Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0618 CC REG ITEM 09D / 9--- ITEM '--ITEM 9. V• CITY OF MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: The Honorable City Council CITY OF MOORPARK,CAT Tr AMA City Council Mc: FROM: Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Administrative Services Managiar 61/0.- DATE: DATE: June 12, 1997 Wy'Ir : SUBJECT: Consider Animal Regulation Service Options �Y: ci � Summary Since the Council meeting of May 7, 1997, pursuant to Council direction, staff has been working on costs estimates for the upcoming fiscal year related to Animal Regulation services. As directed, staff has requested and received a proposal from the County of Los Angeles for said services, has been exploring the City's options with the City of Simi Valley and the County of Ventura, and in this report, will present the conclusions of the research. For fiscal year 1997/98, staff is recommending that the City continue its current contract with the County of Ventura, and re-evaluate the circumstances in January 1998, to assess and prepare for a change, if necessary, for fiscal year 1998/99. Background On May 7, staff presented information to the Council describing the history of Animal Regulation services provided by the County of Ventura since the current contract was established in 1987. Staff also presented information related to the City of Simi Valley's progress towards identifying a service provider with lower costs than proposed by the County in April, for Fiscal Year 1997/98. In summary, staff reported that the County proposed a six percent increase in costs from the current fiscal year from $64,600 to $68,200. Also in April, the City of Simi Valley concluded its RFP for Animal Regulation services, and reported that the County of Los Angeles is able to provide similar services for a lower cost to them. With information that Simi Valley may opt out of the current Ventura County contract, Ventura County explained that the cost to the remaining cities which decide to stay with Ventura County would have a substantial increase in service costs. In Moorpark, this additional cost was projected to be 38% above the proposal for 1997/98, or an increase of $26,100. The reason the County presented projected cost increases in the absence of Simi Valley to the Commission April 10, is because it was not clear at that time if Simi Valley intended to exercise the May 1 option to terminate the agreement. Staff described May 7 that the current Animal Regulation contract has two potential tools for termination; one is available to a contracting city May 1 of each year, and; the second option is after adoption of the County budget. As of the May 5, 1997, Simi Valley Council meeting, it is apparent that if Simi Valley terminates its contract in fiscal year 1997/98, it will have to rely on the second method which would occur approximately one month into the new fiscal year, at or about July 31. In the May 7 Council report, reference was made to the continuation of the April.10 Animal Regulation meeting to April 15. At the April 15 meeting, the Commission directed Animal 1 Q0006S i Regulation staff to explore cost saving alternatives within the department, and to request an RFP from the Board of Supervisors to explore options to "in-house" services on a County- wide basis. In the May 7 report, staff also described the termination clause in the current contract, and Simi Valley's interest in expanding the time frame within the clause to allow the County and Simi Valley more time to fine tune options, and to facilitate a possible transition in Simi Valley to Los Angeles County care during the new fiscal year, having missed the May 1 deadline. To maintain maximum flexibility, Moorpark made a similar request of the County. Both the contract extension and the RFP were approved by the Board of Supervisors June 10. Attachment"B" is a copy of the Board Letter which describes both matters in more detail. Status Since May 7, Simi Valley staff has been actively working towards a final report to their Council which will be on their agenda June 23 or June 30th and most likely recommend the termination of the Ventura County contract. Based on informal communications the Simi Valley staff, the recommendation will most likely favor the County of Los Angeles. However, In making this decision, it is being proposed that Simi Valley citizens either consider a temporary holding facility in Simi Valley, work with the Agoura Shelter location or a combination of both. The County of Ventura at this time, will not relinquish control of the Simi sub-shelter. • Staff met with County of Ventura Animal Regulation Director Kathy Jenks on Friday, June 6, and received a revised budget estimate for 1997/98. Between April and June 30, the County works towards fine-tuning its proposed budget, and minor changes to the figures proposed in April are common. This year, the cost has been slightly reduced from the estimate proposed in April; from $68,200 to $66,700. This reduction of$1,500 is the result of cost savings to retirement benefits for department staff, and some minor adjustments to the Inter-service Fund and general service costs. Now the proposed increase in costs between fiscal years is 3 percent. The City is in receipt of a proposal for services from Los Angeles County. Attachment"A" is that proposal, which projects costs for 1997/98 to be $68,000, and $63,000 in 1998/99. The costs will decrease between fiscal years due to reduced staffing hours the second year proposed for canvassing