Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2001 0620 CC REG ITEM 10EITEM • CITY of 10_'%D- _2UDl..., Moorpark City Counc B-� AGENDA REPORT TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: John Brand, Senior Management Analyst DATE: June 14, 2001 (CC meeting of June 20, 2001) SUBJECT: Consider a City Animal Regulation Program SUMMARY The City Council is being asked to consider a proposal to begin providing certain animal regulation services using in -house staff. The animal regulation activities to be conducted by staff would be phased in over time. Existing Vector Control staff would receive animal regulation training with an emphasis on public information, leash law enforcement, nuisance abatement and complaint response. Other existing field staff in public works and park maintenance would be utilized for animal carcass removal from the public right - of -way and other public property. BACKGROUND Animal Regulation law in California can be divided into three areas of activity: Humane Society abuse prevention, county mandates, and local animal control issues. State law empowers Humane Societies with the ability to enforce laws pertaining to cruelty or abuse of animals. It is Humane Society officers who inspect pet stores, breeding facilities, veterinary clinics and complaints of cruelty or abuse of animals. State law requires counties to provide certain services for animal regulation. Those county- mandated services include animal bites, injured animals, animals that present a hazard, assistance to Game Wardens and public safety personnel, and wild animals endangering public health or safety. The County of Ventura Animal Regulation Department provides animal service to the City of Moorpark under contract, as well as to six other cities in the County. Over the years, there has been concern throughout the County about the quality of service provided. Two cities, Oxnard and Santa Paula, City Animal Regulation Program Proposal CC Meeting of June 20, 2001 Page 2 chose to establish their own Animal Regulation staff. The City of Thousand Oaks opted out of the County and now contracts with Los Angeles County for all services. Santa Paula and Oxnard still contract with the County for shelter services, while the City of Thousand Oaks uses the Los Angeles County shelter in Agoura Hills. Priority ratings are used by the County of Ventura to prioritize its response to calls. In addition to the County mandates shown in the table "Attachment A ", cities contract with the County for shelter services and animal licensing. In the FY 2001 -2002 budget, the estimated net cost to the City of Moorpark is $54,000 for shelter services after deducting estimated licensing revenue of $34,100. Historically, the cost for licensing is considered part of shelter services. The " "City Contract" column in Attachment "A" indicates those calls that fall under the "Leash Law" enforcement contract. Historically, the City contracts for eight hours of enforcement activity per week, at a cost of $13,500. Cities have had growing concerns about the ability of the County to provide adequate levels of service. Public complaints about the lack of response to service requests and declining license revenue are two prominent indicators that there is a problem with the department. In the last two fiscal years, the City of Moorpark has authorized extra hours of leash law enforcement in addition to the eight hours per week. The County has been unable to provide the additional service due to a lack of trained Animal Control Officers for these past two years. The low pay offered by the County results in greater attrition rates of Animal Control Officers to better paying jurisdictions. In 1998, the City Managers of Ventura County formed a working group to investigate the County Animal Regulation Department and to make specific recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors. In the fall of 2000, the working group completed its report, making recommendations to re- organize the department, make certain staff changes and to increase the pay classification of Animal Control Officers. Although it meant an increase in the contract rate for shelter services and City leash law enforcement, the City Managers' group and the Animal Regulation Commission (comprised of an elected . official from each City and the County) approved the working group recommendations. L 100 0 !