The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 10b - Animal Control ServicesDATE: May 18, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Roy Nakamura, Chief of Police By: Dr. Jennifer Brutus, Sr. Management Analyst SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PASADENA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,689,664 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY The existing Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with the Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA (“PHS”) for animal control services expires on June 30, 2021. It is recommended that the City Council approve, and authorize and direct the City Manager to execute, a new five-year Professional Services Agreement with PHS from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2026, in a total amount not to exceed $1,689,664. BACKGROUND Since 1993, the City has contracted with PHS for animal control services. The Agreement specifies that PHS will provide patrol services on the streets and public ways of the City Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and as soon as practicable dispatch unarmed humane officers to handle Arcadia calls for service. In an effort to resolve dog licensing concerns, PHS has a canvasser go door-to-door throughout the City to make sure dog owners are complying. The City also benefits from the computerized licensing renewal system administered by PHS and their ability to work with local veterinarians to maintain current vaccination records and conduct follow-up contacts with pet owners. In addition, PHS offers low cost spay/neutering and vaccination services to Arcadia residents. PHS handles numerous calls for service from Arcadia residents. The City receives a monthly report specifying calls for service, as well as statistics on sheltering and field services. The following chart provides an overview of general statistics for the past four years. For a more detailed breakdown, see Attachment No. 1 – 2017-2020 PHS Animal Control Statistics for Arcadia. PSA with PHS for Animal Control Services May 18, 2021 Page 2 of 7 Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA Statistics for Arcadia (2017-2020) Field or Sheltering Service 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Patrol Hours Conducted within Arcadia 1,128 962 643 109 2,842 Impounded Animals (Active/Live Animal Intake) 861 773 623 265 2,522 Impounded Animals (Deceased/Disposed) 492 487 477 336 1,792 Impounded Wildlife Animals (Active/Live Animal Intake) 195 163 114 83 472 Impounded Wildlife Animals (Deceased/Disposed) 328 334 323 138 1,123 Coyote Activities Handled 59 63 87 44 253 PHS Euthanasia (All Animal Types) 235 117 77 15 444 Owner Requested Euthanasia (All Animal Types) 40 26 30 4 100 Animals Still at PHS at the End of the Year 11 18 7 7 43 In 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, PHS reduced its patrol service level and only responded to emergency or protective custody calls. As a result, the number of patrol hours conducted in 2020 fell to 109. PHS has since resumed normal operations and is now offering full-service. Although social distancing requirements also caused PHS to stop canvassing for licensing compliance, the agency plans to resume canvassing as soon as it receives guidance from the broader animal welfare community on best practices for canvassing in a post-pandemic world. Canvassing is part of PHS’s strategic plan and PHS has communicated to the City that it plans to introduce a new online licensing program for residents in May 2021. Although canvassing will continue, what actually constitutes canvassing and its timeline of activities is to be determined. Every year, PHS generates revenue from licensing and penalty fees in accordance with the rules and regulations set forth in the City’s Municipal Code (AMC 4124.2.2). For 2020, PHS generated $30,992.50 in licensing and penalty fees from Arcadia residents, and these funds were retained by PHS. Under the Agreement, PHS retains 100% of all revenues brought in by the City. For a complete account of revenue stats from 2017 to 2020, see Attachment No. 2 – 2017-2020 PHS Revenue Stats for Arcadia. PHS Cost Increase In the final quarter of 2019, when PHS informed all cities contracting for services that their rates would undergo a large increase beginning July 1, 2020, the City began to research alternative options for animal control services. PHS proposed a contract increase to approximately $525,000 per year for Arcadia, which the City believed was exorbitant and unsubstantiated (nearly five-times the current contract rate at the time of $90,702). PHS did not provide adequate details regarding the reasons behind the cost increase to Arcadia, or to other cities, other than a general conclusion that it was to accommodate their operational costs. The proposed cost increase to Arcadia higher than the cost increases for other PHS PSA with PHS for Animal Control Services May 18, 2021 Page 3 of 7 contract cities; however, nearly every City faced substantial increases. In total, PHS proposed to increase their contract services for all cities from $1,592,594 to $3,088,384 (a 93.92% increase). In response to the proposed contract increase, the City sought to negotiate or contract for a more favorable rates. In 2019, staff contacted the Los Angeles County, who provided a quote to provide similar animal control services for $371,723. This amount would then be reduced by revenues brought in by Arcadia residents for licensing and penalty fees. Using a revenue estimate of $48,453 (based on available data at the time from 2017-2018), it was determined that a one-year service agreement with LA County would be a net cost to the City of $323,270. In addition to discussions with LA County, the City, along with the other PHS contract cities, contested PHS’s first projection and negotiated for a one year contract (FY 2020-21) with PHS, with the understanding that negotiations with PHS would continue for a long-term contract during the term of the one-year extension. PHS revised its proposed contract amount for Arcadia to $318,256 and the City signed a one-year contract extension for this amount. Although the increase was still a substantial increase over the previous contract (a difference of $227,554), it was less than the original proposed contract amount by $206,744 and was lower than the net cost of going with the County proposal. DISCUSSION Since the one-year extension, the City Manager has participated in meetings with staff from other PHS contract cities to explore alternative animal control service options including a long-term contract with PHS, a change in service provider from PHS to LA County, the formation of a Joint Powers Authority (“JPA”) with local cities seeking animal control services, or providing animal control services directly. It was determined that it would be more cost-effective for the City to continue outsourcing animal control services. It is important for the City to consider cost sharing opportunities in order to lessen the financial obligations associated with a formulating a new animal control services program. Thus, in November 2020, the City participated in an animal services JPA feasibility assessment along with 11 other cities (“Project Cities”) including Alhambra, Bradbury, Duarte, La Canada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena. Outcome of Animal Control Services JPA Study The independent study (see Attachment No. 3 – CityGate Animal Services JPA Study Final Report), which was led by the City of Pasadena and conducted by the consulting firm CityGate Associates, LLC, assessed the feasibility of forming a multi-city animal services JPA to provide a quality animal services program that could allow cities to manage costs for their respective cities and provide a method to increase service-level control going forward. The study focused on two JPA models: full-service and field-service-only. PSA with PHS for Animal Control Services May 18, 2021 Page 4 of 7 CityGate conducted interviews with staff from each Project City, including staff from the Arcadia Police Department, and held discussions with staff from PHS. CityGate’s analysis included research related to the requirements for establishing a JPA, development of estimated facility costs, startup costs, staffing levels and costs, equipment startup and ongoing costs, financing costs, estimated revenues, and estimated ongoing annual operating costs for both models. The JPA study revealed that both models would require a significant amount of financial investment from the City for startup and operations costs for the first year. CityGate developed the model assuming a normalized year of activity, which equates to estimates and assumptions of an average operating year in the life of a JPA as opposed to the ramp- up year(s). The models utilized statistics from 2018 and 2019 as the COVID-19 pandemic impacted operations in 2020. For a full-service JPA with a staffing of 77 full-time equivalents (“FTE”), CityGate estimated that it would take approximately 3.5 years to develop and require $19.2 million in startup costs (for building and land, fixtures and kennels, and vehicles only). CityGate’s financing assumptions entailed a 20-year bond with an interest rate of 3%. For supplies, equipment, and furniture, CityGate assumed a short-term approach with a 5-year term at 3% with leasing fees of 1.5% of the lease amount. Regarding personnel benefits, JPA personnel would fall under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) plan, which includes Social Security and Medicare. The normalized annual expenses of the program (projected to be $12.5 million), would be offset by the normalized annual revenue (projected to be $5.6 million) for a net cost of $6.9 million to be allocated to JPA member cities. The normalized yearly cost to the City is estimated to be $1,082,453. This option would cost the City $764,197 more than its current contract with PHS of $318,256. The City’s portion of the debt service payment is included in the calculations; however, beyond this fiscal responsibility, the normalized year operating loss must also be allocated to each city. For a field-services-only JPA with 24 FTEs, it was estimated that it would take 20 months to get the program up and running with office space needed primarily for administration and field-services personnel to do their jobs. This option would cost $780,000 under the assumption that Project Cities would split the startup cost over financing. The total cost to the City during the first year is estimated to be $282,012, followed by $195,158 annually. In the case of a field-services-only JPA model, the City would still need to obtain sheltering- related services from an animal control services provider, as well as veterinary services. While either JPA model would allow the City more control over its cost and more involvement in setting service-levels, the City would experience significant annual increases in costs for the provision of animal services. CityGate recommended that if the Project cities were to consider a JPA, they should begin with the formation of a field-services only JPA and subsequently move to full-services. This approach would allow the Project Cities to evaluate if the JPA model is successful without taking on the capital and borrowing expenses related PSA with PHS for Animal Control Services May 18, 2021 Page 5 of 7 to full-services. It is important to note that the study did not contemplate any revenues from donations or endowments, which are generally a substantial source of revenue for animal control operations. For instance, PHS relies heavily on volunteers and donations to run its operations. Something to consider is how JPA members cities would be able to compete for donations in the region as PHS has a strong donor base (in 2019, PHS reported $6 million in donations revenue). It would be in the JPA’s best interest to utilize volunteers and donations, but to what extent that would be possible is unknown. For about the past year, the City and PHS’s seven other contract cities have been in contract negotiations, and have drafted a new standardized Agreement (see Attachment No. 4 – Proposed Professional Services Agreement with PHS for Animal Control Services) to be used by each of the cities to allow for more consistency. Currently, PHS has different agreements with each city and the contract methodologies and formats are inconsistent with highly variable financial terms, as well as variabilities in services provided, fees charged, revenues credited, and other aspects. New Agreement with PHS The new Agreement with PHS will be for five years until June 30, 2026. Under the Agreement, the cost of service for Arcadia will remain the same at $318,256 for FY 2021- 22. However, for the subsequent four years, the contract cost will increase by the Consumer Price Index with a maximum of three percent (3%) each year. The following table shows the maximum amount the City will pay PHS over the next five years. Cost of Animal Control Services Contract with PHS for Five Years FY 2020-21 (Current Price) FY 2021-22 (Proposed Price) FY 2022-23 (+ max 3%) FY 2023-24 (+ max 3%) FY 2024-25 (+ max 3%) FY 2025-26 (+ max 3%) Five-Year Total $318,256 $318,256 $327,804 $337,638 $347,767 $358,200 $1,689,664 PHS will respond to priority one calls (seemingly vicious or danger animals, sick or injured animals at large, etc.) no later than 90 minutes from the time of dispatch, with a commitment to responding to 80% of all priority one calls within 45 minutes of dispatch, 24 hours a day. Routine calls (dogs at large, abuse/neglect complaints, dead animals, etc.) will be responded to within two hours during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., seven days a week. PHS will no longer perform general patrol in the City, instead the agency will perform directed patrol services by request of the City. In these situations, PHS will perform patrol for a specific area or problem for a limited duration for the purpose of addressing an enforcement issue related to animals. PSA with PHS for Animal Control Services May 18, 2021 Page 6 of 7 PHS will retain all revenue collected from Arcadia residents through the City’s animal licensing and penalty fees, as they have done under past agreements. Likewise, for the other contract cities, their revenues will no longer be returned and will be retained by PHS. The contract costs for each city have been adjusted to reflect this. Over the next three to six months, the City and other PHS contract cities will form a working group to meet with PHS to discuss licensing fees and methods for offsetting contract costs by licensing revenue. Currently, PHS contract cities set their own licensing and penalty fees, which all vary. However, since PHS contract cities share the same services from PHS, it is recommended that the contract cities work with PHS to move towards standardized licensing fees for all cities served by PHS. The idea is for a new standard rate to be developed as a result of a licensing fee analysis and cost comparison. Several Cities, including Arcadia, are continuing to explore long-term options with the County service model, including the possibility of the County establishing a modern shelter location somewhere in the western San Gabriel Valley. The proposed contract with PHS allows the City to terminate the contract quickly should this option prove viable. In the meantime, while the basis for the cost increases from PHS in recent years continues to elude the contract cities, the prices being offered by PHS continue to be less expensive than other options available for consideration. Overall, there is a significant cost increase of going with an animal services JPA and a lengthy timeline for establishment. At this time, it is recommended that the City move forward with a five-year contract with PHS as it is the least expensive option. Over the course of the five-year Agreement, the City will spend approximately $1.69 million on animal control services with PHS, which will be supported by the annual General Fund Operating Budget. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), based on Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be seen with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment. Thus, this matter is exempt under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds ($318,256) for the first year of the Agreement have been allocated in the FY 2021-22 Operating Budget under contract services. If approved, future years will be budgeted accordingly in the City’s General Fund Operating Budget. PSA with PHS for Animal Control Services May 18, 2021 Page 7 of 7 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council determine that this project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and approve, authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA for Animal Control Services in an amount not to exceed $1,689,664. Attachment No. 1: PHS 2017-2020 Animal Control Statistics for Arcadia Attachment No. 2: PHS 2017-2020 Revenue Stats for Arcadia Attachment No. 3: CityGate Animal Services JPA Study Final Report Attachment No. 4: Proposed Professional Services Agreement with PHS for Animal Control Services Attachment No. 5: PHS Final Contract Cost Calculation Attachment No. 1 ! " !! # $%&'())$*%+(,-,$.,$*. / ! ! 010,%(*,$2$,$%. 0,-& " / 0,-& 34056'%'(6$3-&( %40+, $.(7%,8%%6( ! !"#$ ! ! 9 %& '& "( ! ) $* && &&$ ! ) & & +$ $&'&$)%(34056'%'(6$3-&( %40+,()0+(&&($,$%. % && )& # " # ))% ,' )% $ & % #$ !& !"#$ ! !# #"& #%$ #(# #-!# 0,-&! %$ 0,-&! %& '& "( ! ) 0,-& &&&$ %%& 0,-& $* 0,-& & +$ 0,-& $2%(6$3-&(6,-:%( %-.06( %40+, #( (!; (< ( ( ! !"#$ ! %& '& ! ) ! ) & &! +$! ! 5,=-6-.$-( %-.06( %40+, ! % "$ , $ ' 0,-& !"#$ ! %& '& "( ! ) ) & +$ Animals Euthanized for Space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nimals Euthanized for Space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ttachment No. 2 + , + - !"#$ #%& #"& "'$&()&"!" *$&()' && + ,+- !"#$ #%& #"& "'$&()&"!" *$&()' && + ,+- !"#$ #%& #"& "'$&()&"!" *$&()' && + ,+- Attachment No. 3 This page was intentionally left blank Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Table of Contents page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Scope and Why Citygate Was Selected ........................................................................................... 1 Organization of the Report ......................................................................................................................... 2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control................................................................................................... 5 1.1 History ............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Placement of Municipal Animal Control Agencies ......................................................................... 6 1.3 Legal Basis for Animal Control ...................................................................................................... 6 1.4 California Animal Laws .................................................................................................................. 6 1.5 Ordinances ...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Legislative Efforts ........................................................................................................................... 8 1.7 Mandates and Community Expectations ....................................................................................... 11 1.8 Current Practices ........................................................................................................................... 14 1.9 Euthanasia ..................................................................................................................................... 20 1.10 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 20 Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters ..................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Things to Know about Animal Shelters ........................................................................................ 21 2.3 Shelter Types ................................................................................................................................. 22 2.4 Location ........................................................................................................................................ 31 2.5 The Difference between Municipal Animal Control Agencies and Humane Societies ................. 32 2.6 What Will a New Shelter Cost? .................................................................................................... 33 2.7 Renovating an Existing Building for Use as an Animal Shelter ................................................... 36 2.8 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 36 Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations .................................................................................... 37 3.1 Western San Gabriel Valley .......................................................................................................... 37 3.2 Demographics of San Gabriel Valley ............................................................................................ 37 3.3 Location of Local Animal Welfare Organizations ........................................................................ 37 3.4 Population Served by Cities in This Study .................................................................................... 43 3.5 Geography ..................................................................................................................................... 43 3.6 Growth Projections ........................................................................................................................ 45 3.7 Effects of Spay/Neuter and Education Programs on Animal Intakes ............................................ 45 3.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 47 Section 4—What Is an Animal Services Joint Powers Authority? ........................................................................ 49 4.1 Definition ...................................................................................................................................... 49 4.2 Formation ...................................................................................................................................... 49 4.3 Operations ..................................................................................................................................... 50 4.4 JPA Phasing Scenarios and Timeline ............................................................................................ 50 4.5 Animal Services JPAs in California .............................................................................................. 53 Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Table of Contents page ii Section 5—Models for Animal Care and Control Services .................................................................................... 57 5.1 Model #1: Status Quo .................................................................................................................... 57 5.2 Model #2: Full-Service JPA .......................................................................................................... 57 5.3 Model #3: Field-Service-Only JPA ............................................................................................... 58 5.4 Steps Involved in the Formation of a JPA ..................................................................................... 59 Section 6—Best Practices and Current Trends in Animal Welfare ...................................................................... 61 6.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 61 6.2 Current Trends .............................................................................................................................. 61 6.3 Best Practices ................................................................................................................................ 65 6.4 Other Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 66 Section 7—Overview of Current Financial Information and Operations for Each Project City ....................... 67 Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models ...................................................................... 69 8.1 Startup Costs – Full-Service Model .............................................................................................. 69 8.2 Startup Costs – Field-Service-Only Model ................................................................................... 71 8.3 Financing Options for Startup Costs ............................................................................................. 73 8.4 Ongoing Revenues and Costs – Full-Service Model ..................................................................... 74 8.5 Ongoing Revenues and Costs – Field-Service-Only Model .......................................................... 78 8.6 Retirement Cost Options – CalPERS and Other Viable Options .................................................. 80 8.7 Discussion of Cost Allocation Models and Methodology ............................................................. 84 Section 9—Preferred Animal Care and Control Model(s) ..................................................................................... 89 9.1 Citygate Final Opinion .................................................................................................................. 89 Section 10—Summary of Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................... 91 10.1 Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 91 10.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 92 Table of Tables Table 1—Animal Control Mandates............................................................................................................................ 12 Table 2—Population and Area of Project Cities .......................................................................................................... 43 Table 3—Animal Control Program Milestones – Full-Service JPA ............................................................................ 51 Table 4—Animal Control Program Timeline – Full-Service JPA ............................................................................... 52 Table 5—JPA Animal Control Program Milestones – Field-Service-Only ................................................................. 52 Table 6—Animal Control Program Timeline – Field-Service-Only JPA .................................................................... 53 Table 7—Animal Services Costs for Project Cities ..................................................................................................... 68 Table 8—Startup Costs – Full-Service JPA................................................................................................................. 70 Table 9—Personnel – Full-Service JPA ...................................................................................................................... 71 Table 10—Startup Costs – Field-Service-Only JPA ................................................................................................... 73 Table 11—Personnel – Field-Service-Only JPA ......................................................................................................... 73 Table 12—Salaries – Full-Service JPA ....................................................................................................................... 76 Table 13—Salaries – Field-Service-Only JPA ............................................................................................................ 79 Table 14—Cost Allocation Summary – Full-Service JPA .......................................................................................... 85 Table 15—Cost Allocation Summary – Field-Service-Only JPA ............................................................................... 86 Table 16—JPA Governance Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................. 94 Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Table of Contents page iii Table of Figures Figure 1—Attractive Public Entrance .......................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2—Adoption Gallery ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 3—Open, Spacious Public Counter Areas ........................................................................................................ 24 Figure 4—Small-Dog Holding Areas that Minimize Noise and Disease Transfer ...................................................... 25 Figure 5—Public-Friendly Cat Adoption Areas That Provide Comfort for Cats ........................................................ 25 Figure 6—Sanitary Food Preparation Areas ................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 7—Centralized Cleaning Systems for Staff Efficiency .................................................................................... 26 Figure 8—Covered Drains and Epoxy Rosin Floors for Disease Control and Cleaning Ease and Longevity............. 27 Figure 9—Indoor and Outdoor Get-Acquainted and Exercise Areas .......................................................................... 27 Figure 10—Humane Education Classrooms / Conference Rooms .............................................................................. 28 Figure 11—Medical Areas, Including for Spaying/Neutering ..................................................................................... 28 Figure 12—Modern Staff Work Areas and Break Areas ............................................................................................. 29 Figure 13—Outside Dog Kennels................................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 14—Inside Dog Kennels .................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 15—Tony LaRussa’s Animal Rescue Foundation in Walnut Creek ................................................................ 32 Figure 16—Tri-City Animal Shelter............................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 17—San Gabriel Valley ................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 18—Population Growth in the San Gabriel Valley .......................................................................................... 45 Figure 19—Population and Animal Intakes – 1972–2012 ........................................................................................... 46 Figure 20—Population and Animals Euthanized ........................................................................................................ 47 Appendices Appendix 1—Animal Services JPA Estimated Startup Costs – Full-Service and Field-Service-Only Appendix 2—Animal Services JPA Debt Financing Calculations – Full-Service Appendix 3—Animal Services JPA Estimated Revenue – Full-Service and Field-Service-Only Appendix 4—Animal Services JPA Estimated Personnel Costs – Full-Service Appendix 5—Animal Services JPA Cost Model Summary – Full-Service Appendix 6—Animal Services JPA Estimated Personnel Costs – Field-Service-Only Appendix 7—Animal Services JPA Cost Model Summary – Field-Service-Only Appendix 8—Animal Services JPA Cost Allocation Summary (Normalized Year) – Full-Service Appendix 9—Animal Services JPA Cost Allocation Summary (Normalized Year) – Field-Service-Only Appendix 10—Estimated Current Dog Licensing Compliance in the Project Cities This page was intentionally left blank Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Executive Summary page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STUDY SCOPE AND WHY CITYGATE WAS SELECTED Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) was asked by the City of Pasadena and eleven other cities in Los Angeles County—including Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena (the Project Cities)—to conduct an independent study to assess the feasibility of forming a multi-city animal services Joint Powers Authority (JPA). It was understood that the Project Cities wanted to explore options for providing a quality animal services program that will allow them to manage costs for their respective cities and provide a method to increase service-level control going forward. Pasadena, on behalf of the Project Cities, requested Citygate determine if the formation of a JPA would create an equitable cost-sharing model that would reduce and manage ongoing costs. In meeting this project scope directive, Citygate determined that development of a full-service JPA model and a field-service-only JPA model would be best. This analysis included research related to the requirements for establishing a JPA, development of estimated facility costs, startup costs, staffing levels and costs, equipment startup and ongoing costs, financing costs, estimated revenues, and estimated ongoing annual operating costs for both models. Citygate also developed estimated timelines for implementation for each model, including the formation of the JPA, issuance of bonds, acquisition of equipment and facilities, and implementation of the JPA. In completing the analysis, Citygate spoke with project staff from the Project Cities, both in an initial kick-off teleconference meeting to ensure mutual understanding of the project scope and then with the staff of each individual city to enhance understanding of current services, issues, and goals moving forward relating to animal services. The Pasadena Humane Society (PHS) currently provides full animal services to two-thirds of the Project Cities. Consequently, Citygate conducted interviews with various PHS staff to obtain a better understanding of the mechanics of how it provides services to the Project Cities. The interviews with PHS did not go deeply into financial or operational matters; they were conducted on a high level to gain a general understanding of how services are provided to meet the project scope. Citygate’s analysis also included review of numerous documents provided by the Project Cites and PHS. In undertaking this study, Citygate observed a high level of knowledge, engagement, and conscientious thinking from the Project Cities’ representatives. They provided abundant information, statistics, and documents, along with general and detailed information during the interviews. Citygate is convinced that by working collaboratively together, the Project Cities will be able to establish a best practices animal care and control model that is cost-effective and provides good service to the residents of their respective communities. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Executive Summary page 2 Citygate was selected for this project due to its dedication to providing assessment and improvement services for public sector agencies. Citygate has conducted various feasibility studies, performance audits, and organizational analyses for well over 300 city and county governments throughout the West, including many animal services reviews. The qualifications to perform this assessment include the professional expertise and experience of the Citygate consulting team. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT The following is an overview of how the report is organized. Section 1: Overview of Animal Care and Control This section of the report discusses animal control history, placement of animal control programs, the legal basis for animal control, laws and ordinances, legislative efforts, legal mandates, community expectations, current practices, and the necessity of euthanasia. Section 2: Information About Animal Shelters This section of the report discusses shelter types, state-of-the-art shelters, the difference between municipal animal control agencies and humane societies, the costs of new shelters and the reasons they are expensive, and the pros and cons of renovating existing buildings for use as animal shelters. Section 3: Geography and Demographic Considerations This section of the report discusses the San Gabriel Valley and its demographics, geography, and population and growth projections. It defines the population of the Project Cities in this study and outlines the local animal welfare organizations in the region, as well as discusses the effects of spay/neuter and education programs on animal intakes. Section 4: What Is an Animal Services Joint Powers Authority? This section of the report defines a JPA and its formation and operations and provides some phasing scenarios. It also provides outlines of four currently operating animal services JPAs in California. Section 5: Models for Animal Care and Control Services This section of the report provides models for maintaining the current animal control arrangement, a full-service JPA, and a field-service-only JPA, and it describes the steps involved in forming a JPA. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Executive Summary page 3 Section 6: Best Practices and Current Trends in Animal Welfare This section of the report provides examples of current trends in animal shelters, including disaster response, adoption ambassadors, and alternatives to intake. It provides a list of commonly accepted best practices and discusses the impact of COVID-19 on animal care and control operations. Section 7: Overview of Current Financial Information and Operations for Each Project City This section of the report discusses the animal services contracts and billing methodologies and compares the current and prior year contract rates and revenue credits. It examines how the Project Cities manage animal services oversight. Section 8: Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models This section of the report reviews startup costs, financing options, ongoing costs, and retirement costs for a full-service JPA and a field-service-only JPA. It discusses cost allocation models and methodology for both types of JPAs and provides recommendations for interim processes while the Project Cities examine options. Section 9: Preferred Animal Care and Control Model(s) This section of the report discusses the benefits of establishing a best practices animal control program and provides Citygate’s recommendation on the service model(s) that are most likely to benefit the Project Cities over the long term. Section 10: Summary of Findings and Recommendations This section of the report provides findings and recommendations for maintaining the current animal services arrangement, pursuing a full-service JPA, and pursuing a field-service-only JPA. CONCLUSIONS Based on this review, Citygate found that both a full-service model and a field-service-only model could be implemented; however, implementation of a full-service operation would result in a significant annual net cost increase over what the Project Cities are currently paying of approximately $6.9 million based on the assumptions developed by Citygate. The field-service- only model developed by Citygate would only result in a net cost increase of approximately $324,000 from the cost the Project Cities are currently paying, not including the costs for sheltering and veterinary services. The findings included that the current contracts the Project Cities have are inconsistent with highly variable financial terms. The contract methodologies and formats are not consistent, even with the same service provider. Formation of a JPA would provide a standard model for animal care and Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Executive Summary page 4 control for all cities that opt in for full services. There was a challenge in truly making “apples to apples” comparisons since the existing system was variable in the services provided, fees charged, revenues credited, and other aspects. While both JPA models projected would meet some of the goals of the Project Cities, such as budget and program input, there are startup costs that must be met. Estimated startup costs for the full-service model are more substantial at approximately $19.2 million due to the complexity involved with providing full animal services. Estimated startup costs for the field-service-only model are approximately $780,000 due to the model’s scaled-down and more simplistic operational structure. While a field-service-only JPA appears to be more feasible, approximately $324,000 higher than current costs, it must be stressed that this model does not include necessary sheltering and veterinary services. The actual cost would depend on negotiation with a service provider. Since either option could be implemented by the Project Cities, Citygate developed recommendations for both models. In Section 10, Citygate provides 12 general recommendations for JPA formation, six recommendations for the full-service model, five recommendations for the field-service-only model, and eight status quo recommendations if the Project Cities decide to maintain the current animal services arrangement. Citygate also identified 15 findings related to this review. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 5 SECTION 1—OVERVIEW OF ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL 1.1 HISTORY In the United States, efforts to protect and control domestic animals—primarily horses, dogs, and cats—began early in the 19th century. In April 1866, the New York legislature passed a charter incorporating the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Nine days later, the first anti-animal cruelty law was approved by the New York Legislature, and the ASPCA was given the right to enforce the law. The first anti-animal cruelty laws were designed to protect farm and work animals, primarily horses. On April 18, 1868, the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) received its charter from the State of California, becoming the fourth SPCA in the nation and the first animal welfare organization west of the Rocky Mountains. By 1888, 37 of the then 38 states had passed animal cruelty prevention laws and humane societies and animal shelters were opening across the nation. Although the early efforts focused primarily on horses, the SPCA also protected dogs and cats. In the late 1800s, dogs were often used to pull small carts and to turn treadmills. Many of these working dogs roamed the streets and scavenged for their food. According to the SPCA, animal control practices at that time consisted of rounding up several hundred dogs per day from the streets in Manhattan, placing them in a cage, and drowning them in the East River. Dog catchers were paid by the animal, not the hour. Thus, they were not particularly concerned with locating the owner of strays. Abuses became so prevalent that in 1894 the SPCA was placed in charge of New York County’s animal control.1 Throughout the 1900s, dogs and cats became more prevalent as pets. In the 1950s and 1960s, canned pet foods and cat litter were introduced, making house pets even more popular. As pet ownership and life expectancy increased, controlling the rate at which animals reproduced became an increasing problem. Spaying and neutering, although available, were not widely promoted until the mid-1970s. As pet populations increased in the U.S., humane societies changed the focus of their animal shelters toward the adoption of dogs and cats as pets and spaying and neutering to help control populations. Municipal animal control and sheltering evolved as the overall development of animal cruelty prevention laws and humane societies spread. Originally, municipal animal control activities centered on impounding dogs to protect livestock. In 1937, at the height of a statewide rabies 1 Source: ASPCA, www.aspca.org/about-us/about-the-aspca/history-aspca. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 6 epidemic in California, laws were enacted to prevent the spread of rabies through impoundment, vaccination, and quarantine of biting animals. Thus, the origin of animal control was based around protecting the public from rabies. Early practices in public shelters did not focus on returning pets to their owners or placement of pets into new homes. Policies often had a short holding period prior to the animal being euthanized. 1.2 PLACEMENT OF MUNICIPAL ANIMAL CONTROL AGENCIES Currently, animal control agencies are placed in a variety of departments at the city or county level. The nature of the fieldwork being based on law enforcement and the early emphasis on the protection of livestock and public health concerns related to rabies leads to logical placements in police or sheriff departments, the health or environmental health department, or under the agriculture commissioner’s office. Animal control may also be found in public works, parks and recreation, or community services departments. In many jurisdictions, the animal control agency is a standalone, separate department. The animal control function can also be contracted out. Contracts are often with humane societies, cities or counties that provide animal care and control programs, or JPAs formed to provide animal control. While it is rare, animal control can be contracted to a for-profit business as well. 1.3 LEGAL BASIS FOR ANIMAL CONTROL In California, there are several legislative mandates that require cities and counties to provide specific services related to animal control. The main requirements are the provision of an animal shelter for stray animals, a rabies control program and licensing, veterinary treatment for injured and sick animals, enforcement of animal laws, and the spaying or neutering of dogs and cats prior to their placement into a new home. This past year, a new law was passed requiring microchipping of animals leaving shelters. Further discussion of mandates can be found in Section 1.7 of this report. 1.4 CALIFORNIA ANIMAL LAWS Animal laws exist at the state and local levels in California. At the state level, laws take the form of regulations and statutes. At the local level, laws are designated as ordinances. 1.4.1 Regulations The California Code of Regulations consists of rules adopted by California regulatory agencies to implement, interpret, or specify the laws they enforce or administer or to govern their procedure. Like statutes, regulations have the full force of law. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 7 A regulatory agency may only act under the authority of a statute. For example, the regulation regarding the use of sodium pentobarbital (Title 16, Division 20, Article 4, Section 2039) was adopted by the California Veterinary Medical Board under the authority granted to it under Business and Professions Code Sections 4808 and 4827. Regulations can be changed, repealed, or added at any time by a regulatory agency.2 1.4.2 Statutes California animal laws are contained in the following state codes: Business and Professions Code Civil Code Civil Procedures Code Corporations Code Education Code Family Code Fish and Game Code Food and Agriculture Code Government Code Health and Safety Code Insurance Code Labor Code Penal Code Probate Code Public Resources Code Public Utilities Code Revenue and Taxation Code Streets and Highways Code Vehicle Code 2 Source: California Animal Laws Handbook, California Animal Welfare Association, 2021 Edition. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 8 Water Code Welfare and Institutions Code In most cases, the responsible enforcement entity is not specifically named in the code. Responsibility for enforcing some of these statutes is specifically delineated (e.g., the Fish and Game Code is generally enforced by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife). Many of the animal-related laws are enforced by animal control personnel or humane officers due to the specific nature of the laws and the specialized equipment and expertise needed to understand and follow the statutes. 1.5 ORDINANCES Ordinances are local laws generally enacted by the governing body of a city or county. To be enforceable, ordinances must not conflict with state or federal law. Local ordinances may not be more permissive than state laws, but they can be more restrictive. Local animal control ordinances typically include the following sections: Animal licensing Animal-at-large restrictions Impoundment provisions, including minimum holding periods and conditions for release of the animal back to the owner Rabies control Bite reporting and quarantine requirements Restrictions on wild or exotic animal ownership and on the numbers of domestic animals allowed per residence Regulation of animal noise Requirements for providing shelter, proper care, and sanitation Regulation of dangerous animals. 1.6 LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS In the mid-1970s, concerned citizens and nonprofit animal welfare organizations began to exert influence through the legislative process to change what they perceived to be indifferent or, in some instances, inhumane treatment of animals at shelters operated by local governments. The legislature passed several bills that had a significant impact on the operations of municipal animal control programs. Among these were: Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 9 The banning of altitude chambers and carbon monoxide chambers for euthanasia Requiring that cats be held for 72 hours before they could be euthanized Requiring that animals be spayed/neutered before adoption Requiring that Animal Control Officers obtain an 832 P.C. Module “A” Certificate Requiring that Animal Control Officers report suspected instances of child abuse or elder abuse. Animal activists were responsible for the promulgation of two significant pieces of legislation that were effective beginning in January of 1999. SB 1785 (referred to as the “Hayden Bill”) and AB 1856 modified various California Code sections relating to the holding periods for impounded and surrendered animals, the care they are to receive, and spay/neuter requirements by: Stating that it is the policy of the state that “no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home.” Requiring that stray animals be held six business days, not counting the day of impoundment. (The prior requirement was four days plus the day of impoundment.) Reducing the holding requirement to four business days, not counting the day of impoundment, if the shelter: (a) is open until 7:00 p.m. one weekday, (b) is open one weekend day, or (c) has fewer than three employees and is not open during all regular weekday business hours and has established procedures for owners to reclaim lost animals by appointment. Requiring that surrendered animals be held for two business days, not counting the day of impoundment. This holding period increased to the same as for stray animals previously noted effective July 1, 2001. The effective date of this provision was modified by AB 2754 to become operative July 1, 2002. AB 2754 also modifies the Hayden Bill to allow surrendered puppies and kittens to be made immediately available for adoption. AB 2754 also requires that all animals be scanned for microchips. Requiring that efforts be made to provide veterinary treatment for ill or injured animals to make them suitable for adoption. Requiring specific records be kept on all animals impounded, surrendered, and/or medically treated. Requiring that animals be turned over to nonprofit rescue groups prior to the animals being euthanized. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 10 Requiring that reasonable efforts be made to reunite lost pets with their owners and specifying that owners and finders of pets be provided with specific information. Requiring that all dogs and cats adopted from public and nonprofit shelters be spayed/neutered. Providing an exception to this requirement for agencies in counties having populations of less than 100,000. Requiring the imposition of fines on redeemed dogs and cats that are not spayed/neutered. 1.6.1 Impacts of SB 1785 on Public Shelters The following are the impacts resulting from the passage of SB 1785: The law required the reduction of flexibility in managing the population of public shelters. Animal shelters have a finite capacity. By requiring the indiscriminate holding of all animals regardless of their adoptability, shelter managers find it more difficult to manage the shelter population. In some instances, more adoptable animals must be euthanized to reduce overcrowding caused by lengthened holding periods for animals that have little chance of being adopted. The law required the adoption of a state policy that “no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home.” Few would disagree with the intent of this goal. However, the definition of “adoptable” is open to interpretation and thus the subject of, at times, acrimonious debate between animal activists and public shelter managers. The law required the expenditure of public funds on the expansion of some facilities and the adoption of other requirements. The Commission on State Mandates determined that certain provisions of SB 1785 were reimbursable, but not others. The state and the original government agencies that brought the claim for reimbursement litigated certain issues relative to the scope of reimbursement. As of this date, the state has not pursued its lawsuit, and the local public jurisdictions have abandoned their lawsuit. Budget Bills AB 1 and AB 12 of the Fourth Extraordinary 2009 Budget Session regarding animal shelters “suspends” (does not repeal) for one year those sections of the Hayden Bill on animal shelters considered to be reimbursable state mandates. State law requires the state to reimburse cities/counties for costs of programs mandated by state law, thus saving the state approximately $13 million per year owed to cities and counties to reimburse the costs of the Hayden Bill. Suspended Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 11 mandates include some holding periods (AB 12 requires strays to be held a minimum of 72 hours), veterinary care, record keeping, and lost and found lists. It does not suspend mandated cooperation between shelters and rescue groups. The suspension of the provisions of the law was extended in future budget years. Recently, the Governor attempted to repeal the suspended provisions of the law related to mandated service. This effort was blocked by the legislature. Therefore, the noted provisions of the law remain suspended. Animal rights advocates continue to lobby for the full enactment of the law. 1.6.2 Impacts of AB 1856 on Public Shelters The following are the impacts resulting from the passage of AB 1856: The law required that all dogs and cats (with some medical, age, and size of population exemptions), needed to be spayed/neutered prior to adoption. This requirement tasked the resources of many public shelters, but it also started cooperative relationships with the nonprofit and veterinary communities in some jurisdictions. The law resulted in an overall increase in the number of animals that were spayed/neutered in some communities. 1.7 MANDATES AND COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS 1.7.1 Legal Mandates That Affect Animal Control Programs Animal control programs are responsible for several mandated functions that are set by California legislation. In addition to these statutory requirements, animal control programs have high visibility and public interest. Since 1999, the State of California has a stated policy promoting adoption of shelter animals and a goal of reducing euthanasia. Local government agencies are mandated to provide programs control rabies, control strays (animal impound services and animal shelter), control animal population growth by providing for the spaying or neutering of adopted animals prior to placement in a new home, and provide treatment to sick and injured impounded animals. California recently enacted legislation to require microchipping of dogs and cats prior to their release from shelters. The following table lists some major mandates that affect animal control programs. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 12 Table 1—Animal Control Mandates Function Mandate Reference Holding period Hold animals for 72 hours Food and Agriculture Code various sections Treatment Stray sick and injured must be treated SB 1785 and Penal Code 597 Population control Spay and neuter adopted dogs/cats Food and Agriculture Code 30503 and 31760-31766 Standard of care, shelter animals Provide food, water, and shelter Civil Code 1834, Health and Safety Code 121690 Rabies control program, clinics Health officer, $10 shots, public clinics Health and Safety Code 120130- 121615 Animal shelter system A way to impound stray dogs Food and Agriculture Code 31105 Dog license program Licenses required after four months Health and Safety Code 121690 et al Partnerships Public agencies may partner with 501(c)(3) organizations and must release dogs and cats if requested prior to scheduled euthanasia Food and Agriculture Code 31108 and 31753-31754 Cruelty investigations Animal control is responsible to investigate animal cruelty Penal Code 597 Seizure of animals Animal seizure required under certain cases Penal Code 597 and 597.1 Dangerous dogs State and local laws established to control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs Food and Agriculture Code 31601-31683 Stray dogs Impound stray dogs Food and Agriculture Code 31105 Euthanasia/shelter animals Must provide certified staff Food and Agriculture Code 31105 Animal fighting Unlawful to cause animals to fight Penal Code 597b and 599aa Rodeos/exhibitions Veterinarian must be present at rodeos and injured animals must receive immediate treatment Penal Code 596.7 Search and seizure Grounds and procedure for execution of search warrants Penal Codes 1523, 1524, and 599a Vaccinations Must provide low-fee rabies clinics Health and Safety Code 121690f Feral cats Shelter to evaluate prior to release to nonprofits Food and Agriculture Code 31752 Microchipping of shelter animals Microchip dogs and cats prior to release from shelters Food and Agriculture Code 31108.3 and 31752.1 Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 13 1.7.2 Discussion of Mandates Rabies Control Health and Safety Code Sections 120130 through 121710 provide that the local Health Officer is responsible for the administration and enforcement of Section 121690 of the California Health and Safety Code in officially declared rabies areas. All of California’s counties are currently designated as rabies areas and have been so designated for decades. The mandate includes responsibilities to quarantine rabies suspect animals or destroy the animal(s) at the discretion of the Health Officer, distribute anti-rabies vaccines, investigate reports of rabies (bite investigations), enforce dog licensing and rabies vaccination requirements, and provide dog vaccination clinics. Stray Animal Shelter Health and Safety Code Section 121690(e) states, “The governing body of each city, city and county, or county shall maintain or provide for the maintenance of a pound system and a rabies control program for the purpose of carrying out and enforcing this section.” This mandate requires that a location be provided for impoundment of strays. Spaying and Neutering of Adopted Animals The Food and Agricultural Code Sections 30503 (dogs) and 31751.3 (cats), require that dogs and cats adopted from shelters be spayed or neutered. Treatment of Sick and Injured Animals Penal Code Section 597f(b) states, “It shall be the duty of all officers of pounds or humane societies and animal regulation departments of public agencies to convey, and for police and sheriff departments, to cause to be conveyed all injured cats and dogs found without their owners in a public place directly to a veterinarian known by the officer or agency to be a veterinarian that ordinarily treats dogs and cats for a determination of whether the animal shall be immediately and humanely euthanized or shall be hospitalized under proper care and given emergency treatment.” In addition, Penal Code Section 597.1 provides guidelines for the seizure of sick, injured, neglected, or abandoned animals and requires they receive care and treatment until the animal is deemed to be in suitable condition. 1.7.3 Discussion of Community Expectations While it varies by location, community expectations of animal control agencies have increased dramatically over the past two decades. Communities expect that animals held in animal shelters will receive good care, behavioral enrichment, medical treatment, and the opportunity for placement into a new home, if not claimed by an owner. There is a strong emphasis on a high live release rate (animals are euthanized only as a last resort and only if they are unsafe for the public or irremediably suffering). The public expects a decrease Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 14 in the euthanasia of companion animals and that all resources will be exhausted before an animal is euthanized. There are also community expectations that animal control agencies will be customer-service- oriented, with staff that is informed and helpful. There is an expectation of a high standard of care for animals in shelters. The public also expects a rapid response when requesting assistance from an animal control officer. Common requests include assistance with aggressive animals; animal bite investigations and attacks; resolution of complex investigations, including animal neglect and cruelty; assistance with wildlife issues; animal noise and sanitation complaints; and a large variety of animal matters that may require intervention and prosecution. 1.8 CURRENT PRACTICES 1.8.1 Information Technology Progressive animal control agencies have incorporated software and hardware to keep track of animal intakes and outcomes, field calls and activity frequency by type and area, public records that may be subpoenaed, animal licensing databases, veterinary and treatment records, and other critical data documenting the agency’s activities. Many agencies have equipped the field officer vehicles with ruggedized laptop computers, giving the animal control officers the ability to search history in the field or trace an animal license or microchip for quick reunification with the owner. These relational databases provide a vital resource for tracking statistics and trends in animal intake data, field activity frequencies, owner information, and history and can generate invaluable reports about operations. There are several software programs in use. Many agencies utilize Chameleon/CMS from HLP Inc, which has components for field activities, dispatch, animal licensing, animal inventory, veterinary records, bite reports, person and animal histories, and more. 1.8.2 Field Services Protocols California’s population growth over many decades has led to more urbanization in areas once considered rural. With this encroachment, the nature of the duties of animal control field personnel has changed in scope and volume. Much of an animal control officer’s field work today is based around requests for service called in by residents. While patrolling for stray animals and potential animal violations was once routine, many agencies no longer provide this service. Concerns about an animal’s welfare and animal cruelty investigations, complaints concerning dog noise, and calls involving human interaction with wildlife become more frequent as residents move into areas that were once rural. Modern progressive field services programs utilize each public contact encounter to educate the public about responsible pet ownership, spaying/neutering, and the benefits of vaccinating, microchipping, dog licensing, and identification. These encounters can result in fewer future contacts and a reduction in animal impoundments, along with a positive relationship between the agency and the community it serves. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 15 Rabies Control Policies and procedures relative to the handling of rabies suspect animals and the protocols for rabies testing should be developed in conjunction with the communicable disease staff of the county health department. Initial and recurrent training of field and kennel staff in this subject area should be undertaken and documented. Rabies remains a public health threat, and proper precautions and surveillance are crucial to protecting both the human and animal populations. 1.8.3 Shelter Services Shelter services are no longer simply taking in animals and processing them through a required holding period. Public shelters have expanded both animal care and services offered to the public and the programs provided by the agency to increase animal advocacy and save more lives. Temperament Testing and Behavior Modification Animals are evaluated to ascertain their temperament and determine the best type of an adoptive home to match to the animal. This includes evaluation of dogs’ sociability with people and other dogs. Dogs may be trained as part of preparation before being placed up for adoption. Shelters also evaluate cats, rabbits, and other species to help determine what type of household will be the best match. Behavior modification and socialization techniques help to make shy and fearful animals more adoptable. Enrichment for Shelter Animals Shelters have gone beyond providing the basics of food, water, and shelter. Many shelters have developed extensive programs to provide enrichment to shelter animals and help maintain their behavioral health while awaiting placement. A variety of activities, from play groups for dogs; training, interaction, and socialization with people; providing food in ways requiring interaction and entertainment; “spa” days for cats; extensive exercise areas; and many more creative actions provide stimulation and entertainment for shelter animals. Pet Retention Programs Many shelters have developed programs for assisting owners who may be considering relinquishment of their pet. The main components are interviewing the owner to determine the issues and challenges and offering resources. The solution may be as simple as assisting the owner by providing food, training for the animal, spaying/neutering and vaccinations, or sometimes more extensive veterinary treatment. Some owners may need temporary shelter for the pet until they are once again able to care for it. Shelters have become innovative in finding ways to help animals and owners while preventing impounding the animal. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 16 Creative Solutions for Community Cats Community cats is a collective term that generally refers to feral cats, partially social cats, and lost and abandoned pet cats. These community cats all gather in colonies. These cats are often the subject of public concern, resulting in complaints to animal control agencies. Their uncontrolled breeding leads to overpopulation, and when impounded, community cats are difficult to manage in an animal shelter. Many programs have been developed to manage colonies, care for cats without impounding them, and educate the public on the potential benefits of the program to the community. Expanded Veterinary Treatment for Sheltered Animals As shelters have increased their life-saving efforts, the level of veterinary care has been greatly expanded. Whereas historical procedures often dictated that injured or sick animals were euthanized, most agencies now endeavor to treat sick animals, perform surgeries on injured animals, and make every effort to save “treatable” animals in their care, often followed by placement in a foster home while the animal recovers. This expanded treatment has increased the medical costs shelters undertake, and often extraordinary veterinary cases are supported through donations, from a designated medical fund, or by funding from a nonprofit partner. 1.8.4 Adoption Services – Outreach and Public/Private Cooperation With public and legal attention focused on the euthanasia of companion animals in the state’s animal shelters, local agencies and concerned nonprofit groups have formed alliances to move beyond the traditional adoption processes at shelters. Nonprofit foster programs; transfers to other agencies; outreach adoption efforts; mobile adoptions; “clear the shelters” events; media advertising; and utilization of the internet, including extensive social media platforms, have led to successes in increasing the live release rates at shelters. All these efforts, particularly relationships with local animal-based nonprofits, are vital to saving animals and meeting community expectations. All the community’s resources should be utilized in collaborative efforts to reduce the number of animals euthanized. 1.8.5 Revenue Generation As more is expected of the services provided by municipal animal control agencies, including the emphasis on live outcomes for animals, personnel costs increase to meet these demands. Shelters need to maximize all revenues to allow for adequate program funding. Citygate is unaware of any public animal control program that generates enough revenue to be self-funded. Even the most well-managed programs require General Fund support. Animal licensing has a large impact on net cost and is also important with its nexus to mandates. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 17 1.8.6 Animal Licensing Dog Licensing Dog licensing is part of the state-mandated rabies control program. A public agency must provide a dog licensing program and is entitled to recover costs through the collection of dog license fees and penalties. While all jurisdictions provide dog licensing, the success and compliance levels are variable. There are generally many opportunities to improve compliance and increase licensing revenues. Traditional enforcement was historically the approach employed to address the issue of unlicensed dogs. Animal control officers would issue citations requiring purchase of a dog license and payment of a fine. This method is not efficient and is ineffective if it is the sole method utilized to encourage licensing. The agency does not share in the citation fine revenue, and sometimes the owner just pays the fine and still may not license the dog. More proactive programs that employ outreach to dog owners, emphasis on the benefits of vaccinations and having traceable identification on pets, and a customer service approach have proven successful. Door-to-door canvassing can produce good results in a well-designed outreach program. Utilization of “fix-it” tickets, which are dismissed if the owner licenses the pet; availability of affordable vaccinations; and positive communication messaging have shown excellent results. A well-publicized amnesty program may also provide good results. Ordinances that require local veterinarians to provide copies of rabies vaccination certificates to the local animal control agency and the utilization of a computer crossmatch between the agency’s licensing file and the rabies certificate provide a cost-effective first step in the licensing enforcement system. This type of legislation is common in many California counties. Other trends that produce positive results include using e-commerce, allowing the use of credit cards for payment, a vibrant presence on the agency’s website informing about licensing, and increases in animal licensing fees. Some agencies choose to outsource the animal licensing program. The company performing the program retains a fee for each license sold. The results of this are mixed. If the organization does not have internal resources to perform the program, it could be a good choice. However, outsourcing is confusing to the public, and these programs often require the owner to mail their check to another state. Citygate recommends an in-house program, utilizing technology and creative outreach for animal licensing, where possible. Estimates of Dog Licensing Compliance Dog licensing compliance varies by jurisdiction and has a correlation to the efforts and resources dedicated to the program. The formula for determining dog licensing compliance is calculated by first determining the estimated number of dogs in the jurisdiction. This is accomplished by Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 18 determining the estimated number of households in the community, multiplying that number by the American Veterinary Medical Association’s estimate of 38.4 percent of households owning dogs, then multiplying that number by an average of 1.6 dogs per household. Once the estimated dog population is found, the number of current dogs licensed is divided by the estimated dog population. Appendix 10 provides estimates of current dog licensing compliance in the Project Cities. Cat Licensing The licensing of cats has not been adopted by many jurisdictions. The reasons for this involve the legal ownership of cats and the reluctance of the State Department of Health to require rabies vaccination and licensing of cats, even though they are a vector for rabies in California. Without state-mandated rabies vaccination, a local ordinance requiring cat licensing that is linked to rabies vaccination would be very difficult to enforce. Some creative communities have linked cat licensing to spaying and neutering of cats to help in population management. Fines and Fees Agencies should examine their fine and fee structures to ascertain whether the amount charged adequately covers the cost of providing the service. The impact of the charge on compliance must also be examined. For example, increased revenue projections derived from increases in redemption and surrender fees must be weighed against the operational costs if animals are not redeemed by their owners or if animals are declared stray instead of owned to avoid the surrender fee. To encourage adoption, most agencies set pet adoption fees below the actual cost. A periodic review of fees every two to three years in relation to the costs to provide the service, as well as current market rate comparisons, is recommended. 