efforts. In addition to cost differences, there are also many differences between the proposed services and the current program, which staff continues to explore and define. Discussion With the approval by the Board of Supervisors to extend the termination clause from 30 to 90 days shown in Attachment"B", the City does have several options as described May 7, one being to remain with the County of Ventura for another year. To maintain its flexible status, staff recommends that the City execute the amendment to the contract termination clause. The Board also approved an RFP process to explore service options for the entire County. Staff will keep the Council advised on the progress of the RFP process, which may involve a Commission sub-committee to review the draft RFP, and consider the responses received. Of particular concern is the potential cost differences between the City contracting directly with Los Angeles County, versus having a contract with Ventura County with services provided by a contractor to Ventura County, (which could be Los Angeles County). 2 000070 There have been numerous communications from County of Ventura supporters regarding service differences, which will be described below, but on a purely practical level, the County of Ventura's costs are proposed to be less than that proposed by the County of Los Angeles, and will be secure for the entire fiscal year. The need for change was originally perceived to be immediate due to the proposed cost increases resulting from the absence of Simi Valley, but if this absence occurs, it will be after the County budget is adopted, and those costs communicated by the County to the City after budget adoption are a commitment based on the 1987 contract, and prohibit the County from making mid-year adjustments that would impact contract costs. The County of Los Angeles proposal does state that in October or November, their Board adopts its contract rates which are retroactive to July 1, and therefore, the $68,000 figure may increase slightly. Having received the Los Angeles proposal June 5, staff has not had adequate time to address all of the differences in services. One significant aspect of this review is expressed on the last page of their proposal referred to as "Title 10." Title 10 is Los Angeles County's legal basis for enforcement and animal control efforts. Moorpark will be asked to adopt this code if the City elects to change providers, and it and the City's current code need to be consolidated so that special requirements in Moorpark are maintained in the new contract. Because the Los Angeles offices are closed on Fridays, staff was not able to request a copy of this code until Monday June 9, and when received, it will be referred to the City Attorney for review. The development of this "hybrid" code will require at least a month to complete. Other service questions that can be answered now concern such matters as the spay/neuter programs of both service providers, the reimbursement for emergency veterinarian services, the length of time an unidentified animal is held for reclamation by Los Angeles County, and the use of the Simi Valley sub-shelter. The Council received a copy of a letter stating that Los Angeles County only holds an unidentified animal for 72 hours, and this is not accurate. The state law requires that they be held for three days, but staff has learned that the County of Los Angeles will hold an animal for a minimum of seven days, and longer if space is available. In Los Angeles County's proposal, it is expressed that the current voucher program administered by Ventura County be abandoned and replaced by on-sight spay and neuter clinics at the Agoura Shelter. Los Angeles County points out that$10 of each license sold for a Moorpark pet is contributed to the voucher program county-wide, and that Moorpark cannot assure that their contribution is being re-paid to Moorpark residents. This is partly true. A dog voucher has a value of$40, and a cat voucher is worth $20. It takes four unaltered dog or cat licenses at$30 per license, (where $20 is credited to the City and $10 dollars is credited towards the voucher program), to pay for one dog voucher. Los Angeles County revenue numbers are slightly higher than Ventura County's because they propose to credit all $30 of the license revenue to Moorpark, where it is not currently being done. However, based on the statistics provided in Attachment"C" (which is the basis for the County of Los Angeles' • proposal), the County of Ventura collected $5,870 from Moorpark residents for the voucher program. Moorpark residents are quite responsive to the program, and used all but$170 of these monies. By using the vouchers, local veterinarians can get involved with each pet, arrangements can made on a more convenient basis for the residents rather than traveling to Agoura Hills, and if it is being used by Moorpark residents, than Moorpark is seeing a substantial return for the investment. This may not always be the case however, and needs 3 0 71, to be monitored. Moorpark can always opt out of the County of Ventura's voucher program if it chooses. Another point of contention regarding services is the emergency veterinarian costs that each of the two agencies will allow. Los Angeles County has a $50 cap, and Ventura County will allow a local veterinarian to stabilize an injured animal if possible, without a cap, until it can be transported to the shelter. In 1995/96, no monies were paid to veterinarians for the cost of caring for an emergency treatment for