HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2017_10_30_Agenda Packet CC SPC Animal Shelter
SPECIAL MEETING
Atascadero City Council
Monday, October 30, 2017
12:00 P.M.
Atascadero City Hall Council Chambers, 4 th Floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
(Enter from Lewis Avenue)
AGENDA
ROLL CALL:
DISCUSSION:
1. Analyzing the Desirability of a North County Animal Shelter
Fiscal Impact: Fiscal impacts are fully addressed in the Staff Report. It is believed
that the approximate $20,000 in costs of the analysis conducted over the last
month are monies that have been well spent, even if the Council directs staff to
continue working with the County and other cities on the County shelter, since
much has been learned that can reduce the life-cycle costs to the City.
Recommendation: Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to sign and deliver Draft Letter A to each of the
signatories of the February 2017 Agreement for Allocation of Construction and
Financing Costs for an Animal Services Shelter, stating that the City is NOT
withdrawing from the agreement, and asking all parties to consider an MOU
extending City use of the facility beyond the 20-year life of the shelter financing.
2. Direct staff to work with the County and other agencies on policy changes that
would reduce the usage and costs of the County animal shelter and look for
methods of reducing costs and increasing revenues in order to neutralize the
projected budget impacts. [City Manager]
ADJOURNMENT:
The City Council will adjourn to its next Regular Session on November 14, 2017.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
CITY OF ATASCADERO )
I, LARA CHRISTENSEN, City Clerk, being duly sworn, depose that on October 27, 2017, a copy of the foregoing
Notice of Special Meeting was posted at the Atascadero City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California and
was available for public review in the Customer Service Center at that location.
LARA CHRISTENSEN, City Clerk
City of Atascadero
1 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - City Manager’s Office
Analyzing the Desirability of
a North County Animal Shelter
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to sign and deliver Draft Letter A to each of the
signatories of the February 2017 Agreement for Allocation of Construction and
Financing Costs for an Animal Services Shelter, stating that the City is NOT
withdrawing from the agreement, and asking all parties to consider an MOU
extending City use of the facility beyond the 20-year life of the shelter financing.
2. Direct staff to work with the County and other agencies on policy changes that
would reduce the usage and costs of the County animal shelter and look for
methods of reducing costs and increasing revenues in order to neutralize the
projected budget impacts.
DISCUSSION:
Under state law, each incorporated City has the option of contracting with the County or
providing their own animal services consistent with state standards. All seven cities in
the County have, in turn, contracted with the County for animal services. Under this
service contract, all seven cities and the County share the cost of animal services based
on a formula that factors the agencies' proportionate use of field services and shelter
services. The County Division operates a single animal shelter to house and care for
stray and owner relinquished animals. This shelter, located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue i n
San Luis Obispo, is the County's only open intake animal shelter and receives
approximately 4,500 animals annually. In April of 2015, the County Board of
Supervisors directed County staff to replace the animal shelter and to have cities pay
their proportionate share of the cost of the shelter.
After months of contentious negotiation, the County required each City, by the end of
February 2017, to either opt out of participating in the new shelter or to approve an
agreement (Attachment 2) that provided for the following:
The total budgeted cost of the Project ($14.5 million) and the portion that the
County will exclusively pay ($1.45 million). The County will be paying 100% of
the land costs, the demolition costs for the existing facility and the remai ning
depreciation value of the existing facility. The County will also pay for a larger
2 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
portion of the utility extension along Oklahoma Ave. See Exhibit D of the
Agreement for project budget details.
A procedure for authorization of excess construction costs. Any projected costs
that would bring the Project in 10% or more above the budget must be approved
by all cities.
Opt-out provisions that detail the withdrawing party’s obligations as follows:
o After approval of the agreement, but prior to October 31, 2017- the
withdrawing party shall pay its share (as detailed in Exhibit C) of costs
incurred by the County prior to the date of receipt of notice of withdrawal
and no financing/interest costs.
o After October 31, but prior to the beginning of construction - the
withdrawing party shall pay its share (as detailed in Exhibit C) of costs
incurred by the County prior to the date of receipt of notice of withdrawal
which could include financing/interest costs. (There may be differing
understandings of what the withdrawal language means in this instance.)
o After construction begins- the withdrawing party must pay its entire
proportionate share of “Total Project Costs” which could include all
financing/interest costs associated with the project
The County is to provide competitive long-term financing for the Project.
Allocation of costs based on a rolling three year proportionate use calculation.
As shown in Exhibit C of the Agreement, the City of Atascadero has averaged
14.37% of total shelter use over the last three years. This percentage will
change each year based on the average of the previous three years.
Governance of animal shelter operations. An operations committee comprised of
a County representative and 2-3 contracting city representatives will review
significant policy and budget decisions for the shelter.
A city may opt out of service contracts during the life of the shelter; however each
City is still responsible for their proportionate share of the Project costs.
A committee comprised of three contracting city representatives and two County
representatives shall participate in an ad-hoc value engineering team tasked with
investigating and identifying the most effective and efficient methods to construct
a shelter. Atascadero’s City Manager currently serves on this committee.
On February 14, 2017, the Council considered whether or not to participate in the
County-wide shelter. Although staff had reached out to other shelters and investigated
other service alternatives, a viable alternative was not found prior to the February
county deadline. Given the lack of viable alternatives at the time, the Council directed
the City Manager to execute the agreement on February 14, 2017.
Because the cost of the facility’s construction and operation will significantly increase
the costs to participating cities, the City of Atascadero and the City of Paso Robles have
continued to explore other options for service delivery.
Recent investigations have indicated that there may be a potential service delive ry
option for a North County Animal Shelter that may be cost effective and efficient. The
Mayors of Atascadero and Paso Robles sent a joint letter to the Board of Supervisors,
requesting the County to delay its process in order to allow our two cities the time
needed to decide whether or not to construct a North County animal shelter. This time
would allow time for the investigation of the viability of a North County shelter and allow
3 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
time for other cities to consider their options. The County voted to move forward with
their project with no delay. On October 10, 2017 the City Council agreed to share costs
with the City of Paso Robles’ agreements with Ravatt Albrecht & Associates and
Petaluma Animal Services Foundation to prepare an analysis of the cost-effectiveness
of developing and operating a North County Animal Shelter. The results from those
consultants have been received and are attached.
There is need for prompt action, given the October 31, 2017 deadline.
At the October 10, 2017 City Council meeting, Staff indicated that there were at least 8
criteria that needed to be examined in order to if a North County Shelter is the right
decision for our cities. The following were the eight criteria identified.
1. Cost
2. Control
3. Convenience
4. Flexibility
5. Publicly-owned and operated vs. Public-private partnership model
6. Risk
7. Impact on other cities in the County and on the County
8. Impact on the Police Department and other City operations
An analysis of each follows.
Issue #1- Cost:
There are many factors, criteria and assumptions that go into determining the estimated
costs of both the proposed County Animal Shelter and the proposed North County
shelter.
Shelter Assumptions
In determining the cost of the County-wide shelter, staff analyzed the existing February
2017 agreement and had discussions with County staff and staff from other cities.
Below are the assumptions for determining the costs for the County-wide shelter.
County Budget: The current budget for the County animal shelter is $14,807,800. Of
that amount, the County is solely responsible for $1,455,267, the Cities are solely
responsible for $176,033 and the remaining amount of $13,176,500 is allocated
amongst the County and the Cities. If the shared amount is expected to exceed
$14,500,000, it would require a written amendment to this agreement signed by all
parties to the agreement. The County has completed the programming analysis for the
shelter, but the cost estimate is not complete at this time. County staff has worked
diligently to keep costs down, while trying to meet the needs of a variety of constituents.
The existing budget includes over 25% in contingencies. Because the existing budget
continues to be the driving factor for the project manager and the steering committee,
the cost comparison that follows assumes that the project will come in at the current
budget amount.
4 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
County Allocation: The agreement calls for the costs of the shelter to be allocated
based on a three year rolling average of shelter usage. This number will vary and can
be influenced by policy changes, environment or other factors. The number also varies
due to individual cases, disasters or other factors. In 2016 -2017, the City of Atascadero
had some animal hoarding cases where the animals were confiscated and sheltered.
Cases such as these can significantly increase the jurisdiction’s allocation of not only
shelter costs, but also animal service costs. (The three year averaging will help smooth
out large swings in costs). If Atascadero and Paso Robles, decide to continue to
participate in the County shelter, staff recommends that we work with the County
to help develop education and spay/neuter programs, designed for the North
County, aimed at reducing the number of animals requiring services (particularly
feral cats).
Because it is hard to exactly predict percentage of future use, the projections that follow
allocate shelter shared costs at the percentages included in the February 2017
agreement. The allocation of City only are a higher percentage as the County does not
participate in those costs.
County Financing Terms: The February agreement reads as follows:
1. Financing
a. County Advance of Funds. The County shall advance funds required to pay for the costs
of construction of the Shelter. The County intends to finance the funds it advances,
including County in house soft costs.
i. County Sole Discretion as to Financing Terms. The County, at its sole
discretion, shall determine financing terms based on market rates and
terms available at the time of financing. The anticipated financing interest
rate is estimated to be between 3.5%-5%, based on a 25-year term, see
Exhibit D. The County may finance the Estimated Final Construction
Costs (hard, soft, design, etc.) for the Shelter in addition to customary out
of pocket costs to obtain financing, if any. The County may choose to
provide in-house financing, provided the interest rate charged to the
Cities does not exceed commercially available rates for like projects and
terms of financing are equal to or more favorable to Cities than terms
otherwise available to the County.
Because the language leaves the interest rate up to the sole discretion of the County,
the County provided clarification through e-mail of their intentions. Representatives
from the County indicated:
1. That the County would try to obtain the lowest cost financing, and that it was the
intention of the County to pass that rate on directly to the cities.
2. That the County does not plan on adding any additional basis points or other
administrative costs when determining the rates for the cities.
3. That if the County later re-financed the costs at a lower overall cost, that the
savings would be also be passed on proportionately to the cities.
4. That the County would seek reimbursement for staff time and other minor County
costs incurred for issuing the bonds at a cost of $25,000.
5. That all other issuance costs are part of the overall financing and are rolled into
the rates passed on to the cities.
5 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
The current estimated all-in interest rate from the County is at 3.2%; however interest
rates do fluctuate and are highly dependent upon the market at the time of issuance.
