HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2012-06-11 Item 4C - Interlocal Agreement - 2013-2015 Animal Control Services with King CountyCOUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Meeting Date I Prepared by I Mayors review
06/11/12 PMc
06/18/12 PMc f/
V
ITEM INFORMATION
ISTAFF' SPONSOR: PEGGY MCCARTHY
Canal review
ITEM NO.
4.C.
0RIC3IN,\I Ac F;NDA DA'rI 06/11/12
A(;FNDA Trrl,l: Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance .Bid-4ward Public.Hearing ❑Other
Alt Date 06111112 Mtg Date 06118112 A4tg Dale tlltg Date Mtg Date tl ltd Date -Aft
g Date
SPO NSOR Council Mayor HR DCD .Finance .Fire IT P &R Police PUI
SPONSOR'S Approve the new Animal Services Interlocal Agreement with King County for provision of
SI'`In animal control, sheltering and licensing services for 2013 -2015.
RliVll?Wf?D BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 06/05/2012 COMMITTEE- CHAIR: QUINN
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONS( )lt /ADM1N. Finance Department
CO NINIVI"T'F Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
Exn RI?c?UIRI?D AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$69,705 $0 $69,073
Fund Source: 000.10.539.300.51.00
Comments: The cost for the three -year contract is estimated not to exceed $225,000 or $75,000 per year
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
06/11/12
06/18/12
I MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS
06/11/12 Informational Memorandum dated 05/30/12 (revised after 6/5/12 FS Meeting)
Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
King County /Cities Work Group for Animal Services Interlocal Agreement Briefing
Materials, May 16, 2012
Minutes from the Finance and Safety Committee meeting of 6/5/12
06/18/12
35
36
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Finance and Safety Committee
FROM: Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director
DATE: May 30, 2012
SUBJECT: Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
(Revision on Page 3 following June 5 Finance and Safety Committee)
ISSUE
Approve the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with King County for 2013 through
2015. This excludes the optional Enhanced Control Services Contract contained in Exhibit E of
the ILA and also excludes the optional Licensing Support Contract contained in Exhibit F of the
I LA.
BACKGROUND
Effective July 1, 2010, the City entered into a 2.5 year interlocal agreement with Regional
Animal Services of King County (RASKC) for sheltering, animal control and licensing services.
This agreement will expire on December 31, 2012.
A two -year extension was built into the agreement and was available unless a member of the
system dropped out. In the fall of 2011, the City of Auburn, a high user of services, notified the
County of their intent to depart the system at the end of 2012. As Auburn's departure would
cause unsustainable cost shifts for the remaining cities under the existing agreement structure,
a new agreement was developed. King County and member city representatives began
working in November 2011 to reach agreement in principle on changes to the current Animal
Services ILA. The new ILA is attached to this memorandum drafted and the City has until July
1, 2012 to sign it.
A summary of the components of the new ILA follows:
SERVICES:
Control Services.
Call Center The animal control call center will be operated five days a week for a minimum of
eight hours per day possibly including at least one weekend day (contingent on union
negotiations).
Animal Control Officers (ACOs) The geographical area receiving control services has been
divided into three control districts (see Exhibit B -1 of the ILA for the Control District Map).
Control district 500, comprising the cities of Tukwila, Kent, SeaTac, Maple Valley, Enumclaw,
Black Diamond and Covington, will be staffed by two ACOs; control district 200 and 220 will
each be staffed with one ACO. Countywide, a total of not less than 6 ACOs will be available
daily to maximize response to high workload areas.
The County will use its best efforts to ensure that high priority calls are responded to by an ACO
during regular ACO service hours on the day the call is received. High priority calls include
those calls that pose an emergent danger to the community, including:
1. Emergent animal bite
2. Emergent vicious dog
37
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
3. Emergent injured animal
4. Police assist calls (police officer on scene requesting assistance from an ACO)
5. Emergent loose livestock or other loose or deceased animal that poses a potential
danger to the community and
6. Emergent animal cruelty.
In addition to the ACOs serving specific districts, the following resources will be available on a
shared basis for all parties.
1. An animal control sergeant will provide oversight of and backup for ACOs five days per
week at least 8 hours day.
2. Staff will be available to perform animal cruelty investigations, to respond to animal
cruelty cases, and to prepare related reports.
3. Not less than 1 ACO will be on call every day during non regular ACO service hours to
respond to high priority calls posing an extreme life and safety danger.
Shelter Services
Shelter services will be provided 7 -days per week, 365 days per year at the County's animal
shelter in Kent or other shelter locations utilized by the County. Page 21 of the ILA provides a
complete list of the shelter services.
Licensinq Services Licensing services will include the operation and maintenance of a
unified system to license pets in contracting cities. Page 23 of the ILA lists the licensing
services.
COST PAYMENT FOR SERVICES:
The pre commitment estimated 2013 payment for services for the City of Tukwila is $69,705,
comprised of the following components:
Estimated cost allocations:
animal control
49,635
sheltering
110,787
licensing
9,229
Total Estimated Cost Allocation
169,651
Estimated licensing revenue
32,705
Estimated Net Cost Allocation
136,946
King County 2013 -2015 Funding
Transition
5,255
Sheltercredits
61,987
Total King County 2013 -2015 Funding
67,242
ESTIMATIDEINALCOST
69,705
The County will calculate a preliminary estimated payment amount on or before August 1, 2012
to include the County and all cities that have executed the ILA; however, the amount shall not
exceed 5% of the pre- commitment estimated payment or $3,500. The maximum increase in
2014 and 2015 payments will be limited to the rate of inflation (defined on page 28 of the ILA)
plus the rate of population growth for the preceding year for the County.
OPTIONAL CONTRACTS:
Optional contracts for Enhanced Control Services and Licensing Support are contained in
Exhibit E and F respectively. Based on feedback from City staff including the Police
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
Department and the City Clerk regarding their observations and citizen comments received on
animal control services, and considering the additional cost, the staff does not recommend
contracting for the enhanced control services at this time. The Citv does not have enhanced
services under the existina contract. The Licensing Support contract requires a commitment of
city staff time. The staffing would come from the City Clerk staff and it is determined that
insufficient staffing resources exist to commit to the number of hours required in the Licensing
Support contract. Therefore, staff does not recommend contracting for the optional Licensing
Support services.
DISCUSSION
The new ILA maintains or increases the level of service currently provided under the existing
agreement and at a reduced cost to the City. The estimated payment amount for 2013 of
$69,705 under the new agreement is $20,628 less than the 2011 actual animal services charge
of $90,333 and $40,295 less than the $110,000 cost budgeted for 2012.
In addition, the regional system provides many benefits including:
Consistent level of service.
Uniform regional licensing system.
Economies of scale for marketing /licensing, field services and shelter operations.
Pet adoption shelter open to public 7 days a week.
The County has reduced costs and has enhanced revenue generating efforts including
rebranding and promoting a licensing campaign. The County has been responsive to the
concerns and requests of member cities and invites member cities to work with them on refining
service protocols.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The 2013 cost of animal services is estimated at $69,705, which is $20,628 less than the actual
2011 animal services costs and $40,295 less than the $110,000 budget for 2012. The cost for
the three year agreement is estimated not to exceed $225,000.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to approve the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement and consider
this item at the June 11, 2012 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent June 18, 2012
Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
King County /Cities Work Group for Animal Services Interlocal Agreement Briefing
Materials, May 16, 2012
39
.m
Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Throueh 2015
This AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective as of this 1s' day of July, 2012, 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 access for the
public; and
WHEREAS, the Contracting Cities are partners in making regional animal services work
effectively, and are customers of the Animal Services Program provided by the County;
and
WHEREAS, in light of the joint interest among the Contracting Parties in continuing to
develop a sustainable program for regional animal services, including achievement of
sustainable funding resources, the County intends to include cities in the process of
identifying and recommending actions to generate additional revenues through the Joint
City- County Committee, and further intends to convene a group of elected officials with a
representative from each Contracting City to discuss and make recommendations on any
potential countywide revenue initiative for animal services requiring voter approval, the
implementation of which would be intended to coincide with the end of the term of this
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, by executing this Agreement, the City is not implicitly agreeing to or
supportive of any potential voter approved levy initiative in support of animal services;
and
WHEREAS, the City and the County are parties to an Animal Services Interlocal
Agreement dated July 1, 2010, which will terminate on December 31, 2012 (the "2010
Agreement and
WHEREAS, the City and County have negotiated a successor agreement to the 2010
Agreement in order to extend delivery of Animal Services to the City for an additional
three years beginning January 1, 2013; and
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
41
WHEREAS, certain notification and other commitments under this successor Agreement
arise before January 2013, but the delivery of Animal Services under this Agreement will
not commence until January 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter the provision of service or
manner and timing of compensation and reconciliation specified in the 2010 Agreement
for services provided in 2012; 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 cities in King County listed in Exhibit C -1 to this Agreement, and has received a non-
binding statement of intent to sign such agreement from those cities;
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 for 2013
Through 2015 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 County and other Contracting Cities.
b. "Animal Services" means Control Services, Shelter Services and Licensing
Services combined, as these services are described in Exhibit A. Collectively,
"Animal Services" are sometimes referred to herein as the "Program."
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 Agreement.
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
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
2
42
formulas set forth in Exhibit C. The Estimated Payment calculation may
result in a credit to the City payable by the County.
h. "Pre- Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment" means the preliminary
estimate of the amount that will be owed by (or payable to) each Contracting
Party for payment June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013 as shown on Exhibit
C -1.
i. "Preliminary Estimated 2013 Payment" means the amount estimated by the
County on or before August 1, 2012 per Section 5, to be owed by each
Contracting Party on June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013 based on the
number of Contracting Cities with respect to which the Agreement goes into
effect per Section 15. This estimate will also provide the basis for
determining whether the Agreement meets the "2013 Payment Test" in
Section 15.
j. The "Final Estimated 2013 Payment" means the amount owed by each
Contracting Party on June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013, notice of which
shall be given to the City by the County no later than December 15, 2012.
k. "Control District" means one of the three geographic areas delineated in
Exhibit B for the provision of Animal Control Services.
1. "Reconciliation Adjustment Amount" means the amount payable each
August 15 by either the City or County as determined per the reconciliation
process described in Exhibit D. "Reconciliation" is the process by which
the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount is determined.
m. "Service Year" means the calendar year in which Animal Services are or
were provided.
n. "2010 Agreement" means the Animal Services Agreement between the
Parties effective July 1, 2010, and terminating at midnight on December 31,
2012.
o. "New Regional Revenue" means revenue received by the County
specifically for support of Animal Services generated from regional
marketing campaigns (excluding local licensing canvassing efforts by
Contracting Cities or per Section 7), and new foundation, grant, donation
and entrepreneurial activities, except where revenues from these sources are
designated for specific purposes within the Animal Services program;
provided that New Regional Revenue does not include Licensing Revenue,
Non Licensing Revenue or Designated Donations, as defined in Exhibit C.
The manner of estimating and allocating New Regional Revenue is
prescribed in Exhibit C -4 and Exhibit D.
p. "Latecomer City "means a city receiving animal services under an agreement
with the County executed after July 1, 2012, per the conditions of Section 4.a.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
43
2. Services Provided. Beginning January 1, 2013, 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
will engage in good faith with the Joint City County Committee to develop
potential adjustments to field protocols; provided that, the County shall have sole
discretion as to the staffing assigned to receive and dispatch calls and the manner of
handling and responding to calls for Animal Service. Except as set forth in Section
9 (Indemnification and Hold Harmless), services to be provided by the County
pursuant to this Agreement do not include services of legal counsel, 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. Enhanced
Services will be provided subject to the terms and conditions described in
Exhibit E, including but not limited to a determination by the County that it
has the capacity to provide such services.
3. Citv_ Obliizations.
a. Animal ReQulatory Codes Adopted. To the extent it has not already done so,
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 Citv. Beginning January 1, 2013, 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 violations of any City ordinances.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
4
c. Cooperation and LicensinLy Suvnort. 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
mechanisms such as 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 to the County accurate and timely records
regarding all pet license sales processed by the City. 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. Except as otherwise specified in Section 15, this Agreement will take effect as
of July 1, 2012 and, unless extended pursuant to Subparagraph 4.b below, shall
remain in effect through December 31, 2015. The Agreement may not be terminated
for convenience.
a. Latecomers. The County may sign an agreement with additional cities for
provision of animal services prior to the termination or expiration of this
Agreement, but only if the later agreement will not cause an increase in the
City's costs payable to the County under this Agreement. Cities that are
party to such agreements are referred to herein as "Latecomer Cities."
b. Extension of Term. The Parties may agree to extend the Agreement for an
additional two -year term, ending on December 31, 2017. For purposes of
determining whether the Agreement shall be extended, the County will
invite all Contracting Cities to meet in September 2014, to discuss both: (1) a
possible extension of the Agreement under the same terms and conditions;
and (2) a possible extension with amended terms.
i. Either Party may propose amendments to the Agreement as a
condition of an extension.
ii. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to compel either Party
to agree to an extension or amendment of the Agreement, either on
the same or different terms.
iii. The County agrees to give serious consideration to maintaining the
various credits provided to the Contracting City under this
Agreement in any extension of the Agreement.
c. Notice of Intent to Not Extend. No later than March 1, 2015, the Parties shall
provide written notice to one another of whether they wish to extend this
Agreement on the same or amended terms. The County will include a
written reminder of this March 1 deadline when providing the City notice of.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
45
its 2015 Estimated Payments (notice due December 15, 2014 per Section 5).
By April 5, 2015, the County will provide all Contracting Cities with a list of
all Contracting Parties submitting such notices indicating which Parties do
not seek an extension, which Parties request an extension under the same
terms, and which Parties request an extension under amended terms.
d. Timeline for Extension. If the Contracting Parties wish to extend their
respective Agreements (whether under the same or amended terms) through
December 31, 2017, they shall do so in writing no later than July 1, 2015.
Absent such an agreed extension, the Agreement shall terminate on
December 31, 2015.
e. Limited Reonener and Termination. If a countwide, voter approved
property tax levy for funding some or all of the Animal Services program is
proposed that would impose new tax obligations before January 1, 2016, this
Agreement shall be re- opened for the limited purposes of negotiating
potential changes to the cost and revenue allocation formulas herein. Such
changes may be made in order to reasonably ensure that the Contracting
Cities are receiving equitable benefits from the proposed new levy revenues.
Re- opener negotiations shall be initiated by the County no later than 60 days
before the date of formal transmittal of such proposal to the County Council
for its consideration. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the
contrary, if the re- opener negotiations have failed to result in mutually
agreed upon changes to the cost and revenue allocation formulas (as
reflected in either an executed amendment to this Agreement or a
memorandum of understanding signed between the chief executive officers
of the Parties) within 10 days of the date that the election results confirming
approval of such proposal are certified, either Party may terminate this
Agreement by providing notice to the other Party no sooner than the date the
election results are certified and no later than 15 days following the end of
such 10 -day period. Any termination notice so issued will become effective
180 days following the date of the successful election, or the date on which
the levy is first imposed, whichever is sooner.
f. The 2010 Agreement remains in effect through December 31, 2012. Nothing
in this Agreement shall limit or amend the obligation of the County to
provide Animal Services under the 2010 Agreement as provided therein and
nothing in this Agreement shall amend the obligations therein with respect
to the calculation, timing, and reconciliation of payment of such services.
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
payment information to the City according to the schedule described below. The
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
on
M
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 follows (a list
of all payment related notices and dates is included at Exhibit C -7):
a. Service Year 2013: The County will provide the City with a calculation of the
Preliminary Estimated Payment amounts for Service Year 2013 on or before
August 1, 2012, which shall be derived from the Pre Commitment Estimated
2013 Payment Amount set forth on Exhibit C -1, adjusted if necessary based
on the Contracting Cities and other updates to Calendar Year 2011 data in
Exhibit C -2. The County will provide the City with the Final Estimated
Payment calculation for Service Year 2013 by December 15, 2012. The City
will pay the County the Preliminary Estimated Payment Amounts for
Service Year 2013 on or before June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013. If the
calculation of the Preliminary Estimated Payment shows the City is entitled
to receive a payment from the County, the County will pay the City such
amount on or before June 15, 2013 and December 15, 2013. The
Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for Service Year 2013 shall be paid on or
before August 15, 2014, as described in Section 6.
b. Service Years after 2013.
i. Initial Estimate by September 1. To assist the City with its budgeting
process, the County will provide the City with a non binding,
preliminary indication of the Estimated Payments for the upcoming
Service Year on or before each September 1.
ii. Estimated Pavment 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 Pavments Due Each Tune 15 and December 15. The City
will 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 will pay the City such amount on or before each June 15 and
December 15.
iv. The Reconciliation Adjustment Amount for the prior Service Year
shall be paid on or before August 15 of the following calendar year, as
described in Section 6.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
7
47
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 that they have ten (10) days to cure non-
payment. If the Party fails to cure its nonpayment within this time
period following notice, the amount owed shall accrue interest
thereon at the rate of 1% per month from and after the original due
date and, if 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. If 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.g.
c. Pavment ObliL-ation 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, 2015, the Final Estimated 2015 Payment is nevertheless due
on or before December 15, 2015, and the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
shall be payable on or before August 15, 2016.
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 Program
based on their actual, rather than estimated, licensing revenues, there will be an
annual reconciliation. 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 revenue data for such Service
Period as detailed in Exhibit D. There will also be an adjustment if necessary to
account for annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or more and for changes
in relative population shares of Contracting Parties' attributable to Latecomer
Cities. The County will provide the results of the reconciliation to all Contracting
Parties in writing on or before June 30. The Reconciliation Adjustment Amount will
be paid on or before August 15 of the then current year, regardless of the prior
termination of the Agreement as per Section 5.c.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
8
W
7. Regional Revenue Generation and Licensing Revenue Support
a. The Parties intend that the provision of Animal Services becomes
significantly more financially sustainable over the initial three year term of
this Agreement through the development of New Regional Revenue and the
generation of additional Licensing Revenue. The County will develop
proposals designed to support this goal. The County will consult with the
Joint City- County Committee before proceeding with efforts to implement
proposals to generate New Regional Revenue.
b. The Parties do not intend for the provision of Animal Services or receipt of
such Services under this Agreement to be a profit- making enterprise. Where
a Contracting Party receives revenues in excess of its costs under this
Agreement (including costs of PAWS shelter service and Enhanced Control
Service, if applicable), they will be reinvested in the Program to reduce the
costs of other Contracting Parties and to improve service delivery: the cost
allocation formulas of this Agreement are intended to achieve this outcome.