a Moorpark animal, despite that fact that no cap is imposed. This issue appears, based upon one year's statistics, to not be a significant concern. The use of the Simi Valley shelter is perhaps one of the most significant issues. The shelter building is the County's, but located on the City of Simi Valley's property. The County leases the land from the City, with no termination in the contract until 2011. Simi Valley has attempted to modify this termination clause, but thus far, the County's position is that the Simi sub-shelter will not be made available lo Simi residents, if they choose to contract with Los Angeles County. This position is not final however, and Supervisor Mikels and Schillo will be meeting with Los Angeles County Animal Regulation staff to discuss this matter June 17. In the event that Simi Valley opts out of the Ventura County program, Moorpark residents and the County unincorporated area will have exclusive use of the Simi Valley sub-shelter. Currently, 80 percent of the animals reclaimed by Moorpark residents occur while at this shelter. County staff and the County's shelter space at the sub-shelter would not have to accommodate the volume of animals from Simi Valley and would be able to direct almost exclusive attention to Moorpark animals. Having the additional space would allow Moorpark animals to stay at this facility longer making them easier for Moorpark residents to reclaim their pets. Conclusion At this time, considering both costs and the initial review of service comparisons, staff is recommending that no change be made this fiscal year. To move to a different provider with different services and locations without saving a substantial sum of money, does not appear to be beneficial to Moorpark residents. However, if the projected cost increases do arrive in fiscal year 1998/99, then the City should once again position itself to change vendors, and re- open considerations of this nature in time for the May 1 termination date. Recommendation That the City Council not act at this time to change Animal Regulation service providers, but authorize the execution of the contract amendment provided in Attachment"B", and allow staff to continue to communicate with the County of Los Angeles, and prepare, if necessary, for a change in 1998/99. Attachments: A County of Los Angeles proposal B County of Ventura Board Letter C City's 1995/96 Statistical Summary 4 ',1iU072 • ' JUN 5 ' 97 14 : 45 FROM CO. LA ANIMAL CARE PAGE . In1 June 5, 1997 Donald P. Reynolds,Jr. Administrative Services Manager City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue COUNTY OF Moorpark,California 93021 LOS ANGELES ANtMAI CARE AND CONTROL Dear Mr. Reynolds: • Thank you for your inquiry about animal care and control services provided by our Frank A. Department. In response to the information you sent us,we estimate the net cost of or.or providing full field,housing and licensing service to the City of Moorpark to be $68,000 during Fiscal Year 1997-98,declining to about$63,000 in 1998-99. Admk+is:wive°Vices Inasmuch as this is for the complete range of services,we do not expect there would 11260 S.Ca liatd Aw-be extra Costs. oa 'iiy.CA 00242 (se 94.0.6671 Fax(962)0601777 SERVE RAVES: Our current base service rate is$43 an hour for field service-and " $8.56 per day for dog and cat impoundment including veterinary medical care)or t',21'.11 $10.02 per day if the animal must be held in bite quarantine. License canvassing costs ' $29 an hour and there is a$3.75 charge per license for license handling. show toceons Based on a population of 27,200 Moorpark residents,our first year revenue projection for the City is$50,000 and$45,000 for the second year. 112!8 S.darritd Ave. c�o CA Unlike Ventura County Animal Regulation,we do not bill in separate categories for t16 w.vis St field service performed. All•service--no matter what its nature--is billed at the same acrd ca CA 00246 rate. So,routineyour Citydesires such work,would be performed at the pica moms patrolling, if 4276 same rate as field response. Bddwin PMA.CA 01706 (11 10 '092-35" Our rates are set annually by the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller's X70"'A""`"'1 Department. The rates are set, in October or November,and are retroactive to L.>ca.r..cAusually (eon 04031a1 July 1 of the fiscal year. In the past,the rates have tended to rise roughly in 31014 N.cr>a 0.Cr eecorrespondencewith the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Long Beach • Cubic.CA 01764 (005)257-3191 Metropolitan Region. 29S25 kiwis Ad. ( A 9t 1 EIEItI)SERVICE: At this point and for purposes of this estimate,animal control 901-0371 field services would be provided from the Department's Agoura Hills Animal Shelter, 29525 Agoura Road,Agoura Hills. There is a possibility that the County of Ventura might be willing to relinquish control of an animal holding facility at 670 W.Los Angeles St.,Simi Valley, in which case service might be provided from that facility. ' JUN 5 ' 97 14: 46 FROM CO. LA ANIMAL CARE PAGE . 