Loading...
Animal Control Transition Committee - 10/15/20021 City of Spokane Valley Public Safety Transition Committee Animal Control Options and Recommendations Public Safety Transition Committee The Public Safety Committee for Fire-Emergency Services and Animal Control has been meeting since July 24`' 2002. The committee has investigated options for providing animal control. We have concluded that the three options available to the City of Spokane. Valley in relation to Animal Control are: i. Contract with an existing animal control provider 2. The City forms their own animal control organization 3. The City provides no animal control services The Committee's Recommendation We recommend that the City of Spokane Valley contract for a five year period, for the animal control services with Spokane County Animal Control. Supportive documentation on options is attached. Contract with an Existing Animal Control Provider ~i This committee recommends that the City of Spokane Valley contract with Spokane County Animal Control (SCAC). It is our consensus that most citizens are appreciative and generally happy with the current service provided by this agency. In addition SCAC facility is located in Spokane Valley therefore the citizens will have an ease of access to services provided. Presently all unincorporated areas of Spokane County as well as the cities of Cheney, Liberty Lake, To%vri of Millwood and Fairchild A.F.B. currently have their animal control services provided by SCAC. Ms. Nancy Hill director of SCAC has provided a cost of 5414,833 for providing services to the city. Based on a new city population of 80,700 this equates to a per capita price of S5.14 per person. This is based on a total agency cost of 5807,696 and an estimate that 51.36% of SCAC's efforts will be expended in the new city. Ms. Hill has stated that under a contractual arrangement all operations would stay as is and that SCAC would also be willing to work with the City on any additional enforcement or services that may be considered. In investigating the contracting of services this committee also contacted Spokanimal Care and the Spokane Humane Society but neither appeared interested in providing the level of service for Spokane Valley presently being provided by SCAC. This committee lacks the expertise to closely analyze the cost data submitted by Ms. Hill and SCAC and therefore the committee would recommend that in negotiations, the City study closely the "Cost Allocation" portion of the SCAC budget. These appear to be costs related to Spokane County overhead, not SCAC, and it is very difficult to verify or understand if these are indeed reasonable costs. Nis. Fl. *it[ also states that presently there is a 40% comp] lance rate in pet licensing. This committee agrees with Ms. Hill that this is a very low and unacceptable compliance rate. Possibly this could be the basis for some sort of performance based incentive/disincentive in a contract. The committee recommends a contract with Spokane County on the condition that the licensing percentage be raised. The basis for this recommendation is given in Appendix I, "City of Calgary Animal Services". The City's contract with SCAC should require that the new City be provided with an electronic copy of the database of the licensed pets within the new City limits. Also it needs to be determined how much of the licensing and penalty fees the new City will receive. Animal control is as much a public health issue as it is an animal issue as illustrated by the facts in Appendix 1. Licensing compliance is the only measurable parameter available to judge performance. The committee feels consideration should be given to the disposition of unadoptable animals. Two scenarios are given in Appendix 11. The committee feels consideration should be given to the disposition of unadoptable animals. Two scenarios are given in Appendix ll. Spokane Valley )Norms Our Own Animal Control Organization Under this scenario the City would form their own animal control agency. The city would have direct control over the funding and staffing for. this agency. While direct control over an Animal Control Agency could be seen as a benefit, SCAC through their existing contracts with other municipalities has showm the ability to provide this service and promote public safety in this area. One of the common desires discussed by citizens of Spokane County and its Cities is the consolidation of services in order to lower costs by avoiding the duplication of services and sharing the common functions and costs that go along with administering these programs. By contracting with SCAC this committee feels Spokane Valley is getting the best services for its citizens. In the future if the City sees the need to create their owm agency there is nothing that prevents this from happening. 