Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCVAG Invoice - Animal Campus Analysis Study \} 1IH CITY OF PALM DESERT OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Coachella Valley Animal Campus Financial Analysis Study DATE: June 14, 2001 CONTENTS: CVAG Invoice No. C1113-01, Hughes Perry and Associates Summary of Qualifications RECOMMEDATION By minute motion approve payment to CVAG in the amount of $4,975.00 for the fiscal analysis study on the Coachella Valley Animal Campus. Authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate $4,975.00 from Unobligated General Fund Reserves. DISCUSSION As the Coachella Valley Animal Campus project evolves this is the last study necessary to complete the information that will be presented to the CVAG member cities for consideration. Initially the cost of the fiscal analysis study will be split among Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Riverside County with provisions of repayment from the bond proceeds once the project moves forward. If you have any questions, please call me. r-- :_f 6±-&)-1,6---- PAT CONLON SPECIAL PROJECTS ADMINSTRATOR mo 2Revie ed and concur: 7/71-- PAUL GIBSON CITY COUNCIk ACTION: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE APPROVED if' DENIED__ RECEIVED OTHER0 MEET E CARLOS L. ORTEGA AYES: t ► —` CITY MANAGER NOES: \BSENT: [. 1STAIN: Au \IFIED BY: final on File with City Clerk's Office cvAG_ COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Blythe • Cathedral City • Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells • Indio • La Duinta • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage County of Riverside • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians April 23, 2001 c as F, f r w rn Mr. Pat Conlon o n rn Special Projects Manager .. City of Palm Desert ? rTi CO 73-510 Fred Waring Drive -n , Palm Desert, California 92260 m Dear Pat: In follow-up to our interview today for performance of services for the Animal Campus financing analysis, the three member jurisdictions(Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and Riverside County) have agreed to equally divide the costs proposed by consultant, John Heiss. The three jurisdictions also agreed to add a contingency amount. The costs are indicated below: $13,200 performance of services by John Heiss 1,725 contingency($150/hr x 11.5 hrs) $14,925 TOTAL $14,925 ± 3 Jurisdictions= $4,975 contribution per jurisdiction With regard to our discussion regarding attempt to recover these costs through the CVAG formula, it's only fair that the three jurisdictions be reimbursed for their entire contribution. Hence, if we go forward with the Animal Campus, my executive director has recommended that the three jurisdictions be reimbursed from the bond proceeds for construction of the shelter. Please let me know if this is agreeable to you. Attached is the invoice for the amount. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Aurora Kerr Director Human and Community Resources :attachments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive,Suite 200 • Palm Desert,CA 92260 • (760) 346-1 127 • FAX(760)340-5949 CVAC1• COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Blythe • Cathedral City • Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells • Indio • La Quinta • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage County of Riverside • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians MEMORANDUM TO: CITY OF PALM DESERT INVOICE#: C 1113-01 Attn: Carlos Ortega, City Manager FROM: Aurora Kerr, Director Human and Community Resources DATE: April 23, 2001 RE: INVOICE FOR ANIMAL CAMPUS FINANCING CONSULTANT May this serve as an invoice to the City of Rancho Mirage for JOHN HEISS to perform consulting services for the proposed valley-wide Animal Campus on behalf of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The one-time cost for completion of the financing component will be initially and equally shared by the cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and Riverside County at a cost not to exceed $4,975 from each of the three member jurisdictions. The total cost for performance of services is $14,925 ($13,200 for contract services and $1,725 contingency). The financing component of the Animal Campus Study will be completed by Friday, May 4`h. Attached is the proposal for the financing component and cost proposal from Mr. Heiss. Feel free to call me with any questions. We request your payment as quickly as possible, no later than May 4th, 2001. Thank you. :enclosure cc: Vicki Mijares, Accounting Manager 73-710 Fred Waring Drive,Suite 200 • Palm Desert,CA 92260 • (760) 346-1 127 • FAX(760)340-5949 Hughes, Perry Eg'Associates MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Summary of Qualifications and Review of Preliminary Planning Issues Associated With The Valley-Wide Animal Campus Proposal COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS April 23, 2001 Sea Ranch Post Office Box 384 35600 Verdant View Street Sea Ranch,California 95497 /07.785.3083 Fax 707.785.3086 San Mateo 638 Costa Rica Avenue San Mateo,California 94402 Phone/Fax 650.401.6825 Hughes, Perry k ;sociates MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Agenda for the Presentation • Project Objectives • Planning Issues Needing Resolution • Background and Qualifications. Valley - Wide Animal Campus Evaluation Page 1 Hughes, Perry & sociates MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Project Objectives • Evaluate and validate facility capacity projections, and adjust them as required . • Evaluate capital cost projections and adjust them as necessary to accommodate any modifications in facility size as well as the design, construction and construction cost estimates for developing a joint animal care facility. • Develop and evaluate alternative operating models including refining the multi-tier structure and developing operating cost estimates. • Develop and evaluate alternative cost allocation formulas for both capital and operating costs and illustrate specific impact on potential participating jurisdictions. Valley - Wide Animal Campus Evaluation Page 2 Hughes, Perry S sociates MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Planning Issues Needing Resolution Planning Issues Needing Resolution Component Shelter Clarify jurisdictions which will be involved including defining Capacity varying mixes of agencies participating so that more specific capital and operating cost estimates can be developed based on alternative facility sizes. Refine animal holding policy and targets including the role of the Animal Samaritans, SPCA (as well as other agencies) in taking animals after"x" days which have not been adopted. Needs to be clarified and quantified so that shelter capacity estimates can be accurately projected. Facility Size Need to refine capacity estimates as noted above. and Capital Determine how the construction project would be managed Costs and which jurisdiction would take the lead related to contracting and construction management. Need to validate per square foot construction cost estimates given the local construction environment. Need to consider and calculate the impact of alternative participating jurisdictions on facility size and associated capital cost estimates. Operating Need to resolve organizational model for operating the Model and shelter and providing field animal control services. For example, would the ]PA function as an administrative agency Cost and employ animal care and control staff and provide its own Projections administrative services; or would it contract with one of the participating agencies to provide administrative support (e.g. accounting and finance; human resources; legal services) and/or employ service staff? Is there a potential private provider (e.g. not-for-profit) which could serve as an operator with which the JPA could contract? Are salary costs realistic given public and private employment markets in the Coachella Valley? Where in the operating budget and preliminary staffing plan are provisions made for overall management of the program? Valley - Wide Animal Campus Evaluation Page 3 Hughes, Perry 8 ;sociates MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Planning Issues Needing Resolution (continued) Planning Issues Needing Resolution Component Operating What service levels (public service hours, public education, Model and etc.) are targeted for animal shelter services? Cost What service levels (coverage hours, response times, etc.) Projections are targeted for animal control field services? (continued) Are staffing projections consistent with target service levels? What costs can be expected in regard to the Animal Samaritan Services, SPCA relationship? What costs would be associated with operation of the Indio shelter and where are those costs reflected in the preliminary operating budget? Are all projected second tier services suited to variable costing and are they truly sensitive to varying levels of participation by member jurisdictions? Should revenue generation improvement opportunities be considered in modeling the service organization? Cost What if any provisions need to be considered in terms of Allocation and allowing jurisdictions to "buy in" to the facility at a later time? Cost Sharing Should cost allocation formula and approaches provide an Approach approach for initial con to support operating costs for budget purposes, but then an adjustment to reflect actual comparative service use by the participating service jurisdictions. Valley - Wide Animal Campus Evaluation Page 4 Hughes, Perry ! ssociates MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Background and Qualifications Conducted Recent Management Audits of a Number of Animal Services Programs. Orange County Marin County Sacramento County San Clemente City of Los Angeles Recent and Major Experience in Conducting Animal Services Feasibility Studies Including Projecting Program Needs; Developing Detailed Facility Requirements and Space/Site Needs; and Projecting Operating and Capital Costs. Marin County and Contract Cities City of San Jose City of Santa Clara and Other Santa Clara Valley Cities Valley - Wide Animal Campus Evaluation Page 5 Hughes, Perry b ;sociates MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Consultant Experience Item John Heiss Background Thirty years' consulting