The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0507 CC REG ITEM 09C , • , F 4. ITEM C • CITY OF MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: The Honorable City Council Grry OF MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA ity CouncilMeeting FROM: Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Administrative Services Manager of ``ll 7 199 DATE: April 30, 1997 ACTION:_1`X4f,n77f21( .5,6_ 1-6 SUBJECT: Consider City Options for Animal Regulation Services Q l � �� BY: 4) /..I' 9�' ��it�tu/a6 ) Summary C/ fctzt.ut The City of Simi Valley will be considering options to the current contract for Animal Regulation Services with the County of Ventura May 5, which may result in the selection of a different provider. If Simi Valley chooses to terminate its Ventura County contract, the City's costs for services with Ventura County are estimated to increase 38 percent, or from $68,200 to $94,300 without further adjustments to the way the Ventura County contract is currently structured. This report will review the current City contract with Ventura County and related services and costs, and present options which may be available should the Council decide to change service providers. Background The City and County are currently operating under a 1987 contract designed for all participating jurisdictions. The contract includes a formula for base service costs based on the City's portion of services received at the Camarillo shelter facility, and in part at the Simi Valley sub-shelter. The revenues received by Animal Regulation from Moorpark residents are derived primarily from licenses, and are deducted from the base contract rate. These base rates do not include field service to enforce City ordinances such as leash laws and nuisance animals, and the City has elected to pay Animal Regulation for these additional services. More specifically, the City's base rate pays for a portion of 47 employees, of which five are field staff to serve the contract cities, (the County Sheriff responds to public safety matters related to animals in the unincorporated area of the County, because there are no.field personnel currently assigned to this area,). The total cost of services is estimated to be 2.822 million dollars in FY 1997/98. Personnel expenses constitute 72 percent, or 2.034 million dollars, and administration of the division equals 18 percent ($508,900). The services and supplies line item (operations and maintenance) is $676,200, of which, $450,823, (67 percent), are fixed inter-service fund charges. The two most significant inter-service costs are facility repairs and maintenance at$173,900, and the maintenance of a 13 vehicle fleet at $127,800. Services at the Camarillo shelter include handling more than 300 calls per day, veterinarian services, 24 hour shelter operation. licensing, adoption services, dead animal pick-up, quarantines, emergency response needs, population control efforts via the County's spay/neuter voucher program, public information and education, and a process for handling. citizen concerns related to nuisance and aggressive animals. 1 i 000056 Of all of these services, the State only requires Animal Regulation to control rabies. The County therefore, is providing a more comprehensive service than mandated, but which resulted from the standards set forth in the 1987 contract, and is consistent with most jurisdictions' municipal codes. These additional services are costly, for example, focussing on an effort to maximize adoption rates, two current standards include; the treatment of injured animals often to the point where they are rehabilitated and placed for adoption, and keeping animals for seven or more days, when the law requires 72 hours. Other agencies, using a strict interpretation of the law, will not treat injured animals and will euthanize the animal if not claimed in 72 hours. Other agencies have adoption policy standards based on the number of days an animal is at the shelter, regardless of the availability of kennel space. In Ventura County, an animal is held to be reclaimed by the owner for six days, and if not reclaimed, placed up for adoption for another day or two, if there is adequate kennel space. Services beyond the base rate are paid separately, and include approximately eight hours per week of patrol in Moorpark. The County assigns indirect costs in addition to salary and benefits referred to as the "Cost Allocation Plan" or "CAP", and the current rate is $32.46 per hour. There is no set schedule, but the City does pay for eight hours per week, and received at no cost an additional 97 hours, lowering Moorpark's cost per hour to $23.88, Citations are written for leash law enforcement and loose animals. On at least three occasions in the past two years, special cages have been provided to catch stray cats and racoons, and on at least six different occasions, Animal Regulation has accommodated special enforcement requests after work hours or on weekends to address specific concerns. There have been two significant changes in the City and County services since 1987 which tie into the current level services and costs: 1) the transition of Thousand Oaks to Los Angeles County Animal Regulation services in 1992; and the City's cat licensing program initiated in December 1993. When Thousand Oaks opted out of the Ventura County program, Moorpark sent a letter to the City expressing concerns about the integrity of the County-wide approach to these issues. Nonetheless, Thousand Oaks continues to reportedly receive similar services for reduced costs, as anticipated by them in 1993, relying on Los Angeles County shelter in Agoura Hills. The impact of the Thousand Oaks move upon Moorpark's costs was a four percent increase, however, in the two fiscal years following, Moorpark's base rates decreased a total of 13 percent, for a net decrease over three years of 9 percent. This was the result of staffing reductions partly due to the absence of Thousand Oaks and otherwise related to general County budget reductions. When the City adopted the cat licensing program in December, 1993, this had no impact on costs, but did result in an immediate two percent increase in revenues, during a recession where most every other city was continuing to have a decline in revenues. A third change which has occurred over the past two years involves the City's first canvassing efforts since incorporation. One year ago, the City participated in a trial canvassing effort, which increased revenues 11 percent above the prior year, (approximately $4,200). On March 8, 1997, Animal Regulation initiated a second canvassing effort in the City, which thus far has yielded an additional $6,700 in revenues. The City's third quarter revenues in 1996/97, are 70 percent higher than the average revenues received for this quarter over the past eight years. 