Licensing Revenue Support.
i. In 2013, the County will provide licensing revenue support to the nine
Contracting Cities identified on Exhibit C -5 (the "Licensing Revenue
Support Cities
ii. The City may request licensing revenue support from the County in
2014 and 2015 by executing Attachment A to Exhibit F. The terms
and conditions under which such licensing revenue support will be
provided are further described at Exhibit C -5 and Exhibit F. Except
as otherwise provided in Exhibit C -5 with respect to Licensing
Revenue Support Cities with a Licensing Revenue Target of over
$20,000 (per Table 1 of Exhibit C -5), provision of licensing revenue
support in 2014 and 2015 is subject to the County determining it has
capacity to provide such services, with priority allocation of any
available services going first to Licensing Revenue Support Cities on a
first -come, first served basis and thereafter being allocated to other
Contracting Cities requesting service on a first -come, first served
basis. Provision of licensing revenue support is further subject to the
Parties executing a Licensing Support Contract (Exhibit F).
iii. In addition to other terms described in Exhibit F, receipt of licensing
revenue support is subject to the recipient 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; assisting in the recruitment of
canvassing staff, if applicable; and providing information to the
County to assist in targeting its canvassing activities, if applicable.
Document Dated 5-29-.12
i
S. Mutual Covenants /Independent Contractor. The 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 staff regarding all issues arising
under this Agreement, including but not limited to citizen complaints,
service requests and general information on animal control services is the
Manager of Regional Animal Services.
9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.
a. Citv 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
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. Countv 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
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
U
50
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.
Liabilitv Related to Citv Ordinances, Policies. Rules and Reizulations. In
executing this Agreement, the County does not assume liability or
responsibility for or in any way release the City from any liability 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
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 by 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
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
51
representative from each Contracting City that chooses to appoint a representative
shall meet upon reasonable request of a Contracting City or the County, but in no
event shall the Committee meet 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, but are not necessarily limited to:
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.
d. Promoting licensing through joint marketing activities of Contracting Cities
and the County, including recommending where the County's marketing
efforts will be deployed each year.
e. Exploring options for continuous service improvement, including increasing
service delivery efficiencies across the board.
f. Studying options for repair and /or replacement of the Kent Shelter.
g. Reviewing the results of the County's calculation of the Reconciliation
Adjustment Amounts.
h. Reviewing preliminary proposed budgets for Animal Services.
i. Providing input into the formatting, content and details of periodic Program
reports as per Section 12 of this Agreement.
j. Reviewing and providing input on proposed Animal Services operational
initiatives.
k. Providing input on Animal Control Services response protocols with the goal
of supporting the most appropriate use of scarce Control Services resources.
1. Establishing and maintaining a marketing subcommittee with members from
within the Joint City- County committee membership and additional staff as
may be agreed.
m. Collaborating on response and service improvements, including
communication with 911 call centers.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
12
52
n. Developing alternative dispute mechanisms that may be deployed to assist
the public in resolving low -level issues such as barking dog complaints.
o. Working with Contracting Cities to plan disaster response for animal
sheltering and care.
p. Ensuring there is at least one meeting each year within each Control District
between the County animal control officer representatives and Contracting
Cities' law enforcement representatives.
q. Identifying, discussing and where appropriate recommending actions to
implement ideas to generate additional revenue to support operation and
maintenance of the Animal Services Program, including but not limited to
providing input and advice in shaping the terms of any proposed
Countywide voted levy to provide funding support for the Animal Services
Program.
12. Reporting. The County will provide the City with an electronic report not less
than monthly summarizing call response and Program usage data for each of the
Contracting Cities and the County and the Animal Services Program. 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 shall be deemed to incorporate amendments to Agreements between
the Contracting Parties that are approved by the County and at least two thirds
(66 of the legislative bodies of all other Contracting Parties (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 this provision shall not apply to 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.
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
shelter for purposes of addressing shelter overcrowding or developing other
means to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency or capacity of animal care and
sheltering within King County.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
13
53
b. Survivabilitv. 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.
c. Waiver and Remedies. No term 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.
d. 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 the Animal
Services Program and the care and treatment of animals in the Program.
e. 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.
f. 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.
g. Notices. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any notice
required to be provided under the terms of this Agreement shall be delivered
by E -mail (deemed delivered upon E -mail confirmation of receipt by the
intended recipient), certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested or by
personal service to the following person (or to any other person that the
Party designates in writing to receive notice under this Agreement):
For the City:
For the County: Caroline Whalen, Director
King County Dept. of Executive Services
401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 135
Seattle WA. 98104
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
14
54
h. Assienment. No Party may sell, transfer or assign any of its rights or benefits
under this Agreement without the approval of the other Party.
i. Venue. The Venue for any action related to this Agreement shall be in
Superior Court in and for King County, Washington.
j. 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.
k. No Third Partv Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties
only, and no third party shall have any rights hereunder.
1. 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
as of July 1, 2012, only if certain "Minimum Contracting Requirements" are met or
waived as described in this section. These Minimum Contracting Requirements
will not be finally determined until August 15, 2012. If it is determined on or about
August 15 that Minimum Contracting Requirements are not met and not waived,
then the Agreement will be deemed to have never gone into effect, regardless of the
July 1, 2012 stated effective date. If the Minimum Contracting Requirements are
met or waived, the Agreement shall be deemed effective as of July 1, 2012. The
Minimum Contracting Requirements are:
a. For both the City and the County:
1. 2013 Payment Test: The Preliminary Estimated 2013 Payment,
calculated on or before August 1, 2012, to include the County and all
cities that have executed the Agreement on or prior to July 1, 2012,
does not exceed the Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment as set
forth in Exhibit C -1 by more than five percent (5 or $3,500,
whichever is greater. If the 2013 Payment Test is not met, either
Party may waive this condition and allow the Agreement to go into
effect, provided that such waiver must be exercised by giving notice
to the other Party (which notice shall meet the requirements of Section
14.g) no later than August 15, 2012.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
15
55
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. The
County shall provide the City notice meeting the requirements of Section
14.g no later than July 21, 2012 if the Minimum Contiguity of Service
Condition has not been met.
c. On or before August 21, 2012, the County shall send all Contracting Cities an
informational email notice confirming the final list of all Contracting Cities
with Agreements that have gone into effect.
16. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the County
Administrative Officer or his/her designee, and by the City Manager, or his/her
designee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
effective as of July 1, 2012.
King County City of Tukwila
Dow Constantine
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
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
56
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Animal Services Description
Exhibit B: Control Service District Map Description
Exhibit B -1: Map of Control Service District
Exhibit C: Calculation of Estimated Payments
Exhibit C -1: Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment (showing
participation only by jurisdictions that have expressed interest in contracting for
an additional 3 year term)
Exhibit C -2: Estimated Population, Calls for Service, Shelter Use and
Licensing Data for Jurisdictions, Used to Derive the Pre Commitment
Estimated 2013 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 2013
Exhibit C -4: Calculation and Allocation of Transition Credit, Shelter
Credit, and Estimated New Regional Revenue
Exhibit C -5: Licensing Revenue Support
Exhibit C -6: Summary of Calculation Periods for Use and Population
Components
Exhibit C -7: Payment and Calculation Schedule
Exhibit D: Reconciliation
Exhibit E: Enhanced Control Services Contract (Optional)
Exhibit F: Licensing Support Contract (Optional)
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
17
57
Exhibit A
Animal Service Description
Part I: 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 five days every week
(excluding holidays and County- designated furlough days, if applicable) for
a minimum of eight hours per day (normal business hours). The County will
negotiate with applicable unions with the purpose of obtaining a
commitment for the five day call center operation to include at least one
weekend day. The County may adjust the days of the week the call center
operates to match 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 three Control
Districts as shown on Exhibit B. Subject to the limitations provided in this
Section 2, Control Districts 200 and 220 will be staffed with one Animal
Control Officer during Regular ACO Service Hours and District 500 will be
staffed with two Animal Control Officers (ACOs) during Regular ACO
Service Hours. Regular ACO Service Hours is defined to include not less
than 40 hours per week. The County will negotiate with applicable unions
with the intention of obtaining a commitment for Regular ACO Service
Hours to include service on at least one weekend day. Regular ACO Service
Hours may change from time to time.
i. Except as the County may in its sole discretion determine is necessary
to protect officer safety, ACOs 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 -1
shows the map of Control Districts.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
18
i
ii. Countywide, the County will have a total of not less than 6 ACOs
(Full -Time Equivalent employees) on staff to maximize the ability of
the County to staff all Control Districts notwithstanding vacation,
sick leave, and other absences, and to respond to 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
ACOs in order to minimize any such gaps in coverage. In the event of
extended absences among the 6 ACOs, the County will re- allocate
remaining ACOs as practicable in order to balance the hours of service
available in each Control District. In the event of ACO absences (for
any causes and whether or not such absences are extended as a result
of vacancies or other issues), the first priority in allocating ACOs shall
be to ensure there is an ACO assigned in each Control District during
Regular ACO Service Hours.
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 arrange a location
for an Animal Control vehicle to be stationed overnight in Control Districts
"host sites in order to facilitate service and travel time improvements or
efficiencies.
c. The County will use its best efforts to ensure that High Priority Calls are
responded to by an ACO 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 ACO),
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 ACO as necessary or available, all
as determined necessary and appropriate in the sole discretion of the
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
59
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 (ACO requested to patrol a specific area due to
possible code violations),
3. Trespass,
4. Stray Dog /Cat /other animal confined,
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. The Joint -City County Committee is tasked with reviewing response
protocols and recommending potential changes to further the goal of
supporting the most appropriate use of scarce Control Service resources
countywide. The County will in good faith consider such recommendations
but reserves the right to make final decisions on response protocols. The
County will make no changes to its procedures that are inconsistent with the
terms of this Exhibit A, except that upon the recommendation of the Joint
City- County Committee, the County may agree to modify response with
respect to calls involving animals other than horses, livestock, dogs and cats.
In addition to the ACOs 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 ACOs five days per week at least 8 hours /day (subject to
vacation /sick leave /training /etc.).
2. Staff will be available to perform animal cruelty investigations,
to respond to animal cruelty cases, and to prepare related
reports (subject to vacation /sick leave /training /etc.).
3. Not less than 1 ACO will be on call every day at times that are
not Regular ACO Service Hours (including the 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.
g. The Parties understand that rural areas of the County will generally receive a
less rapid response time from ACOs than urban areas.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
20
N
h. Contracting Cities may contract with King County for "Enhanced Control
Services" through separate agreement (as set forth in Exhibit E); provided
that a City may not purchase Enhanced Control Services under Option 1 as
described in Exhibit E if such City is receiving a Transition Funding Credit,
Shelter Credit, or licensing revenue support the cost of which is not
reimbursed to the County.
Part II: 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.
During 2013 -2015, major maintenance of the Shelter will continue to be included in the
Program costs allocated under this Agreement (as part of the central County overhead
charges allocated to the Program), but no major renovation, upgrades or replacements of
the Shelter established as a capital project within the County Budget are anticipated nor
will any such capital project costs be allocated to the Contracting Cities in Service Years
2013 -2015.
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
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 function 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 function at the Shelter to
provide for and manage adoption events and other activities leading to the
placement of animals in appropriate homes.
e. Veterinary services will be provided and will include animal exams,
treatment and minor procedures, spay /neuter and other surgeries. Limited
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
MA
A
emergency veterinary services will be available in non business hours,
through third -party contracts, and engaged if and when the County
determines necessary.
f. 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 Contracting Cities contracting with PAWS (Potentially including
Woodinville, Shoreline, 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
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 County ACOs.
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: Licensine Services
Licensing services include the operation and maintenance of a unified system to license
pets in Contracting Cities.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
22
M
1. The public will be able to purchase pet licenses in person at the County Licensing
Division public service counter in downtown Seattle (500 4t" 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 may 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 or E -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.
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.
10. The County will provide current pet license data files (database extractions) to a
Contracting City promptly upon request. Data files will include pets owned,
owners, addresses, phone numbers, E -mail addresses, violations, license renewal
status, and any other relevant or useful data maintained in the County's database
on pets licensed within the City's limits. A City's database extraction will be
provided in electronic format agreed to by both parties in a timely fashion and in a
standard data release format that is easily usable by the City.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
23
63
Exhibit B: Control Service District Map
The attached map (Exhibit B -1) shows the boundaries of the 3 Control Service Districts as
established at the commencement of this Amended and Restated Agreement.
The cities and towns included in each Control District are as follows:
District 200 (Northern District)
Shoreline
Lake Forest Park
Kenmore
Woodinville
Kirkland
Redmond
Sammamish
Duvall
Carnation
District 220 (Eastern District)
Bellevue
Mercer Island
Yarrow Point
Clyde Hill
Town of Beaux Arts
Issaquah
Snoqualmie
North Bend
Newcastle
District 500 (Southern District)
Tukwila
SeaTac
Kent
Covington
Maple Valley
Black Diamond
Enumclaw
The Districts shall each include portions of unincorporated King County as illustrated on
Exhibit B -1.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
24
Control District Map
2013-2015 Proposed ILa
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 below, an initial cost
allocation is made for Service Year 2013 based on the cost factors described in Part 1
below; costs are offset by various revenues as described in Part 2. An annual
reconciliation is completed as described in Part 3. In Service Years 2014 and 2015, the
Contracting Parties' allocable costs are adjusted based on: (1) the actual change in total
allocable costs over the previous Service Year (subject to an inflator cap), (2) changes in
revenues, and (3) to account for annexations (in or out of the Program service area) of
areas with a population of 2,500 or more, and for changes in relative population share of
all Contracting Parties due to any Latecomer Cities. If the Agreement is extended past
2015, the cost allocation in 2016 will be recalculated in the same manner as for Service Year
2013 and adjusted in 2017 per the process used for Service Years 2014 and 2015.
Based on the calculation process described in Parts 1 and 2, an "Estimated Payment"
amount owed by each City for each Service Year is determined. Each Estimated Payment
covers six months of service. Payment for service is made by each City every June 15 and
December 15.
Part 1: Service Year 2013 Cost Allocation Process
Control Services costs are to be shared among the 3 geographic Control Districts;
one quarter of such costs are allocated to Control District 200, one quarter to
Control District 220, and one half are allocated to Control District 500. Each
Contracting Party located within a Control District is to be allocated a share of
Control District costs based 80% on the Party's relative share of total Calls for
Service within the Control District and 20% on its relative share of total
population within the Control District.
Shelter Services costs are to be allocated among all Contracting Parties based
20% on their relative population and 80% 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.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
26
Licensing Services costs are to be allocated among all Contracting Parties, based
20% on their relative population and 80% on the number of licenses issued to
residents of each Contracting Party.
Part 2: Revenue and Other Adjustments to the 2013 Cost Allocation.
In 2013 and each Service Year thereafter, the costs allocable to each Contracting Party are
reduced by various revenues and credits:
Licensing revenue will be attributed to each Contracting Party based on the
residency of the individual purchasing the license (see Part 3 for reconciliation
of Licensing Revenues). As Licensing Revenue and Non Licensing Revenues
change from year to year, the most recent historical actual data for these
amounts will be incorporated to offset costs (See Exhibit C -6 for calculation
periods).
Two credits are applicable to various Contracting Cities to reduce the amount of
their Estimated Payments: a Transition Funding Credit (fixed at 2013 level,
payable annually through 2015) for cities with high per- capita costs and a
Shelter Credit (for Contracting Cities with the highest per capita intakes (usage))
(also fixed at a 2013 level, payable annually through 2015). Application of these
Credits is limited such that the Estimated Payment cannot fall below zero
(before or after the annual Reconciliation calculation).
In addition to the Transition Funding and Shelter credits, in 2013 the County
will provide Licensing Revenue Support to nine identified Contracting Cities
(selected based on the general goal of keeping 2013 costs the same or below 2012
costs). In exchange for certain in -kind support, these "Licensing Revenue
Support Cities" are assured in 2013 of receiving an identified amount of
additional licensing revenue or credit equivalent (the "Licensing Revenue
Target In 2014 and 2015, all Contracting Cities may request licensing revenue
support by entering into a separate licensing support contract with the County
(Exhibit F): this support is subject to availability of County staff, with priority
going to the nine Licensing Revenue Support Cities, provided that, Licensing
Revenue Support Cities with a Licensing Revenue Target over $20,000 /year will
be assured such service in 2013 -2015 by entering into a licensing support
contract by September 1, 2012.
As New Regional Revenues are received by the County to support the Animal
Services Program, those Revenues shall be allocated as follows:
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
27
67
Half of New Regional Revenues shall be applied to reduce allocable
Control Services Costs, Shelter Services Costs, and Licensing Services
Costs (in 2013, by 17 27% and 6 respectively, of total New Regional
Revenues; in 2014 and 2015 the 50% reduction is simply made against
Total Allocable Costs).
The remaining half of New Regional Revenues shall be applied in the
following order of priority:
(a) to offset amounts expended by the County as Transition Funding
Credits, Shelter Credits and unreimbursed licensing revenue support;
(b) to offset other County Animal Services Program costs that are not
allocated in the cost model;
(c) to reduce on a pro -rata basis up to 100% of the costs allocated to
each Contracting Party by the population factor of the cost allocation
formulas (20 with the intent of reducing or eliminating the
population -based cost allocation; and
(d) if any funds remain thereafter, as an offset against each
Contracting Party's final reconciled payment obligation. Items(c) and
(d) above are unlikely to arise during the 3 year term of the
Agreement and shall be calculated only at Reconciliation.
In Service Years 2014 and 2015, allocable costs are adjusted for each Contracting
Party based on the actual increase or decrease in allocable costs from year to
year for the whole Program. Total Budgeted Allocable Costs cannot increase by
more than the Annual Budget Inflator Cap. The Annual Budget Inflator Cap is
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 the
unincorporated area and all Contracting Cities).
