HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppointment - Coachella Valley Animal Campus Analysis CITY OF PALM DESERT
' �11 �i OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
4.21
tof STAFF REPORT
TO: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager
FROM: Pat Conlon, Special Projects Administrator
DATE: September 27, 2001
SUBJECT: Coachella Valley Animal Campus Analysis
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit V (3) Projected Animal Services Facility Construction and
Development Costs (Page 28 of Hughes, Perry, and Associates
Consulting Report 7/7/01)
Exhibit VI (3) Illustrative Formula for Allocating Operating Costs
Reduced Scope Operations—Riverside County not Participating.
(Page 35 of Hughes, Perry, and Associates Consulting Report
7/7/01)
Background
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has been working over the
last 18 months on a strategy for building a new animal shelter for use by multiple local
jurisdictions.
In April 2001, after several site visits to Southern California Animal Shelters by
members of CVAG's Human Resource Committee, and after WLC Architects prepared
the shelter's preliminary space needs analysis, the first phase of the CVAG study was
completed.
In July 2001, the second and final phase of the study was completed by the consulting
firm of Hughes, Perry, & Associates. There were four principal objectives of this final
study are as follows:
• Evaluate and validate facility capacity projections, and adjust them as required.
• Evaluate capital cost projections and adjust them as necessary to reflect any
modifications in facility size as well as the design, construction and construction
cost estimates for developing a joint animal care facility.
G:\CityMgr\Monica O'Reilly\wpdocs\Pat Conlon\Memos\AnimalAnalysis2.wpd
Coachella Valley Animal Campus Analysis
September 27, 2001
• Develop and evaluate alternative operating models including refining the multi-
tier structure identified in the CVAG report and prepare annual operating cost
estimates.
• Develop and evaluate alternative cost allocation formulas for both capital and
operating costs and illustrate specific impact on potential participating
jurisdictions.
This staff report is based on the conclusions set forth in the Hughes, Perry, &
Associates study as it pertains to the City of Palm Desert.
Discussion
Palm Desert's current FY 2001/2002 animal control costs for shelter and field services
are $111 ,200 per year. If the Coachella Valley Animal Campus project is approved by
the cities of Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and
Indian Wells, the yearly cost for Palm Desert's animal control services will increase as
shown below.
Shelter design for 10-day animal holding period and a 20-year payback on shelter
capital cost:
1) If only the five above cities are joint participants in the Coachella Valley Animal
Campus, the estimated annual cost to Palm Desert will be $337,415 which is
$226,215 more than we currently budgeted for animal control.
2) If the County of Riverside decides to participate in the Coachella Valley Animal
Campus (eq. leave Indio shelter open to serve only the cities of La Quinta, Indio,
Coachella, and far eastern unincorporated areas) the costs to the five above
jurisdictions can be reduced. The estimated annual cost to Palm Desert will be
$270,902 which is $159,702 more than we currently budget for animal control.
An alternative which is lower in animal cost to the City of Palm Desert would be a
shelter design for a 5-day holding period with a full up front payment on shelter capital
cost (saving 20 years of interest):
3) With the above five cities without Riverside County, the annual costs to the City
of Palm Desert will be $200,873, which is $89,673 more than we currently
budget for animal control services and requires an up front cost of $1,494,533.
G:\CityMgrVvlonica O'Reilly\wpdocs\Pat Conlon\Memos\AnimalAnalysis2.wpd 2
Coachella Valley Animal Campus Analysis
September 27, 2001
4) With the above five cities including Riverside County, the annual costs to the City
of Palm Desert will be $163,612, which is $52,412 more than we currently
budget for animal control services and requires an up front cost of $1,069,009.
Benefits to the City of Palm Desert from the Coachella Valley Animal Campus are as
follows:
1) Palm Desert will have 23 to 33% ownership of a modern animal shelter facility.
2) Palm Desert will have a reduction in animal shelter expenditures by cost sharing
with four to five other jurisdictions.
3) A facility designed for double the minimum holding time set forth by state law
(i.e., 10-day holding period)
4) A facility which when combined with the adoption, education, and support
services of the Animal Samaritan facility planned to be built next door, will result
in higher animal adoption rates and fewer animals euthanized.
5) There will be an elimination of citizen concerns on the current animal facility in
Cathedral City.
Cost Breakdown for Palm Desert
Utilizing the most likely scenario of joint participation in the construction and operation
of a valley-wide animal campus, five jurisdictions will participate. They are the cities of
Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells.
At the time of this report it is unclear if Riverside County will participate in the
construction and operating costs due to the status of the existing county shelter in Indio.
A reduction in capital and operating costs will occur if Riverside County participates
along with the above jurisdictions.