2 000057 Current Service Costs Attachment "A" is illustrates fluctuations in Animal Regulation revenues and costs, and also relates service levels to these changes over the past five years. Page one includes a graphic comparing the changes, and the second page provides the actual figures. Changes to revenues and the base rate are shown independent of each other, to illustrate variations in both. Service rates are based on statistics combining all types of services, and the sum of the actual number of animals treated for these services. Revenues and costs have fluctuated much more than the level of service. Apparent significant percentage changes in revenues, do not necessarily offset cost increases due to the fact that the base costs are about three times the amount of revenues received. Not reflected in these figures is the City's additional service rates. Between 1990/91 and 1995/96, the rates increased nine percent. Nine percent over six years is reasonable and less than the rate of inflation for this same period. The cost for these services is tied to the salary of the patrol officer, plus the indirect expenses calculated as the CAP, and spread to all agencies who choose to pay for these services. Each year for the past five years, the County has made significant cuts to the Animal Regulation budget. These cuts have resulted in staff reductions described as service personnel related solely to the unincorporated area, and have frequently resulted in cost increases to the contract cities. However, canvassing in Moorpark has off-set much of these costs. The budget reductions have placed Animal Regulation at the critical point of facing either reduced service levels, or cause more significant cost increases to contracting cities. This year, the Board of Supervisors will most likely require a cut of another$104,000. On April 15, the Commission took action to review the fixed costs, asked that the CAP be removed from the salary of the additional services patrol officer, and that more flexibility be provided for soliciting bids to replace the inter-service fund costs. Statistical Overview A statistical summary of services provided and received by the City in fiscal year 1995/96, include these significant points: In 1995/96, 964 animals were handled from Moorpark; 841 living animals plus 123 dead animals. Adding another 2,817 licenses issued, brings the total case load to 3,781, at a cost of $11.90 per case ($45,007 divided by 3,781). • Of the total revenues of$37,793, in 1995/96, 90 percent are derived from the 2,817 licenses issued, five percent are from adoptions, and five percent are from other services; • The Base Rate net cost in 1995/96 was $45,007, ($82,800 in cost, less $37,793 of revenue), which provided 502 hours of services, at a cost of approximately $90 per hour; • For Additional Services for patrol, the City paid $12,248, and received 513 hours, at about $23.88 per hour, (8 hours per week, or 416 hours were paid for at$29.44 per hour). 3 0: j058 On a trial basis, performed at no cost, the City received 104 hours of canvassing, resulting in an increase in revenues of eight percent, and a 100% increase in licenses issued in February 1996, compared to February 1995. The City,'s volume of business equals between four to five percent of all animals handled by Animal Regulation, (and increasing at about one percent per year), and approximately 4.8 percent of the net costs associated with the base rate. Contract Termination Should the City elect to terminate its contract with Ventura County, it has two options: by May 1 of each year, the City must notify the County in writing of its intent to terminate the contract effective May 31, or; within 30 days after receipt of notice of the final adoption of the County's budget and the determination of the City's annual payment(base rate), the City may serve notice of its intent to terminate on the 90th day following the County's receipt of such notice. Last year, the City received notice from the County the first week of September, which would allow Moorpark until October to submit a letter of intent to terminate, which would then become effective at about January 1. On April 15, Simi Valley expressed an interest to apply to the County for an extension of the May deadline to allow more time for both the County and the City to evaluate its options. On April 16, the City submitted a letter to the County requesting that if such a waiver is provided to Simi Valley that it also be provided to Moorpark. Staff has learned informally, that this request by both cities will most likely not be granted. Simi Valley's Considerations Last fall, Simi Valley identified that Thousand Oaks paid Los Angeles County approximately $85,000 in fiscal year 1995/96, $50,000 in 1996/97, and is expecting a net revenue of$20,000 in 1997/98. This information resulted in Simi Valley's current solicitation for potential alternative service providers. This fiscal year, Thousand Oaks is paying less than Moorpark for Animal Regulation services. It should be realized that Thousand Oaks went at least ten years without canvassing prior to their new contract, and that the significant jump in revenues is off-setting a lot of their cost, and as projected more than the cost for the upcoming fiscal year, and that this scenario may not directly tie to a Moorpark contract due to fairly aggressive canvassing. Simi Valley is concluding an in-depth analysis of the results from their solicitation for services. They have attempted to reach both public and private providers, and received three bids; Los Angeles County, City of Los Angeles, and the County of Ventura. It is