In all Service Years, costs are also adjusted for annexations (in or out of the
Program service area) of areas with a population greater of 2,500 or more and
the shift in relative population shares among all Contracting Parties as a result
of any Latecomer Cities.
Part 3: Reconciliation
Estimated Payments are reconciled to reflect actual revenues as well as changes
in population attributable to annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or
more (in or out of the Program) and the shifts in relative population among all
Contracting Parties as a result of any Latecomer Cities. The Reconciliation occurs
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
28
i
by June 30 of the following calendar year. The Reconciliation calculation and
payment process is described in Exhibit D.
The receipt of Transition Funding Credits or Shelter Credits can never result in
the amount of the Estimated Reconciliation Adjustment Payment falling below
$0.
If a jurisdiction's licensing revenues exceed its net costs payable under this
Agreement, then in the annual reconciliation process, the excess licensing
revenue is reallocated pro rata amongst all Contracting Parties which will
otherwise incur net costs; provided that, the determination of net costs shall be
adjusted as follows: (1) for a Contracting City purchasing shelter services from
PAWS, net costs includes consideration of the amounts paid by such City to
PAWS; and (2) for a Contracting City purchasing Enhanced Control Services per
Exhibit E, net costs includes consideration of the amounts paid for such services.
Part 4: Estimated Pavment Calculation Formulas
For Service Year 2013:
EP [(EC ES EL) (ER T V)] 2
For Service Years 2014 and 2015:
EP [(B x LF) (ER +T V)] 2
Where:
"EP" is the Estimated Payment. For Contracting Cities receiving a Transition Credit or
Shelter Credit, the value of EP may not be less $0.
"EC" or "Estimated Control Services Cost" is the City's estimated share of the Budgeted
Net Allocable Control Services Cost for the Service Year. See below for deriving
"EC."
"ES" or "Estimated Shelter Services Cost" is the City's estimated share of the Budged Net
Allocable Shelter Services Cost for the Service Year. See formula below for deriving "ES.
1 This formula also applies to Service Year 2016 if the Agreement is extended. The EP formula for Years 2014 and
2015 would apply to Service Years after 2016.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
29
"EL" or "Estimated Licensing Services Cost" is the City's estimated 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 Year 2013, ER is based on the number of each type
of active license issued to City residents in years 2011 (the "Calculation Period Exhibit
C -2 shows a preliminary estimate of 2011 Licensing Revenue; the numbers in this exhibit
are subject to Reconciliation by June 30, 2012. For Licensing Revenue Support Cities
identified in Exhibit C -5, or other Contracting Cities which have entered into a Licensing
Support Contract per Exhibit F, ER is increased by adding the amount of revenue, if any,
estimated to be derived as a result of licensing revenue support provided to the City (the
"Licensing Revenue Target" or "RT this amount is also shown in the column captioned
"Estimated Revenue from Proposed Licensing Support" 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. Notwithstanding the foregoing, "ER" may be
based on a estimated amount of licensing for the Service Year for the City if, in the
reasonable judgment of the County, an estimated Licensing Revenue amount can be
proposed that is likely to more closely approximate the actual Licensing Revenue for the
Service Year than the data from the Calculation Period; provided that the use of any
estimates shall be subject to the conditions of this paragraph. The County shall work with
the Joint City- County Committee to develop estimated Licensing Revenue amounts for all
Contracting Cities for the upcoming Service Year. If the Joint City County Committee
develops a consensus proposal (agreement shall be based on the consensus of those
Contracting Cities present at the Joint City /County meeting in which Licensing Revenue
estimates are presented in preparation for the September 1 Preliminary Estimated
Payment Calculation notification), it shall be used in developing the September 1
Preliminary Estimated Payment Calculation. If a consensus is not reached, the County
shall apply the actual Licensing Revenue from the Calculation Period for the Service Year
to determine the Preliminary Estimated Payment. For the Final Estimated Payment
Calculation (due December 15), the County may revisit the previous estimate with the
Joint City- County Committee and seek to develop a final consensus revenue estimate. If a
consensus is not reached, the County shall apply the Actual Licensing Revenue from the
applicable Calculation Period in the calculation of the Final Estimated Payment.
"T" is the Transition Funding Credit, if any, allocable to the City for each Service Year
calculated per Exhibit C -4.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
30
FEB
"V" is the Shelter Credit, if any, allocable to the City for each Service Year calculated per
Exhibit C -4.
"B" is the "Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs" estimated for the Service Year for the
provision of Animal Services which are allocated among all the Contracting Parties for the
purposes of determining the Estimated Payment. The Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs
are calculated as the Budgeted Total Allocable Costs (subject to the Annual Budget
Inflator Cap) less Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue and less 50% of Estimated
New Regional Revenues. The Budgeted Total Allocable Costs exclude any amount
expended by the County as Transition Funding Credits, or Shelter Credits (described in
Exhibit C -4), or to provide Licensing Revenue Support (described in Section 7 and Exhibit
C -5). A preliminary calculation (by service area Control, Shelter, Licensing) of Budgeted
Total Net Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Allocable Costs and Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue for purposes of calculating the Pre Commitment Estimated 2013
Payments is set forth in Exhibit C -3.
"LF" is the "Program Load Factor" attributable to the City. LF has two components, one
fixed, and one subject to change each Service Year and at Reconciliation. The first, fixed
component relates to the City's share of Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs: it is the City's
2013 Service Year Total Animal Services Cost Allocation (See Column 6 of Exhibit C -1)
expressed as a percentage of the Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs for 2013. The pre
commitment estimate of LF appears in column 7 of Exhibit C -1. This component of LF (as
determined based on the Final 2013 Estimated Payment) remains constant for Service
Years 2014 and 2015. The second component of LF relates to annexations of areas with a
population of 2,500 or more or to Latecomer Cities. This second component is calculated
as described in the definition of "Population," below.
"Total Licensing Revenue" means all revenue received by the County's Animal Services
Program attributable to the sale of pet licenses excluding late fees. With respect to each
Contracting Party, the amount of "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.)
"Total Non Licensing Revenue" means all revenue from fine, forfeitures, and all other
fees and charges imposed by the County's Animal Services program in connection with
the operation of the Program, but excluding Total Licensing Revenue, Estimated New
Regional Revenues and Designated Donations.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
31
71
"Estimated New Regional Revenues" "ENR are revenues projected to be received by
the County specifically for support of Animal Services which result from regional
marketing campaigns (thus excluding local licensing canvassing efforts pursuant to
Section 7), and new foundation, grant, donation and entrepreneurial activities, except
where revenues from these sources are designated for specific purposes within the Animal
Services Program. Calculation and allocation of Estimated and Actual New Regional
Revenues are further described in Exhibit C -4. For Service Year 2013, Estimated New
Regional Revenues are assumed to be zero. If New Regional Revenues are received in
2013, they will be accounted for in the reconciliation of 2013 Payments. ENR excludes
Designated Donations, Total Non Licensing Revenue and Total Licensing Revenue.
"Designated Donations" mean donations from individuals or other third parties to the
County made for the purpose of supporting specific operations, programs or facilities
within the Animal Services Program.
"Licensing Revenue Support" means activities or funding to be undertaken in specific
cities to enhance licensing revenues, per Section 7, Exhibit C -5 and Exhibit F.
"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 the
unincorporated area and 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.
"Service Year" is the calendar year in which Animal Services are /were provided.
"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. Exhibit
C -6 sets forth in table form the Calculation Periods for all formula factors for Service Years
2013, 2014 and 2015.
"Population" with respect to any Contracting Party for Service Year 2013 means the
population number derived from the State Office of Financial Management (OFM) most
recent annually published report of population used for purposes of allocating state
shared revenues in the subsequent calendar year (typically published by OFM each July,
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
32
72
reflecting final population estimates as of April of the same calendar year). For each Service
Year, the OFM reported population will be adjusted for annexations of 2,500 or more
residents known to be occurring after April, 2012 and before the end of the Service Year.
For example, when the final Estimated Payment calculation for 2013 is provided on
December 15, 2012, the population numbers used will be from the OFM report issued in
July 2012 and will be adjusted for all annexations of 2,500 or more residents that occurred
(or are known to be occurring) between April 2012 and December 31, 2013. In any Servicd
Year, if: (1) annexations of areas with a population of 2,500 or more people occurs to
impact the population within the jurisdiction of a Contracting Party; or (2) a Latecomer
City is brought under contract with the County, these changes shall be accounted for in the
calculation of the Estimated Payment for such Service Year by adjusting the "Program
Load Factor" (or "LF for each Contracting Party. Such adjustment shall be made at the
next occurring possibility (e.g., at calculation of the Preliminary Estimated Payment, Final
Estimated Payment, or Reconciliation, whichever is soonest). The adjustment in LF will be
made on a pro rata basis to reflect the portion of the year in which the population change
was in effect.
In the case of an annexation, the LF calculation will consider the time the annexed
area was in the Contracting Party's jurisdiction and the portion of the year in which
the area was not in such Party's jurisdiction, as well as the relative shift in
population (if any) attributable solely to the annexation as between all Contracting
Parties, by adding (or subtracting) to the LF for each Contracting Party an amount
that is 20% (reflecting the general allocation of cost under the Agreement based on
population) of the change in population for each Contracting Party (expressed as a
percentage of the Contracting Party's population as compared to the total population
for all Contracting Parties) derived by comparing the Final 2013 Estimated Payment
population percentage (LF) to the population percentage after considering the
annexation. 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 County's
demographer.
In the case of a Latecomer City, the population shall be similarly adjusted among all
Contracting Parties in the manner described above for annexations, by considering
the change in population between all Contracting Parties attributable solely to the
Latecomer City becoming a Contracting Party.
Exhibit C -1 shows the calculation of Pre Commitment EP for Service Year 2013, assuming
that the County and all Cities that have expressed interest in signing this Agreement as of
May 16, 2012, 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.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
33
73
Component Calculation Formulas (used in Service Year 2013):
EC is calculated as follows:
EC {[(C x .5) x .81 x CFSJ {[(C x.5) x.21 x D -PopJ
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) and less 17% of Estimated New
Regional Revenues "ENR For purposes of determining the Pre Commitment
Estimated Payments for 2013, the Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost is
$1,690,447, calculated as shown on Exhibit C -3, and shall be similarly derived to
determine the Preliminary and Final Estimated Payment for 2013 and for Service Year 2016
if the Agreement is extended beyond December 31, 2015.
"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 2013, the Calculation Period for CFS is calendar year 2011 actual
data. Exhibit C -2 shows a preliminary estimate of 2011 CFS used to determine the Pre
Commitment Estimated 2013 Payment; the numbers in this Exhibit C -2 are subject to
Reconciliation by June 30, 2012.
"D -Pop" is the Population of the City, expressed as a percentage of the Population of all
jurisdictions within the applicable Control District.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
34
74
ES for Service Year 2013 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 population -based charge only, 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.2 x Pop)
If the City does not qualify for the population -based shelter charge only, ES is determined
as follows:
ES= (Sx.2x Pop) (S x.8 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) and less 27% of
Estimated New Regional Revenues (ENR) in the Service Year. For purposes of
determining the Pre Commitment Estimated Payments for 2013, the Budgeted Net
Allocable Shelter Services Cost is $2,707,453, calculated as shown on Exhibit C -3, and shall
be similarly derived to determine the Preliminary and Final Estimated Payments for 2013
and for Service Year 2016 if the Agreement is extended beyond December 31, 2015.
"Pop" is the population of the City expressed as a percentage of the Population of all
Contracting Parties.
"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
purposes of the 2013 Estimated Payment, the Calculation Period for "A" is calendar year
2011. Exhibit C -2 shows a preliminary estimate of "A" for 2011 used to determine the Pre
Commitment Estimated 2013 Payments; the numbers in this exhibit are subject to
Reconciliation by June 30, 2012.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12 35
75
EL for Service Year 2013 is calculated as follows:
EL= (Lx.2x Pop) +(Lx.8xI)
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 and less 6% of Estimated New Regional Revenues
(ENR) in the Service Year. For purposes of determining the Pre Commitment Estimated
Payments for 2013, the Budgeted Net Licensing Cost is $660,375, calculated as shown on
Exhibit C -3, and shall be similarly derived to determine the Preliminary and final
Estimated Payments for 2013 and for Service Year 2016 if the Agreement is extended
beyond December 31, 2015.
"Pop" is the Population of the City expressed as a percentage of the population of all
Contracting Parties.
"I" 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 2013, the Calculation Period for "I" is calendar
year 2011. Exhibit C -2 shows a preliminary estimate of "I" to be used for calculating the
Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Payments; the numbers in this Exhibit are subject to
reconciliation by June 30, 2012.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
36
76
Exhibit C -1
Regional Animal Services of Kina Countv
Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Pavment Calculation (Annualized)
Allocation Method: Population 20% Usage 80% Three (3) Control Districts: 200, 20, wit o 0 l Districts Yea 24 0 60 combined d into one (500) costs to districts 26 26 50 Usage and Licensing
2013 -2015
Estimated Net
Estimated
et
2013-2015
Control
Shelter I
Licensintj
Total Allocated Costs (11
Revenue last) Est1
Cost
I Budgeted Total Allocable Costs
1 $1,770,4871
$2,819,9601
$673,6401
$6.264,087
55521
i Budgeted Non- Llcensino Revenue
1 $80,0401
$112,6071
$13,2661
1
5206,812
5105331
$76581
I Budgeted New Renional Revenue 150%1
1 $01
$01
$01
NAI
50
501
501
I Budneted Net Allocable Costs
1 $1.690,4471
$2,707,4631
$660,3751
$5.068,2761
$2,480,689
-32,677.686
Animal Control
Estimated Animal
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated Total
Program
2011 Licensing
Estimated Net
Jurisdiction
District Number
Control Cost Aliocadon
Sheltering Coat
lJcensing Cost
Animal services Load
Factor
Revenue
Cast Allocation
Sol
(3)
Allocation (3)
Allocation (d)
Cost Allocation
(Eatlma[ed)
$3.1411
ICernau.n
1 $4.1181
$34971
S1239
588541
0.1750%1
$4.7521
$4.1021
IDWa11
1 $11261
$151661
$5.3511
$318761
0.630241
S21.343
510.5331
)ESO aced Unincomcm%d Km. County
1 $838371
(see total below) I
(see total below) I
(see total below) I
1
)see iota) belowll
/see total below)1
(Kenmore
1 5379111
$115921
$154231
$64.9261
12836%1
$566021
563241
(Kirkland
1 $84,5951
599.6261
$59.9601
$264.1621
48270%1
$208.0001
-536.1621
N f Lake Forest Park
I $22.8941
$7.0341
512.0991
542.0271
0.8309961
$48.5041
$6.4771
Sol
$50361
1 $37,8671
$543031
$32.3081
$1264781
2.4609%1
$116.4071
58,0711
$1.3761
`Redmond
Sammamish
1 $35.3411
$44.2141
$31.1291
$110.6841
2.188241
$117,6491
$6.96
(Shoreline
1 $92.5191
$29.6771
538.1941
5160.3911
3.1709%1
51456891
3147021
`Woodinville
1 $12.268(
$6.1031
$]7081
526.0]91
0.515641
5292201
$3.1411
1SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 200(rorcludea unlrrcoroorated area)
1 $338,7751
$271,3101
$203,3921
$813,4771
1
$760,1661
463.3111
IBesus Aril
I 5861
51671
$2461
$5001
0.0099 %1
$9301
54301
i 8a11evue
1 $142.3221
$161.4861
$75.2491
5379.0561
74938%1
$2739311
$105.1251
Clyde Hill
1 $1.8661
$3.1681
$1.9521
$6.9851
0.1381 %1
$71701
$1851
Estimated Unincorporated Kinq County
1 $166.1991
Ise. fatal below) I
(see total below) I
Ise. total bald.) I
I
(see total belowll
/see total belowll
N Issa h
1 $533511
$46.1671
$16.2791
$115.7971
2.2893 %1
$55,9471
$59.8501
N Mercer Island
I 513.5811
$18.1771
$13.8531
$45.6111
09017 %1
$49.9621
$4.3511
IN.-be
1 $164841
$12.3181
94.6571
S334591
0.6615 %1
$152711
-518.1881
INdrth Bend
1 $15,8511
$16.2731
$4.1281
$362521
0.7167 %1
$15,6941
-520.5581
i5no.ualmie
I $12.2481
$11.1161
$67371
$30.1011
0.5951%1
$250651
$5.0361
I Yarrow Point
I 56251
$5611
57601
$1.9451
00385 %1
$27001
$7551
1 SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 220 (excludes unln.orooratod area)
1 $256,4131
$269,4321
$123,8621
$649.7071
1
$446,6701
4203,0371
(Kent
1 $2632321
$794.1011
S694001
$1.126.7331
22.2750 %1
$253,9441
$872.7891
,S..Tac
I $79.7321
$184.8941
S133111
$2779381
54947 %1
$47.2321
42307061
,Tukwila
I 5496351
5110.7871
592291
$169.6521
3.3539%1
$32.705
5136.9471
1 B1adk Diamond
I 58,0841
$14,3401
$20851
$25.1081
0.4964 %1
$10.1851
314.92311
W ICovilmdn
1 $524901
$824561
5126341
$1475801
29176 %1
$48.9821
598.5981
(Enumclaw
1 $417471
5566721
$6.9201
$105.3401
20825 %1
$25,3071
$80.0331
I Estimated Unincc,dorated Kind County
1 $309o891
Ise. total below) I
Ise. total below) I
(see fof.l below) I
I
)see tote/ below) I
)see total belowll
I Ma&Valley
1 $41,2151
$68.3801
$15.0801
5124.6751
2.4648%1
5566161
3680471
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 500 (excludes unlncoruorsted are.)
1 $636,1351
$1,311,6311
$129,2591
$1,977,0251
1
3474,9831
41,502.0421
I TOTAL FOR CITIES
1 $1,131,3221
$1,862,3731
$466,6141
$3,440,2091
1
$1,671,8191
41,768,3901
1Total King Coun ty Unincorporated Area Allocation
1 $559,1251
$855,0801
$203,8611
$1,618,0651
31.9885%
$608,8701
$809,1951
$1,690,447
$2.707453
$660375
$5,058,275
100.00%
$2.480.689
$2,577,586
Source: Raglonel Anfinel Serv)cee opting -1
o.m: J.n Jo, 2a: torero 1lFa+re4 s:s+:
Numbers are estimates only for the purpose of negoastion diswasion5. The numbers and allocation
methodobgy are subject to change vAt1e ne9osacons are underway.
