Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2010-04-26 Item 2 - Presentation - Animal Control Update1 CAS NUMBER: 10-027 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Animal Services Update Fund Source: Comments. MTG. DATE 3/22/10 I Discussion Only MTG. DATE 03/22/10 04/26/10 $42,141.00 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 3/22/10 SH 4/26/10 SH r j (C ITEM INFORMATION CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Aft Date 4/26/ 10 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 3/22/10 SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PWl /IT SPONSOR'S Beginning July 1, 2010, King County will significantly alter the way in which animal control SUMMARY services are provided to cities that contract with them. City Administration has participated in several regional strategy meetings to develop options for providing animal control services to the residents of Tukwila. The Informational Memorandum gives updated information on these options. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte n Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. DA 1'E: 3/16/10, 4/20/10 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. City Administration COMMITTEE Forward to Committee of the Whole :COST IMPACT SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED $38,000.00 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINAL AGENDA DA I B: MARCH 22, 2010 ATTACHMENTS Informational memorandum dated March 10, 2010. Executive Summanry dated April 23, 2010 Informational memorandum dated April 15, 2010, with attachments Copy of South County Options for Animal Care and Control Copy of Animal Services Update Powerpoint presentation Minutes from the Finance and Safety Committee Meeting of 4/20/10 ITEM No. Transportation Cmte E Planning Comm. APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $4,141.00 2 TO: ISSUE OPTIONS City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Committee of the Whole FROM: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director DATE: April 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Executive Summary Animal Services Options Jim Haggerton, Mayor The City has until April 30 to let the County know if we are interested in continuing to participate in negotiations for an interlocal agreement with the County for animal services. If we do not want to continue with the County, and either provide the service ourselves or in conjunction with surrounding jurisdictions, we can either begin providing that service on July 1, 2010, or sign an extension with the County that would go until the end of this year. In reviewing how animal services could be provided within the region and in Tukwila specifically, six potential alternatives were developed to be potentially feasible for how the City could provide this service to our residents: Procure the service through a regional King County model for the County's proposed 2.5 year term Procure the service through a regional King County model for six months, then provide the service either individually or through a sub regional model with Kent, SeaTac and /or Burien Provide the service in -house Provide the service through an interlocal agreement with SeaTac to share the cost of all three services (animal control, sheltering and licensing) Provide the service through a sub regional consortium model with SeaTac and Burien Provide the service through a sub regional consortium model with SeaTac, Burien and Kent Cost and Revenue of New Regional Animal Service Model The County has provided overall cost information to the cities for field services, sheltering and licensing under the new regional model recently developed. The total estimated cost for animal services is $5,601,900, broken down into $1,698,600 for field services, $3,004,900 for sheltering and $898,400 for licensing. The costs allocated to Tukwila specifically are $38,031 for animal control, $78,208 for sheltering and $12,000 3 4 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 for licensing, for total costs of $128,239. These costs are offset by projected revenue of $30,348, for a net cost of $97,891. The County is offering transitional support of $23,609, bringing the net cost down to $74,282. The current budget for animal care services is $38,000, which means the City would need to increase the budget by $36,282 to fully cover the $74,282 total cost. Below is a listing of each option and the net impact on the General Fund. Option RECOMMENDATION W:1FIN Projects \Council Agenda Items \ExecSummary_Animal Controi.docx 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total County regional model 2.5 year contract 42,141 74,282 92,927 103,691 114,823 427,864 Tukwila only model 48,946 139,652 145,967 154,663 163,861 653,088 Tukwila /SeaTac model 48,945 153,618 116,381 120,986 125,760 565,688 Tukwila /Burien /SeaTac model 48,945 87,876 67,265 70,419 73,694 348,199 Tukwila /Burien /Kent /SeaTac model 48,945 46,048 36,933 39,355 41,930 213,211 Assumes a six month contract with King County, then focal or sub- regional model beginning 1/1/2011. The above costs do not include continuation of enhanced services in Tukwila. The County has estimated the cost of enhanced services to be $120,000 per year, per FTE. The cost would need to be shared by neighboring jurisdictions if a particular city was interested in enhanced services. For instance, if Tukwila and SeaTac continued to share the cost of an animal control officer for enhanced services, the increased cost would be $60,000 for each city. It does not appear likely at this time that we would have a third city, such as Kent or Burien, to share this cost with. The County has a deadline of April 30 for cities to indicate whether they are interested in continuing to work on and negotiate an interlocal agreement for animal care services. The purpose of the April 30 deadline is for the County to finalize the regional model, and if necessary due to major cities pulling out, rework the cost allocations and service district boundaries. The administration recommends signing the two and a half year contract with the County. Although this is not the lowest cost option, this would give the City some time to evaluate the service that the County provides, and if necessary put our own model together to meet the needs of the residents. Continuing to work with the County for the time being will give us the ability to further evaluate the costs and impacts of a City only or sub regional model, and how these options might compare to the County's regional model for service delivery. The administration is also recommending not pursuing enhanced services at this time. This option can be added later if the City determines a need for it based on call response times under the County's new regional model. A general consensus by Council is needed at this time for continuing negotiations with the County on a regional model. This is a non binding action. The interlocal agreement, if Council chooses that option, will come to a Regular Meeting in May for action. TO: ISSUE BACKGROUND City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Finance and Safety Committee Committee of the Whole FROM: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director DATE: April 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Animal Services Options Jim Haggerton, Mayor For several years the City of Tukwila has received animal control services through an interlocal agreement with King County. The City also shares the cost of an animal control officer with the City of SeaTac for enhanced services. Due to budgetary constraints and a desire on the part of the King County Council to pursue a full -cost recovery model, King County will fundamentally alter how they provide animal control services to cities that continue to contract with them. Specifically, the County will close their animal shelter to cities by June 30, 2010 unless a regional strategy to provide animal control services can be created, negotiated and implemented. The County has finalized what they consider to be their best, lowest cost, option for cities to participate in a regional animal services model. This option, among others, is presented below for Council direction on whether to continue in a regional model with the County. The City has until April 30 to let the County know if we are interested in continuing to contract with the County for animal services. If we do not want to continue with the County, and either provide the service ourselves or in conjunction with surrounding jurisdictions, we can either begin providing that service on July 1, 2010, or sign an extension with the County that would go until the end of this year. The extension would give the City time to put together options for providing the service to our residents beginning January 1, 2011. For several years the City of Tukwila has received animal control services through an interlocal agreement with King County. This agreement provides the City with field officer services, sheltering at the County's facility in Kent, and animal licensing services. To pay for these services, King County collects all revenue from animal licensing fees generated by Tukwila residents. Tukwila is not charged any additional cost, however, if these licensing fees do not cover the cost of the service provided. The only additional cost to the City is for the animal control officer we share with the City of SeaTac, per our agreement with King County. The City currently budgets $38,000 per year for the cost of this "enhanced" service. 5 6 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Due to budgetary constraints at the County and past concerns with operational issues at the King County animal shelter, King County has decided to no longer provide this service to cities under their existing interlocal agreement. The County has been subsidizing animal control service to all cities in King County that contract with them by approximately $2.0 million annually from their general fund, which is not sustainable for the County's operating budget. The City recently received notification of contract termination, effective June 30, 2010, for our existing interlocal agreement. The King County Council and Executive have placed the following stipulations on cities that want to continue to contract with King County for animal control services: By June 30, 2010, a regional strategy to provide animal control service that includes both the County and a feasible number of cities must be negotiated and implemented. To utilize the current King County animal shelter, which will continue to be operated by the County, cities must be a part of the regional strategy. In addition to the County's existing animal shelter, additional non profit community shelter capacity, where available, is desired to be a part of the regional strategy. By June 30, 2010, as part of the regional strategy, animal control field services, licensing and shelter services must be paid for on a "full cost recovery" basis. In order for the regional model to be economically and operationally feasible for the County, there must be enough cities that choose to participate for the model to work for the County. insufficient participation by cities will result in the County providing these services for unincorporated areas only. DISCUSSION Given these upcoming changes in how animal control services may be provided, the administration is presenting various options for providing this service to the residents of Tukwila, including the County- focused regional strategy, and what the related costs would be for these service delivery options. A brief overview of the services currently being provided by the County follows. These services fall under three broad categories; animal control field services, sheltering and licensing. Animal Control Field Services Animal Control officers provide service in King County from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days a week, with emergency services provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week by on- call officers. To accomplish this, King County has 15 staff members working in field services; 12 Animal Control officers and three (3) staff members in the County's call center receiving calls for service. The City also shares the cost of an animal control officer with SeaTac and the County for enhanced animal control services. That officer is dedicated 50% to SeaTac, 30% to Tukwila and 20% to unincorporated King County in the surrounding area. Animal Control officers respond to the following types of requests: Animal cruelty investigations W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda Itemsl InfoMemo _AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 Response to barking dog Injured animal rescues, complaints and petitions Response to bite reports Assist Police Officers with vicious animal complaints, as requested Pick -up for stray animals "Dead -on- arrival" loose livestock, cats and dogs Leash law violations Animal Shelter Services The King County animal shelter is located in the City of Kent, with a smaller satellite shelter in the City of Bellevue. The animal shelter houses roughly 11,000. animals per year, with the majority being dogs and cats, although other species of animals are also sheltered there. In 2009 the King County sheltered 295 animals that were attributable to the City of Tukwila. These animals were either stray animals picked up and dropped off by King County Animal Control officers or Tukwila residents, or were "owner surrender" animals that were dropped off by their owners for various reasons, including moving out of state, dogs not allowed in a new apartment building, pet no longer wanted, etc. Animal Licensing Services The King County Records and Licensing Services (RALS) Division (of which Animal Care and Control is a sub division) provides licensing services to residents in King County. RALS licensing staff sells both dog and cat licenses, as well as other types of pet and animal licenses, such as kennel licenses, guard dog and guard dog training facility licenses, and exotic animal licenses. In 2008 and 2009, the number of dog and cat licenses issued for Tukwila residents was 1,306 and 1,122, respectively. Of the 2009 amount, 84 licenses were sold at Tukwila City Hall, with the vast majority of licenses sold online or through the mail. According to King County estimates, the number of total licenses sold accounts for roughly 20% to 25% of the estimated dog and cat population that exists county -wide. The table below outlines the number of issued licenses in 2008 and the estimates of the percent of animals licensed: Est. Est. Tukwila Tukwila Est. Dog Cat of Pets Total Pet of Population Population (Cats Est. of Licenses Est. City County Est. (0.63 per (0.71 per and Pets Issued Population Population Households household household) Dogs) Licensed 1,306 18,080 1.54% 7,232 4,571 5,156 9,727 13% Cost and Revenue of New Regional Animal Service Model The County has provided overall cost information to the cities for field services, sheltering and licensing under the new regional model recently developed. The total W:\FIN Projects\Council Agenda ItemsU nfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx 7 8 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 4 estimated cost for animal services is $5,601,900, broken down into $1,698,600 for field services, $3,004,900 for sheltering and $898,400 for licensing. The County's estimated cost for Tukwila for field services ($38,031) assumes one animal control officer for forty hours per week to cover the "240" district, which includes Burien, Kent, Tukwila, SeaTac and Vashon Island. The County estimates that services to Vashon Island are minimal, essentially making the service delivery to just the four cities. Animal control for the entire County would include one animal control officer in each of the four districts, plus two other officers for backup coverage during sick leave, vacations, training, etc. Some additional resources would be shared county -wide, such as a field sergeant, an animal cruelty sergeant and three FTE positions in dispatch. Off duty hours would be covered by either on -call animal control officers who are called back to duty, or King County Sheriff's Office deputies. Total estimated costs for Tukwila for field services are based on a three -year average of 373 calls for service from 2007- 2009. Policy discussions with the County and other cities could change the definition of what type of call warrants a response. For instance, some calls for barking dogs could be handled by dispatch personnel rather than requiring an animal control officer to visit the complainant. Another factor to consider with field services is defining what are "high priority" calls and what length of response time is acceptable for these types of calls. The County has indicated willingness to engage in this sort of discussion with cities once a regional model is in place. Estimated sheltering costs for Tukwila ($78,208) are based on a 50/50 allocation of usage at the Kent shelter and City population. The combination of usage and population effectively spreads the cost of the Kent shelter over a larger number of King County cities. Had the costs been allocated strictly based on shelter usage, the amounts allocated to south King County cities would have been considerably higher. Despite the fact that several north King County cities will be contracting with PAWS for sheltering services, they would still contribute to system -wide sheltering costs. The County's cost estimate for Tukwila is based on an average intake for the last two years of 268 animals at the Kent shelter. One of the ways the City of Tukwila can affect the cost of sheltering, the largest component of overall system costs, is to engage in a discussion with the County, and other cities regarding intake policies. For instance, some non profit sheltering agencies require a significant payment from a pet owner for owner surrenders. Such a policy could lessen the financial burden to the cities. Consideration would need to be given, though, to the impact such a policy might have on the number of "stray" animals turned in to the shelter from good Samaritans that are actually owner surrenders. Estimated licensing costs for Tukwila ($12,000) are allocated based on total system costs divided by a three -year average for licenses issued (1,207 for Tukwila). The cost of licensing system -wide include issuance of the licenses, maintenance of owner information to assist with tracking and placement of lost pets, preparation and distribution of marketing materials for licensing purposes, pet owner education programs, and public outreach in an attempt to increase licensing rates within each city. Potential Animal Service Provision Models W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda ItemslInfoMemo AnimalServicesBriefingforCOW .docx INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 5 In reviewing how animal services could be provided within the region and in Tukwila specifically, six potential alternatives were developed to be potentially feasible for how the City could provide this service to our residents: Procure the service through a regional King County model for the County's proposed 2.5 year term Procure the service through a regional King County model for six months, then provide the service either individually or through a sub regional model with Kent, SeaTac and /or Burien Provide the service in -house Provide the service through an interlocal agreement with SeaTac to share the cost of all three services (animal control, sheltering and licensing) Provide the service through a sub regional consortium model with SeaTac and Burien Provide the service through a sub- regional consortium model with SeaTac, Burien and Kent Other options were also