Agenda - 10-21-2003-9a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• Changes in operational practices, many related to implementation to the HSUS recommendations, have also created increases. One of the most significant increases in this area is related to utility costs that increased by $5,482 annually, most of which is related to the ventilation and air conditioning repairs. • APS reported in the September 13 letter to the manager that overall personnel costs increased an average of 3%. When reviewing the numbers provided by APS the salary portion of personnel costs went from $342,364 in 2002-2003 to $365,904 in 2003-2004 (23,540). This represents an increase of approximately 7%. • There was an increase of $5,114 in the administrative cost area related mainly to the CPA expenses which I assume are attributed to the annual audit. For the last two years the shelter did not have a comprehensive audit The CPA performed a review, which involves little auditing and is more of a compilation of numbers. Conclusion have attached a spreadsheet comparing the 2002-2003 actual expenditures to the 2003- 2004 projections that are the basis for the APS request. I have also included a spreadsheet containing a 6-year history of Shelter expenses and APS contributions. The County and the APS have operated the Shelter as a partnership for many years with both parties contributing. The APS contributions to Shelter operations averaged 10.78% during the 5-year period 1999 and 2003. As reflected on the spreadsheet, the dollar amounts fluctuate from year to year. If we apply an average of 10% to the APS 2004 request the APS contribution would be $77,511. Since the County has no input in decisions related to salary increases initiated by APS, the shortfall should be adjusted by that amount ($23,540). Were the BOCC to consider funding the $139,115 shortfall reflected in the APS 2004 projections the following formula could be applied. APS Projected Shortfall $139,115 Less APS Contribution 77,511 Less Increase in Salary Costs 23,540 Potential Additional County funding $ 38,064 Monthly amount effective 10/1/03 $ 4,229 This appears to be sufficient to cover the costs associated with HSUS issues as well as increased audit cost and other shelter operating costs, but does not address increases in salary costs. In addition, this scenario maintains an APS contribution at a lesser amount than projected. This is one of many possible scenarios that could be used in assessing the APS request for additional funds and I'm sure that someone could and indeed will disagree with the methodology. The provision of more detailed information and more time to analyze all aspects of shelter operations, including the APS financial statements, would yield a much better product. This product does, however; continue the Shelter operation as a partnership and not the sole funding responsibility of the County.