2013 -2015
Estimated Net
Estimated
Transition
2013-2015
Costs with
Revenue from
Estimated Net
Funding shelter Credits
(Annual) (6)
Transitlon
Funding and
Proposed
Licensing
Final Cost (8)
lAnnual) 16i
C redlta
Support (7)
55521
Sol
53.5501
$9661
42.564
1
Sol
5105331
$76581
-$2875
NAI
NAI
NAI
NAI
NAI
501
501
46.3241
501
46.3241
501
536.1621
$23.8531
$12.3091
$01
$01
$64771
Sol
$64771
501
Sol
58.0711
Sol
58.0711
$01
501
$6.9651
$01
56.9651
Sol
501
-514 7021
501
-514 702+
Sol
501
$3.1411
$01
$3.1411
$5521
$01
362,7591
$32.4771
330,2821
Sol
Sol
$4301
Sol
$4301
1
Sol
4105.1251
$34.4491
470.676
$01
$01
51851
301
$185
NAI
NAI
NAI
NAI
NA
$01
Sol
5598501
Sol
$59.850
$01
501
$4.3511
501
$4.351
$01
501
518.1881
$25991
415.589
$1.3761
$5861
418.5961
$6.4631
$12.133
$01
Sol
$50361
Sol
$5.0361
Sol
501
$7551
Sol
$7551
$1.3761
$6861
$201.079
$43.5111
4157.5641
$110.4951
$495.8701
$2664241
Sol
4266.4241
$74421
$116.6111
3106.6531
Sol
$106.6531
$5.2551
$619871
S697n51
Sol
569.7051
$1.2091
$3.2631
410.4511
$2.0011
$8.4501
$5.0701
$364091
$571191
501
$571191
$11.1881
$28.4071
-5404381
$5.9731
$34.4651
NAI
NAI
NAI
NAI
NAI
$6.0271
$68671
455.1531
$6.9561
348.1971
$146.6861
$749,4141
4606,9421
$14.9301
4591,0121
$148,6141 $750,0001 $869,7761 $90,9181 -$778,8681
I $809.1951
Document Dated 5 -29 -12 37
Exhibit C -1, cont'd.
No as
I Based on various efficiencies and changes to the RASKC operating budge( adjustments for reduced intakes overall, reduced usage with Auburn out, and shifting two positions out of the model (county sponsored), the 2013 Estimated Budgeted Total Allocable Cost has been reduced to $5,264,087
2. One quarter of control services casts are allocated to control districts 200 antl 220, and one half of control costs are allocated to district 500, then costs are further allocated 80% by total call volume (2011 Calls Preliminary year end) and 20% by 2011 population.
3. This excludes the cost to northern cities of sheltering their animals at PAWS under separate contracts. Shatter costs are allocated 80% by King County shelter volume intake (2011 Preliminary year end) and 20% by 2011 population.
4. Licensing costs are allocated 20% by population (2011) and 80% by total number of Pet Licenses issued (2011) less $0 00 Sr Lifetime Licenses.
S. Transition funding is allocated per capita in a two tier formula to cities wit certain per capita net cost allocations. For additional detail, see 2010 Intedocal Agreement Exhibit C4 (2013 column) for more information. Transition Funding does not change for years 2013 2015.
6. Credits are allocated to those jurisdictions whose shatter intakes per capita exceeded the system average (.0043) and are intended to help minimize the impact of changing the Cost allocation methodology from 50% populati,N50 usage to the new 20% populabori usage model. See Intedocal Agreement Exhibit C-
4 for more detal.
7 New Transition License Funding has been Included for certain jurisdictions to help limit the Estimated Net Final Cost to the 2012 estimated level, Receipt of support m contingent on city providing in -kind services and county ability to provide resources and /or recover costs
8. Net Final Costs greater Nan b0 will be reallocated to remaining jurisdictions with a negative net final cost, northern cities Net Final Costs shall be inclusive of their PAWS Shattering casts.
9. Program Load Factor (LF) per ILA Exhibit C, Part 4, Estimated Payment Calculation Formula, is the City's share of Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs it is the City's 2013 Service Year Total Animal Services Cost Allocation expressed as a percentage of the Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs for 2013. Refer to the
ILA for additional details.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12 38
Exhibit C -2
Population, Calls for Service, Shelter Use and Licensing Data for Jurisdictions,
Used to Derive the Pre Commitment 2013 Estimated
Source: Wash. St. Office of Financial Management, KC Office of Management and Budget Regional Animal Services of KC
Date: February 22, 2012
Proposed
Estimated 2013
District
Jurisdiction
Population
(Bothell
Intakes
(Carnation
I
1,7801
Duvall
I
51
Estimated Unincorporated King County
6,7151
Kenmore
0 0
Kirkland
N
Lake Forest Park
(see total below) I(see total below)
Redmond
1161
Sammamish
2,021
Shoreline
2301
Woodinville
7,8551
(Beaux Arts
701
Bellevue
1,666
Clyde Hill
871
(Estimated Unincorporated King County
CD
Issaquah
N
Mercer Island
3,9701
Newcastle
2811
North Bend
4,967
Snoqualmie
341
Yarrow Pt
Kent (Includes Panther Lake Annexation)
SeaTac
(Tukwila
0 (Auburn
!Black Diamond
Ln
Covington
Enumclaw
!Estimated Unincorporated King County
IMaple Valley
City Totals
Kinq County Unincorporated Area Totals
TOTALS
2011
Estimated 2013
Estimated 2013
Estimated 2013
Population
Calls
Intakes
Licenses
I
1,7801
I
131
I
51
1601
6,7151
341
231
7121
65,6421
2401
(see total below) I(see total below)
20,7801
1161
01
2,021
80,7381
2301
1091
7,8551
12,6101
701
01
1,666
55,1501
871
471
3,980
46,9401
851
361
3,9701
53,2001
2811
01
4,967
10,9401
341
01
998
3001
01
01
331
123,4001
3171
1851
9,3801
2,9851
31
31
2481
87,5721
4181
(see total below) I(see total below) 1
30,6901
1321
581
1,9421
22,7101
211
111
1,7271
10,4101
401
131
520
5,8301
421
261
535
10,9501
271
101
842
1,0051
11
01
100
118,2001
6141
1,4541
8,5551
27,1101
2001
3391
1,5441
19,0501
1211
2001
1,065
01
01
01
0
4,1601
181
241
340
17,6401
1321
1451
1,6421
10,9201
1101
1011
8721
100,3331
7831
(see total below) I (see total below)
22,9301
891
1111
1,919
782,7851
2,8171
2,9001
57,593
187,9051
1,4411
1,4251
27,1751
970,6901
4,2581
4,3251
84,7681
Note: Usage data from 2011 activity. License count excludes Senior Lifetime Licenses
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
39
79
Exhibit C -3
Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue, and
Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
This Exhibit Shows the Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs to derive Pre Commitment Estimated 2013
Payments. All values shown are based on annualized costs and revenues. The staffing levels
incorporated in this calculation are for year 2013 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 Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Control Services Costs is shown below (all
costs in 2012 dollars).
Cost
Methodology
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Direct Service Management Staff Costs
Direct Service Field Staff Costs
Call Center Direct Service 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 Control Services Cost
17 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non Licensing Revenue
Attributable to Control Services
18 Less 17% of Estimated New Regional Revenues for 2013
2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
$148,361
I $725,879
$229,697
$80,891
$8,990
$17,500
$34,000
$22,500
$80,000
$141,904
$38,811
$50,626
$41,900
$15,842
$110,490
$23,096
$1,770,487
$80,040
0�
$1,690,447
U11
i
NOTES:
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 replacement 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.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
m
i
Shelter Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
The calculation of Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Shelter Services Costs is shown below (all
costs in 2012 dollars).
Cost
Methodology
1 Direct Service Management Staff Costs
2 Direct Service Shelter Staff Costs
3 Direct Service Clinic Staff Costs
4 Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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
18 Less 27% of Estimated New Regional Revenues for 2013
2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost
NOTES:
$214,815
$1,168,436
$286,268
$159,682
$170,814
$94,200
$20,000
$127,500
$122,500
$10,566
$6,200
$51,360
$60,306
$113,614
$176,572
$37,124
$2,819,960
$112,507
0�
$2,707,453
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.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
42
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.
I 1 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 -29 -12
43
Licensing Services: Calculation of Budgeted Total Allocable Costs, Budgeted Total Non
Licensing Revenue, and Budgeted Net Allocable Costs
The calculation of Pre Commitment Estimated 2013 Licensing Services Costs is shown below (all
costs in 2012 dollars).
Cost
Methodology
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Direct Service Management Staff Costs
Direct Service Licensing Staff Costs
Overtime, Duty, Shift Differential and Temp Costs
Facilities Costs
Office and Other Operational Supplies and Equipment
Printing, Publications, and Postage
Other Services
Communications Costs
IT Costs and Services
Misc Direct Costs
11 General Fund Overhead Costs
12 Division Overhead Costs
13 Other Overhead Costs
2010 Budgeted Total Allocable Licensing Services Cost
14 Less 2010 Budgeted Total Non- Licensing Revenue
Attributable to Licensing Services
15 Less 6% of Estimated New Regional Revenue
2010 Budgeted Net Allocable Licensing Services Cost
$52,917
$346,523
$26,295
$13,100
$3,300
$74,600
$14,500
$2,265
$77,953
$2,000
$9,884
$39,280
$11,023
$673,640
$13,265
-0-
$660,375
NOTES:
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.
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.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
44
M
I 1 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 -29 -12
45
Exhibit C -4
Calculation and Allocation of Transition Funding Credit "T Shelter Credit "V
and Estimated New Regional Revenue "ENR
A. Transition Funding Credit
The Transition Funding Credit as originally calculated in the 2010 Agreement offset costs
to certain Contracting Cities that would have otherwise paid the highest per capita costs
for Animal Services in 2010. The credit was scheduled on a declining basis over four years
(2010- 2013). In this Agreement, the Contracting Cities qualifying for this credit are listed
in Table 1 below; these cities will receive the credit at the level calculated for 2013 in the
2010 Agreement for Service Years 2013, 2014 and 2015, provided that, 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.
Table 1: Transition Funding Credit Annual Amount to be allocated each year in the
period from 2013 -2015
Jurisdiction
Transition
Covington
Funding
Enumclaw
Credit
Carnation
$552
North Bend
$1,376
Kent
I $110,495
SeaTac
I $7,442
Tukwila
I $5,255
Black Diamond
$1,209
Covington
$5,070
Enumclaw
$11,188
Maple Valley
I $6,027
Note: The Transitional Funding Credit is the same regardless of which cities sign the Agreement.
B. Shelter Credit
The Shelter Credit is designed to offset costs for those Contracting Cities whose per capita
shelter intakes "A exceed the average for all Contracting Parties. A total of $750,000 will
be applied as a credit in each of the Service Years 2013 -2015 to Contracting Cities whose
per capita average shelter intakes "A exceeds the average for all Contracting Parties;
provided that application of the Shelter 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 2013 Shelter Credit was determined based on estimated animal
Document Dated 5 -29 -12 46
i•
intakes "A for Calendar Year 2011 as shown on Exhibit C -2. The $750,000 was allocated
between every Contracting City with animal intakes over the estimated 2011 Program
average, based on each Contracting City's relative per capita animal intakes in excess of
the average for all Contracting Parties. The Shelter Credit will be paid at the 2013 level in
Service Years 2014 and 2015. The County will consider providing the Shelter Credit in
Service Years 2016 and 2017 at the same level as for Service Year 2013.
Table 3: Annual Shelter Credit Allocation -2013 through 2015
City
North Bend
Kent
SeaTac
Tukwila
Black Diamond
Covington
Enumclaw
Maple Valley
Shelter Credit
$586
$495,870
$116,611
$61,987
$3,263
$36,409
$28,407
$6,867
C. New Regional Revenue: Estimation and Allocation
Goal
New Regional Revenue for each Service Year shall be estimated as part of the
development of the Estimated Payment calculations for such Service Year. The goal of the
estimate shall be to reduce the amount of Estimated Payments where New Regional
Revenue to be received in the Service Year can be calculated with reasonable certainty.
The Estimated New Regional Revenue will be reconciled annually to account for actual
New Regional Revenue received, per Exhibit D.
Calculation of Estimated New Regional Revenue (ENR)
1. The value of the Estimated New Regional Revenue for Service Year 2013 is zero.
2. For Service Years after 2013, the Estimated New Regional Revenue will be set at the
amount the County includes for such revenue in its adopted budget for the Service
Year. For purposes of the Preliminary Estimated Payment calculation, the County
will include its best estimate for New Regional Revenue at the time the calculation
is issued, after first presenting such estimate to the Joint City County Committee for
its input.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
47
Application of ENR
For Service Years 2013 and 2016, 50% of the Estimated New Regional Revenue is
incorporated into the calculations of EC and ES and EL as described in Exhibit C,
specifically:
a. 17% of total Estimated New Regional Revenue is applied to reduce the total
Budgeted Net Allocable Control Services Cost.
b. 27% of total Estimated New Regional Revenue is applied to reduce the total
Budgeted Net Allocable Shelter Services Cost.
c. 6% of total Estimated New Regional Revenue is applied to reduce the total
Budgeted Net Allocable Licensing Services Cost.
These amounts are reconciled as against actual New Regional Revenue (ENRA) in
the annual Reconciliation process. In 2014, 2015 and 2017 the 50% is simply
deducted against Budgeted Total Allocable Costs to derive Budgeted Total Net
Allocable Costs.
2. For each Service Year, the remaining 50% of Estimated New Regional Revenue is
first applied to offset County contributions to the Program, in the following order of
priority.
a. Offset payments made by the County to fund Transition Funding Credits,
Shelter Credits, Impact Mitigation Credits (if any) and un- reimbursed
Licensing Revenue Support.
b. Offset County funding of Animal Services Program costs that are not
included in the cost allocation model described in Exhibit C, specifically,
costs of:
i. The medical director and volunteer coordinator staff at the Kent Shelter.
ii. Other County- sponsored costs for Animal Services that are not included
in the cost models described in Exhibit C.
c. In the event any of the 50% of Estimated New Regional Revenue remains
after applying it to items (a) and (b) above, the remainder "Residual New
Regional Revenue shall be held in a reserve and applied to the benefit of
all Contracting Parties as part of the annual Reconciliation process, in the
following order of priority:
i. First, to reduce pro -rata up to 20% of each Contracting Party's Estimated
Total Animal Services Cost Allocation (6t" column in the spreadsheet at
Exhibit C -1), thereby reducing up to all cost allocations based on
population. This is the factor "X" in the Reconciliation formula.
ii. Second, to reduce pro rata the amount owing from each Contracting
Party with net final costs 0 after consideration of all other factors in
the Reconciliation formula.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
48
Offsets described in (a) and (b) above do not impact the calculation of Estimated
Payments or the Reconciliation of Estimated Payments since they are outside the cost
model. The allocations described in (c) above, if any, will be considered in the annual
Reconciliation as described in Exhibit D.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
EE
Exhibit C -5
Licensing Revenue Support
A. The Contracting Cities that will receive licensing revenue support in 2013 are listed
below (collectively, these nine cities are referred to as the "Licensing Revenue
Support Cities These Cities have been selected by comparing the estimated 2013
Net Final Costs shown in Exhibit C -1 to the 2012 Estimated Net Final Cost. Where
the 2013 Net Final Cost estimate was higher than the 2012 estimate, the difference
was identified as the 2013 Licensing Revenue Target.
B. For any Licensing Revenue Support City in Table 1 whose Preliminary 2013
Estimated Payment is lower than the Pre Commitment Estimate shown in Exhibit
C -1, the Licensing Revenue Target "RT and the Revenue Goal "RG will be the
reduced by an amount equivalent to the reduction between the Pre Commitment
and Preliminary Estimated Payment amounts for 2013.
Table 1:
2013 Licensing Revenue Support Cities, Licensing Revenue Targets and Revenue
Goals*
City 2013 Base Year Revenue Revenue Goal
Licensing Revenue (2011 Estimate per "RG" (total)
Target "RT" Exhibit C -2)
(increment) 'Base Amount"
City of Carnation
$966
$4,752
$5,718
City of Duvall
$7,658
$21,343
$29,001
City of Kirkland
$23,853
$208,000
$231,853
City of Bellevue
$34,449
$273,931
$308,380
City of Newcastle
$2,599
$15,271
$17,870
City of North Bend
$6,463
$15,694
$22,157
City of Black Diamond
$2,001
$10,185
$12,186
City of Enumclaw
$5,973
$25,307
$31,280
City of Maple Valley
$6,956
$56,628
$63,584
*Amounts in this table are subject to adjustment per Paragraph B above.
C. The 2013 Licensing Revenue Target "RT is the amount each City in Table 1 will
receive in 2013, either in the form of additional licensing revenues over the Base
Year amount or as a Licensing Revenue Credit "LRC") applied at Reconciliation.
2 For Contracting Cities that purchase shelter services from PAWS, the target was based on the Pre Commitment 2013
Estimated Payment calculated in February 2012 during contract negotiations.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
50
0
D. As further described in Section 7 and Exhibit C -5, licensing revenue support
services include the provision of County staff and materials support (which may
include use of volunteers or other in -kind support) as determined necessary by the
County to generate the Licensing Revenue Target.
E. In 2014 and 2015, any Licensing Revenue Support City or other Contracting City
may request licensing revenue support services from the County under the terms of
Exhibit F. Provision of such services is subject to the County determining it has
capacity to perform such services. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Licensing
Revenue Support City for which RT is in excess of $20,000 per year may receive
licensing revenue support service in all three years, but only if by September 1,
2012, it commits to providing in -kind support in all three Services Years by
executing the contract in Exhibit F with respect to all 3 Service Years (2013, 2014
and 2015). Allocation of licensing revenue support services in 2014 and 2015 will be
prioritized first to meet the County's contractual commitment, if any, to a Licensing
Revenue Support City that has entered into a 3 -year agreement for such service.