known that Ventura County is the highest bidder, but the services don't necessarily correlate. For example, the City of Los Angeles, with a shelter and Chatsworth, does not provide dead animal pick-up, and in order to complete a true comparison, Simi Valley staff is including a private contract for these services to the City of Los Angeles' bid. Other near correlations are being analyzed and compared, including the current arrangement with Ventura County to staff and service the County's sub-shelter on Easy Street, which located on the City of Simi Valley's property. Staff will provide the Simi Valley staff report and the results of this RFP analysis to the Council Friday, May 1. It and the May 5 discussion of the Simi Valley Council will be discussed with the Council at our May 7 meeting. It was implied by the Simi Valley staff April 15, that the results of the RFP for ser'Yices on a 4 • X00 purely fiscal level, did not favor the County submittal. If Simi Valley does select another service provider, the proposed impact to Moorpark would be an increase from $68,200 to $94,300, or$26,100, which equals 38 percent. All jurisdictions remaining with Ventura County will have an increase, including a $70,800 increase to the County. As described above, the County describes itself at a critical point, where the staffing now is as low as the current standards will allow. As a result of this fact, the County stated that the loss of Simi Valley, would only reduce the current staffing by one patrol officer, and the other costs would then be split to the remaining jurisdictions. For example, in a general sense, the impact of the standards in place related to adoptions and maintaining the kennel at full capacity, would not change if Simi Valley withdraws, and thus the cost would not decrease. City's Position Staff is following the progress of Simi Valley closely. Currently, staff is working towards a flexible position for the City,which would include possible co-negotiations with Simi Valley, maintaining the current provider and not pursuing optional services, or conducting our own RFP process, which could be done regardless of the Simi Valley decision. If the City chooses to stay with the County of Ventura and not entertain other service providers, Simi Valley's loss would not impact the City until the third quarter of fiscal year 1997/98. This would reduce the impact presented by the County for 1997/98, from a $26,100 increase to a $13,050 increase. The Animal Regulation Commission requested a complete overview of Animal Regulation fixed costs and service levels, which may result in lower costs for less than the current service levels. They also requested that an RFP be drafted to explore if other service providers would contract to operate the Camarillo shelter. If the City is permitted by Simi Valley to participate in its negotiations with a new service provider, and these providers are interested in extending the contract to include Moorpark, the change would not be effective until January 1, 1998. Simi Valley has three choices, and if it selects the City of Los Angeles, the nearest shelter is in Chatsworth, and a private vendor would have to be secured to pick-up dead animals. If Simi Valley elects to negotiate with Los Angeles County, the nearest shelter would then most likely be Agoura Hills. The outcome of the Simi Valley shelter is unknown, but if Simi Valley and Moorpark work together, the option of having another service provider operate it for both cities may be pursued. Whether or not either the County or City of Los Angeles would serve Moorpark is also an unanswered question. But more importantly, whether or not the City wishes to rely on services from either option has not been addressed, and can't be properly assessed until the results of the Simi Valley RFP have been analyzed. A letter expressing an interest to participate with Simi Valley was sent by staff to Simi Valley staff on April 18. A third option is to issue a Moorpark RFP. This approach would duplicate Simi Valley's thorough analysis, and using Simi Valley as an example, could take three to four months to complete. Any joint costs savings would be more difficult to negotiate combining the volumes of Simi Valley and Moorpark. This option may not be necessary, if Simi Valley and the City can work together with the bids already received. Staff recommends that action in this regard be postponed until later in June, and a determination is reached by Simi Valley concerning Moorpark's interest. By June, the County of Ventura should also have a better idea of any cost savings and reduced standards that they may be willing to implement. 5 000060 , • . At this time, staff will continue to monitor the progress of Simi Valley's RFP process as well as the County's. This matter needs to be resolved quickly in an acceptable manner with the County of Ventura and if not, then one or more service options will need to be explored. A specific recommendation is not being prepared at this time, but staff will continue to work on this matter. Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Attachment; Animal Regulation Five Year Summary of Service Levels and Costs 6 • U00061 ATTACHMENT PAGE 1 ANIMAL REGULATION FIVE YEAR OVERVIEW The chart below compares the number of animals handled for the City of Moorpark, to the cost of the base rate for contractual services, and the revenues received for each year. This chart shows the percentage of change relative to fiscal year 1990/91, and the five year trends since that year. The City has two expense items: base rate and additional services. The base rate is used in this example, because it applies only to Moorpark's cost for the Camarillo shelter. Revenues are 90% derived from licenses sold, and these dollars are subtracted from the base rate for a net cost. In an attempt to show the service received, staff has combined statistics for each year of animal services performed at the Camarillo shelter. Raw data is provided on page 2. FIVE YEAR SERVICE AND COST TRENDS 20% — Q or 0°!0 ▪1010 ®mss • • -20% ® s • -30% 3/ -40% I I I 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 BASE COST minimum REVENUE - - �- SERVICE LEVELS ATTACHMENT PAGE 2 ANIMAL REGULATION HISTORICAL SUMMARY