1.8.7 Spay/Neuter Programs Many municipal agencies, as well as humane societies, offer affordable spay and neuter surgeries to the public. Incorporation of in-house clinics has helped meet the mandate of spaying/neutering adoption animals and promote responsible pet stewardship for owners. Many creative programs have been developed, as well as grant opportunities made available, to promote sterilization of owned dogs and cats. Other agencies may contract with local veterinarians to provide this service for shelter animals or form cooperative relationships with local nonprofits that operate a spay/neuter clinic. Having affordable spay and neuter surgeries within the community is crucial to controlling pet overpopulation. Hiring veterinarian staff for shelter work is an ongoing challenge for local animal control agencies, as veterinarians are in high demand and not many choose to pursue shelter work. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 19 1.8.8 Risk Management Public Liability Animal control activity has the potential to expose local governments to public liability. Primary areas of concern are vehicle operation, firearm usage, injuries to the public while visiting the shelter, euthanasia of an animal prematurely, and rabies control activities. Vehicle Operation Initial and recurrent training in safe vehicle operation should be undertaken. Policies relative to the safe operation of agency vehicles should be developed and rigorously enforced. Firearms Usage Use of firearms by animal control field staff is at the discretion of the agency. While animal control officers may carry firearms, if appropriately trained, the liability may exceed the benefits. Strict policies on the safe use of firearms should be developed. Firearm instructors certified by the State of California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) should be utilized for initial and recurrent training. The proper use and storage of firearms by agency staff should be examined no less than annually, and adherence to agency policies should be made a condition of continued employment. Unless there is a pressing need for animal control officers to be armed, Citygate generally recommends they do not carry firearms. This is different from the use of chemical immobilization equipment, which is sometimes necessary to capture an animal and requires training and the supervision of a veterinarian. Workers’ Compensation Animal control field staff and shelter personnel share significant exposure to situations posing significant risks of work-related injury. Animal bites and exposure to zoonotic diseases are common. Lifting and restraint injuries, automotive accidents, exposures to chemicals and cleaning agents, and controlled substances are additional risks. Staff should receive training in proper lifting techniques and be provided equipment to minimize the need for lifting and loading large animals. Training A strong onboarding orientation and training program, along with recurring training of animal care and control staff, is key to creating a progressive program and a public-service-oriented staff. The agency mission statement, goals, and objectives need to be developed, with the training curricula then developed around these core concepts. Evaluation of training, along with methods of ongoing proficiency testing, should be developed in conjunction with the training program. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 1—Overview of Animal Care and Control page 20 1.9 EUTHANASIA Animal euthanasia continues to be a necessity in open admission shelters as unadoptable or untreatable animals are not turned away. Animals that are a public safety risk or irremediably suffering are euthanized. Many public agencies take extensive measures to redeem owned animals and to place unclaimed animals through adoption or transfers. Community cat programs and other advocacy groups have made positive steps in lowering the rate of euthanasia in sheltered cats and lowering cat intake numbers. Euthanasia services for owned animals are performed by many public agencies when the animal is irremediably suffering or a danger to the public. For many owners, this is the most affordable option and a much-needed service. 1.10 CONCLUSION There are many components and mandates involved in operating an animal care and control program. Animal control programs operate under many state statutes. These laws dictate requirements for rabies quarantine, rabies vaccination clinics, care of sheltered animals, length of impound, record keeping, spaying/neutering of shelter animals before adoption, method of euthanasia, euthanasia training requirements, veterinary care of shelter animals, release of animals to rescue groups, animal licensing, animal cruelty investigations, seizure of animals, hearing procedures, inspection of circuses and pet stores, and more. Animal control can be performed by counties, cities, humane societies contracting with a public entity, or by a JPA. Animals are a vital and important part of many people’s lives. Communities expect animals in shelters to receive a high standard of care and to be afforded the best opportunity for a live outcome. Changes in state law and heightened community expectations have significantly changed the focus of animal control, leading to better outcomes for animals, along with increased costs to operate these programs. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 21 SECTION 2—INFORMATION ABOUT ANIMAL SHELTERS 2.1 OVERVIEW Growing public support for improved animal control policies has resulted in significant organizational, service delivery, and facility changes in many California communities. Concurrent with our society’s heightened concerns and expectations relative to animal care and control practices, it can be anticipated that demand for both improved physical conditions in shelters, programs to provide enrichment for animals in shelters, and an ongoing requirement that organizations will achieve a high live release rate will continue. 2.2 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT ANIMAL SHELTERS An animal shelter needs to provide a healthy and appropriate environment for animals, staff, and volunteers that facilitates the goals of the organization. While these goals will vary from one community to another, the following should serve as a baseline:3 A safe, healthy environment to house lost animals until claimed by their owners or re-homed. Adequate capacity for holding animals in a humane manner that promotes good health and prevents the transmission of contagious diseases. There is an important and direct relationship between a shelter’s holding capacity and the well-being and health of the shelter’s animal population. A well-designed shelter will provide adequate space for healthy animals, as well as separate areas for protective custody, vicious animals, rabies quarantine, and sick animals. Adequate mechanical and plumbing systems designed to maximize disease control, as well as durable finish materials intended to withstand the rigors of daily cleaning with chemicals and hot water. A positive environment that minimizes stress levels for animals, employees, volunteers, and visitors. Adequate support areas to ensure proper care. These include, but are not limited to, food preparation, laundry, grooming, examination, and medical procedure rooms; behavior evaluation areas; food, laundry, and equipment storage areas; euthanasia rooms; and vehicle maintenance and cleaning areas. 3 Source: Excerpted George Miers and Michael G. Ross, “San Joaquin County Regional Animal Control Shelter Study,” November 2000. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 22 Adequate public-oriented components, including space for spay/neuter clinics, education programs (classrooms and children-oriented learning areas), and more traditional adoption and redemption services. Adequate staff support areas. The need for staff to have proper break room areas, lockers, and restrooms is of equal if not greater importance in an animal shelter than in many other work environments. Caring for incarcerated animals, many of which are ill and/or frightened, can be an extremely stressful experience, particularly when confronted daily. Furthermore, many employees initially seek out employment in animal shelters due to an inherent love for animals, only to be confronted with the stark reality of animal abuse cases, ongoing euthanasia, etc. In addition, the maintenance of shelters involves the unforgiving tasks of constant cleaning of urine and feces and the sterilization of kennels and cages to prevent disease transfer. While in the field, animal control officers are constantly exposed to both domestic and wild animals with unknown health conditions and, at times, a hostile public unsympathetic to their job responsibilities. All these activities argue for well- designed locker/shower/restroom areas, as well as the need for hygienic staff lounges located in acoustically isolated areas. A responsive public environment that supports the following: ¾ Adoption of companion animals ¾ Education regarding animal care issues, including responsible pet ownership and other animal care issues ¾ Redemption of lost animals ¾ Surrender of unwanted animals ¾ Animal licensing. 2.3 SHELTER TYPES Public agency decision makers typically have little or no experience with animal shelters and, consequently, can make decisions at the outset of a building project that may be based on incomplete knowledge. Decision makers should visit several shelters so they can make informed decisions regarding a facility that will be an important part of the community for decades to come. There are three main shelter types being built today: State-of-the-art shelters that are designed to support best practices in the animal control and sheltering field. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 23 Newer “traditional” shelters that are mostly larger versions of existing designs, with a primary emphasis on dog holding and which omit or minimize small animal holding, staff support areas, educational spaces, food preparation areas, socialization, and dog exercise areas and do not generally take advantage of best practices relative to disease control. Prefabricated shelters that are similar to the traditional shelter relative to size, features, and design and can be less costly to build than either of the other standard construction method shelters but will most likely not withstand the challenges of cleaning, disinfection, and housing animals for an extended period of time. 2.3.1 State-of-the-Art Shelters While not every project contains all these features, the execution of these elements in the design of a modern shelter provides for the following building components. Figure 1—Attractive Public Entrance Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 24 Figure 2—Adoption Gallery Figure 3—Open, Spacious Public Counter Areas Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 25 Figure 4—Small-Dog Holding Areas that Minimize Noise and Disease Transfer Figure 5—Public-Friendly Cat Adoption Areas That Provide Comfort for Cats Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 26 Figure 6—Sanitary Food Preparation Areas Figure 7—Centralized Cleaning Systems for Staff Efficiency Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 27 Figure 8—Covered Drains and Epoxy Rosin Floors for Disease Control and Cleaning Ease and Longevity Figure 9—Indoor and Outdoor Get-Acquainted and Exercise Areas Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 28 Figure 10—Humane Education Classrooms / Conference Rooms Figure 11—Medical Areas, Including for Spaying/Neutering Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 29 Figure 12—Modern Staff Work Areas and Break Areas 2.3.2 Newer Traditional Shelters Some jurisdictions have chosen to implement traditional design facilities. These facilities generally do not include adequate small animal holding, staff support areas, educational spaces, food preparation areas, or socialization and dog exercise areas, and they do not generally follow best practices to ensure disease control. Disease control is compromised by many of the design elements, especially open trench drains (as shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14) and large numbers of animals in the same space. This type of design promotes cross-contamination and makes disease management challenging. The kennel areas can be very noisy, increasing the stress level for animals and people alike and making the facility unattractive to the public. A well-designed animal care and control facility is welcoming to the public and includes elements that promote best practices, including places where animal enrichment occurs, appropriate and necessary medical care is provided, public education is offered, and staff and volunteers can appropriately rest and relax. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 30 Figure 13—Outside Dog Kennels Figure 14—Inside Dog Kennels Open Trench Drains Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 31 2.3.3 Prefabricated Shelters Prefabricated shelters offer the advantage of low-cost and relatively easy and fast construction. This is, in many cases, the least expensive type of shelter to build. However, their durability in the long term is questionable. Additional expenses beyond the base construction cost can be anticipated when trying to adapt these buildings to a best practice animal control program. The leading company building prefabricated shelters utilizes a sandwich type of construction for the outer walls. Citygate is not convinced that this type of construction will prove as durable as a properly designed and maintained shelter using conventional shelter construction materials and techniques. Citygate cannot foresee a prefabricated animal shelter lasting over 10 to 15 years without major repairs or replacement given the abuse they must endure. While not as expensive as conventional construction, a prefabricated shelter still represents a multi-million-dollar expenditure. The building project decision makers should visit prefabricated shelters before considering this alternative and consider whether this type of building is suitable for their upscale communities. 2.4 LOCATION Historically, animal shelters have been placed in out-of-the-way locations, typically on surplus city/county property. These building sites were often next to the sewage treatment plant, airport, or landfill or miles from a population hub. These locations were driven by the low priority public leaders placed on the animal control program, poor building aesthetics, and the noise and odor associated with typical indoor/outdoor shelters. These typical locations and the design of the buildings themselves are the reason the public still envisions the “pound” when picturing animal shelters, and why there is “sticker shock” when presented with a cost estimate for a new, modern shelter. Modern shelters utilizing indoor dog kenneling do not need to be located on this type of property. They can be a part of any downtown area and, if properly designed and executed, will be a source of community pride. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 32 Figure 15—Tony LaRussa’s Animal Rescue Foundation in Walnut Creek The Tri-City Animal Shelter servicing the cities of Fremont, San Leandro, Newark, and Union City is part of a park-like setting adjacent to the Fremont Police Department. Figure 16—Tri-City Animal Shelter An agency locating a shelter in a downtown location would need to make alternative arrangements for the housing of livestock. Humane societies and most cities have limited exposure to livestock housing. Additionally, temporary housing of wildlife may need to be an additional consideration, with a plan in place if trapped, injured, or orphaned wildlife need to be housed, even if only temporarily. 2.5 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUNICIPAL ANIMAL CONTROL AGENCIES AND HUMANE SOCIETIES 2.5.1 Municipal Agencies Municipal animal control organizations are public government agencies that are funded through the General Fund and established to meet mandates contained in state law. A city or county is Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 33 required to have a program to control rabies, enforce animal laws and regulations, provide a stray animal shelter, control the pet animal population by spaying or neutering dogs and cats prior to placement into a new home, and provide veterinary treatment to sick and injured impounded animals. Municipal agencies are mandated to accept stray animals from within their jurisdiction. Recent legislation has added a requirement to microchip animals prior to their release from shelters. Community expectations usually exceed the mandates for cities or counties. 2.5.2 Nonprofit Humane Societies Humane societies or societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals (SPCAs) are private nonprofit organizations largely funded through charitable donations. These organizations generally have stated purposes that include the prevention of cruelty to animals, the promotion of humane education and outreach, and the reduction of euthanasia of companion animals. Humane societies can be selective in the number and types of animals they accept; they do not take in strays unless contracted to perform this function and may choose not to accept an animal if they cannot place it quickly. Consequently, humane societies may have a relatively small capacity to house animals, and their facility design may be more geared for activities such as humane education and outreach, fundraising activities, and animal adoption programs. Humane societies can contract with municipal agencies to provide mandated services. They can provide sheltering services or full services, including the animal shelter and field services components. The model of humane societies contracting for municipal animal control contracts in California was more common before the implementation of SB 1785, which extended the minimal holding period for animals in shelters and added new requirements for public shelters. Following the implementation in 1999, many California humane societies elected to discontinue contracting for animal control services. 2.6 WHAT WILL A NEW SHELTER COST? Citygate provides an estimate for the cost of new construction of a new animal control facility in the model for a full-service JPA provided in Section 8. The cost primarily depends on the size of the facility. Animal shelter construction is more expensive than traditional construction for several reasons. Increased costs result from the specialized nature of the functions needed to be included in the facility, including the requirement for extensive systems for sanitation, specialized ventilation, durable surface treatments, and separation of animals. A modern, well-designed animal shelter costs approximately 30 percent more to build than an office building. Additional reasons for these cost differences include the need for a larger number of walls and doors than in a typical office building; for most animal care facility surfaces to be both nonabsorbent and durable to withstand 24/7 cleaning and rigorous use; for rooms to be designed to minimize sound transfer from barking dogs; for air handling systems designed to prevent disease transfer between animals; and for a reliable security system. Add to this the need for medical Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 34 treatment, euthanasia, and the temporary storage of animal remains, and the result is a very complicated multi-use facility with extensive plumbing, HVAC, and durable building finishes. Also impacting cost are the type of building (indoor or indoor/outdoor), the type of construction (pre-fabrication, tilt-up, steel framing, or wood), the suitability of the chosen site, the number of staff, the number of animals to be housed, overhead and contingencies, soft costs, etc. However, the total cost of the project will principally hinge on the size of the shelter. Another factor at work is state law that requires prevailing wages for public projects. This requirement substantially increases the construction costs. In addition, the inclusion of project labor agreements that further reduce the number of firms willing to bid on a public project so encumbered is not uncommon. Other factors out of the control of public agencies are the general state of the economy and the general construction activity in the area. 2.6.1 Size of the Shelter The size of the building is dependent on the number and type of animals held, the length of time they are held, and the number of programs offered. Best practices dictate that dogs be held in separate kennels and cats in separate cages to mitigate disease transfer and to reduce stress and dog barking. Other species of animals, including rabbits, birds, reptiles, rodents, livestock, barnyard animals, and wildlife, may also require housing and care. Best practices also dictate that different species are held in separate rooms or wards also to minimize stress. Programs Offered The shelter facility requires space to accommodate the activities and programs it provides. Areas where prospective adopters can interact with animals outside where they are housed promotes adoption efforts. Designated spaces for behavior assessment and training promote these activities. A space dedicated for grooming creates a way to improve animals’ health and appearance. A humane education program and outreach program requires storage space for printed materials and video presentation equipment and desk space for the people involved in the program, even if those individuals are volunteers. A medical program requires an examination and treatment room, isolation areas, and separated food preparation space. A spay/neuter clinic requires surgical prep areas and surgical suites, along with recovery areas for dogs and cats and a lobby/reception area if services are offered to the public. Additional space will be necessary for rodent-proof animal food storage, mechanical systems, custodial supplies, equipment storage, secure computer and telephone answering and switching equipment, loading and unloading areas, employee lockers and showers, break areas, conference room / education teaching space, secured parking areas, etc. Modern animal shelter design recognizes that the reduction of companion animal euthanasia requires a multifaceted approach: animal shelters need to be designed with user-friendly adoption Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 35 areas; policies and procedures need to be in place to enhance adoptions and the return of animals to their owners; and progressive spay/neuter programs need to be instituted and maintained. 2.6.2 Program/Design Process Citygate recommends a comprehensive process be undertaken for any project involving building an animal shelter facility to ensure the new shelter meets the expectations of the program goals and objectives. It is essential that animal control staff participate in this process and that management of the cities participating in the JPA agree on what the new building is to accomplish relative to the long-term strategic plan and programmatic goals established for the animal control program. The following outline defines recommended steps for the program/design process. Program documentation 1. Establish concept/prototype 2. Document departmental organization – staff, equipment, etc. 3. Establish desired animal holding time – holding, quarantine, and adoption 4. Translate holding periods to cage/kennel/habitat quantities 5. Define character and ambiance of animal habitats 6. Establish key system needs; for example, how are the rooms cleaned and what type of drainage system is to be used? 7. Develop space needs program Program relationships 1. Develop staff and animal flow diagrams 2. Develop adjacency diagrams 3. Develop non-site-specific concept plans 4. Review the developed plans and diagrams with city staff and adjust, as necessary Quality and cost 1. Prepare outline specification of materials and systems 2. Develop cost estimate 3. Review and adjust with city staff Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 2—Information About Animal Shelters page 36 Governing body approval Proceed with architectural plans 1. Schematic design 2. Design development 3. Construction documents 4. Bidding 5. Construction 6. Furnishings 7. Occupy 2.7 RENOVATING AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR USE AS AN ANIMAL SHELTER Taking an existing large vacant building and converting it for use as an animal shelter to save money may seem to be an attractive alternative to new construction. Citygate’s experience with municipal animal control agencies indicates that when all the costs associated with providing a best practices animal control and shelter program are considered, there is little cost savings to be realized. The cost/benefit analysis indicates that the compromises required for a renovation do not justify the savings, especially when considering the future facility is anticipated to serve the area for many decades to come. A new shelter will be able to be designed to incorporate all the desired design elements in a purpose-built building. 2.8 RECOMMENDATION The cost of renovation or construction of an animal shelter needs to be thoroughly studied if the cities decide to proceed with a full-service JPA model. Citygate recommends that only architectural firms that are experienced in the design and construction of modern animal shelter facilities be considered for the engagement. The master plan and nuances of this type of a facility require specific expertise. The compromises of renovating an existing building are probably not worth the cost savings in the long run. Engaging architectural firms that have not designed animal shelters to perform this specialized work has been very costly for some jurisdictions. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 37 SECTION 3—GEOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS Future population growth, and the location of that growth, will impact how animal control services will be provided in the Project Cities involved in this study over the next 30 years or longer. This section discusses current populations and future growth projections and their potential impacts on animal control services. 3.1 WESTERN SAN GABRIEL VALLEY The San Gabriel Valley is one of the principal valleys of Southern California, lying generally east of the City of Los Angeles. While it was at one time primarily agricultural, it is today almost totally urbanized and is integral to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. About 200 square miles, the valley includes 31 cities and five unincorporated communities. Pasadena is the largest city in the San Gabriel Valley. The Project Cities are in the western San Gabriel Valley and include Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena. 3.2 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAN GABRIEL VALLEY The population of the San Gabriel Valley includes significant percentages of all major ethnic groups, making it one of the most ethnically diverse regions in the country. The two largest ethnic groups within the valley are Hispanics and Asian Americans, though significant Caucasian populations can be found in many communities. Asian Americans are the largest single ethnic group in four of the Project Cities: Alhambra, Arcadia, San Gabriel, and San Marino. In contrast, the population of African Americans is relatively low, though there are a few sizeable, historic African American communities in Pasadena and Monrovia. Additionally, there are small, but not insignificant, Native American populations in both Arcadia and San Gabriel. 3.3 LOCATION OF LOCAL ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS The following government and nonprofit animal welfare organizations are active in or near the San Gabriel Valley. Los Angeles County is home to hundreds of animal welfare agencies and groups, including municipal shelters, humane societies, rescue organizations, and breed rescue groups, far too numerous to name in this report. Citygate focused on the agencies near the projected service district of the potential JPA. 3.3.1 Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control Department Shelters The Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control operates two of its six shelters near the San Gabriel Valley. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 38 Baldwin Park Animal Care Center Located at 4275 North Elton Street in the City of Baldwin Park, the Baldwin Park Animal Care Center provides services to the following cities and communities: Arcadia (unincorporated area) Azusa (City and unincorporated area) Baldwin Park Bassett (unincorporated area) Charter Oak (unincorporated area) Claremont (unincorporated area) Diamond Bar (unincorporated area) Duarte (unincorporated area) El Monte (City: limited services; unincorporated area) Glendora (unincorporated area) Hacienda Heights (unincorporated area) Industry Irwindale La Puente (unincorporated area) La Verne (unincorporated area) Monrovia (unincorporated area) Mt. Baldy (unincorporated area) Rowland Heights (unincorporated area) San Dimas (unincorporated area) San Gabriel (unincorporated area) South El Monte (unincorporated area) South San Gabriel (unincorporated area) Temple City (unincorporated area) Valinda (unincorporated area) Walnut (City and unincorporated area) Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 39 Downey Animal Care Center Located at 11258 South Garfield Avenue in the City of Downey, the Downey Animal Care Center provides services to the following cities and communities: Alhambra Artesia Bell Cerritos (unincorporated) City Terrace (unincorporated) Cudahy Compton (City and unincorporated area) Commerce (limited services) East Los Angeles 90022, 90023, and 90063 (unincorporated area) Florence/Firestone (unincorporated) Hawaiian Gardens Huntington Park La Habra Heights (City and unincorporated area) La Mirada Los Angeles 90001, 90002, and 90032 (unincorporated) Maywood Monterey Park Walnut Park (unincorporated) Whittier (City and unincorporated area) 3.3.2 Los Angeles City Animal Services North Central Shelter Located at 3201 Lacy Street in the City of Los Angeles, the North Central Shelter provides services to the following neighborhoods: Angelino Heights Arts District Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 40 Atwater Village Beachwood Canyon Boyle Heights Chinatown Cypress Park Downtown Los Angeles Eagle Rock East Hollywood Echo Park El Sereno Elysian Heights Elysian Park Elysian Valley Franklin Hills Garvanza Glassell Park Griffith Park Hancock Park Hermon Highland Park Historic Filipino Town Hollywood Hollywood Heights Larchmont Lincoln Heights Little Tokyo Los Feliz Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 41 MacArthur Park-Westlake Melrose Hill Montecito Heights Monterey Hills Mt. Washington Silver Lake Solano Canyon Temple-Beaudry University Hills Virgil Village Wilshire Center Windsor Square North Central Shelter also provides services to the unincorporated areas of Alhambra, East Los Angeles, Glendale, and Pasadena. 3.3.3 Nonprofit Animal Welfare Organizations That Provide Animal Control and Shelter Services Pasadena Humane Society Located at 361 S. Raymond Avenue in the City of Pasadena, the Pasadena Humane Society provides animal control services to the following cities and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County: Altadena Arcadia Bradbury Glendale La Cañada-Flintridge La Crescenta-Montrose Monrovia Pasadena (City and unincorporated) Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 42 San Marino Sierra Madre South Pasadena San Gabriel Valley Humane Society Located at 851 E. Grand Avenue in San Gabriel, the San Gabriel Valley Humane Society provides animal care and control services to the Cities of San Gabriel and Temple City and limited services to the City of Duarte. Inland Valley Humane Society Located at 500 Humane Way in Pomona, the Inland Valley Humane Society provides animal control services to the following cities: Chino Chino Hills Claremont Covina Diamond Bar Glendora La Verne Montclair Ontario Pomona San Dimas West Covina The shelter also serves unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County that include West End, San Antonio Heights, and Mt. Baldy. 3.3.4 Other Nonprofit Animal Welfare Organizations The following are a few other nonprofit animal welfare organizations that serve the areas in and around the Project Cities: Volunteers In Defense of Animals (VIDA) in Rowland Heights Mutts & Moms Rescue in Pasadena Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 43 Happy Strays Rescue (cats) in La Cañada Flintridge Pet Rescue Solutions in South El Monte 3.4 POPULATION SERVED BY CITIES IN THIS STUDY The total area of the combined 12 cities that comprise the Project Cities is 92.44 square miles. The total population of the Project Cities is almost 514,000. While the Project Cities are generally geographically close, there are several cities and communities in the same region that are not part of this study. The multiple neighboring cities that are adjacent will impact service provision, travel time, and other business factors for the potential JPA. Table 2—Population and Area of Project Cities City Population (2020) Percentage of Total Population Area in Square Miles Alhambra 86,792 17.48% 7.63 Arcadia 57,212 11.14% 11.13 Bradbury 1,052 0.20% 2.00 Duarte 21,673 4.22% 6.71 La Cañada Flintridge 20,461 3.98% 8.64 Monrovia 37,935 7.38% 13.74 Pasadena 144,842 28.19% 23.11 Rosemead 54,363 10.58% 5.18 San Gabriel 40,104 7.81% 4.15 San Marino 13,087 2.55% 3.77 Sierra Madre 10,816 2.11% 2.96 South Pasadena 25,458 4.95% 3.42 Total 513,795 92.44 3.5 GEOGRAPHY The Project Cities are generally grouped close together, forming a fairly contiguous service district. To the north lie the San Gabriel Mountains, with the San Rafael Hills to the west, the Puente Hills to the south, and the Chino Hills and San Jose Hills to the east. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 44 Figure 17—San Gabriel Valley 3.5.1 Animal Control Issues Relative to Geography Shelter Location The full-service JPA model being considered by the Project Cities would require the building of an animal shelter. The geographic locations of the Project Cities, as well as the overall district of the potential JPA, need to be considered when determining the potential site for a new animal shelter facility. The City of Pasadena is the largest city of the 12. It is also relatively centrally located within the defined service district. Citygate believes these factors would dictate locating the new facility in Pasadena. A location in Pasadena should allow access similar to that which most of the Project Cities are currently accustomed. Field Staffing Normally cities have fewer numbers of animal control officers than counties of similar population. Long travel times reduce staff productivity and thus theoretically require more personnel to handle the same call volume. Citygate’s field staffing recommendations in this report are based on a city- type field operations model. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 45 3.6 GROWTH PROJECTIONS The San Gabriel Valley has experienced steady population growth in the last decade. Historically, shelter animal populations mirror trends in human population trends. However, in recent years, growing awareness about animal owner responsibility and focused efforts by animal welfare organizations have resulted in lower animal intakes in many jurisdictions. Figure 18—Population Growth in the San Gabriel Valley Source: LA County Economic Development Corporation (April, 2019); Originally from California Department of Finance 3.7 EFFECTS OF SPAY/NEUTER AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS ON ANIMAL INTAKES A public spay/neuter program and education and outreach program are essential components of best practices in animal welfare. Where these programs are in place there have been significant reductions in shelter animal intakes and in euthanasia rates. To be successful, it is vital that the services be supported by agency leadership, as well as city and county leaders. Through efforts in proactive spay/neuter outreach, education efforts, and innovative adoption and placement programs, shelters have seen steady improvement in live release rates despite increases in human populations. 3.7.1 Contra Costa County Example of Program Results As an example, the following figure for Contra Costa County shows the dramatic reduction in animals taken into the County’s shelters as a result of the spay/neuter program, education efforts, 1.44 1.46 1.48 1.5 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Population (Millions) Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 46 and cooperative adoption and placement programs with nonprofit animal welfare organizations, despite a significant increase in the human population. Figure 19—Population and Animal Intakes – 1972–2012 From 1972 to 2012, the number of animal intakes decreased from 50,063 to 12,761,4 while the human population increased from 572,100 to 1,066,602. The human population increased 86 percent, but the number of animals impounded decreased by 75 percent. If this had not occurred, shelter construction and personnel costs would have significantly increased. The decrease in the number of animals impounded was not the result of more animals being euthanized. The following figure shows the number of animals euthanized decreased from 42,354 in 1972 to 4,630 in 2012, a reduction of 89 percent.5 4 Source: Contra Costa County Animal Services Department. 5 Source: Contra Costa County Animal Services Department. 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 Animal Intakes Population Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 3—Geographic and Demographic Considerations page 47 Figure 20—Population and Animals Euthanized 3.8 CONCLUSION The geography of the service district comprising the jurisdiction of the proposed JPA is conducive to a strong service model. Citygate believes that the most cost-effective model for providing animal control is to form the largest possible agency to provide services to a local community. This type of a model reduces duplication of effort, reduces management overhead costs, provides effective outreach and spay/neuter programs, and capitalizes on the benefits of scale relative to staffing, purchasing, veterinary care, communications, information technology, community education, and revenue generation. Animal control programs need to be tailored to embrace the demographics of their locale. Encouraging diversity in the workplace is a priority, and so is the next step—creating a culture in which people from all backgrounds feel included. Promoting a culture that welcomes a multilingual workforce and has strong anti-discrimination policies will help create a positive image for the agency. Visiting residents will have an experience that is enjoyable and will result in positive word of mouth and longtime support for the agency. 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 Animals Euthanized Population This page was intentionally left blank Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 4—What Is an Animal Services Joint Powers Authority? page 49 SECTION 4—WHAT IS AN ANIMAL SERVICES JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY? As the Project Cities are potentially seeking to establish a JPA, it is important to understand the structure of a JPA and the steps involved in the formation of a JPA. Forming a JPA may provide a creative approach to the provision of public services while permitting public agencies the means to influence the program and to provide services efficiently and cost-effectively. 4.1 DEFINITION A JPA is a legally created entity that allows two or more public agencies to jointly exercise common powers. The Joint Exercise of Powers Act, which is contained in California Government Code Section 600, governs JPAs. The Act recognizes two kinds of JPA organizations. The first allows two or more public agencies to contract to jointly exercise common powers. The second type, which is the type recommended for an animal services JPA, allows two or more public agencies to form a separate legal entity. The new entity has independent legal rights, including the ability to hold property, enter into contracts, and sue or be sued. The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the JPA belong to that entity, not the contracting cities. 4.2 FORMATION To form a JPA as a separate legal entity, the public agencies must enter into an agreement that states the powers and manner in which the powers of the JPA will be exercised. The governing bodies of all the participating public agencies must approve the agreement. The JPA would have all the powers and authority under law that the cities or counties have individually. It could enter into contracts, build facilities, enforce laws, and charge fees. The JPA would be governed by a policy-setting Board of Directors comprised of representatives from each of the participating cities. The Board would establish levels of service and adopt operational policies and procedures to address such matters as stray animal issues, dangerous dog investigations, feline populations, rabies control, animal euthanasia, spay/neuter programs, community education programs, other animal policies (wildlife, horses and livestock, exotics, rabbits), barking dog enforcement, and more. Over time, the JPA could add new members. Adding new JPA members would result in unit-price reduction costs for all the participating agencies. The benefits of a JPA would include economies of scale. For example, the costs for a new facility would be shared by all member agencies, as would the costs for all the other program elements the JPA Board chose to implement. Other economies of scale include no duplication of programs such as the animal licensing program, field Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 4—What Is an Animal Services Joint Powers Authority? page 50 services, sheltering, clinic services, etc. A full-service JPA would provide a “one-stop shop” for residents of the Project Cities. Additional information regarding formation and governance of the JPA is provided in Section 5 of this report. 4.3 OPERATIONS The JPA would be governed by a Board of Directors comprised of representatives from each of the participating cities. In terms of the composition of the JPA Board of Directors, Citygate recommends that there be one representative from each member city. Although the population of the 12 cities is varied, the model of one representative from each city is the most common format. The Board members will manage jurisdictional, cost sharing, and other issues as they arise. In terms of oversight responsibilities, the JPA Board would operate in a manner similar to the council/manager form of government used by cities. The JPA would hire an executive-level Animal Services Program Director, who would make policy recommendations to the Board. The JPA Board would set policy, at its sole discretion, to further the best interests of the residents and animals within the jurisdiction of the JPA. 4.4 JPA PHASING SCENARIOS AND TIMELINE 4.4.1 Phases Citygate recommends that staffing and related program costs, such as retirement, medical insurance, legal services, and workers’ compensation, be managed in phases. Phase One would be the startup phase and would include all the costs that are incurred prior to the formal establishment of the JPA. Each city would allocate initial resources to the JPA formation effort. During initiation, it is recommended to simplify cost-sharing and share costs based on population. Phase Two would begin once the startup phase is complete and the JPA is formed and funded for startup. In Phase Two, the Board of Directors hires a JPA Animal Control Program Director. The new Director would use the resources, professional services, insurance, retirement program, etc., brought into the JPA upon its formation. The Director would also oversee the planning and construction of the animal shelter in the case of a full-service JPA or the procurement of office space and equipment in the case of a field-service-only JPA. Phase Three would begin after arrival of the JPA Animal Control Program Director and the facility is established. In the case of full services, this could be up to three years. During this time, the facility would be designed and constructed and the Director will have had time to determine staffing levels, operational and maintenance costs, policies and procedures, and other program- related issues. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 4—What Is an Animal Services Joint Powers Authority? page 51 Phase Four begins once the agency is created and built out and staff is hired and trained. Phase Four is program implementation of the JPA. In this phase, the JPA commences business and opens to the public. Full-Service JPA The milestones and timeline for a full-service JPA program are outlined in the following tables. While there can be some overlap of the milestones, it should be understood that gaining concurrence among the Project Cities will take time, coordination, and planning. Table 3—Animal Control Program Milestones – Full-Service JPA Milestone Timeframe 1 Each potential member city officially adopts to establish a joint powers agreement. 4 months 2 Establish the Joint Powers Authority. 4 months 3 Hire or appoint the Joint Powers Authority Director. 4 months 4 Prepare a feasibility and site identification study. 4 months 5 Negotiate extension/termination of existing animal control contracts. 4 months 6 Acquire new site for animal control facility and prepare preliminary designs. 4 months 7 Secure development permits for the new animal shelter. 4 months 8 Secure financing and construct the new animal shelter facility. 18 months 9 Hire support staff. 4 months 10 Train support staff. 4 months 11 Inaugurate new animal care and control program. 3.5 years total Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 4—What Is an Animal Services Joint Powers Authority? page 52 Table 4—Animal Control Program Timeline – Full-Service JPA Milestone 4 Months 8 Months 12 Months 16 Months 20 Months 2 Years 3.5 Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Field-Service-Only JPA In the case of a field-service-only JPA, Phase Three would be shorter and would entail procurement of the office facility and basic equipment and supplies necessary to begin provision of services. The milestones and timeline for a field-service-only JPA program are outlined in the following tables. Table 5—JPA Animal Control Program Milestones – Field-Service-Only Milestone Timeframe 1 Each potential member city officially adopts to establish a joint powers agreement. 4 months 2 Establish the Joint Powers Authority. 4 months 3 Hire or appoint the Joint Powers Authority Director. 4 months 4 Negotiate extension/termination of existing animal control contracts. 4 months 5 Acquire leased office location and equip for operations. 4 months 6 Hire support staff. 4 months 7 Train support staff. 4 months 8 Inaugurate new animal care and control program. 20 months total Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 4—What Is an Animal Services Joint Powers Authority? page 53 Table 6—Animal Control Program Timeline – Field-Service-Only JPA Milestone 4 Months 8 Months 12 Months 16 Months 20 Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.4.2 Alternate Approach – Field Services JPA First, Phase-in Full-Service JPA Second Another possible scenario is for the Project Cities to begin with the formation of a JPA that provides field services initially and subsequently moves to full services. This approach would allow the Project Cities to evaluate if the JPA model proves successful without taking on the capital expenses related to full services. 4.5 ANIMAL SERVICES JPAS IN CALIFORNIA Citygate is aware of several successful animal services JPAs currently in operation in California. Each has a model unique to its service district and the needs of the member entities. The following is an outline of four currently operating animal services JPAs. 4.5.1 Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter is a JPA that was formed in 2002. Its current members include all the jurisdictions in Santa Cruz County consisting of the County of Santa Cruz and the Cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville. A new shelter was built when the agency was formed. The billing formula for member entities is based on 50 percent per capita population, 25 percent field activities, and 25 percent animals impounded. The current fiscal agent is Santa Cruz County, which provides personnel, County Counsel, information technology, and other County services for a contract fee. Employees of the agency are currently classified as County employees, but a reorganization is underway to fully separate the agency. The JPA Board is comprised of nine members weighted by population of the member entity. Three members are from the County, two each from the larger cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville, and one each from the smaller cities of Capitola and Scotts Valley. Board members are employees of each member, Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 4—What Is an Animal Services Joint Powers Authority? page 54 (for example, the CAO or Assistant CAO, police chief, city manager, or other upper management employees). The Board meets every other month. The JPA is associated with a charitable foundation. 4.5.2 Southeast Area Animal Control Authority The Southeast Area Animal Control Authority (SEAACA) is a JPA that was formed in 1975. It currently provides animal services to the cities of Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Buena Park, Downey, Lakewood, La Palma, Montebello, Norwalk, Paramount, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte, South Gate, and Vernon. Of these 14 cities, eight are member cities and have a seat on the governing commission. The other six cities are contract cities. SEAACA is a full-service agency and has an active licensing program. The billing methodology for the cities is based solely on per capita. A goal for licensing revenue is set for each city annually and credited back to the city. If the annual goal is exceeded, the overage is then split 50–50 between the city and SEAACA. If the goal is not met, SEAACA still credits the city with the licensing goal amount. The City of Downey is the fiscal agent for the JPA and is paid an annual contract for fiscal services. SEAACA has extensive programming, including a public animal wellness and a spay/neuter clinic, educational outreach, participation in community events, Pet Care Fairs, volunteer opportunities, and more. The JPA has an associated 501(c)(3) foundation, which it utilizes primarily for grant applications. 4.5.3 Sutter Animal Services Agency Sutter Animal Services Agency (SASA) is a JPA comprised of Yuba City, Sutter County, and the City of Live Oak. Yuba City became the lead agency as of July 1, 2013, and through attrition all employees were transitioned to be employees of Yuba City. The Board of Directors consists of two City Council or Board of Supervisor representatives from each member, for a total of six, and meets four times a year. The JPA is a full-service organization, providing field and sheltering services, with a total of 11 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) serving the total County population of 100,750. The agency handles about 3,600 animals annually in a facility about six years old. The agency has a nonprofit affiliate, The Friends of SASA, that provides special projects for the agency. The methodology for cost sharing for members is per capita. The Director recommends the JPA model as a positive and proactive way to provide services. He stresses the key to success being good communication between the agency and its member entities, with regular, accurate monthly reporting in addition to the four meetings each year. 4.5.4 Stanislaus Animal Services Agency Stanislaus Animal Services Agency was formed in October of 2009. It is comprised of Stanislaus County and the Cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Patterson, and Waterford. The County built a new shelter when the JPA was formed and financed it for the JPA over 25 years. Most members are full-service, but the City of Modesto provides its own Animal Control Officers. The Board, which meets monthly, consists of the City Manager of each city and the CEO of the County. While Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 4—What Is an Animal Services Joint Powers Authority? page 55 the JPA is a separate entity, the staff are employees of the County and have the benefits provided to County employees, including the County’s retirement system, health insurance, etc. The JPA handled over 11,000 animals in Fiscal Year (FY) 19/20 and has 34 staff. The methodology for cost sharing is based solely on animal intakes, using the past two years of history. Members are credited revenues from consumer fees paid by residents of their jurisdiction, including adoption, redemption, and licensing fees. The Director said the JPA structure is successful because the members are actively engaged, communicate openly, and participate in the budget process. The JPA has a high live release rate, and the Director credits much of the success to use of social media (with 2.1 million views per month). The JPA also has an affiliate nonprofit called Stanislaus County Animal Services Auxiliary. 4.5.5 General Comments All the California animal services JPAs Citygate reviewed during this study have been established over 10 years (some much longer) and none are pursuing a change in governance currently. Their collective staffing models include the incorporation of volunteers as a component of their workforce. The existing JPAs accept donations and each has an associated “friends of” nonprofit organization that provides special projects and assists with events and community engagement. This page was intentionally left blank Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 5—Models for Animal Care and Control Services page 57 SECTION 5—MODELS FOR ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES Within the formation of a JPA, there are a few alternative animal care and control service models, including formation of a full-service JPA and a field-service-only JPA. The associated projected costs and revenues are delineated with each model examined. 5.1 MODEL #1: STATUS QUO The Project Cities always have the option to continue services as they are currently being provided. The Cities of Arcadia, Bradbury, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena could continue to contract with the Pasadena Humane Society for full services; the Cities of Duarte and Rosemead could continue with in-house services, with limited contracts for sheltering; and the Cities of Alhambra and San Gabriel could extend their contracts with Los Angeles County and the San Gabriel Valley Humane Society, respectively. The status quo model would continue the uncertainty of the annual program costs for the cities that contract for full services. Additionally, the cities would have limited control and influence over the policies and priorities of the animal services program. Under the status quo model, the cities could expect: Ongoing cost increases to the annual contract amounts, which the cities have no control over. Services that are managed and prioritized by the service providers as opposed to the cities themselves. The benefits associated with the status quo model are primarily that the cities are generally satisfied with the service provided and that the model is already in place. The greatest risk is the inability of the cities to control the cost and level of service provided. 5.2 MODEL #2: FULL-SERVICE JPA A full-service JPA model would offer the Project Cities an alternative to the current service providers, with comparable services for the cities that are contracting for full services from one provider. Two of the 12 potential Project Cities have indicated a desire to maintain field services in house. These cities could still be members of the JPA but only contract for sheltering or for sheltering and after-hours service. Options for member cities’ service levels and costs would be at the discretion of the JPA Board. The full-service JPA model would be difficult to establish unless all the stakeholder participants in each of the Project Cities, and any new participant cities, are very motivated. The cities’ elected officials must commit to the formation of the JPA and the belief that the model will be in the long- Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 5—Models for Animal Care and Control Services page 58 term best interests of their respective cities. The City Managers also need to be committed to the effectiveness of forming a JPA for animal care and control. Animal services programs have high visibility, and highly controversial animal control issues often arise. A new agency will require political and community support for optimal success. The cities need to commit to ongoing cooperation and collaboration as the agency gets established. The JPA Board would need to establish uniform service levels for all Cities and adopt combined ordinances and a uniform fee structure for the agency. This could be a challenge as currently every city has differing fees for animal licensing and other consumer fees. The JPA Board must also establish a fair and equitable methodology for charging the Cities for services and how consumer fees, such as licensing and impound fees, would be credited to each respective city. Citygate recommends the JPA establish cost allocations based on population for cities under a full-service contract. For cities that requested sheltering only, the recommended costing methodology would entail a formula based on charges per animal that would apply to each animal sheltered, accounting for species, time held, standard medical care, and additional fees for veterinary treatment that is required beyond the established standard. Staffing for the full-service model would be determined by the programs planned for the agency. The staffing model is based on assumptions that the JPA will include the sheltering component, a veterinary clinic, field services and dispatch, a licensing and outreach program, a volunteer program, a behavior department, a community cat program, and administrative functions in house. There would be considerable capital costs to initiate the full-service program. These costs could be phased or financed as described in Section 8 of this report. 5.3 MODEL #3: FIELD-SERVICE-ONLY JPA A field-service-only JPA model would establish an agency that provided the animal control officers, dispatch, licensing, and other enforcement-related services. The services would include all aspects necessary for animal intakes, including training and equipment needed for chemical capture (remote tranquilization) and for impoundment of exotic animals, wild animals, and livestock. It would not provide sheltering services and veterinary care; these mandates would be met through a contract or contracts with other entities providing animal sheltering programs and might vary from city to city. Emergency animal evacuation and housing, as well as provisions for impoundment of stray livestock and/or horses in non-disaster incidents, would be provided through advance planning and mutual aid agreements. A field-service-only JPA would require less time for implementation as the facilities required would be much more limited than what is required for full services. The office space required would include space for the administrative staff, the field services staff (including a squad room and locker area), licensing staff, and a dedicated dispatch area. The complex should also provide restrooms and a place for equipment storage. A secure parking area for the animal control trucks Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 5—Models for Animal Care and Control Services page 59 and any other vehicles assigned to the JPA is also required. The facility could initially be established in leased space. If the chosen model is a field-service-only JPA, the physical location should be situated near the sheltering facility for access and to reduce travel time. Procurement of the necessary equipment and vehicles would take several months, but not the amount of time that design and building of a shelter complex would require. If a field-service-only JPA is formed, Citygate recommends the animal licensing program be included in the operation. This would best ensure compliance with state codes mandating all dogs over four months old be licensed and would provide revenue to supplement the General Fund contributions from the cities. An in-house, progressive licensing outreach program would accomplish several goals in addition to revenue generation. It would help to visibly position the agency and gain community support. It would also promote responsible pet ownership and proper care for owned animals. Community vaccine and licensing clinics could be provided by the JPA or arranged in cooperation with the sheltering and veterinary services provider. Staffing for the field services model includes staff for the anticipated functions of animal control field services, a robust animal licensing and outreach program, dispatch, investigations, and administration. A field-service-only JPA would meet some of the cities’ stated goals and would allow the cities better control of field services, including reducing response time, managing priorities and service levels, and controlling costs for field services going forward. 5.4 STEPS INVOLVED IN THE FORMATION OF A JPA The first step in forming a JPA would be the negotiation and execution of a formal joint powers agreement that outlines the member agencies’ intentions, the powers they will share, and other mutually acceptable conditions that define the intergovernmental arrangement for animal control services. As a legally separate public agency, the JPA can sue or be sued, hire staff, obtain financing to build an animal shelter, and manage the property. The joint powers agreement will protect each member city from the JPA’s debts or other liabilities.6 Each participating City Council would need to approve the joint powers agreement. The JPA partnering cities would then need to file a Notice of a joint powers agreement with the California Secretary of State. The JPA cannot incur any debts, liabilities, or obligations or exercise any of its powers until it files the necessary documents with the Secretary of State. As a separate agency, a JPA must appoint a Treasurer and an Auditor. The Treasurer may be someone from one of the partner cities, the County Treasurer where the JPA operates, or a certified 6 Trish Cypher and Colin Grinnell, “Governments Working Together: A Citizen’s Guide to Joint Powers Agreements,” California Legislature, Senate Committee on Local Government, (2007). Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 5—Models for Animal Care and Control Services page 60 public accountant who performs the job. The JPA must arrange for an annual audit. Many public agencies audit their own JPAs. The JPA must file the completed audit with the Los Angeles County Auditor, who makes copies available to the public. Unlike a city, a JPA can issue revenue bonds without holding an election. State law allows a JPA to issue revenue bonds without voter approval if each of the JPA’s member agencies adopts a separate local authorization ordinance. The ordinances face a 30-day period in which voters can object by signing referendum petitions that trigger an election. If there is no referendum petition or if the petition fails to qualify, the JPA can sell bonds and use the proceeds to build an animal shelter and purchase equipment. While local voters can force referendum elections on the cities’ authorization ordinances, that rarely happens. Like other local agencies, JPAs must follow the Ralph M. Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, the Political Reform Act, and other public interest laws. They must print agendas and permit the public to participate in their meetings. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 6—Best Practices and Current Trends in Animal Welfare page 61 SECTION 6—BEST PRACTICES AND CURRENT TRENDS IN ANIMAL WELFARE 6.1 OVERVIEW The ability to provide best practices in an animal control agency depends on the stated policies of the governing board; the skills, capabilities, and knowledge of the staff and volunteers; and the resources of the agency. The resources can be defined as the collective assets the organization has available including funding, donated items, staffing level, community support, equipment and supplies, and physical plant. Animal welfare is an ever-evolving industry shaped by industry professionals, animal welfare organizational values, animal advocates, as well as public input and influence. Some recent trends in animal sheltering are briefly described in the following sub-sections. It is noted that these trends can be modified quickly by changing priorities, current emerging issues, response to disasters or emergencies, and other factors that affect how an agency performs its duties. There are many national animal welfare organizations that publish documents on recommendations for process improvements and best practices in animal control operations. The list provided in this section is not intended to be comprehensive, but it includes many recurring recommendations that are appropriate for most animal services agencies and should be given consideration. 6.2 CURRENT TRENDS 6.2.1 Prioritizing Disaster Response Animal organizations are currently preparing for disasters with regular disaster response training and ensuring that evacuation plans are in place. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and standard precautions are procured and available for zoonotic disease prevention and hazard mitigation. Cooperative agreements for mutual support are in place in advance of disasters or emergencies. 6.2.2 Robust Adoption Programs Shelters endeavor to match people and pets through dialogue and conversation in an environment of trust and communication. Adoption is encouraged with an open approach that is non-judgmental and unbiased. Many agencies have implemented a variety of adoption promotions including fee reductions or waivers, spotlighting specific populations (e.g., black and white promotion – any animal with black or white is half price, senior animal discounts, two-for-one kittens, etc.). “Clear the shelters” Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 6—Best Practices and Current Trends in Animal Welfare page 62 promotions to gain community support for adoption and off-site adoption events, often with multiple agencies, is another example of current trends. 6.2.3 Forming Positive Relationships with Partner Organizations and Individuals While many organizations can boast a very successful pet adoption program, the shelter population can reach or exceed capacity. A high animal population results in overcrowding and increased stress levels for the animals and the staff. Creative solutions have included active partnerships with other animal agencies (including nonprofits, rescue groups and public shelters) to transfer animals. Establishing and maintaining these relationships provides the shelter options and gives the animals additional options for successful placement. 6.2.4 Five Freedoms The “Five Freedoms” were first developed in the United Kingdom in 1965. Ensuring that sheltered animals are provided with the five freedoms is an important consideration in animal welfare and is a current trend. The Five Freedoms are: 1. Freedom from hunger or thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health. 2. Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area. 3. Freedom from pain, injury, or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment. 4. Freedom to express (most) normal behavior by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal’s own kind. 5. Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid mental suffering (this is very difficult to achieve in a sheltering environment, but each shelter should work toward this goal). 6.2.5 Foster Adoption Ambassadors Animal foster parents are supported and trained on promotion of adoption for animals they are fostering. Foster parents are supported with supplies and are provided assistance for behavior challenges. They are encouraged to do outreach for their foster animals, such as promotion through social media, to friends and acquaintances, and by wearing “adopt me” vests when out in the public. Ambassadors achieve successful adoptions by utilizing their knowledge of the pet, how it behaves outside of a shelter environment, and by setting realistic expectations for the adopter. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 6—Best Practices and Current Trends in Animal Welfare page 63 6.2.6 Community-Based Outreach Programs Shelters are developing programs tailored to the local community and centered around supporting responsible pet stewardship. Interactive programs are created to reach specific target audiences with measurable goals and outcomes. For example: The Field Services Division of the Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter conducts a proactive community-based program called the Door-to-Door program that provides education and resources for pets and families in need. When families live in poverty, the pets they love sometimes are not afforded basic resources and care that can be taken for granted by those not living on the edge. The Door-to-Door program is a community-focused non-law-enforcement program conducted by plainclothes animal control officers that addresses the issues of animal overpopulation, minor animal neglect, and nuisance complaints. As part of this program, we go in to under-served communities and provide free of charge the following items: routine dog vaccinations, dog houses, dog trolley systems, collars, leashes, dog and cat flea medication, dog and cat toys, information on low-cost spay/neuter and other resources that can make a positive impact in the life of pets and their owners.7 6.2.7 Alternatives to Animal Intake and Pet Retention Programs A trend that began in humane societies requires owners to make an appointment to surrender an animal. Owners could not just arrive at the shelter and relinquish their animal. Instead, an interview was required with a pre-arranged scheduled appointment. This trend has been embraced by some municipal shelters requiring appointments to turn in animals, and thus allowing the shelter to “manage” its intakes based on available capacity. Many shelters now have staff whose duties include counseling owners on alternatives to relinquishment and offering resources to assist owners in keeping their pets. These “Pet Retention” programs have proven successful for helping owners obtain resources that enable the owner and pet to stay together. 6.2.8 Socially Conscious Sheltering Socially conscious sheltering is a model that has developed organically. Its fundamental goal is to create best outcomes for all animals. This is achieved through: Ensuring every unwanted or homeless animal has a safe place to go for shelter and food. 7 Source: Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter website, www.scanimalshelter.org/door-to-door-program. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 6—Best Practices and Current Trends in Animal Welfare page 64 Placing every healthy animal and not making euthanasia decisions based solely on time and space. Assessing the medical and behavioral needs of homeless pets and ensuring these needs are thoughtfully addressed. Preventing suffering and making appropriate euthanasia decisions. Aligning shelter policy with the paradigm of the community. Enhancing the human-animal bond through safe, thoughtful placement of animals. Ethically transferring animals so animal welfare challenges in the source community are addressed while the health of animals in the receiving community is protected. 6.2.9 Creative Ways to Return Animals to their Owners Many shelters provide the field staff with onboard computers which allow for field access to the shelter database. This includes the animal licensing data and lost-and-found reports, if the shelter has these digitized. Officers can trace an animal’s license and contact the owner directly for a field return as opposed to bringing the animal to the shelter. Another creative trend has been the use of social media to assist with re-uniting lost pets and their owners. Shelter staff, animal control officers in the field, and volunteers can search neighborhood sites or other social media to seek matches to animals in the shelter or found animals that have not yet been impounded. 6.2.10 The Association of Shelter Veterinarians’ Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters The Association of Shelter Veterinarians’ Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters is a comprehensive set of recommendations for shelter management and standards.8 It is designed as a resource for self-assessment and to provide guidelines for proper care. The document addresses the constraints inherent in community differences and differing resources available to animal sheltering entities. The current trend is to utilize this document to improve conditions within animal shelters. The guidelines cover the following topics: Management and Record Keeping Facility Design and Environment 8 Source: www.sheltervet.org/assets/docs/shelter-standards-oct2011-wforward.pdf. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 6—Best Practices and Current Trends in Animal Welfare page 65 Population Management Sanitation Medical Health and Physical Well-Being Behavioral Health and Mental Well-Being Group Housing Animal Handling Euthanasia Spaying and Neutering Animal Transport Public Health 6.3 BEST PRACTICES There are many standards considered to be best practices in the animal welfare industry and supported by national and state organizations. These include but are not limited to: A strategic plan that maps a future direction for the organization and is shared with staff, volunteers, and other stakeholders. A clearly defined mission statement and goals and objectives, including performance measures and standards. Current, regularly updated policies and procedures manuals that serve to train and guide staff and volunteers. An established training program standardized to individual job duties. An outreach program that includes a public spay and neuter program, licensing, availability of affordable vaccinations and microchipping. Regular staff meetings and communications between all layers of the organization. A structured volunteer program with policies and guidelines. Appropriate use of information technology, including a well-designed and maintained website, and creative utilization of social media. Professional and knowledgeable leadership. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 6—Best Practices and Current Trends in Animal Welfare page 66 Commitment to excellent customer service for all clients, including shelter customers, residents in the field, and remote and/or electronic customer interactions. Publicly accessible business hours. Financial resources adequate to support the program. Adequate and appropriate facilities that support the organizational mission. Establishment of a nonprofit branch that provides support outside the agency budget. A safety program specific to the requirements of an animal control program. A commitment to proper care and disease management, and shelter practices that provide a healthy environment for both animals and people. 6.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 6.4.1 Effects of the Pandemic on Animal Services Organizations With the emergence of COVID-19, animal shelters, like most businesses, made rapid changes to their operations to ensure the safety of the public, staff, and volunteers. Many shelters shuttered their facilities and required appointments to conduct business. With many people confined at home, interest in fostering and adopting animals increased, and many shelters reported they were holding fewer animals than they regularly held before the pandemic. Shelters also have reported that operations slowed down and calls for field services were reduced. A result of decreased revenues occurred as service provision diminished. While the effects have been variable, many organizations have reported these trends. Some agencies have had resultant budget cuts and reassignment of staff. As designated disaster service workers, in some jurisdictions animal control staff have been reassigned to the health department or other departments to assist with the city or county response to the pandemic. When the country returns to the “new normal,” following availability of vaccines and a slowdown of the virus, it is hard to predict what will happen in the animal welfare industry. While it is possible that the lower number of animals coming in could continue, once people return to work, they may not be able to continue fostering animals and/or animal intakes and field activities could increase. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 7—Overview of Current Financial Information and Operations for Each Project City page 67 SECTION 7—OVERVIEW OF CURRENT FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND OPERATIONS FOR EACH PROJECT CITY The following is based on the information received by Citygate from the 12 Project Cities and the Pasadena Humane Society (PHS). Eight of the 12 Project Cities contract with PHS for full animal control services. These cities are billed a flat monthly rate based on their respective contracts. Two of the cities have contracts with the San Gabriel Valley Humane Society, one for full animal services and one for shelter/veterinarian and after-hours field services. These cities are also billed a flat monthly rate, per their respective contracts. One of the cities contracts with the Los Angeles Animal Control Department for full animal services and is also billed monthly based on services rendered. One city provides services in house and contracts with a veterinary hospital and a local humane organization for sheltering services for unclaimed animals. In some cases, the contract calls for a credit to the monthly bill for revenues generated by residents of the respective city, generally from impound and licensing fees. This is not the case for all 12 cities, and the level of credit also varies among the cities that do receive a revenue credit. Most of the cities that receive a credit per their contract receive 50 percent of their respective licensing fee revenue and 100 percent of their respective impound fee revenue. However, the City of Pasadena receives 50 percent of licensing fee revenue after $80,000 and no impound fee revenue; the Cities of Alhambra and La Cañada Flintridge receive 100 percent of both impound and licensing revenues as a credit to their bills for service; and the City of Arcadia receives no revenue credit to its monthly bills. The Cities of Duarte and Rosemead have internal field animal services operations and retain all impound and licensing fee revenues. As can be seen, there is no consistency based on the current contracts for the 12 Project Cities. As a result of large increases to the contracts proposed by all three animal service providers used by the Project Cities, the cities negotiated, as applicable, for a reduced increase which would allow the cities to evaluate how to provide future animal services. Even this process was inconsistent. Some cities had time remaining on their contracts and will experience no change for the current year; some cities negotiated a temporary extension with a reduced rate from the proposed rate to allow time to examine animal service provision options; and some cities negotiated multiple-year contracts with the new proposed rates. The following table reflects a comparison of the current rates and the prior year’s rates, as well as the revenue credit received in FY 19/20 based on actual collections. The table also reflects total animal services cost, which include city internal animal services costs, as applicable. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 7—Overview of Current Financial Information and Operations for Each Project City page 68 Table 7—Animal Services Costs for Project Cities City FY 20/21 Contract Amount FY 19/20 Base Contract Amount Percentage Difference FY 20/21 Estimated Total Costs FY 19/20 Total Costs Percentage Difference FY 19/20 Credited Revenues Alhambra $160,979 $160,332 0.40% $233,369 $212,602 9.80% $53,167 Arcadia $318,256 $90,702 250.90% $318,256 $90,702 250.90% - Bradbury $20,415 $19,794 3.10% $20,415 $19,794 3.10% $1,521 Duarte $62,000 $62,000 0.00% $165,000 $165,000 0.00% - La Cañada/Flintridge* $129,048 $146,396 -11.90% $129,048 $146,396 -11.90% $36,634 Monrovia $191,344 $185,771 3.00% $191,344 $185,771 3.00% $29,950 Pasadena $1,625,887 $1,242,080 30.90% $1,625,887 $1,242,080 30.90% $26,898 Rosemead $62,000 $62,000 0.00% $149,000 $149,000 0.00% - San Gabriel $350,000 $263,158 33.00% $350,000 $263,158 33.00% - San Marino $93,927 $55,668 68.70% $93,927 $55,668 68.70% $11,969 Sierra Madre $55,312 $30,703 80.20% $55,312 $30,703 80.20% $4,350 South Pasadena $171,570 $127,892 34.20% $171,570 $127,892 34.20% $11,760 Total $3,240,738 $2,446,496 $3,503,128 $2,688,766 $176,248 * La Cañada/Flintridge only paid $130,250.04 of the FY 19/20 contract price Citygate determined that although some of the cities had specific individuals assigned to oversee the animal services contract, none of the cities had dedicated individuals assigned to validate that all the services called for in the contract were in fact received from the respective animal services providers. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 69 SECTION 8—DISCUSSION OF COST DEVELOPMENT AND JPA COST MODELS This section discusses how Citygate developed the costs included in the JPA cost models and the methodology used to develop the allocation of the costs identified in the JPA cost models. Citygate focused on two JPA cost models for the purpose of this report and to meet the budget and timing required for this project by the Project Cities. The models developed were a full-service cost model, which would encompass all animal services required by the Project Cities; and a field- service-only model, which would only reflect the costs involved with a JPA that would provide field services only related to animal control. During this review, Citygate was informed by the two cities who currently provide in-house field services for animal control, that they would prefer to continue to provide field services in-house regardless of the model used. However, since even in these cases there would probably be some field services costs for emergency and after-hour services, the model excluded estimated applicable revenues associated with these two cities but reflected estimated costs in the cost allocation models. As discussed earlier, the field-service-only model also excludes the costs that would be associated with contracting for shelter and veterinary services that would be necessary for the cities to have complete provision of animal services. The statistics used to develop the cost models were discussed previously in this report and include the assumptions of a JPA human population of approximately 514,000, an animal population (dogs and cats) of approximately 352,000, and a service area size of approximately 92 square miles. All the revenue and cost estimates are assuming a normalized operating year. Given the uncertainty of when or if a new JPA would be formed, Citygate’s models were developed assuming a normalized year of activity. This equates to the estimates and assumptions of an average operating year in the life of the JPA as opposed to the ramp-up year(s). The modeling primarily utilized statistics from 2018 and 2019 as the COVID-19 pandemic markedly impacted operations in 2020. 8.1 STARTUP COSTS – FULL-SERVICE MODEL Establishing a full-service JPA will require startup costs to provide a pre-operational platform to deliver the required animal services to the Project Cities. These costs include the following. 8.1.1 Building/Land It is anticipated that the building to house the full-service animal services function would require approximately 25,000 square feet. This could be accomplished with single or multiple levels, depending on the availability and cost of the land needed to construct the building. Based on current construction estimates, construction costs range between $390 and $520 per square foot. The amount of $500 per square foot was used in the model. Vacant land prices vary depending on Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 70 location; however, based on the desire of the Project Cities to have a centrally located facility, Citygate determined that locating the facility in the City of Pasadena would best meet the centrally located wishes of the cities. Land prices within the City of Pasadena vary widely per current real estate listings, but for the purposes of this model, $1 million per acre and a two-acre site was assumed, resulting in an estimated cost of approximately $14.5 million. 8.1.2 Furniture and Fixtures A rule of thumb for furniture and fixtures is approximately 25 percent to 30 percent of hard costs. With an estimated building cost of approximately $12.5 million for a new animal shelter facility, and based on this rule of thumb, Citygate estimates the cost for furniture and fixtures for the new facility will be approximately $3.1 million, assuming 25 percent of building cost. 8.1.3 Vehicles The model assumes approximately $440,000 for eleven vehicles consisting primarily of field services vehicles. 8.1.4 Equipment/Supplies/Services Included in this cost are items such as radios, dispatch consoles, computer hardware and software, uniforms, telephones, office supplies, contracts for services that would be performed more efficiently and effectively outside of the JPA. An example of these contracts is dead animal disposal services, with an estimated cost of approximately $1.2 million. Total startup costs for the full-service JPA are estimated at approximately $19.2 million. Citygate’s analysis assumes most of these startup costs would be financed and therefore includes financing options and costs in the financing option for startup cost section of this report. Some cost, such as initial office supplies, etc. could not be financed so the member cities would have to contribute to the JPA for these expenses. Citygate’s estimate for these costs is approximately $155,000. Table 8—Startup Costs – Full-Service JPA Item Cost Estimate Building and Land $14,500,000 Furnishings and Kennels $3,125,000 Vehicles $440,000 Equipment/Supplies $1,160,000 Total Startup Full-Service $19,225,000 Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 71 8.1.5 Personnel The JPA will need to hire the personnel necessary to provide the full level of animal services required. Per Citygate’s analysis, the newly formed JPA will require 77 FTEs. The cost for these positions in a normalized year is discussed in the ongoing revenues and costs sub-section later in this report (Section 8.4). The positions identified by Citygate are listed in the following table. Table 9—Personnel – Full-Service JPA Position # of FTEs Position # of FTEs Director 1 Public Information Officer 1 Deputy Director 1 Social Media Outreach Coordinator 1 Supervising Administrative Assistant 1 Foster Manager 1 Financial Administrator 1 Foster Coordinator 1 Financial Specialist 1 Transfer Coordinator 1 IT Administrator 1 Behavior Manager 1 Facility Manager 1 Behaviorist 1 HR Director 1 Chief Veterinarian 1 Compliance Officer 1 Staff Veterinarian 2 Shelter Director 1 Health Program Coordinator 1 Animal Care Manager 1 Registered Vet Tech 2 Animal Care Staff 12 Health Technicians 3 Animal Intake Coordinator 1 Field Services Director 1 Community Cat Coordinator 1 Lead Animal Control Officers 2 Customer Care Staff 8 Lead Investigator 1 Adoptions Manager 1 Animal Control Officers (I, II, III, IV) 10 Adoptions Specialists 2 Dispatchers 4 Volunteer Coordinator I-II 1 Licensing Manager 1 Outreach Coordinator 1 Animal Control Officers II – Licensing Team 4 Total Full-Time Personnel 77 8.2 STARTUP COSTS – FIELD-SERVICE-ONLY MODEL Startup costs for a field-service-only model would consist of the same categories as the full-service model just with lower costs as discussed in the following. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 72 8.2.1 Building/Land It is anticipated that the building to house the field-service-only animal services function would require approximately 2,000 square feet. The facility would contain a work area for the field personnel after their shift to complete paperwork and other tasks and accommodations for the administrative staff. A single-level structure would be sufficient. Based on current construction estimates, construction costs range between $390 and $520 per square foot. The assumptions for land have been discussed previously. The estimate used by Citygate in the field-service-only startup costs for building and land totals is approximately $1.5 million. Another possibly more feasible and efficient option for this facility would be to lease an existing facility since the facility would not need the specialty construction required by a full-service animal services shelter. Lease rates in the City of Pasadena range between $20 and $50 per square foot, per year, which, if a suitable existing facility could be found, the annual lease cost would be approximately $60,000, assuming a lease rate of $30 per square foot. 8.2.2 Furniture and Fixtures Citygate estimates the field-service-only model with a leased existing facility would only have furniture costs of approximately $80,000 because of the much smaller building. 8.2.3 Vehicles The model assumes approximately $440,000 for vehicles consisting primarily of field services vehicles. 8.2.4 Equipment/Supplies/Services Included in this cost category are items such as radios, dispatch consoles, computer hardware and software, uniforms, telephones, office supplies, contracts for services that would be performed more efficiently and effectively outside of the JPA. Examples of these contracts are dead animal disposal and licensed veterinarian services. The estimated cost for this cost category is approximately $260,000. Total startup costs estimated for the field-service-only JPA, assuming the lease option, are approximately $780,000. To minimize the normalized year costs for this model, Citygate assumed the Project Cities would make an initial contribution to the JPA to fund these costs up front. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 73 Table 10—Startup Costs – Field-Service-Only JPA Item Cost Estimate Furnishings $80,000 Vehicles $440,000 Equipment/Supplies $260,000 Total Startup Field-Service-Only $780,000 8.2.5 Personnel The JPA will need to hire the personnel necessary to provide the field-service-only level of animal services required. Per Citygate’s analysis, the newly formed JPA will require 24 FTEs to meet this requirement. The cost for these positions in a normalized year is discussed in the on-going field- service-only revenues and costs sub-section later in this report. The positions identified by Citygate are listed in the following table. Table 11—Personnel – Field-Service-Only JPA Position # of FTEs Director 1 Financial Specialist 1 Field Services Director 1 Lead Animal Control Officers 2 Lead Investigator 1 Animal Control Officers (I, II, III, IV) 10 Dispatchers 4 Licensing Manager 1 Animal Control Officers II – Licensing Team 3 Total Full-Time Personnel 24 8.3 FINANCING OPTIONS FOR STARTUP COSTS There are several options available to finance most of the startup costs identified in this report. The most common forms are bond financing and lease purchase financing. Bonds could be issued by the JPA as a stand-alone agency or as part of an agency pool, such as the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP). Current financing interest rates are low due to COVID-19 and other economic conditions. However, since the timing of a potential JPA is uncertain, Citygate assumed an interest rate of 3 percent for these calculations. Startup costs that have long useful lives such as Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 74 buildings, land, and the fixtures of the building could be financed using long-term financing, such as bonds. Startup costs with shorter useful lives, such as furniture, equipment, vehicles, etc., are more applicable to lease purchase financing. In developing the estimated debt service for the full-service model that would be applicable to the startup costs, Citygate assumed the building, land, and fixtures would be financed using 20-year bond financing with an interest rate of 3 percent, with a cost of issuance at 1.5 percent, and a debt service reserve requirement of one year. This would equate to a bond issue size of approximately $19.2 million, resulting in annual debt service of approximately $1.6 million. For those startup costs more applicable to short-term financing, such as equipment and furniture, Citygate assumed a five-year term at 3 percent interest with leasing fees of 1.5 percent of the lease amount. This equates to a lease size of approximately $1.5 million, resulting in an annual lease payment of approximately $321,300. In developing the estimated debt service for the field-service-only cost model applicable to the startup costs, Citygate assumed the lease option and that the Project Cities would provide up-front funding for the startup costs since the costs would be significantly lower than the full-service model and would reduce the normalized annual cost. Detailed information on the startup costs and assumed financing is included in Appendices 1 and 2. 8.4 ONGOING REVENUES AND COSTS – FULL-SERVICE MODEL 8.4.1 Revenues Revenue estimates were based on Citygate’s experience with other full-service animal control agencies and revenue information provided by the cities and the current service providers. Based on Citygate’s analysis, a full-service JPA would generate approximately $5.6 million of revenues to partially offset the estimated full-service JPA costs. That would leave approximately $6.9 million of costs that would need to be allocated to the various member cities. The allocation methodology is discussed in the cost allocation methodology sub-section of this report. Given that a new JPA would not have the reputation of the existing service providers to obtain revenues through donations and fundraisers, this revenue source will not be as lucrative as it is for the current service providers. For example, PHS generates approximately 47 percent of its revenues from donations and fundraising activities. This equated to over $6 million in 2019. Per information provided by PHS, contract city payments and the revenues received from licensing, impound, and penalty fees only comprised approximately 17 percent of PHS revenues in 2019. Consequently, Citygate used conservative estimates when developing a donation estimate. The detail of the revenue estimates is included in Appendix 3. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 75 8.4.2 Costs The following sub-sections discuss the estimated costs developed and included in the full-service cost model. Total estimated cost equaled approximately $12.5 million. The allocation of the costs that exceed the estimated revenues in the amount of approximately $6.9 million will be discussed in the cost allocation methodology sub-section of this report. 8.4.3 Personnel Total personnel cost estimated in the full-service model is approximately $6.8 million. The breakdown of this amount is discussed in the following sub-sections. A more detailed illustration of this amount is included in Appendix 4 of this report. 8.4.4 Salary Citygate identified salary ranges for each of the positions listed in Table 9 based on a high-level comparison of similarly sized animal control agencies. In costing these positions, Citygate used the middle of each applicable salary range. The following table reflects the mid-range annual salary used in the full-service cost model for each of the position titles listed. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 76 Table 12—Salaries – Full-Service JPA Position Mid-Range Annual Salary Position Mid-Range Annual Salary Director 167,500 Public Information Officer 79,500 Deputy Director 150,000 Social Media Outreach Coordinator 56,250 Supervising Administrative Assistant 76,500 Foster Manager 61,000 Financial Administrator 92,500 Foster Coordinator 56,500 Financial Specialist 76,500 Transfer Coordinator 56,500 IT Administrator 86,250 Behavior Manager 56,500 Facility Manager 70,000 Behaviorist 49,000 HR Director 95,000 Chief Veterinarian 137,500 Compliance Officer 87,500 Staff Veterinarian 120,000 Shelter Director 95,000 Health Program Coordinator 95,000 Animal Care Manager 70,800 Registered Vet Tech 60,000 Animal Care Staff 47,850 Health Technicians 47,850 Animal Intake Coordinator 57,000 Field Services Director 95,000 Community Cat Coordinator 57,000 Lead Animal Control Officers 61,000 Customer Care Staff 50,000 Lead Investigator 61,000 Adoptions Manager 70,000 Animal Control Officers I 51,650 Adoptions Specialists 50,000 Animal Control Officers II 56,500 Volunteer Coordinator I-II 56,250 Animal Control Officers III 60,800 Outreach Coordinator 56,250 Animal Control Officers IV 70,800 Animal Control Officers II – Licensing Team 56,500 Dispatchers 50,000 Licensing Manager 70,000 Based on this calculation, the total annual cost for wages is estimated to be approximately $5 million. 8.4.5 Overtime Overtime estimates were based on the overtime amounts expended by PHS for FY 18/19, since most of the Project Cities are served by PHS. The total amount reflected in the model is approximately $254,000. Citygate estimated that based on the recommended positions, approximately 62 positions would be eligible for overtime. This equated to an average annual cost Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 77 of approximately $2,000 and $4,200 for applicable positions, which is reflected in the full-service costing model. 8.4.6 Retirement Even though the Project Cities are all members of the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) system, given the goal expressed by the cities to control costs, Citygate assumed the JPA would use the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) plan, which consists of social security and Medicare as its retirement plan. Citygate contacted CalPERS to determine if the newly formed JPA would be required to join CalPERS since all the JPA’s member agencies were members of CalPERS. The response from CalPERS was that the newly formed JPA would not be required to join CalPERS. Per the CalPERS website, the process to join CalPERS could take up to 12 months assuming the new member agency meets all CalPERS requirements. Assuming FICA as the retirement plan (7.65 percent of salary), the estimated retirement costs would equal approximately $379,000. A more detailed discussion of other retirement plan options is provided later in this report. 8.4.7 Health/Dental/Vision The health cost estimates were developed using a lower range cost for current CalPERS health plans. The flat amount of $900 per month was used for all JPA employees. This resulted in total estimated annual health costs of approximately $832,000. Dental and vision costs were based on the PHS costs, resulting in an estimated annual cost of approximately $31,600. 8.4.8 Life Insurance / Disability / Workers Compensation / Unemployment These cost estimates were also based on the PHS costs and total approximately $338,000. 8.4.9 Other Fringe Benefits The cost model assumes a 10 percent of salary for the Director and Deputy Director for benefits such as auto allowance and deferred compensation contributions. This cost totals approximately $32,000. 8.4.10 Services/Supplies/Contracts Services, supplies, contracts, and related amounts included in the full-service cost model total approximately $2.9 million. The individual line-item amounts were based on PHS cost information provide to Citygate and adjusted using Citygate’s experience with other animal service providers. 8.4.11 Equipment / Capital Improvements Based on the costs paid by PHS and adjusted by Citygate per experience with other providers, equipment and capital improvement costs are estimated to be approximately $20,000. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 78 8.4.12 Debt Services The estimated annual amount for debt service of approximately $1.6 million was discussed in the financing of startup costs sub-section of this report. 8.4.13 Other Costs Other costs included in the model consist of estimates for contributing to operating and capital reserves. This is an operational best practice to provide a financial cushion for unforeseen emergencies and future capital improvement and/or replacement needs. Various finance organizations have differing recommendations regarding the level of reserves based on the type of organization, which range from a percentage of annual operating revenues or expenditures, an amount equal to an expenditure for a certain time period (e.g., three or six months), or a flat amount based on the organization’s analysis. For the purpose of this cost model, Citygate used an amount equal to 5 percent of operating expenses. This equated to a combined amount of approximately $988,000. The full-service cost model which details revenue and cost estimates is presented in Appendix 5. 8.5 ONGOING REVENUES AND COSTS – FIELD-SERVICE-ONLY MODEL 8.5.1 Revenues As was the case with the full-service ongoing cost discussed above, the revenue estimates for the field-service-only model were developed based on a combination of Citygate experience and the information provided by the cities and service provider agencies. Based on Citygate’s analysis, a field-service-only JPA would generate approximately $2.7 million of revenues to partially offset the estimated field-service-only JPA costs. That would leave approximately $324,000 of costs that would need to be allocated to the various member cities. The allocation methodology is discussed later in this report. Implementation of a proactive outreach and licensing program would result in enhanced licensing revenue that would offset the program costs. Initiation at the onset of operations and media outreach about the program will increase the success as licensing compliance increases year over year, making this model potentially more realistic than the full-service option. As previously mentioned, Citygate used conservative revenue estimates in general and especially for donation revenue, given that a new JPA would not have the reputation of the existing service providers. 8.5.2 Costs The following sub-sections discuss the estimated costs developed and included in the field-service- only cost model. Total estimated costs equal approximately $3 million. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 79 8.5.3 Personnel Total personnel cost estimated in the field-service-only model is approximately $2.1 million. The breakdown of this amount is discussed in the following sub-sections. A more detailed illustration of this amount is included in Appendix 6 of this report. 8.5.4 Salary Citygate identified salary ranges for each of the positions listed in Table 11 based on high-level surveys of similar agencies. In costing these positions, Citygate used the middle of each applicable salary range. The following table reflects the mid-range annual salary used in the field-service- only cost model for each of the position titles listed. Table 13—Salaries – Field-Service-Only JPA Position Mid-Range Annual Salary Director 167,500 Financial Specialist 76,500 Field Services Director 95,000 Lead Animal Control Officers 61,000 Lead Investigator 61,000 Animal Control Officers I 51,650 Animal Control Officers II 56,500 Animal Control Officers III 60,800 Animal Control Officers IV 70,800 Dispatchers 50,000 Licensing Manager 70,000 Animal Control Officers II – Licensing Team 56,500 Based on this calculation, the total annual cost for wages is estimated to be approximately $1.5 million. 8.5.5 Overtime Overtime estimates were based on the overtime amounts expended by PHS for FY 18/19. This amount was used since most of the Project Cities are served by PHS. The total amount reflected in the model is approximately $48,000. Citygate estimated that based on the recommended positions, approximately 13 positions would be eligible for overtime. This equated to an average annual cost of approximately $2,000 and $4,200 as applicable to each appropriate position, which is reflected in the field-service-only costing model. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 80 Citygate used the same basic assumptions discussed in the full-service sub-section for other costs identified for the field-service-only model. The follow are the resulting cost categories and amounts. 8.5.6 Retirement The estimated annual cost for retirement is approximately $118,000, using FICA as the JPA’s retirement plan as previously discussed. 8.5.7 Health/Dental/Vision The estimated annual health, dental, and vision costs are approximately $270,000. 8.5.8 Life Insurance / Disability / Workers Compensation / Unemployment This estimated cost is approximately $106,000. 8.5.9 Other Fringe Benefits The estimated cost totals approximately $16,750 for the Director for benefits such as auto allowance and deferred compensation contributions. 8.5.10 Services/Supplies/Contracts Services, supplies, contracts, and related amounts included in the field-service-only cost model total approximately $625,400. 8.5.11 Equipment / Capital Improvements Equipment and capital improvement costs are estimated to be approximately $9,000. 8.5.12 Debt Services Lease payment costs are estimated at approximately $60,000 annually. 8.5.13 Other Costs Other costs included in the model are approximately $189,000. The field-service-only cost model which details revenue and cost estimates is presented in Appendix 7. 8.6 RETIREMENT COST OPTIONS – CALPERS AND OTHER VIABLE OPTIONS Although in establishing a new JPA, the Project Cities could hire dedicated personnel within their respective cities under their current CalPERS retirement system, Citygate believes this would generate numerous operational difficulties and inefficiencies. A better direction would be to have the JPA hire the operational staff. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 81 Based on this premise, there are several retirement and healthcare-related options available for the new JPA. The following is a discussion of some of the options. This list is not intended to be all- inclusive, but a general discussion of some of the more obvious options. 8.6.1 Defined-Benefit Plans Federal Insurance Contribution Act The FICA program is a defined-benefit program which provides a set benefit level, increased by an inflation rate for the life of the retiree. FICA taxes consist of a social security component (retirement) and a Medicare component (health-related). Under current law, applicable employees must have 7.65 percent of their wages withheld for FICA (6.2 percent social security and 1.45 percent Medicare) which is paid to the federal government. Employers must match each employees’ FICA withholdings. Based on the estimated full-time employee wage costs for the full-service model and the field-service-only model, the cost for the new JPA would be approximately $379,000 for full-service and approximately $118,000 for field-service-only. The field-service-only option is recommended by Citygate. California Public Employees Retirement System Federal law allows state and local governments to be exempt from FICA taxes if the employees are provided a plan with better benefits. The minimum benefit described in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations issued pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 3121 requires that a government employee’s defined benefit plan meets the requirements, if and only if, at retirement the employee has an accrued benefit under the system that entitles the employee to an annual benefit commencing on or before their Social Security retirement age that is at least equal to the annual Primary Insurance Amount the employee would have under Social Security.9 The CalPERS program meets this legal requirement. Like the FICA program, the CalPERS program is a defined-benefit plan, which provides a specific level of benefits at retirement through the life of the retiree. CalPERS is the retirement system used by all the Project Cities. The CalPERS system offers retirement and health-related benefit options. The JPA would have to become a member of CalPERS to have access to its benefit options. CalPERS staff would perform an extensive evaluation of the proposed JPA operations and finances and develop an actuarial report, which would identify the annual costs required to provide benefits to the JPA staff. Since all the Project Cities are members of the CalPERS system and are familiar with its operations, this section does not discuss the details of the CalPERS system. It is estimated that the evaluation process and 9 https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n3/v80n3p1.html#:~:text=Federal%20law%20allows%20certain%20state, with%20a%20sufficiently%20generous%20pension.