HomeMy WebLinkAboutFS 2010-04-20 Item 2C - Discussion - Animal Control Services OptionsTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ISSUE
BACKGROUND
City of Tukwila
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
Finance and Safety Committee
Committee of the Whole
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
April 15, 2010
Animal Services Options
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
For several years the City of Tukwila has received animal control services through an
interlocal agreement with King County. The City also shares the cost of an animal
control officer with the City of SeaTac for enhanced services. Due to budgetary
constraints and a desire on the part of the King County Council to pursue a full -cost
recovery model, King County will fundamentally alter how they provide animal control
services to cities that continue to contract with them. Specifically, the County will close
their animal shelter to cities by June 30, 2010 unless a regional strategy to provide
animal control services can be created, negotiated and implemented. The County has
finalized what they consider to be their best, lowest cost, option for cities to participate
in a regional animal services model. This option, among others, is presented below for
Council direction on whether to continue in a regional model with the County.
The City has until April 30 to let the County know if we are interested in continuing to
contract with the County for animal services. If we do not want to continue with the
County, and either provide the service ourselves or in conjunction with surrounding
jurisdictions, we can either begin providing that service on July 1, 2010, or sign an
extension with the County that would go until the end of this year. The extension would
give the City time to put together options for providing the service to our residents
beginning January 1, 2011.
For several years the City of Tukwila has received animal control services through an
interlocal agreement with King County. This agreement provides the City with field
officer services, sheltering at the County's facility in Kent, and animal licensing services.
To pay for these services, King County collects all revenue from animal licensing fees
generated by Tukwila residents. Tukwila is not charged any additional cost, however, if
these licensing fees do not cover the cost of the service provided. The only additional
cost to the City is for the animal control officer we share with the City of SeaTac, per our
agreement with King County. The City currently budgets $38,000 per year for the cost of
this "enhanced" service.
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Due to budgetary constraints at the County and past concerns with operational issues at
the King County animal shelter, King County has decided to no longer provide this
service to cities under their existing interlocal agreement. The County has been
subsidizing animal control service to all cities in King County that contract with them by
approximately $2.0 million annually from their general fund, which is not sustainable for
the County's operating budget. The City recently received notification of contract
termination, effective June 30, 2010, for our existing interlocal agreement.
The King County Council and Executive have placed the following stipulations on cities
that want to continue to contract with King County for animal control services:
By June 30, 2010, a regional strategy to provide animal control service that
includes both the County and a feasible number of cities must be negotiated and
implemented.
To utilize the current King County animal shelter, which will continue to be
operated by the County, cities must be a part of the regional strategy.
In addition to the County's existing animal shelter, additional non profit community
shelter capacity, where available, is desired to be a part of the regional strategy.
By June 30, 2010, as part of the regional strategy, animal control field services,
licensing and shelter services must be paid for on a "full cost recovery" basis.
In order for the regional model to be economically and operationally feasible for the
County, there must be enough cities that choose to participate for the model to
work for the County. Insufficient participation by cities will result in the County
providing these services for unincorporated areas only.
DISCUSSION
Given these upcoming changes in how animal control services may be provided, the
administration is presenting various options for providing this service to the residents of
Tukwila, including the County- focused regional strategy, and what the related costs
would be for these service delivery options. A brief overview of the services currently
being provided by the County follows. These services fall under three broad categories;
animal control field services, sheltering and licensing.
Animal Control Field Services
Animal Control officers provide service in King County from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days
a week, with emergency services provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week by on-
call officers. To accomplish this, King County has 15 staff members working in field
services; 12 Animal Control officers and three (3) staff members in the County's call
center receiving calls for service. The City also shares the cost of an animal control
officer with SeaTac and the County for enhanced animal control services. That officer is
dedicated 50% to SeaTac, 30% to Tukwila and 20% to unincorporated King County in
the surrounding area.
Animal Control officers respond to the following types of requests:
Animal cruelty investigations
W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda Itemsl InfoMemo _AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
Response to barking dog
Injured animal rescues, complaints and petitions
Response to bite reports
Assist Police Officers with vicious animal complaints, as requested
Pick -up for stray animals
"Dead -on- arrival" loose livestock, cats and dogs
Leash law violations
Animal Shelter Services
The King County animal shelter is located in the City of Kent, with a smaller satellite
shelter in the City of Bellevue. The animal shelter houses roughly 11,000. animals per
year, with the majority being dogs and cats, although other species of animals are also
sheltered there. In 2009 the King County sheltered 295 animals that were attributable to
the City of Tukwila. These animals were either stray animals picked up and dropped off
by King County Animal Control officers or Tukwila residents, or were "owner surrender"
animals that were dropped off by their owners for various reasons, including moving out
of state, dogs not allowed in a new apartment building, pet no longer wanted, etc.
Animal Licensing Services
The King County Records and Licensing Services (RALS) Division (of which Animal
Care and Control is a sub division) provides licensing services to residents in King
County. RALS licensing staff sells both dog and cat licenses, as well as other types of
pet and animal licenses, such as kennel licenses, guard dog and guard dog training
facility licenses, and exotic animal licenses.
In 2008 and 2009, the number of dog and cat licenses issued for Tukwila residents was
1,306 and 1,122, respectively. Of the 2009 amount, 84 licenses were sold at Tukwila
City Hall, with the vast majority of licenses sold online or through the mail. According to
King County estimates, the number of total licenses sold accounts for roughly 20% to
25% of the estimated dog and cat population that exists county -wide. The table below
outlines the number of issued licenses in 2008 and the estimates of the percent of
animals licensed:
Est. Est.
Tukwila Tukwila Est.
Dog Cat of Pets
Total Pet of Population Population (Cats Est. of
Licenses Est. City County Est. (0.63 per (0.71 per and Pets
Issued Population Population Households household household) Dogs) Licensed
1,306 18,080 1.54% 7,232 4,571 5,156 9,727 13%
Cost and Revenue of New Regional Animal Service Model
The County has provided overall cost information to the cities for field services,
sheltering and licensing under the new regional model recently developed. The total
W: WIN Projects\Council Agenda Itemsl InfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
estimated cost for animal services is $5,601,900, broken down into $1,698,600 for field
services, $3,004,900 for sheltering and $898,400 for licensing.
The County's estimated cost for Tukwila for field services ($38,031) assumes one
animal control officer for forty hours per week to cover the "240" district, which includes
Burien, Kent, Tukwila, SeaTac and Vashon Island. The County estimates that services
to Vashon Island are minimal, essentially making the service delivery to just the four
cities. Animal control for the entire County would include one animal control officer in
each of the four districts, plus two other officers for backup coverage during sick leave,
vacations, training, etc. Some additional resources would be shared county -wide, such
as a field sergeant, an animal cruelty sergeant and three FTE positions in dispatch. Off
duty hours would be covered by either on -call animal control officers who are called
back to duty, or King County Sheriff's Office deputies. Total estimated costs for Tukwila
for field services are based on a three -year average of 373 calls for service from 2007-
2009. Policy discussions with the County and other cities could change the definition of
what type of call warrants a response. For instance, some calls for barking dogs could
be handled by dispatch personnel rather than requiring an animal control officer to visit
the complainant. Another factor to consider with field services is defining what are "high
priority" calls and what length of response time is acceptable for these types of calls.
The County has indicated willingness to engage in this sort of discussion with cities
once a regional model is in place.
Estimated sheltering costs for Tukwila ($78,208) are based on a 50/50 allocation of
usage at the Kent shelter and City population. The combination of usage and population
effectively spreads the cost of the Kent shelter over a larger number of King County
cities. Had the costs been allocated strictly based on shelter usage, the amounts
allocated to south King County cities would have been considerably higher. Despite the
fact that several north King County cities will be contracting with PAWS for sheltering
services, they would still contribute to system -wide sheltering costs. The County's cost
estimate for Tukwila is based on an average intake for the last two years of 268 animals
at the Kent shelter. One of the ways the City of Tukwila can affect the cost of sheltering,
the largest component of overall system costs, is to engage in a discussion with the
County and other cities regarding intake policies. For instance, some non profit
sheltering agencies require a significant payment from a pet owner for owner
surrenders. Such a policy could lessen the financial burden to the cities. Consideration
would need to be given, though, to the impact such a policy might have on the number
of "stray" animals turned in to the shelter from good Samaritans that are actually owner
surrenders.
