HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Animal Control Services Contract ReviewS°I ?i v v ..�s 1d v N !~ v w +► w f~ t7$ o v v� N
1d +►�', A w N '� w N i-I s~ F'i s~ O O N N ,�" O
+► v Li ;3 N ,'� A N v v td v v •ri R9 w v �a 1-I wl
�a � �+ � h Pa Z� A O A 3 U a� •� �a A +► w
� � � � v U � � ,� � •� U N w N � � � � w a •�
rts w rl +� v v O� °,� 3 v v� +► •�I Id H � v N • v
� s~v +� v sa �� UA�N s~Nao t�v�vx
�.' � w v N � w 'O ,}vj � � °� +► •� '� '� U •� A A �', N W b °� w N
v�., Id Q', v Id � H � f'a N •rl � O rt1
,'sr v °� v v rd �.�",, °rl O v N N C: >:"+ O ro y.l
+� �I v G1 �a �d rti .,� � U a N N +� O w •�+
;: •r•1 b9 N I -I U v 'd r-I � �+ Af'., N N °,i � w W ri fd � %I N o w
Ci � O b+ ♦:"i N � ®ut v � � �*" '�' >'a w N '� � .,� � w .� '—I °�{ a°� � O
�;; a �f, H O� O rtJ v °'� �a O O N T O U +� y,a ¢' w +►
3 #� N O a v o► ul O U b
N v � v s'a N 0 N O � o � v � � � U � w � rd U � � .� b O � � � •� O
•�I rt1 U w v +► b� � v � � a � ,-I I rd �, N �, w •� v U � Gl O •�I
� N N 'J � •ra N A %I t/k dl� Id .,i ® °r°I •N U r-1 � v •� N W w v `}� ro •rl
x°� s•a� �v b:s g sao CNN a o�a�s'a��
m N v °.•I � �a •r•I � s~ � ,� °� N v v v w�� x v ¢, b °,� N
°' �� woa�icvna�iN `�bs Nas U"'i�•'��,� �+►sa°•�+ v �o � .aai��a
(d is i-1 � wf. N >b N v � 3 w rt1 w O N A w w �
... � I -I o v a v '� rd v v °rl N tr � � N ® � O U v �d •� w � � sb N
+►sb wavP�Is�U UJ �ro o v �, +► �U ON
� s~•�I �� sa vw°�a •� o v � v N v U vA � o o • v o � �m � � �°
'� o ae v rn•�a N � � sa a av v v •�a ,� a,� o N ,.., �, �, U w •� �+` o
� us~ ���w wr�a � �,U�'Dwb U•I'� �Iv-►�•�oN .•�+'w° w
H w •, b w o :~ w lava w M +► `� ,� s•I v o � � �► •�+ � N w �► .i; .� � b
N p�' •ri N� o 0 o N fd �+ � v � o � � � � �� N° ° v
W W H v was v v a N I U� N� aOs O w Fa � H N v N N E Fa � O U N$ ''i .IS
U • t'a '� U N w i� v s~ :. 0► N 3a a � #� U N N ® � '�
A R, A •rl N v .--I •rl O f-I N PS O O l a► N� U !-I 45 a w ¢' 0 � •� 9 `� a � � w N °'i Pr
� �a O D a O� °rl ra � � a rtl A •r•I w w rl � v a 'i N N rd
w ai cn r� r-I �a N :� o a w +� w � � +► b •� aps b b � � N •� �, � � O � '� �
v� �vv:av w�� rn r-It�rl•�a ,I,,NNNao ��bb ..vvoo
� � N b �r�u�ar�z �d a�a �a� ®v v v� �° �,� b v O U asasw v N A N U'�°� N v
�+ A H �I W uwi °� w Ri �d a°`o °r•I to A O � N O a�'� °� �a+� � N � � ,.� � � H N '�
H z w o .. v v s~ rn w N sa ,� w ¢+ � � a v w° �,.., N ,d w w �� °� � +�
U CW7 � a�► A � b � b � � ,.i '� >a � A O ••� pas v � b N O SO -I N � w U N N '0 � a�i
.. oo .. .. •rl °rl �► �.. 4'a O •� O N b9 U U ��, � i-I � a � ''if'' •,.r '�
O '� PIN M ep v 'J a •� O O w °� °� N N A }�., v •rl �
H vv Uoo wU sew � v vo � N NVN�
v I•a was ww vs•ab Nv v� vo U ''a.�Uo.�N °°��o �I~+�v�
� r-I td •r•I °� •� •�, t� a � W P� s~ o .� � °° °�, w �, v v ,� N °� o � o � °° N
o �d a .�1 A A A � � ,� N � w v ,+.� ,s~ a ,� w
� � v •PI •r•I •� •ra ha E•� N ,� �d La .,� O .� � 3 O � •� � U ••� I •r•I 1d � •,�
•�a sa ,� .o ,s~ .� � o � v w w o s•a � o °,� v w ,�e � a >w
s='i Ra DC DC DC DC .� �..o �° ,� N �. � U � a O � � N � U U N v w
� R;"•` WW wW bAU H�aj� �" w bN � •rlv Ua3'�v O �°p,bjN�•rl
I"I H .� t", 0►'� v O „� � � r•I � � v N w •�I '+a ,p °0 �
� � � .. ,7., � 4f R•i v � w s~, � td F-I w � v v N b w rl ®''"I
A � w �� by s~ b��v a•►,��°�s•I b �� Sv
�a �a w °I•E . N
U z� F+ sardHo� w v v�zy o Nv � w� � E.,
r•C O r•C O a � r•C �d D w� 'd s~ O N tC rt3 '� v o w
H H cHn zwA a>,a � .� ° aAaos � �•�I °�' U rt !� ab �w °
� � o o ro v b � :~ � A o id N w
A a7 H w N v w 9 N O w w 'd a � N rd �1'i U v f='i N
•• V2 Zi � E•� >;r � N w PI W A •r•! v v a N v i-I � °f1 �., •'i '0 N v!~i
E� H W H W N W t9 v M N� R7 w r0 � N v =rl O N O v� 0
U H � U H�. w� >`'e ,� eU N� v U � b '� 3 N °rl � m '�" U w •rl
W Ci z Ow N •r•I •mot va (� w w � � t7`s � O► v •r•I U i-I w '� N '� °r•I �•I w
I� H O a' U � !-I � PI I•°i w U � I -I 't7 1='i b s•a N •ri ',.� U v 'J �d U
pq ,`t", U `Ta [!a 1.1 v e. fd v '� R! N �d!"., •A U �"i 'r' US", v w 'd N a s~
;� DP, W H w t7+,� A v A w O w •r•I O .� O N N 1; O v U � ,[ •�I �, v v�
N W w w AreNMwE-sO U NrowUU,� �•r•IUI�O w EaArtNAw
+�
U
Ll
�
N
N
�
w•
wwTS
• r-I
4-I
r-I
�,
•�
a�
v
�
-�
���
cn
w
0
�
�
+�
�wQ
��
a
�
�
U
�
�
�
�
��N
�
a
�a;
O
.�
O
�
UUUU]
O
f�l
C�
Department Sergeant. All of the recordkeeping and licensing function is
organized within the Consolidated Criminal Records (CCR) division.
