CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Transcription

1 CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO. 0.2 AGENDA TITLE: Animal Shelter Next Steps MEETING DATE: January 3, 206 PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: Maureen McCann, Animal Control Supervisor Joe Young, Lieutenant Kara Reddig, Deputy City Manager Robert Lehner, Chief of Police RECOMMENDED ACTION:. 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 assumed control over Animal Control Services from the County of Sacramento on September, 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 6, 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 20 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.

2 Elk Grove City Council January 3, 206 Page 2 of 9 February City received written notice from the SSPCA advising staff of its intention to terminate the contract effective December 3, 203. Spring 203 City decided to not conduct another RFP process because the previous one conducted in 20 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 (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, 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. October 23, 203 A staff report was presented to Council for the following actions: ) 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, 204. 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 3, SSPCA contract was terminated. January, 204 County of Sacramento Animal Care and Regulation Sheltering contract began. Spring 204 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 2

3 Elk Grove City Council January 3, 206 Page 3 of 9 Assessment Study to determine the most effective operating models available to deliver animal shelter services in Elk Grove. Summer 204 Winter 205 The city-retained consultants conducted and prepared the. Two public meetings were extensively advertised regarding the study and were held on September 22 and November 3, 204. Turnout was high at both meetings, and attendees provided their thoughts and ideas on how animal sheltering should operate in Elk Grove. January 28, 205 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 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 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

4 Elk Grove City Council January 3, 206 Page 4 of 9 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 205 Since January 205, 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 / nonprofit 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, 208 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 - Refine Intake Numbers: Refine intake numbers based on historical data we now have with the County. In the January 205 staff report, staff outlined concerns with the 203 SSPCA intake numbers as compared to the 204 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

5 Elk Grove City Council January 3, 206 Page 5 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 % Decrease Elk Grove Dogs (study estimate) between 203 and SSPCA Elk Grove Dogs (actual data) Sacramento County % Decrease Elk Grove Cats (study estimate) between 203 and 204 SSPCA Elk Grove Cats (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. 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

6 Elk Grove City Council January 3, 206 Page 6 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. Staff is also exploring the possibility of repurposing the adjacent Police Fleet building/land to possibly serve as a potential Phase 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

7 Elk Grove City Council January 3, 206 Page 7 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, are shown in Appendix H to the Needs Assessment Study: APPENDIX H - ELK GROVE ONLY SHELTER* PROJECT DATA Total Site Area (5.0 acres): Total Building Area: Covered Exterior Area: ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST 27,800 22,500 9,500 COSTS Site Acquisition $,590,000 Construction $,292,000 Equipment Allowance $ 750,000 Indirect Soft Costs $,620,880 Contingencies $,525,300 Escalation $ 38,325 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-MIDDLE RANGE $ 7,200,000 ROUNDED TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-LOW RANGE $ 3,760,000 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-HIGH RANGE $ 20,640,000 * New construction project will be subject to utility impact fees up to $500, depending upon location, in addition to Total Project Development Costs shown. Escalation: includes 2.5% escalation for site acquisition, direct construction, equipment and indirect costs. Escalation figure is in 205 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. 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

8 Elk Grove City Council January 3, 206 Page 8 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 ($8,7,799 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 $3,46,850 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 $3.6 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 $.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 and FY These estimates include costs for animal shelter and field services. Current Model Contract (FY4/5) Model A Contract (FY5/6 Estimates) Model B New Elk Grove Shelter Expense $,705,33 $,872,23 $2,779,300 Revenue $4,57 $50,065 $80,000 Net Cost ($,563,760) ($,722,48) ($2,599,300) Cost Increase** $0 $58,388 $,035,540 **This represents the increase in net costs from the current model. 8

9 Elk Grove City Council January 3, 206 Page 9 of 9 The net cost for Animal Control to operate today in the City is $.6 million, which is paid from the General Fund. Operating costs would increase by approximately $ 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 FY208-9, current projections show approximately $.4 million in unprogrammed revenues. This amount increases annually from FY to FY 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:. Staff Report dated January 28, 205 (includes Animal Shelter Needs Assessment Study) 9

10 CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 0.2 AGENDA TITLE: MEETING DATE: January 28, 205 PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: Maureen McCann, Animal Control Supervisor Joe Young, Lieutenant Kara Reddig, Deputy City Manager Laura S. Gill, City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION:. 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 assumed control over Animal Control Services from the County of Sacramento on September, 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: 0

11 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page 2 of 2 February 6, 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 20 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 City received written notice from the SSPCA advising staff of its intention to terminate the contract effective December 3, 203. Spring 203 City decided to not conduct another RFP because the last one conducted in 20 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 (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, 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. October 23, 203 A staff report was presented to Council for the following actions: ) 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, 204. December 3, SSPCA contract was terminated.

12 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page 3 of 2 January, 204 County of Sacramento Animal Care and Regulation Sheltering contract began. Spring 204 City entered into a contract with Indigo/Hammond & Playle Architects, LLP and the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine to conduct an to determine the most effective operating models available to deliver animal shelter services in Elk Grove. Summer 204 Winter 205 The city-retained consultants conducted and prepared the. Two public meetings were extensively advertised regarding the study and were held on September 22 and November 3. 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 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 204 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 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. 2

13 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page 4 of 2 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 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. 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 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 3

14 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page 5 of 2 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, 203 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. 4

15 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page 6 of 2 There is a substantial difference in the 203 SSPCA intake numbers as compared to the 204 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 % Decrease Elk Grove Dogs (study estimate) between 203 and SSPCA Elk Grove Dogs Sacramento County Elk Grove Cats SSPCA Elk Grove Cats 203 (study estimate ) % Decrease between 203 and 204 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 200 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 5

16 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page 7 of 2 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, 204 to December 3, 204. These animals were not taken to the shelter. Animal Control staff will continue to keep and maintain these statistics. In October 202, 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 5, 204; however, the City has continued funding these programs through collected unaltered license fees. In September 204, 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: 6

17 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page 8 of 2 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 203, 404 dogs and 267 cats were surrendered by Elk Grove residents. In reviewing the reasons why these 67 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 7 of Attachment 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. 7

18 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page 9 of 2 APPENDIX H - ELK GROVE ONLY SHELTER* PROJECT DATA Total Site Area (5.0 acres): Total Building Area: Covered Exterior Area: ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST 27,800 22,500 9,500 COSTS Site Acquisition $,590,000 Construction $,292,000 Equipment Allowance $ 750,000 Indirect Soft Costs $,620,880 Contingencies $,525,300 Escalation $ 38,325 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-MIDDLE RANGE $ 7,200,000 ROUNDED TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-LOW RANGE $ 3,760,000 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-HIGH RANGE $ 20,640,000 * New construction project will be subject to utility impact fees up to $500, depending upon location, in addition to Total Project Development Costs shown. APPENDIX I - REGIONAL SHELTER* PROJECT DATA Total Site Area (5.5 acres): Total Building Area: Covered Exterior Area: ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST 239,580 27,800,500 COSTS Site Acquisition $,740,000 Construction $ 3,594,000 Equipment Allowance $ 890,000 Indirect Soft Costs $,943,60 Contingencies $,86,800 Escalation $ 454,200 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-MIDDLE RANGE $ 20,500,000 ROUNDED TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-LOW RANGE $ 6,400,000 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-HIGH RANGE $ 24,600,000 * New construction project will be subject to utility impact fees up to $500, depending upon location, in addition to Total Project Development Costs shown. 8

19 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page 0 of 2 APPENDIX J - REMODEL OPTION PROJECT DATA Total Site Area (5.0 acres): Total Building Area: Covered Exterior Area: ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST 27,800 22,500,500 COSTS Site Acquisition $ 2,903,000 Construction $ 5,08,000 Equipment Allowance $ 575,000 Indirect Soft Costs $ 762,50 Contingencies $ 932,200 Escalation $ 233,050 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-MIDDLE RANGE $ 0,500,000 ROUNDED TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-LOW RANGE $ 8,400,000 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS-HIGH RANGE $ 2,600,000 There are a variety of potential ways to fund an animal shelter, which are outlined beginning on page 40 of Attachment. 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 6 and 62 of Attachment for a full breakdown of expenses and revenues per model. Yearly operating and maintenance costs could range from $.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 9

20 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page of 2 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 and FY Current Model Model A Contract Model B New Elk Grove Shelter Model C New Regional Shelter Expense $,705,33 $,872,23 $2,779,300 $3,644,200 Revenue $4,57 $50,065 $80,000 $,045,000* Net Cost ($,563,760) ($,722,48) ($2,599,300) ($2,599,200) Cost $0 $58,388 $,035,540 $,035,540 Increase** *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 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 $.6 million paid from the General Fund. Operating costs would increase by approximately $ 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 FY208-9, current projections show approximately $.4 million in unprogrammed revenues. This amount increases annually from FY to FY 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