G.\CityMgr\Monica O'Reilly\wpdocs\Pat Conlon\Memos\AnimalAnalysis2.wpd 3
Coachella Valley Animal Campus Analysis
September 27, 2001
The breakdown of costs for Palm Desert in joint use with the four above jurisdictions
(excepting Riverside County) is as follows:
Assume: Reduced scope alternative
Five jurisdictions
10-day holding period
Shelter Project Cost
(Exhibit V (3) Page 28): $4,805,599
Palm Desert Share of Shelter Cost 33.05%
(Exhibit VI (3) Page 35): 1,588,237
Annual cost for payback
6% @ 20 years for $1,588,237: 136,542
Annual cost for shelter service--county contract
(Exhibit VI (3) Page 35): 130,873
Annual cost for field operations
Private contractor or staff
2124 service hours: 70,000
Total annual costs to Palm Desert: 337,415
Current California Animal Care contract: 111,200
Additional cost to Palm Desert above what
we currently pay: $ 226,215
G.\CityMgr\Monica O'Reilly\wpdocs\Pat Conlon\Memos\AnimalAnalysis2.wpd 4
Coachella Valley Animal Campus Analysis
September 27, 2001
If Riverside County decides to move its shelter operations from the existing Indio shelter
to the new facility, we will have six jurisdictions involved in cost sharing which will
reduce the capital and operation costs to Palm Desert as follows:
Assume: Reduced scope alternative
Five jurisdictions and Riverside County
10-day holding period
Shelter project cost
(Exhibit V (2) page 27: $ 5,279,000
Palm Desert's share of shelter cost 23.64%: 1,247,955
Annual cost for payback
6% @ 20 years for $1,247,955: 107,290
Annual cost for shelter service--county contract: 93,612
Annual cost for field operations
Private contractor or staff
2124 service hours: 70,000
Total annual costs to Palm Desert: 270,902
Current California Animal Care contract: 111,200
Additional cost to Palm Desert
(Above what we currently pay): $ 159,702
G.\CityMgr\Monica O'Reilly\wpdocs\Pat Conlon\Memos\AnimalAnalysis2.wpd 5
Coachella Valley Animal Campus Analysis
September 27, 2001
The above cost break down can be reduced as shown in the alternatives No. 3 and 4
shown in the above discussion by the elimination of the yearly capital costs
expenditures and the reduced cost of the shelter construction.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Submitted by:
PAT)CONLON
SPECIAL PROJECTS ADMINISTRATOR
mo
Approval:
•
CARLOS L. ORTEGA
CITY MANAGER
*By Minute Motion, approved: 1) Participa- CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
tion in the formation and service as an APPROVED ��/ DENIED
Executive Advisory Member of a Valley-wide RECEIVED OTHER
animal campus; 2) appointment of Council-
member Jean Benson to serve as Palm MEETINq DATE
AYES: ,41-1 Desert's representative on the NOES: �l► AV o
Executive Advisory Committee ABSENT: A4 P)
ABSTAIN: /1+ _a___
VERIFIED BY:
Original on File with City C .erk's Office
G\CityMgr\Monica O'Reilly\wpdocs\Pat Conlon\Memos'AnimalAnalysis2.wpd 6
EXHIBIT V(3)
Projected Animal Services
Facility Construction and
Development Costs
Description Reduced_Sclope Alternative
5 Day lO Day
Space Holding Holding
Projected Square Feet •
•
Admin.Projected 5,549 5,549
Adjustment 2QQ -200
Admin.Total 5.349 5.349
Shelter Projected 15,675 15,675
Adjustment -2.964 -836
Shelter Total 12,711 14.839
Clinic Area 2.687 2.687
Building Total 20 47 22.875
Construction Cost Dollars
Admin.And Shelter
$140 Per Square Foot $2,528,400 $2,826,320
Clinic @$65
Per Square Foot 174.655 174.655
Building Total $2.703.055 $3.000.975
Site Improvements
/" From CVAG Report $635.000 $635.000
Total $3,338.055 $3.635.975
Contingency @ 10% 333,806 363,598
Construction Total $3.553,055 $3.850.975
Soft Costs from CVAG
Report 215,000 215,000
Soft Cost Adjustments -47,150 19,350
•
Fees(Architect,
Engineers,Testing
and Inspection,
Permits)at 19% 634,230 570,185
Construction Mgmt.
at 5%of Construction
Cost 166.903 150.049
PROJECT TOTAL $4.522.038 $4.805,559
Hughes,Perry Associates Page 28
EXHIBIT VI(3)
Illustrative Formula for •
Allocating Operating Costs-
Status Quo Alternative
3.Reduced Scope Operations-Riverside County Not Participating As A JPA Member County Contract
Shelter Operations
Allocation Factors
Participating Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 48,898 37.02% $146,601
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 21,248 16.09% 63,703
Indian Wells 4,020 17 4,071 3.08% 12,205
Palm Desert 42,350 434 43,652 33.05% 130,873
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 14,215 10.76% 42,618
Total 132.084 100.00% $396.000
Allocation Factor
Percent Cost
Field Operations Service Hours Share Share
Palm Desert 2,124 26.93% $115,786
Indian Wells 104 1.32% 5,669
Cathedral City 2,124 26.93% 115,786
Desert Hot Springs 3,536 44.83% 192,759
Total 7,888 100.00% $430.000
b
DC)
w
Hughes,Perry Associates
EXHIBIT VI(4)
Illustrative Formula for
Allocating Operating Costs-
Status Quo Alternative
4, Reduced Scupe Operations-Riverside County Participating As A JPA f for the Shelter County Contract
Shelter Operations
Allocation Factors
Participating Jurisdiction Population Shelter Intakes Allocation Percent Cost
Factor Total Share Share
Cathedral City 44,650 1,416 48,898 26.48% $104,862
Desert Hot Springs 17,000 1,416 21,248 11.51% 45,566
Indian Wells 4,020 17 4,071 2.20% 8,730
Palm Desert 42,350 434 43,652 23.64% 93,612
Rancho Mirage 13,900 105 14,215 7.70% 30,484
Riverside County 46,040 2,178 52,574 28.47% 112,745
Total 184,658 100.00% $396.000
Allocation Factor
Percent Cost
Field Operations Service Hours Share ,share
Palm Desert 2,124 26.93% $115,786
Indian Wells 104 1.32% 5,669
Cathedral City 2,124 26.93% 115,786
Desert Hot Springs 3,536 44.83% 192,759
Total 7,888 100.00% $430.000
b
A
oa
co
w
ON
Hughes,Perry Associates