Thereafter, service shall be allocated to Licensing Revenue Support Cities
requesting such service on first -come, first served basis; and thereafter to any other
Contracting City requesting such service on a first -come, first served basis.
Table 2:
Calculation of Estimated Payments and Licensing Revenue Credits
for Licensing Revenue Support Cities
For Service Year 2013:
The Estimated Payment calculation will include the 2013 Licensing Revenue
Support Target "RT if any, for the City per Table 1 above in the calculation of
Estimated Licensing Revenues "ER (these amounts are shown in separate
columns on Exhibit C -1).
At Reconciliation:
For Cities with a RT $20,000, Actual Licensing Revenue for 2013 "AR2013
will be determined by allocating 65% of Licensing Revenues received (if
any) over the Base Amount to determine AR2013
if Actual Licensing Revenue for 2013 "AR2013 Revenue Goal "RG then
no additional credit is payable to the City "LRC" $0)
If AR2013 RG, then the difference (RG -AR) is the Licensing Revenue Credit
"LRC included in the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount provided that,
for Cities whose RT >$20,000, 35% of Licensing Revenues over the Base
Amount shall be allocated to increase LRC when the value of ANFCo is
being calculated at Reconciliation, and provided further, that in all cases LRC
cannot exceed the 2013 Licensing Revenue Target for the City.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
51
91
For Service Year 2014, if the City and County have executed a Licensing Support Contract
per Exhibit F, and the City is therefore providing additional in -kind services in order to
generate licensing revenue support in 2014, then:
The Estimated Payment for 2014 will include Estimated Licensing Revenues
calculated at the amount of Actual Revenue "AR for 2012 or the Revenue Goal
(RG), whichever is greater. RG will be the amount in Table 1 for Licensing
Revenue Support Cities, or such other amount as the Parties may agree in the
Licensing Support Contract.
At Reconciliation:
For Cities with a RT $20,000, AR 2014 will be determined by allocating 65%
of Licensing Revenues received (if any) over the Base Amount to determine
AR2oi4
If Actual Licensing Revenue in 2014 is greater than the Revenue Goal (AR2014
RG), then
no Licensing Revenue Credit is payable to the City (LRC $0), and
The County shall charge the City for an amount which is the lesser of
(a) the cost of County's licensing support services in 2014 to the City
(as defined in the Licensing Support Contract for 2014), or (b) the
amount by which AR2014 >RG.
If AR2014 RG, then the difference (RG- AR2014) is LRC. The LRC amount is
added to reduce the City's costs when calculating the Reconciliation
Adjustment Amount, provided that, for Cities whose RT >$20,000, 35% of
Licensing Revenues over the Base Amount shall be allocated to increase
"LRC a when the value of ANFCo is being calculated at Reconciliation,
and provided further that in all cases LRC cannot exceed the 2013 Licensing
Revenue Target for the City.
For Service Year 2015, the process and calculation shall be the same as for 2014, e.g.:
if the City and County have executed Exhibit F, and the City is therefore providing
additional in -kind services in order to generate Licensing Revenue Support in 2015, then:
The Estimated Payment for 2015 will include Estimated Licensing Revenues
calculated at the amount of Actual Revenue "AR for 2013 (excluding LRC paid
for Service Year 2013) or RG, whichever is greater. RG will be the amount in Table
1 for Licensing Revenue Support Cities, or such other amount as the Parties may
agree in the Licensing Support Contract.
At Reconciliation:
For Cities with a RT $20,000, AR 2015 will be determined by allocating 65%
of Licensing Revenues received (if any) over the Base Amount to determine
AR2o15
If Actual 2015 Licensing Revenue is greater than the Revenue Goal (AR2015
Document Dated 5 -29 -12 52
92
RG), then
no Licensing Revenue Credit is payable to the City (LRC $0), and
The County shall charge the City for an amount which is the lesser of
(a) the cost of County's licensing support services in 2015 to the City
(as defined in the Licensing Support Contract for 2015), or (b) the
amount by which AR2015 >RG.
o If AR2ms RG, then the difference (RG- AR2015) is LRC. The LRC amount is
added to reduce the City's costs when calculating the Reconciliation
Adjustment Amount; provided that, for Cities whose RT >$20,000, 35% of
Licensing Revenues over the Base Amount shall be allocated to increase
"LRC when the value of ANFCo is being calculated at Reconciliation, and
and provided further that in all cases LRC cannot exceed the 2013 Licensing
Revenue Target for the City.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
53
93
Exhibit C -6:
Summary of Calculation Periods for Use and Population Components
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
ENR is the New Regional Revenue estimated to be received during the Service Year
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 2013
Component
Preliminary
Estimated 2013
Reconciliation Payment
Estimated 2013
Payment (final)
Amount
Payment (published
(published December 15
(determined June 2014)
August 2012)
2012)
ER
Actual 2011
Same
Actual 2013
(Estimated
Revenue)
CFS
Actual 2011
Same
N/A
(Calls for
Service)
A
Actual 2011
Same
N/A
(Animal
intakes)
I (Issued Pet
Actual 2011
Same
N/A
Licenses)
ENR
Estimated 2013 ($0)
Estimated 2013 ($0)
Actual 2013
(Estimated
New Regional
Revenue)
Pop, D -Pop
July 2012 OFM report,
Same, adjusted for all
Same, adjusted for all
(Population)
adjusted for
annexations 2:2,500
annexations 2,500
annexations 2,500
occurring (and
occurring (and Latecomer
occurring (and
Latecomer Cities joining)
Cities joining) after April
Latecomer Cities
after April 2012 and
and before the end of 2013
joining) after April
before the end of 2013
2012 and before the
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
54
end of 2013.
Calculation Periods: Service Year 2014
Estimated 2015
Component
Preliminary
Estimated 2014
Reconciliation
Payment (published
Estimated 2014
Payment (published
Payment Amount
Payment (published
December 2013)
(determined June 2015)
Actual 2015
September 2013)
N/A
N/A
ER
Actual 2012
Same
Actual 2014
CFS
N/A
N/A
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
ENR
Estimated 2014
Estimated 2014
Actual 2014
Pop, D -Pop
July 2012 OFM report,
Same, adjusted for all
Same, adjusted for all
after April 2012 and
adjusted for all
annexations 2,500
annexations 2,500 (and
before the end of 2015
annexations 2,500
known to take effect (and
Latecomer Cities joining)
end of 2015.
known to take effect
Latecomer Cities joining)
occurring after April 2012
for an additional 2 years, the calculation periods
(and Latecomer Cities
after April 2012 and
and before the end of
shall be developed in a manner comparable to year 2014.
joining) after April
before the end of 2014
2014
2012 and before the
end of 2014.
Calculation Periods: Service Year 2015
Component Preliminary
Estimated 2015
Reconciliation
Estimated 2015
Payment (published
Payment Amount
Payment (published
December 2014)
(determined June 2016)
September 2014)
ER Actual 2013
Same
Actual 2015
CFS N/A
N/A
N/A
A N/A
N/A
N/A
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
ENR
Estimated 2015
Estimated 2015
Actual 2015
Pop, D -Pop July 2012 OFM report,
Same, adjusted for all
Same, adjusted for all
adjusted for all
annexations 2,500
annexations 2,500
annexations 2:2,500
known to take effect (and
occurring (and
known take effect
Latecomer Cities joining)
Latecomer Cities joining)
(and Latecomer Cities
after April 2012 and
after April 2012 and
joining) after April
before the end of 2015
before the end of 2015
2012 and before the
end of 2015.
If the Agreement is extended past 2015
for an additional 2 years, the calculation periods
for 2016 shall be developed in a manner
comparable to Service
Year 2013, and for 2017
shall be developed in a manner comparable to year 2014.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
55
95
Exhibit C -7
Payment and Calculation Schedule
Service Year 2013
Item Date
Preliminary estimate of 2013 Estimated August 1, 2012
Payments provided to City by County
Final Estimated 2013 Payment calculation December 15, 2012
provided to City by County
First 2013 Estimated Payment due June 15, 2013
Second 2013 Estimated Payment due December 15, 2013
2013 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount On or before June 30, 2014
calculated
2013 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount On or before August 15, 2014
payable
Service Year 2014
I Date
Item
Date
Preliminary estimate of 2014 Estimated
September 1, 2013
Payments provided to City by County
December 15, 2014
Final Estimated 2014 Payment calculation
December 15, 2013
provided to City by County
June 15, 2015
First 2014 Estimated Payment due
June 15, 2014
Second 2014 Estimated Payment due
December 15, 2014
2014 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
On or before June 30, 2015
calculated
August 15, 2016
2014 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
August 15, 2015
Payable
Service Year 2015
Item
I Date
Preliminary estimate of 2015 Estimated
September 1, 2014
Payments provided to City by County
Final Estimated 2015 Payment calculation
December 15, 2014
provided to City by County
First 2015 Estimated Payment due
June 15, 2015
Second 2015 Estimated Payment due
December 15, 2015
2015 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
On or before June 30, 2016
calculated
2015 Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
August 15, 2016
Payable
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
56
M
If the Agreement is extended past December 31, 2015, the schedule is developed in the
same manner as described above for years 2016 and 2017.
Additional timelines are in place to commence and complete negotiations for an extension
of the Agreement:
County convenes interested Contracting September 2014
Cities to discuss (1) a possible extension on
the same terms and (2) a possible extension
on different terms.
Notice of Intent by either Party not to renew March 1, 2015
agreement on the same terms (Cities also
indicate whether they wish to negotiate for
an extension on different terms or to let
Agreement expire at end of 2015)
Deadline for signing an extension (whether July 1, 2015
on the same or amended terms)
See Section 4 of Agreement for additional details on Extension of the Agreement Term for
an additional two years.
Dates for remittal to County of pet license Quarterly, each March 31, June 30,
sales revenues processed by Contracting September 30, December 31
Cities (per section 3.c)
Except as otherwise provided for Licensing Revenue Support Cities with a Licensing
Revenue Target greater than $20,000 /year, requests for Licensing Revenue Support in
Service Years 2014 or 2015 may be made at any time between June 30 and October 31 of the
prior Service Year. (See Exhibit C -5 for additional detail).
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
57
97
Exhibit D
Reconciliation
The purpose of the reconciliation calculation is to adjust payments made each Service Year
by Contracting Parties to reflect actual licensing and non licensing revenue, various
credits, and New Regional Revenue, as compared to the estimates of such revenues and
credits incorporated in the Estimated Payment calculations, and to adjust for population
changes resulting from annexations of areas with a population of over 2,500 (if any) and
the addition of Latecomer Cities. To accomplish this, an "Adjusted Net Final Cost"
"ANFC calculation is made each June for each Contracting Party as described below,
and then adjusted for various factors as described in this Exhibit D.
As noted in Section 7 of the Agreement, the Parties intend that receipt of Animal Services
should not be a profit- making enterprise. When a City receives revenues in excess of its
costs under this Agreement (including costs of PAWS shelter service, if applicable), such
excess will be reinvested to reduce costs incurred by other Contracting Parties. The cost
allocation formulas of this Agreement are intended to achieve this outcome.
Terms not otherwise defined here have the meanings set forth in Exhibit C or the body of
the Agreement.
Calculation of ANFC and Reconciliation Adjustment Amount
The following formula will be used to calculate the Reconciliation Adjustment Amount,
which shall be payable by August 15. The factors in the formula are defined below. As
described in paragraphs A and B, the subscript "0" denotes the initial calculation;
subscript "1" denotes the final calculation.
ANFCo (AR T V X LRC) (B x LF)
A. If ANFCo 0, i.e., revenues and credits are greater than costs (adding the cost
factor "W" in the formula for Contracting Cities purchasing shelter services from
PAWS or purchasing Enhanced Control Services), then:
ANFC1 0, i.e., it is reset to zero and the difference between ANFCo and ANFC1 is
set aside by the County (or, if the revenues are not in the possession of the County,
then the gap amount is payable by the City to the County by August 15) and all
such excess amounts from all Contracting Parties where ANCFo 0 are allocated
pro -rata to parties for which ANFC1 0, per paragraph B below. Contracting
Parties for which ANFCo 0 do not receive a reconciliation payment.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
58
B. If ANFCo 0, i.e., costs are greater than revenues (without considering "W" for those
Contracting Cities purchasing shelter services from PAWS or purchasing Enhanced
Control Services), then the negative dollar amount is not "reset" and ANFC1 is the
same as ANFCo. Contracting Parties in this situation will receive a pro -rata
allocation from the sum of excess revenues from those Parties for which ANFCo
0 per paragraph A. In this way, excess revenues are reallocated across Contracting
Parties with net final costs.
C. If, after crediting the City with its pro rata share of any excess revenues per
paragraph B, ANFC1 Total Estimated Payments made in the Service Year, then
the difference shall be paid by the County to the City no later than August 15; if
ANFC1 Total Estimated Payments made in the Service Year, then the difference
shall be paid by the City to the County no later than August 15.
Where:
"AR" is Actual Licensing Revenue attributable to the City, based on actual Licensing
Revenues received from residents of the City in the Service Year, adjusted for Cities with a
Licensing Revenue Target $20,000 as described in Exhibit C -5. (License Revenue that
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).
"T" is the Transition Funding Credit, if any, for the Service Year.
"V" is the Shelter Credit, if any, for the Service Year.
"W" is the actual amount paid by a City receiving shelter services to PAWS for such
services during the Service Year, if any, plus the actual amount paid by a City to the
County for the purchase of Enhanced Control Services during the Service Year, if any.
"X" is the amount of Residual New Regional Revenue, if any, allocable to the City from
the 50% of New Regional Revenues which is first applied to offset County costs for
funding Shelter Credits, Transition Funding Credits and any Program costs not allocated
in the cost model. The residual is shared amongst the Contracting Parties to reduce pro
rata up to 20% of each Contracting Party's Estimated Total Animal Services Cost
Allocation (See column titled "Estimated Total Animal Services Cost Allocation" in the
spreadsheet at Exhibit C -1).
"LRC" is the amount of any Licensing Revenue Credit or Charge to be applied based on
receipt of licensing support services. For a Licensing Revenue Support City designated in
Exhibit C -5, the amount shall be determined per Table 2 of Exhibit C -5 and the associated
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
59
w e
Licensing Support Contract, if any. Where a Licensing Revenue Support City is due a
Licensing Revenue Credit, the amount applied for this factor is a positive dollar amount
(e.g., increases City's revenues in the amount of the credit); if a Licensing Revenue Support
City is assessed a Licensing Revenue Charge, the amount applied for this factor is a
negative amount (e.g., increases City's costs). For any Contracting City receiving licensing
support services per a Licensing Support Contract/ Exhibit F other than a Licensing
Revenue Support City, LRC will be a negative amount (increasing the City's costs) equal
to the County's cost of the licensing support set forth in the Attachment A to the Licensing
Support Contract.
"B" is the "Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs" as estimated for the Service Year for the
provision of Animal Services to be allocated between all the Contracting Parties for the
purposes of determining the Estimated Payment, calculated as described in Exhibit C.
"LF" is the "Program Load Factor" attributable to City for the Service Year, calculated as
described in Exhibit C. LF will be recalculated if necessary to account for annexations of
areas with a population of 2,500 or more people, or for Latecomer Cities if such events
were not accounted for in the Final Estimated Payment Calculation for the Service Year
being reconciled.
Additional Allocation of New Regional Revenues after calculation of all amounts
above: If there is any residual New Regional Revenue remaining after allocating the full
possible "X" amount to each Party (to fully eliminate the population based portion of
costs), the remainder shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to all Contracting Parties for
which ANFC1 0. If there is any residual thereafter, it will be applied to improve Animal
Services.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
fll
Mrs
Exhibit E
Enhanced Control Services Contract (Optional)
Between City of "City and King County "County
The County will to offer Enhanced Control Services to the City during Service Years 2013,
2014 and 2105 of the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
between the City and the County dated and effective as of July 1, 2012 (the "Agreement
subject to the terms and conditions as described herein. The provisions of this Contract
are optional to both Parties and shall not be effective unless executed by both Parties.
A. The City may request services under two different options, summarized here and
described in further detail below:
Option 1: for a period of not less than one year, the City may request service from
an Animal Control Officer dedicated to the City "Dedicated Officer Such service
must be confirmed in writing through both Parties entering into this Enhanced
Control Services Contract no later than August 15 of the year prior to the Service
Year in which the service is requested.
Option 2: for a period of less than one year, the City may request a specified
number of over -time service hours on specified days and time from the 6 Animal
Control Officers staffing the three Control Districts. Unlike Option 1, the individual
officers providing the service will be determined by the County and may vary from
time to time; the term "Dedicated Officer" used in context of Option 2 is thus
different than its meaning with respect to Option 1. Option 2 service must be
requested no later than 60 days prior to the commencement of the period in which
the service is requested, unless waived by the County.
The City shall initiate a request for enhanced service by completing and submitting
Attachment A to the County. If the County determines it is able to provide the
requested service, it will so confirm by completing and countersigning Attachment A
and signing this Contract and returning both to the City for final execution.
B. The County will 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 and this Contract.
1. Costs identified in Attachment A for Option 1 are for one (1) year of service in
2010, in 2010 dollars, and include the cost of the employee (salary, benefits),
equipment and animal control vehicle for the employee's use). Costs are subject
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
ff
101
to adjustment each year, limited by the Annual Budget Inflator Cap (as defined
in the Agreement).
2. Costs for Option 2 will be determined by the County each year based on its
actual hourly overtime pay for the individual Animal Control Officers providing
the service, plus mileage at the federal reimbursement rate. The number of
miles for which mileage is charged shall be miles which would not have been
traveled but for the provision of the enhanced service.
3. Costs paid for enhanced services will be included in the Reconciliation
calculation for each Service Year, as described in Exhibit D of the Agreement.
C. 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).
D. The scheduling of work by the Dedicated Officer will be determined by mutual
agreement of the contract administrators identified in the Agreement, and (in the case
of a purchase of service under Option 1) the mutual agreement of officials of other
Contracting Cities named as contract administrators that have committed to sharing in
the expense of the Dedicated Officer. In the event the parties are unable to agree on
scheduling, the County shall have the right to finally determine the schedule of the
Dedicated Officer(s).