Estimated licensing costs for Tukwila ($12,000) are allocated based on total system
costs divided by a three -year average for licenses issued (1,207 for Tukwila). The cost
of licensing system -wide include issuance of the licenses, maintenance of owner
information to assist with tracking and placement of lost pets, preparation and
distribution of marketing materials for licensing purposes, pet owner education
programs, and public outreach in an attempt to increase licensing rates within each city.
Potential Animal Service Provision Models
W: \FIN Projects \Council Agenda Items\ InfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
In reviewing how animal services could be provided within the region and in Tukwila
specifically, six potential alternatives were developed to be potentially feasible for how
the City could provide this service to our residents:
Procure the service through a regional King County model for the County's
proposed 2.5 year term
Procure the service through a regional King County model for six months, then
provide the service either individually or through a sub regional model with Kent,
SeaTac and /or Burien
Provide the service in -house
Provide the service through an interlocal agreement with SeaTac to share the cost
of all three services (animal control, sheltering and licensing)
Provide the service through a sub regional consortium model with SeaTac and
Burien
Provide the service through a sub regional consortium model with SeaTac, Burien
and Kent
Other options were also considered. After further discussions with the cities of Renton
and Des Moines, it was determined that contracting with these jurisdictions would not be
feasible. Although the City of Renton and the City of Des Moines were both very willing
to share information and provide insight into how their animal control systems operate,
working through the necessary authorizing environments to move a contract forward
given the tight time frame cities are working under did not seem feasible. Also, Des
Moines would more than likely not have the capacity to take on a jurisdiction such as
Tukwila which would nearly double their service area. Following is a high -level overview
of the types of services that could be provided under different types of animal service
models:
Provide Service through Regional King County Model:
Contract with King County for a full cost recovery field services contract, which
would most likely provide one dedicated King County Animal Control officer in a
south county service area including the City of Tukwila
Contract with King County for animal licensing
Contract with King County Animal Shelter for animal sheltering services at the Kent
facility
Provide Service In- House:
Hire Tukwila Animal Control officer for field services work; administratively housed
and supported by the Tukwila Police Department; provides forty hours per week of
animal control coverage
Utilize private sector pet licensing vendor or existing internal capacity for issuing
pet licenses
Contract with veterinarians and kennels in Tukwila to utilize their facilities for
sheltering
Provide Service through South King County Sub regional Model:
W:IFIN Projects\Council Agenda Items1InfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 6
Hire Animal Control officers to provide service to south King County cities;
determine governance and administrative needs of this consortium model
Utilize private sector pet licensing vendor for pet licensing
Develop contracts with veterinarians and kennels in Tukwila and other south
County cities to utilize their facilities
Following are high -level cost and revenue projections for several options the City has:
Option
County regional model 2.5 year contract
Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 30,348 33,383
Estimated total costs 64,120 128,239 135,292
Program surplus (deficit) (48,946) (97,891) (101,909)
County transitional support 6,805 23,609 8,982
Net General Fund subsidy (42,141) (74,282) (92,927)
Tukwila only model (County 1/2 year contract)
Estimated licensing revenue
Estimated start-up costs
Estimated total costs
Program surplus (deficit)
County transitional support
Net General Fund subsidy
Tukwila /SeaTac model (County 1/2 year contract)
Estimated licensing revenue
Estimated start-up costs
Estimated other costs
Program surplus (deficit)
Attributable to Tukwila
Net General Fund subsidy
15,174 30,348 33,383 34,551 35,760
115,000
64,120 170,000 179,350 189,214 199,621
(48,946) (139,652) (145,967) (154,663) (163,861)
(48,946) (139,652) (145,967) (154,663) (163,861) (653,088)
Tukwila /Burien /SeaTac model (County 1/2 year contract)
Estimated licensing revenue 15,174
Estimated start-up costs
Estimated other costs 64,120
Program surplus (deficit) (48,946)
%Attributable to Tukwila 100.00%
Net General Fund subsidy (48,945)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
15,174 81,480 82,295 83,117
115,000
64,120 321,255 351,073 362,530 374,387
(48,946) (354,775) (268,778) (279,413) (290,438)
100.00% 43.30% 43.30% 43.30% 43.30%
(48,945) (153,618) (116,381) (120,986) (125,760)
161,817 163,435
115,000
404,474 437,205
(357,657) (273,770)
24.57% 24.57%
(87,876) (67,265)
W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda Items\ lnfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBrietingForCOW.docx
34,551 35,760
142,733 150,584
(108,182) (114,823)
4,491
(103,691) (114,823)
Total
149,216
620,967
(471,751)
43,886
(427,864)
149,216
115,000
802,305
(653,088)
83,949 346,015
115,000
1,473, 365
(1,127, 350)
(565,688)
165,070 166,720 672,216
115,000
451,676 466,654 1,824,129
(286,606) (299,934) (1,151,913)
24.57% 24.57%
(70,419) (73,694) (348,199)
Tukwila /Buri en /Kent /SeaTac model (County 1/2 year contract)
Estimated licensing revenue 15,174 365,433 378,223 391,461 405,162 1,555,453
Estimated start-up costs 190,000 190,000
Estimated other costs 64,120 791,869 872,647 918,305 966,474 3,613,415
Program surplus (deficit) (48,946) (616,436) (494,424) (526,844) (561,312) (2,057,962)
Attributable to Tukwila 100.00% 7.47% 7.47% 7.47% 7.47%
Net General Fund subsidy (48,945) (46,048) (36,933) (39,355) (41,930) (213,211)
The amounts above do not include the $38,000 per year the City of Tukwila currently
budgets for enhanced animal services with King County.
The above cost projections are based on several different assumptions, including the
following:
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 7
Each sub regional model, those options not involving County participation,
assumes two animal control officers serving the entire sub regional area. The
officers would work four ten -hour days each, with one day of overlap during the
week. Response to off hours, non emergency calls would wait until the following
day when an animal control officer was available. Off -hours emergency calls
would be responded to by City police officers.
Those animal service models not involving the County would result in each City
being individually responsible for making policy -level decisions regarding
humane treatment of animals, intake policies for sheltering, euthanasia policies,
etc. Officials at each City would also be accountable to the residents and general
public regarding the impacts of these policies.
For each of the sub regional models, police officers or other PD staff would
investigate animal cruelty cases and would handle animals taken into custody as
evidence.
Each City would assume the cost of risk management, insurance, legal costs,
personnel and payroll costs, etc, as part of a regional or City -only animal services
model. These overhead type costs have not been quantified above.
Licensing revenue amounts assume revenue would increase by 10% in 2011
under the County run model due to efforts on the part of the County and the City
to increase the rate of licensing, and then 3.5% thereafter.
Cost increases under the County model are specifically capped at 5.5% per year.
Including labor contract costs, health care costs and others, the projections
assume a cost growth rate at the 5.5% cap.
The County has a deadline of April 30 for cities to indicate whether they are interested
in participating in a regional model with them. If enough cities opt out of the model, or a
city or two of large size does, the implication could be that a regional model would not
be operationally or financially feasible for the County to offer.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends signing the two and a half year contract with the
County. Although this is not the lowest cost option, this would give the City some time to
evaluate the service that the County provides, and if necessary put our own model
together to meet the needs of the residents. Throughout the time that the Joint Cities
County Work Group has met, County staff has worked hard to lower the overall cost of
service delivery by over $800,000 in total. Also, the County is offering transitional
assistance to some cities, which for Tukwila would amount to almost $44,000 over the
next four years. Continuing to work with the County for the time being will also give us
the ability to evaluate the impacts of a City only or sub regional model on the Police
Department and other City operations. The City will work with the County and other
cities over the next two and a half years in an effort to improve service delivery,
including call response times, lower overall cost of the system, and make improvements
to the operation of the Kent shelter. If these efforts are not successful over the contract
period, the City will have the option of developing a City only or sub regional model to
implement at the end of the County contract period.