002 Mr. Donald P. Reynolds,Jr. Animal Care and Control Proposal June 5, 1997 Page Two However,as of this writing, a preliminary meeting to discuss this matter with Ventura County Supervisors Judy Michaels and Frank Schillo is set for June 17. Since there is no way to anticipate theoutcome of any negotiations,our bid will be predicated on using the Agoura Hills Shelter as the central point for animal field services for the City of Moorpark. ANIMAL LICENSING: Our Department maintains a full-time animal licensing staff as part of its Revenue Services Division.. These specially trained, uniformed officers canvass for pet licenses on a door-to-door basis to enforce state and local pet licensing laws. In cities that require cat licensing, our officers enforce that requirement. On average, our officers achieve a licensing rate of 50%of the estimated dog population in the jurisdiction. Since the number of licenses directly impacts on a city's animal services cost, our officers make every effort to license as many animals as possible. Our work standard of at least 15 licenses sold per day per officer makes canvassing cost- effective and self-supporting. Unlike Ventura County Animal Regulation, our Department does not offer nor does it support a voucher program under which a portion of a license fee collections are diverted to a general-use,unrestricted spay/neuter voucher fund. Fox one thing, participating cities have no control over how money from that fund is spent, so there is no direct ratio between resident participation and services received. In practice, cities wind up paying more to the fund than they receive in benefits from it. Also, every licensing dollar diverted to such a fund deprives a city of money that could be used to help offset the cost of animal care and control services in the community. Our Department favors a program similar to one we helped set up for the City of Santa Clarita where a pet owner who wants a discount spay or neuter voucher must be a resident of the city to obtain one. • 1, it /� • JUN 5 ' 97 14: 46 FROM CO. LA ANIMAL CARE PAGE . 003 Mr. Donald P. Reynolds, Jr. Animal Care and Control Proposal June 5, 1997 Page Three PET POTIXATION CONTROL: Our Department is committed to pet population control. Most animals placed out of our Agoura Hills Shelter arc neutered before they are released. A low-cost spay/neuter fee is included in the price of adoption. Persons who adopt unaltered dogs and cats have the option of having the sterilization surgery performed by a private veterinarian and receiving a rebate on their spay/neuter deposit. If a dog or cat adopted from the shelter is sterilized at the shelter,there is no extra cost. Additionally, each of our shelters,including the Agoura Hills Shelter, operates a low-cost spay and neuter veterinary medical surgery at the facility. We also work with private practice veterinarians who agree to honor our fee structure for spaying and neutering pets. During 1996-96, our Department's staff veterinarians sterilized more than 18,000 dogs and cats, a record that is unmatched by any animal control agency in Southern California. EMERGENCY VETERINARY MEDICAL TREATMENT: Our Department takes its animal care mandate seriously. Obtaining medical treatment for injured animals is one of our highest priority field calls. Whenever possible,injured animals are transported directly to our shelter for treatment by a staff veterinarian. If the animal is too seriously injured or if the pick-up is made at night or on weekends, the dog or cat will be taken directly to the nearest emergency veterinary medical facility. If the animal is wearing traceable identification, then it will be the owner's decision on how much medical treatment to provide. For unidentified stray animals,our Department imposes a$50 cap on emergency treatment The purpose of this limitation is two-fold. If no owner can be located,the city where the animal was picked up will be billed for all emergency medical treatments. Since many of the cities we serve emphasize the need to control costs,this cap serves that purpose. Also, we want our staff veterinarian to make the final evaluation at the shelter, and our policy of having injured animals stabilized for transport to the shelter facilitates that diagnosis. If Q l 4 15 . JUN 5 ' 9? 14: 46 FROM CO. LA ANIMAL CARE PAGE . 004 Mr. Donald P. Reynolds,Jr. Animal Care and Control Proposal June S, 1997 Page Four TITLE 10: We use Los Angeles County Code, Title 10 (Animals)as the legal basis for enforcement of animal care and control laws in our jurisdiction_ Accordingly,we require that all cities we serve to adopt Title 10 in their municipal code as the animal enforcement section. At the same time,we recognize that local conditions vary from place to place and special circumstances may apply to the cities we serve. Accordingly, we will enforce municipal or/iv/21 control measures as well as Title 10 and work with cities on issues of local enforcement. If you have any further questions or need more information,please feel free to contact me at(562) 940-8875. Sincerely, for Frank R. Andrews, Director Bob Ballengf Exec. Asst. • • 00.4.076 ** TOTAL PAGE . 004 ** JUN- 6-97 FRI 10:47 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO. 8053884393 P. 02 county of ventura ANIMAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT • June 10, 1997 (Agenda) Board Of Supervisors County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 SUBJECT: Animal Regulation Service Contracts RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign amendments to the agreements for Animal Regulation Services between the County and the Cities of Simi Valley and Moorpark (Exhibits 1 and 2). 