Net Base Additional Total Net Animal YEAR Base Revenue Cost Services Cost Volume _ _ A B A - B FISCAL YEAR 1989/90 68000 27901 40099 10849 50948 1003 FISCAL YEAR 1990/91 74700 31313 43387 11074 54461 993 FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 80800 32858 47942 11320 59262 1149 FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 83800 29061 54739 12483 67222 793 FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 74900 29641 45260 12389 57649 828 FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 74400 33558 40843 13115 53958 923 FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 82800 37793 45007 12248 57255 964 ANIMAL REGULATION FIVE YEAR HISTORICAL SUMMARY PERCENTAGE CHANGE SINCE 1990/91- data used in chart Net Base Additional Total Net Animal Yearly Overview Base Revenue Cost Services Cost Volume FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 8% 5% 10% 2% 8% 16% FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 4% -13% 12% 9% 12% -31% FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 -12% 2% -21% -1% -17% 4% FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 -1% 12% -11% 6% -7% 11% FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 10% 11% 9% -7% 6% 4% i 00003 ARSTATS.WK4 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Cite Council FROM: Donald P Reynolds .)r . Administrative Services Manager DATE: Mav 2, 1997 SUBJECT: Transmittal of Simi Valley Animal Regulation Staff Report, Scheduled for the Simi Valley Council Mav 5. 1997 Attached is a faxed version of the Simi Valley report to Council presenting options for Animal Regulation service providers. This matter was referenced in staff's report to Council, Item 9.C., scheduled for Wednesday May 7 Staff will provide an update of the Simi Valley Council's actions May 5, on May 7. CC Steven Kueny, City Manager Richard Hare, Deputy City° Manager MAY- ? -g' �R' 4 '� �`u� �� 8439? °, Ol. TO: FROM: CITY OF SIMI VALLEY MEMORANDUM City Council,,,, neparunent of Community Service Agend: Item: Date: -9 (11.311 May 5, 1997 SUBJECT; CONSIDERATION OF R8QUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ANIMAL REGULATION SERVICES It is recommended that the City Council provide staff with direction regarding dhc, request for proposals for animal regulation services. On May 18, I987, the City of Simi Valley and the Ventura County Animal !Regulatlotn (VCAR) Department executed all indefinite terni Base Servie" Colitract i *hich provides shelter seirvices for animals utiportnded in Simi Valley (including feed alyd care of impounded Animals, veterinary care, reuniting animals with their owners, and placement of animals with new owners). The billing for these services is based on usage at the Sitni Valley holding facility and the main shelter in Camarillo. Licensing service fours and costs are also allocated to Simi Valley based on the Simi Valley dog population relative to the Countywide dog population. Thtse services include computer tracking of expired licenses and notillcution by mail of the need to renew dog licenses. Dead animal pickup, quarantine, and outer field services are provided by the County at no cost to the cities, Tile City of Simi Valley Code Enfurcement staff inves4ates animal related zolting code violations such as too many domestic Riflinals on a parcel ' and animal nuisance complaints, including barking dogs, In order tp provide Additional services and to increase the level of certain services beyond Those provided in the base contract, the City Cotllicil, since 1987, has annually approved a Supplemental Agreement with the County of Ventura for leasli law and nuisauce animal ordinance Onforcement, door- to•doorcanvassing of local neighborhoods for unlideused dogs, and picictip Of owner relinquished animals. Such services may be adjusted to allow for a Iliglter or lower concentration of time In one or more of these areas, provided that tale Suppieliietttail Agreement budget is not exceeded. ANMEan MAY- 2 -0' =7" '4'� �'� _. �'._ - X588393 �, 02 The City is one of nine (9) jurisdictions (Cities of Camarillo, Flllmorc, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, San Buenaventura, Simi Valley, ruid Santa Paula) that have contracts for animal regulation services with VCAR, although Oxnard and Santa Paula utilize shelter services only. Similarly, the City of Thousand Oaks contracted with VCAR for animal regulation services until FY 1992 -93 when the City expressed concern that costs utore than doubled between PY 86 -87 and PY 90.91. The City of Thousand Oaks received a proposal from VCAR for PY 92-93 of $182,050. In the course of exploring alternatives, the City of Thousand Oaks received a proposal from Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control ( LACACC) for FY 92 -93 services for $110,000, which included $25,000 for initial startup costs for equipment, vehicles, and training, On March 17, 1992, the City of Thousand Oaks entered into en agreement witli LACACC to provide animal regulation serv,us in the City beginning July 1, 1992. On September 30, 1996, the City Council requested a review of the City of Thousand Oaks /Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control Agreement, Net PY 95 -96 program costa for the City of Simi Valley were $228,113.90 as compared to net program costs for the City of Thousand Oaks of $50,376. The review determined that three major differences existed between the two programs: lack of facility costs for the Thousand Oaks program due to the underutilization of tlao Agoura Shelter; aggressive licensing activity by LACACC which reduced net costs, and die significantly larger population base (2.8 million) and 42 contract cities, which maximizes economies of scale, 1110 1 t 1~Y 95 -96 cost for the base contract and supplemental services provided by VCAR totaled $228,113.90. On January 6, 1997, the City Council approved the 1~Y 96 -97 contracts at a cost not to exceed $253,300. The City Council also directed stiff to Issue a request for proposals for animal regulation services to survey costs and services from other providers. On March 3, 1997, staff released the request for proposals to four public entities contiguous to Ventura County (City and County of Los Angeles and Ventura and Santa BarUar� Counties). Staff was uhable to identify any private full service providers in the continental Uilited States. The request for proposals asked potential service providers to identify their *toss costs, offsetting revenues, and net service costs to the City, In urder to ensure that the proposals could be compared equally, potential service providers were requested to base their costs acid revenues on die eUQt animal red t ation ¢Z-rvjrms the City received in Y 2�-9 ¢, The PY 95 -96 program, services, acid animal statistics were Included as proposal specifications. This yrQQ ure wets utilized to �ltsure an "appl��.�� coittpari on of the pxQDM la. On March 21, 1997, staff received ±three proposals from the, (1) City of Los Angeles Departtnernt of Aninial Regulation (LADAR); (2) County of Los Angeles Annual Care and Control Department (I- ACACC), aid, (3) County of Ventura Animal Regulation Department (VCAR). AN1RH0/? MOV MO +07 1 A-90 MAY - 2 -97 eR i The three tesponses received were gy aluated on eac�� len_ u�ut<d Cam. The following chart indicates hOw the potential service providers meet the minlmutn specifications ourIlned in the request for proposal: ANJR6an -w " — > -- lthl' Requirements City of Los Angeles County of Lvs County or Ventura (LADAR) Angeles (LACACC) (VCAR) Enforce State Laws Yap Yes Yes and City Ordinances for vaccination, i licensing, registration, and control, including leash law .and nuisance vinlations. Investigatts animal- Yes Yes Yes related ahtise or neglect Investigate noise Yes Yes Yes; however, some complaints complaints Initially taken by City Code Enforccinent Pick up abandoned, Yey Yes Yes stray, or owner f rclinquish 'd animals Pick up dead animals No —�� Yes Yes Issue animal boomes Ye,s Ye Yes Yes Canvass all properties I Yes YOR for animal licensing Provide elnergency Yc« Yes Yes veterinary care Provide a lull service Yeti, '; l miles, in Yea, 25 miles, in Yes, 31 miles, in animal Miter wlthin C>>aLeworih Agoura Hills Camarillo 35 miles of the City Yes Humanely ewhanize Yc� Yes animals _ Respond to manmade Yep J Yes Yes or natural disasters Animal swilization Yes Yes Yes through veterinary rebate programs ANJR6an -w " — > -- FAY- 2 -07 _ 4 '. 04 The diseuOlon below provides projected program costs and revenues, wlth cost adjustments for progr4'�n differences in order to provide an MMI comparison of the proposals, CITY OF LOS ANGELES DE ENT QP_AN1A I GULAIT O LADAR has been providing animal services for the City of Los Angeles since 1781. The Department operates animal shelters in Nurth Central Los Angeles, South Los Angeles, Harbor /San Pedro, West Los Angeles, Bast San Fernando Valley, aiid West San Fernando Valley (Chatswortli). The Department licensed approximately 150,400 animals and impounded over 76,000 animals Citywide In PY 1995 -96. As an operation of the second largest city in the United States, this would be the first co a tualjundertakina citX limits, lay contracting with the City of Los Angeles, iin1_ Valley's 00111h2l of animal reg4ilation natters would constitute a contracwal relatlortship otaly. withoutrcprasentatl_on on their gov�era�llg body_ and advisory board. LADAR proposes to use Lhe animal shelter in Chatsworth, which is located 11 miles from the Simi Valley City Hall (set; map, Attachment A, page 10). The LADAR program, however, does not provide for pickup of dead animals, In the City of Los Angeles, the Bureau of Sattltation picks up dead animals, Staff contacted a private firm currently providing a dead animal pickup and disposal program and received an estifrato of $4,500 per monde to provide seven day per work pickup of an annual average of 747 dead animals (the number of dead animals VCAR picked up In Simi Valley iii FY 95 -90 Within 24 hours of notification The LADAR proposal provided a gross annual cost of $296,415, less projected revenues of $173,649 for an annual net cost of $122,766. Adding a $34,000 ($4;500 /month) annual adjustment for privately contracted pickup of dead animals, the PAim net atitmal cost of $176,766 would provide Elie same lavel of service, as outlined on page three of this report, chat the City - eceived from VCAR in PY 95 -96. 11. LOS ANGELES COUNTY D aACAM Established as an Independent Department In 1937, LACACC is the largest animal regulation agency in the State of California. The Department licensed over 300,000 anitrlals and impounded approximately 100,000 animals Countywide in PY 95 -96, LACACC operates sl,,elters in Downey, Carson, Baldwin Park, Lancaster, Castaic, and Agoura Hills. With the exception of five clties where the Department provides only housing services for impounded and Injured animals, LACACC provides the full range of animal care and control services w 37 cltios In Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. By contracting with the County of Los Angeles, Simi Valley's control of animal reaula� tion m hers would constitute a Q4ntractua relatigrlship only, widiQut4 corgaciatation ou_tl1eir ovg crning body and advisory board. 4N>Anon MOV M7) 1 O7 1 n • 7r2 3 LACACC proposes to utilize the anlmal shelter in Agoura. 14111s,, which Is located 25 miles southwest of Simi valley (see map, Attachment A. page 10). The LACACC proposal would have an annual cost of $350,000, Jess projected revenues'of $146,810 for a riot amoral cost of $203,190 which would provide the same level of service, as outlined on page three ,)f this report, that the Clty receivod from VCAR in FY 95 -96. III. YEN URA COUNTY ANIMAL _R>✓QLRA IQN CAR VCAR has been providing animal control /regulation services to both the unincorporated and!, incorporated areas of the County since the early 1940's. The Department currently maintains contractual agreements with nine cities within the County. In PY 95 -96, the Department licensed over 39,000 anknals and impounded over 20,000 animals in the County. The Animal Regulation Commission consists of an elected official from each contraWng city and a County Supervisor. it iY llety- 4M c adal Qros n tion on .. �„ - - VC�R utilizes a County owned temporary holding facility, seven miles from City Hall, on property leased from the City at 670 West Los Angeles Avenue to Initially receive animals from Simi Valley, Moorpark, and die neighboring