W:1FIN Projects\Council Agenda ItemslInfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW.docx
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 8
A briefing regarding this item is scheduled for the April 20, 2010 Finance and Safety
Committee meeting, and the April 26, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting.
ATTACHMENTS (County documents)
Background /Introduction on Agreement in Principle to Provide a Regional System
Outline of Terms for Agreement in Principle
Estimated Annualized 2010 Regional Program Cost Allocation
Control Districts for Agreement in Principle (Map)
Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System
Frequently Asked Questions
Proposed Timeline for Confirming and Adopting New Interlocal Agreements
Cost Considerations for Animal Care, Control and Licensing Operations in a Sub
Regional Model
W: \FIN Projects \Council Agenda Items\InfoMemo_ AnimalServicesBriefingForCOW .docx
Joint Cities County Work Group on Regional Animal Services
Background /Introduction on Agreement in Principle to Provide a
Regional System
Animal control, sheltering and licensing are discretionary local services that historically
were provided by individual jurisdictions and King County. While discretionary, the
services address public health, safety, and animal welfare outcomes that are important to
our residents. After being approached by leadership of the Suburban Cities Association in
the mid 1980s, King County agreed to provide animal control, sheltering and licensing
functions on behalf of cities on a regional basis, in exchange for keeping all pet licensing
revenue.
Current Service Arrangements
Thirty -five cities have an animal services contract with the County (Seattle, Renton,
Skykomish and Milton do not have contracts). Most cities contract for all three service
components: control, shelter, and licensing. Two cities contract for shelter only (Des
Moines, Normandy Park); one city contracts for shelter and field only (Newcastle). Five
cities currently purchase a higher level of animal control services (Auburn, Shoreline,
Kirkland, Tukwila, SeaTac).
The service arrangement has not been revisited since its inception and, over time, the gap
between system revenue and system cost has grown to a level that is not sustainable for the
County. In recent years, the County has contributed in excess of $2 million annually from
the County general fund to support the services. Based on direction from the County
Council to enter into new cost recovery arrangements with the cities, the County recently
issued termination letters to cities for the existing animal services contracts, effective
July 1.
Joint Cities County Work Group
In anticipation of the termination of contracts, a Joint Cities County Work Group has been
meeting since January to develop a proposed "Agreement in Principle" for a new regional
animal control system. This "Agreement in Principle" is intended to define a new basis for
animal services contracts that could, if adopted by a sufficient number of cities, preserve
the benefits of a regional animal services system (see Attachment 1). The alternative to a
regional model is that cities will have to either operate their own individual systems or
create subregional arrangements for service delivery. Under any delivery option local,
subregional or regional cities will have to begin paying something for animal services to
continue.
As the Work Group reviewed data about the present system, it became clear that cities face
very different circumstances with respect to animal services: some are very heavy users of
the shelter and control operations; others use it much less. The reasons could relate to
demographics, behavior, the geographic proximity of the County shelter or nonprofit
shelters, or some combination of factors. The licensing revenue generated by the system
Document dated April 7, 2010 1
Prepared by King County
also varies dramatically among jurisdictions on a per capita basis, in part based on where
the County has in the past focused marketing efforts.
Economies of scale exist in providing animal services: the more cities that participate in a
regional system, the lower the costs are for everyone. Conversely, if the geographic
distribution of cities participating in the regional system starts to look like a patchwork, the
service delivery becomes more challenging and inefficient; at some point, the County will
not be willing or able to effectively provide service.
Summary of the Agreement in Principle
The "Agreement in Principle" represents a departure from "business as usual" in the
delivery of animal services by the County (see Attachment 2). The primary difference in
control services will be having animal control officers dedicated to each of four districts 5-
days per week (see Attachment 3), while allowing cities individually or collectively within
each district to contract for higher levels of service. Operations at the Kent shelter will be
improved with limited resources through closing the Crossroads shelter and concentrating
staff resources in Kent, expanding the foster and volunteer network, and instituting
practices to reduce the number of animals and their length of stay (such as fees for owner
surrenders, utilizing capacity at PAWS, and seeking collaboration with other private
animal welfare partners). Licensing functions will continue to include licensing
administration as well as marketing and education, with more incentive for cities to
participate in increasing licensing revenues.
The proposed system costs to be allocated are $5.6 million (annualized for 2010 see
Attachment 4). This reflects a reduction of about $800,000 from estimates provided to
cities in early 2010, achieved through cost reductions and the County absorbing some
costs. The "Agreement in Principle" seeks to balance the different situations of cities by
proposing a cost allocation methodology based on both population and usage factors (a 50-
50 split). Licensing revenues ($3.2 million) are credited to jurisdictions based on the
residence of the person buying a pet license. A variety of allocations were considered
before arriving at this methodology. The County is proposing to provide transitional
funding to those participating cities that have the highest per capita costs. The County is
also proposing to provide enhanced licensing marketing support for cities with the lowest
licensing revenue per capita.
The Agreement in Principle proposes a 2.5 year agreement, during which time the parties,
through a Joint Cities County Committee, will focus on increasing system revenue and
reducing system costs. The Agreement in Principle identifies several of these collaborative
initiatives, including an exploration of alternative licensing systems and ways to further
reduce shelter operation needs. Parties would be allowed to terminate for convenience
upon six months notice. Contracts could be extended by mutual agreement for an
additional 2 years.
The Work Group concluded that to maximize system efficiency, a "menu" approach to the
purchase of services is not practicable. For example, it is not efficient for a limited number
of field officers to drop animals at multiple shelters. Similarly, the more licensing systems
Document dated April 7, 2010 2
Prepared by King County
or different field systems the County shelter must interface with, the greater the
administrative complexities, inefficiencies, and costs.
The Agreement in Principle is described in the attached tables and map, together with a
timeline and steps for adoption, and related information.
Document dated April 7, 2010 3
Prepared by King County
Parties
Assumes e ties do.
ollowin te:
not artijeatt1e
Federal
Des Moines,
R
Normandy park,
Medina Nor castle
Skykon`i h �viilton
Serv ices
Cos Allocati
GIONH` r-,
WOR GROUP FOR EM ENT IN P_
PL LxC EN SIN G
CITIES �R� RE
JOINT OF TERMS F T B1
OUTLINE
allocate costs to
Within each district of usage
50 /O
jurisdict
urisdictioserV sage
service) andp °pulation
TV
F Park
W Northern Cities")
Bothell, Shoreline, Kenmore ("Northern
s ices
ery
will crimary sh lter located in
will contract for p n onprof it she a lso seek to
withPAWs (a e County will
Lynnwoo
xxnwOOd) The r sheltering of
art of the north County
contract with PAWS
animals from d area.
uninCOorate f
standards of care
o nal ea taffed With l A r houxlday shelter closes
C
4 districts daylwee officers to
Contro Qti'icer, 5- �s serves Northern hies under
M ox T -s). 6 total other. 1 Cxo
BBD' vacation. b-tegi P
cover sick lea ve ate sub
Cities inay coon le
purchase higher level of s
punch �gD)
service opti 1 field
urces:
Regionally shat a�c�e ty sergeant; 3 FT
1 anim 5 l8hour, after hour
sergea
vas cente ugh Sheriff s Office.
dispatch to eac
quarter of total costs
Allocate one
district.
_regionally to separate contract tion.