E. 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.
F. The County will 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.
G. For Services purchased under Option 1: 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, not less than 1600 hours per year will be provided.
Similarly, a half -time FTE will provide not less than 800 hours per year. The County
shall submit to the City an invoice and billing voucher at the end of each calendar
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
62
102
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 15 All
invoiced amounts shall be payable by the City within 30 days of the invoice date.
H. For Services vurchased under Option 2: The County shall submit to the City an
invoice and billing voucher at the end of each calendar quarter. All invoiced amounts
shall be payable by the City within 30 days of the invoice date.
I. 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 has purchased services under Option 1 and 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.
J. 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
Dow Constantine By:
King County Executive Mayor /City Manager
Date Date
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney City Attorney
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
M
103
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 Enhanced Control Service Contract /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 if purchasing services under Option 2.
Please indicate whether City is requesting services under Option 1 or Option 2:
Option 1:
of Full Time Equivalent Officer (FTE) requested: (minimum request: 20
requests must be in multiples of either 20% or 25
Option 2:
Overtime Hours purchase from existing ACO staff: hours per (week /month)
General Description of desired services (days, hours, nature of service):
For Option 1:
Contracting 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
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
M
104
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.
City requests that alone or in combination with requests of other Contracting 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 Contracting 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
FTE 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 (6
months).
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 (6 months)
*(50% of a Half -Time FTE)
This example is based on 2010 costs. Actual costs will be based on actual Service Year FTE
costs.
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
65
105
For Option 2:
On behalf of the City, the undersigned understands and agrees that the County will
confirm what services, if any, it can provide, and at what costs, by completing this
Attachment A, and the City must signify whether it accepts the County's offer by signing
the Enhanced Services Contract.
Request Signed as of this day of 201_.
City of
By:
Its
To be comvleted by Kine Countv:
Option 1: The County hereby confirms its ability and willingness to provide
Enhanced Control services as requested by the City in this Attachment A, with
adjustments as noted below (if any):
The FTE Cost for the Service Year in which the City has requested service is:
Option 2: the County confirms its ability to provide control service overtime hours
as follows (insert description— days /hours):
Such overtime hours shall be provided at a cost of (may be a
range) per service hour, with the actual cost depending on the individual(s)
assigned to work the hours, plus mileage at the federal reimbursement rate.
King County
By:
Its
Date:
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
106
Exhibit F
Licensing Support Contract (Optional)
Between City of "City and King County "County
The County is prepared to offer licensing revenue support to the City subject to the terms
and conditions described in this Licensing Support Contract "Contract 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 both parties have entered into the underlying Animal
Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015 (the "Agreement
A. Service Reauests. Submittal: Requests to enter into a licensing support contract
should be made by submitting the Licensing Revenue Support Services Request
(Attachment A to this Exhibit F) to the County between June 30 and October 31 of the
calendar year prior to year in which such services are requested "Service Year A
separate Request shall be submitted for each Service Year, excepting that a Licensing
Support City with a revenue target in excess of $20,000 /year may submit a request by
September 1, 2012 in order to receive service in all three Service Years (2013, 2014 and
2015).
B. Countv to Determine Service Availabilitv: The County will determine whether it has
capacity to provide the requested service based on whether it has staff available, and
consistent with the priorities stated in Section 7.c and Exhibit C -5 of the Agreement.
C. Services Provided by County. Cost: The County will determine the licensing revenue
support activities it will undertake to achieve the Licensing Revenue Target. Activities
may include, but are not limited to canvassing, mailings, calls to non renewals. In
completing Attachment A to confirm its ability to provide licensing support services to
the City, the County shall identify the cost for such service for each applicable Service
Year. If the City accepts the County's proposed costs, it shall so signify by
countersigning Attachment A.
D. Services Provided by City: In exchange for receiving licensing revenue support from
the County, the City will provide the following services:
1. Include inserts regarding animal licensing in bills or other mailings as may be
allowed by law, at the City's cost. The County will provide the design for the insert
and coordinate with the City to deliver the design on an agreed upon schedule.
2. Dedicate a minimum level of volunteer /staff hours per month (averaged over the
year), based on the City's Licensing Revenue Target for the Year (as
Document Dated 5 -29 -12 67
107
specified /selected in Attachment A) to canvassing and /or mailings and outbound
calls to non renewals. City volunteer /staff hour requirements are scaled based on
the size of the Licensing Revenue Target per Table A below:
Table A: Volunteer /Staff Hours to be Provided by City
If the Licensing Revenue Target The City shall provide volunteer /staff hours
for the Service Year is between: support (averaged over the year)
$0 and $5,000
$5,001410,000
$10,000 $20,000
$20,001 and $40,000
>$40,000
9 hours per month
18 hours per month
27 hours per month
36 hours per month
45 hours per month
3. Provide representation at a minimum of two public events annually to inform City
residents about the Animal Services Program and promote pet licensing.
4. Inform City residents about the Animal Services Program and promote pet
licensing utilizing print and electronic media including the city's website, social
media, community brochures and newsletter ads /articles, signage /posters and pet
licensing applications in public areas of city buildings and parks.
5. Appoint a representative to serve on the joint City County marketing
subcommittee; this representative shall attend the quarterly meetings of the
subcommittee and help shape and apply within the City the joint advertising
strategies developed by consensus of the subcommittee.
E. Selection of Licensine Revenue Target and Pavment for Licensing Revenue Suvvort:
1. For Licensing Revenue Support Cities (those identified in Exhibit C -5 of the
Agreement):
In 2014 and 2015, Licensing Revenue Support Cities may receive licensing revenue
support intended to generate total annual Licensing Revenue at or above the
Revenue Goal in Table 1 of Exhibit C -5. The City will receive a Licensing Revenue
Credit or Charge at Reconciliation in accordance with the calculations in Table 2 of
Exhibit C -5. A Licensing Revenue Support City may request service under
subparagraph 2 below.
2. For all other Contacting Cities: The City will identify a proposed Licensing
Revenue Target in Attachment A. The County may propose an alternate Revenue
Target. If the Parties agree upon a Licensing Revenue Target, the County shall
indentify its annual cost to provide service designed to achieve the target. At
Reconciliation, the City shall be charged for licensing support service at the cost
specified and agreed in Attachment A (the "Licensing Revenue Charge
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
68
W •11
regardless of the amount of Licensing Revenue received by the City during the Service Year
(see Exhibit D of the Agreement for additional detail).
F. Other Terms and Conditions:
1. Before January 31 of the Service Year, each Party will provide the other with a
general calendar of in -kind services to be provided over the course of the Service
Year.
2. Each Party will provide the other with a monthly written report of the services
performed during the Service Year.
3. Either Party may terminate this Contract with or without cause by providing not
less than 2 months' advance written notice to the other Party; provided that all
County costs incurred to the point of termination remain chargeable to the City as
otherwise provided.
4. All terms of the Agreement, except as expressly stated otherwise herein, shall apply
to this Contract, and Capitalized Terms not defined herein have the meanings as set
forth in the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Contract for Licensing
Support Services to be executed effective as of this day of 201_.
King County City of
Dow Constantine
King County Executive
Date
Approved as to Form:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
By:
Mayor /City Manager
Date
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
11
109
Exhibit F: Attachment A
LICENSING REVENUE SUPPORT SERVICES REQUEST
(to be completed by City requesting licensing support services; one request per Service Year except for a
Licensing Support City with a Licensing Revenue Target over $20,000 /year; final terms subject to adjustment
by County and agreement by City confirmed in writing, executed and appended to the Contract for
Licensing Support Services Exhibit F of the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
"the Agreement dated effective as of July 1, 2012.)
1. City
Date of Request:
2. Licensing Revenue Target (the amount by which the City seeks to increase its
revenues in the Service Year):
Note:
For Licensing Revenue Support Cities, the Licensing Revenue Support Target
is defined in Table 1 of Exhibit C -5 of the Agreement, unless the Parties
otherwise agree.
The amount of volunteer /staff hours and other in -kind services required of
the City in exchange for receipt of licensing support services is based on the
size of the Licensing Revenue Target (see Licensing Support Contract/
Exhibit F of Agreement).
3. Contact person who will coordinate City responsibilities associated with delivery of
licensing support services:
Name:
Title:
Phone:
Fax:
I understand that:
A. provision of licensing revenue support services is subject to the County
determining it has staff available to provide the services;
B. For Contracting Cities other than Licensing Revenue Support Cities, the County
may propose an adjustment in the requested Licensing Revenue Target;
C. the County will, by September 1 of the current calendar year, provide the City
with a firm cost to provide the amount of licensing support services the County
proposes to provide by completing this Attachment A;
D. the County cannot verify and does not guarantee a precise level of Licensing
Revenues to be received by the City as a result of these services;
E. Receipt of service is subject to County and City agreeing on the Licensing
Revenue Target and County charge for these services (incorporated in
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
70
110
calculation of the Licensing Revenue Credit/Charge per the Agreement), and
executing the Licensing Support Contract (Exhibit F of the Agreement).
Request signed as of this day of 201
City of
By:
Its:
To be completed by King County:
The County offers to provide the City licensing revenue support services in Service Year
201 intended to generate (the "Licensing Revenue Target in additional
Licensing Revenue for a total Service Year cost of some or all of which cost
may be charged to the City in calculating the Licensing Revenue Charge, as further
described in the Licensing Support Contract and Exhibits C -5 (for Licensing Support
Cities) and D of the Agreement.
King County
By:
Its:
Date:
To be comvleted by the Citv:
The County offer is accepted as of this
City of
By:
Its:
Document Dated 5 -29 -12
day of 201
/AI
111
112
King County /Cities Work Group for Animal Services
Interlocal Agreement Briefing Materials May 16, 2012
The King County /Cities Workgroup has reached consensus on a Final Proposed Animal Services Interlocal
Agreement (ILA) for 2013 through 2015. This Final Proposed ILA has been reviewed by a group of city and
county attorneys.
ILA: The ILA is summarized on Attachment A "Summary of Key Provisions" and Attachment C "Outline of
Terms for Agreement." It will be an amended successor ILA to the current Agreement.
ESTIMATED INDIVIDUAL CITY COSTS: A model showing the estimated cost allocation for 2013 is provided in
Attachment B "Draft 2013 Estimated Payment Calculation It includes all cities currently in the system,
except Auburn, reflecting this city's notice that it will leave the regional system. This document will be
updated if Auburn decides to remain in the system.
KEY CHANGES PROPOSED: (1) shift to a cost allocation method based more on use, and less on city
population in year 1 to establish the base costs; (2) provide cost stability for jurisdiction in years 2 and 3 by
capping the total net allocable costs in 2013 to a level similar to the system inflationary cap (CPI
population growth); (3) increase the County's level of financial support to the system and hold that support
steady over the 3 -year contract term (2013- 2015); (3) adjust animal control district boundaries to maintain
service levels and control costs; (4) increase focus on system revenue generation and future regional
revenue possibilities; and (5) implement efficiencies and other changes to reduce allocable costs while
maintaining service levels.
PROCESS /TIMELINE: City representatives and King County began working in November 2011, meeting
weekly, in order to reach agreement in principle on changes to the current Animal Services Interlocal
Agreement necessitated by Auburn's indication in September 2011 of its intent to depart the system.
Auburn's notice required a renegotiation discussion per the ILA. The current ILA will not be extended
beyond December 31, 2012, and the parties have until July 1, 2012, to sign a new ILA. Timeline as follows:
February 1, 2012: Completed and circulated Agreement in Principle and process timeline
February 14, 2012: First non binding statement of interest from Cities
April 6, 2012: Completed final draft of amended ILA for distribution
May 1, 2012: Second non binding statement of interest. This will provide parties greater assurance
regarding their expected share of system costs moving forward
May 17, 2012: Final cost estimates and ILA circulated based on second non binding statement of
interest
July 1, 2012: Both parties will have executed the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 through
2015.
Attachment A: Summary of Key Provisions
Attachment B: Draft 2013 Estimated Payment Calculation
Attachment C: Outline of Terms of Agreement
Attachment D: Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System
Attachment E: Districts Map
Attachment F: RASKC ILA Revenue Work Plan
Attachment G: ILA Negotiations Joint Work Group
Attachment H: May 16, 2012 PowerPoint Presentation
Final Proposed Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
113
King County /Cities Work Group for Animal Services
Final Proposed Interlocal Agreement May 16, 2012
The King County /Cities Workgroup has reached consensus on a Final Proposed Animal Services Interlocal
Agreement (ILA) for 2013 through 2015. This Final Proposed ILA has been reviewed by a group of city and
county attorneys.
ILA: The ILA is summarized on Attachment A "Summary of Key Provisions" and Attachment C "Outline of
Terms for Agreement." It will be an amended successor ILA to the current Agreement.
ESTIMATED INDIVIDUAL CITY COSTS: A model showing the estimated cost allocation for 2013 is provided in
Attachment B "Draft 2013 Estimated Payment Calculation It includes all cities currently in the system,
except Auburn, reflecting this city's notice that it will leave the regional system. This document will be
updated if Auburn decides to remain in the system.
KEY CHANGES PROPOSED: (1) shift to a cost allocation method based more on use, and less on city
population in year 1 to establish the base costs; (2) provide cost stability for jurisdiction in years 2 and 3 by
capping the total net allocable costs in 2013 to a level similar to the system inflationary cap (CPI
population growth); (3) increase the County's level of financial support to the system and hold that support
steady over the 3 -year contract term (2013- 2015); (3) adjust animal control district boundaries to maintain
service levels and control costs; (4) increase focus on system revenue generation and future regional
revenue possibilities; and (5) implement efficiencies and other changes to reduce allocable costs while
maintaining service levels.
PROCESS /TIMELINE: City representatives and King County began working in November 2011, meeting
weekly, in order to reach agreement in principle on changes to the current Animal Services Interlocal
Agreement necessitated by Auburn's indication in September 2011 of its intent to depart the system.
Auburn's notice required a renegotiation discussion per the ILA. The current ILA will not be extended
beyond December 31, 2012, and the parties have until July 1, 2012, to sign a new ILA. Timeline as follows:
February 1, 2012: Completed and circulated Agreement in Principle and process timeline
February 14, 2012: First non binding statement of interest from Cities
April 6, 2012: Completed final draft of amended ILA for distribution
May 1, 2012: Second non binding statement of interest. This will provide parties greater assurance
regarding their expected share of system costs moving forward
May 17, 2012: Final cost estimates and ILA circulated based on second non binding statement of
interest
July 1, 2012: Both parties will have executed the Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 through
2015.
Attachment A: Summary of Key Provisions
Attachment B: Draft 2013 Estimated Payment Calculation
Attachment C: Outline of Terms of Agreement
Attachment D: Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System
Attachment E: Districts Map
Attachment F: RASKC ILA Revenue Work Plan
Attachment G: ILA Negotiations Joint Work Group
Attachment H: May 16, 2012 PowerPoint Presentation
Final Proposed Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015
114
Attachment A
Summary of Key Provisions: Final Proposed ILA
Current ILA (June 2010
December 31,2012
provides for extension
through 2014)
2012
Costs distributed through model $5.84 m (2012)
Final Proposed Animal Services
Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through
2015
$5.26 m (2013)
General cost allocation model 50% usage, 50%
80% usage, 20% population sets base
for shelter, licensing and control population
in 2013. Total net allocable costs are
essentially capped to a level similar to
the system inflationary cap (CPI
population growth) for 2014 and
2015. 2013 base share is adjusted
only for changes in revenues from
year to year and by major
annexations, and latecomers.
Jurisdictional Cost stability Costs change each year
To provide more cost predictability
based on actual system
from year to year, costs in 2014 and
use and revenues of each
2015 will be based on the 2013 costs,
jurisdiction.
adjusted for growth in the total
program budget (subject to a cost
inflator cap), changes in revenues,
and changes in population
attributable to annexations over
2,500 and latecomers.
Service term 2.5 years, possible 2 year
3 years, re- opener with possible 2
extension
year extension (effective 7/1/12,
service begins 1/1/13); limited re-
opener for cost /revenue allocation
provided if a voter approved regional
levy is proposed that generates
revenues before 2016.Termination
allowed if such a measure were to be
approved and either party not
satisfied with the results of the re-
opener discussions.
1
May 16, 2012
115
Attachment A
Summary of Key Provisions: Final Proposed ILA
Total County sponsored and $1.37m (2012) $1.76 m (2013)
mitigation contribution
*does not include potential costs of
licensing support which would be
additional to this amount and
potentially recoverable through
license revenues.
Revenue Focus
County commits to working with joint
city county workgroup and elected
officials if a regional levy is
considered
Shelter replacement
Licensing Bridge to sustainability: Joint
commitment to aggressively explore
variety of specific mechanisms to
increase system revenues and
achieve sustainability at the end of
the 3 years
Not Included
Not included
New regional revenues Not included New revenues from donation,
foundation, marketing,
entrepreneurial activities or grants
that are not designated for specific
purposes will be used to reduce
allocable costs for all jurisdictions and
to help offset costs to the county for
credits and non allocable costs
Service Days 5 days (Monday- Friday) Will include at least one weekend
day; coverage may be provided 7
days per week, with 40 hours per
week guaranteed in agreement to
control costs
Service Protocols Established in ILA Cities to be involved in developing
service protocols
2 May 16, 2012
116
Attachment A
Summary of Key Provisions: Final Proposed ILA
Control Districts 4 Districts 3 Districts
Officers home base at Officers hosted in each district
Shelter
May 16, 2012
117
Attachment A
Summary of Key Provisions: Final Proposed ILA
Goal of model: maintain or lower costs for cities from the estimated 2012 levels
o Increasing county support, adjusting the cost allocation formula, providing
credits and licensing support
Cost efficiencies included for 2013, or sooner if possible
o Reduce costs by aligning staffing with current operations
i. Shelter: $276,000 reduction due to projected lower number of animals in
the shelter
ii. Licensing: Program efficiencies resulting in reductions of $121,000.
iii. Developing a project to bring laundry in -house instead of using
commercial services $65,000 budget savings annually
Key changes from current ILA:
o Shifted cost allocation model to (80% use /20% population) to place more emphasis
on system use rather than population responsive to low use cities
o Cost stability provided in 2014 and 2015 by capping the total net allocable costs in
2013 to a level similar to the system inflationary cap (CPI population growth) for
2014 and 2015. (2013 base is adjusted only for changes in revenues from year to
year and by major annexation and latecomers.
o Removed additional shelter staff from the cost allocation model: County will fund
additional $240,003 annually
o Included licensing support for cities to generate license revenues and lower net
costs with cities providing in -kind support
o Provide County financial contribution to higher use cities over 3 year contract term
to provide cost stability
o Reduced control districts from 4 to 3 by collapsing two south districts into one in
response to Auburn indicating it will leave the system
Service levels:
o No shelter capital upgrades included in the cost model for the 3 year period
o High quality shelter service levels retained, costs decreased
o Control service levels maintained and coverage extended to at least one weekend
day
o Licensing service levels retained, costs decreased
System Revenues: Joint commitment to aggressively explore variety of specific mechanisms
to increase system revenues and achieve system stability by end of 3 years
Northern PAWS cities assumed to continue to purchase shelter services from PAWS
4
May 16, 2012
118
Reaional Animal Services of Kina Countv
DRAFT 2013 Estimated Pavment Calculation
Attachment B
Auburn Out, Allocation Method: Population 20%, Usage W16, Three (3) Control Districts: 200, 220, with Control Districts 240 and 260 combined into one (500), costs to districts 2576,26%, 50 Usage and
Licensing Revenue based on 2011 Preliminary Year End.