The provision of this service also involves the Vicious Dog Hearing process
identified in the Municipal Code. The City Staff has actually assumed a
significant role in the administration of t1he hearing process. When a dog
bite occurs, Animal Control completes an investigation and provides a
recommendation to the City on the need to conduct a Vicious Dog Hearing.
The hearing provides a procedure in which the City can impose measures to:
control, confine, destroy, or place restrictions on the dog. The hearing
helps to limit exposure in the event that a repeat attack occurs. The
process can also address the victim's concerns. The Assistant City Manager
typically conducts the hearing. In addition, Staff members are involved in
preparing notices, minutes of the hearing, and the final findings. Prior
to the City Staff assuming this responsibility, residents were attending
hearings at the Field Services Office in San Leandro.
Field Service Workload Indicators:
The following are statistics identifying key workload factors for
activities handled by Field Services:
Actual 89-90 Actual 90-91 Estimate 91-92
Number Animals Impounded 376 505 565
Animal Bites 16 33 30
Complaints 36 66 105
Citations 52 88 118
Injured Animals Treated it 16 10
Total Dead Animals Pick-Up 594 886 737
Vicious Dog Hearing 4 15 10
During the contract review conducted in June of 1990, City Staff had
expressed a concern with the fluctuation of data presented for Fiscal Year
1989-90. At that time, the Sheriff's Department indicated that the
recordkeeping had just been transferred from Field Services to CCR and that
future data would be gathered from the computer aided dispatch/records
management system. For the past two years, the data have been more
consistent and the supervising Sergeant has attempted to keep City Staff
aware of workload issues.
For the one year period from February 1991 thru January 1992, Animal
Control recorded 667 hours of patrol time in the City of Dublin. This
accounted for approximately 13.2% of the total patrol hours provided by the
Department of Field Services. This service level is exclusive of report
writing, travel, or other administrative duties. Animal Control has also
proposed to use this workload as a factor for determining the cost sharing
for Field Services. The financial aspects are discussed further in a later
section.
Animal Control has reported to City Staff that the 667 hours has
consistently provided between 50 and 65 hours of patrol time each month.
Typically, when Staff is contacted by residents with complaints, Animal
Control is responsive and follows up directly with the resident. Probably
the area where Staff receives the greatest number of resident concerns is
from residents anticipating an immediate response. -If Animal Control is
not in the immediate area at the time of the call;, then the service request
must be evaluated based on the priority of other calls received or in
progress. The only way to assure a more rapid response would be to provide
additional staffing. Staff believes that most calls are handled within an
appropriate timeframe and the number of -contacts by dissatisfied residents
have been relatively few.
-2-
During budget discussions, Staff has questioned County Staff regarding cost
recovery efforts for the collection of dead animals. In Fiscal Year
1991/92, it is estimated that 87% of the dead animals collected represent
service to Veterinary facilities. Staff has suggested that the County
needs to consider whether 100% of the disposal costs are being recovered
and what the impacts would be of implementilng such a change. This becomes
especially true since a veterinary facility may actually be collecting
animals from more than one community. Over the years, the collection of
Dead Animals from Veterinary facilities has consistently represented at
least 80% of the total.
Animal Control representatives have indicated that a complete fee study is
among ,the projects which they intend to undertake. Staff believes that it
would be appropriate for the City Council to confirm the effort in this
area and forward this suggestion to the Alameda County Sheriff.
Overall, Staff believes that, with the exception of available Staff for
licensing, the current level of service is appropriate. This conclusion is
also balanced by the fact that the City has limited revenues. As described
in a separate attachment, the County does not have Staff available to
perform a door-to-door licensing canvass. This would impact their ability
to provide other basic patrol services. The County has agreed to provide
regular reporting on service levels under the new agreement which should
provide the City Staff with an up-to-date assessment of the level of
service being provided.
Field Services Supervision
As previously mentioned, the day-to-day supervision is coordinated by a
Sheriff's Department Sergeant. , Only 30% of this position is charged to
Field Services activity. The County also includes 2% of the Division
Commander and 4% of the Captain assigned to Law Enforcement Services
Division which includes supervision over Animal Control. The City of
Dublin's share of the proposed cost for all supervisory salaries amounts to
$2,870 excluding benefits and overhead. The City's ability to secure these
services in conjunction with the County's current structure provides a cost
effective means to obtain the service.
Records
As previously indicated, all Animal Control records are maintained by the
CCR Division in Hayward. In order to apportion the cost for these
services, the entire Field Services Division is charged for 8.33% of an ID
Supervisor and 10.9% of a Clerk II, which are located in the CCR section.
The City of Dublin's share of these positions amounts to 13.2% in the
proposed agreement. The direct salary cost of this portion of the contract
to the City of Dublin is approximately $844 excluding benefits and
overhead.
As previously noted, this section handles the processing of all citations
and recordkeeping for the field services division. In addition, the
division handles all dog licensing. As previously noted, the City has
assumed responsibility for `Iprocessing all Vicious Dog Hearings. At the
conclusion of the hearing, final documents are forwarded to the Field
Services Sergeant for distribution to CCR. Overall, this method appears to
be very cost effective for both the City and the County and no changes have
been recommended by Staff, with regard to record keeping. The provision of
licensing services is noted elsewhere in .this report.
-3-
Proposed. Changes to Field Services Agreement
Alameda County has suggested that the current agreement be amended in three
areas. The following summarizes the proposed changes by City Staff and
County representatives and identifies the basis for the change.
(a) Vicious Dog Hearings [Section I (d) ] This explicitly states that the
City will conduct its own vicious animal hearings. This change will
make the agreement consistent with current practice.
(b) Termination of Licensing Services [Section I (e) ] Previous agreements
would have allowed for termination of this service with 30 days
notice. The analysis by Staff of the licensing activity has indicated
that additional notice may be required to undertake this process. The
amended agreement provides for a 90 day notice.
(c) Billing Procedures [Section IV(a) , (b) and (c) ] The County had
suggested that the City pay in accordance with procedures established
by the County Board of Supervisors. The County Staff's intent was to
base this on the percentage of field service patrol hours expended in
the City of Dublin when compared to the total number of hours expended
in the entire division. City Staff has recommended that this formula
be clarified in the agreement, as well as provisions for regular
reporting of service levels provided. This should protect the City
from suddenly finding the percentage of hours at an unacceptable
level.
(d) Term [Section V] The County is recommending that the language of both
the Animal Control Field Services Agreement and the Shelter Agreement
read the same. The proposed agreement basically makes the agreement a
one year agreement provided notice of termination is provided prior to
April 1st. Staff would intend to continue to conduct contract
evaluations every three years. This coincides with the same cycle as
the Sheriff's Department Police Services Agreement. If a more
frequent review is warranted due to significant cost changes or other
criteria, Staff will bring this to the City Council's attention.
The proposed agreement (Exhibit 3) identifies all changes and has been
reviewed by the City Attorney, as well as City Staff. Additions are noted
in the underlined sections and deletions are overstruck.
Financial Analysis of Field Services Activity
As previously suggested, the County has proposed a substantial change in
the methodology used to determine the cost of service. In all previous
years, the City has paid Field Service costs based upon the salaries and
benefits of 38% of a Sheriff's Technician and 11% of a Specialist Clerk.
In addition, the City paid a proportionate cost of services and supplies.