&text=We%20find%20that%20state%20and,at%20the%20full %20retirement%20age. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 82 identification of the annual costs for the new JPA could take up to 12 months for CalPERS staff to complete. CalPERS tends to be the more expensive benefit option but provides an enhanced level of benefits when compared to FICA. For comparison purposes of this review, CalPERS’ costs are estimated at an average of 15 percent of salary. 8.6.2 Defined-Contribution Plans Unlike the defined-benefit plans discussed earlier which provide a certain pre-determined level of benefits, defined-contribution plans base benefits on the level of contributions, interest earnings, and losses (plan value) at the time of retirement. These plans tend to be less expensive for the employer and provide a lower level of benefits to the employee. The following are examples of some defined-contribution options. IRS Section 403(b) A 403(b) plan, also known as a tax-sheltered annuity plan, is a defined-contribution retirement plan for certain employees of public schools, employees of certain IRC Section 501(c)(3) tax- exempt organizations and certain ministers. A defined-contribution plan limits the retiree benefit to the combined total of the amount of contributions, plus applicable interest, less applicable losses incurred prior to retirement. A 403(b) plan must be maintained under a written program which contains all the terms and conditions for eligibility, benefits, limitations, the form and timing of distributions and contracts available under the plan, and the party responsible for plan administration which satisfy IRC Section 403(b). The maximum combined amount the employer and the employee can contribute annually to the plan is generally the lesser of $58,000 for 2021 (subject to annual cost-of-living increases), or an employee’s includible compensation for their most recent year of service. The maximum amount of elective deferrals an employee alone can contribute annually to a 403(b) is generally the lesser of 100 percent of includible compensation, or $19,500 in 2021 (subject to annual cost-of-living increases). However, this general limit is reduced by the amount of elective deferrals an employee makes to 401(k) plans; SIMPLE IRA plans; Salary Reduction Simplified Employee Pension (SARSEP) plans; other 403(b) plans; and IRC Section 501(c)(18) plans. Employees meeting certain requirements may be eligible to make additional contributions.10 IRS Section 401(k) A traditional 401(k) defined-contribution plan allows employees who are eligible to participate in the plan to make pre-tax elective deferrals through payroll deductions. In addition, in a traditional 401(k) plan, employers have the option of making contributions on behalf of all participants, making matching contributions based on employees’ elective deferrals, or both. These employer 10 https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-403b-tax-sheltered-annuity- plans#participation Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 83 contributions can be subject to a vesting schedule which provides that an employee’s right to employer contributions becomes nonforfeitable only after a specified period of time or they can be immediately vested. Rules relating to traditional 401(k) plans state that contributions made under the plan meet specific nondiscrimination requirements. To ensure the plan satisfies these requirements, the employer must perform annual tests, known as the Actual Deferral Percentage (ADP) and Actual Contribution Percentage (ACP) tests, to verify that deferred wages and employer matching contributions do not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. A 401(k) plan cannot require, as a condition of participation, that an employee complete more than one year of service. The annual additions paid to a participant’s account from the employer and employee cannot exceed the lesser of 100 percent of the participant’s compensation, or $58,000 ($64,500 including catch-up contributions) for 2021. However, an employer’s deduction for contributions to a defined contribution plan (profit-sharing plan or money purchase pension plan) cannot be more than 25 percent of the compensation paid (or accrued) during the year to eligible employees participating in the plan. The limit on employee elective deferrals (for traditional and safe harbor plans) is $19,500 in 2021, subject to cost-of-living adjustments.11 IRC Section 457 Plans of deferred compensation described in IRC Section 457 are defined contribution plans available to certain state and local governments and non-governmental entities that are tax exempt under IRC Section 501. Plans eligible under 457(b) allow employees of sponsoring organizations to defer income taxation on retirement savings into future years. A 457(b) plan’s annual contributions and other additions (excluding earnings) to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of 100 percent of the participant’s includible compensation, or the elective deferral limit of $19,500 for 2021. State and local government 457(b) plans may allow catch-up contributions for participants who are aged 50 or older, allowing eligible employees for three years prior to the normal retirement age (as specified in the plan) to contribute the lesser of twice the annual limit $39,000 per 2021 limits, or the basic annual limit plus the amount of the basic limit not used in prior years (only allowed if not using age 50 or over catch-up contributions).12 The new JPA would also have the option of offering some combination of the options previously discussed. Examples include combining defined-benefit plans such as CalPERS or FICA with defined-contribution plans such as IRS 403(b), 401(k), and 457 plans to provide enhanced benefits based on a match of the contribution optionally made by the employee. 11 https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan- contribution-limits 12 https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/irc-457b-deferred-compensation-plans Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 84 Determining the best option for the JPA will depend on the goals of the JPA. For the purposes of this project, Citygate selected FICA. Selecting the lower cost option of FICA, although not absolute, could impact the quality and interest in the positions within the JPA. Selecting the higher cost CalPERS option will impact the cost that the member agencies will need to pay annually to maintain operations. Additionally, based on the method used by CalPERS, the rate will increase based on the factors impacting the negotiated benefit levels, which means that cost will not only increase due to increased salary levels, but also due to factors such as CalPERS investment rate of return, employee mortality, and other actuarial assumptions made by CalPERS. Based on Citygate’s review and the goal of limiting costs, per interviews conducted with the Project Cities, the models assume the use of Social Security as the JPA’s retirement plan. If the JPA is successful after startup, an additional retirement component could be brought in at that time. 8.7 DISCUSSION OF COST ALLOCATION MODELS AND METHODOLOGY There are several cost allocation methods considered by Citygate for this project. They included: Per capita Field activities Square mileage Time in jurisdiction Animals impounded Combinations of some or all of the aforementioned. However, due to inconsistencies in the data reporting on field activities and other information inconsistency, as well as budget and time constraints involved with this project, Citygate focused on per capita for the cost allocation methodology. Per the full-service and field-service-only models, the costs that exceed estimated revenues are approximately $6.9 million for full-service and approximately $324,000 for field-service-only. The population used for the Project Cities that would be part of the JPA is approximately 514,000 people. This would equate to a per capita amount for the full-service model of approximately $24 ($12.5 million divided by 514,000 population). However, two of the Project Cities (Duarte and Rosemead) indicated to Citygate that they may want to continue to perform the field service function in-house and may use the field-service-only model to a lesser extent (after hours and/or emergencies). Eliminating these two cities would reduce the JPA total population served by approximately 15 percent and would reduce costs reflected in the field-service-only model. To be conservative, the field-service-only model excludes the estimated field service revenue related to Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 85 these two cities but not an expense reduction. Revenue credit for each city, except for Duarte and Rosemead, for the field-service-only model is allocated based on the respective city’s FY 19/20 revenue from licensing, impound, and penalty fees as a proportion to total revenue collected for all jurisdictions from these sources. A reduction for impound fees was made for the field-service- only model. The following tables summarize the allocation of the added costs for each city based on the model assumptions and the cost allocation methodology used by Citygate. Table 14—Cost Allocation Summary – Full-Service JPA Jurisdiction Current Population1 Net Agency Cost Per Existing Contracts Estimated New Costs Per Model Estimated Total Normalized Year Net Cost Per Model Alhambra 86,792 107,813 1,159,305 1,267,118 Arcadia 57,212 318,256 764,197 1,082,453 Bradbury 1,052 18,894 14,052 32,946 Duarte 21,673 62,000 289,492 351,492 La Cañada Flintridge 20,461 92,414 273,303 365,717 Monrovia 37,935 161,394 506,709 668,102 Pasadena 144,842 1,598,989 1,934,695 3,533,684 Rosemead 54,363 62,000 726,142 788,142 San Gabriel 40,104 350,000 535,680 885,680 San Marino 13,087 81,959 174,807 256,765 Sierra Madre 10,816 50,962 144,472 195,434 South Pasadena 25,458 159,810 340,050 499,860 Contract Cities Total 513,795 3,064,489 6,862,905 9,927,394 1 Department of Finance e-1 from January 2020 Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 86 Table 15—Cost Allocation Summary – Field-Service-Only JPA Jurisdiction Current Population1 Net Agency Cost Per Existing Contracts Allocation of Model Normalized Year Additional Costs Based on Population Total Net Cost for Normalized Year Based on Model Startup Cost Allocation (Population) Estimated First Year Plus Normalized Year Cost Difference Current Net Agency Cost to New Estimated Net Agency Cost Alhambra 86,792 53,906 54,658 108,564 131,760 240,325 186,418 Arcadia 57,212 159,128 36,030 195,158 86,854 282,012 122,884 Bradbury 1,052 9,447 663 10,109 1,597 11,707 2,260 Duarte 21,673 - 13,649 13,649 32,902 46,551 46,551 La Cañada Flintridge 20,461 46,207 12,886 59,093 31,062 90,155 43,948 Monrovia 37,935 80,697 23,890 104,587 57,590 162,177 81,480 Pasadena 144,842 799,494 91,216 890,710 219,887 1,110,597 311,103 Rosemead 54,363 - 34,236 34,236 82,529 116,765 116,765 San Gabriel 40,104 175,000 25,256 200,256 60,882 261,138 86,138 San Marino 13,087 40,979 8,242 49,221 19,868 69,088 28,109 Sierra Madre 10,816 25,481 6,811 32,292 16,420 48,712 23,231 South Pasadena 25,458 79,905 16,032 95,937 38,648 134,586 54,681 Contract Cities Total 513,795 1,470,245 323,568 1,793,812 780,000 2,573,812 1,103,568 1 Department of Finance e-1 from January 2020 Appendix 8 and Appendix 9 provide detailed information relating to this cost allocation methodology for full-service and field-service-only models. 8.7.1 Other Discussion Points In either cost model, the Project Cities would experience significant annual increases in costs for the provision of animal services. Although a JPA would provide the cities with stronger ability to control cost increases going forward, the cities are paying a significantly lower amount for the services being provided by the various service providers. A major reason for this seems to be, at least in the case of PHS, a large portion—approximately 47 percent in 2019—of its operating revenue comes from donations and fundraising activities that have been cultivated over the past 100-plus years. It is not uncommon in the animal control industry for portions of operations to be subsidized by donations and other indirect operational revenue sources. The levels experienced by PHS are an example of the major differences in funding practices between a private nonprofit Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 8—Discussion of Cost Development and JPA Cost Models page 87 organization versus a public municipal agency. Nonprofits rely on charitable contributions. While public agencies can and do receive donations (which are tax-deductible), they generally do not rely heavily on them as a funding source. Citygate would recommend the cities conduct financial audits for each applicable service provider to ensure accurate allocation of revenues and costs and to ensure financial operations are being performed efficiently to minimize costs to the extent possible. Citygate would also suggest the cities establish a user group consisting of representatives from each city that would meet periodically to ensure contract term consistency, identify and discuss like concerns or other issues, and to collaborate on the development of plans and strategies to meet animal services needs. This would provide better collaboration without the time and expense of establishing a formal JPA. This user group should also coordinate a financial audit of services to ensure costs and revenues are accurate and are allocated correctly to various cities. Although both models included cost estimates for the hiring of staff and equipment to handle the fiscal operations function of the JPA, consideration should be given to having just one of the contract cities handle the fiscal function for a fee to the JPA. A member agency may be able to perform the fiscal agent function at an overall savings to the JPA due to potential economies of scale, given that the cities already have established fiscal processes, procedures, and mechanisms in place. It must be stressed that implementation of the field-service-only model will still require separate negotiations with a contractor to provide sheltering-related services (including veterinary services). The costs, however, should be significantly less than the costs included in the full-service model because there would not be a need for startup costs, training of new personnel, development of operations procedures and policies, etc. Citygate would recommend obtaining cost estimates from potential shelter service providers currently being used. The cost quotes should, at a minimum, be based on a price per animal and should include a mechanism for the cities to verify the accuracy of the impounded animal counts, jurisdiction, outcome, and other parameters affecting the cost. The cities have experienced regular increases in the contract costs over the years. The substantial increase proposed for FY 19/20 with short notice was part of the impetus for this study. One notable benefit of a JPA is the ability to manage and directly influence the agency budget. If outside providers continue to require large annual increases, in the long term a JPA could provide a solution for the Project Cities. This page was intentionally left blank Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 9—Preferred Animal Care and Control Model(s) page 89 SECTION 9—PREFERRED ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL MODEL(S) The full-service JPA model discussed in this report would provide the Project Cities with a new state-of-the-art facility and a best practices animal care and control program. The cities would manage the costs and establish desired services and service levels. As a separate entity, the JPA would handle highly visible and controversial animal control issues. The startup costs for a full- service JPA are substantial and it will take time to form the JPA, hire the Director, plan and build the facility, and hire and train staff. The alternative of a field-service-only model is the more feasible option and would have a shorter implementation time frame. The ongoing challenge would be obtaining the sheltering services and veterinary services, which are necessary and costly, until a full-service agency can be formed. 9.1 CITYGATE FINAL OPINION The Project Cities have taken a good first step by identifying the contract concerns and forming a working group. The current efforts to standardize the contracting components will result in a more equitable model as the Project Cities plan for the future. Citygate asserts that the Project Cities would be well served if they chose to move forward with the field-service-only JPA as a first phase and consider progressing with the full-service JPA with careful evaluation and planning. The long-term benefits of either model would include: Efficient and effective use of limited taxpayer resources over the long term. Ability to control and expand the service level and program components. A professional and well-managed animal care and control program. Member cities’ involvement in the program. Retention of revenues to offset General Fund costs. A public relations asset for the communities served. Phasing would include implementation of a field-service-only JPA with ongoing program evaluation. Phasing would allow for assessment of animal intakes and other factors that ultimately drive the size and composition of the animal care and control facility. As the program for a full- service JPA is evaluated and planned, the scale would be adjusted to the current and projected future needs. As ongoing animal intake trends are examined the scale of the shelter facility would be adjusted to match the trend. While the field-service-only model shows a potential increase in cost, a well-structured licensing and outreach program will increase compliance and licensing revenue over time, resulting in a Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 9—Preferred Animal Care and Control Model(s) page 90 lowered net cost. The Project Cities will also need to have a high level of commitment to the new agency for it to be successful. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 10—Summary of Findings and Recommendations page 91 SECTION 10—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 FINDINGS The following are Citygate’s findings for this JPA feasibility analysis: Finding #1: The major factor contributing to conducting a feasibility study for an animal services JPA was the large, proposed increase in the contract services costs to the Project Cities with short notice and little explanation as to what was driving the increases. Finding #2: All Project Cities are funding the animal services programs through the General Fund and this is expected to be a major funding source going forward. Finding #3: Formation of a full-service JPA providing both an animal shelter and a field services component would provide a consistent model for animal care and control for all cities that opt in for full services. Finding #4: Formation of a full-service JPA would enable the Project Cities to manage costs going forward, establish the desired service level(s), determine policies and priorities, and retain revenues charged for consumer services. Finding #5: The projected startup costs for a full-service JPA are estimated to be approximately $19.2 million. Finding #6: Ongoing annual cost estimates for a full-service JPA are estimated at a net of approximately $6.9 million. Finding #7: Although all the Project Cities are willing to explore the possibility of an animal services JPA, even if additional funding would be required to provide future cost savings and cost control, the amount of additional funding remains a concern. Finding #8: Personnel from successful animal services JPA models interviewed for this study highlighted the value of member representatives’ involvement, the benefits of a proactive outreach and licensing program, and the benefits of a nonprofit affiliate to support the agency, which they recommend. Finding #9: A field-service-only JPA would meet some of the Project Cities’ stated goals and would allow the cities better control of field services, including reducing response time, managing priorities and service levels, and controlling costs for field services going forward. This model would still require a separate provider of sheltering and veterinary services, which would likely vary from city to city. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 10—Summary of Findings and Recommendations page 92 Finding #10: The projected startup costs for a field-service-only JPA are estimated to be $780,000. Finding #11: Ongoing annual cost estimates for a field-service-only JPA are estimated at a net of approximately $324,000. Finding #12: The timeline for establishing a full-service JPA is approximately 3.5 years, or 42 months. Finding #13: The timeline for establishing a field-service-only JPA is approximately 20 months. Finding #14: The current contracts for the various animal control services providers to the Project Cities contain inconsistent financial terms. Examples include varying levels of dog licensing, impound, and other fee revenues that are credited back to the respective city. The contract format and methodology are inconsistent and differ from city to city. Finding #15: The current methodology used by the Project Cities to identify calls for service varies among the cities making an apples-to-apples comparison difficult. 10.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Citygate’s review, both full-service and field-service-only models are feasible; however, the full-service model is substantially more expensive than the field-service-only model, as presented in this report. Consequently, Citygate identifies recommendations for each model so the Project Cities can make an informed decision. Each list of recommendations is uniquely labeled and numbered sequentially beginning with 1. Each general recommendation begins with “Recommendation”; each full-service (FS) JPA recommendation begins with “FS Recommendation”; each field-service-only (FSO) recommendation begins with “FSO Recommendation”; and each status quo (SQ) recommendation begins with “SQ Recommendation.” 10.2.1 General Recommendations for JPA Formation Recommendation #1: The Project Cities must understand that establishing a JPA is a time- intensive process and commit to the time, effort, and collaboration required for formation. Recommendation #2: Animal license fees and other animal services consumer fees, as well as local ordinances pertaining to animals, should be consistent for all the entities participating in the JPA. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 10—Summary of Findings and Recommendations page 93 Recommendation #3: Planned phasing schedules are recommended for the implementation of a JPA. Recommendation #4: If a JPA is implemented, there should be a threshold number of years of commitment (three to five years) by each member city to allow for the successful implementation of the new agency. Recommendation #5: The cost of renovation or construction of an animal shelter needs to be thoroughly studied if the Project Cities decide to proceed with a full-service JPA model. We recommend that only architectural firms that are experienced in the design and construction of modern animal shelter facilities be considered for the engagement. Renovating an existing building is not recommended. Recommendation #6: Based on the diversity of the San Gabriel Valley, promoting a culture that welcomes a multi-lingual workforce and has strong anti- discrimination policies is recommended and will create a positive image for the agency. Recommendation #7: If a full-service JPA is pursued, the most cost-effective model for providing animal control is to form the largest possible agency to provide services to a local community. This type of model reduces duplication of effort and management overhead costs, provides effective outreach and spay/neuter programs, and capitalizes on the benefits of scale relative to staffing, purchasing, veterinary care, communications, information technology, community education, and revenue generation. Recommendation #8: Implementation of a proactive outreach and licensing program would result in enhanced licensing revenue that could offset the program costs. Initiation at the onset of operations and media outreach about the program will increase the success of the JPA as licensing compliance increases year after year. Recommendation #9: Although both models included cost estimates for the hiring of staff and equipment to handle the fiscal operations function of the JPA, consideration should be given to having one of the Project Cities handle the fiscal function for a fee to the JPA. A member agency may be able to perform the fiscal agent function at an overall savings to the JPA. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 10—Summary of Findings and Recommendations page 94 Recommendation #10: A structured training program, paired with a current policies and procedures manual, will be required as a critical component of the agency. Recommendation #11: FICA should be used as the retirement option if the JPA is established to minimize initial costs. Recommendation #12: The governance of the JPA should consist of the following: Table 16—JPA Governance Roles and Responsibilities Board/Committee Membership Responsibilities Frequency Governing Board City Manager or designee of each member city Set operating policy and approve or disapprove of operational and fiscal recommendations of the various committees Monthly during JPA formation; quarterly after JPA creation Operations Committee Representative of each member city who has operational monitoring responsibility for animal-service-related functions Review JPA operations and make recommendations to the governing board Monthly during JPA formation; quarterly after JPA creation Finance Committee Finance Director or designee of each city Review budget and fiscal matters of the JPA and make recommendations to the governing board Monthly during JPA formation; quarterly after JPA creation Legislative/Legal Committee City Attorney or designee of each city Provide legal services related to the JPA operations. Monthly during JPA formation; quarterly after JPA creation 10.2.2 Full-Service (FS) JPA Recommendations FS Recommendation #1: Based on the geography of the western San Gabriel Valley and the locations of the 12 potential cities, a full-service JPA facility should be located centrally in the service district. This would most likely place the JPA facility in the City of Pasadena. If another city has a potential site, it should be evaluated for how it meets the criteria for an appropriate location. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 10—Summary of Findings and Recommendations page 95 FS Recommendation #2: If a full-service JPA is implemented, two of the Project Cities that have internally operated field services animal control functions should be provided with options that would allow them to maintain this control in house. FS Recommendation #3: The JPA should implement a proactive and progressive education, licensing, and outreach program to ensure that the growing community it serves is informed on responsible pet ownership and is provided resources to ensure the welfare of animals. FS Recommendation #4: The JPA should ensure that metrics information such as calls for service and animals sheltered are consistent among the Project Cities. FS Recommendation #5: The initial cost allocation methodology should be 50 percent human population, 25 percent calls for service, and 25 percent animals sheltered. This cost allocation methodology should be reviewed periodically to ensure it remains equitable. FS Recommendation #6: Review and adjust fees to more accurately reflect the combination of market elasticity and cost recovery. 10.2.3 Field-Service-Only (FSO) JPA Recommendations FSO Recommendation #1: If a field-service-only JPA is formed, the animal licensing program should be included. This would best ensure compliance with state codes mandating all dogs over four months old to be licensed and would provide revenue to supplement the General Fund contributions from the cities. FSO Recommendation #2: If the chosen model is a field-service-only JPA, the physical location should be situated near the sheltering facility and should include adequate office space, storage, and secured parking. FSO Recommendation #3: The JPA should ensure that metrics information such as calls for service are consistent among the member cities. FSO Recommendation #4: The initial cost allocation methodology should be 50 percent human population and 50 percent calls for service. This cost allocation methodology should be reviewed periodically to ensure it remains equitable. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 10—Summary of Findings and Recommendations page 96 FSO Recommendation #5: Review and adjust fees to more accurately reflect the combination of market elasticity and cost recovery. 10.2.4 Status Quo (SQ) Future Contracting Recommendations SQ Recommendation #1: Future contracts with the entities that provide either full or partial animal control services to the Project Cities should be consistent in the terms, the portion(s) of revenue credited to the cities, and service delivery models. Reporting to the cities should be standardized in collaboration with the cities on the information desired in the monthly reports. SQ Recommendation #2: Services important to the Project Cities should be delineated in any future contracts. For example, if the cities desire patrols, assistance with wildlife concerns (including coyotes), established response times for different priority field activities, license canvassing, rabies and licensing clinics, issuance of citation, and participation in community events, these should be specified in the contract model. SQ Recommendation #3: Any future contract negotiations should be timed to precede the Project Cities’ budget cycles to allow for appropriate planning and negotiations. SQ Recommendation #4: Future contracts should include a no-fault cancellation clause for the Project Cities and establish an upper limit to increases not to exceed the Consumer Price Index. SQ Recommendation #5: Future contracts should require, at a minimum, an annual update to the city by the service provider to discuss current year-to-date activity and service issues, how these issues will be addressed going forward, and any anticipated budget issues for the next fiscal year. SQ Recommendation #6: The Project Cities should ensure there are dedicated individuals assigned to validate that all the services called for in the contract were in fact received from the respective animal services providers. SQ Recommendation #7: Establish a user group consisting of representatives from the Project Cities to meet periodically to ensure contract term consistency, identify and discuss like concerns or other issues, and to collaborate on the development of plans and strategies to meet animal service needs. Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena – Animal Services JPA Feasibility Assessment Section 10—Summary of Findings and Recommendations page 97 SQ Recommendation #8: Complete a fiscal review of the existing animal service providers to ensure that costs, revenues, and cost allocations to cities are accurate and efficient. This page was intentionally left blank APPENDIX 1 ANIMAL SERVICES JPA ESTIMATED STARTUP COSTS – FULL-SERVICE AND FIELD-SERVICE-ONLY This page was intentionally left blank Animal Services JPA Estimated Startup Costs — Full-Service Field Services (Includes Dispatch) Shelter Center Operations Veterinary Services Administration Total 1,450,000$ 7,975,000$ 4,350,000$ 725,000$ 14,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 312,500$ 1,718,750$ 937,500$ 156,250$ 3,125,000$ 1,762,500$ 9,693,750$ 5,287,500$ 881,250$ 17,625,000$ 100,000$ 325,000$ 160,000$ 35,000$ 620,000$ 400,000$ 40,000$ -$ -$ 440,000$ 300,000$ 50,000$ 10,000$ 25,000$ 385,000$ 30,000$ 80,000$ 25,000$ 20,000$ 155,000$ 2,592,500$ 10,188,750$ 5,482,500$ 961,250$ 19,225,000$ Animal Services JPA Estimated Startup Costs — Field-Service-Only Total Annual Estimated Lease Cost Total Estimated Purchase Cost Field Services (Includes Dispatch) Shelter Center Operations Veterinary Services Administration 60,000$ N/A 24,000$ -$ -$ 36,000$ -$ 80,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 440,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 60,000$ 780,000$ 24,000$ -$ -$ 36,000$ Vehicles IT Equipment, Dispatch Equipment, Financial Software and Hardware Leasing Fees Total Costs Cost Component Annual Estimated Lease Cost Distribution Building/Land (Lease Rates in Pasadena - $30 Per Suare Foot Per Year; Estimated Building at 2,000 Square Feet) Furniture Employee Equipment/Uniforms, Radios, Office Supplies, etc. Total Startup Costs Total Building, Land, Furniture, Fixtures Cost Component Vehicles (11) Miscellaneous (Office Supplies, Animal Food, Medicine, etc.) IT/Dispatch/Financial Services Equipment and Software Building & Land (10% Field; 55% Shelter; 30% Vet; 5% Admin) Land (10% Field; 55% Shelter; 30% Vet; 5% Admin) Fixtures (10% Field; 55% Shelter; 30% Vet; 5% Admin) Equipment/Uniforms/Radios/Furniture, etc. Page 1 of 1 This page was intentionally left blank APPENDIX 2 ANIMAL SERVICES JPA DEBT FINANCING CALCULATIONS – FULL- SERVICE This page was intentionally left blank Animal Services JPA Debt Financing Calculations — Full-Service Year Total Debt Service Principal Interest Outstanding Debt Year Total Debt Service Principal Interest Outstanding Debt Net Bond Proceeds for Applicable Startup Costs 17,625,000$ 1 1,289,827$ 714,146$ 575,681$ 18,475,229$ 1 320,255$ 276,255$ 44,000$ 1,190,420$ Debt Issuance Costs 264,375$ 2 1,289,827$ 735,571$ 554,257$ 17,739,658$ 2 320,255$ 284,543$ 35,713$ 905,877$ Debt Service Reserve Requirement 1,300,000$ 3 1,289,827$ 757,638$ 532,190$ 16,982,021$ 3 320,255$ 293,079$ 27,176$ 612,799$ Total Bond Size 19,189,375$ 4 1,289,827$ 780,367$ 509,461$ 16,201,654$ 4 320,255$ 301,871$ 18,384$ 310,927$ 5 1,289,827$ 803,778$ 486,050$ 15,397,876$ 5 320,255$ 310,927$ 9,328$ 0$ Terms:6 1,289,827$ 827,891$ 461,936$ 14,569,985$ 1,601,276$ 1,466,675$ 134,601$ Interest Rate 3% 7 1,289,827$ 852,728$ 437,100$ 13,717,257$ Maturity 20 years 8 1,289,827$ 878,310$ 411,518$ 12,838,947$ 9 1,289,827$ 904,659$ 385,168$ 11,934,288$ 10 1,289,827$ 931,799$ 358,029$ 11,002,490$ Net Proceeds for Applicable Startup Costs 1,445,000$ 11 1,289,827$ 959,753$ 330,075$ 10,042,737$ Debt Issuance Costs 21,675$ 12 1,289,827$ 988,545$ 301,282$ 9,054,191$ Total Lease Size 1,466,675$ 13 1,289,827$ 1,018,202$ 271,626$ 8,035,990$ 14 1,289,827$ 1,048,748$ 241,080$ 6,987,242$ Terms:15 1,289,827$ 1,080,210$ 209,617$ 5,907,032$ Interest Rate 3%16 1,289,827$ 1,112,616$ 177,211$ 4,794,415$ Maturity 5 years 17 1,289,827$ 1,145,995$ 143,832$ 3,648,420$ 18 1,289,827$ 1,180,375$ 109,453$ 2,468,046$ 19 1,289,827$ 1,215,786$ 74,041$ 1,252,260$ 20 1,289,827$ 1,252,260$ 37,568$ 0$ 25,796,548$ 19,189,375$ 6,607,173$ Shelter Center Operations Veterinary Services Administration Total 853,483$ 460,777$ 79,470$ 1,610,083$ Total Estimated Annual First Year Debt Service Amortization Schedule — Short Term Lease Long Term Debt Short Term Lease Financing Amortization Schedule — Longer Term Bonds Field Services (Includes Dispatch) 216,352$ Page 1 of 1 This page was intentionally left blank APPENDIX 3 ANIMAL SERVICES JPA ESTIMATED REVENUE – FULL-SERVICE AND FIELD- SERVICE-ONLY This page was intentionally left blank Animal Services JPA Estimated Revenue — Full-Service Line Item Total (Normalized Year) Field Services (Includes Dispatch) Shelter Center Operations Veterinary Services Administration City Contract Fees - Alhambra 107,813$ 33,604$ 36,404$ 12,601$ 25,203$ City Contract Fees - Arcadia 318,256$ 99,197$ 107,463$ 37,199$ 74,398$ City Contract Fees - Bradbury 18,894$ 5,889$ 6,380$ 2,208$ 4,417$ City Contract Fees - Duarte 62,000$ 19,325$ 20,935$ 7,247$ 14,494$ City Contract Fees - La Cañada Flintridge 92,414$ 28,804$ 31,205$ 10,802$ 21,603$ City Contract Fees - Monrovia 161,394$ 50,305$ 54,497$ 18,864$ 37,728$ City Contract Fees - Pasadena 1,598,989$ 498,386$ 539,918$ 186,895$ 373,790$ City Contract Fees - Rosemead 62,000$ 19,325$ 20,935$ 7,247$ 14,494$ City Contract Fees - San Gabriel 350,000$ 109,091$ 118,182$ 40,909$ 81,818$ City Contract Fees - San Marino 81,959$ 25,546$ 27,674$ 9,580$ 19,159$ City Contract Fees - Sierra Madre 50,962$ 15,884$ 17,208$ 5,957$ 11,913$ City Contract Fees - South Pasadena 159,810$ 49,811$ 53,962$ 18,679$ 37,358$ Total City Contract Fees 3,064,489$ 955,166$ 1,034,763$ 358,187$ 716,374$ Impound Fees - Alhambra 6,000$ 1,870$ 2,026$ 701$ 1,403$ Impound Fees - Arcadia 2,300$ 717$ 777$ 269$ 538$ Impound Fees - Bradbury 40$ 12$ 14$ 5$ 9$ Impound Fees - Duarte 2,000$ 623$ 675$ 234$ 468$ Impound Fees - La Cañada Flintridge 1,300$ 405$ 439$ 152$ 304$ Impound Fees - Monrovia 1,700$ 530$ 574$ 199$ 397$ Impound Fees - Pasadena 23,000$ 7,169$ 7,766$ 2,688$ 5,377$ Impound Fees - Rosemead 1,300$ 405$ 439$ 152$ 304$ Impound Fees - San Gabriel 1,300$ 405$ 439$ 152$ 304$ Impound Fees - San Marino 1,700$ 530$ 574$ 199$ 397$ Impound Fees - Sierra Madre 300$ 94$ 101$ 35$ 70$ Impound Fees - South Pasadena 2,200$ 686$ 743$ 257$ 514$ Total Impound Fees 43,140$ 13,446$ 14,567$ 5,042$ 10,085$ License Fees - Alhambra 101,991$ 31,789$ 34,438$ 11,921$ 23,842$ License Fees - Arcadia 84,992$ 26,491$ 28,699$ 9,934$ 19,868$ License Fees - Bradbury 6,374$ 1,987$ 2,152$ 745$ 1,490$ License Fees - Duarte 61,194$ 19,074$ 20,663$ 7,153$ 14,305$ License Fees - La Cañada Fintridge 80,743$ 25,167$ 27,264$ 9,437$ 18,875$ License Fees - Monrovia 127,488$ 39,737$ 43,048$ 14,901$ 29,802$ License Fees - Pasadena 286,849$ 89,407$ 96,858$ 33,528$ 67,056$ License Fees - Rosemead 39,946$ 12,451$ 13,488$ 4,669$ 9,338$ License Fees - San Gabriel 7,437$ 2,318$ 2,511$ 869$ 1,738$ License Fees - San Marino 53,120$ 16,557$ 17,937$ 6,209$ 12,418$ License Fees - Sierra Madre 46,746$ 14,570$ 15,784$ 5,464$ 10,928$ License Fees - South Pasadena 53,120$ 16,557$ 17,937$ 6,209$ 12,418$ Total License Fees 950,000$ 296,104$ 320,779$ 111,039$ 222,078$ Penalties - Alhambra 1,582$ 493$ 534$ 185$ 370$ Penalties - Arcadia 6,222$ 1,939$ 2,101$ 727$ 1,454$ Penalties - Bradbury 105$ 33$ 36$ 12$ 25$ Penalties - Duarte 844$ 263$ 285$ 99$ 197$ Penalties - La Cañada Fintridge 5,800$ 1,808$ 1,958$ 678$ 1,356$ Penalties - Monrovia 4,535$ 1,413$ 1,531$ 530$ 1,060$ Penalties - Pasadena 15,818$ 4,930$ 5,341$ 1,849$ 3,698$ Penalties - Rosemead 844$ 263$ 285$ 99$ 197$ Penalties - San Gabriel 2,109$ 657$ 712$ 247$ 493$ Penalties - San Marino 2,742$ 855$ 926$ 320$ 641$ Penalties - Sierra Madre 1,055$ 329$ 356$ 123$ 247$ Penalties - South Pasadena 4,745$ 1,479$ 1,602$ 555$ 1,109$ Total Penalties 46,400$ 14,462$ 15,668$ 5,423$ 10,847$ Cost Center Allocation — Normalized Year Page 1 of 2 Line Item Total (Normalized Year) Field Services (Includes Dispatch) Shelter Center Operations Veterinary Services Administration Cost Center Allocation — Normalized Year Daily Board Fees 35,000$ 10,909$ 11,818$ 4,091$ 8,182$ State Unaltered Penalty Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Owner Relinquishment Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Medical Treatment Fees 169,800$ 52,925$ 57,335$ 19,847$ 39,694$ DOA Fees 1,800$ 561$ 608$ 210$ 421$ DOA Pickup Fees 7,300$ 2,275$ 2,465$ 853$ 1,706$ Cremation Fees 28,000$ 8,727$ 9,455$ 3,273$ 6,545$ Adoption Fees 500,500$ 156,000$ 169,000$ 58,500$ 117,000$ Spay / Neuter Fees 200,000$ 62,338$ 67,532$ 23,377$ 46,753$ Vaccinations/ Medications 18,000$ 5,610$ 6,078$ 2,104$ 4,208$ Vaccination Clinics 189,800$ 59,158$ 64,088$ 22,184$ 44,369$ Emergency Vet Service -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Microchip Fees 35,000$ 10,909$ 11,818$ 4,091$ 8,182$ Outside Veterinary Services -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Owner Relinquishment Pickup Fee 8,000$ 2,494$ 2,701$ 935$ 1,870$ Euthanasia - Service Fee 500$ 156$ 169$ 58$ 117$ Euthanasia - Pick Up Fee 500$ 156$ 169$ 58$ 117$ Quarantine / Protective Custody -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Admin Citation Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Business License Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Other Consumer Fees 1,194,200$ 372,218$ 403,236$ 139,582$ 279,164$ Total Consumer Fees 2,233,740$ 696,231$ 754,250$ 261,086$ 522,173$ Investment Income 5,000$ 1,558$ 1,688$ 584$ 1,169$ Donations 50,000$ 15,584$ 16,883$ 5,844$ 11,688$ Grants -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Retail Sales -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cash - Over/Short -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Miscellaneous 100,000$ 31,169$ 33,766$ 11,688$ 23,377$ Total Other Revenues 155,000$ 48,312$ 52,338$ 18,117$ 36,234$ Initial Member Agencies' Contribution for Non-Finance Eligible Startup Costs (Initial Year Only) 155,000$ 30,000$ 80,000$ 25,000$ 20,000$ Total All Revenues 5,608,229$ 1,729,708$ 1,921,350$ 662,390$ 1,294,781$ Page 2 of 2 Animal Services JPA Estimated Revenue — Field-Service-Only Line Item Total (Normalized Year) Field Services (Includes Dispatch) Shelter Center Operations Veterinary Services Administration City Contract Fees - Alhambra 53,906$ 49,414$ -$ -$ 4,492$ City Contract Fees - Arcadia 159,128$ 145,867$ -$ -$ 13,261$ City Contract Fees - Bradbury 9,447$ 8,660$ -$ -$ 787$ City Contract Fees - Duarte -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ City Contract Fees - La Cañada Flintridge 46,207$ 42,356$ -$ -$ 3,851$ City Contract Fees - Monrovia 80,697$ 73,972$ -$ -$ 6,725$ City Contract Fees - Pasadena 799,494$ 732,870$ -$ -$ 66,625$ City Contract Fees - Rosemead -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ City Contract Fees - San Gabriel 175,000$ 160,417$ -$ -$ 14,583$ City Contract Fees - San Marino 40,979$ 37,564$ -$ -$ 3,415$ City Contract Fees - Sierra Madre 25,481$ 23,358$ -$ -$ 2,123$ City Contract Fees - South Pasadena 79,905$ 73,246$ -$ -$ 6,659$ Total City Contract Fees 1,470,245$ 1,347,724$ -$ -$ 122,520$ Impound Fees - Alhambra -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - Arcadia -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - Bradbury -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - Duarte -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - La Cañada Flintridge -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - Monrovia -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - Pasadena -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - Rosemead -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - San Gabriel -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - San Marino -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - Sierra Madre -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Impound Fees - South Pasadena -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Impound Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ License Fees - Alhambra 101,991$ 93,491$ -$ -$ 8,499$ License Fees - Arcadia 84,992$ 77,909$ -$ -$ 7,083$ License Fees - Bradbury 6,374$ 5,843$ -$ -$ 531$ License Fees - Duarte 61,194$ 56,095$ -$ -$ 5,100$ License Fees - La Cañada Flintridge 80,743$ 74,014$ -$ -$ 6,729$ License Fees - Monrovia 127,488$ 116,864$ -$ -$ 10,624$ License Fees - Pasadena 286,849$ 262,945$ -$ -$ 23,904$ License Fees - Rosemead 39,946$ 36,617$ -$ -$ 3,329$ License Fees - San Gabriel 7,437$ 6,817$ -$ -$ 620$ License Fees - San Marino 53,120$ 48,693$ -$ -$ 4,427$ License Fees - Sierra Madre 46,746$ 42,850$ -$ -$ 3,895$ License Fees - South Pasadena 53,120$ 48,693$ -$ -$ 4,427$ Total License Fees 950,000$ 870,833$ -$ -$ 79,167$ Penalties - Alhambra 1,582$ 1,450$ -$ -$ 132$ Penalties - Arcadia 6,222$ 5,703$ -$ -$ 518$ Penalties - Bradbury 105$ 97$ -$ -$ 9$ Penalties - Duarte 844$ 773$ -$ -$ 70$ Penalties - La Cañada Flintridge 5,800$ 5,317$ -$ -$ 483$ Penalties - Monrovia 4,535$ 4,157$ -$ -$ 378$ Penalties - Pasadena 15,818$ 14,500$ -$ -$ 1,318$ Penalties - Rosemead 844$ 773$ -$ -$ 70$ Penalties - San Gabriel 2,109$ 1,933$ -$ -$ 176$ Penalties - San Marino 2,742$ 2,513$ -$ -$ 228$ Penalties - Sierra Madre 1,055$ 967$ -$ -$ 88$ Penalties - South Pasadena 4,745$ 4,350$ -$ -$ 395$ Total Penalties 46,400$ 42,533$ -$ -$ 3,867$ Cost Center Allocation — Normalized Year Page 1 of 2 Line Item Total (Normalized Year) Field Services (Includes Dispatch) Shelter Center Operations Veterinary Services Administration Cost Center Allocation — Normalized Year Daily Board Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ State Unaltered Penalty Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Owner Relinquishment Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Medical Treatment Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DOA Fees 1,800$ 1,650$ -$ -$ 150$ DOA Pickup Fees 7,300$ 6,692$ -$ -$ 608$ Cremation Fees 28,000$ 25,667$ -$ -$ 2,333$ Adoption Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Spay / Neuter Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Vaccinations/ Medications -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Vaccination Clinics -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Emergency Vet Service -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Microchip Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Outside Veterinary Services -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Owner Relinquishment Pickup Fee 8,000$ 7,333$ -$ -$ 667$ Euthanasia - Service Fee -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Euthanasia - Pick Up Fee -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Quarantine / Protective Custody -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Admin Citation Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Business License Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Other Consumer Fees 45,100$ 41,342$ -$ -$ 3,758$ Total Consumer Fees 1,041,500$ 954,708$ -$ -$ 86,792$ Investment Income 2,500$ 2,292$ -$ -$ 208$ Donations 50,000$ 45,833$ -$ -$ 4,167$ Grants -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Retail Sales -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cash - Over/Short -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Miscellaneous 50,000$ 45,833$ -$ -$ 4,167$ Total Other Revenues 102,500$ 93,958$ -$ -$ 8,542$ Initial Member Agencies' Contribution for Non-Finance Eligible Startup Costs (Initial Year Only) 50,000$ 30,000$ -$ -$ 20,000$ Total All Revenues 2,664,245$ 2,426,391$ -$ -$ 237,854$ Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX 4 ANIMAL SERVICES JPA ESTIMATED PERSONNEL COSTS – FULL-SERVICE This page was intentionally left blank Animal Services JPA Estimated Personnel Costs — Full-Service Fulltime Position Number of FTEs Cost Center Cost Ctr Code Estimated Salary Range Total Fully Burdened Personnel Cost Estimated Full- Time Salary (Mid-Range) Total Unburdened Salary Overtime Social Security Retirement Health Dental / Vision Life Insurance / Disability Workers Compensation Unemployment Other Fringe Benefits Total Burden/Fringe Total Burden/Fringe % of Total Salary Director 1 Administration 1 145,000 - 190,000 219,371$ $ 167,500 167,500$ $ - $ 12,814 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 10,050$ 838$ $ 16,750 51,871$ 31.0% Deputy Director 1 Administration 1 130,000 - 170,000 197,645$ $ 150,000 150,000$ $ - $ 11,475 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 9,000$ 750$ $ 15,000 47,645$ 31.8% Supervising Administrative Assistant 1 Administration 1 65,000 - 88,000 102,945$ $ 76,500 76,500$ $ 4,200 $ 5,852 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,590$ 383$ $ - 22,245$ 27.6% Financial Administrator 1 Administration 1 75,000 - 110,000 117,009$ $ 92,500 92,500$ $ - $ 7,076 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 5,550$ 463$ $ - 24,509$ 26.5% Financial Specialist 1 Administration 1 65,000 - 88,000 98,745$ $ 76,500 76,500$ $ - $ 5,852 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,590$ 383$ $ - 22,245$ 29.1% IT Administrator 1 Administration 1 72,000 - 100,500 109,874$ $ 86,250 86,250$ $ - $ 6,598 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 5,175$ 431$ $ - 23,624$ 27.4% Facility Manager 1 Shelter Operations 3 60,000 - 80,000 91,325$ $ 70,000 70,000$ $ - $ 5,355 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,200$ 350$ $ - 21,325$ 30.5% HR Director 1 Administration 1 80,000 - 110,000 119,863$ $ 95,000 95,000$ $ - $ 7,268 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 5,700$ 475$ $ - 24,863$ 26.2% Compliance Officer 1 Field Services 2 70,000 - 105,000 111,301$ $ 87,500 87,500$ $ - $ 6,694 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 5,250$ 438$ $ - 23,801$ 26.2% Shelter Director 1 Shelter Operations 3 80,000 - 110,000 119,863$ $ 95,000 95,000$ $ - $ 7,268 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 5,700$ 475$ $ - 24,863$ 26.2% Animal Care Manager 1 Shelter Operations 3 60,312 - 81,276 92,238$ $ 70,800 70,800$ $ - $ 5,416 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,248$ 354$ $ - 21,438$ 30.3% Animal Care Staff (12) Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Care Staff 1 Shelter Operations 3 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ $ 47,850 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Animal Intake Coordinator 1 Shelter Operations 3 48,552 - 65,424 80,686$ $ 57,000 57,000$ $ 4,200 $ 4,361 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,420$ 285$ $ - 19,486$ 31.8% Community Cat Coordinator 1 Shelter Operations 3 48,552 - 65,424 80,686$ $ 57,000 57,000$ $ 4,200 $ 4,361 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,420$ 285$ $ - 19,486$ 31.8% Customer Care Staff (8) Customer Care Staff 1 Administration 1 42,000 - 58,000 72,695$ $ 50,000 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Customer Care Staff 1 Administration 1 42,000 - 58,000 72,695$ $ 50,000 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Customer Care Staff 1 Administration 1 42,000 - 58,000 72,695$ $ 50,000 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Customer Care Staff 1 Administration 1 42,000 - 58,000 72,695$ $ 50,000 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Customer Care Staff 1 Administration 1 42,000 - 58,000 72,695$ $ 50,000 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Customer Care Staff 1 Administration 1 42,000 - 58,000 72,695$ $ 50,000 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Customer Care Staff 1 Administration 1 42,000 - 58,000 72,695$ $ 50,000 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Customer Care Staff 1 Administration 1 42,000 - 58,000 72,695$ $ 50,000 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Adoptions Manager 1 Shelter Operations 3 60,000 - 80,000 91,325$ $ 70,000 70,000$ $ - $ 5,355 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,200$ 350$ $ - 21,325$ 30.5% Adoptions Specialists (2) Adoptions Specialist 1 Shelter Operations 3 42,000 - 58,000 72,695$ $ 50,000 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Adoptions Specialist 1 Shelter Operations 3 42,000 - 58,000 72,695$ $ 50,000 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Volunteer Coordinator I-II 1 Shelter Operations 3 42,500 - 70,000 79,829$ $ 56,250 56,250$ $ 4,200 $ 4,303 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,375$ 281$ $ - 19,379$ 32.1% Outreach Coordinator 1 Administration 1 42,500 - 70,000 79,829$ $ 56,250 56,250$ $ 4,200 $ 4,303 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,375$ 281$ $ - 19,379$ 32.1% Public Information Officer 1 Administration 1 65,000 - 94,000 106,369$ 79,500$ 79,500$ 4,200$ $ 6,082 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,770$ 398$ $ - 22,669$ 27.1% Social Media Outreach Coordinator 1 Administration 1 42,500 - 70,000 75,629$ $ 56,250 56,250$ -$ $ 4,303 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,375$ 281$ $ - 19,379$ 34.5% Foster Manager 1 Shelter Operations 3 52,000 - 70,000 81,052$ 61,000$ 61,000$ -$ $ 4,667 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,660$ 305$ $ - 20,052$ 32.9% Foster Coordinator 1 Shelter Operations 3 48,000 - 65,000 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Transfer Coordinator 1 Shelter Operations 3 48,000 - 65,000 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Behavior Manager 1 Shelter Operations 3 48,000 - 65,000 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Behaviorist 1 Shelter Operations 3 40,000 - 58,000 71,554$ 49,000$ 49,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,749 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,940$ 245$ $ - 18,354$ 34.5% Chief Veterinarian 1 Veterinary Services 4 110,000 - 165,000 168,376$ 137,500$ 137,500$ -$ $ 10,519 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 8,250$ 688$ $ - 30,876$ 22.5% Staff Veterinarian (2) Staff Veterinarian 1 Veterinary Services 4 95,000 - 145,000 152,600$ 120,000$ 120,000$ $ 4,200 $ 9,180 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 7,200$ 600$ $ - 28,400$ 22.9% Staff Veterinarian 1 Veterinary Services 4 95,000 - 145,000 152,600$ 120,000$ 120,000$ $ 4,200 $ 9,180 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 7,200$ 600$ $ - 28,400$ 22.9% Health Program Coordinator 1 Veterinary Services 4 80,000 - 110,000 124,063$ 95,000$ 95,000$ $ 4,200 $ 7,268 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 5,700$ 475$ $ - 24,863$ 25.1% Registered Vet Tech (2) Registered Vet Tech 1 Veterinary Services 4 50,000 - 70,000 84,110$ 60,000$ 60,000$ $ 4,200 $ 4,590 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 -$ -$ $ - 19,910$ 31.0% Registered Vet Tech 1 Veterinary Services 4 50,000 - 70,000 84,110$ 60,000$ 60,000$ $ 4,200 $ 4,590 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,600$ 300$ $ - 19,910$ 31.0% Health Technicians (3) Health Technician 1 Veterinary Services 4 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ 47,850$ 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Health Technician 1 Veterinary Services 4 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ 47,850$ 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Health Technician 1 Veterinary Services 4 39,500 - 56,200 70,241$ 47,850$ 47,850$ $ 4,200 $ 3,661 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 2,871$ 239$ $ - 18,191$ 34.9% Field Services Director 1 Field Services 2 80,000 - 110,000 119,863$ 95,000$ 95,000$ -$ $ 7,268 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 5,700$ 475$ $ - 24,863$ 26.2% Lead Animal Control Officers (2) Lead Animal Control Officer 1 Field Services 2 52,000 - 70,000 83,052$ 61,000$ 61,000$ $ 2,000 $ 4,667 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,660$ 305$ $ - 20,052$ 31.8% Lead Animal Control Officer 1 Field Services 2 52,000 - 70,000 83,052$ 61,000$ 61,000$ $ 2,000 $ 4,667 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,660$ 305$ $ - 20,052$ 31.8% Lead Investigator 1 Field Services 2 52,000 - 70,000 83,052$ 61,000$ 61,000$ $ 2,000 $ 4,667 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,660$ 305$ $ - 20,052$ 31.8% Animal Control Officers (10) Animal Control Officer I 1 Field Services 2 44,000 - 59,280 74,578$ 51,650$ 51,650$ $ 4,200 $ 3,951 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,099$ 258$ $ - 18,728$ 33.5% Salary Fringe Benefits Page 1 of 2 Fulltime Position Number of FTEs Cost Center Cost Ctr Code Estimated Salary Range Total Fully Burdened Personnel Cost Estimated Full- Time Salary (Mid-Range) Total Unburdened Salary Overtime Social Security Retirement Health Dental / Vision Life Insurance / Disability Workers Compensation Unemployment Other Fringe Benefits Total Burden/Fringe Total Burden/Fringe % of Total Salary Salary Fringe Benefits Animal Control Officer I 1 Field Services 2 44,000 - 59,280 74,578$ 51,650$ 51,650$ $ 4,200 $ 3,951 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,099$ 258$ $ - 18,728$ 33.5% Animal Control Officer I 1 Field Services 2 44,000 - 59,280 74,578$ 51,650$ 51,650$ $ 4,200 $ 3,951 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,099$ 258$ $ - 18,728$ 33.5% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,552 - 65,424 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,552 - 65,424 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,552 - 65,424 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Animal Control Officer III 1 Field Services 2 51,756 - 69,756 85,023$ 60,800$ 60,800$ $ 4,200 $ 4,651 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,648$ 304$ $ - 20,023$ 30.8% Animal Control Officer III 1 Field Services 2 51,756 - 69,756 85,023$ 60,800$ 60,800$ $ 4,200 $ 4,651 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,648$ 304$ $ - 20,023$ 30.8% Animal Control Officer IV 1 Field Services 2 60,312 - 81,276 96,438$ 70,800$ 70,800$ $ 4,200 $ 5,416 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,248$ 354$ $ - 21,438$ 28.6% Animal Control Officer IV 1 Field Services 2 60,312 - 81,276 96,438$ 70,800$ 70,800$ $ 4,200 $ 5,416 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,248$ 354$ $ - 21,438$ 28.6% Dispatchers (4) Dispatcher 1 Field Services 2 40,000 - 58,000 72,695$ 50,000$ 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Dispatcher 1 Field Services 2 40,000 - 58,000 72,695$ 50,000$ 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Dispatcher 1 Field Services 2 40,000 - 58,000 72,695$ 50,000$ 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Dispatcher 1 Field Services 2 40,000 - 58,000 72,695$ 50,000$ 50,000$ $ 4,200 $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 34.1% Licensing Manager 1 Field Services 2 60,000 - 80,000 95,525$ 70,000$ 70,000$ $ 4,200 $ 5,355 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,200$ 350$ $ - 21,325$ 28.7% Licensing Team (4)-$ $ - Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,000 - 65,000 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,000 - 65,000 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,000 - 65,000 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,000 - 65,000 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Total Full-Time Personnel 77 6,816,685$ 4,951,200$ 4,951,200$ 253,800$ 378,767$ 831,600$ 31,570$ 16,170$ 297,072$ 24,756$ 31,750$ 1,611,685$ Other Retirement Plan 7.65% Health Exec Management $ 10,800 Health All Others $ 10,800 Dental / Vision $ 410 Life Ins / Disability $ 210 Workers Comp 6.0% Unemployment 0.50% Other 10% Fringe Rates as Percent of Unburdened Salary or Annual Cost Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX 5 ANIMAL SERVICES JPA COST MODEL SUMMARY – FULL-SERVICE This page was intentionally left blank Animal Services JPA Cost Model Summary — Full-Service Total (Normalized Year) Field Services (Includes Dispatch) Shelter Center Operations Veterinary Services Administration 3,064,489$ 955,166$ 1,034,763$ 358,187$ 716,374$ 43,140$ 13,446$ 14,567$ 5,042$ 10,085$ 950,000$ 296,104$ 320,779$ 111,039$ 222,078$ 46,400$ 14,462$ 15,668$ 5,423$ 10,847$ 1,194,200$ 372,218$ 403,236$ 139,582$ 279,164$ 155,000$ 48,312$ 52,338$ 18,117$ 36,234$ 155,000$ 30,000$ 80,000$ 25,000$ 20,000$ Total Operating Revenues 5,608,229$ 1,729,708$ 1,921,350$ 662,390$ 1,294,781$ 6,816,685$ 2,014,085$ 2,017,180$ 976,581$ 1,808,839$ 2,882,000$ 898,286$ 973,143$ 336,857$ 673,714$ 10,000$ 3,100$ 3,400$ 1,200$ 2,300$ 10,000$ 3,100$ 3,400$ 1,200$ 2,300$ 155,000$ 30,000$ 80,000$ 25,000$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Operating Expenses 9,873,685$ 2,948,570$ 3,077,122$ 1,340,838$ 2,507,154$ Total Operating Surplus/(Loss) (4,265,455)$ (1,218,863)$ (1,155,772)$ (678,448)$ (1,212,373)$ Other Sources/(Uses): -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (1,610,083)$ (216,352)$ (853,483)$ (460,777)$ (79,470)$ (493,684)$ (153,876)$ (166,699)$ (57,703)$ (115,407)$ (493,684)$ (153,876)$ (166,699)$ (57,703)$ (115,407)$ Total Other Sources/(Uses) (2,597,451)$ (524,103)$ (1,186,880)$ (576,184)$ (310,283)$ (6,862,906)$ (1,742,966)$ (2,342,653)$ (1,254,632)$ (1,522,656)$ Note: Reserve contribution is 5% of operating expense Normalized Year Total Full-Service Animal Services JPA Net Surplus/(Loss) Contract Agency Charges Impound Fees Animal Licenses Penalties Other Consumer Fees Other Revenues (Donations, Fundraisers, Other Charges) Initial Member Agencies' Contribution for Non-Finance Eligible Startup Costs (Initial Year Only) Operating Revenues: Operating Expenses: Personnel Cost Supplies and Services Equipment - Post Startup Capital Improvements - Post Startup Non-Finance Eligible Startup Costs (Initial Year Only) Other Operating Expenses Contribution for Equipment/Capital Repair and Replacement Reserves Bond proceeds Grants Debt Service Contribution for Operating Reserves Operating Reserve Contribution Page 1 of 1 This page was intentionally left blank APPENDIX 6 ANIMAL SERVICES JPA ESTIMATED PERSONNEL COSTS – FIELD-SERVICE- ONLY This page was intentionally left blank Animal Services JPA Estimated Personnel Costs — Field-Service-Only Fulltime Position Number of FTEs Cost Center Cost Ctr Code Estimated Salary Range Total Fully Burdened Personnel Cost Estimated Full- Time Salary (Mid-Range) Total Unburdened Salary Overtime/Call Back Social Security Retirement Health Dental / Vision Life Insurance / Disability Workers Compensation Unemployment Other Fringe Benefits Total Burden/Fringe Total Burden/Fringe % of Total Salary Director 1 Administration 1 145,000 - 190,000 219,371$ $ 167,500 167,500$ -$ $ 12,814 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 10,050$ 838$ $ 16,750 51,871$ 31.0% Financial Specialist 1 Administration 1 65,000 - 88,000 98,745$ $ 76,500 76,500$ -$ $ 5,852 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,590$ 383$ $ - 22,245$ 29.1% Field Services Director 1 Field Services 2 80,000 - 110,000 119,863$ 95,000$ 95,000$ -$ $ 7,268 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 5,700$ 475$ $ - 24,863$ 26.2% Lead Animal Control Officers (2) Lead Animal Control Officer 1 Field Services 2 52,000 - 70,000 83,052$ 61,000$ 61,000$ $ 2,000 $ 4,667 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,660$ 305$ $ - 20,052$ 31.8% Lead Animal Control Officer 1 Field Services 2 52,000 - 70,000 83,052$ 61,000$ 61,000$ $ 2,000 $ 4,667 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,660$ 305$ $ - 20,052$ 31.8% Lead Investigator 1 Field Services 2 44,000 - 59,280 72,436$ 51,700$ 51,700$ $ 2,000 $ 3,955 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,102$ 259$ $ - 18,736$ 34.9% Animal Control Officers (10) Animal Control Officer I 1 Field Services 2 44,000 - 59,280 74,578$ 51,650$ 51,650$ $ 4,200 $ 3,951 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,099$ 258$ $ - 18,728$ 33.5% Animal Control Officer I 1 Field Services 2 44,000 - 59,280 74,578$ 51,650$ 51,650$ $ 4,200 $ 3,951 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,099$ 258$ $ - 18,728$ 33.5% Animal Control Officer I 1 Field Services 2 44,000 - 59,280 74,578$ 51,650$ 51,650$ $ 4,200 $ 3,951 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,099$ 258$ $ - 18,728$ 33.5% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,552 - 65,424 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,552 - 65,424 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,552 - 65,424 80,115$ 56,500$ 56,500$ $ 4,200 $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 32.0% Animal Control Officer III 1 Field Services 2 51,756 - 69,756 85,023$ 60,800$ 60,800$ $ 4,200 $ 4,651 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,648$ 304$ $ - 20,023$ 30.8% Animal Control Officer III 1 Field Services 2 51,756 - 69,756 85,023$ 60,800$ 60,800$ $ 4,200 $ 4,651 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,648$ 304$ $ - 20,023$ 30.8% Animal Control Officer IV 1 Field Services 2 60,312 - 81,276 96,438$ 70,800$ 70,800$ $ 4,200 $ 5,416 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,248$ 354$ $ - 21,438$ 28.6% Animal Control Officer IV 1 Field Services 2 60,312 - 81,276 96,438$ 70,800$ 70,800$ $ 4,200 $ 5,416 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,248$ 354$ $ - 21,438$ 28.6% Dispatchers (3) Dispatcher 1 Field Services 2 40,000 - 58,000 68,495$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 37.0% Dispatcher 1 Field Services 2 40,000 - 58,000 68,495$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 37.0% Dispatcher 1 Field Services 2 40,000 - 58,000 68,495$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ $ 3,825 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,000$ 250$ $ - 18,495$ 37.0% Licensing Manager 1 Field Services 2 60,000 - 80,000 91,325$ 70,000$ 70,000$ -$ $ 5,355 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 4,200$ 350$ $ - 21,325$ 30.5% Licensing Team (4) Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,000 - 65,000 75,915$ 56,500$ 56,500$ -$ $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 34.4% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,000 - 65,000 75,915$ 56,500$ 56,500$ -$ $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 34.4% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,000 - 65,000 75,915$ 56,500$ 56,500$ -$ $ 4,322 $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 34.4% Animal Control Officer II 1 Field Services 2 48,000 - 65,000 75,915$ 56,500$ 56,500$ -$ 4,322$ $ 10,800 $ 410 $ 210 3,390$ 283$ $ - 19,415$ 34.4% Total Full-Time Personnel 24 2,103,989$ 1,546,350$ 1,546,350$ 48,000$ 118,296$ 259,200$ 10,660$ 5,460$ 92,781$ 7,732$ 16,750$ 510,879$ Health All Others $ 10,800 Dental / Vision $ 410 Life Ins / Disability $ 210 Workers Comp 6.0% Unemployment 0.50% Other 10% Fringe Rates as Percent of Unburdened Salary or Annual Cost Salary Fringe Benefits Page 1 of 1 This page was intentionally left blank APPENDIX 7 ANIMAL SERVICES JPA COST MODEL SUMMARY – FIELD-SERVICE-ONLY This page was intentionally left blank Animal Services JPA Cost Model Summary — Field-Service-Only Total (Normalized Year) Field Services (Includes Dispatch) Shelter Center Operations Veterinary Services Administration 1,470,245$ 1,347,724$ -$ -$ 122,520$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 950,000$ 870,833$ -$ -$ 79,167$ 46,400$ 42,533$ -$ -$ 3,867$ 45,100$ 41,342$ -$ -$ 3,758$ 102,500$ 93,958$ -$ -$ 8,542$ 50,000$ 30,000$ -$ -$ 20,000$ Total Operating Revenues 2,664,245$ 2,426,391$ -$ -$ 237,854$ 2,103,989$ 1,785,873$ -$ -$ 318,116$ 625,405$ 573,288$ -$ -$ 52,117$ 4,000$ 3,400$ -$ -$ 600$ 5,000$ 4,250$ -$ -$ 750$ 50,000$ 30,000$ -$ -$ 20,000$ Total Operating Expenses 2,788,394$ 2,396,810$ -$ -$ 391,583$ Total Operating Surplus/(Loss) (124,149)$ 29,581$ -$ -$ (153,729)$ Other Sources/(Uses): -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (60,000)$ (24,000)$ -$ -$ (36,000)$ (139,420)$ (127,801)$ -$ -$ (11,618)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Other Sources/(Uses) (199,420)$ (151,801)$ -$ -$ (47,618)$ (323,568)$ (122,221)$ -$ -$ (201,348)$ Notes: Contract charges are 50% of FY 19/20 contract payments Reserve contribution is 5% of operating expense Net operating amount excludes contract shelter services Bond proceeds Grants Debt Service Normalized Year Total Field-Service-Only Animal Services JPA Net Surplus/(Loss) Contract Agency Charges Impound Fees Animal Licenses Penalties Other Consumer Fees Other Revenues (Donations, Fundraisers, Other Charges) Initial Member Agencies' Contribution for Non-Finance Eligible Startup Costs (Initial Year Only) Personnel Cost Supplies and Services Equipment - Post Startup Contribution for Operating Reserves Contribution for Equipment/Capital Repair and Replacement Reserves Operating Reserve Contribution Capital Improvements - Post Startup Non-Finance Eligible Startup Costs (Initial Year Only) Other Operating Expenses Operating Revenues: Operating Expenses: Page 1 of 1 This page was intentionally left blank APPENDIX 8 ANIMAL SERVICES JPA COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY (NORMALIZED YEAR) – FULL-SERVICE This page was intentionally left blank Animal Services JPA Cost Allocation Summary (Normalized Year) — Full-Service Jurisdiction Current Population (DOF e-1 Jan 2020) Population % Net Agency Cost Per Existing Contracts Estimated New Costs Per Model Estimated Total Normalized Year Net Cost Per Model Alhambra 86,792 16.89% 107,813$ 1,159,305$ 1,267,118$ Arcadia 57,212 11.14% 318,256$ 764,197$ 1,082,453$ Bradbury 1,052 0.20% 18,894$ 14,052$ 32,946$ Duarte 21,673 4.22% 62,000$ 289,492$ 351,492$ La Cañada Flintridge 20,461 3.98% 92,414$ 273,303$ 365,717$ Monrovia 37,935 7.38% 161,394$ 506,709$ 668,102$ Pasadena 144,842 28.19% 1,598,989$ 1,934,695$ 3,533,684$ Rosemead 54,363 10.58% 62,000$ 726,142$ 788,142$ San Gabriel 40,104 7.81% 350,000$ 535,680$ 885,680$ San Marino 13,087 2.55% 81,959$ 174,807$ 256,765$ Sierra Madre 10,816 2.11% 50,962$ 144,472$ 195,434$ South Pasadena 25,458 4.95% 159,810$ 340,050$ 499,860$ Contract Cities Total 513,795 100% 3,064,489$ 6,862,905$ 9,927,394$ General Info Page 1 of 1 This page was intentionally left blank APPENDIX 9 ANIMAL SERVICES JPA COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY (NORMALIZED YEAR) – FIELD-SERVICE-ONLY This page was intentionally left blank Animal Services JPA Cost Allocation Summary (Normalized Year) — Field-Service-Only Jurisdiction Current Population (DOF e-1 Jan 2020) Population % Net Agency Cost Per Existing Contracts Total Net Additional Cost for Normalized Year based on Model Startup Cost Allocation (Population) Estimated Net Startup Costs Plus Normalized Year Costs Difference Current Net Agency Cost to New Estimated Net Agency Cost Alhambra 86,792 16.89% 53,906$ 108,564$ 131,760$ 240,325$ 186,418$ Arcadia 57,212 11.14% 159,128$ 195,158$ 86,854$ 282,012$ 122,884$ Bradbury 1,052 0.20% 9,447$ 10,109$ 1,597$ 11,707$ 2,260$ Duarte 21,673 4.22% -$ 13,649$ 32,902$ 46,551$ 46,551$ La Cañada Flintridge 20,461 3.98% 46,207$ 59,093$ 31,062$ 90,155$ 43,948$ Monrovia 37,935 7.38% 80,697$ 104,587$ 57,590$ 162,177$ 81,480$ Pasadena 144,842 28.19% 799,494$ 890,710$ 219,887$ 1,110,597$ 311,103$ Rosemead 54,363 10.58% -$ 34,236$ 82,529$ 116,765$ 116,765$ San Gabriel 40,104 7.81% 175,000$ 200,256$ 60,882$ 261,138$ 86,138$ San Marino 13,087 2.55% 40,979$ 49,221$ 19,868$ 69,088$ 28,109$ Sierra Madre 10,816 2.11% 25,481$ 32,292$ 16,420$ 48,712$ 23,231$ South Pasadena 25,458 4.95% 79,905$ 95,937$ 38,648$ 134,586$ 54,681$ Contract Cities Total 513,795 100% 1,470,245$ 1,793,812$ 780,000$ 2,573,812$ 1,103,568$ Note: Contract charges are 50% of FY 19/20 contract payments General Info Page 1 of 1 This page was intentionally left blank APPENDIX 10 ESTIMATED CURRENT DOG LICENSING COMPLIANCE IN THE PROJECT CITIES This page was intentionally left blank Estimated Current Dog Licensing Compliance in the Project Cities City Licenses Sold in 2019 Estimated Dog Population Estimated Dog Licensing Compliance Alhambra 2,282 31,304 7.29% Arcadia 2,866 20,863 13.74% Bradbury 81 401 20.20% Duarte 2,876 7,230 39.78% La Cañada Flintridge 1,553 6,991 22.21% Monrovia 2,580 14,819 17.41% Pasadena 8,660 61,649 14.05% Rosemead 3,063 14,794 20.70% San Gabriel 1,280 13,325 9.61% San Marino 922 4,422 20.85% Sierra Madre 921 5,036 18.29% South Pasadena 1,517 10,986 13.81% Total 28,601 191,820 14.91% Page 1 of 1 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL SHELTER AND ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES (Pasadena Humane /City of Arcadia) THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of this 1st day of July, 2021 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF ARCADIA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and the PASADENA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA, doing business as PASADENA HUMANE, a nonprofit corporation with headquarters at 361 South Raymond Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91105 (“Pasadena Humane"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Pasadena Humane is currently providing animal shelter and animal control services for City; and WHEREAS, City desires to maintain the services provided by Pasadena Humane and use the services, supplies, equipment, and facilities of Pasadena Humane in the enforcement and performance of the powers and duties as set forth in the City Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Pasadena Humane is willing to provide such services, supplies, materials, and use of its equipment and facilities in the enforcement and performance of said powers and duties and to provide animal shelter and animal control services herein stated; and WHEREAS, Pasadena Humane represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code, Section 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and WHEREAS, no official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of California Government Code, Sections 1090-1092, in the subject matter of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, City and Pasadena Humane do hereby agree as follows: 1.0 SERVICES PROVIDED BY PASADENA HUMANE 1.