2. Direct staff to solicit quotes for the provision of animal control related services in the unincorporated areas of the county and in those cities currently under contract to the County, from interested public and private entities FISCAL/ MANDATES IMPACT: None at this time. DICUSSION: On May 5, 1997 the City Council of Simi Valley directed their staff to return to Council with a menu of services and alternatives from the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control to provide animal control services to the City. This decision was made by the City after reviewing the proposals submitted to the City pursuant to a request for proposals issued by the City on March 3, 1997. According to the Simi Valley staff report prepared for Council on May 5, three proposals were received on or before 600 AVIATION DRIVE CAMARILLO, CA 93010-8594 Phone: (805) 388-4341 Fax: (805)388-4393 ®C E-Mail: animal.regulation©mail.co.ventura.ca.us URL: http://www.ventura.org/anlmreg/aregwelc.htm 3 077 JUN 06 '97 10:55 8053884393 PAGE.02 • JUN- 6-97 FRI 10:47 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO, 8053884393 P, 03 June 10, 1997 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors Page 2 the March 21 deadline (see Exhibit 3, page 6). After some consideration, Los Angeles County was selected as the "lowest and most responsive bidder". • Recognizing that the withdrawal of Simi Valley would potentially impact the remaining contract cities, the Animal Regulation Commission requested and received information outlining the redistribution of shared costs based on projected FY 1997/98 preliminary budget submittals (see Exhibit 4). As expected, each of the remaining cities and the County would realize significant cost increases. This fact caused the Cities of Moorpark and Fillmore to subsequently direct their staffs to investigate the possibility of contracting with Los Angeles County. Moorpark and Simi Valley have formally requested the ability to extend the time period for notification of their intent to cancel the contracts that they have with Ventura County for animal regulation services. Exhibits 1 and 2 are amendments to our current contracts with the Cities of Moorpark and Simi Valley. These amendments would give the cities up to 90 days after the adoption of the FY 97-98 budget by your Board to notify this Department of their intent to cancel the contracts. The cities would then have up to another 90 days, at their discretion, until the cancellation takes effect. Current contracts require that the cities notify the Department within 30 days of budget adoption. The extension of the time limitations allows the cities more time to negotiate and fine tune agreements with Los Angeles while providing a continuum of services to the animals and citizens within their jurisdictions. It is to the Department's advantage that the time limitations be lengthened to allow for the maximization of revenue producing functions and to allow for the least disruptive transition for the citizens that we serve. County Counsel has reviewed and approved the content and format of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. At the April meetings of the Animal Regulation Commission (see Exhibits 5 and 6) the cities voted to direct me to request permission of your Board to solicit proposals from any interested parties or organizations to provide animal control services to the unincorporated areas of the County and within our remaining contract cities, The reasoning behind this request, is to explore alternatives that may save the County and the cities a significant amount of money. The proposal submitted to the City of Simi Valley by Los Angeles County showed a first year savings to the city of$49,000. If that level of savings could in fact be replicated county wide without compromising the quality of care provided to the animals or the level of services provided to the citizens, then we would be remiss in our fiduciary responsibilities were we not to at least investigate the alternatives. The small and far removed cities such as Ojai and Port Hueneme are not in favorable geographic positions to negotiate individual contracts with outside providers and it was felt that a united approach would undoubtedly yield the most cost effective results. I stress that we are only asking your permission to • explore the alternatives at this time. There has been interest expressed in the comprehensive take over of the entire Department by a number of both public and private non-profit agencies. The Department recognizes that many serious issues and concerns will necessarily need to beaddressed including but not limited to animal Itk • 001 07ti JUN 06 '9? 10:56 8053884393 PAGE.03 JUN- 6-97 FRI 10:48 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO. 8053884393 P, 04 June 10, 1997 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors Page 3 welfare, potential civil service restrictions, employee welfare, facilities ownership and availability, Health Officer involvement, etc. It is anticipated that no definitive proposals would be forthcoming for at least 6 months from the time we begin to solicit responses. An ad hoc committee of the Animal Regulation Commission would assist in the drafting of the scope of work, review all incoming proposals and make a comprehensive report and recommendations to the full Commission and your Board. Oversight of the entire process will be provided by the Chief Administrative Office. The solicitation of service providers from outside of County Government is not something that I recommend easily or without strong personal feeling. It is however, an action brought about by necessity. The Ventura County Department of Animal Regulation has been reduced to a mere shell of the agency that it once was. Since FY1990-91 the Department has been downsized from a staff of 63 to its current total of 47. When the City of Thousand Oaks withdrew from their contract in FY 1992-93 1 direct and 4 indirectly related positions were lost. All of the other staff reductions have been made to offset increased ISF costs and to accommodate Board mandated.net cost reductions (see Exhibit 7). Prior to 1978, the County provided all animal control services to the cities at no charge whatsoever. The agreements allowed the County to keep any revenues collected from the sales of animals and licenses but made no stipulation that the cities reimburse the County for any additional costs associated with the programs. The passage of Proposition 13 ended the era of benevolence on the part of the County and resulted in a reduction of Animal Control staff from 75 to 5. An agreement between the cities and the County was reached after approximately 6 months of negotiation whereby the County agreed to provide mandated services and a shelter and the cities would pay for any additional services that they required. It was agreed that overhead costs such as facilities maintenance, transportation costs, utilities, land leases etc. would not be charged back to the cities since the Department was not directly charged for such things. It was further agreed that certain costs, such as maintenance and staffing of shelters would be County costs only since these operations would be necessary whether or not the cities participated. Only those additional direct costs associated with city participation would be spread to the cities. In FY 1990-91 the Chief Administrative Office and the Board began to mandate increased cost recovery of all County services. By FY 1995-96 the entire budgeting process had been revised to include any and all costs associated with each Department in the individual Department budget units, while mandating a variety of net cost reductions. In order for this Department to remain even minimally functional, these . new ISF charges were passed on to the cities. In FY 1992-93, the city, of Thousand Oaks recognized that there was a trend on the part of the County to increase contract costs while reducing staff and service levels. Since the Chief Administrative Officer declined to renegotiate the method by which costs were by then distributed, Thousand if 000072 JUN 06 '97 10:57 8053884393 PAGE.04 JUN- 6-97 FRI 10:49 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO. 8053884393 P, 05 June 10, 1997 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors Page 4 Oaks sought and entered into a less expensive agreement with the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control who reportedly spread their costs among 45 contracting cities and do not include overhead charges in their contracts. In March of this year the Simi Valley City Council, on the advice of Thousand Oaks staff and Council, directed their staff to pursue similar cost saving measures and found, to no one's surprise, that Los Angeles County will provide cheaper services. This letter has been reviewed by the Chief Administrative Office and County Counsel. If you have any questions regarding this item, please call Kathy Jenks at 388-4341. 411. 401111111111b- ler -,lea HY JENK', Director te‘( 19 ° f ce"..X:Ak. 00 41414-4/61 #?-) 1M ' �e 1 . 3 Noe rfr 51LetgAY vr. ( /Yc7' • I 1°) ; ItgaLow-ig vyi • ffid (0-444 ;;A.A.411-0 5.) it40- kto Yriftr. c.""mm4 11/4(ert JUN 06 '9? 10:57 8053884393 PAGE.05 • JUN- 6-97 FRI 10:50 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO. 8053884393 P. 08 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY Dated: By MAYOR ATTEST: By Deputy City Clerk g:\cornrnonkabeanimalctlacamend r (I 12d; 3 Exhibit 1 10.4,081 • JUN 06 '97 1058 0053884393 PAGE.08 - JUN- 6-97 FRI 10:49 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO, 8053884393 P07 . ' multiplied by the fraction produced by dividing the number of days which bad passed in the quarter before termination by the number 90. The responsibilities of the respective parties under paragraphs 14 and 15 of this Agreement shall remain in effect after any termination with respect to any act or omissions preceding the termination. 2. The AGREEMENT, as amended by this Amendment Agreement, shall remain in effect, 3. This Amendment Agreement shall become operatiVre on the later of the two subscription dates below, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY has, by order of its Board of Supervisors, caused this Amendment Agreement to be subscribed by the Chair of the Board of Supervisors and the seal of said Board to be affixed and attested by the Clerk thereof, and CITY has, by order of the City Council, caused this Amendment Agreement to be subscribed by the presiding officer of CITY and the seal of CITY to be affixed and attested by the Clerk thereof on the dates listed below. COUNTY OF VENTURA Dated: By CHAIR, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTEST: RICHARD D. DEAN, County Clerk County of Ventura, State of California, and ex officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors thereof. By Deputy Clerk [Signatures continued on next page] /39, 2 QQ0082 Exhibit 1 JUN 06 '9? 