The County did provide amortization schedules for an all -in interest rate of 3.7% to
show the effect of a 0.5% increase in the interest rates.
It is unknown what the interest rates would be to finance a North County shelter, but it is
assumed to be close to the rate that can be obtained by the County. Because they are
similar and dependent on the market, the annual payments and inter est is not critical to
the analysis of the costs.
The County has provided payment schedules for both a 25 year financing and a 30 year
financing. While the 30 year financing reduces the annual payments, it does increase
the overall amount paid in interest. Because the term of the financing would be similar
for a North County Shelter issue, it is not critical to comparison of the costs. (Estimated
payment schedules are Attachment 3)
County Useful Life: On the other hand, the anticipated useful life of the shelter is
independent of the financing and is critical to the analysis. The expected useful life of
any building would exceed the length of a normal financing. The February agreement
only runs through the life of the financing and is silent as to what happens once the
financing is paid off. The February agreement requires that the proposed building be
used as an animal shelter for the length of the agreement, but once the agreement
terminates, the agreement is silent as to usage. If this is the ca se, we should use the
expected remaining term of the agreement upon occupancy for the estimated useful life
of the shelter (estimated to be 23.5 years), as the cities may or may not have continued
use of the shelter with no shelter payment. Staff reached out to County representatives
and asked what County plans for the shelter were after the agreement termination. The
County agreed that the agreement, including provisions for animal shelter use and the
operation committee terminated before the expected li fe of the building, but did confirm
the following:
a. The term of the current February 2017 agreement is until each Party has
made its final payment on the financing of the shelter (currently we are
estimating that will be either 25 years or 30 years after th e issuance of the
financing)
b. The life of the new proposed animal shelter building is expected to be
somewhere between 40 and 50 years at this point.
c. Understanding the Board of Supervisors would have the final say, at this
point County staff believes it is the County’s intention to use the new
proposed animal shelter building as long as possible.
d. If the other cities are agreeable, County staff would be willing to
recommend to the Board of Supervisors, some sort of MOU or MOA that
would extend the use of the new proposed animal shelter for some period
of time after the existing February 2017 agreement expires and before the
useful life of the building has expired. (20 years was mentioned).
6 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
e. That County Staff could recommend an MOA or MOU to the Board of
Supervisors that included involvement of the Cities prior to
vacating/changing use of the proposed new animal shelter building.
Staff recommends that if the Council decides to remain a participant in a County shelter,
that a letter be sent to all parties of the February 2017 Agreement, asking them to
participate in an MOU that would outline the operations and use of the building after the
current agreement expires. Some of the things that Atascadero and Paso Robles would
like to see in the agreement include:
1. That all Cities would have the opportunity for significant
involvement prior to any County decision to vacate the proposed
new animal shelter (or any portion thereof) or change the use or
any portion thereof, of the new animal shelter
2. That the County shall not charge rent for the Shelter or Shelter
Property or otherwise attempt to obtain compensation from the
Cities for items included as part of the original animal shelter
construction project.
3. That the County intends to use the building as an animal shelter for
as long as possible, and that if the County decides to terminate its
use as an animal shelter when there is significant useful life
remaining in the building, that cities would be credited their
allocated share of the appraised value of the building upon
termination.
4. Continuation of the Operations Committee and Executive Board as
outlined in the February 2017 Agreement.
NC Budget: There are currently four options where cost estimates were obtained. The
four estimates consist of two different sites in Paso Robles (Wisteria Site and Sulphur
Springs Site) and public vs. private construction. All four cost comparisons are shown.
1. Construction: The construction costs were obtained through the cost estimate
(which does include contingencies in the prices used because of the early phase
of design.) See Attachment 4
2. Interior Costs: The construction cost estimates include interior cabinetry and built
in furnishings. An estimate of $15,000 was included for items such as washing
machines, furnishings and other equipment needed for start-up.
3. Soft Costs: Based on discussions with consultants, an estimate of 15% of
construction costs was used for architecture and engineering through completion.
An additional $100,000 was added to this figure for proje ct management,
inspection, testing, environmental, permitting ($0 City fees), and other
miscellaneous costs.
4. Construction Contingency: Used the same percentage as the County is currently
using for their proposed animal shelter for consistency.
5. Project Contingency and Allocation: Used the same percentage as the County is
currently using for their proposed animal shelter for consistency.
6. Allocation of County Costs Incurred to Date: At the last meeting, the power point
for the County showed that the County has expended $224,720 to date and has
allocated a remaining $1,155,698 to date. Because of timing difference, an
estimate of $300,000 for County costs incurred to date was used.
7 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
NC Allocation: For purposes of the analysis, proportionate sharing of costs between
Atascadero and Paso Robles is based on the numbers included in the February 2017
agreement. Atascadero received shelter services for 1,719 animals (43.3%) and Paso
received shelter services for 2,250 animals (56.7%). Actual allocations will vary
depending on each year’s use. With only two participants, variances in the number of
animal served will have a larger impact on annual payments in the future.
NC Financing Terms: It is assumed that the North County could finance a near the
same interest rates and terms. For purposes of illustration, interest rates are assumed
at 3.2% and pay-back period is assumed to be 25 years.
NC Useful Life: In discussing the estimated useful life of conventional construction, it is
reasonable to assume that the building life will be around 45 years.
Below is a comparison of the Cities of Atascadero and City of Paso Robles estimated
share of the County shelter versus each analyzed scenarios for a North County Shelter.
City Portion
Current
Budget
Atascadero &
Paso Share of
County Shelter
(33.18%)1
Prevailing
Wage-
Wisteria
Prevailing
Wage-
Sulphur
Springs
Private Build-
Wisteria
Private Build-
Sulphur
Springs
Land - - - - - -
Construction 8,070,000 2,677,626 3,674,142 3,736,825 3,151,090 3,224,543
Interior Hard Costs 330,000 109,494 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Soft Costs 2,705,000 897,519 651,121 660,524 572,664 583,681
Construction Contingency (10.366%)836,500 277,551 380,845 387,343 326,628 334,242
Project Contingency & Escalation (15.3%)1,235,000 409,773 562,276 571,869 482,230 493,471
City Only Costs 176,033 94,123 - - - -
Proportionate share of costs incurred to date 99,540 99,540 99,540 99,540
13,352,533 4,466,086 5,283,384 5,371,561 4,547,612 4,650,937
Total Cost of shelter at $14.5 million 14,676,033 4,869,508
% of County Shelter 2 39.57%40.23%34.06%34.83%
Comparison of Animal Shelter Project Costs
1 Assumes Atascadero and Paso Robles proportionate share based on percentages provided in the contract. Atascadero and Paso Robles
proportionate share will vary based on usage, using a 3 year rolling average.
2 This percentage reflects the scenario shelter cost as a percentage of the County shelter costs.
County-Wide Shelter North County Shelter
8 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
City Portion
Current
Budget
Atascadero &
Paso Share of
County Shelter
(33.18%)1
Prevailing
Wage-
Wisteria
Prevailing
Wage-
Sulphur
Springs
Private Build-
Wisteria
Private Build-
Sulphur
Springs
Assuming Estimate Life of Shelter Building
Estimated Cost of Shelter 13,352,533$ 4,466,086$ 5,283,384$ 5,371,561$ 4,547,612$ 4,650,937$
Estimated Useful Life of Shelter (in years)45 45 45 45 45 45
Estimated annual cost of Shelter 296,723$ 99,246$ 117,409$ 119,368$ 101,058$ 103,354$
Assuming Estimated Life of Current Agreement
Estimated Cost of Shelter 13,352,533$ 4,466,086$ 5,283,384$ 5,371,561$ 4,547,612$ 4,650,937$
Estimated Useful Life of Shelter (in years)45 23.5 45 45 45 45
Estimated annual cost of Shelter 296,723$ 190,046$ 117,409$ 119,368$ 101,058$ 103,354$
Comparison of Life-Cycle Costs Animal Shelter Project
County-Wide Shelter North County Shelter
For cash flow and payment purposes, a sample amortization table is provided below
showing annual shelter payments under each scenario.
Interest Rate: 3.2%
Term: 25 years
North County Estimated Issuance Costs: $350,000
County
County Shelter
Prevailing
Wage-
Wisteria
Prevailing Wage-
Sulphur Springs
Private Build-
Wisteria
Private Build-
Sulphur
Springs
Estimated Shared Cost of Shelter13,176,500 5,283,384 5,371,561 4,547,612 4,650,937
City Only Portion of Shelter 176,033
Estimated Issuance Costs 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000
Total Financing 13,702,533 5,633,384 5,721,561 4,897,612 5,000,937
Estimated Annual Payment 812,687$ 330,765$ 335,942$ 287,564$ 293,631$
Estimate Atascadero Share 117,692$ 143,252$ 145,494$ 124,542$ 127,169$
Estimated Paso Robles Share 154,056$ 187,513$ 190,448$ 163,022$ 166,462$
North County Shelter
Calculation of Shelter Facility Payments
Overall shelter costs for a North County facility would cost more on both an
annual payment and on a life-cycle cost using the Cities current share of the
County facility and assuming that the other Parties agree to the use of the county
facility after the term of the current agreement. There is one substantial difference
in shelter costs that cannot be quantified. If after some period of time, the Cities of
Atascadero and Paso Robles decide to no longer have a North County Animal Shelter,
there is the possibility that the building would have value that each City would have
some sort of equity in the building. (Assuming a public ownership scenario rather than
a private lease situation)
9 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
Animal Services Costs
County Operations: Each City has a similar agreement for animal services in force that
runs from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. This agreement (Attachment 5) allocates
fees to each jurisdiction based on four key facets of animal services operations:
1. Field Services
2. Licensing
3. Shelter Operations
4. Education Services
The contract contains the following language to determine costs charged to each
agency and fee revenues credited to each agency in order to determine the net cost to
each agency.
4.a Determination of Cost of Service – The cost of providing services to
the City will be calculated by determining the average percentage of
service allocated to the City of the preceding three years for each of the
four facets of operations and multiplying this percentage against Animal
Services operational costs for each facet. Combined, this then represents
the City’s total service cost in proportion to the County and all other
contracting parties.
4b. Credit for Fees – The average annual revenue generated from fees or
fines assessed directly to residents of the City by Animal Services over the
preceding three years will be applied against the City’s total service cost.