unincorporated County area. Thw'ritrro.»r lw�cw �r s f.. ^0 ilnn t.._ ---A A . -..t._ ^ -- ' -- - __ - - -- -- i-yw; u,.years. with an additional 10 yor oytlon to renew in 2011..Tha lease does nor contain a termination option which may he exerctsed by the City. Fallowing the exftatton of the least In 2021, with the City's consent, the County may continue to use 010ite on a month -to -month tejiwi(;y Animals are Held for 24 hours and then trans(brred to tl }e County's shelter In Ourarilln 31 mfles from Simi Valley (sty map, Attachment A, Oage 10). Currently, the City's Code Enforcement Section takes initial barking dog /animal complaint reports which they receive, With the LADAR or LACACC proposals, these corn taints would be exclusively Investigated by their agencies, Code Enforvemont estltiates that approximately 162 hours were spent on investigating animal cptnplaints in FY 95 -96, at an estimated cast of $4,169. If this responsibility was dgleted, Code Bnftircement staff could spend the approximately 162 hours of staff time on Ether Issues; such. as, the new proactive sign enforcement program. TheVCAR proposal leas a gross annual cost of $390,300, less projected revenues of $10,900 for a net annual service cost of $248,400. Adding the cost of t1le City's Code Unfttrcemeut animal complaint services ($4,169) to the WAR proposal, the net annual cost 'of $218,400 would be increased to an isd)usted net atmt ►al cost of $252,569. ANIM007 MOV P7) 107 1A•'74 MAY- 2 -97 7R' 14 4 = Y= 3884393 JV The following chart summarizes the not annual service costs of each proposal: City of Los I County of Los Country of Angeles Angeles Ventura (LADAR) (LACACC) CAR ,toss Service Cost_ $296 415 $350,000 $390,300 Liss All Revenues -$)73,649 $146, 810 -$141 900 Pickup Dead Animal $ 54,000 0 0 Contract Cade Enforcement 0 0 +$ 4,169 Clam laint Investigations Nit Annual Service Cost. $176,766 $2031190 $252,569 FINAL ANALYSIS As previously noted, WAR provides animal regulation services to nine jurisdictions while LACACC provides services to 42 ,jurisdictions. LADAR has no experience prodding services to external jurlsdlctlons as they only provide services within the City of Los Angeles, Alti ough LADAR's net adjusted annual service cost is lower than the other two potontial providers, staff believes there are several areas of concern. LADAR has no "perlence Iii providing animal regulation services to any outslde agency and therefore could not provide any external references with their proposal, LACACC has :substantial experience in delivering these services to other jurisdictions in Los Angeles County and one (City of Thousand Oaks) In Ventura County, which was reflhcwd In the variety of references they submitted, Similarly, VCAR'has experience in serving most jurisdictions in VBlltura County.. Because of LADAR's lack of experience In serving other jurisdictions, LADAR's estlir Late of projected revenue ,nay have been overestinlated. As the above chart indicates, the estimated revenues for LACACC and WAR are fairly consistent. Thoy raze also consistent with Simi Valley's past history of licensing revenue compared to the time spent canvassing local nelghborhoods for nnlieo'nsled dogs. Staff believes this is the result of both Agencies' experience in providing anitaial regulation services to external jurisdictions, including Ventura County, . For "ample, the chart on the next page shows what LADAR's net costs would be if thgi This scenario would result In LADAR's net service cost being $206 v the �_A�At� .'v t)lp lOw�l orld rri0bt rc,j?Cnti1v� rn5t �PpsNl. AN=on MAY 02 197 14:22 Qng7QQn7oz onr -c rate A :5�3�439' 7 :), i * ! Average of LACACC and VCAR Rs40d on staff's analysts, the experience in providing animal regulation services to ext6flal agencies, and the net annual service costs of the tree pote►1t'lal service proyidcrs, it appears that LACACC 1s both the lowest and most responsive searvicQ provider. If tO�e City Council directs staff to negotiate a comprehensive animal regulation services agreement, staff would bring the agreement back for the City Councll'ml consideration, It is anticipated that staff would review all of the current service levels ,belpg provided In 0 i City of Simi Valley and surrounding jurisdictions. During the -negotiations between staff and Cie selected service provider, current and alternative service levels; will be reviewed in order to achieve maximum program efficiencies and effectiveness. For example, when the City of Thousand Oaks changed their service provider in FY 92 -93, thoy modified their spay, neuter, licensing, and door -to -door license canvassing programs which resulted in reduced costs and an increase in revenues to the City of Tltousand Oaks of approxlmately $100,000, Slice that time, net service costs have continued to daarease resu#ting In significant savings to the City of Thousand Oaks. Staff will bring back a detailed discussion of the current and recolmilended service levels, with complete costs, for llie City Council's consideration. Should the City Couticil desire to provide direction to staff regarding additional service provisions or moditflcotions to those curr:.ently being provided, It Ls requested that the City Council provide such direction to staff this evening. V. MI�.C-ELLANHOUS ISSUES A. Mb ra 1 fTm CUrrGltt C911tract According to the terms of the contract, the Base Services Contract is automatically renewed each year and the Supplemental Agreement is subject to annual renewals, However, the termination provision of the Base Services Contract applies to both the Base Services Contract and the Suppletiaental Agreement and allows either party discretionary termination as of the 31st day of May of any year by giving 30 days written notice. The City may also give notice withii 30 days of the County's budget adoption and dissemination ' of the cost distribution, effective 90 days from said notice. Staff would anticipate a late June ANWan MAY 02 ' 97 14:24 RPC;7FAA1d7g7 pnrG a7 CITY op Los COUNTY COUNTY OF ANOBLBS OP LOS VBNTURA (L.ADAR) ANOMBS (VCA)t) (LACACC) oss service Cost $296,415 $350 000 $390,300 Loss All Revenues 4144,355* -$146 8 l 0 7$141 900 Piku Dead Animal Contract +$54,000 0 0 C6de Enforcement Complaint 0 0 -+-$ 4,169 