( 6 City Animal Regulation Program Proposal City Animal Regulation Program Proposal CC Meeting of June 20, 2001 Page 3 The County Board of Supervisors has yet to act on the recommendations, and there are indications that the Board may not consider the working group's report until after the budget is adopted. Another component of the proposal before Council is the use of existing Vector Control staff - hours. In 1999, the Moorpark Mosquito Abatement District (MMAD) was dissolved, and the City assumed responsibility for vector control services in the City. In doing so, the service area previously assigned to two full time field staff was reduced by 650, from 36 square miles to 12.4 square miles. However, the number of staff hours available for vector control activity remained the same. DISCUSSION The poor quality of animal regulation service to the community remains a concern and it may be appropriate for the City Council to consider its options to provide some services itself. As indicated, Moorpark historically budgets for eight hours of leash law enforcement and nuisance abatement each week. The cost is about $13,500 per year. For two years, the County has been unable to provide an additional $5,000 of enforcement authorized by the City Council due to their staffing shortage. The $5,000 would have purchased 155 annual hours, or almost three hours per week of additional enforcement, at the FY 2000 -2001 hourly rate of $32.26. The basic contract recovers the costs for the County's statutory obligations, plus shelter operations, bites and injured animals. The following proposal is submitted for consideration. Beginning October 1, 2001 the City would assume responsibility for all field calls in the City of Moorpark from the public and from public safety agencies, including night and weekend calls, unless it relates to a County mandated service. Except for shelter, licensing activity, and vicious animals and other County mandated calls, the City would not contract for services from the County Animal Regulation Department. It is proposed that between July 1 and October 1, the City would plan for the assumption of animal regulation services beginning with training and public information. Vector Control staff, while obtaining training, would be assigned to patrol parks and trails distributing leaflets or brochures explaining the City's leash law, City Animal Regulation Program Proposal City Animal Regulation Program Proposal CC Meeting of June 20, 2001 Page 4 licensing, and animal waste ordinances. Residents and pet- owners would be afforded a chance to familiarize themselves with the new proactive City Animal Regulation program before commencing stronger enforcement. Other City field staff, such as public works and park maintenance, would assume animal carcass removal in public right - of -way and parks. Beginning October 1, the City would start to handle nuisance complaints, leash law, and loose dogs, by reassigning City Vector Control staff. These are the most common requests for service. The County would continue to do the County- mandated activities, such as public safety agency (police, fire, and code enforcement calls), as well as bite incidents and vicious animal pickup. Calls from public agencies occur when those agencies (police, fire, and code enforcement) encounter animals in the course of conducting their business. A traffic stop with a dog in the vehicle that results in an arrest would generate a call for an Animal Control Officer to come to the scene and impound the animal. The County does not charge the City for its responses to County mandate calls. Please refer to the table labeled Attachment "A" for a list of the different types of calls: County mandated service requests and City Leash Law enforcement service requests. The assumption of the City Leash Law duties may require overtime and possibly a shift in hours and /or stand by pay. Because the County Animal Regulation has not provided evening or weekend Leash Law enforcement, there is no base line to predict the staff costs with certainty. The Council will need to determine a funding source for the overtime and standby time expense. A logical source for the revenue would be to deduct it from the $13,500 in the proposed budget for County Leash Law enforcement. The start up budgetary impacts should be limited to the purchase of some equipment for less than $5,000 and training costs. Funding for this activity is already included in the existing budget proposal for next Fiscal Year: $4,000 for equipment and $1,000 for training. Except for overtime and possibly standby pay, salary and benefit costs should remain the same since Vector Control personnel would be reassigned to Animal Control activities. The Council may wish to allocate $5,000 for overtime and stand by costs by directing staff to take it from the contract services line item. Moorpark staff would do five to ten days of ride along with the Animal Control Officers (ACOs) at Oxnard, Santa Paula or the County for initial orientation. The County has a more formal, academy -like City Animal Regulation Program Proposal City Animal Regulation Program Proposal CC Meeting of June 20, 2001 Page 5 for initial orientation. The County has a more formal, academy -like training program, but it is not possible to predict when the County may be doing another six -week academy for new ACO's. Ventura College offers a course in basic enforcement that is recommended as an orientation to code enforcement. There is also the Humane Society's training academy. It is reasonable to project that increased ACO activity in the City of Moorpark will result in more animals being impounded at the shelter. That will increase the City of Moorpark's cost for the County shelter services over time. The animal's owner reclaims only 270 of dogs impounded from Moorpark. The average cost per impounded animal was $143.89 in FY 1999 -2000. See Attachment "B." Attachment "B" shows a history of Animal Regulation expense and revenue by category. In Fiscal Year 1999 -2000, the base cost for shelter service was $65,900, less $38,297, in revenues. The net cost for the base service was $27,603. Leash Law enforcement by the County for the City of Moorpark cost $13,566, resulting in a total expenditure of $41,169 for animal regulation services that year. To date, the County has not billed the City for any cat and dog license canvassing activity. The County also absorbs the cost for County mandated service calls that occur in the City. Should the City Council wish to consider proceeding with a City animal control program, the following actions are necessary. A resolution by the City Council bestowing Moorpark Municipal Code enforcement authority on the staff positions specified. In addition to an authorizing resolution, it may also be appropriate for the Council to consider amending the City's Animal Control Ordinance (MMC Title 6), which currently states that County staff will enforce the ordinance. Other considerations may include changing the ordinance to include a "pooper scooper" provision. Currently, the ordinance requires that owners clean up after their animals. Newer ordinances require dog owners to carry a device for waste removal, a pooper- scooper, with them when in public. It may also be an appropriate time to initiate the posting of leash and animal waste removal signs in parks and on trails and developing informational brochures and public service announcements to educate the public regarding animal regulation and the changes in the City program. The City Classification Plan for employees would need to be amended to revise Vector Control Technician and Specialist job descriptions to address the new animal control duties. Separate consideration should be given to making the animal- licensing program more effective. City Animal Regulation Program Proposal City Animal Regulation Program Proposal CC Meeting of June 20, 2001 Page 6 The City may also wish to address a higher standard of service to be set, such as call - response time performance objectives. For example, instead of a response the next day, the City might consider a one -hour response time for most calls for service. It's important to note, as indicated, that even if the City were to take on most of the animal regulation responsibilities, there would most likely be no cost savings, and possibly cost increases, as seen when we looked at the City of Santa Paula's program. The reason for this is that most of the City's contract expense with the County is for shelter services - these costs would remain. If activity by the City results in a numerically significant increase in animal impounds, it would actually result in an increase in the City's proportionate cost for shelter services from the County. However, the City would be providing a new higher level of service. Currently, the response of the County to residents' calls is slow and limited to eight hours per week. If the City devoted the equivalent of 800 of one of the two current Vector Control staff, the community will have a more responsive level of service. This would result in thirty -two hours of service per week, where previously there were eight hours per week from the County. The potential exists to offset an increase in animal regulation service with increased revenue in the form of a more effective cat and dog licensing program. In 1997, when the County last performed a comprehensive canvass of the City, license revenue spiked to almost $53,000, from $38,000 in 1996. However, there does not appear to have been a sufficient amount of follow up for license renewal. The license revenue for Fiscal Year 1999 dropped to $37,444, slightly less than license revenue was the year before the canvass. As indicated, in Fiscal Year 2000 the revenue was $38,297. These revenue figures are in Attachment "B." Policy Issues • Consider phasing Animal Regulation Field Services, targeting October 1 for assumption of mandated field service • Redirect Vector Control staff to City Animal Regulation activity at 800 of one staff - person year • Task Public Works staff with animal carcass removal in public right -of -way and other public property • Citation authority to Vector Control staff • Revise City Classification Plan City Animal Regulation Program Proposal C W082 City Animal Regulation Program Proposal CC Meeting of June 20, 2001 Page 7 City Program Scope • Leash Law Enforcement including issuing citations • License compliance • Education and public information (mini- license canvassing) • Call response - Loose dogs - Nuisance dogs - Report taking - Liaison to police and Animal Regulation - Call response performance objectives • Complaint investigation • Call response from public and City - referral to County or Humane Society - Vicious animals - Bite incidents - Police assistance - Hurt /injured animals - Diseased animals Countv Field Activity (County would continue to do the following) • Shelter kennel services (receiving impounded animals) • Mandated field calls (Attachment A) • Nuisance abatement Hearing Officer • Licensing Implementation of City Program • Purchase special equipment • Do Ride Alongs with another agency • Training • Enroll Vector Control staff in enforcement class • Revise job descriptions Costs • 800 of one Vector Control staff (approximately $42,000 - not a new expense) • 800 of vehicle cost ($720 - not a new expense) • Tools and supplies - $4,000 • Training - $1,000 • Overtime and stand -by pay, (estimate of $5,000) 9008:3 City Animal Regulation Program Proposal City Animal Regulation Program Proposal CC Meeting of June 20, 2001 Page 8 Issues to Be Addressed as the Proaram is Implemented • After hours and days of work - how much to shift work hours (weekends, early evenings) • City - County cooperation and related coordination • How to handle dispatching of calls to staff in field • Cost effective means to increase license revenue collection In summary, use of existing City staff redirected to animal regulation services can provide comprehensive enforcement and more responsive service. While costs would expect to increase, it is only a transfer of existing expenditures with the potential for more licensing revenue to complement the improved service level. STAFF RECONAENDATION Authorize initiation of Animal Regulation services by City forces as outlined in the staff report and authorize City Manager to take necessary actions to implement this direction. 0984 City Animal Regulation Program Proposal ATTACHMENT A Service Request Field Call Responsibility County Mandate City Contract PRIORITY ONE • Pickup biting animal X • Pickup animal confined by non -owner X • Pickup injured animal, domestic, wild or marine X • Rabies suppression X PRIORITY TWO • Pick up animal dead or alive, classified as a hazard by peace officer, Caltrans, or fire dept. X * Animal on school grounds loose or confined, school in session. X • Pickup vicious animal at large, threatening human safety X • Meet any Police Agency, Fire Dept. Mental Health Worker, Coroner, Fish & Game Warden, etc. for special impound or service request X * Pickup wild animal endangering public health or safety (confined bat, skunk, rattle snake) X * Livestock at large, creating a hazard X * Animal rescue - animal in immediate danger X * Cruelty in progress - animal life in immediate danger X Quarantine biting animal - owner known X * Mutual assistance Humane Officer, City Animal Control Officer, Code Enforcement Officer X X * Wild animal escape from confinement, at large and in sight X Pickup confined stray domestic animal or livestock X Pickup sick stray animal X PRIORITY THREE Leash Law enforcement X Confined wild animal X Investigate animal attacking animal - in progress X Pickup stray dead animal (owner unknown) X Public assistance - owned animal X Investigate nuisance complaints X Check for license /vaccination X Contact reporting party or Animal Control Officer regarding nuisance animal or animal behavior X PRIORITY FOUR Pickup dead animal from owner X Pickup any animal from owner X Set trap for nuisance animal X * Denotes situation handled 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. C 13 0 0 8 a C7 C� City of Moorpark Animal Regulation Expense and Revenue AR Revenue & Expense.xls Year Totals D CD W 1995- 1996 1996- 1997 1997- 1998 1998- 1999 1999- 2000 2000- 2001 9 nno YTD 2001- 2002 Est Base: Shelter 76,600 86,400 84,200 83,700 65,900 56,700 83,300 Revenues (License + other) 37,794 52,975 40,337 37,444 38,297 26,465 29,300 Sub -total 38,806 33,425 43,863 46,256 27,603 30,235 54,000 Leash Law Enforcement 13,147 12,145 12,763 12,577 13,566 9,775 13,500 Net Cost to City 51,953 45,570 56,626 58,833 41,169 40,010 67,500 Cost per Impounded Animal 121.20 128.76 137.58 165.74 143.89 159.27 Number of Animals Impounded 632 671 612 505 458 F 356 AR Revenue & Expense.xls Year Totals D CD W