1 Provide No Animal Control Services ~J There appears to be no mandate in Washington State Law for a municipality to provide any animal control services. This committee feels that the City must provide some sort of animal control for its population. Animal control provides for public safety and livable communities by promoting licensing, spay and neutering programs, pet adoptions and public education. To not provide these services through an animal control provider could lead to these cost "savings" being spent on additional efforts by law enforcement, health agencies and forcing private citizens to make unwise or unsafe animal control decisions. J Appendix T The City of Calgary, Alberta has a population of 876,519 (as of the 2001 census) with a cat population of 90,1 37 (71,797 in 1995) and a dog population of 92,563 (71,884 in 1995). The fact that Calgary's Animal Services is totally supported through license and penalty revenue, not tax dollars is significant in animal control work Their budget is 3.4 million a year, 0.5 million tax funded for scrub pigeon and wildlife programs, 2.9 million from license and penalty revenue. They have 24 Animal Control Officers, 18 Customer Service staff, 5 full-time and 4 part-time Animal Health Technicians, 2 Public Education Advisors, and 1 Public Education Coordinator. Three 3 licensing staff mail out 7,000 renewals each month to maintain compliance with licensing of 90% of the pet population. The 3 staff average 300-500 calls per day along with their other responsibilities. Strict licensing enforcement reduced Aggressive Log Incidences from 2000 incidences in 1985 to 475 in 2000. Their facility- is two years old with a cost of 3.5 million. It has a capacity to hold 88 cats and 84 dogs. They impounded 50071 pets last year of which 86% were returned to their owners, 8% were adopted, and 3% were euthanized. Calgary is providing service for nearly 5 times the population that we have in the new City of Spokane Valley. The capacity of their facility is approximately the same as the SCAC's shelter. They handle fewer pets per capita than Spokane County. We were told at the 9/11/2002 meeting J With SCAC, that S312,262 was generated in Spokane County from licenses. In the first meeting ,%.ith SCAC: we were told about 40% of the pet population of Spokane County was licensed. Using Spokane County's figure of 51.36% as the new City's part of the cost of animal control and if we then assume that 51.36% of the license fees were generated from the Valley, (The Valley quite possibly generates more that the rest of Spokane County) that would mean $160,377 was generated from 40% of the licensed pets in the Valley. If we had 90% compliance with licensing of the Valley's pets that would generate 5360,849 in license revenue with additional revenue from penalties. The Animal Control Program could be self supporting if managed correctly and compliance enforced. Appendix H Disposition of Unadoptable Pets 1. illaddie's Fund Maddie's Fund is a private, national foundation that seeks to eliminate euthanasia of healthy, adoptable dogs and cats. The foundation also has programs for sterilization of feral cats. It is a very well managed foundation W1th 200 million dollars at its disposal to accomplish its purposes. The grants are very large and are issued for up to 5 years. The grants require extensive documentation for the grant application, comprehensive accounting, and verifiable results. The following are quotes from "Maddie's Fund Community Grants Program". "MMaddie's Fund is an independent, private foundation devoted to the welfare of companion animals. Maddie's Fund was established in 1994 through the generosity of Dave and Cheryl Duffield, and is dedicated to the memory and unconditional love of their beloved canine companion, Maddie." "The Mission of Maddie's Fund is to "revolutionize the status and well-being of companion animals." Our goal is to help build a no-kill nation. The first step in achieving this is to ensure that healthy, adoptable shelter dogs and cats throughout the United States are guaranteed a loving home." -J "Animal welfare groups seeking funding must be no-kill organizations that provide comprehensive medical