(specific hips for adop
ervice {sp p
Seek. future partri o ther non
1 assistance with
animal we
(calls fox se tion)
0 o ula shelter r evenues inrpoun d fees) costs.
usage! 5 p P control fees, be a llocating fines alloca
control costs epee costs Control revenues (e.g.,
total con total sh
Re-venue Allocatio violations) netted
before allocating costs.
ated April 7,20A 0
Documen ding Count'
Prepared by
s ystem;
Administration of licensing to
k e d uca tion and outreach
licensing sales.
and increase
maintain an using
County will absorb costs
mainframe 11 sy stem•
rofit
ns
;;lafiOn). o
pulat
JOINT CITIES-COUNTY WORK GROUP fOR REGIONAL
PRA
F TERMS FOR AGREEMENT December 2010
OUTLINE Estimated fees for July"
2011 c ost allocation xiox
ices due January
Tonal program
estimated based on p
December 2010 services rill and October 1,
Payment for July- payments due April actual
50% o f estimated annualized 201 reg
Payment Method/ service based on ual paY al costs and
012, semi -ann year budget.
O11 and 2 lied to dent Y allocable actu payment. Reconciliation for
Timing For services in 2 riot year's actual usage, ram cost
year usage and revenue, app e to October pa�''
will be applied as credit or charge Tonal grog
Reconciliation calculated each June based on p
econc on amounts n half of estimated annualized 2010 regional
R based o
usage• excluding any costs
revenues. cities (excluding per year.
2010 fees (calculated revenues and allocable to the 5.5 to p
calculated Ju June 201
and actual more than
allocation, collectively a1
itional services) will not increase by
cost for control, shelter cities of addling and
The total with purchases by c 2012 end of contract).
Cost Inflator Cap a ssociated through December 31, only
'�z ears: July 1, 2010 (can be used on day one or at back per capita;
Contract Term 2 years..
cities with highest cost or lowest revenue
Contract term and s 6 mo nth termination s pp for provided convenience notice cl a long
C support provided by County
r °visa °n 112 5 year tern cities withdraw xn ice area,
termination p for fix ices if too many Gk of contiguous sexes'
Transitional supp
available to cities contracting areas impracticable (e.g., gement challenges)
right to terminate services for areaslsery
reserves rig to remaining record
County delivery s heltering
continuation of service es between field and ears upon mutual agr Bement
xauatio ilif in linkages exception will be made
imp Limited
extend service contract for 2 additional years
the contract.
Option to ex t h e County ee services from orient charge but will o rated into Cities must purchase all thr o shelter usage component charge (incorp
PAWS will pay n based sheltering
Services Purchased as follows: with to one-half the population
i Northern Cities contracting equal to one-h
regional sheltering
current cost estimates).
Document dated April 7, Z 010
Prepared by King County
Page 2 of 4
REGIONAL- t'"
WORK GROUP G R REGIO T �N PRINCIP
JOINT CITIES-COU TERMS FOR A
OUTLINE OF
es and incentives for residents to license
ices codes as means to increase revenu
Update of animal se pets. system.
maximize
Collabora retain, and care for p ro f licensing erations to m
Ongoing of private for-profit non-profit shelter and rescue p
Initiatives lore pra cticabili t y private non -p pet population, and oiler efficiencies.
InL Exp and p homeless p p
es between Countreduction in hom t h e county.
Pursue linkages pet adoption,
opportunities li for p h joint the board•
through marketing activities of cities and efficiencies across
Promote licensing service delivery publicly
Explore options for increasing laceme bench-marked with other p
ent Shelter repairlrep
options for s lassification study for shelter staffing
Study p and c
Complete c ompensa tion and 6 city representatives
C omp ointedby County) make
operated shelters. TepTeSen tatives (app em bers may not be elected
s of the
county C e each year to review ser vice issues e d fording
s) shall ll 3 than twice the conduct an which
committee comp ents to services. each
c omma n meet not less make recommendations regarding Members may no formed, of
County A officials. by cities) shall g efficiencies and ake re commend ations (app regarding and mak County Committee. City- recommendations xeg individual initiatives ma
Com mittee recomm committee Subcommi om ttees to focus on
officials. The com S cat members of the Joint City'
both county and y binding
collaborative initiatives. bs from County Committee are non
shall include Mons of the Joint City
R
ecomni
Document dated April 7, 201
pocum K
Prepared by King County
Page 3of4
County Transition
F
REGIO pRINCIPI.E
WO RK GROUP FOR IN
CITIES
OUTLINE O TY S FOR
purl -INE OF TERM ding for level of transition f�' ted
net
per capx) shall receive 400,000 sh net co funding
p additional regional model costs (net qu alify for transition
One-half oft the pne- level in 2 011 a 2-year extension
l• zed 2 enter into
2013, if the city and County
f the initial nnuahz
1 annualized five cx
1 a greemn
0% in 2014
teSas fallaws
JOINT C x
ne t per capita 2010 regional
with estimate initial annualized n to those cities estimated
11 establish an highest estim
The allocated five cities with the g
to the
capita).
Documen
dated April 7 2010
pocum King County
Prepared by
County shall opulatm $3 per capita).
Q00 shall be dian (net cost
$25 e the b population
mo del costs abov all be a llocated y p> $5.50 p
per capita 201 r
the X112.5 year term and of 201
Cities -who if of t ct for
the second
h initial annualized level for
The initial annualized ed level in 201
a
66% o ed in ties with the
33% of the initial to the lv the County
t marketing support licensing licensing marketing revenue.
in 2010 enhance anted 0 000 in licensing suppo
t shall pr ovide each unit of enhanced $3 marketing
County per c apita. Fox 1,000 licenses licensing
I addition, the re venue P estimated to generate 1 2 units of enhanced
licensing ices opal r eceive sup port
lowest 2009 000 in. services s hall each x marketing
will provide $20' 000 in p opulation each city) enhanced licensing
ver 100' revenue in one unit of enhan
Two cities o 000 in licensing
(estimated $b °elation shall share on
under 30,000 in si prevenue in each city).