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES. Pasadena Humane shall perform the professional services identified in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. City shall have the right to request, in writing, additional services beyond what is set forth in the Scope of Services. Any such changes mutually agreed upon by the parties, and any corresponding increase in compensation, shall be incorporated by written amendment to this Agreement. Attachment No. 4 2 1.2 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES. Pursuant to this Agreement, Pasadena Humane shall provide personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence, and skill ordinarily exercised by service providers in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. 1.3 WARRANTY. Pasadena Humane warrants that it shall perform the services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers' compensation insurance and safety in employment; animal control and all other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Pasadena Humane warrants that it shall advise City of any changes in laws that my affect Pasadena Humane’s performance of this agreement. 1.4 PASADENA LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE. This Agreement is subject to the City of Pasadena's Living Wage Ordinance, Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 4.11. Pasadena Humane shall comply with the provisions of this Ordinance and shall be required to certify compliance with the Ordinance and provide supporting documentation during the term of the Agreement. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance may result in termination of this Agreement as well as other penalties as stated in Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 4.11. 1.5 NON-DISCRIMINATION. In performing this Agreement, Pasadena Humane shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religious creed color, national origin, ancestry, age, physical disability, mental disability, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code. Violation of this provision may result in the imposition of penalties referred to in Labor Code, Section 1735. 1.6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PRACTICES. Pasadena Humane agrees to comply with Section 4.08.035 of the City’s Competitive Bidding and Purchasing Ordinance of the Pasadena Municipal Code, the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code section 12900 et seq.) and to this end: 1.6.1 Pasadena Humane certifies and represents that, during the performance of this Agreement, the Pasadena Humane and any other parties with whom it may subcontract shall adhere to equal opportunity employment practices to assure that applicants and employees are treated equally and are not discriminated against because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, sex, age, medical condition, marital status, gender 3 identity. Pasadena Humane further certifies that it will not maintain any segregated facilities. 1.6.2 Pasadena Humane shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for applicants for employment placed by or on behalf of this Agreement, state that it is an “Equal Opportunity Employer” or that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, sex, age, medical condition, marital status, or gender identity. 1.6.3 Pasadena Humane shall, if requested to so do by the City, certify that it has not, in the performance of this Agreement, discriminated against applicants or employees because of their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, sex, age, medical condition, marital status, or gender identity. 1.6.4 If requested to do so by the City, Pasadena Humane shall provide the City with access to copies of all of its records pertaining or relating to its employment practices, except to the extent such records or portions of such records are confidential or privileged under state or federal law. 1.6.5 Pasadena Humane agrees to recruit Pasadena residents initially and to give them preference, if all other factors are equal, for any new positions which result from the performance of this Agreement and which are performed within the City. 1.6.6 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed in any manner so as to require or permit any act which is prohibited by law. 1.6.7 The Pasadena Humane shall include the provisions set forth in paragraphs numbered 1.6.1 through 1.6.6 of subsection 1.6 of this Agreement, inclusive, in each of its subcontracts. 1.7 DELEGATION AND ASSIGNMENT. Pasadena Humane cannot assign or delegate or otherwise transfer this Agreement or the rights or duties contained herein to any individual, person or legal entity without the written consent of the City. Pasadena Humane may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Pasadena Humane’s expense. 1.8 ANIMAL LICENSURE. Pasadena Humane shall issue City animal licenses for rabies vaccinated pets in compliance with licensing ordinances and fees as established by each individual City. One hundred percent of the revenue of the licensing service will be retained by Pasadena Humane. Such rates shall be established in accordance with all applicable State and local laws and as adopted by each individual City. 4 Each party to this Agreement would like to move towards a standardized rate for all of the Cities that Pasadena Humane serves. This standard rate may be determined by a licensing fee analysis and cost comparison, with recommended licensing rates to be agreed upon by all parties and ratified by the individual Cities. In the absence of this analysis and cost comparison, licensing rates shall be established as is current practice for each individual City. 2.0 COMPENSATION AND BILLING 2.1 COMPENSATION. In consideration for satisfactory and timely performance of all services provided to City under this Agreement, City shall pay Pasadena Humane $4,179.06 each month beginning July 1, 2021, for fiscal year 2021-2022, with a Consumer Price Index (CPI) (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA) escalator for fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, 2024-2025, and 2025-2026, for the CPI as determined in June of the previous fiscal year. The escalator shall not exceed 3% on an annual basis. Pasadena Humane will retain 100% of all pet- licensing revenues and retain 100% of any animal impounds fees that Pasadena Humane may collect. 2.2 ADDITIONAL SERVICES. Pasadena Humane shall retain the proceeds for any additional fees for service. 2.3 METHOD OF BILLING. Pasadena Humane may submit invoices to City for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than monthly. City shall pay Pasadena Humane's invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Any additional services outside the Scope of Service Exhibit “A” approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as "Additional Services" and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices. 2.4 RECORDS AND AUDITS. Financial records of Pasadena Humane's services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be provided to and made available to City for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date. Pasadena Humane shall provide to the City copies of its audited financial reports, annually, covering the period of this Agreement. 3.0 TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1 COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK. The professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Failure to commence work in a timely manner 5 and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. 3.2 EXCUSABLE DELAYS. Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God, pandemic, fire, strikes, material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party. 4.0 TERM AND TERMINATION 4.1 TERM. The services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and continue for a period of five years, ending June 30, 2026, ("Termination Date"), unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. 4.2 APPOINTMENT. In accordance with the Arcadia Municipal Code Section 4128.1.5, City appoints Pasadena Humane as the Animal Shelter of City for the period beginning on the Effective Date and ending on the Termination Date, and hereby authorizes, directs, and empowers Pasadena Humane to perform during the term of this Agreement all the powers and duties conferred and imposed upon the Shelter Director by the Pasadena Municipal Code, applicable City policies and regulations, and state laws and regulations, as they may be amended from time to time. 4.3 ACCEPTING OF APPOINTMENT. Pasadena Humane shall during the term of this Agreement perform all the powers and duties conferred and imposed upon the Animal Shelter and Shelter Director, in compliance with all applicable City policies and regulations, and state laws and regulations, as they may be amended from time to time. 4.4 NOTICE OF TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by giving not less than 90 days written notice to the other party, except as referenced in Section 5.8 of this Agreement. The notice shall state the termination date. 4.5 COMPENSATION. City shall continue to pay Pasadena Humane pursuant to section 2.1 of this agreement each month through the termination date. 5.0 INSURANCE 5.1 MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMITS OF INSURANCE. Pasadena Humane shall, at its own cost and expense, promptly secure and maintain during the life of this Agreement the following insurance: 6 5.1.1 Comprehensive general liability insurance on an “occurrence” basis, including premises, operations, products and completed operations, property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury with a policy of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 5.1.2 Comprehensive automobile liability insurance for any owned, non-owned and hired vehicles used in the connection with the performance of this Agreement with a policy of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 5.1.3 Workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. 5.1.4 Professional errors and omissions ("E&O") liability insurance with policy limits of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence or claim, Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate. Pasadena Humane shall obtain and maintain said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder. 5.2 If the Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. 5.3 ENDORSEMENTS. Each policy of insurance required hereunder shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following: 5.3.1 "The City of Arcadia and its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to this subject project and Agreement with City." 5.3.2 "This policy shall not be cancelled, reduced, or otherwise modified without the insurance carrier giving the City a minimum of thirty (30) days' prior written notice." 5.3.3 "Any other insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Arcadia shall be in excess of and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy." 7 5.4 WAIVER OF SUBROGATION. Pasadena Humane hereby grants City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of Pasadena Humane may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Pasadena Humane agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. 5.5 SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS. Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City may require Pasadena Humane to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. 5.6 ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURERS. Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII. 5.7 CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE. Pasadena Humane shall submit to City a certificate of insurance and endorsements for each policy not less than one (1) day prior to beginning performance under this Agreement. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive Pasadena Humane’s obligation to provide them. Each certificate shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificate(s) must be in a form approved by the City. City may require complete certified copies of any or all policies at any time. 5.8 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN REQUIRED INSURANCE. Failure to maintain required insurance at all times shall constitute a default and material breach of this Agreement. In such event, Pasadena Humane shall immediately notify City and cease all performance under this Agreement until further directed by City other than caring for animals impounded or quarantined at Pasadena Humane's shelter prior to termination. In the absence of satisfactory insurance coverage, City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement. 5.9 SPECIAL RISKS OR CIRCUMSTANCES. City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances. 5.10 NON-LIMITING. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement. 6.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes 8 any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may only be modified in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document attached hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement. 6.2 DESIGNATED POINT OF CONTACT. Pasadena Humane shall designate an individual to be the point of contact for any and all operational issues involving the City. Pasadena Humane shall provide said individual’s contact information, including name and telephone number upon execution of this Agreement. Likewise, the City shall designate an individual to be the point of contact for any and all operational issues involving Pasadena Humane. The City shall provide said individual’s contact information, including name and telephone number upon execution of this Agreement. 6.3 BUSINESS LICENSE. Pasadena Humane shall maintain a business license as required by the City Municipal Code during the duration of this Agreement and pay any fees related thereto. 6.4 PASADENA TAXPAYER PROTECTION AMENDMENT. Under the provisions of the City of Pasadena Taxpayer Protection Amendment of 2000 ("Taxpayer Protection Act"), the Pasadena Humane will be considered a "recipient of a public benefit." The full provisions of the Taxpayer Protection Act are set forth in the Pasadena City Charter, Article XVII. Under the Taxpayer Protection Act, City public officials who approve this Agreement are prohibited from receiving gifts, campaign contributions or employment from Pasadena Humane for a specified time. As well, if this Agreement is to be approved by the City Council, Councilmembers or candidates for Council are prohibited from receiving campaign contributions during the time this Agreement is being negotiated. This prohibition extends to individuals and entities which are specified and identified in the Taxpayer Protection Act and includes Pasadena Humane and its trustees, directors, partners, corporate officers and those with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest in Pasadena Humane. Pasadena Humane understands and agrees that: 6.4.1 Pasadena Humane is aware of the Taxpayer Protection Act; 6.4.2 Pasadena Humane will complete and return the forms provided by the City in order to identify all of the recipients of a public benefit specified in the Taxpayer Protection Act; and 6.4.3 Pasadena Humane will not make any prohibited gift, campaign contribution or offer of employment to any public official who approved this Agreement. 6.5 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 9 6.6 NOTICES. Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: (a) at the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery; (b) at the time of certified delivery if such communication is sent through regular United States mail. IF TO CITY: City of Arcadia Police Department Attention: Roy Nakamura, Chief of Police 250 W. Huntington Drive. Arcadia, CA 91007 IF TO PASADENA HUMANE: Dia DuVernet, President & CEO The Pasadena Humane Society and SPCA 361 South Raymond Avenue Pasadena, CA 91105 6.7 ATTORNEY'S FEES. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including attorney's fees from the opposing party in any amount determined by the court to be reasonable. 6.8 INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS. Pasadena Humane shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, including attorneys’ fees, damage to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons or damages of any nature including, but not by way of limitation, all civil claims or workers' compensation claims arising out of or in any way connected with the intentional or negligent acts, error, or omissions of Pasadena Humane, its employees, agents, or subcontractors, including claims arising out of activities on City premises or facilities, in the performance of this Agreement. 6.9 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Pasadena Humane is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Pasadena Humane shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of the Agreement. Pasadena Humane shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. 10 6.10 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All findings, reports, documents, information, and data including, but not limited to, computer hard drives and files furnished or prepared by Pasadena Humane or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement pursuant to the Scope of Services, shall be and remain the sole property of Pasadena Humane. Pasadena Humane agrees that any such documents or information shall be made available to the City for review. 6.11 PUBLIC RECORDS ACT DISCLOSURE. Pasadena Humane has been advised and is aware that all reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, or files furnished or prepared by Pasadena Humane, or any of its subcontractors, and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et. seq.). Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code Section 6254.7, and of which Pasadena Humane informs City of such trade secret. City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court. 6.12 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERRORS. Pasadena Humane shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Pasadena Humane, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by City, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Pasadena Humane occurs, then Pasadena Humane shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary professional services needed to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction. 6.13 PROHIBITED EMPLOYMENT. Pasadena Humane will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect. 6.14 COSTS. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein. 6.15 NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY RIGHTS. This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Pasadena Humane and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under, or to this Agreement. 6.16 HEADINGS. Any heading of the several paragraphs of this Agreement is inserted for convenience and reference only and shall not be held or construed in any manner to affect the scope, or to limit or to qualify the meaning or intent of the provisions thereof. 11 6.17 CONSTRUCTION. The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 6.18 WAIVER. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 6.19 SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party is materially impaired, which determination as made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations. 6.20 COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed an original irrespective of the date of the execution, and said counterparts shall together constitute one and the same agreement. 6.21 CORPORATE AUTHORITY. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so, the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. 6.21 ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES. Any dispute for under $50,000 arising out of or relating to the negotiation, construction, performance, nonperformance, breach or any other aspect of this Agreement, shall be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association at Los Angeles, California and judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Neither Party waives its right to object to the timeliness or sufficiency of any claim filed or 12 required to be filed against each other. The Parties both reserve the right to conduct full discovery. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused the Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date of the first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF ARCADIA BY: _____________________ BY: _____________________ City Clerk Dominic Lazzaretto City Manager BY: ______________________ Roy Nakamura Chief of Police Approved as to Form: THE PASADENA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA: BY: _____________________ BY: ______________________ Stephen P. Deitsch Dia DuVernet, President & CEO City Attorney 13 EXHIBIT “A” Scope of Services 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1. Background Pasadena Humane shall provide all services necessary to perform the requirements specified in this Scope of Services (SOS). 1.2 Scope of Services Pasadena Humane will provide all staffing, equipment, and supplies needed to provide animal care and control services and will adhere to applicable federal, State and local laws, statutes, and ordinances regarding the humane care and treatment of animals. Animal care and control services will include: field services, sheltering services, medical services, reporting, and community programming and other services, including the following tasks: A. Field Services Activities involve trained field officers and dispatchers performing a variety of duties utilizing appropriate equipment. Services include: ● Receive calls for service 24 hours per day, seven days per week through either Pasadena Humane dispatch or after-hours answering service and dispatch staff for field response as appropriate; ● Respond to priority one calls no later than 90 minutes from dispatch, with 8 0% of all priority one calls responded to within 45 minutes of dispatch, 24 hours per day. Priority one calls include: o Seemingly vicious or dangerous animals that pose a public safety threat, o incidents in which a person has been injured by an animal at large, o calls regarding sick or injured animals at large, (both domestic and wild), o emergency situations that cannot be handled by on-duty police officers requiring animal control assistance, o requests for law enforcement support in cases such as animals of deceased persons or legally detained individuals, o predatory wildlife which pose a danger to the public until such time as California Fish and Wildlife can respond and clear the call, o loose livestock, o pick up of dead animals at the request of a police officer or City official when such service cannot be reasonably delayed until the next normal business day due to exigent circumstances such as public endangerment, attractive nuisance, or a shock to the public, and o any other clearly exigent circumstance. ● Respond to routine calls for service, such as dogs at large, abuse/neglect complaints, and dead animals, within two hours between 8am to 8pm seven days per week. Routine calls received during non-business hours shall be handled by Pasadena Humane during the next business day. 14 ● Assist and support the City’s law enforcement operations when there may be animal related concerns. This includes but is not limited to providing animal control support during the execution of arrest and search warrants both inside and outside the City limits. The humane officer shall participate in the pre-warrant briefing in circumstances in which the City anticipates animal related concerns in advance. Pasadena Humane shall authorize at least one Level 1 Humane Officer, as defined in California Corporation Code 14502 for this purpose. ● Attempt to return lost owned dogs with discernible form of owner identification to owner, or if owner cannot be located, impound; ● Healthy community cats, defined as cats who are free-roaming, or feral, or outdoor barn or working cats who have no discernible form of ownership identification may be accepted for the purpose of spay/neuter, and if deemed appropriate by Pasadena Humane returned to their neighborhood/home territory, commonly referred to as TNRM (trap-neuter-return-monitor); ● Remove dead land animals (limited to a maximum of 150 pounds) from public and private property and dispose of these animals (a reasonable fee may be charged for removal of dead animals from private property); ● Dispatch an officer to assist with an owned pet surrender when there are exigent circumstances and/or after determining there are no reasonable means for a pet owner to bring their animal to shelter (a reasonable fee may be charged to the pet owner); ● Share information with the public to assist community members with resources and tools to improve or maintain the health and welfare of animals in the community; ● Enforce all animal related local ordinances, County codes and State laws. Issue administrative or criminal citations as appropriate. City agrees to furnish Pasadena Humane with a sufficient quantity of citation forms to perform this service. ● Investigate cases for possible criminal prosecution, including misdemeanor and felony crimes. Collect evidence, prepare reports, and testify in court and other hearings if necessary; ● Investigate animal nuisance complaints such as excessive barking and other violations. Provide investigative reports to the appropriate city entity for review and appropriate action. ● Investigate reports of animal bites and, for City of Pasadena, quarantine animals for rabies observation for ten days from the time of the bite at their owner’s residence, or pick up and hold the animal in quarantine at the Pasadena Humane shelter in an individual kennel where the animal will not have direct contact with other animals during its quarantine period. For animals outside of Pasadena notify the Los Angeles County Department of Rabies Control program so that their inspectors may quarantine the animal and, if desired, direct Pasadena Humane to house the animal during the quarantine period. If the animal should die during the quarantine period, Pasadena Humane shall immediately contact the presiding Public Health / Department of Health Services, as well as the animal’s owner, if known. 15 ● To the extent that aid is requested, available and necessary, respond to emergencies such as fires, earthquakes, floods, and other natural or manmade disasters to rescue and temporarily house animals, or to provide care for animals in evacuation zones. Pasadena Humane will not be obligated to provide aid and assistance where such provision would be disproportionately detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of its employees or the communities it serves. ● In the case of an emergency call by the City Police Department to impound a legally detained individual’s property, Pasadena Humane may assess a reasonable impoundment fee to the owner of the animal, to be collected at the time of pick- up. If any governmental entity, including the City, requests Pasadena Humane society to impound a particular animal or animals to be held as evidence in a jurisdictional proceeding or for any other purpose, Pasadena Humane may assess a reasonable impound fee to such governmental entity for any impound period for those species of animals not kept, stored, fed, maintained, or housed in the ordinary course or scope of business as an animal shelter (i.e. animals other than dogs, cats, rabbits, or other small pets). ● Provide “Directed Patrol Services” as requested by the City, defined as patrol services intended for a specific area or problem for a limited duration for the purpose of addressing enforcement issues relating to animals. ● When healthy kittens are found or reported, Pasadena Humane may ask the finding party to monitor the litter and/or ask the finder to foster and/or impound kittens. Any sick, injured or unhealthy kittens will be impounded by Pasadena Humane. Please note, Pasadena Humane does not respond to calls regarding healthy non-predatory wildlife. B. Shelter Services Represents services provided by Pasadena Humane to meet the needs of animals collected in the field within the boundaries of the City and animals relinquished or turned in at the Pasadena Humane facility that have originated within the boundaries of the City. Services are dedicated to providing: a comfortable and safe environment for all animals admitted regardless of how they came in, when they came in, or their age, health status and behavior, as well as providing accessibility to the public to obtain services and/or reclaim pets. Services include: ● Provide food, water, and shelter for impounded animals daily, seven days per week; ● Provide species-appropriate sheltering and enrichment to ensure sheltered pets are able to rest comfortably and are free to express normal behavior; ● Provide behavior assessment and attempt to remediate problem behaviors; ● Attempt to reunite lost pets with their owners; ● Make best efforts to place every healthy and safe animal; ● Animals found within the City may be turned in by appointment during regular business hours at the Pasadena Humane facility. Members of the public looking to turn in a found animal may, at the discretion of Pasadena Humane, be asked to help locate the owner by, including and not limited to, posting signs, checking 16 with neighbors, utilizing social media, up to when appropriate and safe holding the animal while performing the above actions; ● After all other resources or alternatives have been exhausted and when impound is deemed the best agreed upon outcome for community members seeking assistance with their pet, owned animals may be surrendered at the shelter, by appointment based on capacity. Pasadena Humane will make every effort to collect a reasonable fee from owners surrendering their pets. ● Where appropriate, healthy cats may be accepted for the purpose of spay/neuter, and if deemed appropriate by Pasadena Humane safely and appropriately returned to their neighborhood/home territory, commonly referred to as TNRM (trap- neuter-return-monitor); ● Quarantine and observe animals for rabies and other diseases at the direction of the Department of Public Health; ● Provide emergency response to pets displaced by wildfires or other disasters; ● Hold animals that are the subject of criminal investigations or other legal or administrative proceedings; ● Provide euthanasia services to impounded animals as deemed appropriate; ● Properly dispose of deceased animals; ● Maintain a website with pictures of impounded and surrendered animals to facilitate reuniting the animals with their owners or finding new adoptive homes; ● Return any animal to the animal’s owner or return cats to their neighborhood/home territory with or without impoundment if it is deemed by Pasadena Humane to be the best outcome for the animal; ● Maintain regular hours of operation for the public seeking an appointment to find a lost pet, impound a found pet, or surrender an owned pet; ● Microchip all dogs, cats and rabbits prior to reunification or placement, unless exigent circumstances such as animal illness delay or prevent service; ● When healthy kittens are brought to the shelter, Pasadena Humane may ask the finding party to monitor the litter and/or ask the finder to foster and/or impound kittens. Any sick, injured or unhealthy kittens will be impounded by Pasadena Humane. C. Medical Services Represents services dedicated to providing medical services to animals in the shelter. Services include: ● Provide access to licensed veterinary medical care, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week for impounded and sheltered animals; ● Provide limited health screening examinations and, if deemed necessary by a shelter veterinarian, treatment to all animals entering the shelter. ● Provide core vaccinations to cats and dogs and provide medical care to sheltered animals to ensure freedom from pain, injury or disease, and in accordance with standards of care set by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. ● Perform spay and neuter services for all dogs, cats and rabbits, unless a veterinarian certifies that the animal is too sick or injured, or that it would otherwise be detrimental to the health of the animal, to be spayed or neutered. 17 D. Reporting To ensure transparency Pasadena Humane will file annual reports to the State as required by law. Pasadena Humane will also provide the City with its audited financial reports covering the terms of this Agreement. The preparer of Pasadena Humane’s audited financial reports shall satisfy the City as to the reasonableness, accuracy, and completeness of the audited financial reports. Pasadena Humane will provide the City with a monthly report that includes a summary of operations and activities, including the following: ● Numbers of stray and deceased animals picked up in City ● Animal control activities by type ● Number of animal control service calls responded to within the City, including type of service. ● Impound reports by species, wild and domestic ● Animal intake total broken down by species for stray, seized, surrendered by owner, or otherwise, as well as duration of stay ● Animal final disposition/outcome broken down by species with an animal description, including returned to owner, adopted, transferred to another agency, returned to field, died or lost in shelter, and euthanized o Euthanization data will include reason for euthanization ● Kennel inventory ● Summary of licensing outreach activities. ● Number of low-cost spay and neutering services provided, including species, provided to City residents ● Fee reports itemizing all license, impound, and other fees and penalties collected by Pasadena Humane Pasadena Humane will also provide an annual operations report summarizing services performed and operations conducted by Pasadena Humane during the prior year. stratified as to the geographic source of performance factor (i.e., the Cities of Arcadia, Bradbury, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena). Incident Reporting Incident reports, such as allegations of animal bites or “nuisance animal” are provided to the Health Department, City Attorney’s Office, and/or Code Compliance Office (depending on jurisdiction) for consideration of scheduling a hearing. E. Community Programming & Other Services Pasadena Humane is a safety net for the community’s animals in need. As such, at no cost to the City, Pasadena Humane shall provide community education and diversion programs to promote: a) companion animals residing in loving families, and b) peaceful co-existence with wildlife. Services will include: ● Provide low-cost public spay/neuter, vaccination clinics, and microchipping services; 18 ● Based on availability of resources, provide emergency services to pet owners in distress, such as a pet-food pantry and temporary boarding; ● Offer public education in animal behavior and animal training classes; ● Operate humane education programs for youth; ● Offer wildlife education through a variety of platforms; ● As one of only two shelters in Southern California licensed to provide wildlife rehabilitation, offer rehabilitation services to injured and orphaned wildlife when there is a high probability that the animal can successfully be returned for survival in the wild after rehabilitation; ● Issue City animal licenses for rabies vaccinated pets in compliance with terms contained in Professional Services Agreement for Animal Shelter and Animal Control Services . Pasadena Humane may charge the public fees, or waive fees with the exception of licensing fees, for these services at its sole discretion. City agrees to promote licensing, vaccination, spay/neuter, and microchipping of pets through City channels and forums, including and not limited to social media, website and printed materials at relevant City offices. City FY21 cost (Bridge Contract Amount) FY20 Rev Reduction to Base FY22 Proposed (PHS Retains Revenue) FY22 Proposed FY23 cost (+3%) FY24 cost (+3%) FY25 cost (+3%) FY26 cost (+3%) Arcadia 318,256$ -$ 318,256$ 318,256$ 327,804$ 337,638$ 347,767$ 358,200$ Bradbury 12,971$ 1,521$ 11,450$ 11,450$ 11,793$ 12,147$ 12,512$ 12,887$ La Cañada Flintridge 129,048$ 31,592$ 97,456$ 97,456$ 100,380$ 103,391$ 106,493$ 109,688$ Monrovia 266,472$ 28,318$ 238,154$ 238,154$ 245,299$ 252,657$ 260,237$ 268,044$ Pasadena 1,625,887$ 20,176$ 1,605,711$ 1,605,711$ 1,653,882$ 1,703,499$ 1,754,604$ 1,807,242$ San Marino 93,927$ 10,580$ 83,347$ 83,347$ 85,847$ 88,423$ 91,076$ 93,808$ Sierra Madre 55,312$ 10,687$ 44,625$ 44,625$ 45,964$ 47,343$ 48,763$ 50,226$ South Pasadena 171,570$ 3,140$ 168,430$ 168,430$ 173,483$ 178,687$ 184,048$ 189,569$ PHS Total:2,673,443$ 106,014$ 2,567,429$ 2,567,429$ 2,644,452$ 2,723,785$ 2,805,499$ 2,889,664$ Attachment No. 5