�I1
Control I Shelter I Licensing I Total Allocated Costs (11 Revenue
a sing (est) Estimr Net
Budgeted Total Allocable Costs 1 $1,770,4871 $2,819,9601 $673,6401 $5,264,087
Budgeted Non Licensing Revenue 1 $80,0401 $112,5071 $13,2651 $205,812
Budgeted New Regional Revenue 150 %1 1 $01 $01 $01 $0
Budgeted Net Allocable Costs 1 $1,690,4471 $2,707,4531 $660,3751 $5,058,2751 $2,480,689 $2,577,586
Animal Control Jurisdiction
District Number
4 Car nation I
(Duvall
IEsbmated Unincorporated Kinq County I
(Kenmore_ I
[Kirkland I
N (Lake Forest Park 1
Redmond I
Sammamish I
Shoreline t
Woodinville I
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 200 (excludes unincorporated area) i
Beaux Arts I
Bellevue I
Clyde Hill I
Estimated Unincorporated Kino Count I
N Issaquah I
N Mercer Island I
Newcastle I
North Bend I
Snoqualmie I
Yarrow Point I
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 220 (excludes unincorporated area) I
(Kent
ISeaTac I
(Tukwila I
0 (Black Diamond I
W) (Covington I
(Enumclaw I
(Estimated Unincorporated Kinq Count I
IMagle Valley I
SUBTOTAL FOR CITIES IN 500 (excludes unincorporated area) I
ITOTAL FOR CITIES I
Total King County Unincorporated Area Allocation I
2013-2015 Estimated Net Estimated
Estimated Animal Estimated Estimated Estimated Total Program 2011 Licensing Estimated Net Transition 2013-2015 Costs with Revenue from Estimated Net
Control Cost Allocation Sheltering Cost Licensing Cost Animal Services Load Factor Revenue Shelter Credits Transition Proposed
(2) Allocation (3) Allocation (4) Cost Allocation (9) (Estimated) Cost Allocation Funding (Annual) (6) Funding and Licensing Final Cost (8)
(Annual) (5) Credits Support (7)
$4.1181
$11.2611
$83.8371
$37.9111
$84,5951
$22.8941
$37.8671
$35.3411
$92.5191
$12.2681
$338,7751
$861
$142.3221
$1.8661
$166.1991
$53.3511
$13.5811
$16.4841
$15.8511
$12.2481
$625,
$256,4131
$263.2321
$79.7321
$49.6351
$8,0841
$52.4901
$41.7471
$309,0891
$41,2151
$536,1351
$1,131,3221
$559,1251
$1,690,447
$3.4971
$1.2391
$15.2641
$5.3511
tree total below) I (see total below) 1
$11.5921
$15.4231
$99.6261
$59.9401
$7.0341
$12,0991
$54.3031
$32,3081
5442141
$31.1291
$29.6771
$38.1941
$6.1031
$7.7081
$271,3101
$203,3921
$1671
$2461
$161.4861
$752491
83,1681
$1.9521
(see total below) I (see total belowt 1
$46.1671
$16.2791
$18.1771
$13.8531
$12.3181
$4.6571
$16.2731
$4,1281
$11.1161
$6.7371
$5611
$7601
$269,4321
$123,8621
$794,1011
$69.4001
$1.126,7331
22.2750 %1
$253.9441
$872.7891
$110.4951
$495.8701
$266.4241
5184.8941
$13.3111
$277.9381
5,4947 %1
$47.2321
$230,7061
$7,4421
$116,6111
$106.6531
$110.7871
$9,229)
$169.6521
3.3539 %1
$32.7051
$136,9471
$5.2551
$61.9871
$69.7051
$14.3401
$2.6851
$25.1081
0.4964 %1
$10.1851
$14.9231
$1.2091
$3.2631
$10.4511
$82.4561
$12,6341
$147.5801
2.9176 %1
$48.9821
$98.5981
$5,0701
$36.4091
$57.1191
$56
$6.9201
$105,3401
2.0825 %1
$25.3071
580.0331
$11.1881
$28,4071
840,4381
(see total below) I (see total below) I
(see total below) I
I
tsee total below) I
(see total below) I
NA I
NA I
NA 1
$68,3801
$15.0801
$124,6751
2.4648 %1
$56.6281
$68,0471
$6.0271
$6.8671
555.1531
$1,311,6311
$129,2591
$1,977,0251
1
$474,9831
$1,502,0421
$146,6861
$749,4141
5605,9421
$1,852,3731
$456,5141
$3,440,2091
1
$1,671,8191
$1,768,3901
$148,6141
$750,0001
$869,7761
$855,0801
$203,8611
$1,618,0651
31.9885%
$808,8701
$809,1951
$2,707,453
$660,375
$5,058,275
100.00%
$2,480,689
$2,577,586
$8.8541
$31.8761
(see total below) 1
$64.9261
$244.1621
$42.0271
$124.4781
$110,6841
$160.3911
$26.0791
$813,4771
$5001
$379.0561
$6.9851
(see total below)1
$115.7971
$45.6111
$33.4591
$36.2521
$30.1011
$1.9451
$649,7071
0.1750%1
$4.7521
44.1021
$5521
$01
$3.5501
$9661
42,584
0.6302°/61
$21.3431
$10.5331
1
$01
$10.5331
$7,6581
$2.875
1
(see total below) I
(see total below):
NA 1
NA;
NA 1
NA 1
NA
1.2836 %1
$58.6021
-$6.3241
$01
501
$6,3241
$01
$6.324
4.8270 %1
$208.0001
$36.1621
1
$01
$36.1621
$23.8531
$12.309
0.8309%1
$48.5041
$6.4774
$01
$01
S6.47711
$01
$6.477
2.4609° /61
$116,4071
$8.0711
Sol
$01
$8,0711
$01
48,0711
2.1882%1
$117,6491
$6.9651
$01
Sol
$6.9651
$01
$6.9651
3.1709 /61
$145.6891
$14.7021
$01
$01
$14.7021
$01
$14.7021
0.5156%1
$29.2201
83.1411
$01
$01
$3,1411
$01
$3,1411
1
$750,1661
363,3111
$5521
$01
562,7591
$32,4771
$30,2821
0.0099%1
$9301
$4301
$01
$01
54301
7.4938 %1
$273.9311
$105.1251
1
$01
$105.1251
0.1381 %1
$7.1701
$1851
$01
$01
$1851
1
(see total below) I
(see total below):
NA I
NA I
NA 1
2.2893 %1
$55.9471
$59.8501
$01
$01
-$59.8501
0. 9017 %1
$49.9621
54.3511
$01
Sol
54.3511
0.6615 %1
$15.2711
$18.1881
$01
$01
$18,1881
0.7167 %1
$15.6941
$20.5581
$1.3761
$5861
$18.5961
0.5951 %1
$25.0651
45.0361
$01
$01
45.0361
0.0385 %1
$2,7001
$7551
$01
$01
$7551
1
$446,6701
5203,0371
$1,3761
$5861
5201,0751
$01
$34.4491
So(
NA 1
$01
$01
$2.5991
56.4631
$01
$01
$43,5111
$01
$01
$01
$2,0011
$01
$5.9731
NA
$6.9561
$14,9301
$430
$70.676
$185
NA
$59,850
$4,351
$15.589
$12.133
$5_036
$755
5157,564
$266.4241
$106,6531
$69.7051
$8.4501
-$57,119
$34,465
NA
$48.197
-$591,012
$90,9181
$778,858
1 $809,195
So RegionalAnbnal S,,viteof KhV County
am Jan 30, 2012 (Drat upd W 67 -12
Numbers are estimates ony for the purpose of negotiation discussions. The numbers and allocation methodology are subject to change while negotiations are underway.
Notes:
1. Based on various efficiencies and changes to the RASKC operating budget, adjustments for reduced intakes overall, reduced usage with Auburn out, and shifting two positions out of the model (county sponsored), the 2013 Estimated Budgeted Total Allocable Cost has been reduced to $5,264,087.
2. One quarter of control services costs are allocated to control districts 200 and 220, and one half of control costs are allocated to district 500, then costs are further allocated 80% by total call volume (2011 Calls -Preliminary year end) and 20% by 2011 population.
3. This excludes the cost to northern cities of sheltering their animals at PAWS under separate contracts. Shatter costs are allocated 80% by King County shatter volume intake (2011 Preliminary year and) and 20 by 2011 population.
4. Licensing costs are allocated 20 9 /6 by population (2011) and 80% by total number of Pet Licenses issued (2011) less $0.00 Sr. Lifetime licenses.
5. Transition funding is allocated per capita in a two tier formula to cities with certain per capita net cost allocations. For additional detail, see 2010 Interlocal Agreement Exhibit C-4 (2013 column) for more information. Transition Funding does not change for years 2013 2015.
6. Credits are allocated to those jurisdictions whose shelter intakes per capita exceeded the system average (.0043) and are intended to help minimize the impact of changing the cost allocation methodology from 50% population/50 usage to the new 20% population /80% usage model. See Interlocal Agreement Exhibit
C-4 for more detail.
7 New Transition License Funding has been included for certain jurisdictions to help limit the Estimated Net Final Cost to the 2012 estimated level. Receipt of support is contingent on city providing in -kind services and county ability to provide resources and /or recover costs
8. Net Final Costs greater than $0 will be reallocated to remaining jurisdictions with a negative net final cost, northern cities Net Final Costs shall be inclusive of their PAWS Sheltering costs.
9. Program Load Factor (LF) per ILA Exhibit C, Part 4, Estimated Payment Calculation Formula, is the City's share of Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs: it is the City's 2013 Service Year Total Animal Services Cost Allocation expressed as a percentage of the Budgeted Total Net Allocable Costs for 2013. Refer to the
ILA for additional details.
Outline Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015— changes from current ILA noted in italics
Item
Parties
Services
Exhibit A, B and
E
Cost Allocation
(Exhibit C)
■For Service
Year 2013
Control I Shelter
County and all cities in current system with exception of Auburn
1. Reduce control districts from 4 to 3
2. Maintain staffing level of 6 total 1 ACC) in
districts 200 and 220, and 2 ACO in district 500 on
a regular basis, plus two floaters
3. Maintain 40 hours of service coverage per week,
with coverage for at least 1 weekend day
4. Station officers at host sites within districts where
service and travel time improvements or
efficiencies result
5. Cities may continue to purchase enhanced
services in addition to regular field services,
provided they are not receiving a shelter or
transition credit.
1. Costs allocated to districts as follows:
a) 25% each to districts 200 and 220 and 50% to
district 500
2) Costs allocated in 2013 to all jurisdictions within
each district based 80% on use and 20% on
population (current 50 %/50
No changes proposed
Costs allocated in 2013
to all jurisdictions
based 80% on use and
20% on population
(current 50 %/50
Licensing
Attachment C
Change III (5) to allow mail or e-mail
notice for renewals
County will provide detailed
licensing data to any city promptly
upon request.
Costs allocated in 2013 to all
jurisdictions based 80% on use and
20% on population (current
50 %/50
1
May 16, 2012
Outline Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015– changes from current ILA noted in italics Attachment C
Item Control I Shelter I Licensing
For Service In 2014 and 2015, each jurisdiction's costs are adjusted using the 2013 cost allocation as a base (that is, not recalculating
Years 2014- in detail for usage), inflated by the growth in the total net program allocable costs. Growth in allocable system costs are
2015 subject to an inflator cap (population growth plus inflation).
In addition, changes in revenues (licensing, non licensing, credits, etc.) are considered in the calculation in these years, as
well as changes in population attributable solely to annexations (in or out of the total program service area) of areas
If ILA is with a population 2,500 and latecomers.
extended to In 2016, cost allocation will be determined using the same formulas as used to determine costs in 2013 (details of
2016, 2017 population, use, etc.)
In 2017, the cost allocation will be adjusted for total program allocable cost growth and for changes in revenues, major
annexations —as per 2014, 2015.
Revenue As a general principle, the parties agree that animal services should not be a profit making enterprise. It is critical to
Allocation bring additional revenue into the system to reduce the need for general fund support and there should be appropriate
incentives to promote revenue generation.
1. License revenues will first offset costs of jurisdiction where the revenue is generated (cost includes PAWS costs and
enhanced control services purchased)
a. License revenues above a jurisdiction's cost will be re- allocated to reduce costs for others.
2. New fundraising, marketing, entrepreneurial, donation or foundation funds will be allocated as follows, unless
designated for specific purposes
a. 50% to offset county mitigation funds first, then county sponsored costs, then to reduce the 20% component
of the cost allocation model
b. 50% to reduce the overall costs (benefits all jurisdictions)
3. Major capital expenditures are not included in the cost allocation model. If there are new revenues that are
designated for capital these will be held separately from operating revenues noted above.
2
May 16, 2012
Outline Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015– changes from current ILA noted in italics Attachment C
-See Graphic on Revenue Allocation Framework.
Conditions for 1. Preliminary 2013 payment cannot exceed the Pre commitment 2013 payment (in Exhibit C -1) by 5% or $3,500,
ILA to become whichever is greater either party may waive
Effective 2. Minimum contiguity —may be waived by County
3. 60 day emergency agreement and minimum 6 month contract not included in this ILA extension. Parties will know
Section 15 no later than August 15 of this year whether they need to make other arrangements for animal services by January
1, 2013.
Payment 1. Reconciliation of revenues due by June 30 each year. Reconciliation focused on changes in revenues as compared
Method /Timing to estimates -not changes in usage, population (other than annexations of areas with population 2,500) or
latecomers.
Section 5
2. Non binding preliminary estimate of Estimated Payment for upcoming year provided by county to cities by
September 1st
3. Final Estimated Payment provided in writing to cities by December 15 each year
4. Exhibit C– allows adjustments to estimates of use and license revenue to include consideration of recent trending.
County will work with joint city county committee to determine the adjustments. Absent agreement on
adjustments, the default will be to use actual license revenue and use data from last reconciliation year.
5. Exhibit C7 updated Payment and Calculation Schedule (see attachment)
Cost Inflator Retain Annual Budget cap on allocable cost of inflation plus population growth for 3 year term
Cap
Exhibit C -1
(page 29)
3
May 16, 2012
Outline Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015— changes from current ILA noted in italics Attachment C
Contract term 1) Takes effect 71112012
and 2) Three year term for services (1/1/2013- 12/31/2015)
termination 3) Extension
provisions i) Optional two year renewal (renewal no longer automatic, but at option of County whether to extend on same
terms, re- opener provided so that parties can consider other amendments in connection with any extension.)
Section 4 ii) County must convene cities in September 2014 to discuss extension with existing terms or renewal with
reopener of terms
iii) Notice of intent not to renew must be given by March 15, 2015 (rather than May 1 as in current ILA)
iv) Parties must reach agreement in writing by July 1, 2015 or ILA terminates 1213112015
Re- opener for cost and revenue allocation required if a countywide voter approved measure is proposed. Either party
may terminate with 180 days notice, or when levy imposed, whichever is earlier if re- opener negotiations are not
concluded to the satisfaction of both parties.
Services Section 2
purchased
Maintain language providing county discretion over staffing assignments and manner of handling calls, but add new
language for cities to provide input through the Joint City County committee to recommend service delivery metrics and
to assist with developing service delivery modifications for handling and responding to calls within districts build the
flexibility in to Exhibit A. at Part 1.2.d, d.)
4
May 16, 2012
Outline Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015— changes from current ILA noted in italics Attachment C
Credits Exhibit C
1. Carry forward the 2013 transition funding credit from existing agreement for each year of the 3 year term
2. New shelter credit for each year of the 3 year term has been provided to cities with a per capita shelter use greater
than the average in 2011 (capped at a total amount of $750,000 per year for this credit category). Credit fixed at
same level in all three years (2013- 2015).
3. County will give serious consideration to maintaining credits under an extension of the agreement into 2016, 2017.
4. Licensing Revenue Support Credit: Nine cities will receive assistance from the County in 2013 to boost their licensing
revenues. The assistance is based on the gap in licensing revenues that would need to be filled to assure 2013 net
costs do not exceed 2012 net costs. To receive this assistance in 2014 and 2015, cities must sign an agreement to
provide in -kind support, and the County must have staff capacity to provide the service. All other cities may also
sign an agreement for such support in 2014 and 2015 if the County has staff capacity (priority will go to the nine
original cities). Cities with licensing revenue targets over $20K /year (Kirkland, Bellevue) may be assured of the
assistance in all 3 years and will be provided with an incentive for the city to help increase license revenues, by
signing an agreement to provide the higher level of in -kind support for all 3 years. If licensing revenues received
exceed the revenue goal amount established in the ILA C -5 Exhibit, the County's costs of providing such service are
recouped before additional revenues are allocated to the city (subject to details provided in C -5 and Exhibit F).