A percentage factor was added to reflect Indirect Costs (i.e. County
Personnel, supervision, etc. )
During the current review, the County has determined that the proportionate
share paid in the past was not reflective of the level of services
provided. Therefore, they have suggested that the cost be shared based
upon the percentage of Field Service patrol hours expended in Dublin as
compared to the rest of the division. This methodology results in the
City's contract being based on a percentage of the total budget for the
Field Services Division. Based on prior year data, it is indicated that in
1992/93 the City of Dublin share will be 13.2%.
The following breakdown summarizes the total cost for this division:
-4-
Personal Services County Field Services
Proposed 92/93 Budget Dublin Share
On-Site Salaries $136,159
Off-Site Salaries (2) 11,188
Overtime/Pay Differentials (3) 12,156
Total Salaries $159,503
Employee Benefits (4) 48,188
Total Personal Services $207,691 $27,415
Miscellaneous Services & Supplies $ 11,002 1,452
Dispatch (Professional Services) 116,916 15,433
Vehicles 51,898 6,851
Subtotal Field Services Direct Costs $387,507 $51,151
Indirect Costs @ 12 .56% 48,671 6,425
Grand Total $436,178 $57,576 (5)
Kites:
On-Site Personnel include: 0.3333 Stenographer II
0.30 Sergeant
3.55 Sheriff's Technician
(2) Off-Site Personnel include: 0. 02 Commander
0.04 Captain
0.0833 ID Supervisor
0.1090 Clerk II
(3) Differentials are adjustments to earnings for stand-by pay or special
(4) skills.
Employee benefits includes retirement, social security, SDI, Health
(5) and Dental Insurance, and Workers' Compensation Insurance.
This is the annual cost projected by the County. Due to the need for
the City to close its books prior to receipt of the 4th Quarter bill,
the amount budgeted will differ.
Due to the /change in methodology, a comparison of historical costs shows
the significant impact of the new agreement. The following chart shows the
historical cost of Field Services over the past 5 years:
Historical Cost of Field Services
Actual 1987/88 $26,247
Actual 1988/89 $28,363
Actual 1989/90 $23,606
Actual 1990/91 $31,334
Estimated 1991/92 $32,100
Proposed 1992/93 City Budget $51,230*
*The budget figure differs from County estimate due to
the timing of the final quarter billing and the closing
of the City's financial records at the conclusion of
the Fiscal Year.
As shown above, the average increase over the period from 1987/88 through
1991/92 has been 4.5% per year. This is due in part to the fact that the
budget was based on a constant staffing level and the County did not review
and adjust for changes in the level of service provided to the City.
Typically, the City closes its books prior to the receipt of the fourth
quarter billing. Therefore, the amount shown in the annual budget is based
upon a one-year period which includes the fourth quarter of the previous
year and the first three quarters of the current budget year. Based upon
this timeframe, Staff ,estimates that Field Services under the proposed
agreement for 1992/93 would be $51,230. This represents a 60% increase
over the projected cost for 1991/92. Staff has worked with Animal Control
representatives to 'identify whether a more cost effective alternative might
exist. Under the proposed agreement, the only means to reduce the cost
-5-
would be to reduce the patrol service hours. Staff believes that this type
of action would increase complaints from residents.
Service Options
The Staff has considered whether it would be cost effective for the City to
operate its own Animal Control function. Given the relatively small size
of the developed area of the City, staffing becomes difficult due to the
need to provide emergency call-out, and coverage during an employee absence
for vacation or illness. As noted under the current service level of 50-65
hours per month, it does not appear that a full-time position would be
warranted at this time. In order for the City to adequately staff the
position, more than one person would need to be available.
Staff conducted a survey of local agencies which provide Animal Control
services to determine the personnel cost of providing the service.
The following describes the staffing used:
City of Livermore: The City uses three part-time Animal Control
Officer positions on rotating schedules. The hours worked by the
three part-time employees equate to 2.0 full-time positions.
Supervision is coordinated through a lieutenant in the Police
Department. The ratio of full-time. equivalent field personnel to
single family households is approximately 1 per 8, 652 households.
City of Pleasanton: The City of Pleasanton has a full-time
Senior Animal Control Officer. In order to address relief and
call-out duties, the City has provided one of their Police
Community Services Officer (CSO) with training in Animal Control.
The City budgets 1/2 of a CSO position in Animal Control;
therefore, 1. 5 full-time equivalent positions are used. The
ratio of full-time equivalent field personnel to the number of
single family households is approximately 1 per 8,933 households.
The following table summarizes Staff's projection of the cost of conducting
the service with City personnel. These projections are based upon 2 half-
time positions, working 20 hours each. Although the cost is more than the
proposed County services, the level of service is also much higher.
(Approximately 165 hours per month versus the County's proposed 50-65 hours
per month) . In order to have the ability to respond, this would be the
minimum staffing level.
Projected Annual Cost of City Provided Animal Control Services
Personnel Costs of 2 ( .50 FTE) $ 56,255 (1)
Adjustment for Vacation Coverage/Call-Out 4,475 (2)
Internal Svc Fund/Maintenance 7,100 (3)
Misc. Supplies/Veterinary Services 11000
Total Annual Cost $ 68,830
(1) Personnel costs include salaries based upon the average paid by other
agencies in Alameda County. The benefits are based on current city
benefits for . regular part-time positions.
(2) This line item provides coverage for the time which a part-time person
may be on excused absence and the second position would be working
additional hours to provide coverage. Also, 48 hours of officer time.
was added to account for call-outs on holidays and after hour
emergencies.
(3) This amount is based upon a 5 year straight line depreciation of a
$27, 000 vehicle. The cost shown does not represent the carrying cost
for the vehicle purchase. It also assumes annual vehicle maintenance
costs of $1,700.
-6-
i
Projected First Year Capital Outlay
In addition to the annual costs, it is projected that the City would incur
costs for the initial purchase of a vehicle. The estimated cost of the
vehicle is $27, 000.
In addition to direct costs outlined above, it would also be necessary to
consider:
■ supervision
■ Training
■ Incremental cost of administrative personnel/support for
additional employee (s)
■ Cost of outfitting animal control vehicle
■ The ability to recruit qualified personnel willing to serve in a
part-time capacity
■ Cost of communications/dispatch services
It is difficult for Staff to clearly identify direct costs for several of
these areas at this time. The identified costs are already 20% higher than
the annual costs under the County proposal. If these undefined areas only
contributed an additional $10, 000 to the cost of the program, the City
would be experiencing costs approximately 37% greater than the County
contract. Given current economic constraints, City Staff providing the
service does not appear as a viable option.
Legal Mandate for Service/Potential Joint Programs
Staff attempted to also review the legislative mandate for providing Animal
Control services. It appears that the legal responsibility as stated in
the Food & Agriculture Code rests with the County. As the financial
picture for most counties is quite bleak, it is doubtful that much service
would be provided if the County did not have the revenue to do so.
One option identified in the code is the ability of a County to establish a
County service Area. The impact on the taxpayer is that this function
would be funded through assessments on the property tax bill. Staff would
need to consider further the ability to have input on service levels under
this scenario. Although this may not be possible in the short term, the
concept of a joint approach to field services may make sense in the future
for surrounding agencies or for the unincorporated area and agencies served
by the County. As the City Council is aware, the local cities and Alameda
County are already evaluating the joint financing of a new animal shelter
facility. In discussions with other agencies, it was noted that, given the
number of calls for service, it would be extremely difficult to eliminate
the service and, therefore, there may be interest in the joint provision of
services.