10:58 8053884393 PAGE.07 JUN- 6-97 FRI 10:49 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO. 8053884393 P. 06 AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA TO PERFORM ANIMAL REGULATION SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SI.MI VALLEY . This Amendment is entered into by and between the County of Ventura, California, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and the City of Simi Valley, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY." • RECITALS: A. CITY and COUNTY are parties to an Agreement For The County of Ventura to Perform Animal Regulation Services For The City of Simi Valley dated May 18, 1987 and August 25, 1987, hereinafter referred to as the "AGREEMENT," B. The parties hereto wish to amend the provision of the AGREEMENT pertaining to termination, AOP EEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 17 of the AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows: 17• The term of this Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1987, and shall continue indefinitely until terminated pursuant to this section. Either party may terminate this Agreement, in its sole discretion, with or without cause, as of the 31st day of May of any year by giving to the other party written notice of its election to so terminate at least 30 days prior to such termination date. In addition, within 90 days after receipt of notice of the final adoption of the COUNTY's budget and the determination of the actual dollar amount of CITY's annual payment pursuant to section 7 of this Agreement, CITY may serve notice on COUNTY of CITY's intent to terminate this Agreement and this Agreement shall terminate on the 30th day, the 60th day or the 90th day, as specified by CITY in the notice, following COUNTY's receipt of such notice. If this Agreement is terminated as of any day other than May 31, CITY shall pay to COUNTY, in lieu of the next quarterly payment which would otherwise come due, an amount equal to that quarterly payment 1 !` Exhibit 1 JUN 06'97 10:59 8053884393 PAGE.06 JUN-12-97 THU 9:53 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO, 8053884393 P02 • AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA TO PERFORM ANIMAL REGULATION SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF MOORPARK This Amendment is entered into by and between the County of Ventura, California, hereinafter referred to as "COUNT?" and the City of Moorpark a California municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY." RECITALS: A, CITY and COUNTY are parties to an Agreement For The County of Ventura to Perform Animal Regulation Services For The City of Moorpark dated May 27, 1987 and August 25, 1987, hereinafter referred to as the "AGREEMENT." B. The parties hereto wish.to amend the provision of the AGREEMENT pertaining to termination. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 17 of the AGREEMENT is amended to read as follows: 17, The term of this'Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1987, and shall continue indefinitely until terminated pursuant to this section. Either party may terminate this Agreement, in its sole discretion, with or without cause, as of the 31st day of May of any year by giving to the other party written notice of its election to so terminate at least 30 days prior to such termination date. In addition, within 90 days after receipt of notice of the final adoptionof the COUNTY's budget and the determination of the actual dollar amount of CITY's annual payment pursuant to section 7 of this Agreement, CITY may serve notice on COUNTY of CITY's intent to terminate this Agreement and this Agreement shall terminate on the 30th day, the 60th day or the 90th day, as specified by CITY in the notice, following COUNTY's receipt of such notice. If this Agreement is terminated as of any day other than May 31, CITY shall pay to COUNTY, in lieu of the next quarterly payment which would otherwise come due, an amount equal to that quarterly payment 1 t/ Exhibit 2 0000E34 JUN 12 '97 10:02 80538E4393 PAGE.02 • JUN-12-97 THU 9:54 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO. 8053884393 P, 03 • • multiplied by the fraction produced by dividing the number of days which had passed in the quarter-before termination by the number 90. The responsibilities of the respective parties under paragraphs 14 and 15 of this Agreement shall remain in effect after any •termination with respect to any act or omissions preceding the termination. 2. The AGREEMENT, as amended by this Amendment Agreement, shall remain in effect. 3. This Amendment Agreement shall become operative on the later of the two subscription dates below. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY has, by order of its Board of Supervisors, caused this Amendment Agreement to be subscribed by the Chair of the Board of Supervisors and the seal of said Board to be affixed and attested by the Clerk thereof, and CITY has, by order of the City Council, caused this Amendment Agreement to be subscribed by the presiding officer of CITY and the seal of CITY to be affixed and attested by the Clerk thereof on the dates listed below. COUNTY OF VENTURA Dated: By CHAIR, BOARD,OF SUPERVISORS ATTEST; RICHARD D. DEAN, County Clerk County of Ventura, State of California, and ex officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors thereof. By Deputy Clerk • [Signatures continued on next page] • 15(f N . 2 , 000OSS Exhibit 2 JUN 12 '97 1003 8053E184393 PAGE.03 JUN-12-97 THU 9:54 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO. 8053884393 P. 04 CITY OF MOORPARK Dated: By MAYOR ATTEST: By Deputy City Clerk g:\comrrico\abgkanirnalcikacamend if 3 000056 Exhibit 2 JUN 12 '97 1003 8053884393 PAGE.04 JUN-12-97 THU 9:54 VENT CO ANIMAL REGULATO FAX NO. 8053884393 P. 05 ANIMAL REGULATION • 1997-1998 ESTIMATED COST DISTRIBUTION AND ESTIMATED COST REDISTRIBUTION ADMIN/LICENSING COST % .dO$T % REVENUE REVENUE NET COST NET-COST VAS. W/SIMI W/O SIMI , W/SIMI ,W/O SIMI W/SIM W/0 SIMS_ FILLMORE 12.2 2.3 X5.9 3.0 10:7 10,7 1.5 -5.2 +3.T^ 7.14- 1"3 2.9 25T-3.9 9.5-- 9.6 $ 11.E +5,3 OIU4A}'th _ 0.6 0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a.0 * 0,0 $META PAULA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0Is V�NTUP.A 110.6 20.9 149. 