Three citi i licensing
(estimated $10,000
Page 4of4
(Total Regional Program Costs To Be Allocated:
Proposed Animal
Control District
Number
Jurisdiction
Bothell
Carnation
Duvall
Unincorporated King County
Kenmore
o Kirkland
Lake Forest Park
Redmond
Sammamish
Shoreline
Woodinville
SUBTOTAL FOr CITIES IN 200 (excludes unincorporated'erea)^=
Joint Cities County Work Group on Regional Animal Services
Estimated Annualized 2010 Regional Program Cost Allocation (1)
with Transition Funding and Transitional Licensing Support
Control 1 Sheltering 1 Licensing
Total Allocated 2009 Licensing I Estimated Net
Costs Revenue Cost'
$1,698,6001 $3,004,9001 $896,400 $5,601,900 $3,209,4691 $2,392,4311
Estimated
Sheltering Cost
Estimated Animal Allocallon Estlmatad Pel Estimated Total Cost 2009 Licensing Estimatetl Net Cost Transition Funding Estimated Revenue
Control Cost (Excludes Costs to Licensing Cost 9 Estimated Net Final from Transitional
Allocation (2) North Side Cities for Allocation (4) Allocation Revenue Allocation (5) Cost
PAWS Sheltering) Licensing Support
534.3361
92.5631 $22.9731 $30,0951 $87,4041 $102,0671 $14.6631 $01 $0 1 $14,663
$8,0911 $1,5641 $12,218! $5,7231 56.4951 01.4311 50 i 95.0651
$6,6151 $12,5711 05.3851 824.5711 $22,1131 42,4571 $01 $0 1 $2.457)
$21 (see total below/1 (see fofel below) I
$25.4881 $116,9321 (see Iola below)! (see total below)) NA I NA I (see total below) I
$25,48 913,9431 919.140; $58,5711 $73.1601 $14,5891 $01 $0 I 514,5891
$50,1471 $97,5401 038.9791 5186,666) $159.2111 927,4551 $01 $0 1 427,455
$13.7591 $8,7411 512.7261 $35,2261 $71,9871 $36.7611 $01 $01 $36,761
$50.3361 097.1971 541,0421 $188,5751 $134,3111 454,2641 $01 $0 1 $54,264
$38,5651 $68.5951 534.5321 9141.6921 $135,1251 56.5671 $01 $0 I 46.567
$71,2891 $37,0361 $46,0341 $154,3591 5169,3471 934,9871 $01 $0 t $34.987
514,6191 $7,2751 99.4621 $31,3571 537,9181 86.5621 $01 $0 I 06.562
37 3, 9611;', 1 )'t,';'^$ 238: 959Fl i „,•::.i;,.,. ':$920 638 r.t -V- 930, 9 6317s "$10;325''x:;; tsf.`' ;.,11.431l •-t. ;G n ;r •'`s ;$1
Beaux Arts $4661
$12281 -$32fi
$4591 $01 $60,000
$3011 $9001 $01 $0 -$32G
1
Bellevue $151,3001 $233,2741 $90,6291 $475,204! $274,3461 $200,8571 $140,857
Clyde Hill $3.6761 $4,3891 $2.4651 $10,5301 08.0441 $2,4861 $01 $0 $2,486
Unincorporated King County $174,1116) (see total below)) /see total be /owl) $174.816! (see total below) I (see iota! below)! NA I NA (see total below)
N Hunts Point $3621 $677) $2251 51.2881 $2301 $1.0591 $01 00
N Issaquah 542,6831 $58,1811
520.0131 $120,8761 $64,5091 $1.059
Mercer Island I •$56,3681 $01 $0 $56.368
$26,8271 $37.5301
517,1421
581,4981 055,1131 526.3851 $01 $0 $26.385
North Bend $10,4401 $14,4631 $4,024) 528,9351 $14,3471 $14,5941 53.5651
Snoqualmie I $0 $11,029
512.9501 $20,8321
56.9011 $40,6831 $23,6671 $17,0151 $01
Yarrow Pt $1,1021 $7,405) 58191 $3,3271 $2 -$46 $0
$0 $17,015 SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES-IN 220 (excludes unincorporated areal .$763,5671 $0 5 988
249, 8341,; $37.1 ^',$142;5231•' t '.;.'$444,11141 :`'j,„' ;;:$319;553 :•1`,;:1 ;$60,00g1'. 7,.$25
1 '$3,5651" r}:: ,7
BUnen (Includes North Highllne Area X Annexation; $85,6751 $161,1311 535,8451 $282,652] $119,2511 $163,4000 534,6341 $0 I $126.767
N o Unincorporated King County $01.2571 (see total below) I (see total below) I $81,2571 /sea total below) l (see total below) l NA I NA I (see total below)
Kent (Includes Panther Lake Annexation) 5169,5161 5643,9021 $84,166) $897.5841 $255.3651 $642,2191 $317.6261 $60.000 I $264.59,
SeaTac $50,1711 $105,1481 518,8471 5174,1661 553.0651 $121.1011 519.2721 $10,000 I 591.8291
Tukwila
538.0311 $70,2081 $12.0001 $128,2391 $30,3481 $97.6921 $13
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 240 (excludes unfndorporated area) e$343,383i `i; $10,000 I -$74,2821
988; 3901 l..$1 so',asii.?%::' ::$1: 4 82,64 "11,`° "S$458;0281:W1::':3%.^ $1,024;6121.�z4..,,,',,:.: 3 85, 14 31` x .:?,;$80,000.1,:,,- $559,4691
Algona $10,149) $16.067, $2.418) $28,651, $17,4151 $17,2371 57,7461 $01
$01
$9 .491
Auburn $135,9801 $318,537i $45,0521 $4995691 $158,4151 $341.1541 $170,665) 4170.469
Black Diamond $70,7601 $17.3831 $3.4831
ca
Covington 31 026 1 813,0711 $17,9541 $3,1311 $0 1 $14,824
co $49,0611 $63.5671 $15,7421
5128.3711
560.5341
567.8361 513.1301 $0 1 $54.706
N Enumclaw $30,2921
$53,472) $8.5411
592.3041 $22,4641 -$69,8401 $32.1611 $10.000 I $27,679
Unincorporated King County $126.2541 !see total below) (see total below)! $126,2541 (see total below) 1 (see total below) i NA NA' (see total below)
Maple Valley TOTA $45,6221 563.7541 $17,0561 $126,432! $62.2931 •$64.7391 $15,6091 $0 I $48.530
Pacific $17,1361
533,1651 $4.662) $54.9821 $18,9201 $36,0621 $17,4001 $0 $18.662
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 260 (excludes unincorporated area):',;' l 298; 3961 5 $565,9661 $96 ,9741 .':$967;335 %8347,1121 ;':g '''al 6
L FOR 6177 S 'e :..a r• 8621'1 ":crs
E `t; n199,341 I S I >.5629;314I' 2 :18 ,.,,r,,... y 4r
S 14;22 52 59, 0,000
$4;128;181 p ::$1. I 344;36 2
I'« z 117�i=''::'_ 946,06
(Total Kirf 'o'Coilniv'Unincoroohated.: Area' A /ldcatiol' fin))$ 492'S$IV ''k?••$705.3Y4 ?;';]5269 0861••' -i' ,4i471 ;7'191;,+ n;'si;U293521 "■VON
Source: KC Of of Management and Budget and Animal Caro and Control
Oats: Apn17,2010
r" $444i36Y•
King County Transitional Costs
IT Costs Associated with Mainframe Systems I $170,000
Potential Lease Costs for 2011 I $150,000
Transition Funding for Cities I $650,000
Transitional Licensing Support for Cities I $100,000
Notes: +r, w -n, af;1C1, ars:o
r'.:ar.4 ;�"or'"z:isNk ��c�w"� r1�fr?��I ��,�1 >��an¢ r�
1. Estimated allocations are based 50% on population and 50% on use. Populations, usage, and revenues have been adjusted to Include annexations with 2010 effective dates of July 1, 2010 or earlier (i.e., Burien, Panther Lake), Usage estimated as follows. total, calls for control, total Intake for
sheltering, and total active licenses for licensing. Assumes the following cities do not participate: Federal Way, Seattle, Renton, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Medina, Newcastle, Skykomish, and Milton.
2. One quarter of control costs are allocated to each district, then costs are further allocated 50% by total call volume (averaged from 2007 -2009) and 50% by 2009 population.
3. Sheller costs are allocated 50% by King County shelter volume Intake (averaged for 2008 -2009) and 50% by 2009 population, Values for north cities anticipating using PAWS for sheltering include only the 50% population allocation. North city costs to send animals formerly sent to King County
shelters to PAWS are estimated at the following assuming a cost of $150 per animal: Bothell, $13,050; Kenmore, $7,575, Lake Forest Park, $3,150; Shoreline, $22,575; Woodinville, $6,600. The reducution In population- related costs for the north cities is distributed to all other jurisdictions based on
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 cities with certain per capita net cost allocations as indicated below. Licensing support Is allocated to the five cities with the lowest per capita licensing revenue.
$250,005 is allocated to cities with net costs exceeding $3,00 per capita
$409,000 is allocated to cities with net costs exceeding $5.50 per capita
w
horeline
1-1.r
Kirklan&'
Seattle Redmond
4W
King County
/Builem
;Tlikv■iile:
I Norrnan'dy t
)SeaTac'z J
I/
Population: 250,000
Populated Area: 100 sq.mi.
Total Calls: 3,500
Priority Calls: 900
Des
I/ Moines
ril Federal Aubur
Way
A:14 ti
adfiC
Urban Growth Boundary
Forest 1 B Wo101inville
LID
r i.: 4, i..:
Ken mOrp=
4 .n,
'vaiq
R4dtpsd
Medina
Bellevue
-.island
ssaquJ
;AI
'Sammarclish--:„
nq&lne
PA9d t 's.