4c. Determination of Service Fee – The fee assessed to the City for
provision of services outlined in this contract shall be determined by
subtracting the average revenue as determined by item 4b of this exhibit
from the average cost of service as determined by item 4a of this exhibit.
Based on the County cost allocation for 2017 -2018 (Attachment 6), Atascadero is being
charged $248,842 (15.7% of total charges) and Paso Robles is being charged $306,599
(19.3% of total charges) for 2017-2018 animal services.
NC Operations: In addition to shelter facility costs, animal services cost must also be
analyzed. Petaluma Animal Services Foundation (PASF) has provided a scope of
services (See Attachment 7) and a pro-forma operations budget (See Attachment 8).
For comparison purposes, PASF was asked to provide contract costs for services that
are the same as currently provided by the County. As discussed in the flexibility portion
of this staff report, services (and thus related costs) could be modified and tailored to
meet the needs of each community.
PASF has verified that the contract cost provided in the documents includes all services
and equipment (other than shelter costs) needed to pe rform the scope of work. This
includes trucks, furnishings and other minor equipment costs.
The table below allocates costs of a North County Shelter between Atascadero and
Paso Robles, using the allocation factor from the County agreement. Atascadero’s
10 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
share of $248,842 is 44.8% of the total usage between Atascadero and Paso Robles,
while the Paso Robles share of $306,599 represents 55.2%
Contract Amount:502,000$
County Shelter
North County
Shelter
Atascadero Cost 248,842$ 224,900$
Paso Robles Cost 306,599 277,100
Total Financing 555,441$ 502,000$
Calculation of Shelter Facility Payments
Animal services (field services and shelter operations) costs would be lower with in
North County Shelter scenario.
Total Costs
Interest Rate: 3.2%
Term: 25 years
Contract Amount: $502,000
County
County
Shelter
Prevailing
Wage- Wisteria
Prevailing
Wage- Sulphur
Springs
Private Build-
Wisteria
Private Build-
Sulphur Springs
Shelter Annual Financing Costs 271,748$ 330,765$ 335,942$ 287,564$ 293,631$
Operations Costs 555,441 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,000
Total Financing 827,189$ 832,765$ 837,942$ 789,564$ 795,631$
Estimate Atascadero Share 366,534$ 368,152$ 370,394$ 349,442$ 352,069$
Estimated Paso Robles Share 460,655 464,613 467,548 440,122 443,562
827,189$ 832,765$ 837,942$ 789,564$ 795,631$
Calculation of Total Estimated Annual Payments
North County Shelter
Savings in animal services would offset the additional shelter costs if a North County
Shelter could be built by the private sector and not be subject to pre -vailing wages and
other government contracting laws, providing a slightly lower overall annual pay ment in
those scenarios. If the shelter must be built using government contracting, the overall
payments would be higher under a North County Shelter than participating in the
County Shelter.
11 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
County
Shelter- 45
Year Life
County
Shelter- 23.5
Year Life
Prevailing
Wage- Wisteria
Prevailing
Wage- Sulphur
Springs
Private Build-
Wisteria
Private Build-
Sulphur Springs
Shelter Annual Life-Cycle Cost 99,246$ 190,046$ 117,409$ 119,368$ 101,058$ 103,354$
Operations Costs 555,441 555,441 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,000
Total Financing 654,687$ 745,487$ 619,409$ 621,368$ 603,058$ 605,354$
Estimate Atascadero Share 291,825$ 331,149$ 275,749$ 276,597$ 268,667$ 269,662$
Estimated Paso Robles Share 362,862 414,338 343,660 344,771 334,391 335,692
654,687$ 745,487$ 619,409$ 621,368$ 603,058$ 605,354$
Calculation of Total Estimated Annual Life-Cycle Cost
North County ShelterCounty
In the life-cycle cost analysis, the cost of the shelter is divided over 45 years, spreading
the additional costs of a North County shelter over a long-period of time. In the Life-
cycle analysis, the savings realized on operations would outweigh the additional shelter
annual costs, netting a small savings in each North County scenario.
While there is potential annual savings in the analysis presented, there are also several
assumptions regarding the financing terms that the Cities could achieve and the share
of the County shelter that will be borne by Atascadero and Paso Robles in the fu ture.
Issue #2 – Control
Control characteristics of the County Shelter and the North County Shelter as proposed:
County Animal Services North County Animal Services
Atascadero and Paso Robles combined
constitute a minority interest
Atascadero and Paso Robles, being the
sole partners, will have a greater ability to
decide the nature and scope of services
to be offered.
County contract gives significant powers
to the County.
Atascadero and Paso Robles are roughly
the same size and level of demand for
animal services, thus ensuring they each
have an equal say
The two cities could contract together
with the operator or contract individually
12 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
Issue #3 – Convenience to Residents:
Convenience characteristics of the County Shelter and the North County Shelter as
proposed:
County Animal Services North County Animal Services
The County shelter is located on Highway
1, west of San Luis Obispo, and
approximately 32 miles from downtown
Paso Robles and 22 miles from
downtown Atascadero
The proposed shelter site on Sulpher
Springs is approximately 2 miles from
downtown Paso Robles and 12 miles
from downtown Atascadero.
The County shelters, on average, 4,000
animals annually
The proposed shelter site off Wisteria is
approximately 4 miles from downtown
Paso Robles and 14 miles from
downtown Atascadero
Services provided on a 24 hours a day, 7
days a week basis with an on-call animal
control officer dispatched for after hour
emergency requests.
Paso Robles and Atascadero account for,
on average, 1,400 animals annually in the
shelter
Services provided on a 24 hours a day, 7
days a week basis with an on-call animal
control officer dispatched for after hour
emergency requests.
Convenience advantages and disadvantages of the North County Shelter as proposed:
Pros Cons
It is likely that residents will experience
shorter response times to calls for service
with dedicated North County officers.
There is the potential that with a local
shelter and dedicated North County
officers, residents will desire additional
services and this will increase costs to the
contract for both sheltering and field
services
Adoptable animals in the shelter will be
local to the participating cities
The proximity of the shelter and the
increased availability of animal control
officers could lead to an increase in calls
for services and surrenders to the shelter
Expenditures and revenues stay local With a shelter servicing only the two
North County cities, there is a likelihood
that those seeking to adopt would
encounter a reduced selection of
adoptable animals
13 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
Issue #4 – Flexibility:
Flexibility characteristics of the County Shelter and the North County Shelter as
proposed:
County Animal Services North County Animal Services
Provides services to residents throughout
the County (8 jurisdictions representing
many unique communities)
Provides services to residents of
Atascadero and Paso Robles
Final policy and budgetary authority
resides with the County Board of
Supervisors (BOS)
Final policy and budgetary authority
resides with a North County Animal
Services Board comprised of City of
Atascadero and City of Paso Robles
representatives
An Executive Board made up of the
County Administrator (CAO) and 2-3 City
Managers has the ability to provide input
on significant policy and budgetary
changes. (If CAO and City Managers
disagree, the County will include the City
Managers’ recommendation in any staff
report to BOS, and provide a summary of
the disagreement)
Executive Committee made up of staff
from the City of Paso Robles and City of
Atascadero will shape policy and budget
recommendations for consideration by
the North County Animal Services Board.
County currently enforces similar animal
control regulations and services
throughout the County.
Because animal services will be providing
services to 2 communities it is more
reasonable to have staff enforce different
regulations in each jurisdiction (The North
County Animal Services Board would
determine whether regulations and
services need to be the same for each
participating City.)
County shelter must have policies and
budgets in place to address the needs
and expectations of a wide variety of
communities
The North County Shelter must have
policies and budgets in places to address
the needs and expectations of both
communities.
Flexibility advantages and disadvantages of the North County Animal Shelter/Services
as proposed:
Pros Cons
Because each the shelter will only
provide services to 2 communities,
policies related to animal services
could be tailored for each community.
A Board made up of equal representation
from each City may sometimes lead to
conflict and dissension between the 2
cities.
If changes from current policy is desired,
policy changes would have to be
developed and considered, taking up staff
time and time from each City Council
14 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
Issue #5 – Publicly-owned and operated vs. Public-private partnership
model
Characteristics of the County Shelter and the North County Shelter as proposed:
County Animal Services North County Animal Services
The County shelter will be built, owned,
financed, and operated by a government
agency. Implicitly, this imposes greater:
restrictions on personnel policies;
process requirements;
public involvement;
transparency requirements;
etc.
A north county shelter would be built,
owned, financed, and operated by a not-for-
profit. The two cities would contract for
services with the not-for-profit.
The agreement and all subsequent policy
decisions need to be made by the County
Board of Supervisors or by all
participating agencies. This injects
political considerations.
Although the two cities would need an
agreement (called for elsewhere in this
report), ongoing operational decisions
would be made by the not-for-profit.
Issue #6 – Risk:
Risk characteristics of the County Shelter and the North County Shelter as proposed:
County Animal Services North County Animal Services
County is a governmental agency
providing animal field and shelter
services
Proposed private sector contractor to
provide animal field and shelter services
County shelter agreement is a minimum
25 year agreement
North County Animal Services agreement
is expected to be a long-term agreement
County shelter operations and field
services agreements are typically 3 year
agreements
Contract for shelter operations and field
services is expected to be a 5 year
contract
County agreement calls for changing
service and shelter infrastructure costs
based on usage from each City
North County Animal Services agreement
is expected to include changing service
and shelter infrastructure costs based on
usage from each City
County is responsible for operating
the animal shelter throughout the life
of the agreement and possibly longer.
Currently there are not many qualified
animal shelter operators that would be
interested in operating a shelter in our
County. Staff looked at costs associated
with the City operating an animal shelter
and it was not cost effective compared to
the County contract
The cost of constructing the County
Animal Shelter could be higher or lower
than the current estimate. Costs may not
exceed $14,500,000 without a written
amendment to the agreement signed by
all parties. (Budget is $13,176,500)
The cost of constructing the North County
Animal Shelter could be higher or lower
than the current estimate.
15 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
County Animal Services North County Animal Services
The cost of constructing the County
Animal Shelter has been developed by
County staff and qualified consultants
over a period of months
The cost of constructing the North County
Animal Shelter has been developed by
qualified consultants over a period of 3
weeks
The County has been providing animal
field services and shelter services for
many years. There is a long cost history
of providing these services.