treatment and behavior rehabilitation for all animals under their management and guarantee to find these animals loving homes." "Maddie's Fund does not provide grants to govenumnt-funded animal control agencies, or to organizations that derive a substantial portion of their funding through government contracts." "Projects must be community collaborations that involve the participation of no-kill animal shelters, rescue groups, volunteer foster organizations, animal control shelters, traditional shelters, and private practice veterinarians." "Although animal control shelters and traditional shelters are not eligible to receive funding from Maddie's Fund grants. They play a vital role in the kind of community projects that Maddie's fund wants to support. These organizations need to make their adoptable (healthy) animals available to the other groups in the project. They also need to provide their shelter statistics to the collaboration, as this information is used to develop project baselines and to monitor the progress of the project." Complete information can be obtained at: Maddie's fund: 2223 Santa Clara Ave #13, Alameda, CA 94501 Phone: 510-"7-8989, Far: 510-337-8988, Email: info (c~maddiesfund.org, Web site: www. maddies fund. org 2. Veterinary Medical Education The committee brings to the council for consideration that the unadoptable pets be sold to the Washington State Veterinary School of Medicine. Whatever charisma the pets have to be adopted, the event happens within 6-10 days after entering the shelter or the probability is very low that they ever be adopted. Many of these animals have been recycled through the system several times, usually because of severe behavioral problems, house-breaking problems, barking, fence jumping, aggression etc. Behavioral problems are the primary reason pets are euthanized. There is a strong movement now in Veterinary Medicine to teach students how to professionally deal with behavioral problems. Many of the animals are brought to the shelter because of illness, terminal or otherwise. What better use of these animals could be made than to relieve the pet's suffering with proper, professional, medical help and what a wonderful experience for the students. These are very important areas in which the resource of these unadoptable pets could be utilized. This is a terrible waste of a very valuable resource that is desperately needed to make qualified graduates of the students. Students need the experience to apply, in the live animal, under a supervised teaching situation, what they have been prepared for during their professional education. J we~l~ 93 3 Washingm SL S one, WA 99201 Phhow- (509) 327-9354 Fax (509) 32744 John 1.+'V. Fraley Transition Team Chairman City Of Spokane Valley c)o Dr- Charles Lohr 101 Argonne Rd Spokane, 99212 November 14, 2002 Dear Mr. Haley, Dr- Lohr presented part of the proposed animal control regulations at our monthly business meeting today, seeking endorsement of Appendix II Disposition of Unadoptable Pets by our membership. It was suggested that the wording be changed to non-rehabilitatable pets if the goal is to work within the guidelines and definitions of Maddie's Fund as mentioned in part 1. A motion was made and unanimously passed to endorse part 2, that non- rehabifitatabee animals be sold to the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine for teaching purposes- Our association is a strong supporter in the goals of addie's Fund, and of the importance of maintaining the best training possible for veterinary students. We recognize that the use of animals remains essential in that training and strongly support this effort to make to loss of life by these animals more valued by training future veterinarians- Sincerely, Brian D. Hunter, D-V.M., Preside Inland Empire Veterinary Medical ssoclation USE THIS PACE FOR NOTES Efforts Expended in Spokane Valley by Spokane County Animal Control Service Spokane Valley Weight Total Requests for Services 50.03% 40.009'/0 20.01% Animal Impounds 50.800/0 35.00% 17.78% investigations 48.28% 15.000/a Emergency Calls 61.29% 7.00% Trapping Program 61.11% 3.00% 7.24% 4.50°.% 1.83% Total-City of 51.36% Spokane Valley The column "Spokane Valley" shows the percentage of SCAC services that SCAC anticipates occurring in the City. "Weight" is the estimated amoum of time that SCAC spends, as a whole, on that type of function. Combined those numbers give an estimate for the percentage of time that SCAC will spend on services for Spokane Valley. Spokane Count; nimal Control Cost of Animal Control Prepared for the City of Spokane Valley October 15, 2002 2000 Actual 2001 Actual 2002 Adopted 2003 Projected Expenses $999,230.00 $1,073,621.00 $1,203,633.00 $1,249,229.00 Revenue $379,446.00 $369,071.00 $390,726.00 $438,037.00 Cost of Animal Control $619,784.00 $704,550.00 $812,907.00 $811,192.00 Spokane Counl,Animal Shelter Revenue Worksheet Prepared for the City of Spokane Valley October 15, 2002 Classifications 2000 Actual 2001 Actual 2002 Adopted 2003 Projected Animal Licenses $287,939.00, $274,133.00 $280,877.00 $312,262.00 Pet Adoptions $8,936.00 $10,107.00 510,413.00 $17,000.00 Animal Shelter Fees $37,015.00 $41,629.00 $37,523.00 $47,000.00 Animal Control Services $26,562.00 $25,588.00 $42,147.00 $40,000.00 Investment Interest $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,422.00 Animal Sale $7,875.00 $7,620.00 $10,766.00 $9,353.00 Violations $11,119.00 $9,994.00 59,000.00 $9,000.00 Total $379,446.00 $369,071.00 $390,726.00 $438,037.00 Sterilization Fund revenue, adoption neuter revenue and donation revenue are not included. Spokane Coun`A,Animal Shelter Department Costs Prepared for the City of Spokane Valley October 15, 2002 Classifications 2000 Actual 2001 Actual 2002 Adopted 2003 Proiected Salary/Wages Benefits $477,607.00 $152,858.00 $516,329.00 $171,380.00 $569,933.00 $206,408.00 $569,064.00 $255,253.00 Total $630,465.00 $687,709.00 $776,341.00 $824,317.00 Maintenance & Operations Supplies $49,378.00 $54,974:00 $59,248.00 $70,807.00 Uniforms $2,636.00 $2,261.00 $5,000.00 $4,000.00 Professional Services $6,404.00 $10,095.00 $12,200.00 $10,000.00 Telephone Answering Service $16,245.00 $13,819.00 $17,000.00 $13,500.00 Postage $18,229.00 $21,958.00 $25,300.00 $23,000.00 Advertising $10,421.00 $8,037.00 $8,750.00 $8,300.00 Training $0.00 $3,536.00 $2,330.00 $680.00 Repair/Maint. Of Equipment $8,213.00 $7,593.00 $6,900.00 . $11,024.00 Dues & Membership Fees $230.00 . $305.00 $330.00 $335.00 Printing $7,506.00 $6,302.00 $8,736.00 $8,700.00 Vehicle Expense $52,978.00 $50,273.00 $59,620.00 $52,000.00 Insurance Expense $44.00 $0.00 $50.00 $1,000.00 Utility Services $2,672.00 $3,549.00 $2,335.00 $2,460.00 Parkin Permit $144.00 $144.00 $144.00 $144.00 i otai $175,100.00 $182,845.00 Equipment Updates $3,199.00 $2,177.00 Cost Allocations' $190,466.00 $200,889.00 'Based on OMB-A-87 Cost Plan 2003 Includes credit for building and equipment depreciation. Total Expenses 999,230.00 $1,073,621.00 $207,943.00 $11,973.00 $207,376.00 $1,203,633.00 $205,950.00 $7,310.00 $211,652.00 $1,249,229.00 Spokane Count~~ -";nimal Shelter Departm',-,__~Costs Positions Salaries and Benefits Director $86,110 Staff Assistant $47,841 Secretary $46,240 Animal Control Officers 6 $321,579 Animal Control Assistants 3.5 - $121,245 Kennel Maintenance Officer $43,711 Kennel Maintenance Assistants 2 $64,047 Animal License Agents 2 $77,096 Budgeted Overtime Costs $16,448 Based on 2003 projected costs Total $824,317 Payroll Costs $824,317 Maintenance & Operations Supplies $58,348 Uniforms $5,000 Professional Services $12,200 Telephone/Answering Service & Cell $17,000 Postage $25,300 Advertising $8,750 Training $2,330 Repair & Maintenance of Equipment $6,900 Dues & Membership Fees $330 Printing $8,736 Vehicle Expense $59,620 Insurance Expense $950 Utility Services $2,335 Parking Permit $144 Based on 2002 adopted budget Total $207,943 M&O Costs $207,943 Equipment & Technology Updates Digital Pagers 11 @ 98.00 each X1,078 Floor Machine $6,232 Projected needs for 2003 Total $7,310 Equipment Updates $7,310 Cost Allocations* $210,824 Cost'Allocation $206,163 Based on OMB A-87 Cost Plan Includes credit for building and equipment depreciation. Total Expenses $1,245,733 ~J Spokane Count-,,Aimal Shelter Revenue Projections for 2003 Prepared August 29, 2002 Classifications Amount Pet Licenses $312,262 Pet Adoptions $17,000 Animal Shelter Fees $47,000 Animal Control Services $40,000 Investment Interest $3,422 Animal Sale $9,353 Violations $9,000 Total $438,037 Spokane Count'; :animal Shelter Prepared for City of Spokane Valley Meeting September 4, 2002 Cost for providing the current level of service to the City of Spokane Valley. Department Expenses Department Revenues Cost of Animal Control $1,245,733 $438,037 $807,696 X 51.36 % = $414,833 Spokane County Animal control currently provides 51.85% of it's services within the city limits of Spokane Valley. The cost to the city of Spokane Valley is based on estimated expenses offset by projected revenues.