84




APPENDIX G: PROJECTED OPERATING BUDGET COMPARISON

Projected Operating Budget Comparison

cont….

CURRENT MODEL A MODEL B MODEL C

Item CONTRACT-OUT MODEL CONTRACT-OUT

MODEL CONTINUED

NEW ELK GROVE-

ONLY SHELTER

NEW REGIONAL

SHELTER

Comments

(2015 dollars) (2015 dollars) (2015 dollars) (2015 dollars)

ASSUMPTIONS

Est. existing Basement Level area 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF

Est. existing Main Level area 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF

Est. existing Upper Level area 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF

Year of operation 2013 YR 2015 YR 2017 YR 2017 YR All costs shown in 2015 dollars.

Staffing 7.8 FTE 7.8 FTE 26.3 FTE 35.8 FTE Includes 0.8 FTE sworn staff.

Site area 0 AC 0 AC 5 AC 5.5 AC

Building area 478 SF 478 SF 22,500 SF 27,600 SF

Average staff salary, fully loaded, per FTE $101,418 (2) $107,503 (2) $80,000 (3) $80,000 (3)

Yearly utility cost (HVAC, water, power, SS, SD) Int. Services Int. Services $5 SF $5 SF

Yearly tel/data/communications cost Int. Services Int. Services $1 SF $1 SF

Yearly building systems maintenance cost Int. Services Int. Services $3 SF $3 SF

Yearly janitorial and site maintenance cost Int. Services Int. Services $1 SF $1 SF

Yearly waste removal cost $0 $0 $1 SF $1 SF

Deceased animal removal (Koefran or sim.) $0 $0 MO $1,100 MO $1,400 MO quote 10/17, 2-3 pickup/week.

Elk Grove contract amount to County $595,000 $635,000 (1) $0 $0

EXPENSE

Professional services $602,300 $645,000 (11) $20,000 $25,000

Salaries, loaded with all benefits $791,061 $838,525 $2,104,000 (5) $2,864,000 (5)

Insurance Int. Services Int. Services $0 $0 assumes none included.

Shelter food and supplies $0 $0 $25,000 $35,000

Medical and dental supplies $0 $0 $35,000 $45,000

Tools and equipment $6,000 $6,360 (11) $20,000 $25,000

Furnishings $0 $0 $3,500 $3,800

Memberships and subscriptions $500 $530 (11) $1,100 $1,500

Training $10,000 $10,600 (11) $50,000 $55,000

Mobile equipment incl. phones $3,600 $3,816 (11) $10,000 $12,000

Miscellaneous material and supplies $8,000 $8,480 (11) $10,000 $12,000

Public relations $2,500 $2,650 (11) $5,000 $5,000

Legal services $6,880 $7,293 (11) $10,000 $10,000

Contract veterinary services $26,000 $27,560 (11) $30,000 $35,000

Spay/ neuter program $5,000 $5,300 (11) $0 $0

Vehicle - purchase $0 $58,000 (12) $116,000 (12) $116,000 (12)

Vehicle - fuel Int. Services Int. Services $51,500 (11) $51,500 (11)

Vehicle - maintenance, repair, warranty, etc. Int. Services Int. Services $25,000 (11) $25,000 (11)

Building - utilities Int. Services Int. Services $112,500 (6) $138,000 (6)

Building - communications Int. Services Int. Services $22,500 (6) $27,600 (6)

Building - systems maintenance Int. Services Int. Services $67,500 (6) $82,800 (6)

Building - janitorial Int. Services Int. Services $22,500 (6) $27,600 (6)

Building - waste removal service Int. Services Int. Services $22,500 (6) $27,600 (6)

Deceased animal removal (Koefran or sim.) $0 Int. Services $13,200 (7) $16,800 (7)

Lease - printing and copying equip., other Int. Services $0 $2,500 $3,000

Internal services and cost allocations $243,490 $258,099 (11) incl. above incl. above

TOTAL EXPENSE $1,705,331 $1,872,213 $2,779,300 $3,644,200

Referenced notes:

(1) Projected increase for 2015 per City of Elk Grove. It is unknown what the contract would be if services are delivered from a new facility.

(2) Average staff salary shown is based on existing actual salaries for 7.8 staff as follows: 1 Supervisor, 4 ACO, 2 administrative and 0.8 sworn staff. Assumes no staff increase in 2015.

(3) Average staff salary shown is estimated based on full animal shelter staff including kennel workers, animal care attendants, sworn admin. oversight, etc.

(4) Not used.

(5) Salaries shown are Staffing x Average staff salary, fully loaded, per FTE.

(6) Figures shown are Building area x the corresponding units for each under Assumptions above.

(7) The yearly amount shown for animal removal is 12 x the monthly amount shown for the Koefran under Assumptions above.

(8) The contract amount shown is that amount required to keep Elk Grove's yearly net costs same as the Elk Grove-only shelter in Model B.

(9) The cost shown for the Model C Regional Shelter is controlled to ensure that City of Elk Grove cost does not exceed that for Model B - Elk Grove-only Shelter. See note (8).

(10) FY 2014 actual amount shown.

(11) FY 2015 City amount is estimated by multiplying the actual 2014 figure by 1.06 escalation factor.

(12) Estimate provided by City. .

85




Projected Operating Budget Comparison, cont.

CURRENT MODEL A MODEL B MODEL C

Item CONTRACT-OUT MODEL CONTRACT-OUT

MODEL CONTINUED

NEW ELK GROVE-

ONLY SHELTER

NEW REGIONAL

SHELTER

Comments

(2015 dollars) (2015 dollars) (2015 dollars) (2015 dollars)

REVENUE

Animal licenses $74,565 (10) $79,039 (11) $100,000 $100,000

Animal Control fees and citations $67,006 (10) $71,026 (11) $70,000 $70,000

Humane services $0 $0 $0 $0 assumes none included.

Other charges for services $0 $0 $0 $0 assumes none included.

Contracts or JPA share of Isleton, Galt and RC $0 $0 $0 $860,000 (8)

From non-profits $0 $0 $0 $0 assumes none included.

Donations and grants $0 $0 $10,000 $15,000 existing not known.

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 assumes none included.

TOTAL REVENUE $141,571 $150,065 $180,000 $1,045,000

NET COST (EXPENSE) ($1,563,760) ($1,722,148) ($2,599,300) ($2,599,200)

Rounded for Fiscal Planning Purposes ($1,564,000) ($1,723,000) ($2,600,000) ($2,600,000) (9)

Referenced notes:

(1) Projected increase for 2015 per City of Elk Grove. It is unknown what the contract would be if services are delivered from a new facility.

(2) Average staff salary shown is based on existing actual salaries for 7.8 staff as follows: 1 Supervisor, 4 ACO, 2 administrative and 0.8 sworn staff. Assumes no staff increase in 2015.

(3) Average staff salary shown is estimated based on full animal shelter staff including kennel workers, animal care attendants, sworn admin. oversight, etc.

(4) Not used.

(5) Salaries shown are Staffing x Average staff salary, fully loaded, per FTE.

(6) Figures shown are Building area x the corresponding units for each under Assumptions above.

(7) The yearly amount shown for animal removal is 12 x the monthly amount shown for the Koefran under Assumptions above.

(8) The contract amount shown is that amount required to keep Elk Grove's yearly net costs same as the Elk Grove-only shelter in Model B.

(9) The cost shown for the Model C Regional Shelter is controlled to ensure that City of Elk Grove cost does not exceed that for Model B - Elk Grove-only Shelter. See note (8).

(10) FY 2014 actual amount shown.

(11) FY 2015 City amount is estimated by multiplying the actual 2014 figure by 1.06 escalation factor.

(12) Estimate provided by City. .

86




APPENDIX H: ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST – ELK GROVE ONLY SHELTER

Continued…..

PROJECT DATATotal Site Area 217,800 SF 5.0 Acres

Service yard and staff parking 15,000 SF

Barn and barnyard 3,000 SF

Barn pasture 20,000 SF

Animal exercise yards 10,000 SF

Public parking (incl. drives and fire access) 10,000 SF

Storage shed 400 SF

Feral cat pens 400 SF

Agility yard 20,000 SF

Landscaping w/ irrigation - intensive (around bldg.) 20,000 SF

Landscaping w/ irrigation - minimal (hydroseed, etc.) 75,000 SF

Hardscape including walkways/exercise areas 12,000 SF

Total Building Area 22,500 SF

Shelter 19,630 SF

Shelter Veterinary 2,870 SF

Covered Exterior Areas 9,500 SF

*incl. sallyport, ext. kennels, cat colony porches, cage storage

SITE ACQUISITIONLand purchase 5.0 AC $300,000 $1,500,000 allowance

Legal, other fees 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 allowance

Closing, other costs 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 allowance

SUBTOTAL SITE ACQUISITION 5.0 AC $318,000 $1,590,000

A. SITE ACQUISITION $1,590,000 rounded

SITEWORK CONSTRUCTIONOffsite Construction 5.0 AC $24,400 $122,000

Offsite demolition 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 allowance

Utilities, connect to street 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 allowance

Sidewalk, curb & gutter 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 allowance

Driveway entrances 1 LS $22,000 $22,000 allowance

Onsite Construction 5.0 AC $349,200 $1,746,000Onsite demolition 1 EA $30,000 $30,000 allowance

Grading & pad preparation 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 allowance

Storm drainage 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 allowance

Potable water & meter 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 allowance

Fire water & hydrants 1 LS $90,000 $90,000 allowance

Sanitary sewer 1 LS $60,000 $60,000 allowance

Gas service 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 allowance

Electrical service, meter & pad 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 allowance

Electrical site lighting 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 allowance

87




Elk Grove Only Shelter Cost Continued…..

Continued…..

Fiber / Telephone service 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 allowance

Trash / Recycling enclosure 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 allowance

Sidewalks / flatwork 12,000 SF $10 $120,000 allowance

Vehicular paving, striping, drives and fire lanes 25,000 SF $8 $200,000 allowance

Curb & gutter 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 allowance

Chain link fencing 1,500 LF $30 $45,000 allowance

Security fencing incl. man gates - ornamental 600 LF $70 $42,000 allowance

Security fencing incl. man gates - chain link 450 LF $40 $18,000 allowance

Motorized gate 1 LS $28,000 $28,000 allowance

Security electronics 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 allowance

Landscape & irrigation - intensive 20,000 SF $6 $120,000 allowance

Landscape & irrigation - minimal 75,000 SF $1 $75,000 allowance

Artificial turf, outdoor play 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 allowance

Outdoor trails/par course 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 allowance

Outdoor pavilion 800 SF $35 $28,000 allowance

Barn 3,000 SF $60 $180,000 allowance

Site accessories - flagpole, signage, misc. 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 allowance

SUBTOTAL SITEWORK 5.0 AC $373,600 $1,868,000

BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONAnimal Shelter 19,630 SF $325 $6,379,750 allowance.

Animal Shelter - veterinary 2,870 SF $375 $1,076,250 allowance.

Animal Shelter - outdoor covered area 9,500 SF $75 $712,500 allowance.

(excl. barn & pavilion)

SUBTOTAL BUILDINGS 32,000 SF $260 $8,168,500

TOTALS FROM ABOVE (BLDG'S & SITE) $10,036,500

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS MARK-UPGeneral Conditions 6.00% $10,036,500 $602,190 allowance

General Contractor's Fee 5.00% $10,036,500 $501,825 allowance

Bonds & Insurance 1.50% $10,036,500 $150,548 allowance

SUBTOTAL GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 12.50% $1,254,563

B. DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST $11,292,000 rounded

INDIRECT COSTEquipment $750,000

Equipment allowance 1 EA $100,000 $100,000 allowance

Animal equipment allowance 1 EA $450,000 $450,000 allowance

Furnishings equipment allowance 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 allowance

Other $1,620,880

Design and engineering fees 10 % $11,292,000 $1,129,200 allowance.

Testing and inspection 2 % $11,292,000 $225,840 allowance.

Topographical and utility survey 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 allowance.

Geotechnical investigation and report 1 EA $15,000 $15,000 allowance.

Project administration by City 2 % $11,292,000 $225,840 allowance.

SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COST $2,370,880

C. INDIRECT COST $2,371,000 rounded

88




Elk Grove Only Shelter Cost Continued…..

CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATIONContingencies $1,525,300

Contingency on site acquisition 10 % $1,590,000 $159,000 allowance.

Contingency on direct construction 10 % $11,292,000 $1,129,200 allowance.

Contingency on indirect cost 10 % $2,371,000 $237,100 allowance.

Escalation $381,325 costs shown are 2015.

Escalation on site acquisition 2.5 % $1,590,000 $39,750 allowance.

Escalation on direct construction 2.5 % $11,292,000 $282,300 allowance.

Escalation on indirect cost 2.5 % $2,371,000 $59,275 allowance.

SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY & ESCALATION $1,906,625

D. CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATION $1,907,000 rounded

E. TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST (A+B+C+D) $17,200,000 rounded

89




APPENDIX I: ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST – REGIONAL SHELTER

Continued…..







Storage shed 400 SF


Agility yard 20,000 SF

Landscaping w/ irrigation - intensive (around bldg.) 20,000 SF

Landscaping w/ irrigation - minimal (hydroseed, etc.) 80,480 SF

Hardscape including walkways/exercise areas 14,000 SF

Total Building Area 27,800 SF

Shelter 24,550 SF




SITE ACQUISITIONLand purchase 5.5 AC $300,000 $1,650,000 allowance

Legal, other fees 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 allowance

Closing, other costs 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 allowance

SUBTOTAL SITE ACQUISITION 5.5 AC $316,364 $1,740,000

A. SITE ACQUISITION $1,740,000 rounded

SITEWORK CONSTRUCTIONOffsite Construction 5.5 AC $22,182 $122,000

Offsite demolition 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 allowance

Utilities, connect to street 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 allowance

Sidewalk, curb & gutter 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 allowance

Driveway entrances 1 LS $22,000 $22,000 allowance

Onsite Construction 5.5 AC $345,724 $1,901,480Onsite demolition 1 EA $30,000 $30,000 allowance

Grading & pad preparation 1 LS $180,000 $180,000 allowance


Potable water & meter 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 allowance

Fire water & hydrants 1 LS $90,000 $90,000 allowance


Gas service 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 allowance

Electrical service, meter & pad 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 allowance


90




Regional Shelter Cost continued….

Continued…..

Fiber / Telephone service 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 allowance

Trash / Recycling enclosure 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 allowance

Sidewalks / flatwork 14,000 SF $10 $140,000 allowance

Vehicular paving, striping, drives and fire lanes 32,000 SF $8 $256,000 allowance

Curb & gutter 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 allowance









Outdoor trails/par course 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 allowance

Outdoor pavilion 800 SF $35 $28,000 allowance



SUBTOTAL SITEWORK 5.5 AC $367,905 $2,023,480

BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONAnimal Shelter 24,550 SF $325 $7,978,750 allowance

Animal Shelter - veterinary 3,250 SF $375 $1,218,750 allowance

Animal Shelter - outdoor covered area 11,500 SF $75 $862,500 allowance

(excl. barn & pavilion)





Bonds & Insurance 1.50% $12,083,480 $181,252 allowance.

SUBTOTAL GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 12.50% $1,510,435






Other $1,943,160 allowance

Design and engineering fees 10 % $13,594,000 $1,359,400 allowance

Testing and inspection 2 % $13,594,000 $271,880 allowance

Topographical and utility survey 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 allowance

Geotechnical investigation and report 1 EA $15,000 $15,000 allowance

Project administration by City 2 % $13,594,000 $271,880 allowance



91




Regional Shelter Cost continued….

CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATIONContingencies $1,816,800

Contingency on site acquisition 10 % $1,740,000 $174,000 allowance

Contingency on direct construction 10 % $13,594,000 $1,359,400 allowance

Contingency on indirect cost 10 % $2,834,000 $283,400 allowance


Escalation on site acquisition 2.5 % $1,740,000 $43,500 allowance

Escalation on direct construction 2.5 % $13,594,000 $339,850 allowance

Escalation on indirect cost 2.5 % $2,834,000 $70,850 allowance

$2,271,000



SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY & ESCALATION

92




APPENDIX J: ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST – REMODEL OPTION

Continued….







Storage shed 400 SF


Agility yard 0 SF assumes future

Landscaping w/ irrigation - minimal (around bldg.) 20,000 SF assumes minimal

Landscaping w/ irrigation - minimal (hydroseed, etc.) 93,000 SF assumes minimal

Hardscape including walkways/exercise areas 12,000 SF assumes existing

Total Building Area 22,500 SFShelter 16,525 SF

Shelter - Future Expansion 3,105 SF



Exterior Covered Areas 9,500 SF

Exterior Areas - Future Expansion 2,000 SF


SITE & BUILDING ACQUISITIONBuilding and land purchase, based on cost/sf of bldg 22,500 SF $125 $2,812,500 allowance.

Legal, other fees 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 allowance.

Closing, other costs 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 allowance.

SUBTOTAL SITE & BUILDING ACQUISITION 5.0 AC $580,500 $2,902,500

A. SITE & BUILDING ACQUISITION $2,903,000 rounded

SITEWORK CONSTRUCTIONOffsite Construction 5.0 AC $0 $0

Offsite demolition 0 LS $0 $0 assumes none incl.

Utilities, connect to street 0 LS $0 $0 assumes none incl.

Sidewalk, curb & gutter 0 LS $0 $0 assumes none req'd

Driveway entrances 0 LS $0 $0 assumes none req'd

Onsite Construction 5.0 AC $111,800 $559,000Onsite demolition 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 allowance

Grading & pad preparation 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 allowance for barn


Potable water & meter 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 allowance for barn

Fire water & hydrants 0 LS $0 $0 assumes none incl.


Gas service 0 LS $0 $0 assumes none incl.

Electrical service 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 allowance for barn


TI on current need only

93




Remodel option Continued…..

Continued….

Fiber / Telephone service 0 LS $0 $0 assumes none incl.

Trash / Recycling enclosure 0 LS $0 $0 assumes none req'd

Sidewalks / flatwork 2,500 SF $10 $25,000 assumes minimal req'd

Vehicular paving, striping, drives and fire lanes 5,000 SF $3 $15,000 assumes minimal req'd

Curb & gutter 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 assumes minimal req'd









Outdoor pavilion 0 SF $0 $0 assumes none incl.



SUBTOTAL SITEWORK 5.0 AC $111,800 $559,000

BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONAnimal Shelter - remodel construction 16,525 SF $150 $2,478,750 allowance

Surplus Area - future TI 3,105 SF $0 $0 future phase

Animal Shelter - veterinary - remodel construction 2,870 SF $200 $574,000 allowance

Animal Shelter - outdoor covered area 9,500 SF $75 $712,500 allowance

Animal Shelter - future outdoor covered area 2,000 SF $0 $0 future phase





Bonds & Insurance 1.50% $4,324,250 $64,864 allowance

SUBTOTAL GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 17.50% $756,744






Other $762,150 allowance

Design and engineering fees 12 % $5,081,000 $609,720 allowance

Testing and inspection 1 % $5,081,000 $50,810 allowance

Topographical and utility survey 0 EA $0 $0 assumes none

Geotechnical investigation and report 0 EA $0 $0 assumes none

Project administration by City 2 % $5,081,000 $101,620 allowance



94




Remodel Option Continued…..

CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATIONContingencies $932,200

Contingency on site acquisition 10 % $2,903,000 $290,300 allowance

Contingency on direct construction 10 % $5,081,000 $508,100 allowance

Contingency on indirect cost 10 % $1,338,000 $133,800 allowance


Escalation on site acquisition 2.5 % $2,903,000 $72,575 allowance

Escalation on direct construction 2.5 % $5,081,000 $127,025 allowance

Escalation on indirect cost 2.5 % $1,338,000 $33,450 allowance

SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY & ESCALATION $1,165,250



95

Cit

y o

f El

k G

rove

A

nim

al S

hel

ter

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

Stu

dy

Ind

igo

| H

amm

on

d +

Pla

yle

Arc

hit

ects

7

2 o

f 8

0

J

anu

ary

12

, 20

15

Ko

ret

Shel

ter

Med

icin

e P

rogr

am

APP

END

IX K

: PO

WER

POIN

T S

LID

ESH

OW

, “H

EALT

HY

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTS

FO

R E

LK G

RO

VE”

96

Cit

y o

f El

k G

rove

A

nim

al S

hel

ter

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

Stu

dy

Ind

igo

| H

amm

on

d +

Pla

yle

Arc

hit

ects

7

3 o

f 8

0

J

anu

ary

12

, 20

15

Ko

ret

Shel

ter

Med

icin

e P

rogr

am

Shelter

facili

ties, anim

als

and

com

munitie

s: m

akin

g the c

onnection

Kate

F. H

url

ey, D

VM

, MP

VM

Ko

ret

She

lte

r M

ed

icin

e P

rogr

am C

en

ter

for

Co

mp

anio

n A

nim

al H

eal

th

Un

ive

rsit

y o

f C

alif

orn

ia, D

avis

w

ww

.sh

elte

rme

dic

ine

.co

m

ww

w.f

ace

bo

ok.

com

/sh

elt

erm

ed

icin

e

97

http://www.sheltermedicine.com/

http://www.sheltermedicine.com/

http://www.facebook.com/sheltermedicine

Cit

y o

f El

k G

rove

A

nim

al S

hel

ter

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

Stu

dy

Ind

igo

| H

amm

on

d +

Pla

yle

Arc

hit

ects

7

4 o

f 8

0

J

anu

ary

12

, 20

15

Ko

ret

Shel

ter

Med

icin

e P

rogr

am

98

Cit

y o

f El

k G

rove

A

nim

al S

hel

ter

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

Stu

dy

Ind

igo

| H

amm

on

d +

Pla

yle

Arc

hit

ects

7

5 o

f 8

0

J

anu

ary

12

, 20

15

Ko

ret

Shel

ter

Med

icin

e P

rogr

am

99

Cit

y o

f El

k G

rove

A

nim

al S

hel

ter

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

Stu

dy

Ind

igo

| H

amm

on

d +

Pla

yle

Arc

hit

ects

7

6 o

f 8

0

J

anu

ary

12

, 20

15

Ko

ret

Shel

ter

Med

icin

e P

rogr

am

100

Cit

y o

f El

k G

rove

A

nim

al S

hel

ter

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

Stu

dy

Ind

igo

| H

amm

on

d +

Pla

yle

Arc

hit

ects

7

7 o

f 8

0

J

anu

ary

12

, 20

15

Ko

ret

Shel

ter

Med

icin

e P

rogr

am

101

Cit

y o

f El

k G

rove

A

nim

al S

hel

ter

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

Stu

dy

Ind

igo

| H

amm

on

d +

Pla

yle

Arc

hit

ects

7

8 o

f 8

0

J

anu

ary

12

, 20

15

Ko

ret

Shel

ter

Med

icin

e P

rogr

am

102

Cit

y o

f El

k G

rove

A

nim

al S

hel

ter

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

Stu

dy

Ind

igo

| H

amm

on

d +

Pla

yle

Arc

hit

ects

7

9 o

f 8

0

J

anu

ary

12

, 20

15

Ko

ret

Shel

ter

Med

icin

e P

rogr

am

103

Cit

y o

f El

k G

rove

A

nim

al S

hel

ter

Nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent

Stu

dy

Ind

igo

| H

amm

on

d +

Pla

yle

Arc

hit

ects

8

0 o

f 8

0

J

anu

ary

12

, 20

15

Ko

ret

Shel

ter

Med

icin

e P

rogr

am

104

city of elk grove city council staff report · an animal shelter. staff has toured multiple...

Documents