Costs for animal shelter operations and
field services were developed by a
qualified professional over a period of 3
weeks based on long experience in
running animal shelters.
The County currently handles most
liability claims related to animal services
It is expected that the operations
contractor will be required to indemnify
the cities; however with non-
governmental contracts, it is often likely
that the cities will incur additional costs
with claims.
Risk advantages and disadvantages of the North County Animal Shelter/Services as
proposed:
Pros Cons
If the private contractor does not work
out, the cities will have to find another,
potentially more costly, method of
providing animal field and shelter
services.
Issue #7 – Impact on Other Cities in the County and on the County:
Animal services for the entire County, including the incorporated cities, has historically
been provided by the County of San Luis Obispo. Different formulas have been used
over the years to determine who pays for animal field services and animal shelter
services, with the most recent formula allocating costs to the County and Cities based
on the usage of services, offset by the revenues (animal licensing fees, adoption, etc.)
generated from each jurisdiction. If the Cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles no longer
participate in the County operated animal shelter, this will have a significant financial
impact on the County and each City in the County. While there may be some animal
services costs that will decrease, due to the loss of Atascadero and Paso Robles, many
of the costs are fixed and will remain substantially the same whether all 8 jurisdictions
participate or just some subsection of the 8 jurisdictions participate.
Each City in the County and the County has understandably expressed a desire for both
Atascadero and Paso Robles to remain a participant in the County-wide shelter. Some
representatives from other participating jurisdictions have expressed disappointment
that the North County cities would consider building their own shelter and withdrawing
from the agreement. Attached are letters received from other cities on the subject
(Attachment 9).
16 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
Below is a brief analysis of the financial impacts to the other cities if Atascadero and
Paso Robles choose not to participate in the County shelter.
Shelter Fees
Comparison financing figures were recently provided by the County for the estimated
allocated annual costs for each city assuming that the Cities of Atascadero and Paso
Robles participate in the County shelter and then assuming that the Cities of
Atascadero and Paso Robles did not participate/built a North County shelter. The
County provided different interest rates and pay back periods, however for comparison
purposes, only the 25 year pay-back period is illustrated here.
Shelter Costs: Current County analysis shows that while a County-wide animal shelter
would require fewer kennels and smaller areas for cats; there is a considerable portion
of the shelter that would remain the same. County illustrative financing costs show
financing at $13.7 million for a County-wide shelter, and $13.2 million for a shelter if
Atascadero and Paso Robles do not participate.
Interest Rates: Current estimated interest rates are around 3.2%, but the county did
also provide costs at 3.72% to illustrate cost if the interest rates were to increase 50
basis points in the next few months.
Term: The County provided numbers for both a 25 year pay-back period and a 30 year
pay-back period, however the chart below only reflect the numbers from the 25 year
pay-back period.
Animal Services Fees
In discussing how other jurisdiction’s animal service fees would be impacted with
County representatives, it is anticipated that there may be some small savings, but that
in general total costs would remain similar to total costs now. For comparison
purposes, the chart below shows what the 17-18 allocation would’ve looked like under
each scenario.
County North Co.Difference County North Co.Difference
13.7M 13.2M Over 25 Years 13.7M 13.2M Over 25 Years
Arroyo Grande 67,317$ 100,238$ 32,921$ 823,025$ 71,219$ 106,067$ 34,848$ 871,200$
Atascadero 115,298 - (115,298) (2,882,450) 121,980 - (121,980) (3,049,500)
Grover Beach 29,767 46,264 16,497 412,425 31,492 48,954 17,462 436,550
Morro Bay 25,916 38,553 12,637 315,925 27,418 40,795 13,377 334,425
Paso Robles 150,922 - (150,922) (3,773,050) 159,669 - (159,669) (3,991,725)
Pismo Beach 11,554 15,421 3,867 96,675 12,223 16,318 4,095 102,375
San Luis Obispo 97,004 138,791 41,787 1,044,675 102,626 146,862 44,236 1,105,900
County 304,572 431,794 127,222 3,180,550 322,224 456,903 134,679 3,366,975
802,350$ 771,061$ (31,289)$ (782,225)$ 848,851$ 815,899$ (32,952)$ (823,800)$
Difference Difference
3.2% - 25 years 3.72% - 25 years
Comparison of Shelter Facility Costs
17 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
Estimated Estimated Projected Estimated Estimated Projected
Cost Revenue Net Cost1 Revenue Net
Arroyo Grande 205,023$ 116,822$ 88,202$ 10.92%265,701$ 116,822$ 148,879$ 60,678$
Atascadero 371,374 122,532 248,842$ -
Grover Beach 111,578 49,813 61,766$ 5.94%144,601 49,813 94,788 33,023
Morro Bay 103,211 53,363 49,847$ 5.50%133,757 53,363 80,394 30,546
Paso Robles 454,364 147,765 306,599$ -
Pismo Beach 57,998 29,954 28,044$ 3.09%75,163 29,954 45,209 17,165
San Luis Obispo 335,245 161,898 173,347$ 17.86%434,463 161,898 272,565 99,218
Unincorporated 1,063,829 435,701 628,128$ 56.68%1,378,676 435,701 942,975 314,847
2,702,622$ 1,117,848$ 1,584,774$ 100.00%2,432,361$ 847,551$ 1,584,810$ 555,477$
1 Assumes cost of animal services at 90% of current costs.
2 Assumes revenue from each remaining participating City is equal to the current revenues generated
Difference
Comparison of Animal Services Costs
County Shelter 17-18 Cost to Cities Re-Allocated 17-18 Cost to Cities with Loss of
Atascadero and Paso Robles
Cost
Allocation %
Total additional annual costs to each jurisdiction would be as follows (assuming a 3.2%
interest rate)
Shelter
Increase
(3.2%
Interest)
Animal
Services
Increase
Total
Increase
Arroyo Grande 32,921$ 60,678$ 93,599$
Atascadero -
Grover Beach 16,497 33,023 49,520
Morro Bay 12,637 30,546 43,183
Paso Robles -
Pismo Beach 3,867 17,165 21,032
San Luis Obispo 41,787 99,218 141,005
Unincorporated 127,222 314,847 442,069
234,931$ 555,477$ 790,408$
Impacts to other jurisdictions- characteristics of the County Shelter and the North
County Shelter as proposed:
County Animal Services North County Animal Services
All 8 jurisdictions within the County
participate in one county-wide shelter
The County, San Luis Obispo, Pismo
Beach, Grover Beach, Arroyo Grande
and Morro Bay are expected to
participate in one shelter. Paso Robles
and Atascadero would participate in a
second shelter.
Cost of amount needed to be financed for
a County Shelter is estimated to be $13.7
million
Cost of amount need to be financed for a
County Shelter is estimated at $13.2
million (reduction of $0.5 million)
Similar costs shared amongst all 8
jurisdictions
Similar costs shared among 6
jurisdictions
Expected to reduce County provided
annual animal services costs by
$270,000. County animal services
revenues will be decreased by about
$270,000 leaving a net cost change of
about $0.
Animal services for Atascadero and Paso
Robles are expected to have a net cost of
$550,000.
18 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
Impacts to other jurisdictions- advantages and disadvantages of the North County
Animal Shelter/Services as proposed:
Pros Cons
Significantly increases costs to other
jurisdictions in the County.
Reduces trust and spirit of co-operation
between jurisdictions within the County
Increases total tax payer dollars spent on
animal services in the County by
approximately $550,000 annually
Increases total tax payer dollars spent on
animal shelter facilities by over $3.9
million
County will be paying the majority (56%)
of the costs of the shelter, potentially
discouraging the felt need for co-
operation with the Cities
Issue #8 – Impact on the Police Department and other City operations:
Characteristics of the County Shelter and the North County Shelter as proposed:
County Animal Services North County Animal Services
The county currently provides animal
control services to all municipalities and
unincorporated areas; including
emergency after-hours service.
Proposed private sector contractor would
provide animal field and shelter services
only to the cities of Atascadero and Paso
Robles. The agreement would mirror
current levels of county services, at a
reduced rate.
All animal drop offs and sheltering
services occur in rural San Luis Obispo.
A North County Animal Shelter would
provide north county residents a
convenient location for animal surrenders
and pick-ups.
County shelter operations and field
service agreements are typically 3-year
agreements. Although municipalities are
able to provide input, all final
programmatic decisions rest at the county
level.
A North County Animal Shelter
agreement would increase to a 5-year
period. A local program would increase
control for participant cities allowing them
to tailor programmatic offerings that meet
respective municipalities’ needs.
The county currently manages all service
and shelter complaints as well as day-to-
day activities for the animal sheltering
and field services programs, requiring
minimal city staff involvement.
A North County Animal Shelter would
require increased staff time, from each
city, to ensure contracted services meet
the demands and expectations of each
community.
The county currently handles dispatching
and call taking related to all animal
services.
A North County Animal shelter might
increase workloads to local
communications centers.
19 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
Advantages and disadvantages of the North County Animal Shelter/Services as
proposed:
Pros Cons
Convenient north county animal drop-off
location for staff and community
members.
The private contractor agrees to field all
service and shelter complaints; however,
Staff and Councils will be impacted if
complaints regarding field and shelter
services go unresolved.
Outsourced program management by a
non-profit organization, resulting in
program cost savings to participating
cities.
Increased PD involvement for emergency
and after-hours calls for service.
Increased local control of program to
meet individual community needs.
If the outsourced contractor is unable to
meet the terms of service agreement,
potential exists for a reduction in animal
services to the community and/or the
diversion of city staff time to meet
community needs.
Contracting with a private entity would
require increased city administrative time
to support the program’s governance and
ensure community needs are being met.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts are fully addressed above. It is believed that the approximate
$20,000 in costs of the analysis conducted over the last month are monies that have
been well spent, even if the Council directs staff to continue working with the County
and other cities on the County shelter, since much has been learned that can reduce
the life-cycle costs to the City.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Take no action.
2. Continue working with the County and other cities on the proposed County
Animal Shelter.
3. Notify the County of the City’s intention to pull out of the Co unty agreement (Draft
Letter B) and initiate all steps necessary to work with Paso Robles on the
construction and operation of a north county shelter.
4. Provide alternative direction to staff.
20 of 138
ITEM NUMBER: 1
DATE: 10/30/17
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Letter A
2. Animal Shelter Construction Agreement
3. Financing payment schedules
4. Construction Cost Estimate
5. County Animal Control and Services Agreement
6. County 2017/18 Cost Allocation
7. PASF Scope of Services
8. PASF pro-forma operations budget
9. Letters from other jurisdictions
7. Draft Letter B
21 of 138
Draft Letter A – NON-WITHDRAWAL
October 30, 2017
Guy Savage, Interim County Administrative Officer
Rita Neal, County Counsel
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, California 93408
Paso Robles, California 93446
Re: Countywide Animal Shelter Agreement – Notice of Non-Withdrawal from Agreement
Dear Mr. Savage and Ms. Neal,
The cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles recently expressed concerns regarding the apportioned
construction and operating costs of the proposed countywide animal shelter, which will significantly
increase overall costs above current levels and result in significant impacts to our respective budgets.
Jointly, the North County cities have been investigating alternatives to determine whether or not a
North County animal shelter would be a practical solution that would serve our mutual best interests.
Based upon our Council’s review of that analysis, we have determined that it would not, at this time,
be in the City of Atascadero’s best interest to withdraw from the County Agreement.
However, as recommended by our Council, the City of Atascadero hereby requests that all parties
who have signed the February 2017 Agreement for Allocation of Construction and Financing Costs
for an Animal Services Shelter with San Luis Obispo County consider an MOU or MOA extending
the use of the facility beyond the 20-year life of the shelter financing and involve all parties in any
discussions prior to any decision to vacate/change use of the facility. In addition, we hope to work
closely with the County and other agencies on policy changes that would reduce the usage and costs
of the County animal shelter and look for methods of reducing costs and increasing revenues in order
to neutralize the projected budget impacts.
In order to effectuate timely notice prior to October 31, 2017 as set forth in Section 8(a)(i) of the
Agreement, the City of Atascadero hereby submits this Notice of Non-Withdrawal.
Sincerely,
Rachelle Rickard
City Manager
cc: the City Managers/Administrative Officers and City Attorneys of:
Arroyo Grande
Atascadero
Grover Beach
Morro Bay
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
22 of 138
23 of 138
24 of 138
25 of 138
26 of 138
27 of 138
Animal Services
Animal Services
Animal Services
28 of 138
29 of 138
30 of 138
Needs Assessment, Feasibility, and Building Program Study"
31 of 138
32 of 138
33 of 138
34 of 138
Payment Schedules for 25 and 30 year Financing
35 of 138
North County Animal Shelter
Building and Site Analysis
City of Paso Robles
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
October 26, 2017
Version 1.2
36 of 138
| page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Building Program Summary Page 4
Project Cost Summary Page 7
Similar Project Cost Comparison Page 9
Profession Design Fees Summary Page 11
Concept Floor Plan Page 13
Cost Estimate – Floor Plan Page 16
Concept Site Plan – Wisteria Lane Page 31
Cost Estimate – Wisteria Lane Page 35
Concept Site Plan – Sulphur Springs Road Page 45
Cost Estimate – Sulphur Springs Road Page 49
Alternate Concept Site Plan – Paso Robles Blvd Page 59
Appendix
Building Typology Study Page 62
City Service Summaries Page 69
Project Site Information Page 74
37 of 138
| page 3
Building Program Summary
38 of 138
| page 4
39 of 138
| page 5
40 of 138
| page 6
Project Cost Summary
41 of 138
| page 7
Total Project Construction Cost
42 of 138
| page 8
Similar Project Cost Comparison
43 of 138
| page 9
Similar Project Cost Comparison
Summarized here are similar project cost values on projects the design team worked on
in the recent years. The buildings were of conventional construction, wood, or steel stud, and
concrete masonry.
Facility Size Cost Cost/sq.ft. Year
Complete
Construction
Type
Bernalillo
County
Animal Care
17,186 sf $7,314,087 $425 2017 Steel Stud,
CMU
Carson City
Animal
Services
10,181 sf $3,969,455 $389 2016 Wood Stud,
CMU
Farmington
Animal
Shelter
15,667 sf $3,735,881 $274 2012 Steel Stud,
CMU
Santa Maria
Animal
Shelter
19,000 sf $9,971,536 $524 2017 (current
$, completed
in 2002)
Wood stud,
CMU
44 of 138
| page 10
Professional Design Fees Summary
45 of 138
| page 11
Professional Design Fees Summary
We estimate a normal project sequence for design services on this project. Services for
Schematic Design, Design Development, and Construction Drawings would be required to attain
planning department approval and a building permit. Bidding Services and Construction
Administration would be required to service the construction phase.
The estimated fees are as follows:
Estimated Cost Prevailing Wage
Building and Site Cost for Wisteria Lane Site, APN: 025-435-029: $3,674,142
Design Fees: 15% of Construction Value
Total Design Fees: $551,121
Design Discipline % of Construction Value Estimated Fee
Architecture 8% $293,931
Mechanical, Electrical,
Plumbing Engineering
3% $110,224
Civil Engineering 2% $73,483
Structural Engineering 2% $73,483
Estimated Cost Prevailing Wage
Building and Site Cost for Sulphur Springs Site, APN: 008-051-026: $3,611,825
Design Fees: 15% of Construction Value
Total Design Fees: $541,773
Design Discipline % of Construction Value Estimated Fee
Architecture 8% $288,946
Mechanical, Electrical,
Plumbing Engineering
3% $108,355
Civil Engineering 2% $72,237
Structural Engineering 2% $72,237
Owner Contracted Consultants
Soils Engineer Services $10,000
Permit Fees $0_______
It is anticipated that the City planning and building department fees will be waved.
Land Acquisition $0_______
It is anticipated that the land cost will be waved.
46 of 138
| page 12
Concept Floor Plan
47 of 138
| page 13
48 of 138
| page 15
Cost Estimate – Floor Plan
49 of 138
| page 16
50 of 138
| page 17
51 of 138
| page 18
52 of 138
| page 19
53 of 138
| page 20
54 of 138
| page 21
55 of 138
| page 22
56 of 138
| page 23
57 of 138
| page 24
58 of 138
| page 25
59 of 138
| page 26
60 of 138
| page 27
61 of 138
| page 28
62 of 138
| page 29
63 of 138
| page 30
Concept Site Plan – Wisteria Lane
64 of 138
| page 31
Site Summary for Wisteria Lane Property, APN 025-435-029
Owner: Thomas Erskine
Parcel size: 38.4 acres
The property is zoned RA – Residential and Agriculture with a PD – Plan Development
overlay. A general plan amendment will be required and the project will follow general CEQA
procedures for site environmental review. It is anticipated that a mitigated negative
declaration would result.
There are several possible project site locations for development. There are two
potential locations shown for conceptual development. All utilities are present on the street at
the Wisteria Lane site. A septic sewer system would be required on the Paso Robles Blvd site.
A conditional use permit would be required for the development of an Animal Shelter.
65 of 138
| page 32 66 of 138
| page 34
Cost Estimate – Wisteria Lane
67 of 138
| page 35
68 of 138
| page 36
69 of 138
| page 37
70 of 138
| page 38
71 of 138
| page 39
72 of 138
| page 40
73 of 138
| page 41
74 of 138
| page 42
75 of 138
| page 43
76 of 138
| page 44
Concept Site Plan – Sulphur Springs Road
77 of 138
| page 45
Site Summary for Sulphur Springs Road Property, APN 008-050-026
Owner: City of Paso Robles
Parcel size: 19.95 acres
The property is zoned C3 – Commercial with a Salinas River overlay. A general plan
amendment will be required and the project will follow general CEQA procedures for site
environmental review. It is anticipated that a mitigated negative declaration would result.
There is limited access for development and expansion as the site is situated near a
bank. All utilities are present on the street.
Off site improvements will be required. Water and sewer utilities will need to be run
from the north of the site approximately 800 feet from the adjacent treatment plant.
A conditional use permit would be required for the development of an Animal Shelter.
78 of 138
| page 46 79 of 138
| page 48
Cost Estimate – Sulphur Springs Road
80 of 138
| page 49
81 of 138
| page 50
82 of 138
| page 51
83 of 138
| page 52
84 of 138
| page 53
85 of 138
| page 54
86 of 138
| page 55
87 of 138
| page 56
88 of 138
| page 57
89 of 138
| page 58
Alternate Concept Site Plan – Paso Robles Blvd
90 of 138
| page 59 91 of 138
| page 60
APPENDIX
92 of 138
| page 61
Building Typology Study
93 of 138
| page 62
Building Typology Study
The following construction types were evaluated:
• PMC Permanent Modular Construction ( factory built construction )
• PEB Pre-engineered building (Steel framed, metal siding and metal roof construction)
• SB-Wood (Site Built conventional wood framing with concrete slab/ foundation construction)
• SB- STL/MAS (Site Built convention masonry building with metal framed structural roof)
Permanent Modular Construction
Modular construction is a process in which a building is constructed off-site, under controlled plant
conditions, using the same materials and designing to the same codes and standards as conventionally
built facilities – but in about half the time. Buildings are produced in “modules” that are put together on
site.
Structurally, modular buildings are generally stronger than conventional construction because each
module is engineered to independently withstand the rigors of transportation and craning onto
foundations. Once together and sealed, the modules become one integrated wall, floor and roof
assembly.
Building off-site creates an opportunity for better construction quality management. Materials that are
delivered to the plant location are safely and securely stored in the manufacturer’s warehouse to
prevent damage or deterioration from moisture and the elements. Many manufacturing plants have
stringent QA/QC programs with independent inspection and testing protocols that promote superior
quality of construction every step of the way.
Beyond quality management and improved completion time, modular construction offers numerous
other benefits to owners. Removing approximately 80% of the building construction activity from the
site location significantly reduces site disruption, vehicular traffic and can improve overall safety and
security. Reducing on-site activity and thereby eliminating a large part of the ongoing construction
hazards can be a tremendous advantage.
Ill 102: factory built module
94 of 138
| page 63
Permanent Modular Construction “PMC” is a term used to describe modular construction permanently
attached to a foundation. For the purpose of this report PMC buildings are constructed of wood with
steel frames. The structures are 60% to 90% completed in a factory-controlled environment, and
transported and assembled at the final building site.
PMC modules can be integrated into site built projects or stand alone as a turn-key solution and can be
delivered with Mechanical HVAC, Electrical Wiring, Plumbing, Fixtures, and Interior Finishes. A lot of
research has come out in the last few years supporting the fact that modular construction is an efficient
construction process and poised to help the industry grow.
A recent report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Research Council
identifies modular construction as an underutilized resource and a breakthrough for the U.S.
construction industry to advance its competitiveness and efficiency.
(Ref: modular building institute)
Advantages
• Labor cost is less (no prevailing wage at the factory)
• Potential length of construction time shortened
• Minimized weather delays
• Factory controlled construction results in greater attention to details regarding weather
tightness and insulation
• Safer work environment
Disadvantages
• Lifespan is only 20 years
• Not usually maintained during lifespan therefore reducing life
• Building generally limited to a rectangular shape
• Design of interior walls and door layout can be limited due to 12’ column spacing
• Transportation restrictions on design
• Limited selection of materials, finishes, etc.
• Inability for changes during construction
• Ceiling height usually limited to 9’-6”
• Need for exterior ramp to entry height (see discussion for recessed foundation)
• Some construction is done on-site after piecing the building together (prevailing wage labor
costs)
PEB Steel Framed Construction
A pre-engineered building (PEB) is designed by a PEB supplier or PEB manufacturer, to be fabricated
using best suited inventory of raw materials available from all sources and manufacturing methods that
can efficiently satisfy a wide range of structural and aesthetic design requirements. Within some
geographic industry sectors these buildings are also called Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings (PEMB) or, as
95 of 138
| page 64
is becoming increasingly common due to the reduced amount of pre-engineering involved in custom
computer-aided designs, simply Engineered Metal Buildings (EMB).
Historically, the primary framing structure of a pre-engineered building is an assembly of I-shaped
members, often referred as I-beams. In pre-engineered buildings, the I-beams used are usually formed
by welding together steel plates to form the I section. The I beams are then field-assembled (e.g. bolted
connections) to form the entire frame of the pre-engineered building. Some manufacturers taper the
framing members (varying in web depth) to reduce weight according to the local loading effects. Larger
plate dimensions are used in areas of higher load effects.
Other forms of primary framing can include trusses, mill sections rather than three-plate welded
castellated beams, etc. The choice of economic form can vary depending on factors such as local
capabilities (e.g. manufacturing, transportation, construction) and variations in material vs. labor costs.
Typically, primary frames are 2D type frames (i.e. may be analyzed using two-dimensional techniques).
Cold formed Z- and C-shaped members may be used as secondary structural elements to fasten and
support the external cladding. Seismic bracing is accomplished by the 2D steel frames in the cross
section and with rod bracing in the longitudinal direction.
While pre-engineered buildings can be adapted to suit a wide variety of structural applications, the
greatest economy will be realized when utilizing standard details. An efficiently designed pre-engineered
building can be lighter than the conventional steel buildings by up to 30%. Lighter weight equates to less
steel and a potential price savings in structural framework.
Advantages
• Cost effective and structurally sound
• Flame resistant
• No termites or fungus
• Sustainable materials
• Less maintenance
• Short construction times
• Large Spans capable
Ill 103: diagram of components
in a PEB system – note rod
bracing in wall and ceiling
96 of 138
| page 65
Disadvantages
• Specialized construction for laborers – need special tools for assembly
• Higher cost for more skilled labor
• Building moves more than convention framing
• Conductor for heat. Steel conducts heat and cold. Large heat/cold loss unless mitigated (see
simple saver example)
• Needs double wall system or high efficiency insulation to prevent heat transfer
• Requires more space for tapered steel columns and diagonal framing. Up to 18” of space lost at
the column locations
Site Built Construction
SB-Wood
Wood Framed low rise buildings are very much a California invention and account for most of the low-
rise construction in the Western United States. Since the 1970’s millions of buildings have been built and
strengthened with “Simpson” shear panel hardware to lower risk in seismic events.
Ill 105: Simple Saver is a high R value
system that fits between roof
members – and looks good too
Ill 104: Blanket insulation is
compressed at steel member with
the result being reduced R value –
also messy looking
Ill 106: Simple wood framing systems
combined with prefabricated wood truss
systems dominate low-rise construction for
a reason. Quick to construct and relatively
long lasting - wood frame buildings can last
50 years with the right finishes
97 of 138
| page 66
Advantages
• Lifespan is 40-50 years
• Wood framed buildings are easily maintained and renovated
• Basics of wood framing are well known to contractors and their workers
• Materials are readily available
• Construction changes are easily made once the project has started
• Readily accommodates almost any size or placement of windows or doors
• No out of the ordinary engineering or code approvals are required
• No requirement for heavy equipment for assembly
• Flexibility of design for the form and shape of the building
• Construction relatively quick – can be built on slab.
Disadvantages
• Labor cost and material shipping costs will be expensive due to the location of the project
• Wood framing can produce a lot of material waste
• If moisture control is not followed there is a risk to occupants health due to possible mold and
mildew due to condensation and moisture problems.
• Wood is susceptible to termite infestation and rot
SB Steel/Masonry
Concrete Masonry Construction is an extremely durable construction system that is the primary choice
for many commercial projects and when combined with a steel framed roof and a metal standing seam
roof, it is not only durable but is stable, straight, and strong.
Masonry construction also has the advantage of building walls first to accelerate the roof framing (and
hence weatherproofed) and then installing utilities and slab after the roof.
Ill 107: Concrete block is durable and strong.
Combined with a steel roof it is the ideal system used
for both commercial and institutional buildings.
98 of 138
| page 67
Advantages
• Repels insect
• Flame resistant
• Soundproof
• Insulated roof reduces heat gain/heat loss
• Additional insulation may not be needed
• Siding is not needed
• Lifespan is 40-50 years
• Internal columns not needed
Disadvantages
• Higher cost for material & labor
• Needs furring at interior walls if finish or additional insulation desired
99 of 138
| page 68
City Service Summaries
100 of 138
| page 69
101 of 138
| page 70
102 of 138
| page 71
103 of 138
| page 72
104 of 138
| page 73
Project Site Information
105 of 138
| page 74
106 of 138
| page 75
107 of 138
| page 76
108 of 138
| page 77 109 of 138
| page 78
110 of 138
| page 79
111 of 138
| page 80
112 of 138
| page 81
113 of 138
114 of 138
115 of 138
116 of 138
117 of 138
118 of 138
119 of 138
120 of 138
121 of 138
122 of 138
123 of 138
JURISDICTION
Estimated Estimated Projected Estimated Estimated Projected Estimated Estimated Projected Estimated Estimated Projected Estimated Estimated Projected Projected Actual Actual
Cost Revenue Net Cost Revenue Net Cost Revenue Net Cost Revenue Net Cost Revenue Net % Net % $ diff % diff
Arroyo Grande 82,705$ 1,283$ 81,423$ 11% 16,285$ 100,357$ (84,073)$ 19% 105,067$ 15,182$ 89,885$ 14% 967$ -$ 967$ 10% 205,023$ 116,822$ 88,202$ 5.6% 79,285$ 5.1% 8,917$ 11%
Atascadero 173,858 3,641 170,218 23% 14,237 91,315 (77,078) 17% 179,890 27,577 152,313 24% 3,389 - 3,389 36% 371,374 122,532 248,842$ 15.7% 225,965 14.5% 22,877$ 10%
Grover Beach 59,256 982 58,273 8% 5,734 36,828 (31,094) 7% 46,464 12,003 34,461 5% 126 - 126 1% 111,578 49,813 61,766$ 3.9% 68,048 4.4% (6,283)$ -9%
Morro Bay 56,413 852 55,561 7% 6,075 38,054 (31,979) 7% 40,499 14,458 26,041 4% 224 - 224 2% 103,211 53,363 49,847$ 3.1% 45,425 2.9% 4,422$ 10%
Paso Robles 196,282 2,374 193,908 26% 20,470 123,723 (103,253) 23% 235,458 21,668 213,790 34% 2,154 - 2,154 23% 454,364 147,765 306,599$ 19.3% 269,708 17.3% 36,891$ 14%
Pismo Beach 35,569 152 35,418 5% 4,205 25,365 (21,160) 5% 18,000 4,437 13,563 2% 224 - 224 2% 57,998 29,954 28,044$ 1.8% 24,968 1.6% 3,076$ 12%
San Luis Obispo 163,515 2,451 161,065 21% 18,099 112,119 (94,021) 21% 151,426 47,328 104,098 16% 2,205 - 2,205 24% 335,245 161,898 173,347$ 10.9% 146,307 9.4% 27,040$ 18%
Ttl alloc-Cities 767,598 11,733 755,865 60% 85,104 527,761 (442,657) 64% 776,803 142,653 634,151 64% 9,288 - 9,288 44% 1,638,794 682,147 956,648$ 60.4% 859,706 55.1% 96,942$ 11%
Unincorporated 532,155 20,200 511,956 40% 44,730 299,140 (254,410) 36% 475,207 116,361 358,846 36% 11,737 - 11,737 56% 1,063,829 435,701 628,128$ 39.6% 699,220 44.9% (71,092)$ -10%
Ttl 1,299,754$ 31,933$ 1,267,821$ 100% 129,834$ 826,901$ (697,067)$ 100% 1,252,011$ 259,014$ 992,997$ 100% 21,024$ -$ 21,024$ 100% 2,702,622$ 1,117,848$ 1,584,776$ 100.0% 1,558,926$ 100.0% 25,850$ 2%
Jurisdiction
Costs Revenue Costs Revenue Cost Revenue Cost Revenue Cost Revenue Totals City Fee NCC
Totals: 1,299,754$ 31,933$ 129,834$ 826,901$ 1,252,011$ 259,014$ 21,024$ -$ 2,702,622$ 1,117,848$ 1,584,774$ 956,648$ 628,126$
Arroyo Grande 6.36% 4.02% 12.54% 12.14% 8.39% 5.86% 4.60% 4.60%
Atascadero 13.38% 11.40% 10.97% 11.04% 14.37% 10.65% 16.12% 16.12%
Grover Beach 4.56% 3.08% 4.42% 4.45% 3.71% 4.63% 0.60% 0.60%
Morro Bay 4.34% 2.67% 4.68% 4.60% 3.23% 5.58% 1.06% 1.06%
Paso Robles 15.10% 7.43% 15.77% 14.96% 18.81% 8.37% 10.25% 10.25%
Pismo Beach 2.74% 0.47% 3.24% 3.07% 1.44% 1.71% 1.06% 1.06%
San Luis Obispo 12.58% 7.67% 13.94% 13.56% 12.09% 18.27% 10.49% 10.49%
Unincorporated 40.94% 63.26% 34.45% 36.18% 37.96% 44.92% 55.82% 55.82%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
All Cities 59.06% 36.74% 65.55% 63.82% 62.04% 55.08% 44.18% 44.18%
Unincorporated 40.94% 63.26% 34.45% 36.18% 37.96% 44.92% 55.82% 55.82%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Net City Cost: 767,598 11,733 85,104 527,761 776,803 142,653 9,288 -
Unincorporated: 532,155 20,200 44,730 299,140 475,207 116,361 11,737 -
1,299,754 31,933 129,834 826,901 1,252,011 259,014 21,024 -
COUNTY OF SLO
ANIMAL SERVICES DIVISION
CITY CONTRACT FEE WORKSHEET
FIELD SERVICE LICENSING SHELTER OPERATIONS EDUCATION COST ALLOCATION - FY 2017-18 FY 2016-17
*Added $2.00 from TTl alloc-cities for rounding purposes.
Field Svcs Percentages Licensing Percentages Shelter Percentages Education Percentages TOTAL
124 of 138
North County Animal Shelter
Serving the Cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero
Scope of services (draft)
1) PASF obligations. Petaluma Animal Services Foundation shall perform the following duties.
a) Shelter Services
i) Operate the North County animal shelter whereat stray, owner surrendered,
confiscated, quarantined and custodially impounded household pets are received and
provided with appropriate care, housing, and shelter services in accordance with state
regulations, local ordinances, and policies governing the humane treatment of such
animals.
ii) Provide services allowing sheltered animals to be returned to their owners, adopted
into new homes, or to be humanely euthanized.
iii) Provide for the publication of lost and found animal reports.
iv) Provide for the humane euthanasia of household pets and for the disposal of their
remains.
v) Documentation will be kept on each animal brought in by an owner, other
governmental agency or member of the public. An inventory will be maintained
indicating the type of animal, breed, sex, license number (if applicable), microchip
information (if available), the date the animal was received, from whom the animal
was received, the date a notification was sent and the final disposition of the animal.
vi) Standard Vaccinations/Microchip scanning: All cats and dogs will be vaccinated
upon intake; Dogs will receive intranasal Bordatella and DHPP. Cats will receive the
FVRCP vaccination. All dogs and cats shall be scanned for the presence of a
microchip. PASF staff shall initiate the search for an owner through the microchip
vendor.
vii) Animal Owner Notification: Owners shall be notified as soon as possible in a manner
set forth by state or local law, rule, or ordinance or as set forth by PASF if no such
law, rule or ordinance exists.
viii) Quarantined Animals: PASF shall document and monitor all animals under
quarantine. When necessary, obtain a lab sample of the animal; prepare the necessary
paperwork to accompany the sample to the health department for testing.
ix) Licenses: PASF shall sell dog licenses and process all options of animals. PASF shall
retain all revenue from these programs.
125 of 138
x) Foster programs: PASF shall develop, maintain and implement a Foster care program
for cats and dogs.
xi) Emergency veterinary services: PASF shall be solely responsible for the costs
associated with veterinary services and treatment of sick or injured domestic animals.
b) Field Services
i) Receive and respond to public calls for service related to alleged violations of local
or state codes pertaining to the care, keeping, treatment, and management of animals.
ii) Provide for the response to any of the following circumstances 24 hours a day, seven
days a week:
(1) Domestic animals posing the active and present threat to public safety
(2) Domestic animals which are severely injured, ill, or in eminent risk and whose
owner is unknown or unavailable.
(3) Domestic or wild animals demonstrating signs of possible rabies infection.
(4) Calls for assistance from law enforcement or emergency response personnel.
(5) Reported animal bites where the animal remains in the area unconfined and the
owner is unknown or unavailable.
(6) Loose livestock roaming on roadways or other public areas.
(7) Calls for service routing: PASF will handle and dispatch all calls for service
received for appropriate animal related services during normal business hours of
the shelter. After hours calls for service will be received by the local police
department and emergency requests (1-6) will be forwarded to the on-call animal
control officer. Non-emergency after hours calls for service will be forwarded to
a recorded line at the animal shelter for follow up the next business day.
126 of 138
iii) Provide for the response to any of the following during Animal Services normal
business hours:
(1) Pick-up and impoundment of unlimited number of stray confined, domestic
animals.
(2) Pick-up and disposal of unlimited numbers of dead domestic animals from
roadways, parks, and other public areas.
(3) Pick-up and transfer to shelter of owned animals for surrender or euthanasia.
(4) Pick up of dead owned animals for disposal.
iv) Provide for the necessary medical treatment and emergency care for domestic
animals picked up by Animal Services personnel and for those domestic animals
presented directly to veterinarians by private citizens and emergency personnel.
v) Provide for the receipt, processing and investigation of animal bite reports as well as
the subsequent quarantine of animals in accordance with state codes pertaining to
rabies control.
vi) Receive and respond to reports of animals, domestic or wild, which are suspected to
be rabid or to have been exposed to rabies infection and attempt to affect their
capture. Captured animals will be processed in accordance with state codes
pertaining to rabies control.
vii) Receive and process all applications related to the keeping and sale of household
pets; inspect and regulate permitted operations in accordance with local and state
codes.
viii) Provide for the recording, investigation, administrative hearings, and issuance of
findings and orders related to animal nuisances, animal seizures or confiscations, and
dangerous or vicious animals. Nuisances which remain unresolved following the
issuance of an abatement order will be processed through the City Attorney’s office.
ix) Assist in the preparation and filing of court documents related to the civil and/or
criminal prosecution of cases involving violation of municipal codes pertaining to the
care, treatment, and keeping of domestic animals.
x) Provide for the preparation, filing and civil or criminal prosecution of cases involving
violations of California state codes pertaining to the care, treatment, and keeping of
domestic animals.
127 of 138
c) Reporting: Provide to the Cities bi-annual service activity and financial reports reflecting
field services, licensing, shelter operations, and humane education programs. Reports will
detail this information for both the individual quarter and year-to-date.
2) City Obligations. The cities shall perform the following duties.
a) Ordinance Conformity: Adopt, either by direct incorporation in the municipal code or by way
of reference, animal control ordinances which are in conformity to and are not in substantial
conflict or in variation from each other.
b) Prosecution of Municipal Code Violations: Through the City Attorney(s), provide for the
preparation, filing and civil or criminal prosecution of cases involving violation of municipal
codes, pertaining to the care, treatment, and keeping of animals, including all such codes
incorporated into the municipal code by way of reference.
c) Assistance: Provide such assistance and support to Animal Services personnel as may be
reasonably necessary to safely and effectively execute the operations required by this contract
within the City limits.
3) Animal Care and Control Coordination Group: PASF and the Cities agree to meet and confer
periodically, along with any other parties contracting for like services, to discuss current issues as
they relate to the fiscal and practical application of this contract. Such meetings shall be
coordinated by the Animal Shelter Manager from time to time as becomes necessary, but no less
than once annually.
128 of 138
Petaluma Animal Services Foundation
Revenue forecast based on current operations of similar size in our current facitlity in Petaluma
Licensing
Animal Licenses 175,000 175,000
Adoption (Animal Placement)32,000 32,000
Clinic:
Microchip 1,000 1,000
Cremation 2,000 2,000
Redemption 10,000 10,000
Surrender 10,000 10,000
ACO Fees 2,000 2,000
City Contracts 502,000 502,000
TOTAL REVENUE 734,000 - 57,000 175,000 - 502,000 -
734,000 0 57,000 175,000 0 502,000 0
1 Shelter Manager 85,000 85,000 - -
3% SIMPLE mach 2,550 - - - - 2,550
13% Payroll costs 11,050 11,050
Medical Stipend 6,000 - - - - 6,000
2 Animal Control Offiers @ $27/hour 116,000 116,000 - -
3% SIMPLE mach 3,480 - - 3,480
13% Payroll costs 15,080 - - - 15,080
Medical Stipend 6,000 - - - - 6,000
1 Customer Service Rep @ $18/hour 38,000 38,000 - - -
3% SIMPLE mach 1,140 - - - 1,140
13% Payroll costs 4,940 - - - - 4,940
Medical Stipend 6,000 - - - - 6,000
2 Kennel Techs @ $14/hour 66,000 - 66,000 - - -
3% SIMPLE mach 1,980 - - - - 1,980
13% Payroll costs 8,580 - - - - 8,580
Medical Stipend 6,000 - - - - 6,000
Adoption Coordinator 52,000 - 52,000 - - -
3% SIMPLE mach 1,560 - - - - 1,560
13% Payroll costs 6,760 - - - - 6,760
Medical Stipend 6,000 - - - - 6,000
25% Executive Director Salary 35,880 35,880
SALARIES WAGES BENEFITS 480,000 116,000 241,000 - - - 123,000
-
Professional Services -
Outside Medical Contract 78,000 78,000
Food 20,000 20,000
Microchips 7,500 7,500
Medical supplies 7,500 7,500
-
Operations -
Facilities Insurance 25,000 25,000
Auto Expenses 30,000 30,000
Uniforms 3,000 3,000
Office Expense 25,000 25,000
Animal Supplies 10,000 10,000
Advertising & Promotion 2,000 2,000
-
Meetings & Events -
Fundraising 10,000 10,000
-
Occupancy -
Utilities 10,000 10,000
Telephone & Internet 10,000 10,000
Equipment Maintenance 9,000 9,000
Building Maintenance 10,000 10,000
-
-
-
SHELTER OPERATIONS & FUNDRAISING 257,000 33,000 59,000 - 93,000 - 72,000
737,000 149,000 300,000 - 93,000 - 195,000
3,000 149,000 243,000 (175,000) 93,000 (502,000) 195,000
Administration
GRAND TOTAL OF ALL REVENUE ACCOUNTS
GRAND TOTAL OF ALL EXPENSE ACCOUNTS
NET PASF COST
ANIMAL SERVICES PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET
TOTAL Field Services
Shelter
Operations
Shelter
Medical City Contract
129 of 138
~.