considered. After further discussions with the cities of Renton and Des Moines, it was determined that contracting with these jurisdictions would not be feasible. Although the City of Renton and the City of Des Moines were both very willing to share information and provide insight into how their animal control systems operate, working through the necessary authorizing environments to move a contract forward given the tight time frame cities are working under did not seem feasible. Also, Des Moines would more than likely not have the capacity to take on a jurisdiction such as Tukwila which would nearly double their service area. Following is a high -level overview of the types of services that could be provided under different types of animal service models: Provide Service through Regional King County Model: Contract with King County for a full cost recovery field services contract, which would most likely provide one dedicated King County Animal Control officer in a south county service area including the City of Tukwila Contract with King County for animal licensing Contract with King County Animal Shelter for animal sheltering services at the Kent facility Provide Service In- House: Hire Tukwila Animal Control officer for field services work; administratively housed and supported by the Tukwila Police Department; provides forty hours per week of animal control coverage Utilize private sector pet licensing vendor or existing internal capacity for issuing pet licenses Contract with veterinarians and kennels in Tukwila to utilize their facilities for sheltering Provide Service through South King County Sub regional Model: W:\FIN Projects\Council Agenda Items■InfoMemo _AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx 9 1 0 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 6 Hire Animal Control officers to provide service to south King County cities; determine governance and administrative needs of this consortium model Utilize private sector pet licensing vendor for pet licensing Develop contracts with veterinarians and kennels in Tukwila and other south County cities to utilize their facilities Following are high -level cost and revenue projections for several options the City has: Option 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total County regional model 2.5 year contract Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 30,348 33,383 34,551 35,760 149,216 Estimated total costs 64,120 128,239 135,292 142,733 150,584 620,967 Program surplus (deficit) (48,946) (97,891) (101,909) (108,182) (114,823) (471,751) County transitional support 6,805 23,609 8,982 4,491 43,886 Net General Fund subsidy (42,141) (74,282) (92,927) (103,691) (114,823) (427,864) Tukwila only model (County 1/2 year contract) Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 30,348 33,383 34,551 35,760 149,216 Estimated start-up costs 115,000 115,000 Estimated total costs 64,120 170,000 179,350 189,214 199,621 802,305 Program surplus /(deficit) (48,946) (139,652) (145,967) (154,663) (163,861) (653,088) County transitional support Net General Fund subsidy (48,946) (139,652) (145,967) (154,663) (163,861) (653,088) Tukwila /SeaTac model (County 1/2 year contract) Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 81,480 82,295 83,117 83,949 346,015 Estimated start-up costs 115,000 115,000 Estimated other costs 64,120 321,255 351,073 362,530 374,387 1,473,365 Program surplus (deficit) (48,946) (354,775) (268,778) (279,413) (290,438) (1,127,350) Attributable to Tukwila 100.00% 43.30% 43.30% 43.30% 43.30% Net General Fund subsidy (48,945) (153,618) (116,381) (120,986) (125,760) (565,688) Tukwila /8urien /SeaTacmodel (County 1 /2yearcontract) Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 161,817 163,435 165,070 166,720 672,216 Estimated start-up costs 115,000 115,000 Estimated other costs 64 ,120 404,474 437,205 451,676 466,654 1,824,129 Program surplus (deficit) (48,946) (357,657) (273,770) (286,606) (299,934) (1,151,913) Attributable to Tukwila 100.00% 24,57% 24.57% 24.57% 24.57% Net General Fund subsidy (48,945) (87,876) (67,265) (70,419) (73,694) (348,199) Tukwila/Surien/Kent/SeaTac model (County 1/2 year contract) Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 365,433 378,223 391,461 405,162 1,555,453 Estimated start-up costs 190,000 190,000 Estimated other costs 64,120 791,869 872,647 918,305 966,474 3,613,415 Program surplus/ (deficit) (48,946) (616,436) (494,424) (526,844) (561,312) (2,057,962) Attributable to Tukwila 100.00% 7.47% 7.47% 7.47% 7.47% Net General Fund subsidy (48,945) (46,048) (36,933) (39,355) (41,930) (213,211) The amounts above do not include the $38,000 per year the City of Tukwila currently budgets for enhanced animal services with King County. The above cost projections are based on several different assumptions, including the following: W: \FIN Projects \Council Agenda ItemsltnfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 7 Each sub regional model, those options not involving County participation, assumes two animal control officers serving the entire sub regional area. The officers would work four ten -hour days each, with one day of overlap during the week. Response to off- hours, non emergency calls would wait until the following day when an animal control officer was available. Off -hours emergency calls would be responded to by City police officers. Those animal service models not involving the County would result in each City being individually responsible for making policy -level decisions regarding humane treatment of animals, intake policies for sheltering, euthanasia policies, etc. Officials at each City would also be accountable to the residents and general public regarding the impacts of these policies. For each of the sub regional models, police officers or other PD staff would investigate animal cruelty cases and would handle animals taken into custody as evidence. Each City would assume the cost of risk management, insurance, legal costs, personnel and payroll costs, etc, as part of a regional or City -only animal services model. These overhead type costs have not been quantified above. Licensing revenue amounts assume revenue would increase by 10% in 2011 under the County run model due to efforts on the part of the County and the City to increase the rate of licensing, and then 3.5% thereafter. Cost increases under the County model are specifically capped at 5.5% per year. Including labor contract costs, health care costs and others, the projections assume a cost growth rate at the 5.5% cap. The County has a deadline of April 30 for cities to indicate whether they are interested in participating in a regional model with them. If enough cities opt out of the model, or a city or two of large size does, the implication could be that a regional model would not be operationally or financially feasible for the County to offer. RECOMMENDATION The administration recommends signing the two and a half year contract with the County. Although this is not the lowest cost option, this would give the City some time to evaluate the service that the County provides, and if necessary put our own model together to meet the needs of the residents. Throughout the time that the Joint Cities County Work Group has met, County staff has worked hard to lower the overall cost of service delivery by over $800,000 in total. Also, the County is offering transitional assistance to some cities, which for Tukwila would amount to almost $44,000 over the next four years. Continuing to work with the County for the time being will also give us the ability to evaluate the impacts of a City only or sub regional model on the Police Department and other City operations. The City will work with the County and other cities over the next two and a half years in an effort to improve service delivery, including call response times, lower overall cost of the system, and make improvements to the operation of the Kent shelter. If these efforts are not successful over the contract period, the City will have the option of developing a City only or sub regional model to implement at the end of the County contract period. W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda Items\ lnfoMemo _AnimaiServicesBriefingForCOW .docx 11 12 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 8 A briefing regarding this item is scheduled for the April 20, 2010 Finance and Safety Committee meeting, and the April 26, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting. ATTACHMENTS (County documents) Background /Introduction on Agreement in Principle to Provide a Regional System Outline of Terms for Agreement in Principle Estimated Annualized 2010 Regional Program Cost Allocation Control Districts for Agreement in Principle (Map) Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System Frequently Asked Questions Proposed Timeline for Confirming and Adopting New Interlocal Agreements Cost Considerations for Animal Care, Control and Licensing Operations in a Sub Regional Model W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda Itemst InfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW.docx Joint Cities County Work Group on Regional Animal Services Background /Introduction on Agreement in Principle to Provide a Regional System Animal control, sheltering and licensing are discretionary local services that historically were provided by individual jurisdictions and King County. While discretionary, the services address public health, safety, and animal welfare outcomes that are important to our residents. After being approached by leadership of the Suburban Cities Association in the mid 1980s, King County agreed to provide animal control, sheltering and licensing functions on behalf of cities on a regional basis, in exchange for keeping all pet licensing revenue. Current Service Arrangements Thirty-five cities have an animal services contract with the County (Seattle, Renton, Skykomish and Milton do not have contracts). Most cities contract for all three service components: control, shelter, and licensing. Two cities contract for shelter only (Des Moines, Normandy Park); one city contracts for shelter and field only (Newcastle). Five cities currently purchase a higher level of animal control services (Auburn, Shoreline, Kirkland, Tukwila, SeaTac). The service arrangement has not been revisited since its inception and, over time, the gap between system revenue and system cost has grown to a level that is not sustainable for the County. In recent years, the County has contributed in excess of $2 million annually from the County general fund to support the services. Based on direction from the County Council to enter into new cost recovery arrangements with the cities, the County recently issued termination letters to cities for the existing animal services contracts, effective July 1. Joint Cities County Work Group In anticipation of the termination of contracts, a Joint Cities County Work Group has been meeting since January to develop a proposed "Agreement in Principle" for a new regional animal control system. This "Agreement in Principle" is intended to define a new basis for animal services contracts that could, if adopted by a sufficient number of cities, preserve the benefits of a regional animal services system (see Attachment 1). The alternative to a regional model is that cities will have to either operate their own individual systems or create subregional arrangements for service delivery. Under any delivery option local, subregional or regional cities will have to begin paying something for animal services to continue. As the Work Group reviewed data about the present system, it became clear that cities face very different circumstances with respect to animal services: some are very heavy users of the shelter and control operations; others use it much less. The reasons could relate to demographics, behavior, the geographic proximity of the County shelter or nonprofit shelters, or some combination of factors. The licensing revenue generated by the system Document dated April 7, 2010 1 Prepared by King County 13 14 also varies dramatically among jurisdictions on a per capita basis, in part based on where the County has in the past focused marketing efforts. Economies of scale exist in providing animal services: the more cities that participate in a regional system, the lower the costs are for everyone. Conversely, if the geographic distribution of cities participating in the regional system starts to look like a patchwork, the service delivery becomes more challenging and inefficient; at some point, the County will not be willing or able to effectively provide service. Summary of the Agreement in Principle The "Agreement in Principle" represents a departure from "business as usual" in the delivery of animal services by the County (see Attachment 2). The primary difference in control services will be having animal control officers dedicated to each of four districts 5- days per week (see Attachment 3), while allowing cities individually or collectively within each district to contract for higher levels of service. Operations at the Kent shelter will be improved with limited resources through closing the Crossroads shelter and concentrating staff resources in Kent, expanding the foster and volunteer network, and instituting practices to reduce the number of animals and their length of stay (such as fees for owner surrenders, utilizing capacity at PAWS, and seeking collaboration with other private animal welfare partners). Licensing functions will continue to include Iicensing administration as well as marketing and education, with more incentive for cities to participate in increasing licensing revenues. The proposed system costs to be allocated are $5.6 million (annualized for 2010 see Attachment 4). This reflects a reduction of about $800,000 from estimates provided to cities in early 2010, achieved through cost reductions and the County absorbing some costs. The "Agreement in Principle" seeks to balance the different situations of cities by proposing a cost allocation methodology based on both population and usage factors (a 50- 50 split). Licensing revenues ($3.2 million) are credited to jurisdictions based on the residence of the person buying a pet license. A variety of allocations were considered before arriving at this methodology. The County is proposing to provide transitional funding to those participating cities that have the highest per capita costs. The County is also proposing to provide enhanced licensing marketing support for cities with the lowest licensing revenue per capita. The Agreement in Principle proposes a 2.5 year agreement, during which time the parties, through a Joint Cities- County Committee, will focus on increasing system revenue and reducing system costs. The Agreement in Principle identifies several of these collaborative initiatives, including an exploration of alternative licensing systems and ways to further reduce shelter operation needs. Parties would be allowed to terminate for convenience upon six months notice. Contracts could be extended by mutual agreement for an additional 2 years. The Work Group concluded that to maximize system efficiency, a "menu" approach to the purchase of services is not practicable. For example, it is not efficient for a limited number of field officers to drop animals at multiple shelters. Similarly, the more licensing systems Document dated April 7, 2010 2 Prepared by King County or different field systems the County shelter must interface with, the greater the administrative complexities, inefficiencies, and costs. The Agreement in Principle is described in the attached tables and map, together with a timeline and steps for adoption, and related information. Document dated April 7, 2010 3 Prepared by King County 15 16 Parties Assumes the following cities do not varticipate: Federal Way, Seattle, Renton, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Medina, Newcastle, Skykomish, Milton Services Cost Allocation Revenue Allocation TBD Document dated April 7, 2010 Prepared by King County CONTROL JOINT CITIES COUNTY WORK GROUP FOR REGIONAL ANIMAL SERVICES OUTLINE OF TERMS FOR AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE SHELTER 4 districts, each staffed with 1 Animal Control Officer, 5- day /week, 8- hour /day (TBD: M -F or T -S). 6 total officers to cover sick leave, vacation leave, other. Cities may coordinate sub regionally to purchase higher level of service (specific service options TBD). Regionally shared resources: 1 field sergeant; 1 animal cruelty sergeant; 3 FTE call center open 5- day /8 -hour, after hours dispatch through Sheriff s Office. Allocate one quarter of total costs to each district. Within each district, allocate costs to jurisdictions by combination of usage (calls for service) and population (50% usage/ 50% population). Control revenues (e.g., fines for control violations) netted from total control costs before allocating costs. TBD Bothell, Woodinville, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, Kenmore "Northern Cities will contract for primary shelter services with PAWS (a nonprofit shelter located in Lynnwood). The County will also seek to contract with PAWS for sheltering of animals from part of the north County unincorporated area. Humane standards of care Kent Shelter remains open Crossroads Shelter closes PAWS serves Northern Cities under separate contract Seek future partnerships for adoption, technical assistance with other nonprofit animal welfare organizations Allocate costs by combination of usage (shelter intake) and population (50% usage /50% population). Norther Cities pay half of the population based factor for regional system benefits associated with shelter. Shelter revenues (e.g., adoption fees, microchip fees, impound fees) netted from total shelter costs before allocating costs. LICENSING TBD Administration of licensing system; marketing, education and outreach to maintain and increase licensing sales. County will absorb costs of using mainframe IT system. Allocate by usage and population (50% usage /50% population). Licensing penalty revenue netted from total licensing costs before allocating costs. Regular licensing fees allocated to jurisdiction of resident buying license. Page 1 of 4 OUP FOR REGIONAL ANIMAL SERVICES TERMS FOR AGREEMENT IN PRINC ber 2010 JOINT CITIES-COUNTY WORK GROUP OUTLINE OF TER July-Decem s due January 2011. Estimated ost allocation. l- regional program Payment for July December mat service estimated based on prior pay Aril 1 and October t Method( based on 2011 of estimated annualize p2010 eats due Ap Payment service semi -annual payments d actual Timing and 2012, year budget. For services in revenue, u lied to current y s actual usage, allocable acmae costs R Ce onciliation for year usage and calculated app prior year g allocable actual am cost lied as credit or charge Tonal program Reconciliation calculate�ou'�ew 11 be app o f estimated annualized 2010 reg revenues. Reconciliation alcula ed e 2 011) based on half calculated in Sun (excluding any costs 2010 fees Dece mber revenues and usage. and actual July- allocable to the cities o per ear. allocation collectively more than 5.5 p y s of additional services) will not increase by he total cost for control, shelter lend licensing T purchases by 2012 Cost Inflator Cap associated with p December 31, Z ears: July 1, 2010 through used on day one or at back end of contract). only Contract Term 2 Y (can m be per capita; Contract term and for cities with highest cost or lowest revenue p month termination for convenience notice termination provisions 6 m provided by County along Transitional cities p for fu112. year term• cities withdraw m lack of contiguous service area, available e o cities contracting impracticabl ces if o (e g t challenges} Coun reserves right to terminate services for arasslservices if too many en to remaining are records m anagement continuation of service on mural agreement. a es between field and sheltering, impracticability in ears up x the contract. Limited exception will be made to extend service contract for 2 additional y C Option the County and Cities must purchase all three services from o nent Charge but will a orated into a no shelter usage'comp e incoxp Services Purchased as follows: will p y charg with PAWS o ulation -based sheltering Northern Cities contracting 1 to one -half the population-based P regional sheltering charge equal current cost estimates). Document dated April 7, 201 Prepared by King County Page 2 of 4 L SERVICES 1. AN GROUP FOR REG1 NA ANIMAL P�-E dents to l K G ME f o r esr LINTY e WORK R PG REE r S F and incentives JOINT c1T1ES�E OF -��RM G evenues QUTL� ears to in crease r imize C Ongoing I Joint Citv_Cp°nty Com mittee re bons to max tm era Update board. li of animal Promote eme1t. staffrngbenc s for increasing •rlrepl lter eltexs. operated sh asked With other publicly Explore optio helter repay for she s for Kent S tion study and 6 city re presenta tives tion classification County) an d m ake Study op compensation and ointedby C° se�'rce issues not be elected s of the Complete ear to review Members Y le d finding resenta e each Y ices. Conduct an of which c ounty r twice to sere the each composed of 3 meet ici n Ss than impoveinents dati tv regarding be formed le to d A. comm ittee shall rn C ies an e comm en initiatives may _County Committee. orny b cities efficiencies d make r i Dint a-y (appointed da ions regard15haU review an to focus on rn bexs of th sh S both. co an d city mem: e non binding recoruenTbe committee both coun 1 ittee officials five ini County Coma c ollabo ra embership from City_ chide rn the loin shall includ of ReCOm pocum t dated N101,20'10 Pr�I Z 2010 Org County Page 3 of 4 County Transition Funding L pNIMpL SERVICES OUTLIN e with estimated t initial an11 to those cities wi hest estimated ne ounty shall establish an initial ita} cities with the hag allocated by ?ovulation �3 p rap cost to the five 000 shall be 00,00 po pulati on eta} 250> costs above the Median net Ga ted by p ex cap shall rece,ve: allocat $5 •�O pet m rO 000 be net cost 'transition peel al 4 p g shall costs (net fox txan A pet contract extension a greeme nt. ne half of the initial in2p11- to a2 ual, 2012 and County enter The initial ann l i if the city 2013, 66% of the initial annualized ed level i n five cities an nualiz ed ort to the initial ane� marketing siipp �keting s upport 33 f° °f the ing mark sing xn gg re 014. °f ;n2 addition, the County pax to ga is o raven estimated raca ive 2 units supl� t 2009 licensing se rvices e ach ro 20 O pp ,n elation shall city} cad licensing villa es ove 104 population x evenu a in each abate one unit of enhanced Two cities ,n shall sh (estimated $60,000 p0 in population in each c ity) (estim der 30 revenu Three cities un in licensing (estimated $10'p00 GROUP FoRR� IC EN IN pRING1P�E T TLINE VNTY E M S FOR AGREEM funding O- f o vT�INE OF TE R dl level of tran sition ated as follows: JOINT The Cities cities 2010 reg T net per capita C An, a dditiona l regional model terra an sewn ex capita 2 fall 2.5 year d half of 201 ttac for the annualized level fox th es O dated ApnA 7 2010 Document A VIV Kkn9 C ounty ties with the the County venu 0 enhanced 1icens cad license in license sup port an X 000 0 shall p p F unit °x nsi gr ad licensing marketing xovid ox each license C my caps etat f e nhanc ed In addi loaves will p Page 4 of 4 Total Regional Program Costs To Be Allocated: Proposed Animal Control District Number Bothell I Carnation I Duvall Unincorporated King County e Kenmore I o Kirkland I N Lake Forest Park I Redmond I Sammamish I .Shoreline I Woodinville «?�y, l. <,s SUB TOTAL FOR: CITIE$ 7N 200:( eiidludes :unincorp orated'aiea) :F. ;q," 'i� ".!�•l•: Beaux Ms Bellevue Clyde Hill Unincorporated King County N Hunts Point rt Issaquah 'Mercer Island !North Bend `Snoqualmle 1 Yanow Pt SUBTOTAL FOl. CITIES IN 220.(exdlu irnlriooipofated.'a'rea) a,i Burton (Includes North H19hline Area X Annexation; Unincorporated King County iiirt Kent (Includes Panther Lake Annexation) ca N SeaTaC l Tukwila SUBTOTAL 'FORGIVES lN.'240 (exclude sunlndoroorated:bh i< 'L :A'" F, d N Jurisdiction Algona Aubum Black Diamond Covington tD Enumclaw Unincorporated King County Maple Valley M aclbc SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES'IN 260 °(eielude5'un(ncorpora ttOT 6R CITIES,`, 7'otaf'Kilitl�CiiliNt3''UIy.. 11. .BCar°oYeted:ilCea.A(ltick'tfdh, S orce: KC Oak, of Management and Budge( and Animal Care and Control De0: April7, 0080 Joint Cities County Work Grouo on Renional Animal Services, Estimated Annualized F 2010R alt Transitional r a m Licensing Support Allocation '1) with Trans! Total Allocated 2009 'Licensing: pstlmated Net Costs Control Sheltering Licensing Revenue' Cost 392,431 $1,698,6001. 53,004,9001 5898,4001 55,601,900 53,209,469 $2r Estimated Animal Control Cost Allocation (2) 5126.254' (see total below)! $63.754! 517,1361! 933,165; +l-. 87x2 4298'13961i,,}t p ,Nr _$565 ;966 'u. ${•;j7JJ;'34 1 Y$2;299; u ogE; M'tlF is $499`2 `Y tlFtlf V05,174.1•xril0: $269!086 1 Estimated Sheltering Cost Estimated Pet Allocation Estimated Total Cost (Excludes Costs to Licensing Cost Allocation North Slde Cities for Allocation (4) PAWS Sheltering) (3) $22.973'. 53031,09565 $$2.563! 58,091! ,41 $2.563' 95,3851 586151 512.571' 5116..932` Isee total below! l (see total below' I 525.489' 913.943! 919.140! 550.747' 597,540! 538,979' 513.759' $12 $8.741! ,1 y, 541, $50.336' 538,5651 571,289' $7,215' $9.462' 914,619' ',.968!d4x:�N`• a`.ji$307;71.,81ii& 1H- �^:;e$37.3 ;95 'iWii$238`9591 *%W 1 11 t��.`'4621:4361y 930 7sa: 'J 5900 ,:'.$343;39311 «t•' %?!i 910146' 9135,9681 510,160' 549,061' 530,293' 987.404 5102.05?! 512.218: 55,123' $24.57931 (see total belowl 522.513' 9116 .2 l 558.5711 973,160' 5159 5186,666 ,211' $35,226". $71.967: 5166,575; 9134.311: $97.19 5141.692' $37.036' 546,034' 5154,359 5135,125! $68.59 6' $34.532` 5189.347' E 537.918' Cost Transition $31 357' _Ektir'neted'Net n Funding °.;Allocation 56.495 52,45 (see total belowl 914.589 $27,455 $36.761 554,264 56.587 534.987 56.562 i-- -9326 $4591 $301' $1.226 $2093526 $466` 590,629' 5475.204' 5274.346! 00.6 7 9151,300' $233.279' $10.530. $8.044' $3,86' $4,389 $2,465' $174,816: (see total belowl (see total belowl $230' $1,059 5174,816' 93921 (see total below' I (sae total ba$229' $5 288•, -$56,368 $382' $677' $1.( 64,509! $50.181! $20,013' 1 555,113' $26,385 20876 542.683' $17.142' $81.490 _514.5942 $26,827' 537.530' 4024' 526.935' $14,341! $14.463' $23.667' -$17.015 $10,448' $6,905' $40,683 -$0.63 $20.832! $819' $2,864' $12.950' 53,327' $17021 $7.405: g•..$ 142. 5231('^`' 1• eara<, M:$T63i567M�fd'i'.'11i >%,+:I:,$ 494; 0' L4 It" r -i;n(': ?x %y�%,'- $319¢53 .52498341r?:�•• $119251 +::.iS371216i _::'..'ei�;_ i -5163.400) 5262.652 (see total 25 al belo91' bel I 581.257: (see (oral below)' be ow1W $169 516' iota/ 4 3.90 (see Iofel84low 5897.584. $255.365, $643.902: 804,166' $121,10 $174166 $53 597, 5105.148! $16,847' 578.208' 512,000' 149 $450 958 x 065 1 930 348 8921 $120.239' 2 ,�.r•. $1;402j04�1 %CM $458;02 4 1 80!390 T�J`s 'Y- 81 belowl 415' $17,237 $16.08V 52.418' 528.6511 815 $947,231 $63 545.052' 5499,569' 9158.415' 1 $317.383' 53.483; 531.0261 813671' _5 7.85 963,567' ,567! $15,742' 5128.371' 560,534! -517654 41 $22,464! 569.840 953.472: $0,541' $92.304 $726,254". (see (oral belowl l (see total below $4,682' 554.982. .see !oral belowl l $126 432: 562.293' $14,062' 1 518,920! 536,062 ;Iii :$3,415. v x'$0 1 '412 2 3 $9F473354y-r i 112 >^J i �',t �'$96,9T41'''-,irta';( ,.P :7•:. r.{ r g(�'B.{ >?S:�r.$21�:89 11:5 s. 62913{ $%1;12. 7(77 oti29`3521 901 51.471 50! N01 90: 50! 50! 50'. 50' $0! $0 $0: ,VrtiFg51$ i_ 74311.I c4;:NiT t'$ 0. $0: $0 $0 $60.000: 50' 90 NA! NA 50'. $0: 50 $0 $0' $0 $3,565! $0 50' $0' 417,015' $0 -54631 $0 r.:A „'$255;9 88 ;:$3:4 65 !x: „MS!'il: .r ^;$.65'1000.•. 534,534' 50 4128,767, NA' NA (see foal below) $60,000: -$264,591 $519,872: $10.000 591,629 519,271: 513,8031 510,000 1 574,262 f:$365;Y143' d S r 860 OOU' $559,461.3 $0' 994911 57,746 50 _$170,46 3 3.131: 5170,695! $0 _914,824 53.131: 50 554,70E 512.16 527,674 532.16 NA._ $10,000 Nq NA (see Iola/ below) 50 548,538 $17,400' 50: 516,661 $17,852' ,,,,t'`` :0$ $259'052'�a'`:.'fi;,}l 0;0 ym t` 6d1 6$q�B t444i887r K1nu County Transitional Costs $170,0001 IT Costs Assoclated with Mainframe Systems 1 $170,0001 Potential Lease Costs for 2011 _$650,0001 Transition Fundinc for Cities 000 Transillonel Llcensinc 5400080 for Cities $100 i 5 0 8 Estimated Revenue Estimated Net Final from Transitional Cost Licensing Support $0 r $0 90 $0: $0 $0 50 90 $0 514.6 $5,0 651 $2,457 (see Iotel belowl 914,589 527,45 536,761 $54.264 $6,71 $34 56 5621 1 5 I 1'15 5 .1 1 5140.85 52,4 (see 10101 b $,059` •$56,368 -$25,385 571,0291 1. Estimated alioca io Notes: 2 I' ns are based 50% on population and 50% on use. Populations, usage, and revenues have been ad)usled to Include annexations wllh 2010 effective dates of July 1, 2010 or earlier (I.e., Buden, Panther Lake). Usage esllmaled as follows: lolalcells for control, total Intake or sheltering, and total r licensee f Assumes the caving tees not oe 5 b tot Way, Seattle, Renton, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Medina, Newcastle, Skykomish, and Milton. 1h0 es anticipating using PAWS using for Woodinville, 56,600. sheltering The Include uonly the e 50% p 0% population lation allocation. os n onh Cot County or the north dues Is costs le send endb animals als formerly aorm meet erly sent ent t to o King g baud on 2. One quarter of contntrol ol costs are allocated cated to to each ch district, then en costs are further allocated d 50 0 J by local call volume (averaged from 2007 -2009) and 50% by 2009 population. 3. S costs are estimated at the following assuming a of 50 pee animal. Bothell, 513,050, 5% enmore, $7,575; Lake Forest Park, $3 north dues Shoreline, $22 822, 575; red onl edcosts alt Shelter t to PAWS WS are a 4. Transition licensing iio costs are allocated 5per capita by population and 5or by total number c active licenses (ne cost 2007-2009), cation 5. Transiton funding is allocated per capita in a two tier formula to titles with certain per capita net cost allocations as indicated below. Licensing support is allocated to the five Cllles with the lowest per capita Iicansing raven 5250 000 is allocated to cities with net costs exceeding $3.00 per capita $400,000 Is allocaled to cities with net costs exceeding 55.50 per capita 22 N I/' Population: 2500 Populated,Aree1,00 b Total Callt:' 3 500 Priority Calk: 900, King County Urban Growth Boundary 'Forest TIBOthell Kenmore Kirklandl 1 Redmond:I POputation: 385,000" Populated Area: 330 Total Calls: 2,600" Priority Calls: 800" Giiraan' Sammancsh--: Population: 180,000 Populated Area: 300 sq.mi. Total Calls: 2,200 Priority Calls: 700 Populatiod1: 288.000 PopOated Total Calls: 1.800 ...Prigt:ity Calls: 600 Skykomish Joint Cities County Workgroup on Regional Animal Services Control Districts for Agreement in Principle Call volumes estimated based on 2007 2009 averages 23 24 Document dated April 7, 2010 Prepared by King County "Regional Animal Services of King County" Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System Public Health and Safety Provides the ability to identify and track rabies and other public health issues related to animals on a regional basis. Reduces public health threats through routine vaccination of animals. Provides capacity to handle unusual and multi jurisdictional events involving animals that often require specialized staff such as: horse cruelty, animal hoarding, loose livestock, dog fighting and cock fighting groups, puppy mills, illegal reptile vendor operations, animal necropsies and quarantine, holding of animals as evidence in criminal cases, and retrieval of dead animals. Animal Welfare Reduces pressure on non profit shelters by maintaining capacity at regional public shelters. Non profit animal welfare organizations contribute significantly through their own capacity and by accepting transfer of public sheltered animals for care and adoption, thereby reducing costs at public shelters. Provides for participation of a large corps of volunteers and foster homes. Provides capacity for regional response to animal cruelty cases. Provides regional preparedness planning and coordination during emergencies and disasters. Provides additional regional capacity for seasonal events such as "kitten season Avoids competition across jurisdictions for sheltering space and comparisons across jurisdictions on outcome statistics. Customer Service Provides a single access point for residents searching for a lost pet or seeking help from animal control. Provides one single point of contact for citizen complaints. Maintains a uniform pet licensing program that is simpler for the public to access and understand, with a broad range of services to encourage licensing: marketing, partnering with third parties on points of sale for licenses, canvassing, database management, and the ability to return animals to owners in the field. 25 26 Effective and Efficient Provision of Services Provides a low -cost spay and neuter program that serves the entire region, and is the key to reducing the population of homeless animals and reducing the costs of the system over time. Reduces the demand on individual jurisdictions to respond to communications from the media, advocacy groups and other interested parties. Builds economies of scale to provide a full range of services, making it less expensive to develop operations, training, licensing, and care programs than it would be for cities to duplicate services at the local level. Use of volunteers and partnerships with private animal welfare organizations provide our region with the ability to promote the most humane treatment with limited public resource. Provides a consistent level of service, humane animal care, and regulatory approach countywide. Allows local police agencies to focus on traditional law enforcement. Document dated April 7, 2010 Prepared by King County "Regional Animal Services of King County" Frequently Asked Questions Prepared for City ManagerslAdminisfrafors Meeting April 7, 2010 What animal services does King County currently provide? The goal of animal services is to protect public health and safety and provide humane care for animals. Animal services include three primary components: animal control, animal sheltering, and pet licensing. King County Animal Care and Control (KCACC) has been in operation for over 38 years. KCACC currently operates two shelter locations within King County: a main shelter in Kent and a smaller shelter in the Crossroads area of Bellevue. KCACC has sheltered between 9,000 and 12,000 homeless animals per year in recent years. The program provides shelter for animals who are surrendered by owners, dropped off as strays, impounded for behavioral or other reasons, or deemed evidence in law enforcement investigations. KCACC dispatches animal control officers to respond to calls about dangerous, stray, dead or injured animals. King County sells and markets pet licenses as a means to both increase efficiency of shelter and control operations and generate revenue to support the system. Who receives the service from the County now? Currently, KCACC provides services to all residents in the unincorporated area of the County and contracts with 35 other cities within the County (excluding Seattle, Renton, Skykomish and Milton). KCACC provides limited contract services to Des Moines, Newcastle and Normandy Park. Five cities purchase an enhanced level of control service from the County (Auburn, Shoreline, Kirkland, SeaTac, Tukwila). What is the benefit of a regional system? A regional system provides for better public health, safety, animal welfare and customer service outcomes in a more cost efficient and effective manner. These benefits accrue through significant economies of scale and, in the new regional model, properly aligned financial incentives that support desired programmatic outcomes and help to contain costs over time. For cities, a regional system allows local police agencies to focus on traditional law enforcement matters and shifts the burden of a complex and unique service to the County and specially trained animal services staff. For the public, a regional system is simpler to understand and to use. There is one place to call to renew or acquire a pet license. There is one place to call to find a lost pet. The public health system has a better ability to identify and track issues related to animals, such as rabies. Document dated April 7, 2010 1 Prepared by King County 27 28 For animals, a regional system provides for humane standards of care and the capacity to address a broad array of unusual events involving animals including horse cruelty, animal hoarding, loose livestock, dog fighting and cock fighting rings, illegal reptile vendor operations, animal quarantines, and holding of animals as evidence in criminal cases. A regional system also provides for routine vaccination of animals and low -cost, high volume spay /neuter operations to reduce the population of homeless and unwanted animals. How is the proposed regional service model different from what King County is currently doing? (1) Control operations will be organized by district to improve accountability. a. Animal control officers will be dedicated to one of four specific geographic districts. Coverage will be more consistent and predictable and cities will be able to build a relationship with their district's dedicated officers. b. The base level of field services will be provided 5 -days per week rather than 7 -days per week in order to contain costs. Cities may contract with the County for a higher level of service. (2) New sheltering arrangements will help ensure humane standards of care for animals within current capacity and resource constraints. a Northern cities will contract with PAWS, a private nonprofit shelter in Lynnwood, for shelter capacity. b. At the County's Kent shelter, new policies and practices will be put in place to ensure that animals can be humanely cared for within limited available resources. Expanded use of volunteers and the foster network will support this effort. c. The number of adoptions from the Kent shelter will be maximized by seeking transfer and other arrangements with private animal welfare partners. d. The Crossroads shelter will be closed to save costs and focus resources. (3) Incentives will be aligned across the system to encourage desired behavior and ultimately bring down costs. a. While the current licensing structure will remain in place, cities will be incentivized to increase licensing rates in order to offset their costs. Higher licensing rates have the added benefit of improving the efficiency of control and shelter services. b. Costs will be allocated partially based on use in order to encourage Tess use of the system and collaborative efforts to decrease the number of homeless pets. c. Residents will be provided with resources (such as education to change pet behavior) and incentives (such as fees for owners who surrender pets) to encourage cost effective solutions that do not burden the system. Document dated April 7, 2010 2 Prepared by King County How do the County's costs compare to other shelters? King County's average sheltering cost per animal is comparable to or lower than that of other public and nonprofit shelters. Many factors impact the cost -per- animal sheltered, such as the average length of time an animal stays at the shelter and the severity of animals' medical conditions. Some private nonprofit shelters have as part of their mission the care of animals with more severe medical or behavioral conditions which equates to a higher cost -per- animal. Many private nonprofit shelters seek private donations to help pay for their operations. Another cost comparison is per capita spending on animal services programs (combined cost of both public animal care and control programs and large private shelters). The national average is around $7 per capita. King County is closer to $5 per capita. Well- respected programs, such as Boulder Valley, San Francisco and Multnomah County, spend closer to $18 per capita. Why doesn't a higher euthanasia rate solve the cost problem? In recent years, the County has worked to reduce the euthanasia rate, which now stands at around 20 percent. Many of the gains in lowering the euthanasia rate have been achieved at minimal cost. The County has increased the volunteer program, more effectively utilized the foster program, and partnered with more private animal welfare organizations. This has enabled more animals to leave the shelter alive, with limited public resources. The best way to lower the cost of animal services is to tackle the problem of unwanted pets through a coordinated regional spay /neuter program that decreases the homeless animal population. An effectively -run shelter helps to tackle this problem through spay /neuter of all animals. Why can't King County close its shelter and have other shelters fill the gap? Without King County's shelter there just isn't enough capacity in the system to care for the number of animals in the system. King County takes in two to three times the number of animals sheltered by other shelter organizations in the region. Closing the Kent shelter would put an intolerable strain on the private shelters, impeding their ability to do the good work they are doing, and lead to significant threats to public health and safety. Why is the Work Group proposing a 5 -day per week level of animal control service, rather than the current 7 -day per week level? What does this mean for cities? The reduction in base control services reflects the Work Group's proposal to reduce base -level costs. Cities will have the option of purchasing enhanced field services which could be organized to provide 7 -day per week service. King County will continue to provide for off -hour response to critical or emergency animal control matters that necessitate immediate action for protection of public Document dated April 7, 2010 3 Prepared by King County 29 30 safety or the protection of the life of the animal. Non emergency calls will receive a response on the next working day. How were the service district boundaries determined? The district boundaries take into account a rough balance of the volume of calls in each area, jurisdictional boundaries, and reasonably efficient transportation routes within each district. Boundaries may be adjusted depending on the cities participating in the new regional model. Would privatizing licensing save money? Private licensing vendors exist that would cost less on a per license basis than King County. However, these vendors typically do not provide the local marketing services King County provides that are critical to maintaining and increasing licensing rates that generate revenue to support the system. There may also be complications associated with using a private licensing vendor when it comes to sharing data with on- the ground field officers and responding to resident inquiries. Once marketing and other coordination- related costs are included, it appears that costs between King County and private licensing vendors are roughly comparable. The proposal calls for a collaborative exploration of ways to reduce costs and improve services, including through exploration of alternative licensing systems. Why can't the system be self sufficient from license fees? Pet licensing revenue from fees and related fines currently cover about 60 percent of the proposed regional service model. Research on other jurisdictions' operations shows that it is virtually unheard of for a program to fully cover its costs from licensing or other program specific revenues. For example, the director of the well- respected Multnomah County program estimates that license revenue covers only about 30 percent of program costs. Today about 20 percent of pet owners countywide license their pets, with rates in individual cities estimated to range from a low of roughly 5 percent to a high of 40 percent. The new regional model provides opportunities to maintain and increase licensing revenue through the County and cities working together. Increased licensing will mean significant revenue credited back to cities toward their cost of receiving services. Targeted licensing efforts in some King County cities have recently shown a significant ability to increase licensing. Focused, short -term canvassing and telephone efforts in 2009 were conducted in Kirkland, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park. These contributed to a net increase of 3,501 licenses issued. How much will my city have to pay? A table showing estimated costs by city, assuming all currently contracting cities other than Federal Way participate, is attached. The estimated cost allocations Document dated April 7, 2010 4 Prepared by King County are based on a combination of usage and population, based on historic usage. The terms of the Agreement in Principle also provide for a reconciliation of costs based on actual usage. There are two critical factors that will affect the financial impact on cities: (1) the more cities that participate, the lower the cost will be for everyone, and (2) the higher a city's pet licensing rate and revenue, the lower will be that city's net cost. For those cities with the highest costs per capita or the lowest licensing revenue per capita, the County is proposing to provide transitional funding and enhanced licensing revenue support. A two -step process is proposed to confirm interest in system participation and cost prior to signing new service agreements. Once cities have indicated their interest in participating in a regional model by April 30 King County will revise the cost estimates and report back to cities. Why are costs allocated based on both use and population? The cost allocation formula is intended to (a) provide incentives to minimize use of the system and decrease the homeless pet population (use component) and (b) recognize that the system benefits everyone and that animals don't respect jurisdictional boundaries (population component). Additionally, the cost allocation was designed to balance burdens across jurisdictions in hopes of maximizing participation and preserving a regional system. Why is it proposed that cities be required to purchase all services? The Work Group concluded that to maximize system efficiency, a "menu" approach to purchasing services is not practicable, at least not in the short -term. For example, to be able to effectively track animals and pet owners in the system, a single licensing system is most efficient. Field officers can spend more time responding to calls if they are not required to deliver animals to multiple shelters in one geographic area. Shelters have less paperwork and data challenges if they are dealing with fewer field operations and a single licensing system. What is the benefit of contracting for 2.5 years? First, a longer -term contract provides some stability to a system that will improve outcomes for both residents and animals. Second, a 2.5 year period will give participating parties enough time to work on initiatives that improve outcomes, efficiency, and may ultimately bring down the cost of the program. Initiatives identified by the Work Group for further exploration include: Updating animal codes to increase licensing and other revenues; Taking actions to begin reducing the homeless animal population, such as spay /neuter efforts; Document dated April 7, 2010 5 Prepared by King County 31 32 Working collaboratively to identify ways to improve efficiencies and control policies; Considering other service options, such as working with partners to provide some portion of licensing services; and Reviewing options for repair /replacement of the Kent shelter. Third, cities who qualify for County transition funding and support are only eligible to receive that support if they elect to contract for the full 2.5 years. Document dated April 7, 2010 Prepared by King County 6 Joint Cities County Work Group on Regional Animal Services Proposed Timeline for Confirming and Adopting New Interlocal Agreements Date 1 Item March 31 Agreement in Principle April 7 Review Agreement in Principle with City Managers and City Administrators large city staff work group April 15 Updated agreement in principle circulated (if necessary based on input at April 7 meetings) End of Circulate Araft form of contract based on Agreement in Principle to all April cities (comments due May 7) April 30 Initial statements of interest in contracting from cities, County (including statement of whether city wishes to contract only for the first 6 months). May 3 Adjusted costs circulated to all parties based on April 30 indications of interest. If parties declining to participate result in an estimated 10% or greater increase in total costs to be allocated as compared to the April 7 estimated cost allocation, request second statement of statement of intent from cities and County. May 14 Final draft ;contract: circulated excluding final cost allocations (comments due May 21) May 19 Second statement of intent, with any applicable upward limits each party agrees to bear. 1 May 21 1 Results of 2 statement of intent circulated to all parties 1 May 24 -27 1 Parties confer and determine whether /how to proceed June 3 1 Final fortif of contract circulated for action. 1 Mid -late All participating jurisdictions act by approximately mid -June in order for June agreement to become effective July 1. Document dated April 7, 2010 Prepared by King County 33 34 Cost Considerations for Animal Care, Control, and Licensing Operations in a Sub Regional Model Control Operations Ambulance and Hosvital Costs King County often employs ambulance service and emergency hospital services to transport and care for badly injured animals (car accidents, cruelty cases). While variable and difficult to estimate, these costs can be significant. Animal Cab Repair /Refurbishment/Replacement Resources and Tirne The animal cabs used to transport animals represents a significant up front cost. In addition, these cabs are subject to significant wear and tear and require regular refurbishment, repair, or replacement. Because of the type of wear and repair experienced, the repair /refurbishment/replacement schedule may be significantly different than for the vehicles in general. In addition, refurbishment of the cabs can take them out of commission for four to six months. Sick. Vacation. Training. Iniury Coverage If the operation will be a 7 day operation (2 people, 1 vehicle), consideration should be given to coverage when an ACO is sick, on vacation, or in training. Having the other ACO cover could result in significant overtime. In addition, ACOs sometimes experience job injuries, which also present a coverage issue. Animal Cruelty and Other Cases King County pursues various animal cruelty and other animal related cases as they arise, employing the cruelty ACO and other ACOs. The amount of ACO time required in cases varies by case. In addition, such cases also involve PAO resources. Vehicle Backup Availability King County has a fleet of vehicles that can be employed in the field, allowing officers to still do their jobs even when a vehicle is in the shop for minor repairs /maintenance or more major repairs. Contact and Dispatch King County has a single point of contact for animal calls, which then dispatches or routes calls as appropriate. This provides a customer friendly service. In addition, the sheriff provides complimentary dispatch service during off hours, however, this dispatch does represent a body of work and a potential program cost. Control Overtime ACOs sometimes receive priority calls Iate in the day, resulting in overtime work. This body of work can result in significant overtime costs over the course of a year. Specialized Equipment and Vehicle Operating Costs ACOs require a variety of specialty equipment. A typical list of such equipment is provided at the end of this document; total costs for the equipment, including several uniforms, totals approximately $10,000. These must be purchased up front, and must also be replaced from time to time. ACO vehicles also typically cover a significant amount of miles, resulting in significant maintenance /repair /replacement costs and fuel expenditures. Computer System and Records Animal control operations (and any billing associated with a sub regional model) will require the collection, maintenance, and analysis of control data. This typically requires the implementation of a specialized computer program on system servers and field computers, data entry and maintenance, and maintenance and storage of paper files and /or electronic files on servers. The most 1 35 36 Sheltering efficient operation would involve interfacing the control, shelter, and licensing system data; however, this will require initial interfacing work as well as ongoing resources to provide system support and maintenance and to ensure data integrity and security. General Sheltering Services: o Typical Vet Services Shelters typically provide various types of vet services in addition to basic animal sheltering, which result in additional costs. Typical vet/vet tech services include spay /neuter surgeries, vaccinations, surgeries, and other minor medical care. Vets at King County shelters also conduct owner requested end of life euthanasia. If such services are not provided as part of sheltering, contract vet services will be required, which can be very costly. o Cruelty /Neglect Cases Response to potential cruelty/neglect cases represent another area of sheltering costs. In potential cruelty /neglect cases, the animals involved are often very sick and emaciated. Their condition and health often require considerable medical attention, premium food and supplements, and greater day -to- day/hour -to -hour care by trained caregivers. These costs can be significant even for a single animal, and cruelty cases often involve multiple animals. Pursuit of cruelty and other cases also requires the performance of necropsies and analysis of samples by external laboratories. As noted above, if such services are not provided by sheltering arrangements, such contract services can be costly. o Other Shelter Services In addition to providing for sheltering of animals on stray hold and awaiting adoption, a sheltering solution should address the need to hold animals associated with domestic violence and cruelty cases for long periods. o After -Hours Disposition Animals must sometimes be confiscated or picked up by animal control after normal shelter operating hours. For after -hours calls, King County shelters have an outdoor cage that can be used to hold animals until the next day. Stabling In potential cruelty cases involving large animals (horses, goats, llamas, cows, etc.), stabling must be provided to the animals until conclusion of the case. Free /Reduced Price Spay/Neuter Free /reduced price spay /neuter services can help reduce animal control and sheltering costs, but they also require up front resources. Computer System and Records Animal sheltering operations (and any billing associated with a sub regional model) requires the collection, maintenance, and analysis of sheltering data. As noted above, this typically requires the implementation of a specialized computer program on system servers and computers, data entry and maintenance, and maintenance and storage of paper files and /or electronic files on servers. The most efficient operation would involve interfacing the control, shelter, and licensing system data; however, this will require initial interfacing work as well as ongoing resources to provide system support and maintenance and to ensure data integrity and security. Licensing (The following discussion assumes the use of Pet Data for licensing services in accordance with the information provided in the recently secured RFP) 2 Anticipated Revenues A loss of licensing revenue in the first few years of the sub regional licensing program is likely because of potential confusion surrounding the switch to Pet Data license provision and the sub regional model in general. In addition, without a sustained marketing effort (see below), licensing revenue could decline by 10 -20% each year. License Marketing Strategies Pet Data does not conduct extensive sales and marketing for limiting the normal attrition of the licensing base, aggressively pursuing renewals, or increasing sales partnerships as part of their base rate. Significant sales and marketing programs currently employed by King County include the following: o Recruitment of new sales partners o Management and oversight of all sales partners o Neighborhood sales and marketing of licenses o Door to door sales and marketing of licenses o Incentive programs for license sales o Coordinated enforcement strategies License Renewal Strategies Pet Data issues one renewal letter and one late notice, but it does not appear that they have a comprehensive renewal program. King County currently issues renewal letters, three late notices, and escalating fees to encourage renewals. In addition, King County staff conduct follow -up telephone calls to both encourage renewals and to provide information to update the database for people who no longer have the pet. Licensing Education Pet Data offers licensing education to the public about licensing. These efforts consist of a page on Pet Data's website for the contracting cities, a flyer for vet clinics, and inserts that the cities can put in their mailings to citizens. King County's education program includes: o Web site for licensing program o Inserts into countywide mailings like vehicle tab renewals o Inserts into pet license mailings o Flyers distributed to sales partners and door -to -door o Media promotions o In- person door -to -door contacts Due Diligence/Backup Plan As for any contracting service, consideration should be given to the potential contracting agency financial status, potential employment and legal issues, other customer city satisfaction, audit results, and backup planning for if the contractor is unable to continue to provide service at some point or to fulfill all terms of the contract. Comparative Services Pet Data also does not support "Fetch Your Pet" activities for lost animals or Microchip tracking. Overhead Risk Insurance Lawsuits can arise either from control or sheltering handling of animals. Risk insurance to cover such costs are currently absorbed by King County's general fund, but should be budgeted in a sub regional model. Systems Overhead Radio, telephone, and computer systems and support result in overhead costs. 3 37 38 Public Disclosure Request Support King County currently receives public disclosure requests from reporters regarding shelter and control functions and also from individuals who have had animals move through the system or are inquiring on past control actions. This work involves administrative time to collect all applicable records and legal time to ensure that no privileged information is released. Legal Support Legal support is needed for cruelty and other cases as well as for general overhead. Other Overhead A sub regional system would also incur financial costs associated with billing other cities for use and handling revenues from licensing as well as HR, payroll, and facilities overhead costs for personnel issues. Supervision and Management Costs Overhead costs should include resources to provide the following: o General oversight for the three functions and manage control operations o Reporting to the public and responding to data requests from public officials o Oversight to the animal control officers o Representation for the sub regional organization/services to policymakers, the public, etc. o Program accountability to establish performance measures and track performance to such measures 4 List of Typical Equipment/Materials Required for Animal Control Officers Uniform (shirts, pants, shoes, jumpsuit, jacket, hat) 800mhz Hand Held Radio Tool Belt Catch Pole Short Catch Pole Long Snappy Snare Short Snappy Snare Long Cat Tongs Snake Tongs Net Leads (leashes) Microchip Scanner Humane Cat Trap Humane Dog Trap Cat Carriers Squeeze Cage Pepper Spray w/holster Dangerous Dog Taser Taser Holster Taser Cartridges Asp Baton w/holder Ultrasonic Dazer Protective Cat Gloves Work Gloves Latex Gloves Tyvek Suit Masks Machete Multipurpose tool Folding Knife Digital Camera w /video capabilities Cell Phone Protective Vest Muzzles Tranquilizer Gun Tranquilizer Darts Flashlight File Box Animal Stretcher First Aid Kit Miscellaneous (pens, paper, clipboard, etc.) Euthanasia Kit 5 39 40 South County Options for Animai Care and Control An Independent Overview April 20, 2010 41 42 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 II. Approach /Scope of Work 3 III. Timing 3 IV. Mandates 3 V. General Options 7 VI. Existing Models /Benchmarks 7 VII. Budgeting 10 VIII. Sheltering Options 12 IX. Pet Licensing Options 16 X. Field Service Options 20 XI. Other Considerations 21 XII. Summary 22 XIII. Appendix 25 -29 Timeline (draft) 25 References /Resources 27 Evaluating Criteria 28 Background of Team 30 Page 2 of 30 South County Options for Animal Care and Control: An independent overview I. Introduction King County's lead role in funding, overseeing and maintaining animal care and control services for 32 cities and unincorporated King County began to unravel last year. In early August (2009) and during the 2010 budget process, former King County Executive Kurt Triplett publicly stated the possibility of having the county close the doors on its 37 year -old animal care and control operations. In April (2010), the County unveiled a new proposed model and pricing structure for "regional animal services" as well as issued letters notifying the cities that on June 30 their current animal care and control contracts or agreements are terminating. This report was commissioned by four cities, Burien, Kent, SeaTac and Tukwila, to study whether or not forming a sub regional animal care and control program would be more cost effective and the most appropriate response to the 4/7/10 plan presented by King County Animal Care and Control (KCACC). II. Approach The consultant team formed quickly with a very ambitious timeline. They reviewed prepared materials provided to the cities, referred to best practices or national standards and collected data from other animal care and control organizations. They also utilized their knowledge of, and experience in, the field of animal welfare and management for reviewing the complexities of this issue. Based on this approach, this report presents a variety of options for providing humane care or housing for the animals that are lost, abandoned, neglected or abused in the four communities. A second component to animal control is providing professional and responsive enforcement of the local and state animal ordinances. Options will be discussed as well as options for the third component, pet licensing programs. III. Timing Considerations and Scope of Work This report will be limited on the amount of analysis or detail provided due to the time available for this project. The desired outcome is to provide enough general information to help frame discussions by the four cities regarding the direction of animal care and control services in a significant portion of south King County. King County's proposed regional model has obligated many cities to take a serious look at the role of animal care and control (ACC) in their communities. Establishing a regional or sub regional ACC program requires participation and support by the political, nonprofit and for profit sectors. Page 3 of 30 43 44 In other communities where a major switch has occurred with ACC programs, it usually has been the non profit organization ending the ACC contract with the municipality rather than a county organization ending all or part of their ACC services. For example, in 1984 the SF SPCA announced during its contract negotiations with the City of San Francisco it would no longer provide the animal care and control programs. In 1989 SFSPCA gave up their contracts making the transition and formation of the SFACC five years. For more information on the history: http: /www.maddiesfund.org/ Resource_ Library/ San_ Francisco_The_Nations_First_Ado ption_Guarantee_City. html In addition, a pact was created between SFACC and SFSPCA in 1994 and still is in effect. For more details, visit http /www.sfgov2.org /index.aspx ?page =1082. When the ASPCA (in New York City) decided to no longer contract for animal control, it took approximately three to five years to transition away from that role and to allow the City time to plan alternatives. The Center for Animal Care and Control, a not for profit organization, was established in 1995 and has been responsible for New York City's municipal shelter system, rescuing, caring for, and finding loving homes for homeless and abandoned animals in New York City. AC &C facilities operate in all five boroughs. Animal Care Control of New York City (AC &C) is the largest pet organization in the North East, with an estimated number of 43,000 animals rescued each year. A general timeline for creating a sub regional ACC Model For general discussion purposes, a timeline has been created outlining the key first steps needed in order to form a sub regional animal service agency. See Section XIII, Appendix A on page 25. IV. What are cities or counties in Washington State mandated to provide? Washington State Mandates 1. Dangerous Dogs RCW 16.08 requires immediate confiscation of any dangerous dog (police officers or humane "agents" also have the authority to do this) 2. Abandoned Animals RCW 16.54 specifies that, in the absence of available humane society, the sheriff must auction or dispose of such abandoned animals Having been placed in such custody (in a vet clinic, boarding kennel or "any person for treatment, board or care of animals') for an unspecified period of time the animal is not removed within fifteen days after notice to remove the animal has been given to the person who placed the animal in such custody or having been so notified the person depositing the animal refuses or fails to pay agreed upon or reasonable charges for the treatment, board, or care of such animal. Any person having in his care, custody, or control any abandoned animal as defined in RCW 16.54.010, may deliver such animal to any humane society having facilities for the care of such animals or to any pound maintained by or under contract or agreement with any city or county within which such animal was abandoned. If no such humane society or pound exists within the Page 4 of 30 county the person with whom the animal was abandoned may notify the sheriff of the county wherein the abandonment occurred. 3. Rabies control WAC 246 -100 -191 requires possible destroying, testing, or quarantining of animals that have bitten or otherwise exposed a person to rabies or if rabies is suspected; may require a community -wide rabies control program. 4. Zoonotic Diseases WAC 246- 101 -405 describes the responsibility of animal bite reporting and mandates cooperation with public health authorities in the implementation of disease control measures including isolation and quarantine when necessary. 5. Animal cruelty RCW 16.52 describes who can or may investigate and enforce (1) Animal care and control agencies may enforce the provisions of this chapter in a county or city only if the county or city legislative authority has entered into a contract with the agency to enforce the provisions of this chapter. (2) Animal control officers enforcing this chapter shall comply with the same constitutional and statutory restrictions concerning the execution of police powers imposed on law enforcement officers who enforce this chapter and other criminal laws of the state of Washington. (3) Animal control officers have the following enforcement powers when enforcing this chapter: (a) The power to issue citations based on probable cause to offenders for misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor violations of this chapter or RCW 9.08.070 through 9.08.078 or *81.56.120; (b) The power to cause a law enforcement officer to arrest and take into custody any person the animal control officer has probable cause to believe has committed or is committing a violation of this chapter or RCW 9.08.070 or *81.56.120. Animal control officers may make an oral complaint to a prosecuting attorney or a law enforcement officer to initiate arrest. The animal control officer causing the arrest shall file with the arresting agency a written complaint within twenty -four hours of the arrest, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, stating the alleged act or acts constituting a violation; (c) The power to carry nonfirearm protective devices for personal protection; (d) The power to prepare affidavits in support of search warrants and to execute search warrants when accompanied by law enforcement officers to investigate violations of this chapter or RCW 9.08.070 or 81.56.120, and to seize evidence of those violations. (4) Upon request of an animal control officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has violated this chapter or RCW 9.08.070 or *81.56.120, a law enforcement agency officer may arrest the alleged offender. As a result of few state mandates, six counties in Washington do not have dedicated animal control officers and have little, if any, locally adopted ordinances regarding domestic animals. In these areas the Sheriff is responsible for enforcing the state laws pertaining to animals. They are: Adams, Asotin (they do have dog licenses), Ferry, Lincoln, Okanogan, and Whitman. Kina County Mandates Ordinance 15801 (5/07) requires KCACC to have an annual euthanasia rate of 15% or less: 11.04.500 Euthanasia rate targets. A. It shall be the policy of King County that a maximum euthanasia rate target is set to measure the progress towards reducing the rates of cats and dogs euthanized by the animal care Page 5 of 30 45 46 and control authority or its designees. The euthanasia rates shall be calculated based on the total number of live cats and dogs take in to King County custody to include stray, homeless, abandoned, unwanted or surrendered animals, and animals euthanized at an owner's request. The euthanasia rates shall exclude animals euthanized at the order of the director of the Seattle King County department of public health and those animals who are not in the custody of King County but are brought to a King County shelter by their owner or guardian for the purposes of licensing, or clinic services, such as spaying, neutering and vaccinations should such services be made available to the public by King County animal care and control. B. The total number of cats and dogs euthanized by King County animal care and control is not to exceed twenty percent in the year ending December 31, 2008. C. The total number of cats and dogs euthanized by King County animal care and control is not to exceed fifteen percent in the years following 2008. (Ord. 15801 31, 2007: Ord. 10423 6, 1992). Other considerations for providing ACC services In addition to federal, state and local laws relating to animals, there are ethical and political reasons to commit to an effective animal care and control program. With nearly two thirds of American households having at least one pet (based on a 2006 American Pet Products Manufacturers Association survey), pets have become important or valued members of the family and pet owners are spending more time and money on their pets. Another indicator of the role pets now play in people's lives is the growth of the pet supply and other pet related businesses (such as groomers, doggie day care, obedience classes and vet clinics). Animal control work is unique both animals and people are the main clients. In helping to protect animals from danger, abuse or neglect and at the same time protecting people from dangerous animals, today's Animal Control agency must face many of the same issues or problems seen in our society. For example violence (there is a link between animal abuse and violence against humans) economics (home foreclosures, lack of pet friendly rental housing, owners not able to afford the general expenses involved with owning an animal) neighbor relations (complaints about a neighbor's barking dog, cat's using the neighbor's garden for its litterbox) illegal activities using animals associated with gang, drug or gambling activities lack of commitment (not providing key training, broken bonds w /another living being) life and death decisions (euthanasia; dangerous or vicious attacks) As stated in the first chapter of the 2009 NACA (National Animal Control Association) Training Guide: "Animal Control is so much more than just picking up stray animals, but relates to all the many facets of animal welfare including, but not limited to, animal abuse, cruelty, animal neglect, investigation of animal bites, education, shelter operations, adoptions and more. Animal Control has a huge responsibility, not only to the communities they serve, but to the animals and their welfare." Page 6 of 30 A sub- regional approach provides an opportunity to establish policies, goals and local ordinances defining how the group of cities values animals and is concerned about their welfare. V. General options for all current KCACC clients Based on the County's 4/7 proposal, the following is the set of possible responses for each city currently served by KCACC: a. Each city establishes its own ACC program b. Cities accept County's proposed model and costs as presented (and if so, must decide if it is for either 6 months or 2 -1/2 years) c. Cities together attempt to re- negotiate proposed terms and /or timelines with the County d. Cities form a sub- regional ACC model or models among several cities in one or more area within King County. VI. Existing models and /or benchmarks To form a sub regional animal services agency, cities have several local examples to draw from and therefore, do not have to "reinvent the wheel." Local. non animal models in existence: Valley Communications Center (Valley Com) In 1976, the mayors of the Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila entered into an Interlocal Agreement to consolidate their police and fire dispatching services into one organization and Valley Communications Center was born. Valley Com began dispatching on August 1, 1977. Over the years, several public safety agencies entered contractual relationships with Valley Com for emergency communications services. In 2000, the city of Federal Way was invited and joined the relationship as the fifth owner. The most recent addition to the Valley Com family was Valley Regional Fire Authority in February 2008. Since 1977, the staff has increased from 16 authorized positions to 128 in 2009. The administrative staff consists of a Director, Assistant Director, Finance Manager, Payroll and Accounting Specialist, Human Resource Manager, Administrative Services Manager, Public Records Specialist, Administrative Assistant, Training Manager and Operational Systems Coordinator. A Technical Services Manager, 2 Network Administrators and 3 System Administrators support the technology. 10 Team Supervisors oversee 52 Dispatchers and 44 Call Receivers. A Public Development Authority (PDA) was created. In 1977, the first Valley Com facility was a 1050 square foot building that had been converted from a vacated volunteer fire station. In contrast, on June 23, 2002, Valley Com moved into a state -of- the -art 24,000 square foot facility with planned space for 20 years of operations. Page 7of30 47 48 King County Sheriff service delivery model From King County's own website: "We realized that they would need professional law enforcement services at a reasonable cost. The cities welcomed the opportunity to gain local control and identity while also avoiding the enormous start -up costs. Each city may choose which police services they want to receive based on their local priorities. Specialized police services such as SWAT, Drug Enforcement, Air Support, Bomb Disposal, Canine and Marine Unit services may be selected as base level services, or the city can opt to have these services available on a callout basis. Every city within King County has access to these services on a call -out basis. Cities can have a strong voice and participate in selecting their personnel. Cities can also set the direction and tone of police priorities for their community. Additionally, the city determines what their police staffing levels will be. Several cities have elected to provide officers with office space at City Hall to promote a close working relationship with the officers. A Police Oversight Committee, which embodies the partnership between contract cities and King County, provides a forum for communications necessary to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship and ensure that services evolve to meet the contract city's ongoing and unique needs." The South Correctional Entity (SCORE) In 2009, a cooperative effort by the Cities of Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila established the SCORE Public Development Authority. According to the SCORE 2009 Annual Report it "was established to provide correctional services for the member cities as a result of insufficient jail capacity within King County. The costs at these nine different jail facilities are escalating at an unsustainable rate. Furthermore, the cities were put on notice in 2001 that King County would not be able to provide jail space for misdemeanor offenders beginning 2012." The 2009 rates charged by King County for booking someone at the King County Jail $220.77. Daily housing fees are an additional $115.36. According to King County, these rates do not cover the County's total expenses for operating the jail. A new 668 -bed jail is under construction in Des Moines, and expected to be completed in late 2011. Development and construction is estimated to cost $80.5 million. Two Animal Care and Control models to consider: 1. YOUNG WILLIAMS ANIMAL CENTER (YWAC) in Knoxville, TN. This is a quasi governmental agency. The County serves as their fiscal agent and the employees are under the direction of a board of directors. The Board consists of eleven (11) members. Five (5) members are appointed by the Mayor, with majority approval of the City Council. Four (4) members are appointed by the county Mayor, with majority approval of the County Commission. One (1) member is appointed by the County Page 8 of 30 Commission and the final member (1) is appointed by the Knoxville Academy of Veterinary Medicine. Terms are for three years. Members can serve no more than two consecutive terms. YWAC shelters all animals for the city and county. City AC and (soon to be) County AC officers are under the police and /or sheriff. A new 22,000 square foot facility was built and opened in 2004. 2. SOUTHEAST AREA ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY (SEAACA), in Downey, CA. In October of 1975 and in January of 1976 the cities of Downey, Norwalk and Pico Rivera formed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) establishing the Southeast Area Animal Control Authority SEAACA). SEAACA was formed as an alternative to the escalating costs of animal control services, and to improve the service level rendered by private and public animal welfare agencies. In 1976, SEAACA responded to requests from individual cities to provide services on a contractual basis, which resulted in admitting additional cities to membership in the Joint Powers Agreement. Since 1984, more jurisdictions were admitted and currently SEAACA serves approximately 675,000 residents in 12 cities. SEAACA is an independent public entity governed by a policy board (Board of Commissioners) comprised of a representative from each of the member cities. The Board of Commissioners is advised by an Administrative Committee comprised of the respective City Managers /City Administrators. SEAACA has an Executive Director as its chief administrative officer who carries out policies and oversees day -to -day operations. Presently, SEAACA has six divisions: Administrative Support, Field Operations, Shelter Operations, Veterinary Services, Licensing Services and a Volunteer Program. SEAACA employs approximately 45 regular full time and part time or seasonal employees. One of the most unique aspects of SEAACA is that it provides a local approach to animal control, with direct input from the communities served. Field services are provided seven days a week, 24 hours as day, for regular and emergency calls. SEAACA has developed a facility which houses the shelter and administrative offices. SEAACA maintains an in -house veterinary clinic, which provides low cost spay and neuter surgeries as a proactive approach to combat the ongoing challenge of pet overpopulation. SEAACA's success can be attributed to its ability to meet a full range of animal related needs with the support of the communities served. SEAACA maintains a cost effective operation while not sacrificing service. Historically the public perception of Animal Control has been limited to that of enforcement of leash and licensing laws. It is the desire of the SEAACA organization to change this perception by providing their communities with the most effective and comprehensive animal directed programs. Through their efforts to respond to the needs of the public, they hope to change long standing public misconceptions and effect positive change in the communities they serve. Page 9 of 30 49 50 Benchmarking to similar -sized communities The combined population of the four cities is 180,170 (see below). We contacted approximately 14 cities across the United States with a comparable population. We gathered information on their animal care and control services to provide guidance on possible staffing and budget levels needed in a sub- regional model. Burien SeaTac Combined totals City Knoxville, TN Newport News, VA Providence, RI Aurora, IL Overland Park, KS Tallahassee, FL Santa Clarita, CA Vancouver, WA City Knoxville, TN Newport News, VA Providence, RI Aurora, IL Overland Park, KS Tallahassee, FL Santa Clarita, CA Vancouver, WA 47,890 25,730 180,170 Population 184,802 180,150 173,618 636 171,782 171,231 171,000 169,500 163,186 Population 184,802 180,150 173,618 171,782 171,231 171,000 169,500 163,186 Pet Licenses unavailable 8,931 regular /168 pit 4,074 18,000 no license req. 9,098 24,423 4,740 2,083 17,245 Page 10 of 30 460 350 3,539 Below is a snapshot of how similar sized communities have structured their ACC services, the number of pet licenses issued and animals handled: of animals 10,854 3,506 1,352 4,801 800 11,500 9,432 unavailable Annual Budget for ACC 450,000 $1,103,313 "doesn't have a budget" 944,705 350,000 559,000 159,166 900,000 ACOs on staff 7 6 and 1 ACO Tech (PT) 5 3 5 6 contract w /LA Co ACC 3 at .9 time and 1 at .75 does not include any supervisor /directors, office, dispatch or kennel staff also involved Vil. Budgeting for a sub regional ACC service Comparing a possible combined annual budget of $460,000 for the start of a sub regional ACC (this figure provided by the four cities as a starting point): 1 KC reports the 2010 population figures (including the two annexations) are 203,320 for all four cities combined. 2 The 2009 Licensing Revenue (as reported by King County on 4/7) for all four cities totals $458,029. *LA County ACC invoiced projection for all services 2009/10; the total was $465, 572.12, however, they credit back the city for redemption fees, licensing and penalty fees collected by LA County ACC, which came to $306, 406. The North sub regional group (members include Bothell, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline and Woodinville) projected a budget of $335,321 was needed to operate animal care and control services on their own for the first six months. If the South sub regional group wants to consider something similar, this is what it could look like in comparison: North Sub Reaional $437,204 overall projected costs (start up, licensing housing for 6 months) 2 ACOs FT 1 clerk 10% from police sergeant and prgm mgr Total population 131,954 Avg ACC calls 1,075 Housing strays at PAWS in Lynnwood KCACC's District #240 $343,393 field costs only (annual) 1 ACO for 5 days a week coverage of field sergeant's time of cruelty sergeant's time of admin staff (licensing, dispatch,etc.) Total population 250,000 (covering 4 cities unincorporated King County) 3 yr. Avg ACC calls 3,509 Page 11 of 30 So KC Sub Reaional $460,000 base budget (annual) 2, 3 or 4 ACOs (FT or combo FT /PT) 1 admin help shared time from dept (rotated) Total population 203,320 3 yr. Avg ACC calls 2,816 Will need to contract for animal housing Will need to add in start up costs Will need to add in licensing costs Federal Way's Plan $300,000 (staff, overhead, start up costs) 1 ACO 1 Animal Mgmnt Coordinator Total population 88,040 of ACC Calls in 2008 1,026 51 52 VIII. Animal Sheltering Options Sub regional There is consensus (after presentations by selected nonprofit animal shelters to the cities and King County last November) that without the current KCACC shelter in Kent, the local shelters and rescue organizations do not have the capacity to house thousands of stray and unwanted animals currently housed at either one of the KCACC animal shelters. Finding a proper facility to safely house a variety of animals coming from a variety of situations is the most challenging aspect to a new regional or sub regional model. Most of the animal shelters and boarding kennels located in Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties are older facilities, designed in the late 1960s to early 70s, including King County Animal Care and Control's Kent shelter and the Seattle Humane Society in Bellevue. Many shelters, however, have added new space or remodeled all or part of their main facilities to keep up with the ongoing wear and tear animals and people can cause and to better reflect changing trends in animal housing, cleaning, medical and adoption procedures. King County officials have indicated they believe the lifespan of the Kent shelter to be three years although this cannot be validated at this time. The UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine report on KCACC Facilities published in 2008 states, "The size, condition and type of housing available at the Kent and Eastside (Crossroads) facilities renders it impossible to provide safe and humane housing for all animals even for the minimum required stray holding period." www.kingcounty.gov /animalsh/ media safety /UCDavisResponse.ashx The only animal organization (in Western Washington) to have recently built and moved into a new facility is the City of Everett's Animal Services shelter which open on April 3, 2009 (located in Langus Riverfront Park). Before that, the Northwest Organization for Animal Help (N.O.A.H.) opened a new facility in May of 2003. NOAH is located in Stanwood, WA and has a different operating model from the typical animal control shelter or humane society. Here is how it is described on their website: "Rather than duplicating the traditional shelter philosophy of accepting every surrendered animal only to become overcrowded and forced to euthanize we are taking a new approach. We assist animals in the most desperate need of help the animals that have run out of time at other shelters and are facing death. By working cooperatively with area animal shelters and only accepting pets directly from their facilities, we give animals on death row another chance at life." http:// www. thenoahcenter .org /about/aboutnoah.htm Whatever option is selected, the need for acquiring or building a new animal housing /resource center within the south end of King County cannot be ignored for much longer. Options for a sub regional animal care and control program a. Contract to house city strays at one private boardina kennel Benefits: Might be able to negotiate a better daily rate fee Page 12 of 30 One partner, one location, for South King County pet owners to look for their lost pets Do not have rush into to building a new animal shelter Due to the poor economy, there may be fewer pet owners boarding their pets, thus giving incentive to kennel owners to contract for the city business Risks: Limited number that can handle the capacity in South King County (3,539 animals handled by KCACC). There is an issue of keeping private boarding customers separate from strays. Sheltering stray animals differs dramatically from that of "owned animals" because the strays may not be current on their vaccinations, may be ill or have unknown behavior problems. Several factors heavily influence facility design and operating procedures. Most notably are those items that ensure the health of animals that have unknown medical history Training needs of the kennel staff No direct supervision or control over business Would need the kennel to create a system for evaluating the health and behavior of all unclaimed strays and then work diligently and ethically to place as many of those strays up for adoption, or transfer to rescue organizations and save the euthanasia decisions to only the severely aggressive animals or animals with untreatable medical conditions or who are in extreme pain and are suffering. Also see the evaluation list in the Appendix regarding additional evaluation criteria Unresolved question making sure any unaltered animal will be spayed or neutered prior to being adopted. Is this taken care of and included with the adoption fee by the private adoption partner? Is it an extra shared fee between the cities and private adoption partner? One on site evaluation conducted The consultant team was able to tour and meet with the owner of Hil!rose Pet Resort in SeaTac on 4/8/2010. Unfortunately they were not able to visit and review other possible kennels or clinics in Kent, Burien, SeaTac or Tukwila in this phase of the project. The property has been purposed as a boarding facility for companion animals for 75 years and is conveniently located to serve residents in south King County. Page 13 of 30 53 54 The 54,000.00 square foot property features adequate parking and delivery areas; fenced outdoor exercise areas for dogs, a 1500 sq foot two story kennel building and several additional structures. The main kennel building is a two story metal structure built in 2000. It features a lobby area, office space, grooming facilities, laundry room with commercial -grade equipment, four executive pet suites, 72 dog runs and 19 cat enclosures, and a feeding room for preparing meals. Additionally, the main building has a large unfinished room on the second floor with access from the outside. The property also features an older 1400 sq foot kennel building located behind the main structure with 24 indoor /outdoor dog runs. The older facility has heat, but would need upgrades to be suitable for housing stray animals. Additional structures include a 2000 sq ft modular home and 1000 sq foot single family residence. One home is occupied by the proprietor of Hillrose Pet Resort and the other by kennel staff. King County was posed to purchase the business (it is still on the market) in the fall of 2009. The purchase was stopped when the King County Council did not support the plan. Benefits of using this specific facility: 1. Good location for south King County 2. One of few larger kennel facilities available at this time 3. Large number of dog runs, good ventilation, and runs in main building are standard size which gives the dogs plenty of room. Also the divided runs makes the cleaning process efficient and safer for the dogs (compared to the way KCACC's dog runs are designed) 4. Main building is in relatively good shape (disclaimer a building inspection was not conducted) 5. There is potential to use some of the space differently and to create something effective for ACC purposes, especially on the unfinished second floor 6. Owner is willing to discuss a variety of options [If charged a flat boarding fee of $20 per day for dogs, and dogs held for 5 days costs could be $100 per dog. Cats might be $15 per dayX 5 days or $75 per cat. Since we don't know how many of the 3,5939 animals taken in at KCACC in 2009 were dogs vs. cats, if we guesstimate it is one third dogs (1,180) and 2/3 cats (2359), private boarding fees alone doesn't include vaccinations, vet care, or spay /neuter fees could be $294,925/yr for all four cities] Risks: While Hillrose is adequate as a private boarding facility, it Tacks many of the necessary elements of an animal shelter. While some of these aspects could be worked out and the owner is motivated, a few will require significant capital investments to achieve minimal standards. Listed below are a few significant areas of concern. Page 14 of 30 1. No isolation areas for housing stray animals to prevent the spread of disease upon intake. 2. Need a separate area, counter or desk for working with the public that is separate from the private boarding customers, if both sides of the business will be in operation. 3. No intake examination room for screening owner surrendered animals or animals brought to the facility by field officers. 4. Inadequate number of housing for cats or area for small animals (such as rabbits, birds) 5. The dog kennels feature chain link fencing that separates one run from another. However, no solid barriers exist at the bottom of each run to prevent the spread of disease. Preventing feces, urine and bacteria from spreading from one kennel to another during the cleaning process is an absolute necessity to control canine disease. 6. Older section trenches for drainage may not be large enough 7. Current staff has no training in handling shelter animals, shelter cleaning protocol, veterinary medicine, euthanasia training. 8. Hillrose may have boarding kennel software, however, unsure if it can be modified or used for tracking ACC animals. 9. No freezer for cadavers 10.Access to a veterinarian and /or Licensed Vet Tech will need to be added into any negotiations. 11. Hillrose may not want to sell or rent out the newer, main building for animal control functions. b. Contract to house city strays at various private boardina kennels and vet clinics (combo) 1. Same benefits and risks as above but would be complicated and confusing to manage a variety of locations especially for directing the public to find their pet 2. Would have one or more sheltering partners 3. Do not have rush into to building a new animal shelter c. Ask to open uo neaotiations w /KCACC and ask for them to either recalculate the shelterina costs and /or to allow cities to contracts for only housina strays at the KCACC Kent shelter for the remainder of the year or lonaer. Although the current proposal is an all- in -or- nothing offer, the time given by the County is too short for the largest cities (based by number of calls and animals handled by KCACC) to have adequate sheltering alternatives ready by 6/30. If a group of cities can approach the County and offer to draw up sheltering contracts, this could provide more time for alternatives and provide the County will some source of revenues, at least until the end of the calendar year. Page 15 of 30 55 56 King County says their annual sheltering costs (net) are $3,004,900. If they project 7,000 animals over the course of a year, that equals $429.27 per animal and if the animals stay an average of 3 days (typical impound period) $143.09 per day; if an average of 5 days, then the animal costs would be $85.85 per day. However, cats and dogs have different lengths of stay after the legal hold period and some require more medical attention than others. To truly reach a per animal cost in a shelter, the fixed costs would need further analysis. Cats and dogs also have different costs per day due to the housing space they take up within a facility. These costs were unavailable from the County. Risks: King County agrees, but the per animal charge needs further discussion or, King County holds firm to the 4/10 proposal (all or nothing) and timeline. d. Build or buv a facility to house the animals and ACC services for the sub region. Benefits: Provides additional housing capacity; can build or remodel to suit needs and utilize current trends in animal housing; kennel owners may have a desire to sell and the market conditions have created more of "a buyer's market." Risks: Money and commitment between the participating cities. Timing to have something available within six months is unrealistic Selecting a site or finding an adequate building, selecting a designer and obtaining proper permits would all need to be factored into the timeline and budget. Not enough cities would commit to participate For example, The Hilirose Pet Resort may cost anywhere from $2 to $2.5 million dollars to purchase (does not include additional costs to finish the second floor and make other changes). It may not be an option if the owner sells before the cities make a decision on what to do. IX. Pet Licensing Options Sub regional Pet Licensing is the second of three key activities to animal care and control. Pet Licensing can provide needed revenue from pet owners and it can save animals' lives. Nearly two- thirds of all animals in KCACC shelters were not wearing any identification (pet license, personalized tag, rabies tag or microchip), thus making it the number one challenge in reuniting pet owners with their lost pets. Pet Licensing has been a legal requirement for many years. In 2009, King County Animal Control conducted a study on pet license compliance rates and found that although relatively low compared to the total number of estimated pets living in the County, King County's overall compliance is higher than most jurisdictions in the United States. Page 16 of 30 Successful licensing programs require diligence on marketing the license, offering the licenses at affordable rates, and a commitment to progressive and strong enforcement for violators. In 1998, the City of Seattle began a new effort to strengthen Seattle Animal Control's enforcement efforts, especially regarding loose and /or unlicensed animals in city parks. For more information on their strategy, their plan as posted on ICMA's (International City /County Management Association) website: http: /icma.org/ upload /library/ 2005- 07/% 7B3387F123- FC31- 4E92- B4D6- D9B305F639C5 %7D.mht. "Cities and counties can manage animal- related problems in a fiscally responsible way. As other programs such as parks and motor vehicles are funded, animal control can be funded partially through user fees. Pet registration (license) fees for dogs and cats are the most important of these user fees. Dog and cat owners should shoulder much of the burden of animal control costs; furthermore, irresponsible dog and cat owners should be assessed the largest part of that burden" (Animal Control Management: A Guide for Local Governments, p. 17). There are two options for Pet Licensing: a. Outsource to Pet Data, Inc. Benefits: Risks: 1. Pet Data is the only private company providing animal licensing services. They have over 30 clients (municipalities). 2. They set up the database, mail out the tags, process renewals, set up a phone line, validate addresses and provide monthly detail reports to their clients. 3. A flat fee charged per license plus a one -time set up fee (both of which are less with a joint contract). Per license fee is higher if a City sells less than 1,500 licenses per year. 4. Several other cities in King County have contacted Pet Data for information and bids 5. Base contract is for one year with an option to renew for two 6. City would not have to modify or purchase additional software or find staff to manage; less overhead expenses 7. Will be able to continue having other locations (vet clinics, etc.) sell the pet licenses 8. Can have an online license tag lookup for the public 9. "At no point in time does PetData ever own the data." Will need to evaluate the costs for bringing licensing in -house (see b) Cities lose some control and direct involvement when contracting out these services. Dependent on the County releasing the licensing data, in a readable /usable format and timely manner. Page 17 of 30 57 58 Although a formal bid has not been requested from Pet Data, Inc., if we were to apply the quoted fees given to the City of Bellevue and other northern King County cities, the possible estimated costs for outsourcing pet licensing are as follows: With a joint contract Burien 4740 licenses sold X $3.95 $18,723 start up fee yr 1 ($225)= $18,948.00 Kent 9,300 X $3.95 $36,735.00 +$225 $36,960.00 SeaTac 2,083 X $3.95 8,227.85 +$225 8,452.85 Tukwila 1,122 X $3.95 4,431.90 +$225 4,656.90 Without joint contract by individual city Burien 4,740 X $3.95 $18,723 start up fee yr 1 ($1000) $19,723.00 Kent 9,300 X $3.95 $36,735.00 $1000 37,735.00 SeaTac 2,083 X $3.95 8,227.85 $1000 9,227.85 Tukwila 1,122 X $4.10 4,431.90 $1000 5,431.90 b. Bringing pet licensina in -house A survey of 17 different jurisdictions (in and out of Washington State) illustrates how much variety exists in how jurisdictions structure their pet licensing programs. Smaller jurisdictions already set up for utility, permit or other license billing simply applied the software and process to issuing new and renewed pet licenses. Where a larger animal care and control agency is contracting to provide the pet licensing services, they use a robust shelter management program called Chameleon. One source suggests budgeting for 1 FTE for every 10,000 licenses to open the pet license mail and process the tags. And add another FTE per 10,000 licenses for entering the data. In -house expenses include, but are not limited to: Staff time to put pet licensing information on the cities web sites (including the ability to purchase or renew a pet license online using credit cards), Mailings for renewals, sending out new tags, reminder letters, etc. Pet tag inventory and tracking system, Brochures and other marketing items, A dedicated phone number and email address for the public to use for pet licensing questions or other related business, Staff time to work on the program Any other needed supplies or equipment. The chart (below) shows cities and counties of many sizes have managed to run their own pet licensing programs: Agency Software for Staffing of licenses Human population Pet Licenses issued last yr Metro Animal In -house Unavailable Unavailable 79,340 Services, WA software w /shelter database Page 18 of 30 Renton Animal Control, WA Snohomish County, WA Edmonds, WA Seattle Animal Control, WA Overland Park, KS Providence, RI Fort Collins, CO Montgomery Co Animal Resource Ctr., Dayton, OH HS of Carroll Co, Westminster, MD Santa Clarita, CA Tempe, AZ Fremont, CA In -house Chameleon managed by LA Co ACC Chameleon Managed by Maricopa Co ACC Modified software used to send expired bldg permits out 2 FTE Added to their Eden billing software In -house design, ACCESS database and web In -house design ACO by Edmonds IT using ACCESS In -house 2 Tidemark permit In City Clerk's tracking system Office Visibility software Chameleon 4 FTE Managed by Larimer HS in -house and 3 Auditor oversees AC dispatcher 8,801 683,655 2 -3 during renewals, then down to 1 unavailable 9,098 169,500 unavailable (Animal Svcs is 20,000 in 2006 202,867 part of the Police Dept.) It may be beneficial for the four cities to contract out the pet licensing services for the first two or three years and then evaluate the merits of bringing it to a more local level. If cities consider outsourcing individually, the Pet Data costs will be higher and, depending on the number of licenses to manage and the capacity of individual IT departments, individual smaller cities may be able to add this function to their current billing systems. Regardless of who manages the sub- regional Pet Licensing program cities will need to review and possible revise the current pet licensing terms and procedures currently managed by the County. For example: Should the new licensing entity have one year or two year pet licenses? Page 19 of 30 994 new pet licenses 2,100 dog 5 cats 26,000 cats 35,000 dogs 18,000 636 regular 168 Pit licenses 48,622 74,000+ dog licenses 11,956 1,254 unaltered 9,046 altered 1,454 altered/sr 83,000 40,158 598,541 171,231 1 150,000 173,618 516,000 175,300 175,523 59 60 Do all pet licenses expire in December each year with January the month for renewal, or do they expire in the 13 month after purchase, regardless of when the pet license is purchased. Who or how to process address corrections Are there retail outlets and veterinary clinics willing to sell the licenses? If so, who will train their staff on the process and monitor their reports and inventory? Will the entity issue refunds or partial refunds for pets who move or pass away during the year? There is a potential for growth. Burien's estimated of pets is 16,969 and yet 20% of pets were licensed in 2008; Kent's estimated of pets is 46,795, with 17% licensed; SeaTac's estimated of pets is 13,837, 17% licensed and Tukwila's estimated of pets is 9,727, with 9% licensed (based on 2008 figures and KCACC calculations). X. Field Service Options Sub regional a. Cities hire and share their own ACOs As mentioned earlier in Section VII, the four cities may want to hire their own team of animal control officers to cover the four jurisdictions a minimum of five days a week. The ACOs would be responsible for a variety of animal control services including responding to calls for assistance, animal rescue, apprehending strays, investigating and enforcing state and local laws relating to animals, such as animal cruelty /neglect and pet license violations. The mission of this new entity will need to focus on protecting the safety and rights of the public and the welfare of animals in addition to promoting responsible pet ownership and partnering with other animal related organizations within the community. A majority of the projected budget of $460,000 will need to be spent on contracting out animal housing and hiring capable and professional staff. For preliminary discussions, this is the minimum staffing structure recommended for the joint program between the four cities: General oversight from a police, parks or community services director's shared time (rotated every two years between cities). Supervisor /Manager (hours to be determined) 1 FT ACO (36 -40 hours /week) 1 FT ACO (36 -40 hours /week) Animal Services admin. assistance (1 FT or 2 PT) Page 20 of 30 If funds allow, or due to seasonal needs and general staff coverage for vacations, adding 1 PT ACO (20 hours /week) and /or 1 FT ACO would be highly recommended. And volunteers from the community can be utilized with office tasks, pet license promotion, outreach or other needs and special projects. Several cities have already run preliminary cost estimates and the annual ACO salary w /benefits range from $77,766 $96,000 per ACO (averaging around $85,422/yr). Administrative positions seem to be ranging from $54,288 (Federal Way's Animal Management Coordinator) to $65,412 (North end sub regional projections for an Animal Control Liaison /Records Clerk). The budget will need to reflect training or certification needs of the officers (WA Animal Control Officers Academy is scheduled for August 2010, for example) in addition to needed equipment or supplies for field services (estimate $3,000 $6,000 for the first year if two or three officers on the team). Some supplies will be shared and they may be able to share one vehicle with one day of overlap where one of the officers has more desk work to complete. This excludes the costs for new vehicles and maintenance, computer /phone /radio equipment and maintenance for each officer. b. Cities could assian animal control duties to their current police and /or code enforcement Benefits: Law enforcement already trained to write reports, investigate complaints and respond to tense situations. Police office may need to be more involved with animal calls after hours. Risks: Law enforcement has a busy workload already; would require additional training regarding animal handling, safety around animals, how to avoid using a gun or Taser on animals, etc. They most likely will be very reluctant to take on these assignments. There also could be a negative impact on response times for animal calls as well as other cases. This option is not recommended. c. Contract w /KCACC for basic and share enhanced service contract See Summary, Section XII. XI. Other considerations /challenges In our brief research phase, we found additional information or issues that warrant inclusion in the report and may be helpful in framing the future discussions about animal care and control. Page 21 of 30 61 62 There may be other short term arranaements for animal housina needs. Renton Animal Control and Snohomish City both set up a small number of dog runs on their city property to serve as temporary housing for dogs. Both have contracts to house their animals at nonprofit animal shelters, which they still are able to access, especially for cats. Another idea is to have all or a majority the 11 cities in the Southern region of the County join efforts and approach the County to lease the Kent shelter to the sub regional cities for them to operate, and King County can contract to house the animals from unincorporated King County at Kent. The future success of anv reaional or sub reaional oroaram will require efforts to support public awareness around net ownership responsibilities. For an Animal Care and Control program to be successful, the number of pets wearing identification (including a pet license) needs to increase, more pet owners need to have their pets spayed or neutered and the number of pets coming into a shelter need to decrease. "The problem of unwanted animals has proliferated into problems of behavioral management, humane education, sterilization, veterinary care, animal- friendly housing and others." "The Problem of Unwanted Pets: A Case Study in How Institutions "Think" about Clients' Needs" by Leslie Irvine, from Social Problems, Vol. 50, No 4, ©2003) Another ingredient for success is the ability of ACC to see its main clients as both people and animals. And finding better ways to capture input from both the general public and the veterinary community is aoina to be critical in the months and years ahead. Public involvement can also lead to increased support of ACC through time given as volunteers and /or financial donations to support ongoing needs or special animal- related projects. Finally, animal control agencies adjacent to the four cities might be interested in expanding their service area. Due to the time constraints, other nearby cities that have their own animal control officer or program were not yet approached about this idea. XII. Summary This study attempted to look at the three main components to a basic animal care and control program and the various options in which they can be offered to a community. With start-up costs for a sub regional program being well over the $460,000 suggested budget for the first year, contracting with King County for the remainder of 2010 may provide a stable and predictable level of animal care and control services during the coming months. The disadvantage to this approach is that cities will continue to lose a measure of local control. In addition, renewing contracts with the County will require significant fee increases, some of which remain unknown due to the unpredictable Page 22 of 30 nature of the County's negotiation process with 32 cities. Also, it is not apparent that any additional fees will be diverted into much needed improvements to KCACC facilities and programs. While the assumption is that the County has the advantage of unit cost efficiencies because it is a large agency, serving a population 10 times the size of the proposed sub- regional area, with a much larger tax base, it is not apparent that efficiencies have been realized. It is not clear that they are able to provide, in many program areas, a more robust and mufi- dimensional level of service at a lower rate. This is particularly true with respect to animal adoptions, licensing, lost and found pets, spay /neuter clinic, volunteer program, pet emergency preparedness, and humane education. While in the short term contracting with the County is likely to be less expensive on a unit cost for service basis, a sub regional model might be the best choice in the long run. We recognize that South King County cities at this time can only commit modest resources to an animal control program. However, establishing a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) with cities in the southern part King County could drive down program costs and create a great much needed improvements for participating jurisdictions. The JPA would have all the powers and authority under law that the cities have individually. it could enter into contracts, build facilities, enforce laws, and charge fees. Forming a JPA would require the consent and approval of all the agencies involved. The JPA would be governed by a policy- setting group of representatives from each of the participating cities. Model Strengths: This model offers a middle- ground approach between going it alone, and going with the County. There would be some economies of scale as compared to individual cost structure. The costs for a new facility would be shared by four agencies, as would the costs for all the other program elements, including the strategically important spay /neuter and humane education costs. A municipal services plan acceptable to all cities would need to be developed to ensure that pocket areas, receive cost effective animal care and control services. Model Weaknesses: It is not known whether the likely JPA partner cities have sufficient motivation to effect change in the area of animal control. Additionally, there are challenges faced regarding service delivery in the interim. Model Outcomes: The JPA model, once it was well established, which would take three to five years, could provide an efficient and cost effective approach to animal care and control. Other smaller cities in the southern part of the County may be interesting in joining in as well. It also would have the advantage of operating in the part of the County that it serves. Again, the County's rate for currently contracted cities will go up in coming years; thus, for comparative purposes, participating cities assumed General Fund subsidy should go up accordingly. Page 23 of 30 63 64 Next steps: As stated above, we recognize that these tough times. However, the cities can and should take meaningful steps that reflect a shared commitment to provide quality animal care and control services for the community. There are immediate improvements that should be taken to create a program while efforts are made to craft a permanent long -term solution for the future. Most, but not all, of these improvements have one -time costs. After considering the options, cities will have a clear idea as to which of the models can realistically be implemented in a manner that will best serve the community's needs within available resources. As a result of this collaborative effort, the cities will be able to develop a winning plan. When the economy turns around, the cities will be well positioned to fund a permanent alternative. If it is determined that the establishment of a JPA would provide either an increased level of animal control service or a less costly alternative to the County providing service, the South County cities need to communicate in unison to the County and encourage the County to be a future partner in the plan. There is additional work to be done. The issue of facility needs and requirements should be fully explored. A more in depth analysis should be conducted and alternative Levels of Service (LOS) should be addressed for field services, shelter services, adoption services, community education services, spay /neuter services, and volunteer coordination services. The LOS impacts on staffing levels, operations and management costs, capital outlay, and debt service should be identified in the Cost Analysis. As seen in the suggested preliminary timeline, taking a few months in the beginning to create a simple Strategic Plan (no more than 10 pages with attachments), will establish important goals and measurements to focus on during the critical formation period of the new entity. The cities have experience successfully working together as seen by the results with ValleyCom and SCORE. The issue of providing professional, prompt and humane animal care and control requires similar cooperation. Page 24 of 30 XIII. Appendix A. Suggested Timeline for Implementation Suggestion First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Other Implementation Month Month Month Month Month Month Timeline Commitment made to pursue a new sub regional ACC entity serving So KC, cmte. formed, documents prepared Interlocal Agreement drafted, approved by each city, giving the new entity authority to proceed Prepare a brief strategic plan Reps selected for sub regional oversight cmte. Regular cmte. mtgs- scheduled after launch Draft budget I Public announcements about the changes, transition launch Select vendor for housing animals Work w /vendor on policies, procedures, preparations specific to ACC Hire staff (from job descriptions, recruitment to hiring) Ordering and custom outfitting of animal control truck(s)— depends if going local or ordering from out of state Ordering equipment and supplies, getting them delivered Page 25 of 30 regular communication imp; launch depends on timeline 65 66 Suggestion First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Other Implementation Month Month Month Month Month Month Timeline Make decision on Pet Licensing License contracts signed and /or in- house database configured KC provides current database Select and order pet license inventory Website pages designed, tested and launched Sheltering and other contracts approved, signed and in place Review /revise local ordinances Design, order and print necessary forms for field services Set up Petfinder. com account for new ACC entity Field Svcs Software selections, purchase( testing period Set up charitable auxiliary or funding mechanism to solicit and have access to donations supporting the new ACC entity New entity joins NACA, AHA, WA Animal Control Association and WA Federation of Animal Care and Control Agencies (training materials, conferences, networking) Page 26 of 30 after launch Suggestion First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Other Implementation Month Month Month Month Month Month Timeline Ongoing review Oversight cmte and process and staff to work out method for public input planned Hold regular mtgs after launch w /partners Create role(s) for Roles can grow after volunteer support program launch I Program begins! 