PDF Return
C.108
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Beth Ward, Animal Services Director
Date: September  13, 2022
The Seal of Contra Costa County, CA
Contra
Costa
County
Subject: Service contracts with 18 Cities for animal services
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On:   09/13/2022
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:
John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor
Contact: Delaina Gillaspy, 925-608-8413
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED:     September  13, 2022
Monica Nino, County Administrator
 
BY: , Deputy

 

RECOMMENDATION(S):

APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Animal Services Director, or designee, to execute contracts with 18 Cities within Contra Costa County to provide animal services at a per capita rate for each contract City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Department’s cost to provide animal services to each contracted jurisdiction is funded by 53% City Revenues, 13% User Fees and 34% General Fund.

BACKGROUND:

The Animal Services Department’s city service agreements were established in 1985. The agreements stipulate services for mandated programs and the enforcement of all animal related laws. The original city rates were based on Department costs at that time and on a city’s population (per capita). Historically the County has subsidized a significant portion of the contracted cities' cost for Animal Services. The County’s general Fund contribution has often exceeded $20.00 per capita for unincorporated residents while the cities have paid as low as $1.25 to the present $7.97 per capita.  
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
      
    In 2005 and 2006, the Animal Services Department increased city rates for animal services each fiscal year based on the municipality’s population growth and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) percentage.   
      
    In FY 2011/12, the Department suspended the annual CPI increase as a result of the economic environment at that time. The annual CPI increase was reinstated in FY 2016/17, though no action was taken at that time to address the gap left by the four-year suspension of rate increases. Subsequently, on November 4, 2019, the Animal Services Department presented to the County Finance Committee a cost analysis and the need to increase contracted city rates for service to the 18 cities. The County Finance Committee agreed with the staff’s analysis and recommendations and referred them to the Board of Supervisor. On January 7, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved the Department’s cost analysis report and recommendations to increase the rates with an updated agreement for animal control service to the contracted cities.  
      
    On March 12, 2020, the through the Public Managers Association (PMA) the cities notified the County that they were not in agreement with the Department’s proposed new rate schedule and service agreement. As a result of that discussion, in May of 2020, the Department advised the cities of a revised rate for service for FY 2020/21 that represented the cost per capita increased by the CPI as outlined in the original agreement from FY 2005/06.  
      
    In September of 2020, the Department advised the cities of staffing and service level reductions that were necessary to reduce costs in response to the cities' rejection of the County's proposed rate increases.  
      
    On October 5, 2020, the Department reduced the following services to the contracted cities as a cost savings measure:
    1. Field Services unit’s operating hours were adjusted from 8:00 AM – 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM – 9:00 PM, seven days a week.
    2. On-call Field Services coverage was eliminated, and the afterhours on-call staff were moved to provide appropriate coverage during peak service hours.
    3. The Department started referring all wildlife calls to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or Lindsay Wildlife Experience, except if rabies exposure is reported.
    4. Field Services ceased picking up deceased wild animal pickups on private property.
    5. All calls for assistance regarding animals caught in storm drains were to be referred to a city’s Public Works Department.
    The reduction in services allowed the Department to lower its response times, reduce the calls for activities, while serving the public in a more appropriate timeframe.  
      
    In February 2021, the Department requested to meet with the Public Managers Association (PMA) to discuss again the animal services rates. The Department advised the contracted cities that if a sustainable rate plan was not established for FY 2022/23, the Department would again have to reduce services levels, due to the lack of revenue to maintain its operations. During the February 2021 meeting the PMA also requested the Department to assess its deceased animal impound services in comparison to third-party contracted services. The reason for the request was to assess if the cost for services provided by the County would be less if the services were contracted out to a third party. Historically, deceased animal services have been a priority for contracted cities and their citizens.  
      
    April 28, 2021, the Department also met with the Chief’s Association on their areas of concerns around the Department’s services level impacts, which were:
    1. Lack of appropriate staffing for deceased animal pick-ups
    2. Citizen complaints around lack of response for sick or injured wildlife
    3. Inadequate beat coverage by Animal Service Officers (ASO)
    4. Impact on local police when ASOs are not available or delayed in response
    In May 2021, the Department finalized the deceased animal cost analysis and presented them to the PMA. The findings confirmed that the cost for services with a third-party vendor to provide the same service was significantly higher than the Department’s cost for services. The Department’s findings and recommendations led the City Managers to approve funding to the Department for an additional 1.0 FTE Field Utility Worker.  
      
    In August 2021, the Department scheduled follow-up meetings with various contracted cities to discuss the next steps and the Department’s need to increase its cost for services. The Department advised the contracted cities at these meetings that if further action is not taken and additional department revenues are not secured from contracted cities, service levels will be continuing to be reduced beginning with FY 2022/23.  
      
    On September 27, 2021, the Department presented to the County’s Public Protection Committee the following recommendation:  
      
    Projected Rates  
    Fiscal Year Per Capita Rate  
    2022/23 $7.97  
    2023/24 $9.11  
      
    In February 2022, the Department presented the new animal service contract and rate structure to the contracted cities for review and provide an opportunity to address any questions or concerns they may have around the proposed contract.   
      
    In order to sustain current staffing and service levels, along with the County’s population growth, the Department recommended a revised rate structure methodology, which would include a reconciliation based on year-end actual expenditures. Effective FY 2024/25 the new methodology and cost formulation would be:  
      
    Per Capita Rate = (Projected total cost for services less animal licensing, user fees, and general fund contribution) ÷ Population of incorporated contracted cities  
      
    In July 2022, all city contracts were approved and signed by each city to begin the new service agreement and rate structure beginning FY 2022/23.  
      
    The 18 contract Cities/Towns are as follows:
    • Pinole
    • Hercules
    • Walnut Creek
    • Danville
    • Moraga
    • Brentwood
    • Oakley
    • San Pablo
    • Clayton
    • San Ramon
    • Pittsburg
    • Orinda
    • El Cerrito
    • Pleasant Hill
    • Concord
    • Martinez
    • Richmond
    • Lafayette
      

    CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

    If this action is not approved, the County will not be able to provide animal services to the 18 cities.
    CLERK'S ADDENDUM

    Speakers: C.108

    Written commentary provided by: Lisa Kirk; Laureen Lober, Animal Righes Coalition, In Defense of Animals; Colleen Coll, Concord; Janet Van Wicklen, Richmond; Sandra Tarbet (attached)  

AgendaQuick©2005 - 2024 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved