HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2010-06-14 Item 4E - Interlocal Agreement - King County Animal Control Services (Pet License)MTG. DATE
I 6/14/10
6/21/10
MTG. DATE
I 6/14/10
6/21/10
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
MeetinR Date Prepared by M�a eview 1 t ouncil review
06/14/10 SH (<3 I (A)
06/21/10 SH
1
I
ITEM INFORMATION
I CAS NUMBER: 10-066
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: JUNE 14, 2010
AGENDA ITEM TITLE An Interlocal Agreement for Animal Control
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award n Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 6/14/10 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 6/21/10
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW
SPONSOR'S Council is being asked to authorize the Mayor to execute an interlocal agreement with King
SUMMARY County for the provision of animal services in Tukwila. Such services include field officer
coverage, pet licensing, and sheltering at the County's facility in Kent. The interlocal
agreement is for a two and one -half year period, effective July 1, 2010. The City will
continue to investigate opportunities for partnership for providing these services during
the contract period with the County.
REVIEWED BY 0 COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Li Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 6/8/2010
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Finance Department
COMMITTEE Unanimous approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT./ FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$41,000 $38,000 $3,000
Fund Source: GENERAL FUND
Comments:
RECORDOF: COUNCIL-ACTION
ATTACHMENTS
Informational Memorandum dated 6/2/2010
Animal Services Interlocal Agreement
Executive Summary from 4/26/10 Council packet
Minutes from the Finance and Safety Committee meeting of 6/8/10
ITEM NO.
1 4-
81
82
City of Tukwila
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Finance and Safety Committee
FROM: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
DATE: June 10, 2010
SUBJECT: Animal Care Interlocal Agreement
ISSUE
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
The City of Tukwila has received animal control services through an interlocal
agreement with King County for many years. 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. The new model forms the basis of the interlocal
agreement that Council is being asked to hereby consider and approve.
BACKGROUND
The County's new model for animal care and control was presented to the Committee of
the Whole meeting on April 26, 2010. The attached interlocal agreement and supporting
documents incorporate changes from that date. The most significant change is the
removal of certain cities that have opted out of the regional model altogether, or have
expressed an intent to only participate through the end of 2010 as they put their own
animal services model together. Cities opting out of the regional model include Bothell
and Burien.
The removal of Burien impacted the costs for Tukwila because each district shares the
burden of certain costs like animal control field services. With Burien removed, there
were fewer cities in the south county area to spread these costs over. The annual
increase in costs from what was presented on April 26 is approximately $11,000. (The
actual impact is not known at this time as costs will depend on shelter intake, calls for
service, etc). Relatively all other terms of the new animal control model remain the
same as what was presented at COW on April 26
83
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
DISCUSSION
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 $5,601,800, broken down into $1,698,500 for field
services, $3,004,900 for sheltering and $898,400 for licensing.
The County's estimated cost for Tukwila for field services ($47,153) assumes one
animal control officer for forty hours per week to cover the "240" district, which includes
Kent, Tukwila, SeaTac and Vashon Island. The County estimates that services to
Vashon Island are minimal, essentially making the service delivery to just the three
cities and small portions of unincorporated area near Tukwila. 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.
Estimated sheltering costs for Tukwila ($84,411) 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.
Estimated licensing costs for Tukwila ($12,915) 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.
The County has a deadline of June 30 for cities to opt in to the regional model and
formally approve and execute the new interlocal agreement.
The City appropriated $38,000 for animal control for 2010 as part of the 2009 -2010
biennial budget process. The amount required to be spent between July 1, 2010 and
December 31, 2010 is half of the $81,710 estimate the County has for Tukwila, or
approximately $41,000. This means an appropriation for the difference of $3,000 will be
needed for 2010 for animal services.
84 W:1 20101nfoMemos \AnimalServiceslLA2.docx
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
The administration is requesting authorization for the Mayor to execute the interlocal
agreement with King County for animal care services. The interlocal agreement will be
fora two and a half year term, effective July 1, 2010.
This item is scheduled to be discussed at the June 8, 2010 Finance and Safety
Committee meeting, the June 14 Committee of the Whole meeting, and the June 21
Regular meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Animal Services Interlocal Agreement
Executive Summary Animal Services Options
W:12010 InfoMemoskAnimafSeiviceslLA2 .docx
85
86
Animal Services Inferlocal Agreement
This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2010, by and between
KING COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation and legal subdivision of the State of
Washington (the "County and the City of TUKWILA a Washington
municipal corporation (the "City
WHEREAS, the provision of animal control, sheltering and licensing services protects
public health and safety and promotes animal welfare; and
WHEREAS, providing such services on a regional basis allows for enhanced coordination
and tracking of regional public and animal health issues, consistency of regulatory
approach across jurisdictional boundaries, economies of scale, and ease of system access
for the public; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW Chapter 39.34) is
authorized and desires to contract with the County for the performance of Animal
Services; and
WHEREAS, the County is authorized by the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Section 120 of the
King County Charter and King County Code 11.02.030 to render such services and is
willing to render such services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the County is offering a similar form of Animal Services Interlocal Agreement
to all cities in King County other than the City of Seattle, and has received a statement of
intent to sign such agreement from all Cities listed in Exhibit C -1 to this Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements
contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1. Definitions. Unless the context clearly shows another usage is intended, the
following terms shall have these meanings in this Agreement:
a. "Agreement" means this Animal Services Interlocal Agreement between the
Parties including any and all Exhibits hereto, unless the context clearly
indicates an intention to reference all such Agreements by and between the
Contracting Parties.
b. "Animal Services" means Control Services, Shelter Services and Licensing
Services combined, as these services are described in Exhibit A.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
87
88 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
c. "Enhanced Control Services" are additional Control Services that the City
may purchase under certain terms and conditions as described in Exhibit E
(the "Enhance Control Services Contract
d. "Contracting Cities" means all cities that are parties to an Animal Services
Interlocal Agreement that has gone into effect as of July 1, 2010, per Section
15.
e. "Parties" means the City and the County.
f. "Contracting Parties" means all Contracting Cities and the County.
g. "Estimated Payment" means the amount the City is estimated to owe to the
County for the provision of Animal Services over a six month period per the
formulas set forth in Exhibit C. The Estimated Payment calculation may
result in a credit to the City payable by the County.
h. "Preliminary Estimated 2010 Payment" means the preliminary estimate of
the amount that will be owed by (or payable to) each Contracting Party on
January 15, 2011, as shown on Exhibit C -1.
i. "Final Estimated 2010 Payment" means the amount finally determined and
owed by each Contracting Party, on January 15, 2011, based on the number
of Contracting Cities with respect to which the Agreement goes into effect
per Sectionl5.
j. "Control District" means one of the four geographic areas delineated in
Exhibit B for the provision of Animal Control Services.
k. "Reconciliation Adjustment Amount" means the amount payable each
August 15 (commencing 2011) by either the City or County as determined
per the reconciliation process described in Exhibit D in order to reconcile the
Estimated Payments made for the prior Service Year as compared to actual
cost, revenue, population and usage data for such Service Year, so that Cities
pay for Animal Services based on actual (rather than estimated) data.
1. "Service Year" means the calendar year in which Animal Services are or
were provided; provided that in 2010, the Service Year is the period from July
1, 2010 December 31, 2010.
2. Services Provided. The County will provide the City with Animal Services
described in Exhibit A. The County will perform these services consistent with
governing City ordinances adopted in accordance with Section 3. In providing such
Animal Services consistent with Exhibit A, the County shall have sole discretion as
to the staffing assigned to receive and dispatch calls and shall be the sole judge as to
the most expeditious, efficient and effective manner of handling and responding to
calls for Animal Services. Except as set forth in Section 9 (Indemnification and
Hold Harmless), services to be provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement
2
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
do not include legal services, which shall be provided by the City at its own
expense.
a. Enhanced Control Services. The City may request Enhanced Control
Services by completing and submitting Exhibit E to the County at any time
before August 1, 2011. Enhanced Services will be provided subject to the
terms and conditions described in Exhibit E. As further detailed in Exhibit
E, if a request for Enhanced Control Service is made after the commencement
of this Agreement, the County shall decide when and if the service begins
based on the necessity for and ability of the County to hire additional staff to
provide the service and the increment of service requested.
3. City Obligations.
a. Animal Regulatory Codes Adopted. The City shall promptly enact an
ordinance or resolution that includes license, fee, penalty, enforcement,
impound/ redemption and sheltering provisions that are substantially the
same as those of Title 11 King County Code as now in effect or hereafter
amended (hereinafter "the City Ordinance The City shall advise the
County of any City animal care and control standards that differ from those
of the County.
b. Authorization to Act on Behalf of City. The City authorizes the County to act
on its behalf in undertaking the following:
i. Determining eligibility for and issuing Licenses under the terms of the
City Ordinance, subject to the conditions set forth in such laws.
ii. Enforcing the terms of the City Ordinance, including the power to
issue enforcement notices and orders and to deny, suspend or revoke
licenses issued thereunder.
iii. Conducting administrative appeals of those County licensing
determinations made and enforcement actions taken on behalf of the
City. Such appeals shall be considered by the King County Board of
Appeals unless either the City or the County determines that the
particular matter should be heard by the City.
iv. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to divest the City of authority
to independently undertake such enforcement actions as it deems
appropriate to respond to alleged violations of City ordinances.
c. Cooperation and Licensing Support. The City will assist the County in its
efforts to inform City residents regarding animal codes and regulations and
licensing requirements and will promote the licensing of pets by City
residents through various means as the City shall reasonably determine,
including but not limited to offering the sale of pet licenses at City Hall,
mailing information to residents (using existing City communication
3
89
mechanisms such as utility bill inserts or community newsletters) and
posting a weblink to the County's animal licensing program on the City's
official website. The City will provide accurate and timely records regarding
alI pet license sales processed by the City to the County; all proceeds of such
sales shall be remitted to the County by the City on a quarterly basis (no later
than each March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31).
4. Term. This Agreement will take effect on July 1, 2010 and unless extended pursuant
to Subparagraph 4.a below, shall remain in effect for a term of two and one -half
years ending on December 31, 2012. Notwithstanding anything in this section to the
contrary, this Agreement shall remain in effect for only 60 days if the Minimum
Contracting Requirements in Section 15 (Terms to Implement Agreement) are not
met. The Agreement may not be terminated for convenience.
5. Compensation. The County will develop an Estimated Payment calculation for
each Service Year using the formulas described in Exhibit C, and shall transmit the
9 0 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
a. Extension of Term.
i. Automatic Extension of Agreement. This Agreement shall be
automatically extended for an additional two year term, ending on
December 31, 2014; provided that such an automatic extension shall
not occur if any Contracting Party has provided a written Notice of
Intent to Not Automatically Extend as provided in subsection (ii)
below.
ii. Notice of Intent to Not Automatically Extend. Any Party may chose to
not automatically extend its Agreement by providing a written notice
of such intent to the other Party no later than May 1, 2012. The County
will include a written reminder of this May 1 deadline when
providing the City notice of its 2012 Estimated Payments (notice due
December 15, 2011 per Section 5).
iii. Process for Agreed Extension. Upon receiving or issuing a Notice of
Intent to Not Automatically Extend pursuant to subsection (ii), the
County shall arrange for the Contracting Parties to meet no later than
June 1, 2012, in order to confer on whether they wish to extend their
respective Agreements given revised costs and other implications
resulting from the potential reduced number of Contracting Parties.
Contracting Parties wishing to extend their respective Agreements
through December 31, 2014 may mutually agree in writing to do so by
no later than July 1, 2012. Absent such an agreed extension, the
Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2012.
4
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
payment information to the City according to the schedule described below. The
County will also calculate and inform the City as to the Reconciliation Adjustment
Amount on or before June 30 of each year, as described in Section 6 below and
Exhibit D, in order to reconcile the Estimated Payments made by the City in the
prior Service Year. The City (or County, if applicable) will pay the Estimated
Payment, and any applicable Reconciliation Adjustment Amounts, as and when
described as follows (a list of all payment related notices and dates is included at
Exhibit C -7):
a. Service Year 2010: Animal Services Provided from July 1 through December
31, 2010. On or before August 1, 2010, the County shall provide notice to
each Contracting Party of the Final Estimated 2010 Payment schedule. The
Final Estimated 2010 Payment will be derived from the Preliminary
Estimated 2010 Payment Amount set forth in Exhibit C -1, adjusted based on
the final Contracting Cities. The City shall pay the County the Final
Estimated 2010 Payment on or before January 15, 2011; provided that, if the
calculation of the Final Estimated 2010 Payment shows the City is entitled to
receive a payment from the County, the County shall pay the City the
amount owing on or before such date. The County will issue a notice of the
City's Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for Service Year 2010 on or before
June 30, 2011. The Reconciliation Adjustment Amount shall be payable on or
before August 15, 2011.
b. Service Years after 2010.
i. Initial Estimate by Au 1. To assist the City with its budgeting
process, the County shall provide the City with a non binding,
preliminary estimate of the Estimated Payments for the upcoming
Service Year on or before each August 1.
ii. Estimated Payment Determined by December 15. The Estimated
Payment amounts for the upcoming Service Year will be determined
by the County following adoption of the County's budget and
applying the formulas in Exhibit C. The County will by December 15
provide written notice to all Contracting Parties of the schedule of
Estimated Payments for the upcoming Service Year.
iii. Estimated Payments Due Each Tune 15 and December 15. The City
shall pay the County the Estimated Payment Amount on or before
each June 15 and December 15. If the calculation of the Estimated
Payment shows the City is entitled to receive a payment from the
County, the County shall pay the City such amount on or before each
June 15 and December 15.
5
91
iv. The Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for the prior Service Year
shall be payable on or before August 15 of the following calendar
year, as described in Section 6.
v. If a Party fails to pay an Estimated Payment or Reconciliation
Adjustment Amount within 15 days of the date owed, the Party owed
shall notify the owing Party which shall have ten (10) days to cure
non payment. In the event the Party fails to cure its nonpayment, the
amount owed shall accrue interest thereon at the rate of 1% per month
from and after the original due date and, in the event the nonpaying
Party is the City, the County at its sole discretion may withhold
provision of Animal Services to the City until all outstanding amounts
are paid. In the event the nonpaying Party is the County, the City
may withhold future Estimated Payments until all outstanding
amounts are paid. Each Party may examine the other's books and
records to verify charges.
vi. Unless the Parties otherwise direct, payments shall be submitted to
the addresses noted at Section 14.h.
c. Payment Obligation Survives Expiration or Termination of Agreement. The
obligation of the City (or as applicable, the County), to pay an Estimated
Payment Amount or Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for a Service Year
included in the term of this Agreement shall survive the Expiration or
Termination of this Agreement. For example, if this Agreement terminates
on December 31, 2010, the Final Estimated 2010 Payment is nevertheless due
on or before January 15, 2011, and the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
shall be payable on or before August 15, 2011.
d. The Parties agree the payment and reconciliation formulas in this Agreement
(including all Exhibits) are fair and reasonable.
6. Reconciliation of Estimated Payments and Actual Costs and Revenues. In order
that the Contracting Parties share costs of the regional Animal Services system
based on their actual, rather than estimated, use of Animal Services, there will be an
annual reconciliation of actual costs and usage. Specifically, on or before June 30 of
each year, the County will reconcile amounts owed under this Agreement for the
prior Service Year by comparing each Contracting Party's Estimated Payments to
the amount derived by recalculating the formulas in Exhibit C using actual cost,
revenue, usage and population data for such Service Period as detailed in Exhibit
D. The County shall provide the results of the reconciliation to all Contracting
Parties in writing on or before June 30. The Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
shall be payable on August 15 of the then current year, regardless of the prior
termination of the Agreement as per Section 5.c.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
92
6
7. Transitional Licensing Revenue Support Services. The County will provide
enhanced licensing marketing services in 2010 as described in this section to the five
cities with the lowest per capita rates of licensing revenue shown on Exhibit C -5
(the "Licensing Revenue Support Cities but any such city shall receive these
services only if the effective term (determined per Section 15) of its specific
Agreement is for two and one half years.
a. The marketing support services include, on a "per unit" basis, approximately
$20,000 in County staff and materials support (which may include use of
volunteers or other in -kind support) and is estimated to generate 1,250 new
licenses (equivalent to approximately $30,000 in licensing revenue).
i. Licensing Revenue Support Cities over 100,000 in population will each
receive two units of enhanced licensing marketing support.
ii. Licensing Revenue Support Cities less than 100,000 in population will
share in one unit of enhanced licensing marketing support.
b. Receipt of a unit of licensing revenue support is subject to the receiving City
providing in -kind services, including but not limited to: assisting in
communication with City residents; publicizing any canvassing efforts the
Parties have agreed should be implemented; assistance in recruiting
canvassing staff, if applicable; and providing information to the County to
assist in targeting its canvassing activities, if applicable.
8. Mutual Covenants /Independent Contractor. Both Parties understand and agree
that the County is acting hereunder as an independent contractor with the intended
following results:
a. Control of County personnel, standards of performance, discipline, and all
other aspects of performance shall be governed entirely by the County;
b. All County persons rendering service hereunder shall be for all purposes
employees of the County, although they may from time to time act as
commissioned officers of the City;
c. The County contact person for the City regarding citizen complaints, service
requests and general information on animal control services is the Manager
of Regional Animal Services.
9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
a. City Held Harmless. The County shall indemnify and hold harmless the City
and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all
claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any
nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or
omission of the County, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them
7
93
94 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement.
In the event that any such suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or
damages is brought against the City, the County shall defend the same at its
sole cost and expense; provided that the City reserves the right to participate
in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if
final judgment in said suit be rendered against the City, and its officers,
agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and the
County and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them,
the County shall satisfy the same.
b. County Held Harmless. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the
County and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and
all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any
nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or
omission of the City, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them
relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement.
In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damages is
brought against the County, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost
and expense; provided that the County reserves the right to participate in
said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if
final judgment be rendered against the County, and its officers, agents, and
employees, or any of them, or jointly against the County and the City and
their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the City shall
satisfy the same.
c. Liability Related to City Ordinances, Policies, Rules and Regulations. In
executing this Agreement, the County does not assume liability or
responsibility for or in any way release the City from any Iiability or
responsibility that arises in whole or in part as a result of the application of
City ordinances, policies, rules or regulations that are either in place at the
time this Agreement takes effect or differ from those of the County; or that
arise in whole or in part based upon any failure of the City to comply with
applicable adoption requirements or procedures. If any cause, claim, suit,
action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the
enforceability and /or validity of any such City ordinance, policy, rule or
regulation is at issue, the City shall defend the same at its sole expense and, if
judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the City, the County, or
both, the City shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and
reasonable attorney's fees.
d. Waiver Under Washington Industrial Insurance Act. The foregoing
indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each party's
8
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW, as
respects the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the
indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the
indemnitor's employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were
specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them.
10. Dispute Resolution. Whenever any dispute arises between the Parties or between
the Contracting Parties under this Agreement which is not resolved by routine
meetings or communications, the disputing parties agree to seek resolution of such
dispute in good faith by meeting, as soon as feasible. The meeting shall include the
Chief Executive Officer (or his/her designee) of each party involved in the dispute
and the Manager of the Regional Animal Services Program. If the parties do not
come to an agreement on the dispute, any party may pursue mediation through a
process to be mutually agreed to in good faith between the parties within 30 days,
which may include binding or nonbinding decisions or recommendations. The
mediator(s) shall be individuals skilled in the legal and business aspects of the
subject matter of this Agreement. The parties to the dispute shall share equally the
costs of mediation and assume their own costs.
11. Joint City County Committee and Collaborative Initiatives. A committee
composed of 3 county representatives (appointed by the County) and one
representative from each City that has signed a like Agreement and chooses to
appoint a representative shall meet not less than twice each year. Committee
members may not be elected officials. The Committee shall review service issues
and make recommendations regarding efficiencies and improvements to services
and shall review and make recommendations regarding the conduct and findings
of the collaborative initiatives identified below. Subcommittees to focus on
individual initiatives may be formed, each of which shall include membership from
both county and city members of the Joint City- County Committee.
Recommendations of the Joint City County Committee are non binding. The
collaborative initiatives to be explored shall include:
a. Proposals to update animal services codes, including fees and penalties, as a
means to increase revenues and incentives for residents to license, retain, and
care for pets.
b. Exploring the practicability of engaging a private for profit licensing system
operator.
c. Pursuing linkages between County and private non profit shelter and rescue
operations to maximize opportunities for pet adoption, reduction in
homeless pet population, and other efficiencies.
9
95
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
96
d. Promoting licensing through joint marketing activities of cities and the
County, including recommending where the County's marketing efforts will
be deployed each year.
e. Exploring options for increasing service delivery efficiencies across the
board.
f. Studying options for repair and /or replacement of the Kent Shelter.
g. Reviewing results of a compensation and classification study which the
County agrees to complete by July 1, 2011, benchmarking the County's
Animal Services staffing policies as compared to other publicly operated
animal services systems.
h. Review the results of the County's calculation of the Reconciliation
Adjustment Amounts.
i. Reviewing preliminary proposed budgets for Animal Services.
j. Providing input into the formatting, content and details of periodic system
reports as per Section 12 of this Agreement.
k. Reviewing and providing input on proposed Animal Services operational
initiatives.
12. Reporting. The County will provide the City with an electronic report not less
than twice each year summarizing call response and system usage data for each of
the Contracting Cities and the County and the Animal Services system. The
formatting, content and details of the report will be developed in consultation with
the Joint City County Committee.
13. Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing. This
Agreement may be amended upon approval of the County and at least two thirds
(66 of the legislative bodies of all other Contracting Parties to this Agreement (in
both number and in the percentage of the prior total Estimated Payments owing
from such Contracting Parties in the then current Service Year), evidenced by the
authorized signatures of such approving Parties as of the effective date of the
amendment; provided that any amendment to this Agreement affecting the Party
contribution responsibilities, hold harmless and indemnification requirements,
provisions regarding duration, termination or withdrawal, or the conditions of this
Section shall require consent of the legislative authorities of all Parties.
14. General Provisions.
a. Other Facilities. The County reserves the right to contract with other shelter
service providers for housing animals received from within the City or from
City residents, whose levels of service meet or exceed those at the County
10
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
shelter for purposes of addressing shelter overcrowding or developing other
means to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency or capacity of the animal care
and sheltering system within King County.
b. Severability. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion thereof, shall not affect the validity of the remaining
provisions of the Agreement.
c. Survivability. Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the
contrary, the provisions of Section 9 (Indemnification and Hold Harmless)
shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of the
withdrawal or termination of this Agreement.
d. Waiver and Remedies. No teiimt or provision of this Agreement shall be
deemed waived and no breach excused unless such waiver or consent shall
be in writing and signed by the Party claimed to have waived or consented.
Failure to insist upon full performance of any one or several occasions does
not constitute consent to or waiver of any later non performance nor does
payment of a billing or continued performance after notice of a deficiency in
performance constitute an acquiescence thereto. The Parties are entitled to
all remedies in law or equity.
e. Grants. Both Parties shall cooperate and assist each other toward procuring
grants or financial assistance from governmental agencies or private
benefactors for reduction of costs of operating and maintaining Animal
Services programs and the care and treatment of animals in those programs.
f. Force Maieure. In the event either Party's performance of any of the
provisions of this Agreement becomes impossible due to war, civil unrest,
and any natural event outside of the Party's reasonable control, including
fire, storm, flood, earthquake or other act of nature, that Party will be
excused from performing such obligations until such time as the Force
Majeure event has ended and all facilities and operations have been repaired
and /or restored.
g. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of
the Parties and supersedes any oral representations that are inconsistent with
or modify its terms and conditions.
h. Notices. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any notice
required to be provided under the terms of this Agreement shall be delivered
by certified mail, return receipt requested or by personal service to the
following person:
For the City: CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188
ATTN: SHAWN HUNSTOCK, FINANCE DIRECTOR
11
97
For the County: Caroline Whalen, Director
King County Dept. of Executive Services
401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 610
Seattle WA. 98104
i. Assignment. No Party may sell, transfer or assign any of its rights or benefits
under this Agreement without the approval of the other Party.
j. Venue. The Venue for any action related to this Agreement shall be in
Superior Court in and for King County, Washington.
k. Records. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by
this Agreement shall be subject to inspection and review by the County or
City for such period as is required by state law (Records Retention Act, Ch.
40.14 RCW) but in any event for not less than 1 year following the expiration
or termination of this Agreement.
1. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties
only, and no third party shall have any rights hereunder.
m. Counterparts. This Agreement and any amendments thereto, shall be
executed on behalf of each Party by its duly authorized representative and
pursuant to an appropriate motion, resolution or ordinance. The Agreement
may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an
original, but those counterparts will constitute one and the same instrument.
15. Terms to Implement Agreement. Because it is unknown how many parties will
ultimately approve the Agreement, and participation of each Contracting Party
impacts the costs of all other Contracting Parties, the Agreement will go into effect
for the full proposed two and a half year term only if certain Minimum Contracting
Requirements are met or waived as described in this section; provided further, that if
such conditions are not met, then the Agreement will go into effect for a six month
term per subparagraph (c) or a 60 -day emergency period as provided for below
under subparagraph (d). The Minimum Contracting Requirements include:
a. For both the City and the County:
i. 2010 Payment Test: The Final Estimated 2010 Payment, calculated
including the County and all Cities that have executed the Agreement
prior to July 1, 2010 (regardless of whether such Contracting Parties
have opted for a 6 month or 2.5 year initial term), does not exceed the
Preliminary Estimated 2010 Payment as set forth in Exhibit C by
more than five percent (5 or $3,500, whichever is greater. Either
Party may waive its failure to meet this test in order to allow the
Agreement to go into effect for the 6 month term.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
98
12
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
ii. Implied 2011 Payment Test: In addition, if the City has agreed to an
initial term of 2.5 years, the Final Estimated 2010 Payment, calculated
including the County and those Cities that have similarly opted for an
Initial Term of 2.5 years, does not exceed the Preliminary Estimated
2010 Payment shown for the Party in Exhibit C -1(A) by more than
five percent (5 or $3,500, whichever is greater. Either Party may
waive its failure to meet this test in order to allow the Agreement to
go into effect for the 2.5 year term.
b. For the County: the Minimum Contiguity of Service Condition must be
met, such that the County is only obligated to enter into the Agreement if the
County will be providing Animal Services in areas contiguous to the City,
whether by reason of having an Agreement with another City or due to the
fact that the City is contiguous to unincorporated areas (excluding
unincorporated islands within the City limits). The Minimum Contiguity of
Service Condition may be waived by the County in its sole discretion.
c. Term of Agreement Limited to Six Months if Implied 2011 Payment Test
Not Met: If the County's Minimum Contiguity of Service Requirement is
met or waived by the County and the 2010 Payment Test with respect to both
Parties is met or waived, but the 2011 Test is not met or waived for both
Parties, then the Agreement shall take effect for a term of only six months
(expiring December 31, 2010).
d. Emergency 60 -day agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the 2010
Payment Test is not met, then regardless of whether the County's Minimum
Contiguity of Service Requirement is met, this Agreement shall go into effect
on July 1, 2010, on an emergency basis for a period of 60 -days, terminating
August 31, 2010. The City shall by January 15, 2011, pay the Final Estimated
2010 Payment calculated in accordance with Section 6.a, pro -rated to reflect
the 60 day (rather than 6- month) term, provided further that there will be no
reconciliation of the Estimated Payment amounts so paid.
16. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the County
Administrative Officer or his/her designee, and by the City
TUKWILA
or his/her designee.
13
99
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed effective as of July 1, 2010.
King County
Dow Constantine
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
100
City of TUKW I LA
JIM HAGGERTON, MAYOR
King County Executive City Manager Mayor
Date Date
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
King County City Attorney
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Date Date
14
Exhibit A: Animal Services Description
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
List of Exhibits
Exhibit B: Control Services District Map Description
Exhibit B 1: Map of Control Service District, as initially applicable
Exhibit B 2: Map of Control Service Districts beginning January 1, 2011
Exhibit C: Calculation of Estimated Payments
Exhibit C -1: Preliminary Estimated 2010 Payment (Annualized) (showing
participation only by those jurisdictions that have expressed interest as of May 27,
2010 in contracting for either 6 months or 2.5 years))
Exhibit C -1(A): "Implied 2011" Estimated Payments for purposes of
Section 15.a.2 (2010 Estimated Payment (Annualized) showing
participation only of those jurisdictions that indicated they are seeking a 2.5
year Agreement— Actual Estimated 2011 Payments will be different, based
on adjustments for 2011 Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, revised Revenue
estimates, and application of Budget Inflator Cap)
Exhibit C -2: Population, Calls for Service, Shelter Use and Licensing
Data for Jurisdictions, Used to Derive the Preliminary and Final
Estimated 2010 Payment
Exhibit C -3: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Animal Services
Costs, Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue and Budget Net Allocable
Animal Services Costs for 2010
Exhibit C -4: Transition Credit, Resident Usage Credit and Impact
Mitigation Credit Calculation and Allocation
Exhibit C -5: Cities receiving Transitional Licensing Revenue Support in
2010
Exhibit C -6: Summary of Calculation Periods for Use and Population
Components
Exhibit C -7: Payment and Calculation Schedule
15
101
1 0 2 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
Exhibit D: Reconciliation
Exhibit D -1: Calculation of Support Cost Adjustment Factor
Associated with Enhanced Control Service ("0")
Exhibit E: Enhanced Control Services Contract (Optional)
16
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
Exhibit A
Animal Service Description
Part 1: Control Services
Control Services include the operation of a public call center, the dispatch of animal
control officers in response to calls, and the handling of calls in the field by animal control
officers, including the collection and delivery of animals to the Kent Shelter (or such other
shelters as the County may utilize in accordance with this Agreement).
1. Call Center
a. The County will operate an animal control call center Monday through
Friday every week (excluding holidays and County designated furlough
days, if applicable) for a minimum of eight hours per day (normal business
hours). The County may adjust the days of the week the call center operates
based on the final choice of Control District service days.
b. The animal control call center will provide callers with guidance, education,
options and alternative resources as possible /appropriate.
c. When the call center is not in operation, callers will hear a recorded message
referring them to 911 in case of emergency, or if the event is not an
emergency, to either leave a message or call back during regular business
hours.
2. Animal Control Officers
a. The County will divide the area receiving Control Services into Control
Districts. Each of the geographic Control Districts, as shown on Exhibit B
will be staffed with one Animal Control Officer (ACO) five consecutive days
per -week (such days to be selected by the County) for not less than eight
hours per -day "Regular ACO Service Hours subject to the limitations
provided in this Section. Except as the County may in its sole discretion
determine is necessary to protect officer safety, Animal Control Officers shall
be available for responding to calls within their assigned Control District and
will not be generally available to respond to calls in other Control Districts.
Exhibit B shows the map of Control Districts for the period from July 1
through December 31, 2010; Exhibit B shows the map of Control Districts
for the period after 2010. The daily eight -hour service period shall be
determined by the County and shall start not earlier than 7 a.m. and end not
later than 7 p.m. Countywide, the County will have a total of not less than
6 Animal Control Officers (Full -Time Equivalent employees) on staff to
maximize the ability of the County to staff each Control District
notwithstanding vacation, sick leave, and other absences, and to respond to
17
103
04 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
1
high workload areas on a day -to -day basis. While the Parties recognize that
the County may at times not be able to staff all Control Districts as proposed
given unscheduled sick leave or vacancies, the County will make its best
efforts to establish regular hourly schedules and vacations for Animal
Control Officers in order to minimize any such gaps in coverage. In the
event of extended absences among the 6 Animal Control Officers, the County
will re- allocate remaining Animal Control Officers as practicable in order to
balance the hours of service available in each Control District.
b. Control District boundaries have been designed to balance work load,
correspond to jurisdictional boundaries and facilitate expedient
transportation access across each district. The County will provide for a
location for Animal Control vehicles to be stationed overnight in both north
and south King County.
c. The County will use its best efforts to ensure that High Priority Calls are
responded to by an Animal Control Officer during Regular ACO Service
Hours on the day such call is received. The County shall retain full
discretion as to the order in which High Priority calls are responded. High
Priority Calls include those calls that pose an emergent danger to the
community, including:
1. Emergent animal bite,
2. Emergent vicious dog,
3. Emergent injured animal,
4. Police assist calls— (police officer on scene requesting assistance
from an Animal Control Officer),
5. Emergent loose livestock or other loose or deceased animal that
poses a potential danger to the community, and
6. Emergent animal cruelty.
d. Lower priority calls include all calls that are not High Priority Calls. These
calls will be responded to by the call center staff over the telephone, referral
to other resources, or by dispatching of an Animal Control Officer as
necessary oravailable, all as determined necessary and appropriate in the
sole discretion of the County. Particularly in the busier seasons of the year
(spring through fall), lower priority calls may only receive a telephone
response from the Call Center. Lower Priority calls are non- emergent
requests for service, including but not limited to:
1. Non emergent high priority events,
2. Patrol request (Animal Control Officer requested to patrol a
specific area due to possible code violations),
3. Trespass,
4. Stray Dog /Cat /other animal confined,
18
5. Barking Dog,
6. Leash Law Violation,
7. Deceased Animal,
8. Trap Request,
9. Female animal in season, and
10. Owner's Dog /Cat /other animal confined.
e. In addition to the Animal Control Officers serving specific districts, the
following Control Service resources will be available on a shared basis for all
Parties and shall be dispatched as deemed necessary and appropriate by the
County.
1. An animal control sergeant will provide oversight of and back-
up for Animal Control Officers five days per week at least 8
hours /day (subject to vacation /sick leave /training /etc.).
2. An Animal Cruelty Sergeant will be on staff at least 40 hours
per week to respond to animal cruelty cases and prepare
related reports (subject to vacation /sick leave /training /etc.).
3. Two Animal Control Officers will be on call every day at times
that are not Regular ACO Service Hours (including the two
days per week that are not included within Regular ACO
Service Hours), to respond to High Priority Calls posing an
extreme life and safety danger, as determined by the County.
f. The Parties understand that rural areas of the County will generally receive a
less rapid response time from ACOs than urban areas.
g. Cities may contract with King County for "Enhanced Control Services"
through separate agreement (as set forth in Exhibit E).
Part TI: Shelter Services
Shelter services include the general care, cleaning and nourishment of owner released,
lost or stray dogs, cats and other animals. Such services shall be provided 7 -days per
week, 365 days per year at the County's animal shelter in Kent (the "Shelter or other
shelter locations utilized by the County, including related services described in this
section. The County's Eastside Pet Adoption Center in the Crossroads area of Bellevue
will be closed to the public.
1. Shelter Services
a. Services provided to animals will include enrichment, exercise, care and
feeding, and reasonable medical attention.
b. The Public Service Counter at the Shelter will be open to the public not less
than 30 hours per week and not less than 5 days per week, excluding
holidays and County designated furlough days, for purposes of pet
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
19
105
redemption, adoption, license sales services and (as may be offered from
time to time) pet surrenders. The Public Service Counter at the shelter may
be open for additional hours if practicable within available resources.
c. The County will maintain a volunteer /foster care coordinator at the Shelter
to encourage use of volunteers working at the shelter and use of foster
families to provide fostering /transitional care between shelter and
permanent homes for adoptable animals.
d. The County will maintain an animal placement specialist at the Shelter to
provide for and manage adoption events and other activities leading to the
placement of animals in appropriate homes.
e. One veterinarian and one veterinarian technician will be scheduled to work
at the Shelter six -days per week, during normal business hours. Veterinary
services provided include animal exams, treatment and minor procedures,
spay /neuter and other surgeries Limited emergency veterinary services
will be available in non business hours, through third -party contracts, and
engaged if and when the County determines necessary.
f. Targeted animal operating capacity at the Shelter is 7,000 per year. The
County will take steps through its operating policies, codes, public fee
structures and partnerships to reduce the number of animals and their
length of stay in the Shelter, and may at times limit owner surrenders and
field pick -ups, adjust fees and incentivize community -based solutions.
2. Other Shelter services
a. Dangerous animals will be confined as appropriate /necessary.
b. Disaster /emergency preparedness for animals will be coordinated
regionally through efforts of King County staff.
3. Shelter for Cities contracting with PAWS (Potentially including Shoreline,
Bothell, Woodinville, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore "Northern Cities For so
long as a Northern City has a contract in effect for sheltering dogs and cats with the
Progressive Animal Welfare Society in Lynnwood (PAWS), the County will not
shelter dogs and cats picked up within the boundaries of such City(s), except in
emergent circumstances and when the PAWS Lynwood shelter is not available.
Dogs and cats picked up by the County within such City(s) will be transferred by
the County to the PAWS shelter in Lynnwood for shelter care, which will be
provided and funded solely through separate contracts between each Northern City
and PAWS, and the County will refer residents of that City to PAWS for sheltering
services. The County will provide shelter services for animals other than dogs and
cats that are picked up within the boundaries of Northern Cities contracting with
PAWS on the same terms and conditions that such shelter services are provided to
other Contracting Parties. Except as provided in this Section, the County is under
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
106
20
no obligation to drop animals picked up in any Contracting City at any shelter
other than the County shelter in Kent.
4. County Contract with PAWS. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to preclude
the County from contracting with PAWS in Lynnwood to care for animals taken in
by control officers in the Northern #200) district of the County.
5. Service to Persons who are not Residents of Contracting Cities. The County will
not provide routine shelter services for animals brought in by persons who are not
residents of Contracting Cities, but may provide emergency medical care to such
animals, and may seek to recover the cost of such services from the pet owner
and /or the City in which the resident lives.
Part III: Licensing Services
Licensing services include the operation and maintenance of a unified system to license
pets in Contracting Cities.
1. The public will be able to purchase pet licenses in person at the County Licensing
Division public service counter in downtown Seattle (500 4th Avenue), King County
Community Service Centers and the Kent Animal Shelter during regular business
hours. The County will maintain on its website the capacity for residents to
purchase pet licenses on -line.
2. The County will seek to engage and maintain a variety of private sector partners
(e.g. veterinary clinics, pet stores, grocery stores, city halls, apartment complexes) as
hosts for locations where licenses can be sold or promoted in addition to County
facilities.
3. The County will furnish licenses and application forms and other materials to the
City for its use in selling Licenses to the public at City facilities and at public events.
4. The County will publicize reminders and information about pet licensing from time
to time through inserts in County mailings to residents and on the County's public
television channel.
5. The County will annually mail at least one renewal form, reminder and late notice
(as applicable) to the last known addresses of all City residents who purchased a
pet license from the County within the previous year (using a rolling 12 -month
calendar).
6. The County may make telephone reminder calls in an effort to encourage pet
license renewals.
7. The County shall mail pet license tags or renewal notices as appropriate to
individuals who purchase new or renew their pet licenses.
8. The County will maintain a database of pets owned, owners, addresses and
violations.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
21
107
9. The County will provide limited sales and marketing support in an effort to
maintain the existing licensing base and increase future license sales. The County
reserves the right to determine the level of sales and marketing support provided
from year to year in consultation with the Joint City County Committee. The
County will work with any City in which door -to -door canvassing takes place to
reach agreement with the City as to the hours and locations of such canvassing.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
108
22
The attached map (Exhibit 13 shows the boundaries of the 4 Control Service Districts as
established at the commencement of this Agreement. Exhibit B shows the proposed
boundaries for the Control Service Districts to be established effective January 1, 2011.
The cities and towns included in each Control District are as follows:
District #200 (Northern District) District #220 (Eastern District)
Shoreline Bellevue
Lake Forest Park Mercer Island
Kenmore Yarrow Point
Bothell (only through December 31, 2010) Clyde Hill
Woodinville Town of Beaux Arts
Kirkland Issaquah
Redmond Snoqualmie
Duvall North Bend
Carnation Newcastle
Sammamish
District #240 (Western District) District #260 (Southern District)
Tukwila Auburn
SeaTac Covington
Kent Maple Valley
Black Diamond
Enumclaw
The Districts shall each include portions of unincorporated King County as illustrated on
the Exhibits B -1 and B -2.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
Exhibit B: Control Service District Map
23
109
Pc fut: tiur,: 2?2.00r
iefip :e r.Rli.
Powc tpOn 205,000
Pc'4 1eliArea: 100,s
To+ �7 aI s: 2,800
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
i
Urban Growth Boundary
f ontract Cities
Exhibit B -1
The Control District Map, applicable through December 31, 2010
alai Ca ®s: 2,20,
I
L, �IIyy
ol�l 385,000.—.,
ulaledAiYa
difF0a11.5 2,5004'
f.
Control Districts 2010
ll volumes estimated based
on 2007 2009 averages
King County
M br Nwxrt.Ih
24
Bbi W4L 1 102
c
J r
j Redmond
t PoplitatectArea:!:100:scv;-
Total Calls: 2 800;
LI,
Document Dated 5-28-10
Urban Growth Boundary
Non-Contract Cities
Exhibit B-2
Control District Map applicable January 2011 and Beyond
pulation:..351,000
Plat
ATO: 310 Sq.mr
s: 2,3139
PoputZeri,
PoIrtA 39(1 so
i
tg--
—1T
43Atieb:' son'.
Oadi' Total Caits:1.100
v0
r e
1.
Control Districts
2011 and Out Years
Call volumes estimated based
on 200T-2009 averages
/Gas County
25
A
Exhibit C
Calculation of Estimated Payments
The Estimated Payment is the amount, before reconciliation, owed by the City to the
County (or owed by the County to the City if the amount calculated is less than $0) for the
provision of six months of Animal Services, based on the formulas below.
In summary and subject to the more detailed descriptions herein:
Control Services costs are to be equally shared among the 4 geographic Control
Districts. Each Contracting Party located within a Control District is to be allocated
a share of Control District costs based 50% on the Party's relative share of total Calls
for Service within the Control District and 50% on its relative share of total
population within the Control District.
Shelter Services costs are to be allocated among all Contracting Parties based 50%
on their relative population and 50% on the total shelter intake of animals
attributable to each Contracting Party, except that cities contracting for shelter
services with PAWS will pay only a population -based charge and that charge will
be one -half the regular shelter services cost population component payable by other
cities; and
Licensing Services costs are to be allocated between all Contracting Parties, based
50% on their relative population and 50% on the number of licenses issued to
residents of each Contracting Party.
Licensing revenue is to be attributed based on the residency of the individual
purchasing the license.
Each Estimated Payment covers the cost of six months of Animal Services.
Three credits are applicable to various cities to reduce the amount of their
Estimated Payments: a Transition Funding Credit (for cities with high per capita
costs); a Resident Usage Credit (for cities with low usage as compared to
population); and an Impact Mitigation Credit (for cities whose projected costs were
most impacted by decisions of certain cities not to participate in the regional
Agreement). Application of these Credits is limited such that the Estimated
Payment cannot fall below zero (before or after the annual reconciliation
calculation) with respect to the Transition Funding Credit, or below $2,750 or $2,850
(both amounts are annualized) with respect to the Resident Usage Credit and
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
27
1 13
Impact Mitigation Credit (depending on whether Bothell received Animal Services
in the Service Year being reconciled).
Estimated Payments are reconciled to reflect actual revenues and actual usage as
well as changes in population. The reconciliation calculation occurs in June of the
following calendar year. The reconciliation calculation and payment process is
described in Exhibit D. The receipt of Transition Funding Credits, Resident Usage
Credits, or Impact Mitigation Credits can never result in the amount of the
Estimated Payments as reconciled falling below the limits described in the
paragraph above ($0, $2,750 or $2,875 (annualized), depending on the credit and
whether Bothell received service under an Agreement during the Service Year).
Estimated Payment Formula:
EP= [EC +ES +EL- ER- T- U -M =2
Where:
"EP" is the Estimated Payment. For Cities receiving a Transition Credit, Resident Usage
Credit or Impact Mitigation Credit, the value of EP may not be less than the amounts
prescribed in Exhibit C 4.
"EC" is the City's share of the Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost for the
Service Year. See formula below for deriving "EC.
"ES" is the City's share of the Budged Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost for the Service
Year. See formula below for deriving "ES."
"EL" is the City's share of the Budgeted Net Allocable Licensing Services Cost for the
Service Year. See formula below for deriving "EL."
"ER" is Estimated Licensing Revenue attributable to the City. For purposes of determining
the Estimated Payment in Years 2010 and 2011, ER is derived from the number of each
type of active license issued to City residents in years 2009 (the "Calculation Period
shown on Exhibit C 2. For Service Year 2010, that number.is multiplied by the cost of
those licenses in 2009 resulting in the estimated values for Service Year 2010 shown on
2009 licensing types and costs used for purposes of calculating Estimated Licensing Revenue per
jurisdiction in Exhibit C -1 include: Cat and Dog, Altered (spayed or neutered) $30; Cat and Dog, Unaltered-
$90; Cat and Dog, Juvenile (less than 6 months in age) $5; Dog, Senior (over 65)owner $20; Cat, Senior
1 4 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
1
28
Exhibit C -1, and then adding the amount of revenue estimated to be derived as a result of
the Transitional Licensing Support Services in 2010 to those five Cities identified in
Exhibit C -5 (the estimated Transitional Licensing Support Services revenue is also shown
on Exhibit C -1). License Revenue that cannot be attributed to a specific Party (e.g.,
License Revenue associated with incomplete address information), which generally
represents a very small fraction of overall revenue, is allocated amongst the Parties based
on their respective percentages of ER as compared to Total Licensing Revenue.
"T" is the Transition Funding Credit, if any, allocable to the City for each Service Year,
calculated per Exhibit C -4; provided however, a City identified in Exhibit C -4 is only eligible
for a Transition Credit if that City agreed to enter into this Agreement for a term through
December 31, 2012; provided further, that the amount of "T if any, for Service Year 2010
shall be applied pro rata to the calculation of the Final Estimated 2010 Payment even if,
despite the agreement of the City, the Agreement only goes into effect for 6 months or 60
days per Section 15.
"U" is the Resident Usage Credit, if any, allocable to the City for each Service Year,
calculated per Exhibit C -4; provided however, a City identified in Exhibit C -4 is only
eligible for a Resident Usage Credit if that City agreed to enter into this Agreement for a
term through December 31, 2012; provided further, that the amount of "U if any, for
Service Year 2010 shall be applied pro rata to the calculation of the Final Estimated 2010
Payment even if, despite the agreement of the City, the Agreement only goes into effect for
6 months or 60 days per Section 15.
"M" is the Impact Mitigation Credit, if any, allocable to the City for each Service Year,
calculated per Exhibit C -4; provided however, a City identified in Exhibit C -4 is only eligible
for an Impact Mitigation Credit if that City agreed to enter into this Agreement for a term
through December 31, 2012; provided further, that the amount of "M," if any, for Service
Year 2010 shall be applied pro rata to the calculation of the Final Estimated 2010 Payment
even if, despite the agreement of the City, the Agreement only goes into effect for 6
months or 60 days per Section 15.
And where:
"Budgeted Net Allocable Costs" are the estimated costs for the Service Year for the
provision of Animal Services which are allocated among the Contracting Parties for the
owner $12; Cat and Dog, Renewal, Service and Temporary, Senior owner renewal $0. License types and
costs are subject to change over time.
Document Dated 5 -28 -I0
29
1 15
purposes of determining the Estimated Payment. The Budgeted Net Allocable Costs are
calculated as the Budgeted Total Allocable Costs (subject to the Annual Budget Inflator
Cap) less Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue. The Budgeted Total Allocable Costs
exclude any amount expended by the County as Transition Funding Credits, Resident Use
Credits, or Impact Mitigation Credits (described in Exhibit C -4) or to provide Transitional
Licensing Revenue Support Services (described in Section 7). The calculation of Budgeted
Net Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Allocable Costs and Budgeted Total Non Licensing
Revenue for purposes of calculating the Estimated 2010 Payments is set forth in Exhibit C-
3.
"Total Licensing Revenue" means all revenue received by the County's Animal Services
System attributable to the sale of pet licenses excluding late fees. With respect to each
Contracting Party, the amount Licensing Revenue is the revenue generated by the sale of
pet licenses to residents of the jurisdiction. (With respect to the County, the jurisdiction is
the unincorporated area of King County.) The value of Estimated Licensing Revenue for
each Contracting Party for purposes of calculating the Estimated 2010 Payment includes
amounts estimated to be generated from Transitional Licensing Revenue Support Services,
and is shown on Exhibit C -1.
"Total Non Licensing Revenue" means all revenue from fine, forfeitures, and all other
fees and charges received by the County's Animal Services system, excluding Total
Licensing Revenue.
"Transitional Licensing Support Services" means activities to be undertaken in specific
cities in 2010 to enhance licensing revenues, per Section 7 of the Agreement.
"Annual Budget Inflator Cap" means the maximum amount by which the Budgeted Total
Allocable Costs may be increased from one Service Year to the next Service Year, and year
to year, which is calculated as the rate of inflation (based on the annual change in the
September CPI -U for the Seattle- Tacoma Bremerton area over the rate the preceding year)
plus the rate of population growth for the preceding year for the County (including only
the unincorporated area) plus all Contracting Cities, as identified by comparing the two
most recently published July OFM city and county population reports. The cost allocations
to individual services (e.g. Control Services, Shelter Services or Licensing Services) or
specific items within those services may be increased or decreased from year to year in so
long as the Budgeted Total Annual Allocable Costs do not exceed the Annual Budget
Inflator Cap. Similarly, the Estimated Payment for any Party will increase or decrease
from Service Year to Service Year based on that Party's population and usage of Animal
Services from year to year
1 16 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
30
"Service Year" is the calendar year in which Animal Services are /were provided. (In 2010,
the Service Year is the period from July 1, 2010 December 31, 2010; the Estimated
Payment calculation shown in Exhibit C is based on annualized costs).
"Calculation Period" is the time period from which data is used to calculate the Estimated
Payment. The Calculation Period differs by formula component and Service Year. In
Service Years 2010 and 2011, the Calculation Period for Calls for Service "CFS Animals
"A or Licenses Issued "I (all as further defined below) is based on multiple year
averages as detailed in Exhibit C 6. For Service Year 2012 and beyond (if the Agreement
is extended into an additional 2 -year term), the Calculation Period is the year that is two
calendar years prior to the Service Year (thus, for Service Year 2012, the Calculation Period
is 2010). Exhibit C summarizes in table form the Calculation Periods for the usage and
population factors for Service Years 2010, 2011 and 2012.
"Population" with respect to any Contracting Party for any Service Year means the
population number derived from the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) most
recent annually published report of population to be used for purposes of allocation of
state shared revenues in the subsequent calendar year (typically published by OFM each
July, reflecting final population estimates as of April of the same calendar year). The OFM
reported population will be adjusted for annexations of 2,500 or more residents. For
example, when the final Estimated Payment calculation for 2012 is provided on December
15, 2011, the population numbers used will be from the OFM report issued in July 2011
and will be adjusted for all annexations of 2,500 or more residents that occurred (or will
occur) between April 1 and December 31, 2011. By way of further example, the
reconciliation of the 2012 payment (calculated in June 2013) will incorporate adjusted
population numbers based on the OFM population report issued in July 2012 adjusted for
all annexations of 2,500 or more residents that occurred between April 1, 2012 and
December 31, 2012. Where annexations occur, the City and County population values will
be adjusted pro rata to reflect the portion of the year in which the annexed area was in the
City and the portion of the year in which the area was unincorporated. The population of
an annexed area will be as determined by the Boundary Review Board, in consultation
with the annexing city. The population of the unincorporated area within any District will
be determined by the King County demographer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
population for all potential Contracting Parties for purposes of determining the final
Estimated 2010 Payment will be based on the July 2009 OFM report, adjusted for
annexations occurring through the end of December 2010, as known as of April, 2010, and
shown on Exhibit C and the reconciliation of the Estimated 2010 Payments (calculated
in June 2011) will incorporate changes to population as reflected in the 2010 U.S. Census
(results expected to be published April 2011).
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
31
117
Exhibit C -1 shows the preliminarz, calculation of EP for July 1— December 31, 2010,
assuming that the County and all Cities that have expressed interest in signing this
Agreement as of May 27, 2010, do in fact approve and sign the Agreement and as a result
the Minimum Contract Requirements with respect to all such Cities and the County are
met per Section 15.
Component Calculation Formulas:
EC is calculated as follows:
EC {[(C x .25) x .5] x CFS} {[(C x. 25) x .5] x D -Pop}
Where:
"C" is the Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost for the Service Year, which
equals the County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for Control Services in the Service
Year, less the Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue attributable to Control Services in
the Service Year (for example, fines issued in the field). Budgeted Net Allocable Control
Services Cost for Service Year 2010 is $1,698,600, calculated as shown on Exhibit C -3, and
shall be similarly derived for Service Years after 2010.
"CFS" is the total annual number of Calls for Service for the Service Year for Control
Services originating within the City expressed as a percentage of the CFS for all Contract
Parties within the same Control District. A Call for Service is defined as a request from an
individual, business or jurisdiction for a control service response to a location within the
City, or a response initiated by an Animal Control Officer in the field, which is entered
into the County's data system (at the Animal Services call center or the sheriff's dispatch
center acting as back -up to the call center) as a request for service. Calls for information,
hang -ups and veterinary transfers are not included in the calculation of Calls for Service.
A response by an Animal Control Officer pursuant to an Enhanced Control Services
Contract will not be counted as a Call for Service. For purposes of determining the
Estimated Payment in 2010 and 2011, the Calculation Period for CFS is the 3 -year period
from 2007 -2009, resulting in an annual average number of Calls for Service for the City
and each Contracting Party as shown on Exhibit C- 2.
"D -Pop" is the Population of the City, expressed as a percentage of the Population of all
jurisdictions within the applicable Control District.
1 1 8 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
32
ES is calculated as follows:
If, as of the effective date of this Agreement, the City has entered into a contract for shelter
services with the Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) in Lynnwood, WA, then, for
so long as such contract remains in effect, the City will not pay a share of shelter costs
associated with shelter usage "A" as defined below) and instead the Estimated Payment
will include a reduced population -based charge reflecting the regional shelter benefits
nonetheless received by such City, calculated as follows (the components of this
calculation are defined as described below).
ES (S x.5x Pop) -:2
If the City does not qualify for the reduced population -based shelter charge, ES is
determined as follows:
ES [S x .5 x Pop] (ESP x Pop2) (S x .5 x A)
Where:
"S" is the Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost for the Service Year, which equals
the County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for Shelter Services less Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue attributable to Shelter operations (i.e., adoption fees, microchip fees,
impound fees, owner surrender fees, from all Contracting Parties) in the Service Year. The
Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost for purposes of calculating Estimated 2010
Payments is $3,004,900 as shown on Exhibit C -3, and shall be similarly derived for Service
Years after 2010.
"ESP" is the sum of all reduced shelter costs payable in the Service Year by all cities
qualifying for such reduced charge.
"Pop" is the population of the City expressed as a percentage of the Population of all
Contracting Parties.
"Pope" is the Population of the City expressed as a percentage of the Population of all
Contracting Parties that do not qualify for the reduced population -based shelter charge.
"A" is the total number of animals that were: (1) picked up by County Animal Control
Officers from within the City, (2) delivered by a City resident to the County shelter, or (3)
delivered to the shelter that are owned by a resident of the City expressed as a percentage of
the total number of animals in the County Shelter during the Calculation Period. For
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
33
119
purposes of the Estimated Payment in 2010 and 2011, the Calculation Period for "A" is the
two year period of 2008 and 2009, resulting in an average annual shelter usage number for
the City and each Contracting Party as shown in Exhibit C 2.
EL is calculated as follows:
EL [(Lx.5x Pop) +(Lx.5xI)1
Where:
"L" is the Budgeted Net Licensing Services Cost for the Service Year, which equals the
County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for License Services in the Service Year less
Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue attributable to License Services (for example, pet
license late fees) in the Service Year. The Budgeted Net Licensing Cost for purposes of
calculating Estimated 2010 Payments is $898,400, calculated as shown on Exhibit C 3, and
shall be similarly derived for Service Years after 2010.
"Pop" is the Population of the City expressed as a percentage of the population of all
Contracting Parties.
"1" is the number of active paid regular pet licenses (e.g., excluding 'buddy licenses" or
temporary licenses) issued to City residents during the Calculation Period. For purposes
of calculating the Estimated Payment in 2010 and 2011, the Calculation Period for "I" is
the three year period from 2007 -2009, and the resulting average annual number of licenses
as so calculated for the City and each Contracting Party is shown on Exhibit C -2.
1 2 0 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
34
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
35
121
'Budgeted Total Allocable Costs
!Budgeted Non Licensing Revenue
1Budasted Net Allocable Costs
Animal Control
District Number
Bothell
Carnation
0.82
Jurisdiction
Estimated Unincorporated King County
Kenmore
N Kirkland
Lake Forest Park
Redmond
Sammamish
Shoreline
Woodinville
SUBTOTAL FOI CITIES IN 200 (excludes unincorporated area)
Beaux Arts
Bellevue
Clyde Hill
Estimated Unincorporated King County
Hunts Point
Issaquah
Mercer Island
Newcastle (7)
North Bend
Snoqualmie
Yarrow Point
SUBTOTAL FOR C(TIES 1N (excludes unincorporated area)
Burien (Includes North Highllne Area X Annexation)
Estimated Unincorporated King County
N Kent (Includes Panther Lake Annexation'
Sea7ac
Tukwila
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES 1N 240 (excludes unincorporated area)
Algona
Auburn
Black Diamond
Covington
N Enumclaw
Estimated Unincorporated King County
Maple Valley
Pacific
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 260 (excludes. unincorporated area)
ITOTAL FOR CITIES
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
Exhibit C -1
Preliminary Estimated 2010 Payment (Annualized) (1)
(Showing participation only of those jurisdictions that have expressed interest as of May 27, 2010 in contracting for either 6 months or 2.5 years)
Total King County Unincorporated Area Allocation
S-ume: KC oma• 02Mans:m.nl •nd Budd.• •nd Animal Can and control
0.1•: 01.• 27, 2010
Gon'frdl,y I
S1,705,0001
56,5001
51,698.6001
$3,207,400i
5202,500,
53.004.9001
EatlmateE:ConVOI Estlmateil.5helfer .6gtime'ted
Services Cdst Services Cbct: Lldsilsig Obit.
,Alloda1108 (5 41 1 4c49o0 AlJo4:94 7(4)"
934 9931 S23 505i 031.1341 5696321 5102.0671 512.4351
52 5501 58.6661 51.8271 512.9651 55.723, 57.2424
569061 513.2701 656051 025.6814 5221131 53.5664
5108.3791 1 574 (see lnla b elow (see lolal below) (See lnlel below' (see total below)! (see tolelbelow)
526 305 .4 6
518.9291 S6D691 073.1601 512.4691
5514791 51027671 940.5591 5194.8041 9159.2111 535.5931
014.1441 99.0651 313.2511 536 4611 071.9871 535.5271
5515891 5102.1751 342.7041 6196.4681 5134.3111 9621571
539 4961 571.8531 935.9391 5147.2371 5135_3471 511 -6901
573. 6641 a30.411I 547. 9101 0159.9854 5189.3471 929.3621
515.1211 57.5451 99.6491 032.5151 637.9181 55.4031
$316,2461 '5391;6911. ;4246,5031; 5956,440+ :5931.1861: .525,2551
5447
5145.7291
53.5361
0170.844
540.815
525 8941
513.9311
59.9161
9124481
51.0651
5253:7811;
9144 841
010.2511
549 5891
530 5991
5143.3891
545 960
5281,136
54771 53131 51.2371 69001
5245.5291 594.2831 9485.5324 5274.3491
54.578, 92.5661 510.6804 58.0441
ea total below s ee 1018) below s ee (dal below see Iola) below
561.476
539.2491
519.349,
515.4271
5220041
941.6301 523.6671
01.4611 5853, 53.3791 52.964,
`54095411' 1•.. 5153581617.. `'":5817,1391?::_'. ;;;04593784 +h:
5106.8771_8.8 fdal below fatal bebwl 1_ )01st bebwl Kass total bebw)) 5734.649")
(see total below)
5208.4501 9694.309 967.5551 1590.314 9255.365
562.1451 5112.8311 519.6051 5194.5800 553.0651 5141.5160
947.1531 583.9961 012.4781 5143.6274 530.348, 4113.2790
$317,7461 $891;1361 r '.5119; 6371: ::.E1.326,5224.:"i.>:. s3338:7771s 4. `53 969,744 l
S353200 549.884
518.6591 53.6251
589.0631 516 386
057.5021 58 8651
(see total below] I (see fatal below)!
568017 917749
5565,441
51,169,0121 52,257,8091
T, otal�Allocatackr g$tlrilateq;Net
'Li e 4 i �sj nn' �n C t+ avenue s G,`l t 4,
5943.4001 55.856,800
545,0001 5254,000
5898.4001 55,691,800 53,069,875 52.531,925
020.819 0123.110 064 509
517 8331 962.9781 055.113,
55.7851 539.0654 510.0001
54.1061 029.5314 514.3411
07.1771
5547 724
532.5340
5134 0360
096 9830
(see 10181 belowl1
5131 725
3 596.328 1943,006
5618,2851 54,045,1061
513.071,
560 -5341
522 -4641
/see lolel beloW)
062 293
*4316;777
52,040,5231
1529,488 5747,0911 5280,1151 51,558,6941 51,029.3621
-53371
0211.185
42.6361
ee lelalb8low
001 501 512 4351
51.5741 501 45.568)
501 59651 42.7031
NA NAI NAI
001 S0, 512.4691
501 030.5571 35 -0371
50I 501 535.5271
501 543.0601 519.0974
501 59.140, 42.7501
501 501 529.3624
001 501 55.4031
1$1.674t_':ac383,6221 ":;:''x$60;0401,_
501
501
501
NA
501
593.0301
50i
NA
33371
9118.1551
42.6361
NA
458.601 SO 50 458.601
327.8631 501 525.1131 47.7501
329.0654 001 510.967, 418.0981
415.1904 54,1721 551 -511.0181
217.9634 501 53.9581 414.0051
55154 S01 Sot 45154
5363:3651 513310681``:'':,;?4226,1141'
4389.310
519.4630
373.5041
474.5)90
[see !Mal below) l
46943
NAI NA NA1
5334.6341 049.065, 4351.0500
522.5511 57.953, 4111.0120
515.9251 50.644, 491.7101
'13T3P091':'.;,.562:6631 `;',74553(7721,1
5199.64
53.864,
015,3641
533 9031
NA I
518.
S0
50,
901
51691
NA)
SO 451
:_.4626,226 ;;-5270 1845
52,004,5821 5660,0001
5527,3431
Mon County Transitional Costs
One -Time Implementation Cosle (81'
Other Operational and Reform Effort Cos's 191
Transition Funding for Cilles
Credos
ttitAi F.ORICiNG'000AI:T:Y s
'7,5:$169 F >-s1u x$365214
5279,5211 51,075,0611
501
001
501
NAI
501
551
.0I
507
501
501
501
8.501
501
560.0001
501
NA
50 456.601
501 42750
501 419.098
501 411.018
501 -514.005
001 4515
560;000,1 .774166;114
NAI NA
061000) 0291.050
510.0001 5101.012
510.000, 481.710
`480:00013: 447.3.7:22
501
EDI
5105051
NAI
90
:.410:000
$150,000)
Ee6 )baledNet:
A (4961;COSt:a,
512 435!
35.5501
52.7031
NAI
512.4691
55.037
535 527
519.0971
42.750
529.3621
55.403
:560,040
53371
458.155
42 836
NA
315.799
458.1401
-530 4471
NA
451.168
.14345)214
5925,061
1 $527,343
I -5495,000
1 4689,000
1 4650.000
1 5279.521
:4 s. $2;640i864�
36
Exhibit C -1, cont'd.
Notes.
1. Assumes the following titles do not participate: Federal Way, Seattle, Renton. Des Moines, Normandy Park, Medina, Skykomish, Milton, Hunts Point, Algona, Pacific, and Stirlen.
2, One quarter of control services costs are allocated to each control district, then costs are lusher allocated 50% by total call volume (averaged from 2007.2009) and 50% by 2009 population.
3, This excludes the cost to northern cities of sheltering the0 animals at PAWS under separate contracts. Shelter costs are allocated 50% by King County shelter volume Intake (averaged for 2006 -2009) and 50% by 2009 population. Values for northern cities anticipating using PAWS for sheltering
Include only the 50% population allocation,
4. Licensing costs are allocated 50 by population and 50% by total number of active licenses (average 2007. 2009),
5. Transition funding Is allocated per capita In a Iwo tier formula to titles with certain per capita net cost allocations. Llcensing support is allocated to the five cities with the lowest per capita licensing revenue. For additional detail, see Exhibit C -4.
6. Credits include (1) the Resident Usage Credit, which limits the cost allocation in the regional model to no more than 20% greater than the charge would be under the usage only model for all cities whose net cost Is greater than 95,000 and (2) the Impact Mitigation Credit which limits overall net cost
increases from cities opting out of the model to not more 10% greater than in the previous model. See Exhibit C-4 for more detail,
7 Newcastle did not license with King County in 2009. The revenue value provided here assumes the 400 licenses Issued by Newcastle In 2009 being Issued at King County licensing costs.
H One•lime costs associated with model Implementation include contract negotiation, I7 system upgrade, and transitional licensing support.
9. Other operational costs include services for the mainframe systems and crossroads facility lease, King County unincorporated area only marketing efforts, and various salary and wage Contingency elements. Costs associated with enhanced services contracts are revenue backed and are not
reported here. Reform e0ort costs Include changes to the clinic reporting structure, hiring consultants to review reform progress, and adding an administrator to support reform efforts. Reform efforts also include hiring an additional vet tech, however, this position will be funded by donation and
therefore the cost Is not reported here.
ISathell
Kenmo
Lake Fo rest Park
!Shoreline
I W oodlnville
8
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
W
Estimated Final Net Costs far Northern Cities Contracting with PAWS, Incfudtng PAWS Sheltering Casts
ES0maled ces5' r: osunlateai'Ifral Net cost g
fotPAWSShelterind::':.''' I':` 'r'InoludlnaPAWS'Cbsts:`' :I
Icing, A
,dsuming.a 20 As05m(1B'Klhg tr t•
Jurlsolcllon ,'County 2005= 2000 Irlcfeaae'(0 Counhf, 8�20
20009',,,,A ,e 20
"Eslifiaretl'Flna1 .Average Irrtake'altd,� e ah
Intakd,: "i "Average thfake earl! :,I
In'Intak0 '1?,otene1 C{edlt
i t
Net 0055 i $150lAnlmah:i ,.5150 /Animal 54 F0 /An =i ima1i.'
,antl'S150fAnimal.'' ;llo To.Fa:'''<
I 912,4351 5139501 515.6601 -06151 53.2251 54751
512.4691 57,5751 99.0901 94.8941 53.3791 501
535 5271 93.1501 53 7801 532.3771 931.7471 901
I 929.3421 922.5751 927.0901 56.7971 02.2721 501
95.4031 56,6001 57.9201 51.1971 52.5171 50)
37
(Showing participation only of those jurisdictions
'Budgeted Total Allocable Costs lexcluding budget !ntator)
!Budgeted Non Licensing Revenue
(Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
Animal Control
Dlstrlct Number
Bothell
Carnation
Duvall
Estimated Unincorporated King County
Kenmore
N Kirkland
Lake Forest Park
Redmond
Sammamish
Shoreline
Woodinville
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 200 (excludes unincorporated area)
Beaux Ms
Bellevue
Clyde Hill
Estimated Unincorporated King County
Hunts Point
(4 Issaquah
Mercer Island
Newcastle (7)
North Band
Snoqualmle
Yarrow Point
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 220 (excludes area)
Buren (Includes North Hipline Area x Annexation)
Estimated Unincorporated King County
•ct N Kent (Includes Panther Lake Annexation)
SeaTac
Tukwila
SUBTOTAL FOR C17(ES IN 240 (excludes unincorporated area)
Algona
Auburn
Black Diamond
Covington
tY Enumclaw
Estimated Unincorporated King County
Maple Valley
Pacific
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 280 (excludes unincorporated area)
(TOTAL FOR CITIES
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
Jurlsdle0on
1 Total King County Unincorporated Area Allocation
Saumc 00 OM., ofMuwaan•mt end Dudes end AmMUI Gent sod Control
bate: May 27, 2010
Exhibit C -1(A)
Imaged 2011 Payments for Purpose of Section 15.a.2 (11
that have expressed interest as of May 27, 2010 in contracting for 2.5 years actual estimated 2011 payments will be different, based on adjustments
for 2011 budgeted total allocable costs, revenues, and the application of budget inflator cap)
r Totef�Alldceted1 20094L ca sit! E tlmated et
Control Shelter Llceri -•r -r. Costs;: k: ;a�;�Reveue;�„(��?>F��4o
51 ,705.000, 33.207,4001 5943,4001 55,855.800
1 36,5001 5202.5001 545.0001 5254.000
t
$1,698,5001 53.004.9001 3898.4001 85.601.900 52.967.808 52.633,992
:Estimated Animal Ee8lnated
.COntiol Cdet, :;She(terin9:COSE
Aliocatlon (2( Aliso 40on13)
52.885
58.7 2
51.588
13.302
5.723
57.579
51.674
581
45.825
35.125
616.4631
$306.4821__
540.815
525.8841
513.9311
59 -9161
012.4481
5281,236
1 51,159,2481
I 5539.2521
57 4170 013 4061 55.8081 326 522113, 44.5182 501 71.6931 42.8260 501
42.8261
S 118,143 (see Intel below)'_See total bebw)J_� (see fora) bebw) /see total below) (see total below) NA 1 NAI NA 0 NAI NA I
529 514.928, 520.651T 564.22 573.16 58.9325 501 001 59.9320 5 01
1
05% 5103 8661
542 5121 5202 0 5159_2111 542.6045 50 537.540, 45 -2641 50
533.4791
515 415 59.3581 513.7351 536.5091 571.9871 533.4791 501 501 533.4791 50
058251, 5103 5442341 52018450 5134.311, 469.5331 501 648.6371 420.8971 00 -520197
041.070, 572.7321 037.2351 5153.0374 5135.347, 517,6800 501 014.8151 42.6750 50 32.675
560.2151 539 -852, 549.637, 5169.5055 5169.347, $19.6424 501 30, 619.8424
00 579642
67.7891 010.2061 534.4580 537.9101 63.4600 500 50, 53.4601 SO 31460
5373;8431: 5225,2031: ii:'=:_:5905; 52915 ?tt::3829:T17L e'ik °xs;476;4a21 _49: 67415102't7851 `?'3 2810271': :.,u ?.3.011 ^t•#.:1 328;02.7
5447, 5484 5328, 51.2564
0145 7290 5248 2741 59 5491 6440
53.5381 54.6431 52.6581 510
5170 844 pee 191a /below see Mel below See total belo
5900, 43564 501 501 43560 50,
501 596.500, -5120.7960 560.000,
58.0441 42.7930 501 501 -527930 '501
see total bebw see total below NA NA NA NA
5274.346, -5217.2960
53 9768 1 S19. 601 6124.465
584 -1310 055.1 501 026.143, 6 2.9710 60 412.82 SO SO 459.955 SO 459.956
42.92 60, 42.8751
519.5751 65.9831 539.4900 610.0001 529.4904 501 510.5691 11
515 -536, 54.3391 529.7900 514.3411 315.4494 34.1721 50, 4112770 501 4112771
522.2261 57.4311 542.1060 523.6671 .518.4391 551 54.1441 414.2954 501 4142951
61.0651 61.4831 5884, 53.4320 52.864, -55981 60, 535, 45324 901 45321
$25317811. ,3414.0804.,' .7 e$527. 1501: ,5453 a 8 415 373.36611 zr.' 4i"t.721 r "a 14 't`•?ia °e.560.3001K.., 4171 :504
f 106.8771 total belowl l 'see Iota(be7w total bebw (see total below) _M total below) NA 1 NA 1 NA 1
5208450, 6696 -8941 290.670 6999 -014 5255.366 4740.6490 5334.834, 541.5361 4364.2804
562.1451 51134191 520.3011 3195.8644 553.0651 5142.6000 522.5511 54.6451 4115.6034
647.1531 584.4111 512.9151 6144.4800 530.3481 5114.1320 515.9251 52.7831 495.4240
5317,7481. +r•i3694 34123;8861.1'r :3338,7,77.1:_ 4.997"5814t.,„ 9373: 3091:7,.. %f46:964R?. %r'_-5575;'30.74(1n.
5144 841
5551.02
310.2511 518.7541 53.7551 532.7600
549.5891 568.454, 516.9801 5135.0334
630_5961 557 7641 69.201, 097.5614
5143.389i (see focal below) (see tole! bebw) I (see total below)
345.960 060.493 016 387 5132,840
52,250,863
08.40
613.0711
560.5341
522.4641
see total below
582,293
698; ;764 5949,215 71. i. 9316.777
5808.1421
51,938,456
4
419.6891
574.4964
-575.0970
(see total below)1
-570 54
9754,0371 9290,2581 91,583.5471 91,029,352 4554,195
53.6641
515.364,
533.9031
NAI
018265
-516.0251
459.1340
-541.1934
NA4
452,282
3632.439 ::;'.19270 ;845
-92,079,7971 5650,0001 5269,1191 41,140,6781 ;150,000
Kinn County Transitional Costs
One -Time Imblemenlallon Costs (8)
Olher Operational and Reform Effort Costs 19)
Transition Funding for Cllkc
Credits
TO.TAV.A5P KiNG?C.d t`IN
50
501
501
910.000,
NAI
50
4356
460.798
-52.793
NA
NAI NA
560.0001 -5304
510.0001 5105.6031
510.0001 495.4241
580. :0004.•
5192.960
416.0251
459.1341
431.193
NA
452,252
9554,195
1 -5495,000
1 8589.000
1 5850,000
1 4289.119
38
komieh• Milton, Hunts 4012007
C-1 (A) cun tG4, aveta0ed
parrs, Medina, 5kY b KIn0
mandY led 50 °h by total 0911 VOaledo50 °b Y
s Moores. Nor es ar
sasbie. Renlon. are lunher anoca ghegar cos
e alto°
dratr then ra c ontracts.
anlctpate' FederaQe h cpnuol W S under sePa 2009). suPP °n'g allocated tot a t,
GUas do no4P led to als atPA average 2007- char9evrouM be H 9
under st c to
r anlm al King Coun gcensm 0o U enoY e l e menW I an additrovA
i °q °x�n9 ices are allots tceirees tlons. Ucansin9 eater than the Issued s C
oosla ellatm9lnei
,l camr s N m t id es of sh of ac1Ne er copra net cost ano°a pelalL 2009 being i
more Ivan 20 h 9 Aga co n ng ns
northe total nu also lnc
asl elver tech ho
the cost to Ir and 50 h by cepaln P l model eo no for more Nawca66e I t
lotion aN °°a albn uW to cihas ven ation In t he regi �el, See xnibit C-4 u b y n atiorts, and vano
lode
us sa l a tY and etarm ei o
ra orrt ei spa.
Exhibit C
50 poPv cared 50 °h b y PTd L w ti er rotor the cosar: th e P revious s the 600 gcenses isa a only m arketn9
ats are aqo nsn +onal ncensin9 u adminlsUalor to suPP °n
a agocaled Par
Notes;
Assu
2. One o'
3 This e
Include o
a Ltcensit±
srs
5. Tran
E. credits Inc
increases ft°
One•tim
9. Other op
reported hers. s,.
therefore the
ag
coal'
c rn a ssume and tie rated are
redq.Cn Emits rester than' ryrlded h lT syst upgrad unmcorpo a� adding an
g r Tha revenue vaWe P talmn, Km9 CpUnIY lass,
octal to not m race ne9° iadlky lease, f�view reform prog
1 of them m 200 tncrude cord c rossroa 65 U1tan
ith King County stefams a grin Cosa
With model1;1'se entailon
aintram n� PoRn9 structure, h 9 °0 ,NS Sheltering
aeNi°B4 for ihes to fie
FA't'i at
S, Including pA EStmated
r..;.' JtridUdlit PAWS Gdsls
a p'Cost
inlude LncU
Ap costs
reP°cM1ed Here.
Net Costs for Northern alla, .K p9 a204>
Estimated Final
Asaurtir�.
c!oun'tY'. .03009 Au in ^ntale
b 9 Incie
1nfa
Ave Intake and 5150
EsUrnated Etna; 51507 sage An mall
Bothell
Kenmore
Lake F orasl Par
Sho 11..
Jurisdicti
_,1 c.3g -10
Valdes to noMarn clues anticipating using p
P*61Butie,andgoZd 50 %b
nL glgona 5 0eh by 2009 P °P t0r 200 &2009) and
avera9
shallei volume iMeke
¢re cities v4ththetorytg,: torten cites whose net cost mgrea than
eMln9 usag
e only ced servkes r
53
y 2009 p opulation. et cost
atlon. Whleh Nmlls ovetsq n
rbii C-b for morelniormat��adq
55,0 and (2} the imps °t Mit0
apdglonal detail,
revenue backed end era rwr
ydll be funded by tlonattons and
ntracts are
oosltton
.515
529,699r 5d,3 ?3
57 ?851,,,,,,, 515
Sd 980
39
Proposed
District
0
0
CO
Bothell (2)
Camation
Duvall
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
126
Exhibit C-2
Population, Calls for Service, Shelter Use and Licensing Data for Jurisdictions,
Used to Derive the Preliminary and Final Estimated 2010 Payment
Source: KC Office of Management and Budget and Animal Care and Control
Date: May 27, 2010
Jurisdiction
Estimated Unincorporated King County
Kenmore
Kirkland
Lake Forest Park
Redmond
Sammamish
Shoreline
Woodinville
Beaux Arts
Bellevue
Clyde Hill
Estimated Unincorporated King County
Hunts Point
041 Issaquah
Mercer Island
Newcastle
North Bend
Snoqualmie
Yarrow Pt
.e •:i "aim:
Burien (includes North Highline Area X Annexation)
Estimated Unincorporated King County
et Kent (Includes Panther Lake Annexation)
SeaTac
Tukwila
Algona
Auburn
Black Diamond
Covington
Enumclaw
Estimated Unincorporated King County
Maple Valley
Pacific
City Totals
'Kingg County Unincorporated Area Totals
Population
yla
33,2401
1.9101
5,9801
103,4001
20,4501
49.0101
12.8201
51.8901
40.6701
54,3201
10,6701
3151
120.6001
2.8151
92 800
26.890
22.7201
9.9251
4,7601
9.7301
9651
48,200
113,1801
25.7301
18,1701
67.485
4.1801
17.5301
11.4601
59.7001
20.840
3 -Year Average
Control Calls
1951
191
411
600
176
286
83
268
199
511
108
21
5331
141
950
195
861
621
59
49
3
750
1,2021
4671
373t
672
551
297!
1751
7501
220
2 -Year Average
Shelter Intake
3 -Year Average
Active Licenses
NA! 4.3011
281 2061
201 7751
(see total below)! (see total belowll
NAI 2,840
1361 4,9951
NAI 1,9721
1121 5,228
491 4,719
NAI 6,280
NAI 1,344
,rt. p I M:" Y0a1
01
2991
see total below
21
99
231
21
39
35
0
(see total below)
2.4811
3511
2681
451
10.9001
3461
see total below
2,379
2.071
400
548
771
112
(see total below)
9.996
2,197
1.2071
1,191
591
1971
1911
(see total below)! (see total below)
173 2,250
758,2551 6,349 5,769
I 304.1001 3,050 1,360
.1% .'_i::<: "F 7;129;'ti::`
1. Population and usage values have been adjusted to include 2010 annexations with effective dates of July 1, 2010 or earlier (Le., Burien,
Panther Lake).
2. Bothell is opting for a 6 month option. They will not be included in allocations for 2011 and 2012.
5.325
468
2,260
1.017
74,954
38,156
.r:113,1.1O
40
This Exhibit Shows the Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs to derive Estimated 2010 Payments. All
values shown are based on annualized costs and revenues. The staffing levels incorporated in this
calculation are for year 2010 only and except as otherwise expressly provided in the Agreement
may change from year to year as the County determines may be appropriate to achieve efficiencies,
etc.
Control Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
The calculation of 2010 (Annualized) Control Services Costs is shown below (all costs in 2010
dollars).
I 1 Direct Service Management Staff Costs
2 Direct Service Field Staff Costs
3 Call Center Direct Service Staff Costs
4 Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Exhibit C -3
Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue, and
Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
Facilities Costs
Office and Other Operational Supplies and Equipment
Printing, Publications, and Postage
Medical Costs
Other Services
Transportation
Communications Costs
IT Costs and Services
Misc Direct Costs
General Fund Overhead Costs
Division Overhead Costs
Other Overhead Costs
2010 Budgeted Total Allocable Control Services Cost
17 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue
Attributable to Control Services
2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
Cost
Methodology
$109,400
$683,300
$209,300
$71,500
$10,200
$22,900
$45,000
$25,000
$80,000
$155,000
$35,600
$57,500
$25,400
$17,400
$111,300
$46,200
$1,705,000
$6,400
$1,698,600
41
127
NOTES:
1 Management direct service staff consists of 0.40 FTE Animal Care and Control
Manager, 0.40 FTE Operations Manager, and 0.17 Information Technology
Manager.
2 Direct Service Field Staff Costs consist of 1.00 FTE Animal Control Officer
Sergeant, 1.00 FTE Animal Control Officer Cruelty Sergeant, 6.00 FTE Animal
Control Officers.
3 Call center costs for 1.00 FTE Administrative Assistant/Lead and 2.00FTE call
takers.
4 These additional salary costs support complete response to calls at the end of the day,
limited response to emergency calls after hours, and extra help during peak call
times.
5 Facilities costs include maintenance and utilities for a portion (5 of the Kent
Shelter (which houses the call center staff operations and records retention as well as
providing a base station for field officers). Excludes all costs associated with the
Crossroads facility.
6 This item includes the office supplies required for both the call center as well as a
wide variety of non- computer equipment and supplies related to animal control field
operations (e.g., uniforms, tranquilizer guns, boots, etc.).
7 This cost element consists of printing and publication costs for various materials
used in the field for animal control.
8 Medical costs include the cost for ambulance and hospital care for animals requiring
emergency services.
9 Services for animal control operations vary by year but consist primarily of
consulting vets and laboratory costs associated with cruelty cases.
10 Transportation costs include the cost of the maintenance, repair, and re of
the animal care and control vehicles and cabs, fuel, and reimbursement for
occasional job related use of a personal vehicle.
11 Communication costs involve the direct service costs for telephone, cell phone,
radio, and pager use.
12 Information technology direct costs include IT equipment replacement as well as
direct services costs. Excludes approximately $50,000 in service costs associated
with mainframe systems.
13 Miscellaneous direct costs consist of all animal control costs not listed above
,including but not limited to contingency, training, certification, and bad checks.
14 General fund overhead costs included in this model include building occupancy
charges and HR/personnel services. No other General Fund overhead costs are
included in the model.
15 Division overhead includes a portion of the following personnel time as well as a
portion of division administration non -labor costs, both based on FTEs: division
director, assistant division director, administration, program manager, finance
officer, payroll /accounts payable, and human resource officer.
16 Other overhead costs include IT, telecommunications, finance, and property services.
17 Non licensing revenue attributable to field operations include animal control
violation penalties, charges for field pickup of deceased /owner relinquished animals,
and fines for failure to license.
1 2 8 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
42
Shelter Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
The calculation of 2010 (Annualized) Shelter Services Costs is shown below (all costs in 2010
dollars).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
14
15
16
Direct Service Management Staff Costs
Direct Service Shelter Staff Costs
Direct Service Clinic Staff Costs
Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs
Facilities Costs
Office and Other Operational Supplies and Equipment
Printing, Publications, and Postage
Medical Costs
Other Services
Transportation
Communications Costs
IT Costs and Services
Misc Direct Costs
General Fund Overhead Costs
Division Overhead Costs
Other Overhead Costs
2010 Budgeted Total Allocable Shelter Services Cost
17 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue
Attributable to Shelter Services
2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost
NOTES:
Cost
Methodology
$1 54,900
$1,280,200
$399,100
$205,100
$150,000
$130,200
$5,000
$145,000
$200,000
$10,000
$13,200
$35,000
$33,300
$203,100
$195,500
$47,700
3,207,300
$202,500
1 $3,004,500
1 Management direct service staff consists of 0.60 FTE Animal Care and Control Manager,
0.60 FTE Operations Manager, and 0.17 Information Technology Manager.
2 Direct Service Shelter Staff Costs consist of 2.00 FTE Animal Control Officer Sergeants,
12.00 FTE Animal Control Officers, 1.00 FTE Placement Specialist, 1.00 FTE Volunteer
Coordinator.
3 Direct Service Clinic Staff Costs consist of 2.00 FTE veterinarians and 2.00 FTE
veterinarian techs.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
43
129
4 These additional salary costs support complete processing of animals received late in the
day, extra help during kitten season, and limited backfill for vet and vet techs when on
vacation.
5 Facilities costs include maintenance and utilities for the majority (95 of the Kent Shelter
(which also houses the call center staff operations and records retention as well as providing
a base station for field officers). It excludes all costs associated with the Crossroads facility.
6 This item includes the office supplies as well as a wide variety of non computer equipment
and supplies related to animal care (e.g., uniforms, food, litter, etc.).
7 This cost element consists of printing and publication costs for various materials used at the
shelter.
8 Medical costs include the cost for ambulance and hospital care for animals requiring
emergency services as well as the cost for consulting vets, laboratory costs, medicine, and
vaccines.
9 Services for animal control operations vary by year but include costs such as shipping of
food provided free of charge and sheltering of large animals.
10 Transportation costs include the cost of the maintenance, repair, and replacement of and fuel
for the animal care and control vehicles used by the shelter to facilitate adoptions, as well as
reimbursement for occasional job related use of a personal vehicle.
11 Communication costs involve the direct service costs for telephone, cell phone, radio, and
pager use.
12 Information technology direct costs include IT equipment replacement as well as direct
services costs.
13 Miscellaneous direct costs consist of all animal care costs not listed above including but not
limited to contingency, training, certification, and bad checks.
14 General fund overhead costs included in this model include building occupancy charges and
HR/personnel services. No other General Fund overhead costs are included in the model.
15 Division overhead includes a portion of the following personnel time as well as a portion of
division administration non -labor costs, both based on FTEs: division director, assistant
division director, administration; program manager, finance officer, payroll /accounts
payable, and human resource officer.
16 Other overhead costs include IT, telecommunications, finance, and property services.
17 Non licensing revenue attributable to sheltering operations include impound fees, microchip
fees, adoption fees, and owner relinquished euthanasia costs.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
130
44
Licensing Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
The calculation of 2010 (Annualized) Licensing Services Costs is shown below (all costs in 2010
dollars).
1 I Direct Service Management Staff Costs
2 Direct Service Licensing Staff Costs
3 Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Facilities Costs
Office and Other Operational Supplies and Equipment
Printing, Publications, and Postage
Other Services
Communications Costs
IT Costs and Services
Misc Direct Costs
General Fund Overhead Costs
Division Overhead Costs
Other Overhead Costs
2010 Budgeted Total Allocable Licensing Services Cost
14 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue
Attributable to Licensing Services
2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Licensing Services Cost
NOTES:
1 Management direct service staff consists of 0.17 Information Technology Manager
and 0.33 Licensing Section Manager.
2 Direct Service Licensing Staff Costs consist of 0.5 FTE Pet License Supervisor, 1.00
FTE Sales and Marketing Manager, 2.80 FTE Customer Specialists, 1.00 FTE Fiscal
Specialist, and 1.00 Administration Assistant.
3 These additional salary costs support overtime costs as well as a limited non
jurisdiction specific marketing effort. These costs do not include the enhanced
transitional licensing support to be provided by King County to certain cities.
4 Facilities costs include maintenance and utilities for the portion of the King County
Administration building occupied by the pet licensing staff and associated records.
5 This item includes the office supplies required for the licensing call center.
6 This cost element consists of printing, publication, and distribution costs for various
materials used to promote licensing of pets, including services to prepare materials
for mailing.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
Cost
Methodology
$60,000
$423,900
$30,000
$13,100
$3,300
$166,000
$15,000
$5,000
85,000
$2,000
$25,300
$54,800
$60,000
$943,400
$45,000
$989,400 1
45
131
7 Services for animal licensing operations include the purchase of tags and monthly
fees for online pet licensing hosting.
8 Communication costs involve the direct service costs for telephone, cell phone,
radio, and pager use.
9 Information technology direct costs include IT equipment replacement as well as
direct services costs. Excludes approximately $120,000 in service costs associated
with mainframe systems.
10 Miscellaneous direct costs consist of all pet licensing costs not listed above including
but not limited to training, certification, transportation, and bad checks.
11 General fund overhead costs included in this model include building occupancy
charges and HR/personnel services. No other General Fund overhead costs are
included in the model.
12 Division overhead includes a portion of the following personnel time as well as a
portion of division administration non -labor costs, both based on FTEs: division
director, assistant division director, administration, program manager, finance
officer, payroll/accounts payable, and human resource officer.
13 Other overhead costs include IT, telecommunications, finance, and property services.
14 Non licensing revenue attributable to licensing operations consists of licensing late
fees.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
132
46
Exhibit C -4
Transition Funding Credit "T Resident Usage Credit "U and
Impact Mitigation Credit "M Calculation and Allocation
Transition Funding Credit
The Transition Funding Credit has been calculated to offset costs to certain cities on a
declining basis over four years. Cities qualifying for this credit, as shown below, are those
that under the basic Animal Services cost allocation formula (allocating costs generally
based half on population and half on usage), would pay the highest per capita costs in
2010.
To determine the initial level of the Transition Funding Credit, $250,000 has been allocated
to Cities with preliminary estimated 2010 cost allocations (before considering offsetting
Licensing Revenue) exceeding $6 per capita; an additional $400,000 was allocated to the
Cities with preliminary estimated 2010 cost allocations (before considering offsetting
Licensing Revenue) exceeding $8 per capita. (The per capita cost allocations used to
qualify for this credit may be derived from Exhibit C -1 in column caption "Estimated
Total Cost Allocation" divided by the population for the jurisdiction as shown in Exhibit
C -2.)
The Transition Funding Credit declines over time: 50% of the annual amount (since the
service year is six months, rather than a full year) is allocable to each qualifying City in
calculating the Estimated 2010 Payment; 100% of the amount is allocable again in
calculating the 2011 Estimated Payment; 66% of the amount is allocable in 2012. If the
Agreement is extended for an additional two years, 33% of the amount is available in 2013;
no Transition Funding Credit is allocable in 2014.
The credit is only available to a qualifying City if that City has agreed to a 2.5 Year
Agreement. Application of the credit can never result in the Estimated Payment Amount
being less than zero ($0) (i.e., cannot result in the County owing the City an Estimated
Payment).
The allocation of the Transition Funding Credit is shown in Table 1 below.
1/
1/
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
47
133
Table 1: Transition Funding Credit Initial Contract Period and Extension Period
jurisdiction
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
134
Initial 21/2 -Year Contract Period I
2011
Transition
Funding
2012
Transition
Funding
Carnation
North Bend
I Kent
SeaTac
Tukwila
Auburn
Black Diamond
1 Covington
Enumclaw
1 Maple Valley
Notes:
1. The transitional funding credit is the same regardless of which cities sign an Agreement.
2010
Transition
Funding
(1/2 year)
$836
$2,086
$167,417
$11,275
$7,962
$99,824
$1,832
$7,682
$16,592
$9,133
$1,674
$4,172
$334,834
$22,551
$15,925
$199,649
$3,664
$15,364
$33,903
$18,265
$1,105
$2,753
$220,990
$14,884
$10,510
$131,768
$2,418
$10,140
$22,376
$12,055
2 -Year Extension Period I
2013
Transition
Funding
$552
$1,376
$110,495
$7,442
$5,255
$65,884
$1,209
$5,070
$11,188
$6,027
2014
Transition
Funding
so
$0
so
$0
$o 1
$o 1
$o 1
$0
$0
$o
Resident Usage Credit
The Resident Usage Credit has been calculated to offset the costs of certain cities agreeing
to a 2.5 year Agreement that have a low use of King County animal services relative to
their population. The amount of the credit is different depending on whether the City of
Bothell is receiving service during a given Service Year. The credit has been determined
by comparing the estimated cost Cities would pay on an annualized basis in 2010 if the
regional payment model was based solely on usage (including estimated costs payable to
PAWS by cities that will be contracting for shelter services with PAWS) to the cost payable
under the adopted model (which incorporates both usage and population, including
estimated costs payable to PAWS by Northern Cities that will be contracting for shelter
services with PAWS). The credit is set so that no City that has a Preliminary Estimated
2010 Cost Allocation after considering 2009 Licensing Revenue (as shown in Exhibit C -1 in
the column captioned "Estimated Net Cost Allocation of over $5,000 (an annualized cost)
pays more than 120% above what it would pay under a usage -based model that assumes
all cities that expressed interest in participating as of May 5, 2010 sign an Agreement;
provided that, a City must sign a 2.5 year Agreement to qualify for the credit; and provided
further, that credits are fixed in amount as shown in Table 2 below and will not change
regardless of which Cities sign the Agreement. As annualized, the credit is carried forward
each year without change through 2012. Application of the credit can never result in the
Final Estimated Payments for any Service Year being less than $2,750 for receipt of Animal
Services in that year if Bothell is served under an Agreement in such Service Year and not
48
Less than $2,875 for receipt of Animal Services in that year if Bothell is not served (for
Northern Cities with PAWS contracts in effect as of July 1, 2010, calculations are made
inclusive of a City's actual payments for such year to PAWS for shelter services). These
minimum values are annualized (thus, for example, in 2010, if Bothell is served, the Final
Estimated Payments cannot be less than $2750 2 $1,375).
Jurisdiction
1 Kirkland
1 Kirkland PAA(2)
Redmond
Sammamish
Bellevue
Mercer Island
Newcastle
1 Snoqualmie
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
Table 2: Resident Usage Credit (Annualized Values) (1)
1
For Service Years in which
the City of Bothell Is
Receiving Animal Services
under an Agreement
$20,084
$16,465
$34,961
$9,140
$91,697
$25,113
$8,796
$3,958
For Service Years in Which
the City of Bothell Is Not
Receiving Animal Services
$20,433
$16,935
$35,692 1
$14,815 1
$93,703
$26,143
$9,071
$4,144
Notes:
1.The residential usage credit does not change with time; it only varies based on whether Bothell is
receiving services. Thus, if Bothell signs a 6 month Agreement (e.g., ending December 2010), the
credit payable in 2010 will be one half the value in column 2 above; the credit payable in 2011 will
be the amount in column 3.
2.Kirkland will receive this credit from and after the time the Kirkland PAA is annexed, in
addition to the credit noted in the row above labeled "Kirkland."
Impact Mitigation Credit
The purpose of this credit is to limit the impact to Contracting Cities signing for a 2.5 year
Agreement as a result of three cities (Burien, Algona and Pacific) deciding as of May 5,
2010, that they would not participate in the model, as compared to the costs presented to
all cities in April, 2010, and assuming all other Cities shown in Exhibit C -1 sign the
Agreement. The amount of the credit is sized to ensure that a City's Preliminary
Estimated Payment after applying the Residential Use Credit and the Transition Funding
Credit is not greater than 10% more than the Preliminary Estimated 2010 Cost from the
April 2010 model and not greater than 15% more than such Cost if Bothell does not
contract for service past December 2010; provided that the credit amounts are fixed as
shown in Table 3 below and will not change regardless of which Cities sign the
Agreement; provided further that only Cities signing a 2.5 year agreement qualify for the
49
135
credit; and provided further that application of the credit can never result in the Estimated
Payment Amount, of less than $2,750 for receipt of Animal Services in that Service Year if
Bothell is served under an Agreement in such Service Year and not less than $2,875 for
receipt of Animal Services in that year if Bothell is not served (for Northern Cities with
PAWS contracts in effect as of July 1, 2010, calculations are made inclusive of a City's
actual payments for such year to PAWS for shelter services). These minimum values are
annualized (thus, for example, in 2010, if Bothell is served, the Final Estimated Payments
cannot be less than $2750 2 $1,375).
The allocation of the Impact Mitigation Credit is shown on Table 3.
Bothell (2)
Carnation
Duvall
Kirkland
Redmond
Shoreline (2)
Woodinville (2)
Bellevue
Newcastle
Yarrow Point
Kent
SeaTac
Tukwila
Enumclaw
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
136
Table 3: Impact Mitigation Credit (Annualized Values) (1, 2)
Jurisdiction
For Service Years in For Service Years in
which the City of Bothell Which the City of Bothell
Is Receiving Animal Is Not Receiving Animal
Services under an Services
Agreement
$475
$81
$865 $1,693
$10,473 $17,107
$8,098 $12,945
$4,373
$1,585
$1,334 $2,797
$2,170 $1,498
$35
$49,065 $41,536
$7,953 $4,645
$5,644 $2,783
$169
Notes:
1. These credits do not change over the period of the Agreement.
2. These credits assume that these cities' costs to shelter animals at PAWS exceed their
estimated rebate by greater than $2,750 in Column 2 situation (Bothell served) and $2,875 in the
Column 3 situation (Bothell not served). At reconciliation, if a City with a PAWS shelter contract
cannot demonstrate this, it will not receive the credit. Regardless of how great a PAWS shelter
contract cost is, the credit cannot exceed the amount shown here.
50
City of Bellevue
City of Kent
City of SeaTac
City of Tukwila
City of Enumclaw
Exhibit C -5
Transitional Licensing Revenue Support Services Provided in 2010
The Cities that will receive Transitional Licensing Revenue Support Services in 2010 are
listed below. These Cities have been selected by determining which cities in 2009 had the
Lowest per- capita licensing revenue amongst all cities to which the County was then
providing animal care and control services, and (as shown in Exhibit C -1).
The Transitional Licensing Revenue Support Services to be provided in 2010 are detailed
in Section 7 of the Agreement. The 2010 Estimated Payment for these Cities incorporates
the estimated revenue expected to result from these services.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
51
137
138
This Exhibit restates in summary table form the Calculation Periods used for calculating
the usage and population components in the formulas to derive Estimated Payments. See
Exhibit C for complete formulas and definitions of the formula components.
ER is estimated Licensing Revenue attributable to the City
CFS is total annual number of Calls for Service originating in the City
A is the number of animals in the shelter attributable to the City
I is the number of active paid regular pet licenses issued to City residents
Pop is Population of the City expressed as a percentage of all Contracting Parties; D Pop is
Population of the City expressed as a percentage of the population of all jurisdictions
within a Control District
Calculation Periods Service Year 2010
ER
CFS
A
I
Pop, D -Pop July 2009 OFM Same
report, adjusted for
annexations
known approved
to occur in or prior
to 2010
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
Exhibit C -6:
Summary of Calculation Periods for Use and Population Components
ina
Estimated 201
Payment
2009 Same
2007 -2009
2008 -2009 Same
2007 -2009 Same
Same
econcilati or= P
Amount:::.
determined June ;201,1
Actual 2010 (July
December)
Actual 2010 (July
December)
Actual 2010 (July
December)
Actual 2010 (July
December)
US Census (published
April 2011)
52
139
Calculation Periods Service Year
Estimated 2011
.1.0ishect August
I 2007-2009
1 2007-2009
2008-2009
2007-2009
ER
CFS
A
Pop, D-Pop July 2010 OFM
report, adjusted for
annexations
known approved
to occur in or prior
to 2011.
Calculation Periods: Service Year 2012
Component Prelmunary
ER
CFS
A
Pop, D-Pop
1 40 Document Dated 5-28-10
Estimated 2012
Payment
(published
2011)
1 Actual 2010
1 Actual 2010
I Actual 2010
1 Actual 2010
July 2011 OFM
report, adjusted for
annexations
known approved
to occur in 2012.
1 Same
Same
I Same
I Same
Same (corrected if
necessary for
annexations approved
after August 2010 and
effective during or
before 2011)
Esbmated 201
10 Payment Payment Amount
(pp:Mbldpe (determined June
2013)
2011)i
I Same
1 Same
1 Same
1 Same
Same (corrected if
necessary for
annexations
approved after
August 2011 and
effective during or
before 2012)
erccm ia
Actual 2011
I Actual 2011
I Actual 2011
I Actual 2011
July 2011 OFM
report, adjusted for
annexations
approved after
April 2011 to take
effect in 2011
Reconciliation
I Actual 2012
1 Actual 2012
I Actual 2012
1 Actual 2012
July 2012 OFM
report, corrected if
necessary for
annexations
approved after
April 2012 to take
effect in 2012
53
Final Estimated 2010 Payment calculation August 1, 2010
provided to City by County
2010 Estimated Payment payable by City (or January 15, 2011
County, if a credit is calculated)
Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for 2010 On or before June 30, 2011
calculated by County; City notified
Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for 2010 August 15, 2011
payable by City (or County, if a credit is
calculated)
Document Dated 5-28-10
4_
August 1, 2010
December 15, 2010
June 15, 2011
1 December 15, 2011
On or before June 30, 2012
August 15, 2012
54
141
Service Year 2012
Preliminary estimate of 2012 Estimated
Payments provided to City by County,
(together with notice of reminder of
deadline for giving notice of intent not to
automatically extend Agreement an
additional two years.)
Final Estimated 2012 Payment calculation
provided to City by County
Notice of Intent not to Automatically
Extend Agreement due
First 2012 Estimated Payment due
Second 2012 Estimated Payment due
2012 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
calculated
2012 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
payable
Dates for remittal to County of pet license
sales revenues processed by Cities (per
section 3.c)
4 2 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
August 1, 2011
December 15, 2011
May 1, 2012
June 15, 2012
I December 2012
On or before June 30, 2013
On or before August 15, 2013
If the Agreement is extended past December 31, 2012, the schedule is developed in the
same manner as described above for years 2011 and 2012.
See Section 4 of Agreement for additional details on Extension of the Agreement Term for
an additional two years.
Quarterly, each March 31, June 30,
September 30, December 31
55
Exhibit D
Reconciliation
The purpose of the reconciliation calculation is to adjust payments made each Service Year
by Contracting Parties to reflect actual use, population, Licensing rates and licensing and
non- licensing revenue data as compared to the Estimated Payments made. To accomplish
this, an Adjusted Payment "AP" calculation is made each June for each Contracting City,
using the same formulas from Exhibit C but substituting actual values as described below
(with one additional component calculation related to Enhanced Service Contracts).
For Service Year 2010, AP is calculated based on actual values from the six month period
of the Agreement from July- December 2010, compared against the 2010 Final Estimated
Payment for the same six month period, thus:
EP —AP =R
For Service Years 2011 and beyond, AP is an annualized number, and is compared to the
total Estimated Payments owed by the Party for the Service Year "EP x 2 to determine a
Reconciliation Adjustment Amount "R thus:
(EP x2) —AP =R
The value of "R" can be positive or negative; provided that in no event shall a City receiving
a Transition Funding Credit for the Service Year pay less than $0 for receipt of Animal
Services in that year, and in no event shall a City receiving a Resident Usage Credit or
Impact Mitigation Credit for the Service Year pay less than $2,750 (annualized) for receipt
of Animal Services in that year if Bothell is served, nor less than $2,875 (annualized) for
receipt of Animal Services in that year if Bothell is not served in such year (for Northern
Cities with PAWS contracts in effect as of July 1, 2010, calculations are made inclusive of a
City's actual payments for such year to PAWS for shelter services).
As described in Exhibit C, the amount of the Estimated Payment(s) "EP for each Service
Year are derived from applying Budgeted Net Allocable Costs and historical
(Calculation Period) use, population and licensing data to the formulas set forth in
Exhibit C. These formulas are restated below, substituting actual value components
(denoted by an "A" in subscript) for purposes of calculating "AP." Terms not otherwise
defined here have the meanings set forth elsewhere in Exhibit C or the body of the
Agreement.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
56
143
AP= LAC +AS +AL- AR- T -U -M]
Where:
AC {[(CA x .25) x .5] x CFSA} {[(CA x. 25) x .5] x D PopA} 0
AS (for "Northern Cities" with shelter contracts with PAWS) (SA x .5 x PopA) 2
AS (for all other cities) [SA x .5 x PopA)] (ESPA x Pop2A) (SA x .5 x AA)
AL [(LA x .5 x PopA) (LA x .5 x IA)]
And where:
"AC" is the City's adjusted share of the Control Services Cost for the Service Year.
"AS" is the City's adjusted share of the Shelter Services Cost for the Service Year.
"AL" is the City's adjusted share of the Licensing Services Cost for the Service Year.
"T" is the Transition Funding Credit, if any, for the Service Year, provided that the
Transition Credit will be limited if necessary so that the value of AP is not less than zero.
"U" is the Resident Usage Credit, if any, for the Service Year, provided that the Resident
Usage Credit will be limited if necessary so that the value of AP is not less than $2,750
(annualized) for receipt of Animal Services in that year if Bothell is served and not less
than $2,875 (annualized) for receipt of Animal Services in that year if Bothell is not served
(for Northern Cities with PAWS contracts in effect as of July 1, 2010, calculations are made
inclusive of a City's actual payments for such year to PAWS for shelter services).
"M" is the Impact Mitigation Credit, if any, for the Service Year, provided that the Impact
Mitigation Credit will be limited if necessary so that the value of AP is not less than $2,750
(annualized) for receipt of Animal Services in that year if Bothell is served and not less
than $2,875 (annualized) for receipt of Animal Services in that year if Bothell is not served
(for Northern Cities with PAWS contracts in effect as of July 1, 2010, calculations are made
inclusive of a City's actual payments for such year to PAWS for shelter services).
"AR" is Actual Licensing Revenue attributable to the City, based on actual Licensing
Revenues received from residents of the City in the Service Year. (License Revenue that
44 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
57
cannot be attributed to a specific Party (e.g., License Revenue associated with incomplete
address information), will be allocated amongst the Parties based on their respective
percentages of total AR).
"CA" is Adjusted Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost for the Service Year,
which equals the County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for Control Services in the
Service Year, less the Actual Total Non Licensing Revenue attributable to Control Services
in the Service Year.
"CFSA" is the actual total annual number of Calls for the Service Year for animal control
services originating within the City expressed as a percentage of the CFSA for all Contract
Parties within the Control District. Calls responded to by an Animal Control Officer
dedicated to the City per an Enhanced Service Contract are not included in the calculation
of CFSA.
"D -Popes" is the Adjusted Population of the City, expressed as a percentage of the
Population of all jurisdictions within the applicable Control District (pro- rated if
necessary to account for annexations over 2,500 occurring during the Service Year)
"Popes" is the Adjusted Population of the City expressed as a percentage of the Population of
all Contracting Parties (pro -rated if necessary to account for annexations over 2,500
occurring during the Service Year)
"0" is the Support Cost Adjustment Factor amount associated with Enhanced Control
Service, if any, as further described in Exhibit D -1.
"SA" is the Adjusted Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost for the Service Year,
which equals the County's. Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for Shelter Services less Actual
Total Non Licensing Revenue attributable to Shelter operations (i.e., adoption fees,
microchip fees, impound fees, owner surrender fees, from all Contracting Parties) in the
Service Year.
"ESPA" is the is the sum of all reduced shelter costs allocable to all cities qualifying for
such reduced charge in the Service Year (thus incorporating values of Popes).
"AA" is the sum of the actual number of animals that during the Service Year that were: (1)
picked up by County Animal Control Officers from within the City, (2) delivered by a City
resident to the County shelter, or (3) delivered to the shelter that are owned by a resident
of the City, expressed as a percentage of the total number of animals in the County shelter
during the Service Year.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
58
145
"LA" is the Adjusted Budgeted Net Licensing Services Cost for the Service Year, which
equals the County's Budgeted Total Allocable Costs for License Services in the Service
Year less Actual Total Non Licensing Revenue attributable to License Services (for
example, pet license late fees) in the Service Year.
"IA" is the actual number of active paid regular pet licenses (e.g., excluding buddy licenses
or temporary licenses) issued to City residents during the Service Year.
If the resulting calculation shows that the City's AP forthe Service Year is less than EP for
Service Year 2010 (EP x 2 for Service Years 2011 and beyond), the difference "R shall be
paid to the City by the County not later than August 15; provided that R shall be limited
such that in no event shall the City pay less than zero for Animal Services for the Service
Year if the City received a Transition Credit, and not less than $2750 (annualized) in that
year if Bothell is served and not less than $2,875 (annualized) for receipt of Animal
Services in that year if Bothell is not served (for Northern Cities with PAWS contracts in
effect as of July 1, 2010, calculations are made inclusive of a City's actual payments for
such year to PAWS for shelter services).
If the resulting calculation shows that the City's AP is more than the EP for the Service
Year, the difference "R shall be paid by the City to the County not later than August 15.
1 4 6 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
59
Exhibit D -1
Calculation of Support Cost Adjustment Factor
Associated with Enhanced Control Service ("0")
The Support Cost Adjustment Factor is intended re- allocate certain indirect costs
associated with Animal Control Officers (ACOs) when an Enhanced Control Service
Contract is in place for any Contracting Party and the Enhanced Service is being provided
during Regular ACO Service Hours as defined in Exhibit A, Part I, Section 2.a.
If a Contracting Party purchases Enhanced Control Service during any part of a Service
Year, and that Enhanced Control Service is provided during Regular ACO Service Hours,
then a Support Cost Adjustment Factor ("0") will be calculated for all Contracting Parties
in the same Control District. This calculation will be applied as part of the reconciliation
process.
If no Contracting Party within the Control District purchased Enhanced Control Service
during any part of a Service Year, or if Enhanced Control Service was purchased but was
not provided during Regular ACO Service Hours, then there is no Support Cost
Adjustment Factor (that is, the value of "0" is zero).
If "0" is not zero, its value will be calculated as follows:
First, identify the Non Direct Service Support Costs for Control Services in a single Control
District (including the management, animal cruelty sergeant, call center and IT costs and
general overhead costs; excluding salary, benefits, vehicle and equipment costs).
Second, divide this Non- Direct Service Support Cost number by 2 (since half these costs
are funded through the population -based factor in calculation of "CA to derive the
Allocable Support Costs.
Third, divide the Allocable Support Costs by 6 (the number of regular ACOs funded in the
base service model) plus the number of Enhanced Animal Control Service Officers
providing service in the Control District. For example, if a City (or Cities) in the Control
District has purchased .5 FTE equivalent of Enhanced Service, the divisor is 6.5. The
resulting dollar amount is then multiplied by the FTE equivalent for the Enhanced Service
officer (in this example, .5) to derive the Support Cost Adjustment Factor.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
60
147
The Support Cost Adjustment Factor is then applied as follows to determine the value of "0"
for each Contracting Party in the Control District:
1. One Half the Support Cost Adjustment Factor multiplied by the Contracting Party's
percentage of Calls for Service (CFSA) is applied as a reduction in costs for all
Contracting Parties in the Control District.
2. One Half the Support Cost Adjustment Factor (shared pro rata if Parties are sharing
an Enhanced Control Service officer within the same Control District) is applied as
an addition in costs for the Contracting Party purchasing Enhanced Service.
A hypothetical example follows, based on 2010 Annualized Costs, assuming .5 FTE
Enhanced Control Service purchased by 1 City in a Control District:
Total Allocable Control Service Costs in the base model $1,698,500
(excluding costs of enhanced service officer):
Allocable Control Service Costs per District ($1,698,500 4) $424,625
Non Direct Service Support Costs for Control Services in a Single $196,450
Control District
Allocable Support Costs (allocable based on Use) $98,225
($196,450 2)
Support Cost Adjustment Factor $7,556
($98,225 =6.5 )x .5FTE
Assume 4 Parties in Control District
City A of Calls for Service, actual (CFSA) 20%
City B CFSA 30%
City C CFSA 10%
County CFSA 40%
Assume City A purchases .5 FTE Enhanced Control Service for the full Service Year.
Resulting 2010 annualized costs for "0" shown for each City and County in the rows below:
City A value of "0" is an additional cost of
($7,556= 2) [20% x ($7,556 2)1= $3,778 $75 6 $3,022 $3,022
City B value of "0" is a cost reduction of 30% x ($7,556 2) 1 $1,133
City C value of "0" is a cost reduction of 10% x ($7,556 2) 1 $378
County value of "0" is a cost reduction of 40% x ($7,556 2) 1 $1,511
1 4 8 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
61
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
Exhibit E
Enhanced Control Services Contract (Optional)
Between City of "City") and King County "County
The County is prepared to offer Enhanced Control Services to the City subject to the terms
and conditions as described herein. The provisions of this Exhibit are optional and shall
not be effective unless this Exhibit is executed by both the City and the County and the
City and the County have entered into the underlying Agreement. The Parties may
agree to enter into this Enhanced Control Services Contract "Contract at any point
during the term of the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement between the City and the
County dated effective July 1, 2010 "Agreement and prior to August 1, 2011.
A. The County shall provide enhanced Control Services to the City in the form of an
animal control officer dedicated to the City "Dedicated Officer as described in
Attachment A (Enhanced Service Options Matrix). Such services shall be provided for the
period of time and cost described on Attachment A and may not be for a term of less than
one year except as per subparagraph 1 below. Costs identified in Attachment A are for one
(1) year of service, in 2010 dollars, and include the cost of the employee (salary, benefits),
equipment and animal control vehicle for the employee's use. Thus, the cost for service
for July 1 through December 31, 2010 will be one -half the amount shown in Attachment A.
Annual costs are subject to adjustment each year, limited by the Annual Budget Inflator
Cap (as defined in the Agreement).
1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a City requesting enhanced control services
beginning in July 2010 can require that its Contract term end on December 31, 2010, in
the event the County implements (at the County's expense) an additional 2 days per week
of Control Services countywide beginning in January 2011 (resulting in 7 -day per week /8
hour day minimum). If such additional service is not funded by the County, the City's
Contract for enhanced Control Services will remain in effect for such longer period as the
City has requested (not less than one -year in total).
B. Services of the Dedicated Officer shall be in addition to the Animal Services otherwise
provided to the City by the County through the Agreement. Accordingly, the calls
responded to by the Dedicated Officer shall not be incorporated in the calculation of the
City's Calls for Service (as further described in Exhibit C and D to the Agreement).
However, if the City is requesting that the Enhanced Service occur during Regular ACO
Service Hours, the City will pay a Support Cost Adjustment Factor as part of the
62
149
Reconciliation Adjustment Amount, calculated per Exhibit D -1 of the Agreement, in
addition to the costs described herein.
C. The scheduling of work by the Dedicated Officer shall be determined by mutual
agreement of the contract administrators identified in Section 16 of the Agreement, and the
mutual agreement of officials of other Cities named as contract administrators that have
committed to sharing in the expense of the Dedicated Officer; provided in the event the
parties are unable to agree, the County shall have the right to finally determine the
schedule of the Dedicated Officer in order to best meet the requests of multiple cities in
light of work rules applicable to the Dedicated Officer.
D. Control Services to be provided to the City pursuant to this Enhanced Services
Contract include Control Services of the type and nature as described under the
Agreement with respect to Animal Control Officers serving in Control Districts, and
include but are not limited to, issuing written warnings, citations and other enforcement
notices and orders on behalf of the City, or such other services as the Parties may
reasonably agree.
E. The County shall provide the City with a general quarterly calendar of scheduled
service in the City, and a monthly report of the types of services offered and performed.
F. An FTE will be scheduled to serve 40 hour weeks, however, with loss of service hours
potentially attributable to vacation, sick leave, training and furlough days, a minimum of
1600 hours per year will be provided. Similarly, a half -time FTE will provide a minimum
of 800 hours per year. The County shall submit to the City an invoice and billing voucher
at the end of each calendar quarter, excepting that during the 4th quarter of each year
during the term of this Contract, an invoice shall be submitted to the City no later than
December 15th. All invoiced amounts shall be payable by the City within 30 days of the
invoice date.
G. The City or County may terminate this Enhanced Services Contract with or without
cause upon providing not less than 3 months written notice to the other Party; provided
that, if the City is sharing the Enhanced Control Services with other Contracting Cities,
this Contract may only be terminated by the City if: (1) all such other Contracting Cities
similarly agree to terminate service on such date, or (2) if prior to such termination date
another Contracting City or Cities enters into a contract with the County to purchase the
Enhanced Control Service that the City wishes to terminate; provided further: except as
provided in Paragraph A.1, a Contract may not be terminated if the term of service
resulting is less than one year.
1 5 0 Document Dated 5 -28 -10
63
H. All terms of the Agreement, except as expressly stated otherwise in this Exhibit, shall
apply to this Enhanced Control Services Contract. Capitalized Terms not defined herein
have those meanings as set forth in the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Enhanced Services Contract
to be executed effective as of this day of 201
King County City of TUKW I LA
Dow Constantine By: JIM HAGGERTON, MAYOR
King County Executive Mayor /City Manager
Date Date
Approved as to Form: Approved as to•Form:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney City Attorney
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
64
151
152
Exhibit E: Attachment A
ENHANCED CONTROL SERVICES OPTION REQUEST
(to be completed by City requesting Enhanced Control Services; final service terms subject
to adjustment by County and agreement by City and will be confirmed in writing
executed and appended to Exhibit E)
City
Requested Enhanced Control Services Start Date:
Requested Enhanced Control Services End Date:
*term of service must be at least one year, except as provided in Paragraph A.1 (alternate
service end date must be provided in event sales tax vote is not approved).
of Full Time Equivalent Officer (FTE) requested: (minimum request: 20
requests must be in multiples of either 20% or 25
General Description of desired services (days, hours, nature of service):
Cities with whom the City proposes to share the Enhanced Control Services, and
proposed percentages of an FTE those Cities are expected to request:
On behalf of the City, the undersigned understands and agrees that the County will
attempt to honor requests but reserves the right to propose aggregated, adjusted and
variously scheduled service, including but not limited to adjusting allocations of service from
increments of 20% to 25 in order to develop workable employment and scheduling for
the officers within then existing workrules, and that the City will be allowed to rescind or
amend its request for Enhanced Control Services as a result of such proposed changes.
Requests that cannot be combined to equal 50% of an FTE, 100% of an FTE, or some
multiple thereof may not be honored. Service must be requested for a minimum term
of one -year, except as permitted by Paragraph A.1. .Service may not extend beyond the
term of the Agreement.
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
65
153
City requests that alone or in combination with requests of other Cities equal at least
50% of an FTE will be charged at the rate in Column 1 below.
City requests that alone or in combination with other requests for Enhanced Control
Services equal 100% of an FTE will be charged at the rate in Column 2 below.
Cities may propose a different allocation approach for County consideration.
An FTE will be scheduled to serve 40 hour weeks, however, with loss of hours potentially
attributable to vacation, sick leave, training and furlough days, a minimum of 1600 hours
per year will be provided. A half -time FTE will provide a minimum of 800 hours per year.
For example, a commitment to purchase 20% of an FTE for enhanced service will result in
provision of not less than 320 hours per year.
Hours of service lost for vacation, sick leave, training and furlough days will be allocated
on pro rata basis between all cities sharing the services of that FTE.
Column 1:
Aggregate of 50% of an FTE Requested by
all Participating Cities
Cost to City: of Half -Time FTE
requested) x $75,000 /year in 2010*
Example: if City A requests 25% of an
r 1 E and City B requests 25% of an
FTE then each city would pay $18,750
for Enhanced Control Services from July 1,
2010 through December 31, 2011.
*(50% of a Half -Time FTE)
*2010 annual cost; subject to annual inflator adjustment as described in Paragraph A.
Request Signed as of this day of
City of
By:
Its
Document Dated 5 -28 -10
1 54
Column 2:
Aggregate of 1 FTE Requested by all
Participating Cities
Cost to City: of FTE requested) x
$115,000 /year in 2010
Example: If City A requests 25% of an FTE
and City B requests 25% of an FTE and
City C requests 50% of an FTE, Cities A
and B would pay $14,375 and City C
would pay $28,750 for Enhanced Control
Services from July 1, 2010 through
December 31, 2011.
2010.
66
ISSUE
DATE: April 23, 2010
OPTIONS
City of Tukwila
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Committee of the Whole
FROM: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
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
155
156
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 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 local 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.
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. 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.
W:1F1N Projects\Council Agenda ItemslExecSummary_Animal Control.docx
Finance Safety Committee Minutes June 8, 2010 Pane 2
D. Bond Ordinance for Southcenter Parkway Extension
Staff is seeking approval of an ordinance providing for the issuance of new bonds in the amount of just
under $6 million. The Committee discussed the issue of combining the needed funds for the Southcenter
Parkway construction costs, together with Emergency Preparedness Capital equipment costs. The cost of
each bond processing can be as high as $200,000, so it is staffs recommendation that the two needs be
combined into one bond. This bond application has already been reviewed with Moody's, and there were
no issues /concerns regarding the combining of these two areas into one bond. The Committee asked that
the list of Emergency Preparedness Capital Assets be explained in further detail prior to Council review.
One of the items (Fire/Police Command Unit) has grant funds attached, and there were some concerns
that delays in moving this forward would jeopardize these grant funds. Staff were asked for the
following:
1. Determine what the implications would be of splitting this bond application into two separate
ordinances (Southcenter Parkway Construction, EOC Capital Assets)
2. What will the implication be of not moving forward at this time?
3. Would there be any cash flow implications related to State reimbursement on the Southcenter
Parkway construction work if there is any delay in issuing bonds?
4. The language in the agenda materials needs to be clarified to reflect that this bond would not be
used for items already purchased.
STAFF WAS ASKED TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS ABOVE AND BRING BACK TO
COMMITTEE, IF THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF WAITING. IF
STAFF DETERMINES THAT A DELAY WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT GRANT FUNDS OR
OTHER ISSUES, THEY W ILL NOTIFY THE COMMITTEE CHAIR AND DETERMINE
NEXT STEPS.
E. Animal Control Interlocal Agreement
Staff is seeking Council approval to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with King County for animal
control services. The City of Burien has decided not to be part of the Interlocal, which will raise
Tukwila's costs by about $11,000 /year. Committee discussed the options of individual City's
establishing fees or fines on recurring "problem properties UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
FORWARD TO JUNE 14 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
F. Fi1ina Dates for Elections
Staff was asked to provide deadlines for upcoming elections to Committee. INFORMATION ONLY.
MISCELLANEOUS
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Next meeting: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by JT. Reviewed by SH.
157