21 Elk Grove City Council January 28, 205 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT:. Final 2

22 ANIMAL SHELTER NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY For the CITY OF ELK GROVE January 2, 205 Prepared By: with 22

23 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Executive Summary.. 2. Methodology & Background Goals & Objectives 6 4. Existing Conditions Population & Trend Analysis 3 Relation to General Plan. 3 Population Projections.3 Review of Animal Intakes.. 7 Population and Trends Summary. 9 Projected Animal Capacities.9 6. Best Practices for Shelter Medicine & Animal Care.. 22 Staffing Considerations for Contractee Programmatic Elements 23 Facility Primary Housing. 25 Number of Housing Units Facility Design & Environment 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 Facility Area & Staffing.. 37 Program Components. 37 Projected Building Area Projected Site Area.. 38 Staffing Needs.. 38 Phasing Cost & Funding Alternatives Comparative Analysis. 42 Comparison Matrix Community Input.. 45 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects i January 2,

24 Appendix A: Notes from Public Meeting No.. 46 Appendix B: Notes from Public Meeting No Appendix C: Documentation of Additional Public Comments Received Appendix D: Site Area Summary.. 56 Appendix E: Program Area Summary Elk Grove Only Shelter. 57 Appendix F: Program Area Summary Regional Shelter Appendix G: Projected Operating Budget Comparison 6 Appendix H: Estimate of Probable Cost Elk Grove Only Shelter Appendix I: Estimate of Probable Cost Regional Shelter.. 66 Appendix J: Estimate of Probable Cost Remodel Option Appendix K: Public Meeting No. PowerPoint slideshow, Healthy Environments for Elk Grove. 72 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects ii January 2,

25 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Study was commissioned by the in order to determine the best method of delivering animal sheltering services for the 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 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. The animal capacity calculations are based on 203 intake numbers with future animal capacity projections for the 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,844 being cats. This then translates into housing recommendations for 89 dog housing units and 6 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 only could range anywhere from $3.8 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 $5.6 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 $.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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2,

26 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 $.9 million. O&M costs currently are approximately $.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 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 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 $3.8 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 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 2 of 80 January 2,

27 facility would be in the range of $6.4 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 3 of 80 January 2,

28 2 METHODOLOGY & BACKGROUND Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects, LLP was hired by the to provide an animal shelter needs assessment study. The scope of the study was built around steps: Step : Set goals and objectives. The 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 (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, 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 #. 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 0: 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. Step : 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 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 28 4 of 80 January 2, 205

29 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, 204. 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 203, the City s intake total was 2,387, composed of,030 (43%) cats and,357 (57%) dogs. The brought Animal Services division in-house for animal control in September of 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 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 203, the City received written notice from the SSPCA advising staff of its intention to terminate the contract effective December 3, 203. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 5 of 80 January 2,

30 3 GOA & OBJECTIVES Indigo Architects and KSMP met with 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:. 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. 0. 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):. Provide a shelter for the 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. 0. Build a facility that delivers programs and will meet community needs for years to come. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 30 6 of 80 January 2, 205

31 . Right size the facility. Undersizing creates overcrowding and unmet needs while oversizing creates increased length of stay while not improving adoptions or services. 2. Design flexible spaces that can serve many needs and be converted to housing when needed. 3. Provide flexibility in housing types (ie group rooms, kennels, indoor/outdoor, etc). Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 7 of 80 January 2, 205 3

32 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS A site visit was made on October 5th, 204 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 wellbeing 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 Main Entry into Sac County shelter 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 2-5 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 203 intake for this facility was approximately,000 animals with a combined dog and cat live release rate of approximately 70%. At this live release rate over 7,000 animals would Cat Adoption display & Cat Group Rooms 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 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 32 8 of 80 January 2, 205

33 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 days. The 203 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 5-0 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 203 alone. The County has Typical Kennel with Area Drain 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 08 individual housing units that meet the guidelines for standards of care for dogs: 84 double sided kennels (hold and adoption), 2 real life rooms in adoption, 6 small dog cages and 6 double sided kennels for custody cases. The 203 live dog intake was 4,50 dogs, with live outcomes of about 3,273 and a live LR rate of 72%, 208 dogs were euthanized and 26 died. The County states they have a dog holding capacity of 68 dogs. This is 60 dogs beyond the housing number that meets best practices: 08. At a capacity of 68 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 68 dogs in the shelter, 60 of the 08 kennels would need to be operated as single sided units(guillotine doors closed) for housing 20 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 68 dogs with an 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 Co-housing of several small dogs on our 0/5/4 visit. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 9 of 80 January 2,

34 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 08 individual housing spaces most of which meet best practices standards would be used. Under these conditions with an 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 204 looks like it will reach 800 dogs. If the County s intake for 204 is similar to 203 then the total intake for 204 will likely approach 5,300 dogs. Outdoor Dog Kennels Some compromises in the quality of dog housing should be expected whenever the facility is above the 08 dog capacity. When at the stated capacity of 68 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. Barn & Livestock area The 203 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 2.5 (based on 20 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 Vet Clinic 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 0 of 80 January 2,

35 We expect live dog intake for 204 to be near 5,300 at this facility (4,500 County and 800 Elk Grove). Given an average 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,700 dogs. This exceeds our recommended capacity, given an day average LOS, by,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 which is not in the best interest of the County s or 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 populationstaff 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2,

36 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 204 than in City of Elk Grove sheltering contracts of previous years. Distance to the Sacramento County facility from the Elk Grove community is about 3 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 204 vs. 203 statistics for Elk Grove dogs. Floor Plan Sacramento County Shelter Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 2 of 80 January 2,

37 5 POPULATION & TREND ANALYSIS The incorporated on July, 2000 and is the second-largest city in Sacramento County. Elk Grove s current population is 60,688 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, Some interesting facts out of the general plan: between 990 and 2000, the population of what would become the increased by 7% (see pg. 85 in General Plan). Population Projections planning staff recommended using a 2% growth rate per year off the existing population. The results are as follows: Year Date //204 //205 //206 //207 //208 //209 //2020 //202 //2022 //2023 //2024 //2025 //2026 //2027 //2028 //2029 //2030 //203 //2032 //2033 //2034 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects Est. Annual Growth Rate Est. Population 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 60,688 63,902 67,80 70,523 73,934 77,43 80,96 84,580 88,272 92,037 95,878 99, ,79 207,867 22,024 26, , , , , ,774 3 of 80 January 2,

38 Note that the population at the 20 year planning horizon is 238,774, a 48% increase from 204. At the 0 year planning horizon the population is 95,878, 2% increase from 204. A 0-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 204 estimated populations for these cities are as follows: Rancho Cordova 66,872 Galt 24,274 Isleton 84 Elk Grove 60,000 Total 25,960 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 204 numbers. Comparison Cities Review The 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 203 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. 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,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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 4 of 80 January 2,

39 California State Average Dogs 202: Total Human Population ( Census) Median Income Euthanized PC Live Release PC Euthanized Live Release Transferred PC Adopted PC Transferred Reclaimed PC Adopted Live intake PC Reclaimed Live intake Locale/species CA State Average Dogs $6,400 38,332,52 Elk Grove County YTD_ Aug _ 85 _ 206 _ 39 _ 430 _ 66 _ $79,559 60,000 Elk Grove SPCA $79,559 60,000 Rancho Cordova 203 (Rabies Report) $53,33 66,872 Galt $56,976 24,274 Isleton $30,06 84 Roseville 203(includes intake outside of city) $74,579 24,372 Stockton City $47, ,239 Sacramento County $56, ,000 Tracy $75,259 84,406 Yolo $57, ,876 Yolo $57, ,86 Woodland $55,39 56,25 Davis $6,535 65,796 West Sacramento $49,564 49,564 County ,223 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 5 of 80 January 2,

40 40 California State Average Cats 202: Total Human Population 202 Median Income Locale/species CA State Average Cats $6,400 38,332,52 Euthanized PC Live Release PC Euthanized Live Release Transferred PC Adopted PC Transferred Reclaimed PC Adopted Live intake PC Reclaimed Live intake Elk Grove County YTD_Aug _ 3 _ 05 _ 74 _ 92 _ 27 _ $79,559 60,000 Elk Grove SPCA $79,559 60,000 Rancho Cordova 203 (Rabies report) $53,33 66,872 Galt $56,976 24,274 Isleton $30,06 84 Roseville 203(includes intake outside of city) $74,579 24,372 Stockton City $47, ,239 Sacramento County $56, ,000 Tracy $75,259 84,406 Yolo $57, ,876 Yolo $57, ,86 Woodland $55,39 56,25 Davis $6,535 65,796 West Sacramento $49,564 49,564 County ,223 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 6 of 80 January 2, 205

41 Overall animals sheltered from the - compared to California as a whole have done better in regard to lower dog and cat euthanasia -.8 PC vs 4.7 PC for the State for dogs and 3. PC vs 6.3 PC for the State for cats, (based on 202 California Department of Health Local Rabies Control Data located at However there may be room for continued improvement. Using the service area population provided (60,000) to calculate per capita values, Elk Grove animals ranked th out of 37 counties with population greater > 00,000 for canine euthanasia (a first place ranking has the lowest number of euthanasia s on a per capita basis), 5/34 (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 204 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 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 204, 85 dogs were returned to their owners in the field. Although the collection of this data is recent the actions have been ongoing about 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 203 dog intake numbers at the Sacramento SPCA resulting in an approximately 20% overall reduction of dog intake in 204 vs. Sacramento SPCA dog intake numbers- still a decrease but not as marked. Review of Animal Intakes: Entity Elk Grove Dogs at Sacramento County Elk Grove Dogs at Sacramento SPCA Year 204 Annual Live Intake 498 -through August *Annual Estimate 86 plus returns in field ~250 total estimated live served Sacramento County Dogs Elk Grove Cats at Sacramento County Elk Grove Cats at Sacramento SPCA through August *Annual Estimate Sacramento County Cats Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 7 of 80 January 2, 205 4

42 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. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 5% 0% 5% 0% Outcome DOGS: Sacramento SPCA 203 (Live intake,357) & Sacramento County 204 YTD-August (Live intake 498) Adoption Died Euthanasia RTO Transferred Sacramento SPCA Sacramento County Live release for Elk Grove dogs: 203 Sacramento SPCA 79% and YTD- Aug Sacramento County 86%. 60% Outcome CATS: Sacramento SPCA (Live intake,030) & Sacramento County 204 YTD-Aug (Live intake 322) 50% 40% 30% 20% Sacramento SPCA Sacramento County 0% 0% Adoption Died Euthanasia RTO Transferred Live release for Elk Grove cats: 203 Sacramento SPCA 50% and YTD- Aug Sacramento County 54%. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 8 of 80 January 2,

43 Population and Trends Summary Animal sheltering facility services have been provided to the through contract at the Sacramento SPCA up through 203 and at the Sacramento County Animal Services for 204. Per capita intakes for dogs and cats in 203 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% (203 and YTD Aug. 204) Live release rate for Elk Grove cats has been 50% and 54%(203 and YTD Aug. 204) Although total animals served at the Sacramento County facility in 204 appear to be less than at the Sacramento SPCA in 203, 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. 500 Elk Grove Animal Intake Sacramento SPCA Sacramento SPCA Animal Intake Dog cat Linear (Dog) Linear (cat) Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 9 of 80 January 2,

44 In calculating the capacity for a facility to serve the community of Elk Grove the 203 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 204 YTD data. Instead of using the outcome pathways of recent contract providers, a pathway plan for Elk Grove animals is suggested as follows: Return to owner: Adoption (rescue and transfer): Return to Field: Euthanasia: Proposed pathway DOGS CATS 50% 0% 40% 50% N/A 25-30% 0% 0-5% Pathways & Outcomes 203 Outcomes DOGS CATS 33% 3% 45% 48% - - 2% 49% 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, 0-4 days. Isolation was determined to be approximately 0% 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 203 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 203 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 20 of 80 January 2,

45 Elk Grove 203 Elk Grove 80% occupancy Elk Grove 203 plus 20% increase intake capacity) Elk Grove Future 20 year capacity) Housing Units Dog Cat Dog Cat Dog Cat Dog Cat Hold (includes confiscate and quarantine) Adoption Isolation Live Intake per capita Total animal intake 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 203. 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: Regional 203 Regional % capacity) Regional % increase intake (@80% capacity) Regional Future 20 year capacity) Housing Units Dog Cat Dog Cat Dog Cat Dog Cat Hold (includes confiscate and quarantine) Adoption Isolation Live Intake per capita Total animal intake 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 2 of 80 January 2,

46 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:. 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 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

47 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. 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 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 23 of 80 January 2,

48 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. 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, 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 24 of 80 January 2,

49 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 o o Back-to-back for dogs Side-to-side for cats in stray holding areas Up-to-down (and side-to-side where possible) for cats in adoption areas Adequately and appropriately sized housing o o o o At least 9 square feet of floor space for single housed cats At least 8 square feet of floor space for group housed cats 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 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 o Complete segregation between dogs, cats and small animals (and segregation of predators and prey within pocket pet and non-domestic species) Housing tailored to small versus large dogs, and quiet areas of dog housing for older, shy, and special needs dogs Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 25 of 80 January 2,

50 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 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 26 of 80 January 2,

51 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 0% of the facility housing capacity available for isolation of animals diagnosed with or suspected of having infectious diseases. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 27 of 80 January 2, 205 5

52 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: 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 -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 (5.5C) 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 28 of 80 January 2,

53 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 29 of 80 January 2,

54 8 ANIMAL CARE OPTIONS, OPERATING MODE & 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 2:30-5:30 and Saturday and Sunday from 2-4:30. They are closed on Monday and Tuesday. City hours for field services are 7 days a week from 7ampm. Emergency veterinary services are contracted out through local veterinarians. Programs: The 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 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 203. The County also provides rabies/vaccination and microchip clinics. Animals: Live intake based on 203 numbers and adjusted is,357 for dogs and,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, 68 dog) with a livestock capacity of 6-60 (depending on species and age). Total annual capacity is approximately 5, YTD (August) numbers are 498 for dogs (approximate annual expected is 86) 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 $.5 million, $4,500 is revenue received. The County facility construction cost was $8 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

55 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 $.9 million with revenue at $50,000 for a total net cost to the City of $.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 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 3 of 80 January 2,

56 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. 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,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 6,82. See page 2 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 2, and including all support and community spaces are based on best practices and input received from the Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 32 of 80 January 2,

57 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: EXTERIOR COVERED AREAS: TOTAL INT. & EXT. AREAS: TOTAL SITE AREA REQ'D: 22,500 9,500 32,000 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 9 full time equivalent (FTE) above the existing current staff count of 7.8 FTE which includes 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, 205 DOLLARS: LOW END HIGH END TOTAL PROJ. DEV $3.8M $20.6M YEARLY OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE, 205 DOLLARS: LOW END HIGH END EXPENSE $2.2M $3.3M REVENUE $44,000 $26,000 NET COST $2.0M $3.M 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 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 33 of 80 January 2,

58 serve, the 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 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 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 2, 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: EXTERIOR COVERED AREAS: TOTAL INT. & EXT. AREAS: TOTAL SITE AREA REQ'D: 27,800,500 39, 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: Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 34 of 80 January 2,

59 NEW FACILITY, 205 DOLLARS: LOW END HIGH END TOTAL PROJ. DEV $6.4M $24.6M YEARLY OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE, 205 DOLLARS: LOW END HIGH END EXPENSE $2.9M $4.4M REVENUE $0.8M $.3M NET COST $2.M $3.M 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, 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 7 th, 204. The shelter was just opened in November of this year. The building and site was purchased for $.8 million. The building shell was 22,60 sq.ft with 4.7 acre of developed site. Only 7,000 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 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 $0.5 million. Cost per square foot on total project development cost is $467/sq.ft. for the Elk Grove remodel option vs. $257/sq.ft. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 35 of 80 January 2,

60 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 ($30/sf vs. $84/sf): Add cost escalation to 205 bid date: Delete prefab indoor dog kennels (44 x $,500): Add ext. covered space for outdoor kennels (59 x $4,000): Add indoor/outdoor concrete kennels (59 x 9,000): Adjust Equipment and Furnishings to higher standard: Adjust indirect costs to typical City project ($60/sf vs. $52/sf): Add 340sf more (22,500sf vs. 22,60sf) at $467/sf: Adjust construction cost to Elk Grove $ ($225/sf vs. $50/sf or $75/sf x 22,60 sf): $.0 million $580,000 ($66,000) $236,000 $53,000 $400,000 $80,000 $60,000 $.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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

61 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 shelter vet, 2 veterinary technicians and 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,500 sf of exterior covered space. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 37 of 80 January 2, 205 6

62 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: ELK GROVE-ONLY SHELTER SAMPLE ANIMAL SHELTER ORG CHART TOTAL 27 STAFF (EXCLUDING VOLUNTEERS) SHELTER DIRECTOR ( FTE) CUSTOMER SERVICE FIELD SERVICES SHELTER SERVICES SPAY/NEUTER COORDINATOR ( FTE) FRONT OFFICE SUPERVISOR ( FTE) SUPERVISING FIELD OFFICER ( FTE) SHELTER MANAGER ( FTE) SHELTER VETERINARIAN ( FTE) VOLUNTEERS NON-PAID (#VARIES, 0 FTE) FRONT OFFICE CLERK (3 FTE) FRONT OFFICE ASST. ( FTE) FIELD OFFICERS (6 FTE) Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 62 MEDICAL SERVICES VOLUNTEERS NON-PROFIT SUPPORT (AS MAY APPLY) LEAD FIELD OFFICER ( FTE) FIELD DISPATCH OFFICER ( FTE) KENNEL CARE ATTENDANTS (5 FTE) 38 of 80 ANIMAL BEHAVIORIST ( FTE) REGISTERED VET TECH (2 FTE) NON-LICENSED VET ASSIST. ( FTE,) PER DIEM VET SERVICES (VARIES) January 2, 205

63 REGIONAL SHELTER SAMPLE ANIMAL SHELTER ORG CHART TOTAL 36 STAFF (EXCLUDING VOLUNTEERS) SHELTER DIRECTOR ( FTE) VOLUNTEERS CUSTOMER SERVICE FIELD SERVICES COORDINATOR ( FTE) FRONT OFFICE SUPERVISOR ( FTE) SUPERVISING FIELD OFFICER ( FTE) VOLUNTEERS NON-PAID (#VARIES, 0 FTE) FRONT OFFICE CLERK (4 FTE) FRONT OFFICE ASST. ( FTE) FIELD OFFICERS (8 FTE) FIELD DISPATCH OFFICER ( FTE) LEAD FIELD OFFICER ( FTE) MEDICAL SERVICES SHELTER SERVICES SPAY/NEUTER KENNEL MANAGER ( FTE) SHELTER VETERINARIAN (2 FTE) KENNEL CARE ATTENDANTS (7 FTE) ANIMAL BEHAVIORIST ( FTE,) REGISTERED VET TECH (4 FTE) NON-LICENSED VET ASSIST. (2 FTE,) NON-PROFIT SUPPORT (AS MAY APPLY) PER DIEM VET SERVICES (VARIES) 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 0 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 39 of 80 January 2,

64 0 COST & FUNDING ALTERNATIVES As shown in preceding section 8, the s animal care mid-range costs can be expected to range from $.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 $3.8 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. 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 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 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

65 care and sheltering needs for the. 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 s General Fund budget is $59 million for the 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 204 ( 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 nonprofit partner fund their barn in this way. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 4 of 80 January 2,

66 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

67 MODEL C REGIONAL SHELTER MODEL B MODEL A CURRENT CONTRACT-OUT MODEL 20-year planning horizon REGIONAL SATELLITE FACILITY SERVING THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA, ESTABLISHED THROUGH A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (JPA). COULD USE INTERIM PROGRAMS & SERVICES + PHASED CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE FEASIBILITY UNTIL A NEW FACILITY IS BUILT. NEW ELK GROVE-ONLY SHELTER 20-year planning horizon BUILD AND OPERATE A NEW ANIMAL SHELTER FOR THE CITY OF ELK GROVE. OPTION TO ACCEPT CONTRACTS FROM OTHER CITIES. COULD USE INTERIM PROGRAMS & SERVICES + PHASED CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE FEASIBILITY UNTIL A NEW FACILITY IS BUILT. CONTRACT-OUT MODEL CONTINUED planning horizon, unknown CONTRACT-MODEL IS CONTINUED WITH COUNTY OR OTHER ENTITY. CURRENTLY THE ONLY ENTITY THAT EXISTS IS SACRAMENTO COUNTY FOR CONTRACTED SHELTERING SERVICES. IN THE FUTURE OTHER GROUPS MAY COME FORWARD THAT COULD SERVE THIS ROLE. COUNTY SHELTER IS AT CAPACITY W/ NO PLAN TO EXPAND. DEVELOP LOCAL PROGRAMS UNTIL A NEW FACILITY IS BUILT OR EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING SHELTER IS BUILT. CITY PROVIDES ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, CITY CONTRACTS-OUT WITH COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO FOR ANIMAL SHELTERING SERVICES DESCRIPTION County hours are subject to County policy and outside of City control. County may be City provides animal control services to community, control over these services City controls and provides sheltering and animal control services to best service Regional cities work together to provide funding for new animal shelter. Shelter open to expanding services in the future. remains with City as population grows and community needs change. community needs. Low cost spay/neuter in house, emergency vet services contracted operated through JPA to provide animal sheltering services through a joint effort of Sheltering Contract Provider controls animal intake capacities and public access hours out. the cities involved. may choose to continue to provide animal control for shelter. Emergency & Low Cost Spay Neuter contracted out. services or have services provided through the JPA-run facility. SERVICES County Hours: W-F, 2:30-5:30& Sat-Su 2-4:30. Closed M, T. County Hours: TBD, goal to expand County Hours: N/A County Hours: N/A City Hours: 7 days/week, 7am-pm City Hours: 7 days/week, 7am-pm City Hours: TBD, set to meet community needs City Hours: TBD, set to meet community needs Emergency Vet Services: contracted out Emergency Vet Services: contracted out Emergency Vet Services: contracted out Emergency Vet Services: contracted out Low Cost Spay/Neuter: contracted out Low Cost Spay/Neuter: contracted out In house vet services incl. spay/neuter: in-house In house vet services incl. spay/neuter: in-house THE PROGRAMS LISTED BELOW ARE ALREADY IN PLACE THROUGH THE CITY/COUNTY. THE PROGRAMS LISTED BELOW ARE ALREADY IN PLACE THROUGH THE CITY. THE PROGRAMS LISTED BELOW ARE RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS FOR A NEW FACILITY. THE PROGRAMS LISTED BELOW ARE RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS FOR A NEW FACILITY. VOLUNTEER COUNTY VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES WITH CONTRACTEE VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES WITH JPA VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES, LOCAL VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES, LOCAL VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES, LOCAL VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES, LOCAL FOSTER CARE FOSTER CARE FOSTER CARE FOSTER CARE MICROCHIP MICROCHIP MICROCHIP MICROCHIP LOW/NO COST SPAY & NEUTER LOW/NO COST SPAY & NEUTER IN-HOUSE VET SERVICES INCLUDING SPAY & NEUTER IN-HOUSE VET SERVICES INCLUDING SPAY & NEUTER TRAP, NEUTER & RETURN - TNR TRAP, NEUTER & RETURN - TNR TRAP, NEUTER & RETURN - TNR TRAP, NEUTER & RETURN - TNR "ASK ELK GROVE" ONLINE SERVICES "ASK ELK GROVE" ONLINE SERVICES "ASK ELK GROVE" ONLINE SERVICES "ASK ELK GROVE" ONLINE SERVICES PROGRAMS ANIMAL LICENSING ANIMAL LICENSING ANIMAL LICENSING ANIMAL LICENSING SOCIAL MEDIA OUTREACH SOCIAL MEDIA OUTREACH TRAINING CLASSES TRAINING CLASSES EXPANDED COMMUNITY EDUCATION & OUTREACH EXPANDED COMMUNITY EDUCATION & OUTREACH GROOMING GROOMING ANIMAL HELP DESK ANIMAL HELP DESK ADOPTION EVENTS ADOPTION EVENTS 203 SPCA yearly live intake 203 SPCA yearly live intake, future service uncertain () 20-Yr. projected yearly live intake, by Yr. projected yearly live intake, by 2033 **see Model C for capacity numbers if contracts are accepted w/ Rancho, Galt, Iselton Elk Grove numbers only () Elk Grove numbers only () Elk Grove Only Assumes Elk Grove w/ cities of Rancho, Galt, Isleton ANIMA DOGS:,357 DOGS:,357 DOGS: 2,428 DOGS: 3,447 CATS:,030 CATS:,030 CATS:,844 CATS: 3,365 TOTAL: 2,387 TOTAL: 2,387 TOTAL: 4,272 TOTAL: 6,82 THE CITY OF ELK GROVE UTILIZES THE 44,000 SACRAMENTO COUNTY ANIMAL CARE THE CITY OF ELK GROVE CONTINUES TO UTILIZE THE COUNTY FACILITY. WHEN THE THE RECOMMENDED PROGRAM AREA IS BASED ON PROJECTED ANIMAL HOUSING THE RECOMMENDED PROGRAM AREA IS BASED ON PROJECTED ANIMAL HOUSING FACILITY AT 3839 BRADSHAW ROAD, SACRAMENTO. THE FACILITY HAS APPROXIMATE COUNTY CAN NO LONGER SERVE THE CITY'S NEEDS THE CITY MAY CHOOSE TO LOOK UNITS NEEDED, INCLUDING ALL SUPPORT & COMMUNITY SPACES. UNITS NEEDED, INCLUDING ALL SUPPORT & COMMUNITY SPACES CAPACITY FOR 68 DOGS AND 250 CATS AT ANY ONE TIME. PRESENT INTAKE CAPACITY INTO MODEL'S B OR C. IT AO MAY HAPPEN THAT THE COUNTY IS ABLE TO EXPAND ** See Model C for facility size needed if contracts accepted w/ Rancho,Galt, Iselton HAS BEEN REACHED FOR DOGS AND REQUIRES CAREFUL MANAGEMENT OF THE FACILITY THEIR CURRENT FACILITY OR BUILD AN ANNEX TO BETTER SERVE ELK GROVE; HOWEVER, FOR ONGOING OPERATIONS. NO PLANS ARE IN PLACE FOR A NEW OR EXPANDED NO PLANS ARE IN PLACE AT THIS TIME. FACILITY SHELTER. ESTIMATED BUILDING AREA: 22,500 ESTIMATED BUILDING AREA: 27,800 EXTERIOR COVERED AREAS: 9,500 EXTERIOR COVERED AREAS:,500 TOTAL INT. & EXT. AREAS: 32,000 TOTAL INT. & EXT. AREAS: 39,300 TOTAL SITE AREA REQ'D: 5 ACRES TOTAL SITE AREA REQ'D: 5.5 ACRES Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 43 of 83 December 23,

68 68 MODEL B MODEL C REGIONAL SHELTER MODEL A 20-year planning horizon NEW ELK GROVE-ONLY SHELTER 20-year planning horizon CONTRACT-OUT MODEL CONTINUED planning horizon, unknown CURRENT CONTRACT-OUT MODEL CURRENT FACILITY, 205 DOLLARS: CURRENT FACILITY CONTINUED, 205 DOLLARS: NEW FACILITY, 2054 DOLLARS (2): NEW FACILITY, 2054 DOLLARS (2): LOW END HIGH END LOW END HIGH END TOTAL PROJ. DEV. $6.4M $24.6M NONE PLANNED $0 TOTAL PROJ. DEV $3.8M $20.6M NONE PLANNED $0 YEARLY OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE, 205 DOLLARS: YEARLY OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE, 205 DOLLARS: YEARLY OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE, 205 DOLLARS: YEARLY OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE, 205 DOLLARS: COST ACTUAL ACTUAL FUTURE LOW END HIGH END LOW END HIGH END EXPENSE $,705,33 EXPENSE $,872,23 UNKNOWN EXPENSE $2.2M $3.3M EXPENSE $2.9M $4.4M REVENUE $4,57 REVENUE $50,065 UNKNOWN REVENUE $44,000 $26,000 REVENUE $0.8M $.3M NET COST $,563,760 NET COST $,722,48 UNKNOWN NET COST $2.0M $3.M NET COST $2.M $3.M The has opportunities to improve animal care services, even while N/A N/A N/A under the current County contract. Some ideas follow. Adoption Annex in Elk Grove N/A Engage community volunteers locally N/A N/A INTERIM MEASURES Social Media Outreach Training Classes Adoption Events Expanded community education & outreach Community input to-date is that City animal control staff is doing well with what they The existing County facility is at or near capacity, but the can take builds, maintains and manages its own shelter and continues to enters into a joint powers authority (JPA) agreement for the purpose have, but that the County facility is too far away and sometimes animals brought there interim measures locally to improve local animal services until new sheltering capacity provide animal control services. City maintains direct control and is responsible for all of building, maintaining and managing a shelter which serves the south Sacramento are turned away. County has reported to the City animal control staff that it is at to house Elk Grove's animals can be built. This new capacity could be expansion of the operations. An option exists whereby the City would accept contracts from County region, including cities such as Rancho Cordova, Galt and Isleton. The JPA capacity on at least 3 instances and has no plans for increase in capacity. Community existing shelter if feasible, or construction of a new shelter similar to Model B. neighboring cities for animal services. This would require increased initial investment maintains direct control and is responsible for all operations, with the meeting input indicates a locally controlled shelter is desired. Examples of interim measures may include: Animal Help Desk, a Satellite Adoption for a larger shelter and somewhat higher O&M costs, but would create a revenue having a vested interest. This requires a higher initial investment for a larger shelter DISCUSSION Center fed by animals from County/ other entity, contract or provide for local low cost stream to offset these added costs. and somewhat higher O&M costs than if the City built alone, but the JPA agreement spay neuter services and possible integration of storefront services. would directly offset these costs. Least capital expenditure required. Local control of all animal care services. Full sharing of costs by JPA partners. N/A Interim programs & services possible. Integration of facility into community best supports public outreach/education. Interim programs, services and phasing help ensure feasibility. ADVANTAGES Field services operating efficiently in the City. Interim programs, services and phasing help ensure feasibility. Improved access if located in Elk Grove. Revenue from other cities helps offset costs. Lack of local control of animal services & quality of care. Higher capital expenditure required. Reduced control of animal services. N/A Future service availability uncertain. Funding method needs identification. Funding method needs identification. DISADVANTAGES Future contracting costs unpredictable. Time required to form JPA. REFERENCE NOTES: () See section 5, Population and Trend Analysis for detailed descritpion o animal capacities. (2) 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 hypothetical cost estimates 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 compromises made, 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 absolutly needed with some compromises made where not affecting animal health and well being. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 44 of 83 December 23, 204

69 2 COMMUNITY INPUT Community Interest Meeting No. The first public meeting was held on September 22, 204 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 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 3, 204 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 or taken at the meeting from various members of the public and can be found under Appendix B. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 45 of 80 January 2,

70 APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTATION OF PUBLIC MEETING # Community Input meeting #, October 22, 204 6:00pm-8:00pm Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

71 AGENDA Elk Grove Community Interest Meeting September 22, 204 6:00pm 8:00pm Location: Elk Grove City Hall Council Chamber 8400 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove CA :00 p.m. 6:05 p.m. Introductions 6:05 p.m. 6:5 p.m. Elk Grove Animal Services Background & Current Contract 6:5 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. 7:5 p.m. Animal Care Options, Operating Model & Management Structure 7:5 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Open for questions & comments Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 47 of 80 January 2, 205 7

72 Summary of Public Input received at Public Meeting #: 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. 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 48 of 80 January 2,

73 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 49 of 80 January 2,

74 APPENDIX B: DOCUMENTATION OF PUBLIC MEETING #2 Community Input meeting #2, November 3, 204 6:00pm-8:00pm Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

75 AGENDA Elk Grove Community Interest Meeting November 3, 204 6:00pm 8:00pm Location: Elk Grove City Hall Council Chamber 8400 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove CA :00 p.m. 6:05 p.m. Introductions 6:05 p.m. 7:5 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: Services Programs Animals Facility 7:5 p.m. 7:45 pm Discussion and Input 7:45 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Next Steps Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 5 of 80 January 2,

76 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 4 th 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: 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 52 of 80 January 2,

77 APPENDIX C: DOCUMENTATION OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The following is a summary of input received via letters and s 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,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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 53 of 80 January 2,

78 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 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. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 54 of 80 January 2,

79 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 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 55 of 80 January 2,

80 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. Elk Grove Shelteronly S.F. Description Building Area Total Interior Areas Covered Exterior Areas A Subtotal Building Area (rounded) 22,500 9,500 32,000 Regional Shelter S.F. 27,800,500 39,300 Site Program Areas Service yard & staff parking (inc. sallyport) Barn and Barnyard Barn Pasture Animal Exercise Yards Public Parking (incl. driveways & fire access road) Agility Yard Site Landscaping & hardscape (50% of bldg. footprint) B Subtotal Site Program Areas 5,000 2,875 20,000 0,000 0,000 20,000 6,000 93,875 Site Efficiency Factor of 60% /.60 = (.66-) =.66 x Site Program & Building Area (A+B) C Subtotal Site Efficiency Factor 83,078 83,078 94,925 94,925 Total Building, Site Program Areas & Efficiency Factor (A+B+C) 208, ,750 Site Total Efficiency Site & Building (65% or Area.53 x(rounded) (A+B+C)) 209, Comments 7,000 2,875 20,000 0,000 5,000 assumes 500 sf/space 20,000 9,650 04, , acres Comments Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

81 APPENDIX E: PROGRAM AREA SUMMARY ELK GROVE ONLY SHELTER Elk Grove-only Animal Shelter S.F. Comments Public Areas Lobby (includes reception counter and entry vestibule) 560 Donation Drop Off 0 Small Meeting / Get Acquainted Room 200 room Retail 300 Public Restrooms 250 Janitor s Closet 65 Multipurpose Room 750 Multipurpose Storage Room 200 Cat Adoptions (6 cats) 320 double sided 20nsf/cat, incl. viewing area 2 Cat indoor/outdoor Colony Rooms (8 cats) 72nsf ea rm, indoor sq.ft. only, see ext. space below 4 cat indoor/outdoor kennels (8 cats) 25nsf ea, indoor sq.ft. only, see ext. space below Dog Adoptions: (34 dogs) 86 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea. Dog Quiet Room nsf ea. room Public Areas Sub-Total 39 Animal Areas Sallyport (*Sallyport square footage is only incl. in covered ext.spaces) 296* Dog Intake Holding 20 Dog Intake Exam 62 Dog Behavior Assessment 50 Cat Intake Exam & Holding 82 Euthanasia 90 F.R.A. Room (Fluorescent Rabies Antibodies) 20 Cat Holding: Stray, Confiscate & Quarantine (22 cats) sf ea. w/ 8 dbl. compart. cages ea rm. Cat Holding: Special Care Isolation (8 cats) 20 room w/ 8 cats Cat Holding Workroom nsf ea. Dog Holding: Stray, Confiscate & Quarantine (45 dogs),080 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea. Dog Holding: Isolation (0 dogs) 240 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea. Dog Holding Workroom nsf ea. Get Aquainted Room nsf ea. Small Mammals/Exotics 70 Central Food Preparation Room 300 Food Storage 400 Laundry 450 Clean Laundry Storage 225 Grooming 200 General Storage 95 Central Cleaning Pump Room 50 Animal Areas Sub-Total 543 Admin Copy/Supply 25 Front Office Supervisor ( FTE) 50 office 4 admin workstations(4 FTE) open workstations Director's Office ( FTE) 200 office Manager's Office ( FTE) 50 office Behaviorist's Office ( FTE) 50 office Conference Room 50 Main File Storage 320 General Storage 50 Continued Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 57 of 80 January 2, 205 8

82 Elk Grove Only Shelter cont. Elk Grove-only Animal Shelter S.F. Comments Volunteer Coordinator ( FTE) 50 office Volunteer Room 420 Kennel Attendants (5 FTE) open workstations Supervising Field Officer Office ( FTE) 50 office Field Officer Open Office (6 FTE) open 65 nsf ea. Lead Field Officer ( FTE) 20 office Field Dispatch Officer ( FTE) 20 office Conference Room 200 Secure Animal Control Storage 50 Field Officer evidence, file, gun Storage Room 45 Field Officer Interview Room 00 Staff Break Room 325 Staff Restrooms/Locker Rooms,06 IDF Rooms 200 Staff Quiet Room 00 Administration Areas Sub-Total 577 Shelter Vet Shelter Veterinary Lobby (including exam and closet) 530 Shelter Veterinary ( FTE) 50 office Vet Tech (2 FTE) 20 shared office, 60 sq.ft. ea. Vet Assist ( FTE) 30 open workstation, 30 sq.ft. ea. Surgery Prep Room 585 Pack 50 Surgery Room 230 Dog Holding 224 Cat Holding 26 Oxygen Room 60 Shelter Veterinary Sub-Total 2205 Interior Spaces Sub-Total 7,300 Circulation, Wall 30% 5,90 Total Interior Areas (rounded) 22,500 Covered Exterior Areas Multipurpose Room Covered Patio 400 Staff Break Room Covered Patio 68 Sallyport / Cage Storage,296 Exterior Kennel Adoption (34) + Confiscate/Quar/Iso (55) 2,848 outdoor kennel 4'x8' = 32 sq.ft.ea. Cat Outdoor Kennels nsf ea. Cat Colony Porches nsf ea (8 cats) Barn 2,60 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 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 58 of 80 January 2,

83 APPENDIX F: PROGRAM AREA SUMMARY REGIONAL SHELTER Regional Animal Shelter S.F. Comments Public Areas Lobby (includes reception counter and entry vestibule) 600 Donation Drop Off 0 Small Meeting / Get Acquainted Room rooms Retail 300 Public Restrooms 400 Janitor s Closet 30 Multipurpose Room 750 Multipurpose Storage Room 200 Cat Adoptions: double sided cages (28 cats) 20 nsf/cat, incl. viewing area 3 Cat indoor/outdoor Colony Rooms (2 cats) 72 nsf ea rm, indoor sq.ft. only, see ext. space below 4 cat indoor/outdoor kennels (8 cats) 25 nsf ea, indoor sq.ft. only, see ext. space below Dog Adoptions: (57 dogs),368 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea. Dog Quiet Room nsf ea. Public Areas Sub-Total 5426 Animal Areas Sallyport (*Sallyport square footage is only incl. in covered ext. spaces) 296* Dog Intake Holding 20 Dog Intake Exam 62 Dog Behavior Assessment 50 Cat Intake Exam & Holding 82 Euthanasia 90 F.R.A. Room (Fluorescent Rabies Antibodies) 20 Cat Holding: Stray, Confiscate & Quarantine (34 cats) nsf ea. w/ 8 dbl. compart. cages ea rm. Cat Holding: Special Care Isolation (0 cats) rooms w/ 8 cats (rooms for 6 cats flex growth) Cat Holding Workroom nsf ea. Dog Holding: Stray, Confiscate & Quarantine (76 dogs),824 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea. Dog Holding: Isolation (6 dogs) 384 indoor kennel 4'x6' = 24 sq.ft. ea. Dog Holding Workroom nsf ea. Get Aquainted nsf 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 00 Animal Areas Sub-Total 729 Admin Copy/Supply 25 Front Office Supervisor ( FTE) 50 office 4 admin workstations(4 FTE) open workstations Director's Office ( FTE) 200 office Manager's Office ( FTE) 50 office Behaviorist's Office ( FTE) 50 office Conference Room 50 Main File Storage 320 General Storage 50 Continued Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 59 of 80 January 2,

84 Regional Shelter cont. Regional Animal Shelter S.F. Comments Volunteer Coordinator ( FTE) 50 office Volunteer Room 520 Kennel Attendants (7 FTE) open workstations Supervising Field Officer Office ( FTE) 50 Field Officer Open Office (8 FTE) open 65nsf ea. Lead Field Officer ( FTE) 20 office Field Dispatch Officer ( FTE) 20 office Conference Room 200 Secure Animal Control Storage 50 Field Officer evidence, file, gun Storage Room 45 Field Officer Interview Room 00 Staff Break Room 325 Staff Restrooms/Locker Rooms,06 IDF Rooms 200 Staff Quiet Room 00 Administration Areas Sub-Total 6086 Shelter Vet Shelter Veterinary Lobby (including exam and closet) 530 Shelter Veterinary (2 FTE) offices Vet Tech (4 FTE) 240 shared office, 60 sq.ft. ea. Vet Assist (2 FTE) sq.ft. ea. Surgery Prep Room 585 Pack 50 Surgery Room 230 Dog Holding 224 Cat Holding 26 Oxygen Room 60 Shelter Veterinary Sub-Total 2505 Interior Spaces Sub-Total 2,308 Circulation, Wall 30% 6,392 Total Interior Areas (rounded) 27,800 Covered Exterior Areas Multipurpose Room Covered Patio 400 Staff Break Room Covered Patio 68 Sallyport / Cage Storage,296 Exterior Kennel Adoption (57) + Confiscate/Quar/Iso (92) 4,768 outdoor kennel 4'x8' = 32 sq.ft. ea. Cat Outdoor Kennels nsf ea. Cat Colony Porches nsf ea (8 cats) Barn 2,60 Covered Exercise Yard 800 Feral Cat Pens 865 Storage Shed 400 Walk In Cooler 255 Total Covered Exterior Areas (rounded),500 TOTAL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR (rounded) 39,300 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 60 of 80 January 2,

85 APPENDIX G: PROJECTED OPERATING BUDGET COMPARISON Projected Operating Budget Comparison CURRENT MODEL A MODEL B MODEL C Item CONTRACT-OUT MODEL CONTRACT-OUT NEW ELK GROVE- NEW REGIONAL Comments MODEL CONTINUED ONLY SHELTER SHELTER (205 dollars) (205 dollars) (205 dollars) (205 dollars) ASSUMPTIONS Est. existing Basement Level area Est. existing Main Level area Est. existing Upper Level area Year of operation 203 YR 205 YR 207 YR 207 YR All costs shown in 205 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 ,500 27,600 Average staff salary, fully loaded, per FTE $0,48 (2) $07,503 (2) $80,000 (3) $80,000 (3) Yearly utility cost (HVAC, water, power, SS, SD) Int. Services Int. Services $5 $5 Yearly tel/data/communications cost Int. Services Int. Services $ $ Yearly building systems maintenance cost Int. Services Int. Services $3 $3 Yearly janitorial and site maintenance cost Int. Services Int. Services $ $ Yearly waste removal cost $0 $0 $ $ Deceased animal removal (Koefran or sim.) $0 $0 MO $,00 MO $,400 MO quote 0/7, 2-3 pickup/week. Elk Grove contract amount to County $595,000 $635,000 () $0 $0 EXPENSE Professional services $602,300 $645,000 () $20,000 $25,000 Salaries, loaded with all benefits $79,06 $838,525 $2,04,000 (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 () $20,000 $25,000 Furnishings $0 $0 $3,500 $3,800 Memberships and subscriptions $500 $530 () $,00 $,500 Training $0,000 $0,600 () $50,000 $55,000 Mobile equipment incl. phones $3,600 $3,86 () $0,000 $2,000 Miscellaneous material and supplies $8,000 $8,480 () $0,000 $2,000 Public relations $2,500 $2,650 () $5,000 $5,000 Legal services $6,880 $7,293 () $0,000 $0,000 Contract veterinary services $26,000 $27,560 () $30,000 $35,000 Spay/ neuter program $5,000 $5,300 () $0 $0 Vehicle - purchase $0 $58,000 (2) $6,000 (2) $6,000 (2) Vehicle - fuel Int. Services Int. Services $5,500 () $5,500 () Vehicle - maintenance, repair, warranty, etc. Int. Services Int. Services $25,000 () $25,000 () Building - utilities Int. Services Int. Services $2,500 (6) $38,000 (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 $3,200 (7) $6,800 (7) Lease - printing and copying equip., other Int. Services $0 $2,500 $3,000 Internal services and cost allocations $243,490 $258,099 () incl. above incl. above TOTAL EXPENSE $,705,33 $,872,23 $2,779,300 $3,644,200 Referenced notes: () Projected increase for 205 per. 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: Supervisor, 4 ACO, 2 administrative and 0.8 sworn staff. Assumes no staff increase in 205. (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 2 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 cost does not exceed that for Model B - Elk Grove-only Shelter. See note (8). (0) FY 204 actual amount shown. () FY 205 City amount is estimated by multiplying the actual 204 figure by.06 escalation factor. (2) Estimate provided by City.. cont. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 6 of 80 January 2,

86 Projected Operating Budget Comparison, cont. CURRENT MODEL A MODEL B MODEL C Item CONTRACT-OUT MODEL CONTRACT-OUT NEW ELK GROVE- NEW REGIONAL Comments MODEL CONTINUED ONLY SHELTER SHELTER (205 dollars) (205 dollars) (205 dollars) (205 dollars) REVENUE Animal licenses $74,565 (0) $79,039 () $00,000 $00,000 Animal Control fees and citations $67,006 (0) $7,026 () $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 $0,000 $5,000 existing not known. Other $0 $0 $0 $0 assumes none included. TOTAL REVENUE $4,57 $50,065 $80,000 $,045,000 NET COST (EXPENSE) ($,563,760) ($,722,48) ($2,599,300) ($2,599,200) Rounded for Fiscal Planning Purposes ($,564,000) ($,723,000) ($2,600,000) ($2,600,000) (9) Referenced notes: () Projected increase for 205 per. 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: Supervisor, 4 ACO, 2 administrative and 0.8 sworn staff. Assumes no staff increase in 205. (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 2 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 cost does not exceed that for Model B - Elk Grove-only Shelter. See note (8). (0) FY 204 actual amount shown. () FY 205 City amount is estimated by multiplying the actual 204 figure by.06 escalation factor. (2) Estimate provided by City.. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 62 of 80 January 2,

87 APPENDIX H: ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST ELK GROVE ONLY SHELTER PROJECT DATA Total Site Area 27,800 Service yard and staff parking 5,000 Barn and barnyard 3,000 Barn pasture 20,000 Animal exercise yards 0,000 Public parking (incl. drives and fire access) 0,000 Storage shed 400 Feral cat pens 400 Agility yard 20,000 Landscaping w/ irrigation - intensive (around bldg.) 20,000 Landscaping w/ irrigation - minimal (hydroseed, etc.) 75,000 Hardscape including walkways/exercise areas 2,000 Total Building Area 22,500 Shelter 9,630 Shelter Veterinary 2,870 Covered Exterior Areas 9,500 *incl. sallyport, ext. kennels, cat colony porches, cage storage SITE ACQUISITION Land purchase Legal, other fees Closing, other costs SUBTOTAL SITE ACQUISITION 5.0 Acres 5.0 AC $300,000 $40,000 $50,000 $,500,000 $40,000 $50, AC $38,000 $,590,000 A. SITE ACQUISITION SITEWORK CONSTRUCTION Offsite Construction Offsite demolition Utilities, connect to street Sidewalk, curb & gutter Driveway entrances Onsite Construction Onsite demolition Grading & pad preparation Storm drainage Potable water & meter Fire water & hydrants Sanitary sewer Gas service Electrical service, meter & pad Electrical site lighting $,590,000 rounded AC AC EA $24,400 $25,000 $40,000 $35,000 $22,000 $349,200 $30,000 $50,000 $50,000 $40,000 $90,000 $60,000 $20,000 $50,000 $00,000 $22,000 $25,000 $40,000 $35,000 $22,000 $,746,000 $30,000 $50,000 $50,000 $40,000 $90,000 $60,000 $20,000 $50,000 $00,000 Continued.. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 63 of 80 January 2,

88 Elk Grove Only Shelter Cost Continued.. Fiber / Telephone service Trash / Recycling enclosure Sidewalks / flatwork Vehicular paving, striping, drives and fire lanes Curb & gutter Chain link fencing Security fencing incl. man gates - ornamental Security fencing incl. man gates - chain link Motorized gate Security electronics Landscape & irrigation - intensive Landscape & irrigation - minimal Artificial turf, outdoor play Outdoor trails/par course Outdoor pavilion Barn Site accessories - flagpole, signage, misc. SUBTOTAL SITEWORK BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Animal Shelter Animal Shelter - veterinary Animal Shelter - outdoor covered area (excl. barn & pavilion) SUBTOTAL BUILDINGS 2,000 25,000, ,000 75, , LF LF LF AC $40,000 $25,000 $0 $8 $30,000 $30 $70 $40 $28,000 $25,000 $6 $ $30,000 $25,000 $35 $60 $25,000 $373,600 9,630 2,870 9,500 $325 $375 $75 $6,379,750. $,076,250. $72, ,000 $260 $8,68,500 TOTA FROM ABOVE (BLDG'S & SITE) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS MARK-UP General Conditions General Contractor's Fee Bonds & Insurance SUBTOTAL GENERAL REQUIREMENTS $0,036, % 5.00%.50% 2.50% $0,036,500 $0,036,500 $0,036,500 B. DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST INDIRECT COST Equipment Equipment Animal equipment Furnishings equipment Other Design and engineering fees Testing and inspection Topographical and utility survey Geotechnical investigation and report Project administration by City SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COST $40,000 $25,000 $20,000 $200,000 $30,000 $45,000 $42,000 $8,000 $28,000 $25,000 $20,000 $75,000 $30,000 $25,000 $28,000 $80,000 $25,000 $,868,000 $602,90 $50,825 $50,548 $,254,563 $,292,000 rounded EA EA EA C. INDIRECT COST % % EA EA % $00,000 $450,000 $200,000 $,292,000 $,292,000 $25,000 $5,000 $,292,000 $750,000 $00,000 $450,000 $200,000 $,620,880 $,29,200 $225,840 $25,000 $5,000 $225,840 $2,370, $2,37,000 rounded Continued.. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

89 Elk Grove Only Shelter Cost Continued.. CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATION Contingencies Contingency on site acquisition Contingency on direct construction Contingency on indirect cost Escalation Escalation on site acquisition Escalation on direct construction Escalation on indirect cost SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY & ESCALATION 0 % 0 % 0 % $,590,000 $,292,000 $2,37, % 2.5 % 2.5 % $,590,000 $,292,000 $2,37,000 D. CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATION... costs shown are $,907,000 rounded E. TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST (A+B+C+D) Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects $,525,300 $59,000 $,29,200 $237,00 $38,325 $39,750 $282,300 $59,275 $,906,625 $7,200,000 rounded 65 of 80 January 2,

90 APPENDIX I: ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST REGIONAL SHELTER PROJECT DATA Total Site Area 239,580 Service yard and staff parking 7,000 Barn and barnyard 3,000 Barn pasture 20,000 Animal exercise yards 0,000 Public parking (incl. drives and fire access) 5,000 Storage shed 400 Feral cat pens 400 Agility yard 20,000 Landscaping w/ irrigation - intensive (around bldg.) 20,000 Landscaping w/ irrigation - minimal (hydroseed, etc.) 80,480 Hardscape including walkways/exercise areas 4,000 Total Building Area 27,800 Shelter 24,550 Shelter Veterinary 3,250 Covered Exterior Areas,500 *incl. sallyport, ext. kennels, cat colony porches, cage storage SITE ACQUISITION Land purchase Legal, other fees Closing, other costs SUBTOTAL SITE ACQUISITION 5.5 Acres 5.5 AC $300,000 $40,000 $50,000 $,650,000 $40,000 $50, AC $36,364 $,740,000 A. SITE ACQUISITION SITEWORK CONSTRUCTION Offsite Construction Offsite demolition Utilities, connect to street Sidewalk, curb & gutter Driveway entrances Onsite Construction Onsite demolition Grading & pad preparation Storm drainage Potable water & meter Fire water & hydrants Sanitary sewer Gas service Electrical service, meter & pad Electrical site lighting $,740,000 rounded AC AC EA $22,82 $25,000 $40,000 $35,000 $22,000 $345,724 $30,000 $80,000 $70,000 $40,000 $90,000 $60,000 $20,000 $50,000 $20,000 $22,000 $25,000 $40,000 $35,000 $22,000 $,90,480 $30,000 $80,000 $70,000 $40,000 $90,000 $60,000 $20,000 $50,000 $20,000 Continued.. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

91 Regional Shelter Cost continued. Fiber / Telephone service Trash / Recycling enclosure Sidewalks / flatwork Vehicular paving, striping, drives and fire lanes Curb & gutter Chain link fencing Security fencing incl. man gates - ornamental Security fencing incl. man gates - chain link Motorized gate Security electronics Landscape & irrigation - intensive Landscape & irrigation - minimal Artificial turf, outdoor play Outdoor trails/par course Outdoor pavilion Barn Site accessories - flagpole, signage, misc. SUBTOTAL SITEWORK BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Animal Shelter Animal Shelter - veterinary Animal Shelter - outdoor covered area (excl. barn & pavilion) SUBTOTAL BUILDINGS 4,000 32,000, ,000 80, , LF LF LF AC $40,000 $25,000 $0 $8 $30,000 $30 $70 $40 $28,000 $25,000 $6 $ $30,000 $25,000 $35 $60 $25,000 $367,905 24,550 3,250,500 $325 $375 $75 39,300 $260 TOTA FROM ABOVE (BLDG'S & SITE) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS MARK-UP General Conditions General Contractor's Fee Bonds & Insurance SUBTOTAL GENERAL REQUIREMENTS $7,978,750 $,28,750 $862,500 $0,060,000 $2,083, % 5.00%.50% 2.50% $2,083,480 $2,083,480 $2,083,480 B. DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST INDIRECT COST Equipment Equipment Animal equipment Furnishings equipment Other Design and engineering fees Testing and inspection Topographical and utility survey Geotechnical investigation and report Project administration by City SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COST $40,000 $25,000 $40,000 $256,000 $30,000 $45,000 $42,000 $22,000 $28,000 $25,000 $20,000 $80,480 $30,000 $25,000 $28,000 $80,000 $25,000 $2,023,480 $725,009 $604,74 $8,252. $,50,435 $3,594,000 rounded EA EA EA C. INDIRECT COST % % EA EA % $20,000 $550,000 $220,000 $3,594,000 $3,594,000 $25,000 $5,000 $3,594,000 $890,000 $20,000 $550,000 $220,000 $,943,60 $,359,400 $27,880 $25,000 $5,000 $27,880 $2,833,60 $2,834,000 rounded Continued.. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 67 of 80 January 2, 205 9

92 Regional Shelter Cost continued. CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATION Contingencies Contingency on site acquisition Contingency on direct construction Contingency on indirect cost Escalation Escalation on site acquisition Escalation on direct construction Escalation on indirect cost SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY & ESCALATION 0 % 0 % 0 % $,740,000 $3,594,000 $2,834, % 2.5 % 2.5 % $,740,000 $3,594,000 $2,834,000 D. CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATION 92 costs shown are 204. $2,27,000 rounded E. TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST (A+B+C+D) Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects $,86,800 $74,000 $,359,400 $283,400 $454,200 $43,500 $339,850 $70,850 $2,27,000 $20,500,000 rounded 68 of 80 January 2, 205

93 APPENDIX J: ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST REMODEL OPTION PROJECT DATA Total Site Area 27,800 Service yard and staff parking 5,000 Barn and barnyard 3,000 Barn pasture 20,000 Animal exercise yards 0,000 Public parking (incl. drives and fire access) 0,000 Storage shed 400 Feral cat pens 400 Agility yard 0 Landscaping w/ irrigation - minimal (around bldg.) 20,000 Landscaping w/ irrigation - minimal (hydroseed, etc.) 93,000 Hardscape including walkways/exercise areas 2,000 Total Building Area 22,500 Shelter 6,525 Shelter - Future Expansion 3,05 Shelter Veterinary 2,870 Covered Exterior Areas,500 Exterior Covered Areas 9,500 Exterior Areas - Future Expansion 2,000 *incl. sallyport, ext. kennels, cat colony porches, cage storage SITE & BUILDING ACQUISITION Building and land purchase, based on cost/sf of bldg Legal, other fees Closing, other costs SUBTOTAL SITE & BUILDING ACQUISITION 5.0 Acres assumes future assumes minimal assumes minimal assumes existing TI on current need only 22,500 $25 $40,000 $50, AC $580,500 A. SITE & BUILDING ACQUISITION SITEWORK CONSTRUCTION Offsite Construction Offsite demolition Utilities, connect to street Sidewalk, curb & gutter Driveway entrances Onsite Construction Onsite demolition Grading & pad preparation Storm drainage Potable water & meter Fire water & hydrants Sanitary sewer Gas service Electrical service Electrical site lighting $2,82,500. $40,000. $50,000. $2,902,500 $2,903,000 rounded AC AC EA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $,800 $0,000 $5,000 $0,000 $20,000 $0 $30,000 $0 $25,000 $0,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $559,000 $0,000 $5,000 $0,000 $20,000 $0 $30,000 $0 $25,000 $0,000 assumes none incl. assumes none incl. assumes none req'd assumes none req'd for barn for barn assumes none incl. assumes none incl. for barn Continued. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 69 of 80 January 2,

94 Remodel option Continued.. Fiber / Telephone service Trash / Recycling enclosure Sidewalks / flatwork Vehicular paving, striping, drives and fire lanes Curb & gutter Chain link fencing Security fencing incl. man gates - ornamental Security fencing incl. man gates - chain link Motorized gate Security electronics Landscape & irrigation - intensive Landscape & irrigation - minimal Artificial turf, outdoor play Outdoor pavilion Barn Site accessories - flagpole, signage, misc. SUBTOTAL SITEWORK BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Animal Shelter - remodel construction Surplus Area - future TI Animal Shelter - veterinary - remodel construction Animal Shelter - outdoor covered area Animal Shelter - future outdoor covered area SUBTOTAL BUILDINGS 0 0 2,500 5,000, ,000 3, , LF LF LF AC $0 $0 $0 $3 $0,000 $30 $70 $40 $28,000 $25,000 $6 $ $5,000 $0 $60 $25,000 $,800 $0 $0 $25,000 $5,000 $0,000 $45,000 $42,000 $8,000 $28,000 $25,000 $8,000 $3,000 $5,000 $0 $80,000 $25,000 $559,000 6,525 3,05 2,870 9,500 2,000 $50 $0 $200 $75 $0 $2,478,750 $0 $574,000 $72,500 $0 34,000 $20 $3,765,250 TOTA FROM ABOVE (BLDG'S & SITE) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS MARK-UP General Conditions General Contractor's Fee Bonds & Insurance SUBTOTAL GENERAL REQUIREMENTS future phase future phase $4,324, % 8.00%.50% 7.50% $4,324,250 $4,324,250 $4,324,250 B. DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST INDIRECT COST Equipment Equipment Animal equipment Furnishings equipment Other Design and engineering fees Testing and inspection Topographical and utility survey Geotechnical investigation and report Project administration by City SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COST assumes none incl. assumes none req'd assumes minimal req'd assumes minimal req'd assumes minimal req'd assumes none incl. $345,940 $345,940 $64,864 $756,744 $5,08,000 rounded EA EA EA C. INDIRECT COST % % EA EA % $75,000 $350,000 $50,000 $5,08,000 $5,08,000 $0 $0 $5,08,000 $575,000 $75,000 $350,000 $50,000 $762,50 $609,720 $50,80 $0 $0 $0,620 $,337,50 assumes none assumes none $,338,000 rounded Continued. Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects of 80 January 2, 205

95 Remodel Option Continued.. CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATION Contingencies Contingency on site acquisition Contingency on direct construction Contingency on indirect cost Escalation Escalation on site acquisition Escalation on direct construction Escalation on indirect cost SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY & ESCALATION 0 % 0 % 0 % $2,903,000 $5,08,000 $,338, % 2.5 % 2.5 % $2,903,000 $5,08,000 $,338,000 D. CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATION costs shown are 205. $,66,000 rounded E. TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST (A+B+C+D) Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects $932,200 $290,300 $508,00 $33,800 $233,050 $72,575 $27,025 $33,450 $,65,250 $0,500,000 rounded 7 of 80 January 2,

96 96 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 72 of 80 APPENDIX K: POWERPOINT SLIDESHOW, HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS FOR ELK GROVE January 2, 205

97 Shelter facilities, animals and communities: making the connection Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 73 of 80 January 2, Kate F. Hurley, DVM, MPVM Koret Shelter Medicine Program Center for Companion Animal Health University of California, Davis

98 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 74 of 80 January 2,

99 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 75 of 80 January 2,

100 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 76 of 80 January 2,

101 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 77 of 80 January 2, 205 0

102 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 78 of 80 January 2,

103 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 79 of 80 January 2,

104 Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects 80 of 80 January 2,