:CALIFORNIA
' f ' ''" -
October 25, 2017
Atascadero Mayor and City Council
City Hall
6500 Palma A venue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Paso Robles Mayor and City Council
City Hall
1 000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
ARROvo GRANDE
CALIFORNIA
Dear Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Martin and Council Members,
After an extensive series of discussions and negotiations spanning the course of over two years,
the County of San Luis Obispo and cities of Atascadero, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Morro
Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo were successful in developing an
agreement dated February!, 2017 (the "Agreement") for the allocation of construction and
financing costs for a new animal shelter to be located at 865 Oklahoma A venue in San Luis
Obispo.
This Agreement represents a significant collaborative and joint effort to ensure the construction
of a new shelter. The new shelter would provide animal care and control services to residents of
the seven cities and the County in a facility that would be consistent with current humane
standards and public expectations. By agreeing to work together to construct the shelter, all of
the agencies benefit from the economies of scale of sharing both capital and service costs for a
new facility, which would not be feasible for most of the individual agencies.
Under the Agreement, each agency is apportioned a percentage of the estimated costs to
construct the shelter based on the average use of the existing shelter from 2012-2015 by each
agency. After much work has gone into creating and ratifying this agreement, the City of Arroyo
Grande is troubled and concerned to hear that the cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero are
reconsidering their continued participation in the construction of the shelter. If the cities of Paso
Robles and Atascadero withdraw from the Agreement, the portion of the costs attributed to the
withdrawing parties will be spread among the remaining agencies. Based on the allocation
formula set forth in the Agreement, the City of Paso Robles's share comprises 18.81% of the
total cost and the City of Atascadero's is 14.3%. Together, they represent approximately 33% of
the total cost of the $13.3 million construction project or $4.4 million. Other than the
unincorporated areas of the County (at 37.96%), these two cities bear the largest shares of the
allocation. If Paso Robles and Atascadero withdraw from the Agreement, the resulting impact to
the City of Arroyo Grande's total costs would be an increase of almost $600,000.
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR • 300 E. Branch Street • Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phone: (805) 4 7 3-5400 • FAX: (805) 4 7 3-0386 • E-mail: agcity@arroyogrande.org • Website: www.arroyogrande.org 130 of 138
October 25, 2017
Page 2
Your potential last minute decision to withdraw after two years of honest and fair negotiations is
damaging to your fellow cities in the following ways:
1. Withdrawal by Paso Robles and Atascadero may force the City of Arroyo Grande and
other cities to also withdraw from the Agreement due to an inability to absorb the
increase in costs. Such a decision could threaten the viability of the entire project. Thus
diminishing the ability of all citizens of the County to receive this important service.
Sharing the costs of construction ensures a shelter meeting current industry standards will
be built, which will benefit all of the communities involved. As was pointed out by the
Executive Director of Woods Humane Society in her letter to the San Luis Obispo
Tribune dated October 6, 2017, "[t]his economy of scale allows the shared usage of a
sheltering facility, field officer response and the assurance that resources are available to
respond to disasters and large-scale seizures. It gives the public a single point of contact
for response and relieves local municipalities from the call volume, concerns and
complaints that can arise related to animal issues."
2. Your fellow cities now have to make last minute and speculative choices as opposed to
well-reasoned decisions that can identify, analyze, and compare alternatives and find
solutions that improve all the communities in this County.
3. This last minute change of course may also be damaging to future collaborative regional
and countywide efforts.
4. This action is wasteful to taxpayers county-wide. Two years of staff time, involvement of
lawyers to make the agreement, and hours of public testimony may be jeopardized by
changing course.
We believe that your cities will fare much better staying in the Agreement and working to find
cooperative solutions and not forcing your fellow communities to make quick decisions and be
penalized by cost increases.
The City of Arroyo Grande asks the cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero to stay the course and
not withdraw from the Agreement. The Agreement is the result of significant efforts by eight
public agencies coming together with the common goal of providing a new animal shelter to
replace the current shelter, which is in poor condition, outdated and no longer meets current
industry standards for sheltering animals. To withdraw at this point in time will leave the
remaining agencies in jeopardy of being unable to move forward with the project.
Sincerely,
~If
flim Hill
Mayor, City of Arroyo Grande
131 of 138
October 25, 2017
Page 3
c: County of San Luis Obispo
City of Grover Beach
City of Morro Bay
City of Pismo Beach
City of San Luis Obispo
132 of 138
133 of 138
134 of 138
135 of 138
DRAFT LETTER B – CONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL
October 30, 2017
Guy Savage, Interim County Administrative Officer
Rita Neal, County Counsel
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, California 93408
Paso Robles, California 93446
Re: Countywide Animal Shelter – Notice of Conditional Withdrawal from Agreement
Dear Mr. Savage and Ms. Neal,
The cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles recently expressed concerns regarding the apportioned
construction and operating costs of the proposed countywide animal shelter, which will significantly
increase overall costs above current levels and result in significant impacts to our respective budgets.
Jointly, the North County cities have been investigating alternatives to determine whether or not a
North County animal shelter would be a practical solution that would serve our mutual best interests.
Based upon our Council’s review of that analysis, we have determined that it would be in the City of
Atascadero’s best interest to conditionally withdraw from the County Agreement. However, should
the City of Paso Robles decide not to withdraw from the Agreement, the City of Atascadero has
determined that it will then not be feasible for the City of Atascadero to withdraw from the
Agreement.
In order to effectuate timely notice prior to October 31, 2017 as set forth in Section 8(a)(i) of the
Agreement, the City of Atascadero hereby submits this Conditional Notice of Withdrawal.
Thank you for having taken the lead on this important project, for the cities as well as the
unincorporated areas.
Sincerely,
Rachelle Rickard
City Manager
cc: the City Managers/Administrative Officers and City Attorneys of:
Arroyo Grande
Atascadero
Grover Beach
Morro Bay
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
136 of 138
Page 1 of 2
MUTUALLY AGREED UPON TENANTS FOR A FUTURE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITIES OF ATASCADERO AND PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES SHELTER
THIS AGREEMENT, dated for reference as of October 30, 2017 (the “Agreement”), is entered into by
and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation, (“Atascadero”) and the CITY OF
EL PASO DE ROBLES, a municipal corporation (“Paso Robles”) (each, a “Party,” and collectively, the
“Parties”).
RECITALS
The Parties are parties to a separate Contract for Animal Care and Control Services (“Services Contract”)
effective as of July 1, 2016 and expiring, unless sooner terminated, on June 30, 2019, pursuant to which
the County of San Luis Obispo (“County”) provides animal control services within the jurisdictional
boundaries of each of the cities.
In conjunction with and pursuant to the Services Contract, the County operates an existing animal
services shelter located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue in San Luis Obispo, California.
Owing to the obsolescence of the existing shelter, it is necessary for the County to construct a new animal
services shelter.
The Parties entered into a separate Agreement with the County and other cities within the County, for the
Allocation of Construction and Financing Costs for an Animal Services Shelter effective for the period of
January 5, 2017 until all parties to the agreement have paid total project costs for the construction of the
new shelter.
In order to ensure the best results for its citizens, the Parties decided to analyze the desirability and
financial feasibility of constructing a North County Animal Services Shelter (the “Shelter”).
Based on the results of that analysis, both Atascadero and Paso Robles have determined to withdraw from
the new agreement with the County and other cities within the County to share in the cost of constructing
and operating new Animal Services Shelter, but, in full understanding of the urgent need to have a facility
available in a timely manner to provide such services for Atascadero and Paso Robles, have decided to
jointly proceed with the construction and operation of the Shelter and associated field services.
The Shelter would not be cost effective to construct and/or operate by only one of the Parties The Parties
acknowledge and agree that the decision to proceed with the Shelter is wholly dependent upon the
collaboration and sharing of costs by the Parties for the construction and operation of the Shelter.
Therefore, it is important for the two Parties to proceed together, with each having the reasonable
assurance that the other will also proceed.
The Parties enter into this Agreement to memorialize their participation and corresponding obligations
with regards to the Shelter, with the understanding that a more detailed agreement shall be negotiated and
agreed upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
137 of 138
Page 2 of 2
2. Cooperation; Allocation of Costs. Atascadero and Paso Robles each commits to cooperate with and
participate collaboratively with the other for the design, construction, and operation of the Shelter. The
Parties agree that each shall be responsible for paying a pro rata share of the costs incurred by the Parties
with respect to the construction of the Shelter, use of the Shelter, and field services. The pro rata share of
each Party will be a mutually negotiated and agreed-upon amount.
3. Termination. Neither Party may withdraw from this Agreement prior to the completion of the
Shelter’s construction. Following construction of the Shelter, if either Party determines to withdraw from
this Agreement, it shall provide a minimum of three (3) year’s written notice to the other Party. Such
withdrawal shall not be effective unless and until the withdrawing Party has paid the other Party (i) its
entire allocation of the Total Project Costs, (ii) its full share of shelter use and field services costs incurred
prior to date of withdrawal, plus (iii) two (2) times its share of costs incurred during the twelve (12)
months prior to the date of its notice of withdrawal. Notice shall be deemed received on the date of
personal delivery, or if mailed by U.S. mail, five (5) days after date of mailing.
4. Animal Services Operations. A North County Animal Services Board of Directors shall be created
for the governance of the North County Animal Services. Governance shall be split equally between the
Parties. An Operations Committee comprised of the Shelter’s Executive Director or his/her designee and
a subset of the Parties Police Chiefs or their designees shall also be formed.
5. Good Faith Efforts. The Parties shall each act in good faith in performing their respective obligations
as set forth in this Agreement and shall work diligently to negotiate an agreement to more fully set forth
their respective rights and obligations with respect to allocation of costs and the design, construction and
operation of the Shelter and Field Services.
6. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only in writing, signed by an authorized
representative of each Party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, by their execution below, the Parties agree to be bound to the obligations
stated herein, and the Parties have caused this Agreement to be subscribed by each of their duly
authorized officers and attested by their respective Clerks.
Dated: _______________ CITY OF ATASCADERO
_____________________ ____________________________
City Clerk By:
Dated: _______________ CITY OF PASO ROBLES
_____________________ ____________________________
Deputy City Clerk By:
138 of 138