28.3 68,7 68.7 41,9 81.0 +30.1 PT,HUENEME 14.3 2.7 '19,6 3.7 9.2 9.2 5.1 10.4 +5.3 CAMARILLO 76.7 14.5 103. 19.6 48,3 48.3 28,4 55.4 +2 .0 SIMI VALLEY 137.6 28.0 0.0 0.0 65.4 0.0 52.2 0.0 0.0 MOORPARK 48.1 9.1 65.1 12.3 29.2 292 16.9 35,9 +17.0 COUNTY 114.3 21.6 154.5 29,2 79.0 79.0 35.3 75,5 +40.2 T T�1 AL 529.1 529,1 340,0 25.1.6 189.1 274.5 SHELTER SERVICES -COST % COST % REVENUER VENUE NET NET VAR. W/SIMI , wi0 SIMI W/SIMI W/O SIMI, VW SIMI W/O SIMI _ FIMOR 22.7 2.0 27.2 .6 20.1 24.6 +4,5 OJAI - 20.4 1.8 23.8 2.1 4.0 4.0 18.4 19.8 +3.4 OXNARO 348.2 30,7 415.1 36.6 51.6 51.8 296.4 343.3 +68.9 SANTA,PAULA 47.6 4.2 J 56.7 5.0 5.1 5.4 42.5 51.6 +9.1 VENTURA 149.7 13.2 170.2 15.8 27.3 27.3 122.4. 151.0 +29.5 y PT.HUENEME 38.6 3,4 45.4 4.0 7.7, 7.7 30.9 _ 3T1 +6.8 CAMARILLO 120.2 10.6 142.8 12.6 23.0 23.6 97.2 119,0 +22.7 NMI VALLEY 1I12.-,6 15.1_ 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 ' 148.0 0,0 6.0 "k'PARK 43.f 3.6 52.7 4.67.9 .8 44,9 + . COUNTY W0 14,2 191.. 24.8 24,9 1'6.2 166.8 •ti,: TOTAL 1134. 1134.1 158.2 153.6 945,9 980.5 FIELD/CONTRACT TOTALS COST COST COST REV FLUE REVENUE NET COST N COST ' VAR. W/SIMI W/O SIMI W/SIMI W/O SIMI W/SIMI W/O SIMI IFILLMORE 3.9 38.8 47.0 13.3 13.3 25.5 33.7. +8.2 O,IAI 16.9 _ 2.6 61.313.5 39,1 4 48.7 OXNARD 0,0 33 .2 416.1 51.9 51.8 296.4 963. +46.9 SANTA PAULA 0.0 37"'6'"' 56.7 5,1 --n 42.5 51.5 +9.1 VENTURA 33.8362.7 98.0 ✓fi 198.1 268.7 +$r6 PT.HUENEME 12.5 634 77.5 18,9 th ff- 48.5 60.8 -4)1.1 CAMARILLO --- 3.8 34. 24.4 71.3 71. 9.4 209.1 +40.7 SIMI VALLEY 67.6 387.6 0.0 120.0 0.0 267,8 0.0 0.0 MOORPARK 13.5 104.7 130.8 34.5 36.5 68.2 94.3 +26.1 COUNTY _ ^,___ 903.5 ,, 1178.5 1249.6 103.6 103.8 1075.0 1145.6 +70.8 'YOTAL _ - N/A 2748,7 261^ 528.2 408,2 220.5 2272.9 TOTAL STAFF W/SIMI:47 • TOTAL STAFF wro SIMI :46 . NOTE:UNDER CURRENT BUDGET GUIDELINES,THE DEPARTMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO FURTHER REDUCE COUNTY COSTS BY 5101,600 IN ORDER TO MEET TARGET NET COUNTY COST AMOUNT. STAFF REDUCTIONS MAY FOLLOW. 1 EXHIBIT 4 1k( 6 JUN 12 '9? 10:03 8053984393 PAGE.05 . . - .._. i .., 1 = 1 1 . . ,s. County of Ventura . 1 ci zi Animal Regulation Department 8:11 Budget History FY 1990 - 91 through FY 1996 - 97 -=-1 .-.) - -.I . , FIELD KENNEL SUPPORT TOTAL CHANGE $BUDGETED ' NET CO. COST NOTES LI, 0 . cp (71 90-91 15 18 30 63 +1 2,610,800 950,400 • 0 _ 91-92 13 18 30 61 -2 2,723,600 930,400 Dead marine program transfer frorn PIMA$26,0:0, Transportation adfust.$46,030,363,000 salary increases 8d.Ordered Net Cost reduction m 92-93 11 16 27 54 -7 2,493,400 864100 T.O.out,revenue foss of$270,1CO,Bd,ordered 10% --) reduction,no net increase to cities c-) 93-94 - 11 15 23 49 -5 2,738,200 1,174,400 New 1SF charges of$0178,103,1 time ISD charges of c) $105,1:03,Bd.ordered 15%reduction m> 94-95 10 15 22 47 -2 2,554,200 829,000 Bd.°nieces)1096 net cost reduction 3. 95-96 10 15 22 47 0 2,638,300 799,700 New ISF charge of$79,1100,Bd_ordered 15% m> i-• reduction 96-97 10 15 22 47 0 2,718,000 639,600 Bd.ordered reduction MCA,increased revenue r-1-1 L--> c r-- -3 0 ANNUAL NET COST BY CITY -.1 1990-91 ' 1991-92 1 1992-93 1993-94 I 1994-95 ' 1995-96 1996-97 1097-980 CHANGE FROM a:). FY 93-91 x - Fillmore 28,600 29,700 24,900 21,300 23,000 22,400 24,200 12,700 -55.6% z p Ojai 32,300 36,100 38,600 35,800 38,000 37,000 37,000 38,200 +18.3% co i o Oxnard 267,900 276,200 288,800 249,700 254,200 249,600 279,000 287,300 +7.2% oi co Santa Paula 39,700 . 39,900 42,200 35,600 37,100 37,200 39,800 41,400 +4.3% .. Ventura co co .1 . 169,400 159,600 214,900 161,500 172,400 176,300 186,300 193,700 +14.3% co co • co ID (A Port Hueneme 43,400 54,600 45,600 37,500 40,700 38,700 46,500 47,400 +9.2% co GI CD co Camarillo _ 131,900 148,400 157,900 145,600 157,000 153,900 151,400 156,000 +18.3% .1. cd Simi Valley 252,200 271.900 282,800 266,300 292,800 270,100 253,300 262,700 U) _ co Moorpark 56,200 60,600 ' 60.100 51,700 .53,100 59,400 64,200 66,700 i +18.9% ti Thousand Oaks 148,600 162,900 "(169,500) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Va , , * Net cost projections based on preliminary budget submission -0 • . . --ci _ D C) c) m CO co, .0 e: W 0 . CI - EXHIBIT 7 Cr ft - CITY OF MOORPARK 1995/96 ANIMAL REGULATION SERVICES RECEIVED SUMMARY FOR TOTAL DOGS & CATS IMPOUNDED 506 RECLAIMED 80 ADOPTED TO PUBLIC 113 DIED, ESCAPED ETC 6 DESTROYED 303 RELINQUISHED BY OWNER 206 FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH TOTAL ACTIVITY QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER DOGS DOGS IMPOUNDED 56 84 84 49 273 RECLAIMED TO OWNER 16 22 22 15 75 �'- ADOPTED TO PUBLIC 20 7 27 15 69 `ij DIED, ESCAPED ETC 0 0 0 0 0 DESTROYED 20 51 35 19 125 RELINQUISHED BY OWNER 19 39 27 9 94 CATS CATS IMPOUNDED 83 50 23 77 233 RECLAIMED TO OWNER 0 2 1 2 5 ADOPTED TO PUBLIC 12 12 6 14 44 DIED, ESCAPED ETC 1 3 1 1 6 DESTROYED 70 33 15 60 178 RELINQUISHED BY OWNER 56 14 11 31 112 MISC. ANIMALS MISC. ANIMALS IMPOUNDED 30 2 15 56 103 LIVESTOCK IMPOUNDED 0 0 1 2 3 DEAD ANIMAL PICK-UP 35 31 25 32 123 ANIMAL BITE REPORTS 17 25 10 12 64 FIELD LICENSING HOURS 48 28 24.5 3.5 104 ADDITIONAL SERVICE HOURS 140.5 146 117 109.5 13 BASE SERVICE HOURS 185 191 68 58 02 LICENSES ISSUED 623 574 948 672 2817 ALTERED 497 465 729 539 2230 UNALTERED 126 109 219 133 587 t(C . , s, 000083