lnvcatl anon Net Annual Service Cost $206,060 $203 190 $252,564 * ! Average of LACACC and VCAR Rs40d on staff's analysts, the experience in providing animal regulation services to ext6flal agencies, and the net annual service costs of the tree pote►1t'lal service proyidcrs, it appears that LACACC 1s both the lowest and most responsive searvicQ provider. If tO�e City Council directs staff to negotiate a comprehensive animal regulation services agreement, staff would bring the agreement back for the City Councll'ml consideration, It is anticipated that staff would review all of the current service levels ,belpg provided In 0 i City of Simi Valley and surrounding jurisdictions. During the -negotiations between staff and Cie selected service provider, current and alternative service levels; will be reviewed in order to achieve maximum program efficiencies and effectiveness. For example, when the City of Thousand Oaks changed their service provider in FY 92 -93, thoy modified their spay, neuter, licensing, and door -to -door license canvassing programs which resulted in reduced costs and an increase in revenues to the City of Tltousand Oaks of approxlmately $100,000, Slice that time, net service costs have continued to daarease resu#ting In significant savings to the City of Thousand Oaks. Staff will bring back a detailed discussion of the current and recolmilended service levels, with complete costs, for llie City Council's consideration. Should the City Couticil desire to provide direction to staff regarding additional service provisions or moditflcotions to those curr:.ently being provided, It Ls requested that the City Council provide such direction to staff this evening. V. MI�.C-ELLANHOUS ISSUES A. Mb ra 1 fTm CUrrGltt C911tract According to the terms of the contract, the Base Services Contract is automatically renewed each year and the Supplemental Agreement is subject to annual renewals, However, the termination provision of the Base Services Contract applies to both the Base Services Contract and the Suppletiaental Agreement and allows either party discretionary termination as of the 31st day of May of any year by giving 30 days written notice. The City may also give notice withii 30 days of the County's budget adoption and dissemination ' of the cost distribution, effective 90 days from said notice. Staff would anticipate a late June ANWan MAY 02 ' 97 14:24 RPC;7FAA1d7g7 pnrG a7 Q 8 or early July, 1997, County budget adoption and dissemination of the projected cost distribution, Therefore, if the City Council chooses to negotiate an agreement whit a service provider odter than VCAR, staff would hood to return to the City Council with said agreement during June 1997, unless the County of Ventura waives the requirements of this provision, In an effort to reduce current VCAR charges, on April 15, 1997, the Ventura County Animal Regulation Commission voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that VCAR be allowed to Issue requests for proposals for facility maintenance, vehicle maintenance, and llte provision of animal regulation services to the County and its contract cities. Additionally, the Commission reoommended that the Board eliminate VCAR's participation in the County's Coit Allocation Plan and waive the termination clause in the County's a$rectnew With Simi Valley in order to allow die County and the other contract cities to work on the necessary adjustments which Wray encourage Simi Valley not to terminate duir agreement with die County. These changes proposed by the VCAR Commission are not refltctcd in VCAR'S proposal to the City. 1ll1paC1 on Oder Ventura Cpulitx 08ps The following extracted information from Attachment B, pago H, provided by VCAR, shows the projected cost distribution to the jurisdictions it serves if Simi Valley terminated its current contracts with VCAR: VCAR has indicated that if Simi Valley terminates their agreements, VCAR would reduce their staff from 47 to 46. Simi Valley's gross cost is reported by VCAR to be $387,800, with anticipated revenues of $120,000, for a net cost of $267,800 for Fy 97 -98, Therefore, if Silnl Valley terminates their contracts with VCAR, $67,600 ($387,800 - $320,200 . $67,600) will be eliminated from the entire VCAR program through die reductlon of one staff person. nNrnaan MOV MD '07 1 n • 7CZ N13T COST W /sImi NET COST W/o SEMI VARIANCE % 1NCR13A5B Fillinore $ 25 300 $ 33,700 +$ 8,200 32.1 $ 39 100 $ 47 800 +$ 8,700 22.2 a $ 296 400 $ 363,300 +$ 66,900 22,5 4xnard Paula $ 42 S00 ' $ 51,600 +$ 9 100 21.4 a $ 198 100 $ 266 700 +$ 68 600 34.6 Hueneme $ 48,500 � �__. $ 60 600 +$ 12 100 24.9 Camarillo $ 159P400 __ $ 209 100 +$ 49 700 31.1 Simi alloy $ 267 800 0 - $ 267,800 N/A Moor, ark _ 68 2, 00, $ 94 300 +$ 26,100 38.2 Count TOTAL 1 075 000 $2,220500 1 143 804 S212 72 900 +$ +$ 70,800 52 400 6.5 2.3 VCAR has indicated that if Simi Valley terminates their agreements, VCAR would reduce their staff from 47 to 46. Simi Valley's gross cost is reported by VCAR to be $387,800, with anticipated revenues of $120,000, for a net cost of $267,800 for Fy 97 -98, Therefore, if Silnl Valley terminates their contracts with VCAR, $67,600 ($387,800 - $320,200 . $67,600) will be eliminated from the entire VCAR program through die reductlon of one staff person. nNrnaan MOV MD '07 1 n • 7CZ C. 9 V5 ,► ; , On April 21, 1997, the City Manager received a letter from the City, Managet of Moorpark, dated April 16, 1997, (Attachment C, page 12). In that letter, the Moorpark City Matiager requested that the Saint Valley City Council be notified of Moorpark's "intention of evaluating the possiblll.ty of joining the City of Simi Valley in any contract for Animal Regulation services with a service provider other than Ventura County " The following alternatives are available to the City Council: 1. Provide staff with direction regarding the request for proposals for animal regulation services; 2. Direct staff to negotiale a comprehensive animal regulation services agreement with one of t6, three service providers; 3_ RejOut all of the proposals and maintain the status quo and continue participation in the Bash Services Contract and Supplemental Agreement with the County of Ventura Animal Regulation Department; 4, Reject