Licensing
As previously indicated, Alameda County also provides dog licensing
services for the City of Dublin As directed in the City Council Goals &
Objectives, Staff has prepared an informational report on potential
strategies to increase dog licenses. The report is attached as Exhibit 4.
The conclusion reached in reviewing the potential methods of increasing
licenses is that the City should implement a program to actively follow-up
with owners as they have their dogs vaccinated. The impact of this effort
should be evaluated after one year of data is available. This will require
an adjustment to the proposed budget to provide for printing and postage.
-7-
Shelter
The Animal Control Shelter services are provided by the Sheriff's
Department from their facility on the Santa Rita property in the City of
Dublin. In addition to serving the unincorporated areas of eastern
Alameda County, the facility is used to impound animals from the cities of
Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Each of the agencies using the facility
pays a proportionate share of the cost of operations. The County bills the
agencies based on a proportion of the proposed budget. The County also
adjusts the first quarter billing in the event that the actual year end
expenditures were less than budget. For example, the City received a
$2,200 credit on our first quarter 1991/92 billing, because total
expenditures for the prior fiscal year (1990/91) were less than the budget.
Determination of Agency Share of Costs
The method used to determine the cost sharing for the Shelter is evaluated
on an annual basis. The share paid is determined by the percentage of live
animals handled from each jurisdiction during the prior year. The City of
Dublin's share has fluctuated over the years. The following breakdown
identifies the proportion paid:
1988/89 15.5%
1989/90 13.5%
1990/91 11.7%
1991/92 15.5%
Projected 1992/93 15.5%
The fluctuation can result from changes by any of the participants in the
, effort placed on impounding dogs. Staff anticipates that with the proposed
closer monitoring of field service hours, the City will also have better
information on fluctuations in the number of dogs impounded.
Proposed Shelter Budget
The total projected operating cost for 1992/93 for the operation of the
Santa Rita Shelter is $251, 137. A cost breakdown is shown below:
Alameda County
Projected 1992/93
Santa Rita Shelter
Salaries $ 121,528
Overtime & Pay Differentials 10,026
Benefits 39, 655
Total Personal Services $ 171,209
Miscellaneous Services & Supplies $ 18, 613
Veterinary Services 10,895
Building (Utilities and Maintenance) 22,397
Total Services & Supplies $ 51,905
Indirect Costs @ 12 .56% $ 28, 023
Grand Total $ 251, 137
The cost of shelter services billed to the participating cities is also
adjusted by a proportionate share of the revenue generated by the Shelter.
Animal Control Staff estimate 1992/93 Shelter revenue at $36,688;
therefore, the City of Dublin 1992/93 estimated Shelter cost is as follows:
-8-
Projected 1992/93 Dublin Shelter Cost
Total Cost of Operating Shelter $ 251,137
Less Estimated Revenue (36,688)
Net 1992/93 Operating Cost - $ 214,449
Estimated Dublin Share 15.5% $ 33,240
As noted in the Field Services section, the budget amounts differ slightly
due to delayed receipt of the 4th Quarter billing. The following shows the
historical cost of Shelter services:
Shelter Costs
Actual 1988/89 $ 12,740
Actual 1989/90 18,239
Actual 1990/91 18,065
Estimated 1991/92 24,800
Projected 1992/93 34 a .605
The County has begun a closer review of the allocation of costs to various
departments as a result of the current fiscal situation. This has resulted
in significant increases to the cost of service for the City of Dublin.
Also, changes in the City's share of the workload can impact the cost of
service.
As the City Council is aware, the County, along with the cities of Dublin,
Livermore, and Pleasanton, are pursuing the construction of a new Shelter.
The organization for pursuing this project will allow the City to have
greater input in the future on Shelter operations. This should also allow
for a review of whether the operation can be conducted at a lower cost. At
the present time, the Santa Rita Shelter is the best alternative available.
Staff is not recommending any changes to the existing Shelter agreement.
Conclusion/Summary
Staff recommends that the City Council review and provide input on the
provision of Animal Control services. The specific recommendations
provided by Staff are as follows:
a) The County should be encouraged to conduct an analysis to determine
whether disposal fees charged to veterinary facilities reflect the
costs and any impact of amending those fees.
b) Staff should be directed to pursue additional contact with owners who
recently had dogs vaccinated. Staff will report to the City Council
on the impact of this effort after the procedures have been in place
for a one year period.
C) As the neighboring cities pursue the joint development of an Animal
Shelter, the Staff should also be directed to identify whether there
could be cost savings in pursuing joint field service.
d) Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving
the new Field Services Agreement and establish a contract review cycle
of every three years, unless an interim review is warranted.
a:69animl.agenda#9
-9-
AGREEMENT
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day o
1903
by and between the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, hereinafter referred to as OUNTY% and
the CITY OF D UB LlA/ hereinafter referred to as "CITY".
RECITALS: --�
a. The CITY is desirous of contracting with the COUNTY for the ( 'J
performance of animal control shelter services by the COUNTY of Alameda.
b. The COUNTY is agreeable to rendering such services on the terns and
conditions hereinafter set forth. :
C. Such contracts are authorized by Section 51300 et seq. of the
Government Code.
THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
1. COUNTY agrees to provide animal shelter services to CITY for
animals impounded pursuant to CITY's ordinance and state law at the level
established by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Such services shall
include, but not be limited to, receiving live animals at the County shelter;
providing live animals at the shelter with food, water, farrier and/or
veterinary care, euthanizing animals not otherwise adopted, redeemed, sold or
donated to adoption organizations, and disposing-of dead animals. COUNTY
shall furnish and supply all necessary labor, supervision, equipment and
supplies except as otherwise required of CITY necessary to maintain the level
of service to be rendered hereunder.
11. \PAYMENT
1. CITY agrees to pay its pro rata share of the annual net cost of
shelter services in quarterly installments.
a. The CITY's pro rata share shall initially be its percentage
share of the total number of live animals handled at the shelter in the prior
fiscal year. If a city withdraws from the program or a new city participates,
the County shall equitably adjust the percentages.
W181TI
b. The annual net cost of shelter services shall be the amount
budgeted by the County for the current year's cost of shelter services less
actual revenue collections for shelter services.
c. In the first quarter billing of the following fiscal year,
an adjustment shall be made to reflect the actual annual net cost of the
shelter services. Reasonable building improvement, depreciation and contract
shelter services may also be included in such costs.
2. COUNTY shall bill CITY for services quarterly. CITY shall pay
COUNTY within thirty (30) days from the date of billing.
3. If payment is not received by COUNTY at the office which is
described on said billing within thirty (30); days after the date of delivery
of said billing, COUNTY is entitled to recover interest thereof. Said
interest shall be at the rate of one (1) percent per calendar month or any
portion thereof calculated from the date of delivery of said billing.
111. GENERAL CONDITIONS
/ 1. Animals picked up by CITY and delivered to County Shelter will
be held for the minimum time period as specified by County Ordinance.
2. All animals not redeemed within time period set by County
Ordinance may be sold or given away to any person other than the owner.
3. All animals not redeemed, sold, or given away pursuant to
County Ordinance shall be humanely disposed of by COUNTY.
4. An animal surrendered to CITY by'owner for purposes of
euthansia shall be euthanized by CITY personnel, providing CITY accepts such
animal, prior to its delivery to COUNTY shelter.
5. Dead animals delivered by CITY to .County shelter shall without
exception be placed into containers provided by COUNTY and will not have
collars, chains, bandages, flea/tick collars, etc. on the dead animals or be
delivered for disposal within anything other than said container.
6. COUNTY shall keep records of animal type, identifying marks,
and time and place of pickup.
7. The CITY shall complete and fill out standardized report forms
and shall be required to follow up or handle any of the CITY's own reporting
or notification procedures. COUNTY shall provide forms for CITY use only for
live or dead animals brought to County shelter.
-2-
8. N, .k or injured animal will be brought to shelter unless
and until it has been examined, properly treated and released by a
veterinarian. Animals deemed by COU14TY personnel to need veterinary care
shall not be received by COUNTY without written veteri.nary clearance to hold
them at the shelter.
9. Tire placement of animals in the shelter shall comply with all
procedures established by the County Director of Field Services.
10. Indigenous wild animals protected under State law picked up by •,
CITY must be turned over to the State Department of Fish and Game by CITY.
. 11. The COUNTY will collect CITY dog license fees only for dogs
redeemed or adopted from the County Shelter Facility. Those fees will be
remitted in full to the CITY.
12. COUNTY will charge fees for shelter services in the amount
established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Payment of such fees
may be waived only in accordance with County Ordinance.
13. CITY agrees to make all reasonable efforts to return licensed
dogs and other animals otherwise identified to an owner to their owner before
delivering such dogs or other animals to the County Shelter.
/ IV. NO CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT EFFECTED HEREBY
/ 1, For the purpose of performing such shelter services and for the
purpose of giving official status to the performance thereof, every COUNTY
officer and employee engaged in performing any such service shall be deemed to
be an officer or an employee of CITY while performing services for CITY, which
service is within tine scope of this agreement and is a municipal function.
2. All persons employed in the performance of such services and
functions for CITY shall be COUNTY employees, and no CITY employee, as such,
shall be employed by COUNTY, and no person employed hereunder shall have any
CITY pension, civil service, or other status or right in relation to CITY.
3. CITY shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the
direct payment of any salaries, wages, or other compensation to any COUNTY
personnel performing services hereunder for CITY, or any liability other than
that expressly provided for in this agreement.
-3-
• Lt': fzr the compensatiL indemnity to
5. :
any COUNTY employee for injury or sickness arisipg out of his employment.
COUNTY, its officers and employees, shall not be deemed to assume any
liability for intentional or negligent acts of CITY or of any officers or
employees thereof, and CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY,
its officers and employees against any claims for damages resulting
therefrom. & Y-9hrN-defe> ��
dem-i•rrif�-and-ha•1•d-fi� ��"�r �'� -
o4f-v;er-s-and-emp4eyeei-f-r-em-4aW4-i-t-"f-any-Ratupe-what-5eeyer�-a
,.gin-.an_y-way-4E.ennec-ted-w4-thT4he-aeti-or-em4-5s}errs-&f-a+rr-E9d e'
_Gmp4oye"Qr,ur-r i ng-dur--i•ng-the-t-ime-any--sueh-o-Weer-ep-emP-�Oyee 42-deemed-te-
-be-an-eff ioer-er-emp-leyee-e1-61-Y-under-the-p-r-avi-s-ien3-her-eef--and-4--acing
w.i-L�he-scope-ef-Eha-dut-4 a5-pper-}ded-€tor-ender--th-i-s�9reement
V. TERM
This agreement shall commence on July 1, 1983, and shall continue
from year to year thereafter unless terminated. Either party may terminate
this agreement on June 30 of any year by written notice on or before April 1
of said year.
VI. MODIFICATION
This agreement may be modified in writing by mutual agreement of the
parties hereto at anytime.
ATTEST:- -- - r '
By: -A ' 8y ayor
-City er
APPROVEizeT�/,Z
By, i�-s
y t orney
ATTEST: / 1j�7
n. —7-
„• '8Y ainnan, oar o upervisors
County of Alameda
APPROVED AS TO FORM: I h^,y �. .,.........._..,,
RICH RD J N009 gy TY C N EL the Is•cr.1 Suu i.r.: :o :x�uta 1ni^
q( //// V• document on rrf:r•:I rl co1a�y-• '�rneoa'ry a majority
�� v to of the Board on_ g I� 1 � g3.:anq that a copy hdl
By: / �� een the
to the Cha:rmnn as )rocld d bye ernment
' Code Section 25103.ACM:: 11Ili V I
WILLIAM M H rrJ,Clerk,Hoard of S ervisors,County of
Alameda, late of C; or tia
BY
• 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Sheriff's Department has provided
Animal Control Services to the City of Dublin since incorporation in
1982 ; and
WHEREAS, in the past the County and the City have entered into an
agreement which specifies the terms under which Animal Control Services
are to be provided; and
WHEREAS, the current agreement will expire as of June 30, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to receive Animal Control
Services and Alameda County Sheriff's Department is capable of providing
such service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Dublin does hereby approve the securing of Animal Control Field
Services in accordance with the Agreement attached hereto and by
reference made a part hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
a:Resoanml.doc.agenda#9
EXHIBIT
Draft 5/28/92
AGREEMENT
IMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVIC.
Page 1
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
by and between the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, hereinafter referred to as
"COUNTY" , and the CITY OF DUBLIN, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" .
RECITALS:
(a) The CITY is desirous of contracting with the COUNTY for the
performance of animal control field services by the COUNTY of Alameda.
(b) The COUNTY is agreeable to rendering such services on the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
(c) Such contracts are authorized by Section 51300 et seq. of the
Government Code.
THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS;
I . SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
a. The COUNTY agrees to provide animal control field services
within the corporate limits of the CITY to the extent and in the manner
hereinafter set forth. AS USED HEREIN, 11ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVICES" MEANS
AND INCLUDES: ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO ANIMALS; INVESTIGATION
OF ANIMAL RELATED COMPLAINTS; TRANSPORTATION OF STRAY ANIMALS TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER
DESIGNATED BY THE CITY; COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF ANIMALS TO THE SHELTER WHEN
DEEMED NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY OR AS
REQUIRED BY LAWS AND REGULATIONS; PATROL ACTIVITIES; INVESTIGATION OF DOG BITES;
COLLECTION OF DEAD ANIMALS AND PROVISION OF DOG LICENSING SERVICES; AND OTHER RELATED
DUTIES. SHELTER SERVICES ARE ADDRESSED BY A SEPARATE SHELTER AGREEMENT.
Such services shall only encompass duties and functions of the
type coming within the jurisdiction of and customarily rendered by the
Field Services Department of the COUNTY.
The rendition of such services, the standard of performance
and other matters incidental to the performance of such services, and
the control of personnel so employed shall remain within the control of
the COUNTY UNLESS OTHERWISE DESCRIBED IN THIS AGREEMENT. In event of dispute
between the parties as to the extent of the duties and functions to be
rendered hereunder or the level and manner of performance of such
service, the COUNTY' S determination thereof shall be final and
conclusive as between the parties hereto:
Such service shall include the enforcement of State statutes
and such municipal animal control ordinance as the CITY may adopt that
is substantially the same as the COUNTY' s Ordinance.
b. To facilitate the performance of said functions, it is hereby
agreed that the COUNTY shall have full cooperation and assistance from
the CITY, its officers, agents, and employees, WHO SHALL BE AND REMAIN CITY
EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT.
C. For the purposes of performing said functions, COUNTY shall
furnish and supply all necessary labor, supervision, equipment and
supplies necessary to maintain the level of service to be rendered
hereunder. In all instances where special supplies, stationary,
notices, forms and the like must be issued in the name of the CITY, the
same shall be supplied by the CITY at its expense.
d. The CITY will conduct its own vicious animal hearings,
FOLLOWING THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY REPORTS BY COUNTY.
e. The CITY or COUNTY may terminate those animal licensing
Services WHICH RELATE TO ANIMAL LICENSING, provided by the COUNTY to the CITY
EXHIBIT.3
Draft 5/28/92'
AGREEMENT
ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVICES
Page 2
t
at any time during the term of the contract upon providing the other
party with thirty-{80} NINETY (90) days advance written notice, UNLESS A
SHORTER TIM FRAM IS AGREED TO IN WRITING BY THE PARTIES. Such notice shall be
delivered by registered CERTIFIED mail. UPON TERMINATION COUNTY SHALL PROVIDE
CITY WITH ALL PERTINENT RECORDS.
II . LIABILITY
a. All persons employed BY THE COUNTY in the performance of sueh
THE services and functions for CITY PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT shall be AND
SHALL REMAIN COUNTY employees. and-net-GlTY-employees-as-sueh-shall-be
taken-ever-by-GGUNTY. No person employed hereunder shall have any CITY
pension, civil service, or other status or right.
b. CITY shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the
direct payment of any salary, wages, or other compensation to any COUNTY
personnel performing services hereunder for CITY, or any liability other
than that expressly provided for in this agreement.
Exeept-as-hereiR-otherwise-specified; CITY shall not be liable
for compensation or indemnity to any COUNTY employee for injury or
sickness arising out of his employment.
C. The CITY shall assume liability and shall pay cost of defense
and hold the COUNTY harmless from loss, costs or expenses TO THE EXTENT
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of CITY officers,
agents, and employees occurring in the performance of this agreement. to
the-extent-that-saeh-liability-is-impesed-eR-the-COUNTY-by-the
previsiens-ef-See tieR-895 .-2-ef-the-Government-Eede-ef-the-State-ef
Galifernia- In addition, when liability arises pursuant to Section 830,
et seq. , of the Government Code, by reason of a dangerous condition of
public property of the CITY, the CITY shall assume liability and pay
cost of defense and hold the COUNTY harmless from loss, costs or
expenses caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of CITY
officers, agents, and employees arising in the performance of this
agreement.
d. The COUNTY will assume liability and pay cost of defense and
hold the CITY harmless from loss, costs or expenses TO THE EXTENT caused
by negligent or wrongful act or omission by COUNTY officers, agents, and
employees occurring in the performance of this agreement. te-the-extent
that-sueh-liability-is-impesed-eR-the-CITY-by-the-previsiens-ef-SeetieR
89572-ef-the-Government-Eede-ef-the-State-ef-Ealifernia- In addition,
when liability arises pursuant to Section 830, et seq. , of the
Government Code, by reason of a dangerous condition of the public
property of the COUNTY, the COUNTY shall assume liability and pay cost
of defense and hold the CITY harmless from loss, costs or expenses
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of COUNTY officers,
agents, and employees arising in the performance of this agreement.
III . INSURANCE
That insurance agreement between CITY and COUNTY ENTITLED "ADDENDENDUM
TO SERVICE AGREEMENTS BETWEN COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND CITY OF DUBLIN AND INSURANCE
AGREEMENT, which is IN effect during the term of this agreement shall
apply hereto and is fully incorporated herein by reference.
IV. COST OF AND BILLING PROCEDURES
Draft 5/28/92-
AGREEMENT
ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVICES
Page 3
a. CITY shall pay COUNTY the actual cost to the COUNTY in
PERFORMING SERVICES HEREUNDER. "ACTUAL COST" SHALL BE THE COUNTY'S DIRECT AND
INDIRECT COSTS OF PROVIDING ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVICES SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH I
ABOVE. ATTRIBUTABLE-TA aeeerdanee-with the-pelieies-and-preeedures
established-by-the-Beard-a€-SuperviseFs the-prepertieR-e€ ACTUAL COSTS
SHALL BE PRORATED ACCORDING TO PATROL HOURS EXPENDED IN DUBLIN COMPARED TO ALL OTHER
AREAS SERVICED BY COUNTY. ACTUAL COSTS SHALL NOT INCLUDE GENERAL OVERHEAD COSTS
AS DEFINED IN AND DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 51350. THE FOLLOWING IS PROVIDED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY:
1 . TOTAL ANNUAL FIELD SERVICES DEPT PATROL HOURS: 5,000 HOURS.
2 . # OF HOURS EXPENDED ON PATROL TIME IN CITY OF DUBLIN: 650 HOURS.
3 . % OF TOTAL PATROL HOURS EXPENDED IN DUBLIN = #2 ABOVE DIVIDED BY
#1 ABOVE : 13.0%
4. TOTAL ANNUAL COUNTY COST OF FIELD SERVICES: $400,000
(INCLUDING INDIRECT COSTS) .
5 . ANNUAL COST ATTRITUBTABLE TO PROVISION OF FIELD SERVICES TO CITY OF
DUBLIN (#3 ABOVE MULTIPLIED BY #4) : $52,000.
b ON OR BEFORE MARCH 1ST OF EACH YEAR, COUNTY SHALL PROVIDE CITY WITH
PROJECTIONS FOR SERVICE COST DURING UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR.
C. COUNTY SHALL PROVIDE CITY WITH MONTHLY REPORTS IDENTIFYING THE
PROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF PATROL HOURS PROVIDED TO CITY.
d. CITY MAY REQUEST THAT COUNTY MODIFY SERVICE LEVEL FOR FUTURE MONTHS IF
SIGNIFICANT DEVIATION IS EXPERIENCED FROM COUNTY PROJECTION.
b e. The COUNTY shall bill CITY for services quarterly. The CITY
shall pay COUNTY within thirty (30) days from the date of billing.
If such payment is not received by COUNTY at the office which is
described on said billing within thirty (30) days after the date of
delivery of said billing, COUNTY is entitled to recover interest
thereon. Said interest shall be at the rate of one (1 ) percent per
calendar month or any portion thereof calculated from the date of
delivery of said billing. ,
c f. COUNTY agrees that all dog license fees which it collects for
dog licenses issued by COUNTY to residence residents of CITY shall be
remitted to the CITY quarterly. COUNTY SHALL PROCESS REMITTANCE TO CITY
WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THE CLOSE OF THE QUARTER.
d----CITY-agrees-that-whenever-animals-€ref+-witkiR-tie-beundaries
e€-tie-CITY-are-del i veFed-te-animal-shelteFs-eperated-by-er-en-bekal€-ef
COUNTY;-the-CITY-shall-pay-€er-the-treatment-and-shelter-e€-said
animals;-reptiles;-and-€ewl-at-rates-to-re€leet-the-ees�-a€-suek-shelter
and-treatment-as-determi Red-by-the-GGUNTY---This-pFevisieR-shall-Ret-be
e€€eetive-whenever-CITY-eentEaets-separately-€er-shelter-serviees-€rem
GeUNTY7 (NOTE: THIS SECTION IS ADDRESSED BY A SEPARATE SHELTER AGREEMENT. )
g. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained,
this agreement shall be sooner terminated at any time that CITY fails to
enact and to maintain in full force and effect, iRelud}Rg-the-ameunt-ef
fees-previded as AN animal control ordinance substantially the same as
the provisions of the COUNTY' S ANIMAL CONTROL Ordinance. CITY SHALL ALSO
TAKE LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO ENACT AND MAINTAIN FEES RELATED TO ANIMAL CONTROL, WHICH
ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO ANIMAL CONTROL FEES ESTABLISHED BY COUNTY.
€ h. The COUNTY agrees to keep separate records for CITY. Such
records shall be open for examination by CITY during all business hours.
Draft 5/28/92-
AGREEMENT
ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVICES
Page 4
V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS
IN PERFORMING THE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREMENT, COUNTY
SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO DISCRIMINATION AND LAWS REQUIRING
INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAMS.
VI . TERM
This agreement shall commence on July 1 , 1992, and shall continue
from year to year thereafter unless terminated. Either party may
terminate this agreement on June 30 of any year by written notice on or
before April 1 of said year.
VII . MODIFICATION
This agreement may be modified in writing by mutual agreement of
the parties hereto at any time.
FOR CITY OF DUBLIN:
ATTEST:
By: By:
KAY KECK, CITY CLERK PETER W. SNYDER, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
FOR COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
By:
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Alameda
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Deputy County Counsel
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors has duly authorized to execute this document on
behalf of the County of Alameda by a majority vote of the Board on
; and that a copy has been delivered to the
Chairman as provided by Government Code Section 25103.
Dated:
WILLIAM, MEHRWEIN
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
County of Alameda
State of California
/lss a:51Anm1Ag.doc.psr#10
REPORT ON STRATEGIES TO INCREASE DOG LICENSING
IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
Prepared by:
Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager
Bo Barker, Management Assistant
May 1992
i
EXHIBIT 9
The purpose of this report is to evaluate gtrategies which would increase
the number of dogs licensed in the City of Dublin. Dog License revenue
helps to offset the cost of Animal Control services. Licenses also protect
the community at large since it assures that the dogs have a current rabies
vaccination.
Current Process
Alameda County allows residents to purchase dog licenses for up-to 3 years,
provided that the rabies vaccination will be effective for the full license
period. A 50% discount is provided in the event the dog has been spayed or
neutered. Also, dog owners who are 62 years old or older receive a 50%
discount. The current fees are as follows:
Basic Fee If Sya'ed or Neutered
Three Year License $ 22.00 $ 11 .00
Two Year License $ 18.00 $ 9.00
One Year License $ 12.00 $ 6.00
The reduced rate for altered animals is required by State law. The discount
for senior citizens allows for a one year license to cost as low as $3.00,
if the dog has been spayed or neutered.
The County licensing effort primarily consists of the issuance of licenses
in response to submittal of a license application with the proof of rabies
vaccination. - The County does not currently use an automated procedure for
issuing licenses. The information is entered onto a multi-part form. One
part of the form is a postcard, which is mailed at the time of renewal.
Once this card is mailed, there is no follow-up with the owner, unless
Animal Control comes into contact with the owner on an enforcement issue.
City Use of Newsletter
Last year, the City included a license application in the City Newsletter.
The owner could complete the application and mail it with the appropriate
fee. As a result of this effort, the County reported that 26 new licenses
were obtained. This type of indirect effort does not appear to be a method
which would significantly increase the number of licenses. Similar results
were obtained when the application was included in the 1986 Newsletter.
Historical Records of Dogs Licensed
The number of dogs licenses has declined over the years. With the current
County record keeping system, it is difficult to identify the length of
each license purchased. The County reports to the City the total number of
licenses issued and the total revenue. To collect more specific
information, a labor intensive effort would be required.
Page 2
Number of Dog Licenses Issued/Revenue
Fiscal Year Issued Revenue
1988/89
486 $ 3,786
1989/90 448 $ 5,264*
1990/91 432 $ 4,834
1991 /92 405 $ 4,334
*The 1989/90 figure is inflated because it included adjustments for
prior periods when,' the County was reorganizing the administration of
this activity.
The average revenue estimated per license sold in FY 1991/92 is $10.70.
Based on this figure, it would appear that most licenses are for a one year
period. The license fees cover a very small portion of the actual cost of
service.
i
Potential for Large Number of Unlicensed Dogs
Staff believes there - are a large number of unlicensed dogs in the
community. This observation is based upon a review of the numbers of
licensed in surrounding cities and the fact that, frequently, enforcement
reports involving vicious dogs also note that the dog does not have a
current license. In comparison to Livermore and Pleasanton, it appears
that Dublin is licensing considerably fewer dogs. , One method of comparison
is to look at the number of current licenses as /compared to the number of
Single Family Households. The following chart shows available data for
Dublin and neighboring cities.
# Licensed Dogs
# S. F. Households # Licenses Per Household
Dublin 5,086 408 .08
Pleasanton 13, 400 2,800 .21
Livermore 17,305 3,039 .18
On the average, Livermore and Pleasanton are licensing more than twice the
number of dogs per household than the City of Dublin. , It should be noted
that even staff in those communities believe that they have large numbers
of unlicensed dogs.
Door to Door Canvass
In the past, the best results were obtained when a door to door canvass was
conducted by an Animal Control officer. In Fiscal Year 1983/84 a door to
door canvass was completed. This resulted in the issuance of 796 licenses.
This is a highly labor intensive effort and %the County does not have the
personnel resources to devote to this activity. Also, the costs could
significantly outweigh the added revenue. If you consider that under the
proposed 1992/93 Field Service Agreement 667 hours of patrol time will cost
$57, 676, this equates to $86.47 per hour. This rate includes all overhead
and support services: If a door to door canvass required a Sheriff's
Technician working full-time four weeks to complete, the cost would amount
Page 3
to $13,835. In order to cover this cost alone, the City would need to
license over 1 ,293 dogs based upon the average of $10.70 per license.
One of the reasons why the door to door -canvass is typically successful is
the use of uniformed enforcement personnel. Although public awareness and
education will encourage conscientious owners to license their dogs, it is
Staff's experience that many individuals will not comply without using an
enforcement mechanism such as a citation. It should be noted that when
Staff contacted the neighboring cities, they do not conduct a door to door
canvass, due to many of the same constraints with staffing and costs.
Neighboring Cities In House Licensing
Staff has discussed with neighboring cities how their licensing efforts are
coordinated. Both Livermore and Pleasanton utilize an outside computer
service bureau to generate the license billing and delinquency notices. In
this scenario, the City is responsible for providing the information to the
computer service and for processing the receipt of all revenues received.
The City also handles the mailing of all license bills produced by the
computer service. The City of Pleasanton offers the multi-year license,
provided that the rabies vaccination is valid for the entire period. This
means that they have licenses which expire each month. The City of
Livermore only offers a one year license, and all licenses renew on the
first of a designated month.
Estimated Cost of City Performing Licensing
Staff has analyzed the potential impact of the City assuming responsibility
for licensing. Staff has shown the cost of the increased workload resulted
in the current part-time Finance Technician, as a range of between 4 to 8
additional hours per week. It should be noted that there is not currently
adequate data available to determine the exact staffing level required. In
addition, the costs provide for the use of a computer service. The
following is a breakdown of the estimated range of annual costs which would
be anticipated:
City Licensing Expenses (Estimated Annual)
Additional Personnel Expenses
(Range Reflects .10 FTE to .20 FTE Finance Tech. II) $ 4',257-$ 8,514
Postage - 1 ,000 @ $.29 for application 290
Data Service 1 ,200
Total Estimated Annual Costs $ 5,747-$10,004
i
Page 4
i
One Time/Start-Up Costs
The following are identified as the estimated start-up costs associated
with the City assuming the responsibility for licensing.
Purchasing of 2, 000 Tags $ 250
Est. Printing of 5, 000 Notices 2, 000
Printing of Licensing Application Form 250
Postage for Initial Mailing of City Tag 290
Computer Service Set-Up Fee 3,10
Total Initial Start-Up $3, 100
Some of the initial start-up expenses represent a multi-year supply of
items. For example, it is cost effective to print forms in a large
quantity. Therefore, the expense would occur in the first year even though
the forms may be used in future years. The majority of these costs could
be reasonably expected to provide a 3 year supply. If the total start-up
were spread over 3 years, the annual expense would be $1, 033.
As previously noted, the issue which is hardest for the City of Dublin to
gauge would be the personnel cost involved with administering our own
license program. In both the City of Livermore and the City of Pleasanton,
this is handled by the Finance Department, which already has other accounts
receivable duties. It is difficult to get a precise estimate of their
actual time expended on dog licensing as opposed to other duties.
The costs presented assume that the City continues to allow for individuals
to purchase a multi-year license. This requires the computer service to
produce monthly information which is approximately $500 more expensive than
using a "semi-annual" process.
Revenue vs. Expense
Staff has assumed that 996 licenses could be issued in a year. This would
approximate the same number of licensed dogs per household as the cities of
Livermore and Pleasanton. Staff has also assumed that the current average
revenue of $10.70 per license will be maintained. The following shows the
range of the net impact of Revenue vs. Expense:
Revenue Vs. Expense
996 licenses @ $10.70/avg. (Revenue) $ 10, 657
Annual City Licensing Costs $ 5,747 - $10,004
1/3 of Start-up Costs 1, 003 - 1,033
Total Costs $ 6,780 -$11,037
Net Revenue +$ 3,876 to - ($380)
As a comparison, the projected 1991/92 revenue with the County performing
the service is $4, 333 . 50 or $457 higher than the net revenue shown under
the best conditions shown above. If the administrative time required 8
hours per week, the process would have an estimated cost to the City of
$380. These projections also pose a financial risk in the event that the
City assumed the licensing responsibility and the projected number of
licenses were not sold.
Page 5
Identification of Unlicensed Dogs
Another variable in the review of a City licensing function is the effort
required to identify the location of unlicensed dogs and obtaining
compliance. If this requires a personal visit by an Animal Control Officer
in a significant number of cases, the cost may easily eliminate additional
revenue. Staff has considered means of identifying and targeting potential
dog owners to build the initial data base. Among the methods considered
were cooperating with PG&E and proactive use of provisions in the Municipal
Code for veterinarians to report dogs which are vaccinated.
After checking with PG&E officials, Staff was informed that the California
Public Utilities Commission discouraged them from sharing individual
customer information; however, they were able to inform us that they have
records indicating that at least one dog resides at 1 ,483 households in
Dublin. Although PG&E does not have locations of every dog, they do
account for those which could pose a risk to their meter reading personnel.
They also indicated that this number may also be inaccurate in the event
that the customer had moved and the record was not updated. In any event,
this estimate does appear to support the assumption that more dogs reside
in the City than are licensed.
The Municipal Code contains a provision that local veterinarians must
provide records to the City on dogs which are vaccinated and do not have a
current license. There are four veterinary offices in the City which would
be affected. In addition, the same information would be required from
mobile or one day vaccination clinics. This source of information also has
its drawbacks. Residents who have their dogs vaccinated at veterinary
facilities in other cities would not be identified with this process. The
City would also incur additional administrative costs in supplying the
veterinarians with reporting forms and following up on the information
received.
Staff has recently provided local veterinary offices with copies of the
Dublin application to provide to patrons which reside in the City of
Dublin. Staff has also mailed applications for 17 dogs to local residents
who recently had their dogs vaccinated at a one-day clinic. The effect of
these efforts will not be known for several months.
Staff also spoke with one veterinary office to determine methods of
obtaining information. It was indicated that this veterinary office
completes a dog license multi-part form and one copy is given to Contra
Costa County. The remaining copies are given to the owner to submit with
the license payment by mail. The provision of a copy to the public agency
provides for a mechanism to follow-up on those individuals who do not
purchase a license.
Need for Alameda County to Provide City with Follow-Up Information
In the event that the City received from veterinarians the names and
addresses of dog owners, the information would be of limited value if there
was not any mechanism to provide follow-up.
Staff also has a concern with the timeliness in which the City currently
receives the license revenue. The County submits payment to the City on a
Page 6
quarterly basis. It has been Staff's experience that at times the revenue
has been sent up to 6 months following the end of a quarter. There have
also been discrepancies between the number of licenses reported in monthly
reports and the number reported with the quarterly revenue transmittal.
The issues of when revenues are submitted has been addressed in the
proposed Field Services Agreement. Although City control of the entire
process would provide Staff with more timely information, the cost/benefit
of such a task does not appear to be warranted. Therefore, Staff is
recommending that the City Council approve a phased approach to the dog
licensing activity.
Recommendation
Given the lack of a clear cost/benefit to have the City assume
responsibility for licensing, Staff is proposing that a proactive program
be undertaken to provide license materials to dog owners as their pets are
vaccinated.
Staff would propose that the City produce a three part license by mail
application form. This form would be provided to local veterinary offices.
As required by the Municipal Code, the veterinary office would be requested
to provide the City with- the names and addresses of dog owners which have a
dog vaccinated and do not have a current license. The Veterinarian will
provide this information by completing a license application and submitting
one copy to the City. The remaining copies are given to the client to
remit to the County with payment for a license. When the County receives a
license form, they would process it the same as under the current
arrangements. The one difference would be that the County would have a
copy which could be detached and forwarded to the City. The City would
then have a mechanism to match this with the copy provided by the
Veterinarians.
Staff would propose that a follow-up postcard be mailed when there was no
verification of a license issued after 60 days. In the event that the
resident still did not respond, the information could be provided to the
field officer to follow-up on as time permitted. Staff would hope that
contact with dog owners at the time they receive vaccinations would result
in an increase in the number of licenses issued. Also, receiving
additional information on the types of licenses issued (i.e. 1 year, 2
year, 3 year) and the number of dogs vaccinated will be important in
assessing the program in the future.
The initial cost of the program will involve printing the forms and postage
for any follow-up. Staff estimates the total of this activity at $700 and
funds have been included in the Animal Control budget.
It is further recommended that the City Council be provided with a report
of the effectiveness of this program, once it has been in place for at
least one year.
a:69ShLic.doc.agenda#9
Page 7_