1 I 1✓ I I 1 I I I 1 *PRELIMINARY only B. Internet References /Resources http: /www. sheltermedicine. com /portavis_cleaning.shtml #top3 http: /www. sheltermedicine .com portal /is_feline_upper_res.shtml#top3 http /www.animalsheltering.org/ resource_ library/ magazine _articles /jan_feb_1997 /contr oiling_ upper_ respiratory_infections_in html http /www.animalsheltering.org/ resource_ library/ magazine _articles /sep_oct_2004 /the_r ight_stuff.ht http: /www. an imalsheltering.org /resou rce_library/magazine_ articles /ju l_aug_2001 /bu ild_ a_safershelter.html http://www.icma.org/main/topic.asp?hsid=1&tpid=23&stid=139 National Animal Control Association Trainina Guide, ©2009 Maddie's® Infection Control Manual for Animal Shelters, ©2008 Animal Control Manaaement: A Guide for Local Governments Page 27 of 30 67 68 C. Evaluating animal housing Although WA state does not have laws establishing humane standards for animal shelters and animal shelter certification programs are nonexistent, the following is a suaaested list of questions or issues to consider while undergoing a due diligence process before entering into an animal sheltering contract: Facility How old is the facility? What is the overall condition? Does the business or organization own the building and /or property? Location is it convenient for your citizens? Hours for the public to come in and look for lost pets Are applicable licenses on file and current? (Business license, kennel license, etc.) If a veterinary clinic /hospital is it an AAHA accreditated facility? Why or why not? (AAHA offers a voluntary certification program) (The American Boarding Kennel Association also has a voluntary certification program, http:// www. petcareservices .org /index.cfm /Iev1 /922 /Accreditation) What is the cleaning routine? Is there a security or alarm system? Are there adequate numbers of fire extinguishers or other safety equipment available? Are there working fire alarms? Any significant maintenance issues? What is the maximum capacity for sheltering dogs, cats, others? Facility Design check for ventilation, lighting, drains, materials used on surfaces What is the space provided to the animals (dogs 36 -50 need 20 sq feet, for example)? Human Resources Review the organizational structure How many employees (paid) are on staff full -time and part -time? How many would be providing direct animal care? Customer service? Is there a licensed veterinarian on staff? (full time? Contractual? Surgery only or does he or she have additional roles /responsibilities Are there licensed veterinary technicians on staff? Are the employees represented by a union, if so, which one? Review copies of any labor contracts Any pending or threatened charges, complaints or grievances relating to past or present employees filed against the organization in the last five years? Are there any suits, complaints or criminal indictments involving an employee or board trustee? Is there an Affirmative action policy? Do they carry appropriate insurance coverage? Does the staff have certification in animal welfare administration or other current related certifications (euthanasia by- injection, animal control academy training, CAWA do they attend national animal welfare seminars, etc.) Page 28 of 30 Evaluation criteria, continued Financial Manaaement What is the current Annual Budget? What accounting system is used? Billing process /procedures review the expectations, deadlines, format, etc. Does the organization have written financial management policies? is there an External audit? Who conducts the audit and how often? Vendor contracts —any that might be in conflict with City /County? What are their overall liabilities? Assets? Financial reporting requirements —are they in compliance? Review past three years of 990 tax returns If a nonprofit, are they registered with the WA State Division of Charities? The IRS? Business continuity plans what is the status of the plans and overall organizational preparedness Set up for Iost/strav /impounded /auarantined animals from the iurisdiction What type of paperwork and reports will be required between the facility and City /County? Will the stray animals be housed separately from adoption animals? Can the facility safely house dogs or other animals that are potentially dangerous? Can the facility safely house livestock or other animals impounded that are not dogs and cats? Will animal control officers have access to the facility if they are working night duty? How will deceased animals (DOAs) be handled? How does the organization /business make euthanasia decisions what are the criteria, who makes the decision, who performs euthanasia? How does the organization /business handle dead animals? General Contract Questions to discuss What will be the process for handling concerns, complaints between the two parties? How long of notice can each party give to cancel the contract? What would be the terms of the contract? As a contract holder with a public entity, are there additional requirements or exposure for the kennel /clinic or nonprofit? In other words, will the contract specify what if any expectations or requirements will the contracting entity be held accountable to (For example, public disclosure requirements)? Page 29 of 30 69 70 D. Background of the team Nancy B. McKennev. MNPL. CAWA Nancy is approaching her 27th year working in the field of animal welfare. She has worked several positions in a shelter setting including the Public Relations Coordinator, Humane Educator, Volunteer Coordinator, shelter tour guide, fundraiser and event planner. For 19 years she was the Executive Director /CEO for The Humane Society for Seattle /King County and then became the first executive director for the Petfinder.com Foundation. She most recently was the Communications Specialist (2008 -2009) and Interim Manager for King County Animal Care and Control. Nancy serves on the American Humane Association's Animal Protection Advisory Committee, the PIMA Medical Institute's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and the New Pet Parent Guide Advisory Board. She has a BA in History from Brown University and a Masters in Not for Profit Leadership from Seattle University. Kurt Meacham Mr. Meacham's professional experience spans several disciplines within the public sector. He has worked in both the legislative and executive branches of local government, affording him unique perspectives on complex policy issues. He is experienced at animal shelter operational master planning, capital facility planning, community outreach, and public /private partnership development. Kurt currently serves on the PIMA Medical Institute's Veterinary Technician Advisory Committee. He has a background in dog training and holds a BA in Global Studies from the University of Washington. Page 30 of 30 Committee of the Whole Meeting April 26, 2010 Animal Services - Current Situation Current animal services system will sunset on June 20, 2010 New approach for animal services needed by July 1, 2010 Comprehensive Animal Services include field control sheltering and licensing 72 Animal Services Objectives Review background Review Regional option Briefly discuss sub-regional and local options Next Steps 73 Animal Services Background King County provides animal control services to 35 contracted cities Cities receive the same level of service as unincorporated King County County keeps wall pet licensing revenue as compensation 74 Animal Services Background Over time gap between revenues and costs has grown Currently the funding gap for services to cities is approximately $2M per year Animal service program costs typically exceed revenues 75 Animal Services Background County provides geenral fund subsidy County subsidy unsustainable due to economic situation County planned to get out of animal services business shelter 1.30.10 In the interest of preserving regional system County agreed to extend services through 6.30.10 at a cost of $1M 76 animal Services Background Question is there an affordable effective option for county to continue to provide services regionally? In January 2010 joint city county workgroup convened to develop new regional service option Citites simultaneously analyzing subregional and local options 77 Animal Services Options Regional County and Cities Sub-regional Burien Kent SeaTac Tukwila Tukwila SeaTac Tukwila only Animal Services Options Challenges All options Animal services are complex Animal services are expensive Timeline is tight 7.1.10 Shelter options are limited in South King County no PAWS Human Society 79 Animal Services Regional Option Challenges Regional Option King County operational constraints as service provider Cities face different circumstances Heavy vs Light users High vs Low revenue generation 80 Animal Services Regional Option Control Services Field and phone response High priority emergent calls Animal bite vicious dog injured animal police assist loose livestock animal cruelty Lower priority calls Non-emergent high priority patrol request trespass confined stray barking dog leash law violation DOA 81 Animal Services Regional Option Control Service Levels 4 districts each staffed with 1 dedicated animal control officer Schedule 5 days per week 8 hours per day 6 total officers to cover sick and vacation leave Enhanced service possible currently $60,000 budgeted for dedicated 0.5 FTE 82 Animal Services Regional Field Service 4 Service Areas Proposed Boundaries All values estimated Bothell Snohomish County included in these values Urban Growth Boundary Animal Control Service Districts Animal Services Regional Option control Service Levels Regionally shared resources 1 field sergeant 1 animal cruelty sergeant 3 FTE call center 5 day 8 hour After hours emergency dispatch through Sheriff's Office and response through on-call Animal Control Officer Animal services regional option Control service levels current 1 FTE south of I-90 11 cities and unicorp 7 days per week 0.3 FTE through enhanced contract Proposed 1 FTE for Burien, SeaTac Tukwila Kent and Unincorporated area focus on urban area 5 days per week Enhanced service possible $120,000 per year 85 Animal Services Regional Option Shelter Services Kent shelter remains open Northern cities contract with PAWS to reduce pressure on Kent shelter Humane comprehensive care Owner released stray injured abused exotic animals and livestock full service medical includes spay neuter quarantine adoptions rescues animal care behavior education 86 Animal Services regional option Shelter service level Maintain current level 7 days per week Improve efficiency by decreasing annual animal intakes from approximately 10,000 to 7.000 Efficiency improvements create opportunites for cost savings fewer intakes shorter stays 87 Animal Services Regional Option Licensing Services Administer licensing system renewal letters, incentives to license online licensing responsible pet ownership education lost pet reunite hotline database management and discounted licenses for seniors 88 Animal Services Regional Option Licensing Service Level Maintain current service levels Tukwila eligible for enhanced marketing assisstance in 2010 to boost license sales Animal Services Regional Option Cost Allocation Cities very different from each other Higher vs Lower users Higher vs lower revenues Allocation seeks to balance these differences Allocation = 1/2 population + 1/2 usage Northern cities contracting with PAWS and paying 1/2 population allocation 90 Animal Services Regional Option Cost Allocation Tukwila Control $38,031 Sheltering $78,208 Licensing $12,000 Total cost $128,239 Licensing Revenue $30,348 Estimated Net Cost $97,892 91 Animal Services Regional Option cost allocation Tukwila with transition $ Net cost $97,892 Transition Funding $13,309 Rev License Support $10,000 Estimated Final Net Cost $74,282 92 Animal Services regional Option Revenue Allocation Fees and fines netted from operating costs before costs allocated Control revenue control violations leash law Shelter revenue adoption microchip Licensing penalty late fees Licensing fees allocated to jurisdiction of resident buying license 93 Animal Services Regional Option Payment Method Timing July - December 2010 due January 2011 based on 50% of 2010 regional program cost allocation estimate 2011 and 2012 due April 1 and October 1 based on prior year usage and revenue applied to current year budget Reconciliation in June based on prior year's actual usage and revenues 94 Animal Services Regional Option Cost Inflator Cap Costs for all control, shelter and licensing services allocated to cities not to increase by more than 5.5% per year Enhanced service contract to be separately negotiated 95 Animal Services Regional Option Term and Termination 2.5 years July 1, 2010 - December 31, 2012 6 months July 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 6 month termination clause Transition funding and licensing support only available for 2.5 year term County reserves right to terminate services if too many cities withdraw Option 2 year extension through 2014 96 Animal Services Regional Option Services Purchased All three services must be purchased together (all or nothing) Anima Services Regiona. Option Commitment to On -going mprovements Exp o re private .icensing vendor Enhance non profit /vo.unteer resources Promote .icensing through marketing Expore service deivery efficiencies throughout system Study options for Kent she.ter repair/ rep.acement 98 Animal Services Regional Option Joint City County Committee Advisory function comprised of 3 county and 7 city reps Meet no less than twice annually Review service issues and make recommendations on improving services and efficiencies 99 animal Services Regional Option benefits of Regional System Public Health and Safety Centralized info to track control and communicate regarding rabies parvo and preventative vaccines Coordinated response to multi-jurisdictional cases puppy mills animal hording cock-fighting 100 Animal Services regional Option Benefits of Regional System Animal Welfare Strong network of volunteers to facilitate adoptions and rescues Customer Service Single point of contact for residents searching for lost pets Centralized database facilitates quicker pet return recover 101 Anima, Services Regional Option Benefits of Regional System Othaj er benefits of a regional Sy stem: _..,_cost neuter program to anima, reduce homeless jon Reduces demand on cities to respond to inquiries from media, advocacy groups A,.ows local police to focus on traditiona, law enforcement 0 County provides po,icy baseline 102 Animal Services Sub-Regional and Local Options Consultant under contract to develop: Burien SeaTac Tukwila Kent option SeaTac Tukwila option SeaTac only option Kennel vet assessment Results available early next week 103 Animal Services next Steps Request Council direction on regional option 4.26.10 Notify County of City interest by April 30th 104 End of Presentation 105 106 FINANCE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes April 20, 2010 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3 PRESENT Councilmembers: De' Sean Quinn, Chair; Allan Ekberg and Kathy Hougardy Staff: Shawn Hunstock, Dave Haynes, Christy O'Flaherty and Kimberly Matej Guest: Chuck Parrish CALL TO ORDER: Chair Quinn called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. City of Tukwila Finance and Safety Committee II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Resolution: Council Committee MeetinE Schedule Staff is seeking Council approval of a resolution that formally adopts the Council Committee meeting schedule. Christy O'Flaherty, City Clerk, recently identified adoption of the Council Committee schedule via resolution as an efficient way to provide notice to the public of Council- related meetings. In adherence to the Open Public Meetings Act and transparency in government, it is a best business practice for the City to provide this information through formal legislation. The legislation will be updated annually as needed. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 26 COW FOR DISCUSSION. B. New Travel Policy As an information only item, Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, gave the Committee an overview of a new travel policy for City employees which is anticipated to be implemented in June. The new policy is a complete replacement of the previous policy. Highlights of the new policy include: Allows for a per diem. Decreases costs involved in preparing claim for expenses. Refines procedure requirements and adds clarity (i.e: travel status and meal reimbursement) Clarifies lodging expenses when not in travel status During review and discussion of policy specifics, Committee members acknowledged the purposes of the policy relative to providing structure and cost containment issues. Although the goals of the policy are good, the Committee has requested additional information as to how this policy compares to that of other cities as well as practical application (i.e.: can the policy be changed if other processes are determined to be more efficient The Committee also noted that this is not solely an operational policy issue, since there is an intricate link between the effects this policy has on Councilmembers and related travel. Specifically, the Committee expressed concern over how this policy may or may not be applied to legislative- related travel to higher priced areas (i.e.: Washington, DC) as well as the issue of compensable wages as a fringe benefit. INFORMATION ONLY. STAFF WILL RETURN TO A FUTURE FINANCE SAFETY MEETING TO DISUCSS THIS ITEM FURIITER. C. Animal Control/Services Update As an information only item, Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, returned to the Finance and Safety Committee to provided updated information on the animal control services (also see Finance and Safety 107 108 Finance Safety Committee Minutes Aori! 20. 2010 Paae 2 minutes dated March 16, 2010). He will provide the same information to full Council at the April 26 Committee of the Whole. A substantial amount of work has been conducted since the inception and as a result of the weekly meetings of the Joint Cities County Work Group (includes the County and seven King County cities). Milestones to date include: a reduction of approximately $800,000 in the system wide cost of County services delivery for the animal control and services program, and continuing conversations regarding improvements to costs and service delivery. Additionally, the County has indicated a willingness to continue to engage in these types of conversations during the operation of the County- focused regional model. Shawn reviewed the various options to provide animal control services to the Tukwila community. Of those options, staff currently recommends entering into a 2'h year contract with King County for a County- focused regional model that will provide these services. Although this is not the least costly option, it will give the City an opportunity to evaluate the services provided by the County as well as create our own sub regional model, if necessary. Interested cities have been requested to return to their respective Councils to determine if there is an interest from the Council to pursue participation in the County- focused regional model. Currently, Burien is the only city who has expressed an interest to pursue providing their own services, and not participate in the County model. If too many cities opt out of the regional model, the County will be faced with significant cost and operational issues. INFORMATION ONLY. III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 6:23 p.m. Next meeting: Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3 Committee Chair Approval Minutes by KAM. Reviewed by SH.