2?"'i..S.OcK;
47;7:5 P
Black;
Diarriogitl
Population: 385,000**
Populated Area: 330 sq.mi.**
Total Calls: 2,600**
Priority Calls: 800"*
cak n
Population: 180,000
Populated Area: 300 sq.mi.
Total Calls: 2,200
Priority Calls: 700
Enurpsky
Joint Cities County
Workgroup on Regional
Animal Services
Control Districts for
Agreement in Principle
Call volumes estimated based
on 2007 2009 averages
Document dated April 7, 2010
Prepared by King County
"Regional Animal Services of King County"
Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System
Public Health and Safety
Provides the ability to identify and track rabies and other public health issues
related to animals on a regional basis. Reduces public health threats through
routine vaccination of animals.
Provides capacity to handle unusual and multi jurisdictional events involving
animals that often require specialized staff such as: horse cruelty, animal
hoarding, loose livestock, dog- fighting and cock fighting groups, puppy mills,
illegal reptile vendor operations, animal necropsies and quarantine, holding of
animals as evidence in criminal cases, and retrieval of dead animals.
Animal Welfare
Reduces pressure on non -profit shelters by maintaining capacity at regional
public shelters. Non profit animal welfare organizations contribute significantly
through their own capacity and by accepting transfer of public sheltered
animals for care and adoption, thereby reducing costs at public shelters.
Provides for participation of a large corps of volunteers and foster homes.
Provides capacity for regional response to animal cruelty cases.
Provides regional preparedness planning and coordination during
emergencies and disasters.
Provides additional regional capacity for seasonal events such as "kitten
season
Avoids competition across jurisdictions for sheltering space and comparisons
across jurisdictions on outcome statistics.
Customer Service
Provides a single access point for residents searching for a lost pet or seeking
help from animal control. Provides one single point of contact for citizen
complaints.
Maintains a uniform pet licensing program that is simpler for the public to
access and understand, with a broad range of services to encourage licensing:
marketing, partnering with third parties on points of sale for licenses,
canvassing, database management, and the ability to return animals to
owners in the field.
Effective and Efficient Provision of Services
Provides a low -cost spay and neuter program that serves the entire region,
and is the key to reducing the population of homeless animals and reducing
the costs of the system over time.
Reduces the demand on individual jurisdictions to respond to communications
from the media, advocacy groups and other interested parties.
Builds economies of scale to provide a full range of services, making it less
expensive to develop operations, training, licensing, and care programs than it
would be for cities to duplicate services at the local level.
Use of volunteers and partnerships with private animal welfare organizations
provide our region with the ability to promote the most humane treatment with
limited public resource.
Provides a consistent level of service, humane animal care, and regulatory
approach countywide.
Allows local police agencies to focus on traditional law enforcement.
Document dated April 7, 2010
Prepared by King County
"Regional Animal Services of King County"
Frequently Asked Questions
Prepared for City Managers /Administrators Meeting April 7, 2010
What animal services does King County currently provide?
The goal of animal services is to protect public health and safety and provide
humane care for animals. Animal services include three primary components:
animal control, animal sheltering, and pet licensing.
King County Animal Care and Control (KCACC) has been in operation for over
38 years. KCACC currently operates two shelter locations within King County: a
main shelter in Kent and a smaller shelter in the Crossroads area of Bellevue.
KCACC has sheltered between 9,000 and 12,000 homeless animals per year in
recent years. The program provides shelter for animals who are surrendered by
owners, dropped off as strays, impounded for behavioral or other reasons, or
deemed evidence in law enforcement investigations. KCACC dispatches animal
control officers to respond to calls about dangerous, stray, dead or injured
animals. King County sells and markets pet licenses as a means to both
increase efficiency of shelter and control operations and generate revenue to
support the system.
Who receives the service from the County now?
Currently, KCACC provides services to all residents in the unincorporated area of
the County and contracts with 35 other cities within the County (excluding
Seattle, Renton, Skykomish and Milton). KCACC provides limited contract
services to Des Moines, Newcastle and Normandy Park. Five cities purchase an
enhanced level of control service from the County (Auburn, Shoreline, Kirkland,
SeaTac, Tukwila).
What is the benefit of a regional system?
A regional system provides for better public health, safety, animal welfare and
customer service outcomes in a more cost efficient and effective manner. These
benefits accrue through significant economies of scale and, in the new regional
model, properly aligned financial incentives that support desired programmatic
outcomes and help to contain costs over time.
For cities, a regional system allows local police agencies to focus on traditional
law enforcement matters and shifts the burden of a complex and unique service
to the County and specially trained animal services staff.
For the public, a regional system is simpler to understand and to use. There is
one place to call to renew or acquire a pet license. There is one place to call to
find a lost pet. The public health system has a better ability to identify and track
issues related to animals, such as rabies.
Document dated April 7, 2010 1
Prepared by King County
For animals, a regional system provides for humane standards of care and the
capacity to address a broad array of unusual events involving animals including
horse cruelty, animal hoarding, loose livestock, dog fighting and cock fighting
rings, illegal reptile vendor operations, animal quarantines, and holding of
animals as evidence in criminal cases. A regional system also provides for
routine vaccination of animals and low -cost, high volume spay /neuter operations
to reduce the population of homeless and unwanted animals.
How is the proposed regional service model different from what King
County is currently doing?
(1) Control operations will be organized by district to improve accountability.
a. Animal control officers will be dedicated to one of four specific
geographic districts. Coverage will be more consistent and predictable
and cities will be able to build a relationship with their district's
dedicated officers.
b. The base level of field services will be provided 5 -days per week rather
than 7 -days per week in order to contain costs. Cities may contract
with the County for a higher level of service.
(2) New sheltering arrangements will help ensure humane standards of care for
animals within current capacity and resource constraints.
a. Northern cities will contract with PAWS, a private nonprofit shelter in
Lynnwood, for shelter capacity.
b. At the County's Kent shelter, new policies and practices will be put in
place to ensure that animals can be humanely cared for within limited
available resources. Expanded use of volunteers and the foster
network will support this effort.
c. The number of adoptions from the Kent shelter will be maximized by
seeking transfer and other arrangements with private animal welfare
partners.
d. The Crossroads shelter will be closed to save costs and focus
resources.
(3) Incentives will be aligned across the system to encourage desired behavior
and ultimately bring down costs.
a. While the current licensing structure will remain in place, cities will be
incentivized to increase licensing rates in order to offset their costs.
Higher licensing rates have the added benefit of improving the
efficiency of control and shelter services.
b. Costs will be allocated partially based on use in order to encourage
less use of the system and collaborative efforts to decrease the
number of homeless pets.
c. Residents will be provided with resources (such as education to
change pet behavior) and incentives (such as fees for owners who
surrender pets) to encourage cost effective solutions that do not
burden the system.
Document dated April 7, 2010 2
Prepared by King County
How do the County's costs compare to other shelters?
King County's average sheltering cost per animal is comparable to or lower than
that of other public and nonprofit shelters. Many factors impact the cost -per-
animal sheltered, such as the average length of time an animal stays at the
shelter and the severity of animals' medical conditions. Some private nonprofit
shelters have as part of their mission the care of animals with more severe
medical or behavioral conditions which equates to a higher cost per animal.
Many private nonprofit shelters seek private donations to help pay for their
operations.
Another cost comparison is per capita spending on animal services programs
(combined cost of both public animal care and control programs and large private
shelters). The national average is around $7 per capita. King County is closer to
$5 per capita. Well respected programs, such as Boulder Valley, San Francisco
and Multnomah County, spend closer to $18 per capita.
Why doesn't a higher euthanasia rate solve the cost problem?
In recent years, the County has worked to reduce the euthanasia rate, which now
stands at around 20 percent. Many of the gains in lowering the euthanasia rate
have been achieved at minimal cost. The County has increased the volunteer
program, more effectively utilized the foster program, and partnered with more
private animal welfare organizations. This has enabled more animals to leave
the shelter alive, with limited public resources.
The best way to lower the cost of animal services is to tackle the problem of
unwanted pets through a coordinated regional spay /neuter program that
decreases the homeless animal population. An effectively -run shelter helps to
tackle this problem through spay /neuter of all animals.
Why can't King County close its shelter and have other shelters fill the
gap?
Without King County's shelter there just isn't enough capacity in the system to
care for the number of animals in the system. King County takes in two to three
times the number of animals sheltered by other shelter organizations in the
region. Closing the Kent shelter would put an intolerable strain on the private
shelters, impeding their ability to do the good work they are doing, and lead to
significant threats to public health and safety.
Why is the Work Group proposing a 5 -day per week level of animal control
service, rather than the current 7 -day per week level? What does this mean
for cities?
The reduction in base control services reflects the Work Group's proposal to
reduce base -level costs. Cities will have the option of purchasing enhanced field
services which could be organized to provide 7 -day per week service. King
County will continue to provide for off -hour response to critical or emergency
animal control matters that necessitate immediate action for protection of public
Document dated April 7, 2010 3
Prepared by King County
safety or the protection of the life of the animal. Non emergency calls will receive
a response on the next working day.
How were the service district boundaries determined?
The district boundaries take into account a rough balance of the volume of calls
in each area, jurisdictional boundaries, and reasonably efficient transportation
routes within each district. Boundaries may be adjusted depending on the cities
participating in the new regional model.
Would privatizing licensing save money?
Private licensing vendors exist that would cost less on a per license basis than
King County. However, these vendors typically do not provide the local
marketing services King County provides that are critical to maintaining and
increasing licensing rates that generate revenue to support the system. There
may also be complications associated with using a private licensing vendor when
it comes to sharing data with on- the ground field officers and responding to
resident inquiries. Once marketing and other coordination related costs are
included, it appears that costs between King County and private licensing
vendors are roughly comparable.
The proposal calls for a collaborative exploration of ways to reduce costs and
improve services, including through exploration of alternative licensing systems.
Why can't the system be self- sufficient from license fees?
Pet licensing revenue from fees and related fines currently cover about 60
percent of the proposed regional service model. Research on other jurisdictions'
operations shows that it is virtually unheard of for a program to fully cover its
costs from licensing or other program- specific revenues. For example, the
director of the well- respected Multnomah County program estimates that license
revenue covers only about 30 percent of program costs.
Today about 20 percent of pet owners countywide license their pets, with rates in
individual cities estimated to range from a low of roughly 5 percent to a high of 40
percent. The new regional model provides opportunities to maintain and
increase licensing revenue through the County and cities working together.
Increased licensing will mean significant revenue credited back to cities toward
their cost of receiving services.
Targeted licensing efforts in some King County cities have recently shown a
significant ability to increase licensing. Focused, short-term canvassing and
telephone efforts in 2009 were conducted in Kirkland, Shoreline and Lake Forest
Park. These contributed to a net increase of 3,501 licenses issued.
How much will my city have to pay?
A table showing estimated costs by city, assuming all currently contracting cities
other than Federal Way participate, is attached. The estimated cost allocations
Document dated April 7, 2010 4
Prepared by King County
are based on a combination of usage and population, based on historic usage.
The terms of the Agreement in Principle also provide for a reconciliation of costs
based on actual usage.
There are two critical factors that will affect the financial impact on cities: (1) the
more cities that participate, the lower the cost will be for everyone, and (2) the
higher a city's pet licensing rate and revenue, the lower will be that city's net cost.
For those cities with the highest costs per capita or the lowest licensing revenue
per capita, the County is proposing to provide transitional funding and enhanced
licensing revenue support.
A two -step process is proposed to confirm interest in system participation and
cost prior to signing new service agreements. Once cities have indicated their
interest in participating in a regional model by April 30 King County will revise
the cost estimates and report back to cities.
Why are costs allocated based on both use and population?
The cost allocation formula is intended to (a) provide incentives to minimize use
of the system and decrease the homeless pet population (use component) and
(b) recognize that the system benefits everyone and that animals don't respect
jurisdictional boundaries (population component). Additionally, the cost
allocation was designed to balance burdens across jurisdictions in hopes of
maximizing participation and preserving a regional system.
Why is it proposed that cities be required to purchase all services?
The Work Group concluded that to maximize system efficiency, a "menu"
approach to purchasing services is not practicable, at least not in the short-term.
For example, to be able to effectively track animals and pet owners in the
system, a single licensing system is most efficient. Field officers can spend more
time responding to calls if they are not required to deliver animals to multiple
shelters in one geographic area. Shelters have less paperwork and data
challenges if they are dealing with fewer field operations and a single licensing
system.
What is the benefit of contracting for 2.5 years?
First, a longer -term contract provides some stability to a system that will improve
outcomes for both residents and animals.
Second, a 2.5 year period will give participating parties enough time to work on
initiatives that improve outcomes, efficiency, and may ultimately bring down the
cost of the program. Initiatives identified by the Work Group for further
exploration include:
Updating animal codes to increase licensing and other revenues;
Taking actions to begin reducing the homeless animal population, such as
spay /neuter efforts;
Document dated April 7, 2010 5
Prepared by King County
Working collaboratively to identify ways to improve efficiencies and control
policies;
Considering other service options, such as working with partners to
provide some portion of licensing services; and
Reviewing options for repair /replacement of the Kent shelter.
Third, cities who qualify for County transition funding and support are only eligible
to receive that support if they elect to contract for the full 2.5 years.
Document dated April 7, 2010 6
Prepared by King County
Joint Cities County Work Group on Regional Animal Services
Proposed Timeline for Confirming and Adopting New
Interlocal Agreements
Date I Item
March 31 Agreement in Principle
April 7 Review Agreement in Principle with City Managers and City
Administrators large city staff work group
April 15 Updated agreement in principle circulated (if necessary based on input at
April 7 meetings)
End of Circulate draft form of contract based on Agreement in Principle to all
April cities (comments due May 7)
April 30 Initial statements of interest in contracting from cities, County
(including statement of whether city wishes to contract only for the first 6
months).
May 3 Adjusted costs circulated to all parties based on April 30 indications
of interest. If parties declining to participate result in an estimated 10%
or greater increase in total costs to be allocated as compared to the April 7
estimated cost allocation, request second statement of statement of
intent from cities and County.
May 14 Final draft contract circulated excluding final cost allocations
(comments due May 21)
May 19 Second statement of intent, with any applicable upward limits each party
agrees to bear.
May 21 I Results of 2nd statement of intent circulated to all parties
I May 24 -27 I Parties confer and determine whether /how to proceed
June 3 I Final form of contract circulated for action.
Mid -late All participating jurisdictions act by approximately mid -June in order for
June agreement to become effective July 1.
Document dated April 7, 2010
Prepared by King County
Cost Considerations for Animal Care, Control, and Licensing
Operations in a Sub Regional Model
Control Operations
Ambulance and Hospital Costs King County often employs ambulance service and
emergency hospital services to transport and care for badly injured animals (car
accidents, cruelty cases). While variable and difficult to estimate, these costs can be
significant.
Animal Cab Repair /Refurbishment/Replacement Resources and Time The animal
cabs used to transport animals represents a significant up front cost. In addition, these
cabs are subject to significant wear and tear and require regular refurbishment, repair, or
replacement. Because of the type of wear and repair experienced, the
repair /refurbishment /replacement schedule may be significantly different than for the
vehicles in general. In addition, refurbishment of the cabs can take them out of
commission for four to six months.
Sick. Vacation. Training. Injury Coverage If the operation will be a 7 day operation (2
people, 1 vehicle), consideration should be given to coverage when an ACO is sick, on
vacation, or in training. Having the other ACO cover could result in significant overtime.
In addition, ACOs sometimes experience job injuries, which also present a coverage
issue.
Animal Cruelty and Other Cases King County pursues various animal cruelty and
other animal related cases as they arise, employing the cruelty ACO and other ACOs.
The amount of ACO time required in cases varies by case. In addition, such cases also
involve PAO resources.
Vehicle Backup Availability King County has a fleet of vehicles that can be employed
in the field, allowing officers to still do their jobs even when a vehicle is in the shop for
minor repairs /maintenance or more major repairs.
Contact and Dispatch King County has a single point of contact for animal calls, which
then dispatches or routes calls as appropriate. This provides a customer friendly service.
In addition, the sheriff provides complimentary dispatch service during off hours,
however, this dispatch does represent a body of work and a potential program cost.
Control Overtime ACOs sometimes receive priority calls late in the day, resulting in
overtime work. This body of work can result in significant overtime costs over the
course of a year.
Specialized Equipment and Vehicle Operating Costs ACOs require a variety of
specialty equipment. A typical list of such equipment is provided at the end of this
document; total costs for the equipment, including several uniforms, totals approximately
$10,000. These must be purchased up front, and must also be replaced from time to time.
ACO vehicles also typically cover a significant amount of miles, resulting in significant
maintenance /repair /replacement costs and fuel expenditures.
Computer System and Records Animal control operations (and any billing associated
with a sub regional model) will require the collection, maintenance, and analysis of
control data. This typically requires the implementation of a specialized computer
program on system servers and field computers, data entry and maintenance, and
maintenance and storage of paper files and /or electronic files on servers. The most
1
Shelterine
efficient operation would involve interfacing the control, shelter, and licensing system
data; however, this will require initial interfacing work as well as ongoing resources to
provide system support and maintenance and to ensure data integrity and security.
General Sheltering Services:
o Typical Vet Services Shelters typically provide various types of vet services in
addition to basic animal sheltering, which result in additional costs. Typical
vet/vet tech services include spay /neuter surgeries, vaccinations, surgeries, and
other minor medical care. Vets at King County shelters also conduct owner
requested end of life euthanasia. If such services are not provided as part of
sheltering, contract vet services will be required, which can be very costly.
o Crueltv /Neglect Cases Response to potential cruelty /neglect cases represent
another area of sheltering costs. In potential cruelty /neglect cases, the animals
involved are often very sick and emaciated. Their condition and health often
require considerable medical attention, premium food and supplements, and
greater day -to- day /hour -to -hour care by trained caregivers. These costs can be
significant even for a single animal, and cruelty cases often involve multiple
animals. Pursuit of cruelty and other cases also requires the performance of
necropsies and analysis of samples by external laboratories. As noted above, if
such services are not provided by sheltering arrangements, such contract services
can be costly.
o Other Shelter Services In addition to providing for sheltering of animals on
stray hold and awaiting adoption, a sheltering solution should address the need to
hold animals associated with domestic violence and cruelty cases for long periods.
o After -Hours Disposition Animals must sometimes be confiscated or picked up
by animal control after normal shelter operating hours. For after -hours calls, King
County shelters have an outdoor cage that can be used to hold animals until the
next day.
Stabling In potential cruelty cases involving large animals (horses, goats, llamas, cows,
etc.), stabling must be provided to the animals until conclusion of the case.
Free /Reduced Price Spay/Neuter Free /reduced price spay /neuter services can help
reduce animal control and sheltering costs, but they also require up front resources.
Computer System and Records Animal sheltering operations (and any billing
associated with a sub regional model) requires the collection, maintenance, and analysis
of sheltering data. As noted above, this typically requires the implementation of a
specialized computer program on system servers and computers, data entry and
maintenance, and maintenance and storage of paper files and /or electronic files on
servers. The most efficient operation would involve interfacing the control, shelter, and
licensing system data; however, this will require initial interfacing work as well as
ongoing resources to provide system support and maintenance and to ensure data
integrity and security.
Licensing
(The following discussion assumes the use of Pet Data for licensing services in accordance with
the information provided in the recently secured RFP)
2
Anticipated Revenues A loss of licensing revenue in the first few years of the sub
regional licensing program is likely because of potential confusion surrounding the
switch to Pet Data license provision and the sub regional model in general. In addition,
without a sustained marketing effort (see below), licensing revenue could decline by
10 -20% each year.
License Marketing Strategies Pet Data does not conduct extensive sales and marketing
for limiting the normal attrition of the licensing base, aggressively pursuing renewals, or
increasing sales partnerships as part of their base rate. Significant sales and marketing
programs currently employed by King County include the following:
o Recruitment of new sales partners
o Management and oversight of all sales partners
o Neighborhood sales and marketing of licenses
o Door to door sales and marketing of licenses
o Incentive programs for license sales
o Coordinated enforcement strategies
License Renewal Strategies Pet Data issues one renewal letter and one late notice, but
it does not appear that they have a comprehensive renewal program. King County
currently issues renewal letters, three late notices, and escalating fees to encourage
renewals. In addition, King County staff conduct follow -up telephone calls to both
encourage renewals and to provide information to update the database for people who no
longer have the pet.
Licensing Education Pet Data offers licensing education to the public about licensing.
These efforts consist of a page on Pet Data's website for the contracting cities, a flyer for
vet clinics, and inserts that the cities can put in their mailings to citizens. King County's
education program includes:
o Web site for licensing program
o Inserts into countywide mailings like vehicle tab renewals
o Inserts into pet license mailings
o Flyers distributed to sales partners and door -to -door
o Media promotions
o In- person door -to -door contacts
Due Diligence/Backup Plan As for any contracting service, consideration should be
given to the potential contracting agency financial status, potential employment and legal
issues, other customer city satisfaction, audit results, and backup planning for if the
contractor is unable to continue to provide service at some point or to fulfill all terms of
the contract.
Comparative Services Pet Data also does not support "Fetch Your Pet" activities for
lost animals or Microchip tracking.
Overhead
Risk Insurance Lawsuits can arise either from control or sheltering handling of
animals. Risk insurance to cover such costs are currently absorbed by King County's
general fund, but should be budgeted in a sub regional model.
Systems Overhead Radio, telephone, and computer systems and support result in
overhead costs.
3
Public Disclosure Request Support King County currently receives public disclosure
requests from reporters regarding shelter and control functions and also from individuals
who have had animals move through the system or are inquiring on past control actions.
This work involves administrative time to collect all applicable records and legal time to
ensure that no privileged information is released.
Legal Support Legal support is needed for cruelty and other cases as well as for general
overhead.
Other Overhead A sub regional system would also incur financial costs associated with
billing other cities for use and handling revenues from licensing as well as HR, payroll,
and facilities overhead costs for personnel issues.
Supervision and Management Costs Overhead costs should include resources to
provide the following:
o General oversight for the three functions and manage control operations
o Reporting to the public and responding to data requests from public officials
o Oversight to the animal control officers
o Representation for the sub regional organization/services to policymakers, the
public, etc.
o Program accountability to establish performance measures and track performance
to such measures
4
List of Typical Equipment/Materials Required for Animal Control Officers
Uniform (shirts, pants, shoes, jumpsuit, jacket, hat)
800mhz Hand Held Radio
Tool Belt
Catch Pole Short
Catch Pole Long
Snappy Snare Short
Snappy Snare Long
Cat Tongs
Snake Tongs
Net
Leads (leashes)
Microchip Scanner
Humane Cat Trap
Humane Dog Trap
Cat Carriers
Squeeze Cage
Pepper Spray w/holster
Dangerous Dog Taser
Taser Holster
Taser Cartridges
Asp Baton w/holder
Ultrasonic Dazer
Protective Cat Gloves
Work Gloves
Latex Gloves
Tyvek Suit
Masks
Machete
Multipurpose tool
Folding Knife
Digital Camera w /video capabilities
Cell Phone
Protective Vest
Muzzles
Tranquilizer Gun
Tranquilizer Darts
Flashlight
File Box
Animal Stretcher
First Aid Kit
Miscellaneous (pens, paper, clipboard, etc.)
Euthanasia Kit
5