experience. Founding partner of Hughes, Heiss & Associates and former Director of West Coast Management Consulting for DMG - Maximus. Education AB from Dartmouth College and an MBA from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Relevant Evaluated animal control operations for several Project clients including Marin County and the member Experience cities of the animal services contract: Orange County, the City of San Clemente, and the City of Pasadena. Project manager and lead analyst on a major animal services feasibility study for the City of San • Jose including projecting facility and operating costs. Included feasibility analysis of an animal services program serving only San Jose and one serving San Jose and neighboring cities. Conducted a similar study for the City of Santa Clara and several neighboring cities to evaluate and project the operating cost, capital costs, and facility needs for a multi-jurisdictional animal services program. Also conducted feasibility studies of other regional municipal services including library, police, and fire services. Most involved developing organizational/ governance models and alternative cost allocation formulas and approaches. Valley - Wide Animal Campus Evaluation Page 6 Hughes, Perry f�'Associates MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS April 23, 2001 Aurora Kerr Director, Human and Community Resources RECEIVED Coachella Valley Association of Governments Suite 200 APR 2 3 2001 73-710 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 �tine- Dear Ms. Kerr: - -The letter which follows presents our cost-proposal for assisting CAVG and its member jurisdictions in evaluating capital and operating cost projections associated with a Valley Animal Services Campus, and for developing and evaluating alternative methodologies for allowing interested jurisdictions to participate in and share the cost of animal services. The first table lists the task I believe need to be accomplished and the amount of professional staff time associated with each. Task Person Hours Meet with committee. Validate planning assumptions and animal service targets. Conduct on-site data collection to supplement information contained in the CVAG study report. 20 Prepare summary of key planning assumptions and circulate to the Project Review Committee. Includes: • Participating jurisdictions and mixes to employ to evaluate and project shelter and other services. • Animal holding assumptions and relative roles of the JPA shelter and other agencies. • Specific services and(costs associated with those services)to be provided by Animal Samaritans,SPCA. • Governance models. • Models involving staffing and providing administrative support to the JPA service delivery model(s). Sea Ranch Post Office Box 384 35600 Verdant View Street Sea Ranch,California 95497 707.785.3083 Fax 707.785.3086 San Mateo 4' 638 Costa Rica Avenue San Mateo,California 94402 Phone/Fax 650.401.6825 Ms. Aurora Kerr April 23, 2001 Page 2 of 3 Task Person Hours Evaluate projections of service demand prepared to size the shelter and to support development of staffing projections for the shelter and other services. Identify issues and 8 prepare revised projections as necessary. Evaluate space projections for the shelter facility and adjust as appropriate. 8 Prepare adjusted space projections. Include alternative configurations depending on jurisdictional participation. Evaluate capital costs and prepare revised capital cost projections. Prepare alternative cost projections based on alternative participating jurisdictions identified. Evaluate operating plans (staffing,budget, etc.)contained in the CVAG study. Identify necessary modifications in key cost assumptions including staffing plan(s)for shelter and tier services as 12 well as management and administrative support for the animal services organization. Refine structure and variable costs of tiered services. Prepare pro-forma operating budgets. Develop alternative cost allocation methodologies/formulas for shelter and tiered services. Apply alternative formulas to the facility and operating 12 models and illustrate cost impact on participating jurisdictions. Evaluate advantages and disadvantages of each alternative formula. Prepare written report documenting findings from previous 4 tasks and submit to CVAG. Meet with Project Committee and review results of the • 8 analysis and identify an issues requiring clarification. Ms. Aurora Kerr April 23, 2001 Page 3 of 3 Task Person Hours Adjust/modify/clarify previous analysis and submit final 8 report incorporating those adjustments. TOTAL 80 Costs associated with this level or effort are shown in the table which follows: Item Person Hours Cost Professional Staff Time John W. Heiss 80 $ 12,000 Pro'ect E •ense ,' - � Air Travel—2 Round Trips SFO -Ontario . 600 Hotel/Meals - 200 Ground Trans•ortation - 300 Communications and Report _ _ : Production 100 PROJECT TOTAL :_;; $ 13 200 We are prepared to assist CVAG on this project for a not-to-exceed contract of$ 13,200. We appreciate the opportunity to present our proposal for the animal services project. Sincerely Yours, John W. Heiss Hughes, Perry & Associates