License 1. County will maintain system marketing efforts to generate license revenue across system
revenue
support
Section 7
5
May 16, 2012
Outline Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015— changes from current ILA noted in italics Attachment C
Joint City-
1. Maintain committee structure.
County
2. The collaborative initiatives that shall be reviewed by the committee include items from existing ILA:
committee and
private licensing;
collaborative
0 non profit services;
initiatives
marketing /licensing;
service delivery efficiencies refocused to be a continuous improvement effort;
review results of reconciliation;
Section 11
review preliminary proposed budgets for animal services; provide input to reports;
review and provide input to proposed animal services operational initiatives;
item F Changed as follows: No major capital expenditures in the Kent facility are contemplated within
the contract term. The County will update the estimate of facility needs as part of re- negotiation and /or
new regional revenue discussions
3. Add new:
1. Maintain a marketing subcommittee
2. Collaborate on response and service improvements including communication with 911 centers
3. Engage in two -way problem solving
4. Develop alternative dispute mechanisms that could be used to resolve low level issues such as barking dog
complaints
5. Work with cities to plan disaster response
6. Review and collaborate on billing protocol
7. Ensure there is at least one meeting each year between ACOs and law enforcement in each district
8. Revenue ideas (near and mid -term)
L
May 16, 2012
Outline Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for 2013 Through 2015— changes from current ILA noted in italics
Attachment C
Proposed Revenue Allocation Draft Framework
i" WO2 -4 -f2
Licensing Offset Individual
Revenues Jurisdictions Net
Costs A
0 06,
han 0
PAWS
Pymts_
Offset County
Mitigation Funds
Regional
Revenues;
New Regional
Sources \gyp
Reduce Overall
Costs (Benefits
All Jurisdictions)
Fund
Raising
Foundation
County
jo. Sponsored Costs
Reduce 20
r population factor
dry 0
Credited to
Jurisdictions
With
Negative
Net Final
Costs
Based on of
Total Net Final
Costs
Note: Any new revenue source identified specifically for capital
improvements would go solely for that purpose.
l�
Attachment D
Benefits of a Regional Animal Services System
Effective and Efficient Service
Provides a consistent level of service, common regulatory approach, and humane animal care
across the region.
Allows local police agencies to focus on traditional law enforcement instead of civil animal
offenses (barking, off leash, unlicensed animals).
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.
Provides a low -cost spay and neuter program which is key to reducing the population of
homeless animals and thus 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 (public disclosure requests).
Use of volunteers and partnerships with private animal welfare groups increases humane animal
treatment with minimal public cost: In 2011, volunteers contributed over 60,000 hours of
support to the County animal services system, equivalent to 30 full time employees.
Takes advantage of current technology offices can access calls and database in the field;
customers receive email notices prior to mailed renewal notices; citizens can locate lost pets
online or by phone; cities get detailed, monthly reports on level and types of activity in their
jurisdiction.
King County Board of Appeals hears appeals to civil offenses thus centralizing the adjudication to
a forum that is familiar with the issues.
Customer Service
Provides a single access point for residents searching for a lost pet or seeking animal control
help.
Provides one single point of contact for citizen complaints.
Pet Adoption Center is open and provides services 7 days a week.
A regional, uniform pet licensing program that is simpler for the public to access and
understand, with a broad range of accompanying services to encourage licensing; marketing,
partnering with third parties to encourage license sales, and database management.
Online licensing sales increase the ease of compliance for pet owners.
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,
May 16, 2012
129
Attachment D
animal necropsies and quarantine, holding of animals as evidence in criminal cases and retrieval
of dead animals.
Provides consistent and knowledgeable services to over 4800 callers per year. Calls are
dispatched on a prioritized basis. Emergency response services are available 24 hours per day.
Animal Welfare
Reduces pressure on non profit shelters through capacity at public shelter. Non profit animal
welfare groups contribute by accepting transfers of publicly sheltered animals for care and
adoption.
Animals find new homes and are not euthanized for capacity. Euthanasia rates have been
reduced.
Engages citizens through foster homes and other volunteer programs (on -site and adoption
events).
Provides regional response to animal cruelty cases.
Provides regional preparedness planning and coordination for emergency and disaster response.
Provides regional capacity for seasonal events (kitten season).
Avoids competition across jurisdictions for sheltering space and comparisons across jurisdictions
on animal welfare outcome statistics.
Benefit fund allows private donors to contribute to the heroic care of animals —these services
are not publicly funded and are not usually available in publicly funded animal service programs.
May 16, 2012
2
WE
attachment e
132
Attachment: F
RASKC ILA Revenue Workplan
Revenue Sustainability
All partners in RASKC share the goal of creating revenue sustainability for the regional system.
Revenues from license sales have historically provided less than 50% of the funding for the system. The
majority of additional funding under the current interlocal agreement is provided by the jurisdictions.
The items listed below reflect the partners current thinking of items that could increase revenues for the
RASKC model and should be implemented or further evaluated. New ideas may emerge and /or items on
the list may be removed if determined not cost efficient or effective. The County will take the lead on
the items and work in conjunction with the Joint City County Committee.
Near term Potentially Implementable in 2012
Create licensing tool -box for cities
Increase canvassing effort
Improve the RASKC website and promote linkages to it from city websites
Increase public service announcements, media spotlight opportunities
Utilize e-mail to reach out to supporters
Consider implementing a second penalty -free licensing period
Medium Term Potentially Implementable in 2012 -2015
Review /Analyze Licensing fee pricing structure and amount
Improve options for making donations through the licensing program
Investigate creation of entrepreneurial options with pet stores to provide discounts on pet items
to people with licenses
Targeted partnerships with private sector businesses that provide high volume license sales (e.g.
license sales in exchange for a share of the license fee)
Create 501(c)3 for donations and improve efforts to secure donations
Evaluate feasibility of regional levy to support all, or components of the system
Evaluate feasibility of new legislative authority to levy a regional sales tax on pet related items
May 16, 2012
133
134
Attachment G
Regional Animal Services of King County
Interlocal Agreement Negotiation Joint Work Group
Cities representatives
City of SeaTac, James Graddon
City of Kirkland, Lorrie McKay
City of Issaquah, Ross Hoover
City of Lake Forest Park, Cheryl Niclai
City of Newcastle, Melinda Irvine
City of Kenmore, Nancy Ousley
City of Woodinville, Sydney Jackson
City of Lake Forest Park, Dennis Peterson
City of SeaTac, Annette Louie
City of Redmond, Nina Rivkin
City of Mercer Island, Dave Jokinen
City of Bellevue, Sheida Sahandy
City of Enumclaw, Michael Thomas
City of Kent, Jeff Watling
City of Covington, Derek Matheson
City of Sammamish, Mike Sauerwein
City of Tukwila, Peggy McCarthy
Snoqualmie
Countv representatives
Diane Carlson, Executive Office Sean Bouffiou, Records and Licensing
Services Division
Norm Alberg, Interim Director, Records Yiling Wong, Office of Performance
and Licensing Services Division Strategy Budget
Eric Swansen, Records and Licensing
Services Division —Shelter Operations
Neutral facilitator, Karen Reed
Cities represented in Interlocal Agreement
District 200
District 220
District 500
Carnation
Beaux Arts
Covington
Duvall
Bellevue
Black Diamond
Kenmore
Clyde Hill
Enumclaw
Kirkland
Issaquah
Kent
Lake Forest Park
Mercer Island
Maple valley
Redmond
Newcastle
SeaTac
Sammamish
North Bend
Tukwila
Shoreline
Snoqualmie
Woodinville
Yarrow Point
May 16, 2012
135
lsH."
Final Proposed Interlocal
Agreement for Provision of
Regional Animal Services
2013 Through 2015
May 16, 2012
rmw
►Today's Presentation
o Background on Regional Animal Services
o Summary of the Current ILA regional animal
services costs and cost allocation
Recommended changes to ILA
Timeline and process to reach final agreement by
duly 1.
May 16, 2012
a ckg rou nio'-
Regional Animal Services of King County (RASKC) serves
26 cities and unincorporated King County
Interlocal Agreement entered into in mid- 2010.
Over 1 million citizens
Estimated pet population of over 500,000
ILA provides for 3 core services, and ancillary support
Shelter (5,300 animals in 2011)'
Animal control (4,800 calls for service in 201 1)
Licensing (99K licenses issued; approx. 18% of pet
population is currently licensed)
Ancillary support includes responding to Public
Disclosure Requests, adjudication of civil infractions,
animal cruelty investigations, etc.
"4
receive shelter services from PAWS
May 16, 2012
Bac co
Cities and County have very different service demand
patterns difficult to find a single, simple cost
allocation formula that works for everyone.
Current ILA: July 2010- December 2012
Implemented following uncertainty about County ability
to continue providing animal services
Allocates cost 50 population 50 usage
Variety of credits mitigate impact of allocation formula
Total system costs allocated under ILA in 2012: 5.84M.
u License fees support 50% of system costs
6 from penalties, adoption fees, other revenues
County and City funding cover the balance
County fully funds an additional $1.37M through credits and
-i model
May 16, 2012
Benefits of Regional Model
Consistent level of service, humane animal care, and
regulatory approach countywide.
Euthanasia rate continues to be reduced, in 2011 the
rate was 14.3%
Uniform, regional licensing system and a central
location for citizens to license their pets, find lost pets
and track health related animal issues
Economies of scale for marketing/ licensing, field
services and shelter operations
May 16, 2012
Pet Adoption Shelter open to the public 7 days
provides 24/7/365 on -call response to owners
for lost pets
Ancillary Services
o Animal cruelty investigations
a week;
looking
o Civil offenses handled by Board of Appeals (not law
enforcement or courts)
o Respond to hundreds of Public Disclosure Requests (PDR's)
annually; a centralized approach reducing the impacts to
local jurisdictions for PDR's as well as media and /or
advocacy group inquiries
May 16, 2012
Since the 2010 ILA Began
Increased the humane treatment of anima s and
reduced euthanasia
Improved citizen support, over 500 vo unteers
Upgraded software to improve reporting accuracy
and time i ness
Hired a marketing manager who he ps individua
cities deve op p ans
A regiona "branding effort" began this year to
increase awareness and revenues
r 5 C RAS C
May 16, 2012
WWW hy negotiate a new
Contract ends in 2012; automatically extended for 2 years unless
a party drops out —which compels renegotiation.
City of Auburn, a high user of services, notified County of intent
to depart model at end of 2012 will create unsustainable cost
shifts for remaining parties unless ILA is amended.
City- County renegotiation workgroup formed in November 2011.
Has considered many options for changing system costs, cost
allocation service deliver that can best support continuation of
p
g
this regional service option for cities. pp
New cost model has been developed. Cities have been held
harmless for Auburn leaving.
May 16, 2012
E= issues
Cost is major issue for all
cities.
o Reallocation of existing
costs is not sufficient
Costs must be reduced, by
additional savings and
efficiencies.
PAWS Cities cost allocations
for shelter must be
reduced.
DDrra 013- O1 IlA
County has significantly
reduced allocated costs:
$148k (201 3) transition
funding continues.
750k /year additional
credits to high -use cities
4 $240k more in shelter
staffing will be fully funded
by County (Vet Director and
Volunteer Coordinator)
$340k reduction in
operational expenses
Shift in cost allocation:
80% usage 20 population
May 16, 2012
v� ai n IN i I a 2
Stable long -term financing
Increased focus on revenue
structure and sustainable
generation: "bridge to
operating model needed.
sustainability to reduce
city /county costs."
p Additional effort is needed
Aggressively pursue
to bring new revenues to
numerous revenue
the system from other
generating ideas (enhanced
means.
marketing, donations, new
regional revenue streams)
e Licensing revenues need to
Increase support for
be increased: they have
licensing Better tools for
generally been lower than
marketing and ongoing
forecast in 2010.
canvassing support
May 16, 2012
"n
Cities want services to be
efficient and effective
Cities want input into
response protocols -best
use of scarce resources
d With potential for 1 city
departure, the control
district boundaries need to
be adjusted to re- balance
cost, service demand
o Service levels retained,
costs reduced.
.Joint City County
Committee collaborate
on issues including
response protocols,
efficiency ideas, revenue
ideas
New district boundaries
combine four districts
into three.
May 16, 2012
r
21013 -2015
Allocated System cost
Cost allocation
Term
County support and
mitigation payments-
$5.26M
80% use 20% pop in 2013 to set base
Costs in 2014, 201 5 are based on 201 3 total
allocable costs; capped by CPI and
population growth.
Costs in 2014 2015 also adjusted for
changes in revenues, and for major
annexations >_2,500 pop.) and latecomers
3 years, re- opener for possible 2 yr. ext.
$1.76M (license support costs may be additional)
Current service levels maintained
May 16, 2012
Summary, cont'd.
of Control Districts 3
ACO Staffing, Response •6 ACOs (same as current ILA)
•40 hour/week coverage in each District
•Weekend coverage starts in 2012
•ACOs hosted in each district
give input to shape response
protocols
Bridge to Sustainability. working with City-County committee, focus
on new system revenue generation
May 16, 2012
Timeline
9
G February 1, 2012 Reach agreement in principle
February 14, 2012 Cities provide County an initial non binding
statement of interest
April 6, 2012 finalize amendments to the Agreement and cost
model based on initial statements of interest
May 1, 2012 Cities provide County 2nd nonbinding statement of
interest
May 17, 2012 Final cost estimates circulated, with final
proposed ILA and briefing materials
July 1, 2012 service under formal adoption and execution of
Agreement by both parties
If approved, the new ILA will take effect January 1, 2013 and run
r- ber 31 201 5, with option to extend an
May 16, 2012
x
152
Finance Safety Committee Minutes
June 5, 2012 Pace 2
C. Tourism Promotion Area
As information only, staff provided the Committee information regarding state law, which allows the
formation of a tourism promotion area (TPA) that permits hoteliers, with 40 or more lodging units, the
ability to charge up to $2 per hotel room per night specifically for tourism promotion. This new source of
revenue would be used in conjunction with current lodging tax funding for tourism promotion services.
Committee Members were complimentary of the information memo provided, stated that it provided a good
introduction, and are generally supportive of the TPA idea. However, they stated there are many questions
that need to be answered and feel that additional, specific information needs to be provided prior to sending
this to full Council for discussion. Committee Chair Quinn reminded the group that it is the Committee's
responsibility to ensure due diligence has been conducted, and whenever possible, move items forward with
a recommendation. The Committee would like staff to return to Committee with additional information
including:
What does the City of Tukwila Administration recommend and why?
Who should belong to this organization, and who runs it?
How does the organization work?
What legislative authority involved?
What will be required from the City in order to administrate it?
What is the timeline for implementation?
What are the staffing requirements?
Provide specific examples from other jurisdictions and identify the jurisdictions that would
participate in this TPA.
Many guests were in attendance at the meeting, so rather than delay additional discussion, Committee Chair
Quinn asked those in attendance if there was any information they would like to share. Comments are
summarized below.
Charles Lee with Comfort Suites stated that he was not in favor of the TPA, and that, as a hotelier
with over 60 rooms, he is concerned about the impact.
Mike Schabbing with the Courtyard and as a member of the Tukwila Lodging Tax Advisory Board
commented that outreach has been made with hotels since October, and about 75% of hotels would
like to pursue this further. These hotels understand the importance and value in the charge. He also
stated that this is a common practice throughout the area, including Pierce County, Spokane, and
Seattle.
Lynn Wallace with the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce stated that the Chamber is
in support of the TPA, noting that it will help southwest King County to be a player in the region.
Ms. Wallace was working for the Best Western in Puyallup when Pierce County formed a TPA.
She commented that once the fee was explained to patrons, no one objected to incurring the charge.
Jeff Robinson, City of SeaTac Economic Development Manager, stated that the State of
Washington is basically out of the tourism business; therefore, we have lost that ability to get the
State to market on the hoteliers' behalf.
Katherine Kertzman commented that this would be the first TPA in King County. RETURN TO FUTURE
FINANCE SAFETY COMMITTEE WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
D. Interlocal Agreement: Animal Control Services
Staff is seeking Council approval to enter into an Interlocal agreement with Regional Animal Services of
King County (RASKC) effective 2013 -2015. The current agreement will expire on December 31, 2012, and
due to notification from the City of Auburn that they will not be renewing, a new contract has been
developed.
153
Finance Safety Committee Minutes
June 5, 2012 Pape 3
The new agreement at minimum, will maintain, but more than likely, increase the current level of service
provided by King County. The cost of this three year agreement is estimated not to exceed $225,000. The
estimated annual cost for 2013 is less than actual costs for 2011. Annual increases will be limited to the rate
of inflation plus the rate of population growth for the preceding year for the County. Highlights and services
of the new contract include:
Call center and animal control officers
Sheltering provided 7 days per week, 365 days per year, open to public
Operation and maintenance of unified licensing
Consistency is service due to regional system and economy of scale
Jurisdictional cost stability
New revenues and revenue focus
Staff reported that there are two optional additions to the interlocal agreement: an Enhanced Control
Services Contract and a Licensing Support Contract; however, there is not a recommendation to pursue
either of these options at this time. The options can be selected on a periodic basis at a later time if the City
identifies a need for such. According to feedback received from the Police Department and the City Clerk's
Office, the City has not recently received complaints regarding King County animal control services and /or
responses. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JUNE 11 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
E. Ouarterly Update: Police Department
As information only and per Committee request, staff gave a PowerPoint presentation on public safety
activities and policing issues during the I quarter of 2012. The presentation included information on: crime
statistics, strategic approaches for solving and mitigating problems, the police department vision, I` quarter
goals and objectives and achieving such, staffing, equipment, budget, training, and the way ahead. See
agenda packet for detailed PowerPoint slides. INFORMATION ONLY.
F. Update: Financial Planning Model and Capital hnprovement Plan (CIP)
Due to time, the Committee was unable to discuss this item, and requested it be moved to the next regularly
scheduled Finance Safety Committee. In the meantime, Committee Member Robertson suggested
Committee Members review the information provided in the agenda packet and contact Peggy McCarthy
with any comments /suggestions. RETURN TO COMMITTEE.
III. MISCELLANEOUS
Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
Next ineeting: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:15 p.m. Conference Room #3
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by KAM. Reviewed by DS.
154