all of the proposals and direct staff to proceed alternatively. SUMMA$)[ The City is' currently contracting with the County of Ventura. -for animal regulation services under a Base Contract (for shelter and licensing services) and a Supplemental Agreement (leash law and nuisance animal ordinance enforcement, door -to -door animal licensing, and pickup of owner relinquished animals not provided for in the base contract). On January 6, 1997, the City Council dirFowd staff to release a request for proposals for animal regulation services to survey costs and a�:allable services, Responses were received by the City of Los Angeles Department of Animal Regulation, the Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control Department, and the Ventura Co{ my Animal Regulation Department. While the City of Los Angeles s>lbtnitted the lowest adjusted cost proposal, staff believes there are concerns with the City's lack of experience in providing animal regulation services to other jurisdictions and that they may have overestitna4d licensing revenues. Based on a final analysis, it appears that the Los Angeles County An�Fnal Care and Control Department (LACACC) is the lowest and most responsive bidder, Staff is requesting direction from the City Council. Diane Jones, D rector Department of Community Services 1 Attachment A - Map of Shelter Locadonb , , . , , Attachment ;I3 FY 97 -98 Projected Cost Distribution 10 .... , Attachment 'C - Letter from City of Moorpark Dated April 16, 1997 .... I ....... 11 12 ANngon MAY R;) ' q7 1 d: 'D4, - - - - -- - - -- d '�- 1, , -- MAY- 2-97 :) i ATTACHMENT A Local Animal Shelters 11ml valley city Hall City of LA, Animal Shelter Ventura County Animal Shelter Shelter h 101, L.A. CoUnty Animel Shelter (9) 1997 by Rand McNally & Company. All rights reserved, MCY MD ' Q'? I A - -)';' T, MAY- 2-97 7?.' � 11 ANIMAL REGULATION loll-loll wimATEbCoBT batWOUTIUk AND ESTIMATED 003T PFOISTRIBUTION •111.1.1. --um I ATTACHMENT 13 1 4 VA PAULA ma 57r !-low U114 F Kq • Ay MOW 3s's olyn IBM ES 07, W-twoo 1N, FIELtYCIDNTRACT 0 mav . kmvtl TOM 'c -7 wit KWURNUM W W"TrIT I Iml Simi witim, w 0 EVIANEM GFA aL WIT11 dIjv; TOTAL STAFF W/61W 47 TOTAL STAFF W10 SIMI - 40 NOTSt UNDER CURRENT BUDGET OUIDFI,1NE$, THE DEPARTMONT WILL K REQUIRED TO FU)%THIM PqpvrW COUNTY COSTS OV SID1,500 LN ORDER TO MEET TARORT NCY COUNTY COSY AMOUNT, STAFFREDUCTION9 MAYPOLLOW, MOO MD ' 077 1 A - ')C MAY- 2 -97 7R' 14 :2 �' � �. 12 ' '2 CI'v M NAGP(1 ) { April 16, 1997 Mr, Mike Sedcll City Manager City of Sitni'Ya[ley 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 Dear Mike: Please share yith the Simi Valley City Council, Moorpark's intontion orcvaluaft the possibility of joining the City of Simi Valley in any contract for Animal Regulation services with a sarvicc provider other than Ventura County- It is Moorpark's understanding that the Simi 'Malloy Counoll will be considering a possible change in sen!ico providers at its matting of May 5 The Moorpai* City Council will be not be able to consider this manor until May 7,1997. please accept this letter as a precursor to additional information, which will be provided in a stela' report to tine Moorpark City Council said Copied to your office no later than Friday, May 2, We will also be inform your officx of the City's May 1 4ction on May 8 The City r000ntly requested that the County, Animal Regulation provide the same exceptions to the teMinadon clause in the Contract to Moorpark, as it does for Simi Valley. If granted, both cities would be ablo to not toIpther ut dais endeavor if it's to ow mutual advantage. Iryou have any questions or concerns, please fuel free to contact me at 529.6864, extension 212; or non Reynolds, AdininistraUve Services Manager, al extension 249 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Steven Kuony City Manager CC: The Honorable City Council Richdrd lime, Deputy City Malaga Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Adinilustrativc Services Manager PATRICK HUNTlR BERNARDQM. PEREZ GHRIVOPHER EVANS DEBBIL RODGEIR9 TEASLEY JOHN E. W ZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tom C*undIrAOmbar Councllmember pounellmember MnV n-) Inn � n• - MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Donald P. Rev-nolds .Ir Administrative Services Manager DATE: Mav 7. 1997 SUBJECT: Simi Valley Council .Action Regarding Animal Regulation Services, May 5, 1997 In an effort to save approximately $50,000 per year, and improve services to Simi Valley residents, the Simi Valley Council directed staff to negotiate with the County of Los Angeles for Animal Regulation services, work to maintain Simi Valley services at the sub - shelter, and return with a proposed contract June 16 or 23; 1997. The proposed contract will have a schedule of services so that a comparison can be made between the current services and the proposed change Simi Valley staff will have to initiate negotiations next week to meet their schedule The schedule presented in staff's May 1, 1 197, report, (Item 9.c), portrays a schedule based on past notices received from the County pertaining to their adopted budget. However, staff has learned that the County is moving the adoption date closer to July, than September as originally reported. Rather than implementing the change on January I. 1998. it will have to move up to October 1, 1997. The Simi Valley Council is dark in Julv so a decision has to be reached in June in order for a change to be acted on this fiscal year During the discussion, staff was directed to work with the City of Moorpark to improve cost efficiencies, especially those related to the Simi Valley sub - shelter. Moorpark will most likely not be able to join with Simi Valley in a contract with the County of Los Angeles, but may negotiate with the them. Joint use of the Simi Valley shelter appears to be at least one key issue to the Simi Valley Council_ The County of Ventura is reportedly working on a report to the Board which asks for a contract extension for Simi Valley and Moorpark, to allow for more time to consider options. This report however, will not be presented until late May, xvhich may be too late for Simi Valley. CC Steven Kueny, City Manager Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager