HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 Animal Shelter Service Agreement boo - 140
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE: August 8 ,1983
SUBJECT 1983-84 Animal Shelter & Field Service Agreements
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letters from County Administrator ' s Office dated :
June 7 , 1983 , July 22 , 1983 , July 27 , 1983
Letter from City of Pleasanton dated April 19 , 1983
Animal Shelter Service Agreement
Animal Field Service Agreement
County Shelter Study dated May 4 , 1983
Year End Report Animal Control Division
RECOMMENDATION .!' : 1 ) Approve agreements with modifications recommended
by Staff
2 ) Authorize budget transfer from Contingent Reserve
to Animal Control Account in the amount of $941
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Total net cost to City approximately $26 , 300
DESCRIPTION The City has received the draft agreements ( see
attached) for the provision of Animal Shelter Services and Animal Control
Field Services by Alameda County to the City of Dublin for Fiscal Year 1983-
84 .
ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES
As you may be aware , the County recently undertook an investigation of the
conditions at the Santa Rita Animal Shelter ( see attached ) . As a result of
that study , it was determined by the County Board of Supervisors that certain
improvements should be made to the shelter, license fees should be increased
and shelter costs should be charged to contracting cities on the basis of
workload as opposed to the current basis of population. This results in an
increase in Dublin shelter costs from the $8 ,498 the County charged the City
during Fiscal Year 1982-83 to $9 , 771 for Fiscal Year 1983-84. This cost
would be reduced by animal shelter fees of approximately $3 ,000 resulting in
a net shelter cost of $6 , 771 for Fiscal Year 1983-84 .
A budget transfer from the contingent reserve will be necessary in the amount
of $941 in that only $8 , 830 was budgeted for Shelter Services based on
earlier information from the County.
The Animal Shelter Service Agreement is substantially the same as last year
with the exception of the changes indicated below:
1 ) Payment from City for service has been changed from monthly to quarterly;
2 ) Charge to City is based on workload as opposed to population:
3 ) Shelter fees will be credited to the City in the first quarter of the
following year instead of monthly and will be pro-rated on the basis of total
revenue collected and workload of each City to actual fees generated for
animals received from any given City.
The County also included a paragraph which would make the City liable for the
shelter operation. As a result of Staff discussions with the Cities of
Pleasanton, Livermore , and San Leandro , the County has agreed to delete the
liability paragraph, which has the net effect of a mutual hold harmless
provision.
ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVICES
The City is presently charged for . 379 work years for a Field Services
Office and support staff and supplies . The estimated Fiscal Year 1982-83
cost to the City is $21 , 617 less approximately $2 , 600 in animal license
fees for a total net cost of $19 ,017 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
/ . 7
ITEM NO. �?• '-��
AGENDA STATEMENT: 1983-84 Animal Shelter & Field Service Agreements
In accordance with City Council direction during contract consideration
last year , Staff reviewed alternative means of improving field services in
the City of Dublin for Fiscal Year 1983-84.
Staff requested the City of Pleasanton to investigate the feasibility of
contracting services to the City of Dublin. After considerable review by
Pleasanton' s Police Department , it was determined that such a contract was
not feasible at this time due to Pleasanton staffing and deployment
problems ( see attached letter) .
Staff also requested the County to consider the feasibility of increasing
its field service to Dublin. On June 7 , 1983 ( see attached letter ) . the
County responded that the City would have to fund the cost of one full-time
Field Service Officer including indirect support at a cost of $25 . 653 , plus
purchase a vehicle for the additional field services officer. This cost
would be in addition to the costs already borne by the City for field
services . The total estimated cost would be in excess of $50 ,000 .
At this time there appears to be no immediate alternative to improved leash
law enforcement .
Staff has also met with local veterinarians and the County to discuss
possible improvements with the present animal licensing program. wring
this summer, the County has conducted an animal license canvas in the City
of Dublin and the unincorporated area . As soon as it has had an
opportunity to complete its evaluation of this program, Staff will meet
with County Officials and discuss the result and determine what
improvements can be accomplished on an on-going basis .
The estimated cost for animal control services for Fiscal Year 1983-84 is
approximately $24, 589 , offset by an estimated $5 ,000 in animal license fees
for a net cost of $19 , 589 .
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Animal Control Shelter
Services Agreement and Animal Control Field Services Agreements as modified
by Staff ; and further approve a budget transfer from the Contingent Reserve
to the Animal Control Account in the amount of $941 .
Page 2
—' COUNTY ADM I N I S T R A T 0 R
MEL RING STE?�iEV
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ASSIST-' N CATOR
June 7, 1983
Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
Subject: 1983-84 Animal Control Contract - Field Services
This is in response to your verbal inquiry regarding increasing the level of
field service staff currently provided by the County under contract with the
City of Dublin.
The Sheriff' s Department indicates that, if requested by the City, it would be
possible to add one full-time Field Services Officer position dedicated to
services in Dublin for 1983-84. This position would be in addition to the
current level of service which includes approximately 0.4 Field Servic=es
Officer and on-call ..pick-up and response services. Transportation for the
additional full-time Field Services Officer would be the responsibility of the
City of Dublin. The Sheriff' s Department estimate of the cost to the City for
the additional Field Services Officer position is $25,653, including inairect
support.
I understand that you will present the animal control staffing issue to your
Council on June 27, 1983 and advise me of their decision on June 28.
Very truly yours,
MEL HING
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
MH/SM: lp
cc: Dan Vohl , Sheriff' s Department
3011C
1221 OAK STREET SUITE 555 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 14151 8746252
� I TED
C O U N T Y A D M IN I S T R A T O
/ UL 4'
CIPcIl�t �% -d g v
MEL HING July 22, 1983 STEPHEN A HAMILL
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTANI COUNTY ADNI-STRATOR
Richard Ambrose, City Manager
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
Subject: Animal Shelter and Field Service Agreements
Please find the enclosed 1983/84 draft contracts for Animal Shelter and Field
services for the City of Dublin. The language in the field services contract
corresponds to the single contract executed within the city in 1982/83 for
both shelter and field services with some minor modifications.
A second contract agreement has been developed for shelter services that is
consistent with the documents provided to the County' s other contract cities.
The major changes in the provisions in that agreement relate to the payment
mechanism and certain additional general conditions. The changes in language
relating to payment..mechanisms were made in response to a Board of Supervisors
directive to amend the basis of charges to the cities for shelter services
from population to workload.
As a result of those changes, it is estimated that the gross charges to the
City of Dublin in 1983/84 for shelter services will be $9,771 , which is
slightly above the 1982/83 estimated level ( see attached analysis) . Please
note, the County' s total gross charges for shelter services will be reduced by
the total revenue collected by the County regardless of geographic source in
1983/84 and future fiscal years.
I am planning on presenting the amended contracts to the Board of Supervisors
at their August 2, 1983 meeting for approval . Should you have any comments or
questions, please contact Adele Fasano of my staff at 874-6482 by
July 26, 1983.
Very truly yours,
NIEL HING
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
MH:AF: lb
cc: Undersheriff Vohl
Chief Mitchell
3429C
1221 OAK STREET SUITE 555 OAKLAND CALIFORNIA 94612 14151 874 6252
COMPARISON OF 1982/83 AND 1983/84
CHARGES TO JURISDICTIONS FOR ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES
1983/84* 1982/83*
1982/83 Prorated Prorated
Live Animals Percentage Share of Share of
Handled at Share of Shelter Shelter
Shelter Workload Costs Costs Variance
Unincorporated Area 2,324 35.60 $ 64,421 $ 69,915 $(5,494)
Dublin 349 5.40 9,771 8,498 1,273
Livermore 1,832 28.00 50,668 30,461 20,207
San Leandro 1 ,078 16.50 29,858 40,295 ( 10,437)
Pleasanton 946 14.50 26,239 22,152 4,087
Total 6,529 100.00 $180,957 $171 ,321 $ 9,636
*Reduced by shelter revenue collections.
AF: lb
3433C
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
MEL HING July 27, 1983 STEPHEN A. HAMILL
COUNTY AOMINIST--SS ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Richard Ambrose, City Manager C�
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
Subject: Animal Shelter and Field Services Contracts
The purpose of this letter is to request your city to execute the enclosed
amended animal shelter and field service agreements with the County.
In a previous letter dated July 25, 1983, I transmitted draft contract
agreements and requested that you contact my staff with any questions or
concerns. As only minor changes have been requested by the cities, which have
been incorporated in the final contract documents, I am now requesting that
the contracts be executed prior to being presented to the Board of Supervisors
for approval on August 16, 1983.
Please return the executed agreement to my office by August 9, 1983. If you
have any further questions, please contact Adele Fasano of my staff at
874-6482.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
MEL HING
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
MH:AF: lb
Enclosures
cc: Undersheriff Vohl
Chief Mitchell
3582C
1221 OAK STREET SUITE 555 OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 9,1612 - 14151 874-6252
K
gy�NSAHpoy
AREA CODE 415 846-3202 -:- 200 BERNAL AVENGE
P.O. BOX 520 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-0802
Richard Ambrose
City o= 7ubli
P. O. Boy: 2340
Dui 1_ i G 41 5
Dear RiC;:ard.
1'o l aP.Q _ 11: CS. --.c ':�_351�'_!_ 0 T L --n ;i=i::`. ?_:•i:':c is ....
.,:z Poll S _u�" - :i y
, 01, WO ..1-F TOU have aii' _ U e to 7'-f sue C^
vice CUT rac t _ __ - se ;i : P..ct _ __.
n,
James R. ,dalker,
City Manager
JRW:dg
12 Z C E ! Y E D
APR c ; 1883
CITY OF PLEASANTON
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ANIMAL CONTROL
Description - Expenditures of $54 ,259 are recommended to provide animal control services within
the City. Services include impounding of unlicensed and stray animals, removal of dead animals ,
investigating animal bites and complaints concerning animals, and providing liaison with other
agencies having mutual interest in animal control.
Actual Adjusted Proposed Increase Percent
1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 (Decrease) Change
Employee Services $30 , 145 $34 ,521 $35, 452 $ 931 2 .7
Travel & Transportation 977 2 ,463 2 ,463 - -
Repairs & Maintenance 360 501 501 - -
Materials, Supplies & Servs. 10 ,244 13 ,853 15 , 843 1,990 111 . 2
TOTAL $41,726 $51 , 338 $54 ,259 $2 ,921 5 . 7
Employee Services - $35 ,452. Recommended expenditure includes the salaries and related benefits
for one animal control officer and a part-time animal control assistant. Also included is 131
hours of overtime for emergency call-outs.
Travel and Transportation - $2 ,463. Recommended expenditure includes the cost of operating and
maintaining one animal control truck traveling approximately 12 ,000 miles .
Repairs and Maintenance - $501. Recommended expenditure includes the maintenance and repair
costs for a mobile radio, a pneumatic rifle, and a handie talkie.
Materials, Supplies and Services - $15 ,843. Recommended expenditure includes the agreement
with Alameda County for animal shelter facilities ($15 ,012) ; a uniform allowance for the
animal control officer ($180) ; veterinarian services ($215) ; and field supplies ($200) . The
increase is due to the increase in the contract amount for animal shelter facilities.
1982 - 83 ANNUAL BUDGET
81
A G R E E M E N T
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1983
by and between the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", and
the CITY OF hereinafter referred to as "CITY".
RECITALS:
a. The CITY is desirous of contracting with the COUNTY for the
performance of animal control shelter services by the COUNTY of Alameda.
b. The COUNTY is agreeable to rendering such services on the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth.
C. Such contracts are authorized by Section 51300 et seq. of the
Government Code.
THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I . SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
1 . COUNTY agrees to provide animal shelter services to CITY for
animals impounded pursuant to CITY' s ordinance and state law at the level
established by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Such services shall
include, but not be limited to, receiving live animals at the County shelter;
providing live animals at the shelter with food, water, farrier and/or
veterinary care, euthanizing animals not otherwise adopted, redeemed, sold or
donated to adoption organizations, and disposing of dead animals. COUNTY
shall furnish and supply all necessary labor, supervision, equipment and
supplies except as otherwise required of CITY necessary to maintain the level
of service to be rendered hereunder.
II. PAYMENT
1 . CITY agrees to pay its pro rata share of the annual net cost of
shelter services in quarterly installments.
a. The CITY' s pro rata share shall initially be its percentage
share of the total number of live animals handled at the shelter in the prior
fiscal year. If a city withdraws from the program or a new city participates,
the County shall equitably adjust the percentages.
b. The annual net cost of shelter services shall be the amount
budgeted by the County for the current year' s cost of .shelter services less
actual revenue collections for shelter services.
c. In the first quarter billing of the following fiscal year,
an adjustment shall be made to reflect the actual annual net cost of the
shelter services. Reasonable building improvement, depreciation and contract
shelter services may also be included in such costs.
2. COUNTY shall bill CITY for services quarterly. CITY shall pay
COUNTY within thirty (30) days from the date of billing.
3. If payment is not received by COUNTY at the office which is
described on said billing within thirty (30) days after the date of delivery
of said billing, COUNTY is entitled to recover interest thereof. Said
interest shall be at the rate of one ( 1) percent per calendar month or any
portion thereof calculated from the date of delivery of said billing.
III . GENERAL CONDITIONS
1 . Animals picked up by CITY and delivered to County Shelter will
be held for the minimum time period as specified by County Ordinance.
2. All animals not redeemed within time period set by County
Ordinance may be sold or given away to any person other than the owner.
3. All animals not redeemed, sold, or given away pursuant to
County Ordinance shall be humanely disposed of by COUNTY.
4. An animal surrendered to CITY by owner for purposes of
euthansia shall be euthanized by CITY personnel, providing CITY accepts such
animal , prior to its delivery to COUNTY shelter.
5. Dead animals delivered by CITY to County shelter shall without
exception be placed into containers provided by COUNTY and will not have
collars, chains, bandages, flea/tick collars, etc. on the dead animals or be
delivered for disposal within anything other than said container.
6. COUNTY shall keep records of animal type, identifying marks,
and time and place of pickup.
7. The CITY shall complete and fill out standardized report forms
and shall be required to follow up or handle any of the CITY' s own reporting
or notification procedures. COUNTY shall provide forms for CITY use only for
live or dead animals brought to County shelter.
-2-
8. No sick or iniiirPri animal will be brought to the shelter unless
and until it has been examined, properly treated and released by a
veterinarian. Animals deemed by COUNTY personnel to need veterinary care
shall not be received by COUNTY without written veterinary clearance to hold
them at the shelter.
9. The placement of animals in the shelter shall comply with all
procedures established by the County Director of Field Services.
10. Indigenous wild animals protected under State law picked up by
CITY must be turned over to the State Department of Fish and Game by CITY.
11 . The COUNTY will collect CITY dog license fees only for dogs
redeemed or adopted from the County Shelter Facility. Those fees will be
remitted in full to the CITY.
12. COUNTY will charge fees for shelter services in the amount
established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Payment of such fees
may be waived only in accordance with County Ordinance.
13. CITY agrees to make all reasonable efforts to return licensed
dogs and other animals otherwise identified to -an owner to their owner before
delivering such dogs or other animals to the County Shelter.
IV. NO CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT EFFECTED HEREBY
1 . For the purpose of performing such shelter services and for the
purpose of giving official status to the performance thereof, every COUNTY
officer and employee engaged in performing any such service shall be deemed to
be an officer or an employee of CITY while performing services for CITY, which
service is within the scope of this agreement and is a municipal function.
2. All persons employed in the performance of such services and
functions for CITY shall be COUNTY employees, and no CITY employee, as such,
shall be employed by COUNTY, and no person employed hereunder shall have any
CITY pension, civil service, or other status or right in relation to CITY.
3. CITY shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the
direct payment of any salaries, wages, or other compensation to any COUNTY
personnel performing services hereunder for CITY, or any liability other than
that expressly provided for in this agreement.
-3-
4. CITY shall net be '. ?:b': `c" the compensation or indemnity to
any COUNTY employee for injury or sickness arising out of his employment.
COUNTY, its officers and employees, shall not be deemed to assume any
liability for intentional or negligent acts of CITY or of any officers or
employees thereof, and CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY,
its officers and employees against any claims for damages resulting
therefrom. ,
t--4f-T
^ ;A `—way eeRneeted with, th@ aGt 5 er Ami ssi9n5 of_apy f n11NTY_
hereof
V. TERM
This agreement shall commence on July 1, 1983, and shall continue
from year to year thereafter unless terminated. Either party may terminate
this agreement on June 30 of any year by written notice on or before April 1
of said year.
VI . MODIFICATION
This agreement may be modified in writing by mutual agreement of the
parties hereto at anytime.
ATTEST:
By: By:_City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
By:
Chairman, Board of upervisors
County of Alameda
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RICHE D J /OORE, `TY C N EL
By:
AGREEMENT
ANIMAL CONTROL FIELD SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this lst day of July, 1983, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", and the
CITY OF DUBLIN, hereinafter referred to as "CITY";
RECITALS:
(a) The CITY is desirous of contracting with the COUNTY for the
performance of animal control field services within its boundaries by the
COUNTY of Alameda.
(b) The COUNTY is agreeable to rendering such services on the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth.
(c) Such contracts are authorized by Section 51300 et seq. of the
Government Code.
THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I . SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
a. The COUNTY agrees to provide animal control field services within the
corporate limits of CITY to the extent and in the manner hereinafter set forth.
Such services shall only encompass duties and functions of the type
coming within the jurisdiction of and customarily rendered by the Field
Services Department of the COUNTY.
The level of service shall be that same basic level of service that is
and shall be hereafter during the term of this agreement provided by COUNTY to
the unincorporated areas. COUNTY may make adjustments therein which are
requested by the CITY and which the COUNTY has the capability and agrees to
provide.
The rendition of such services, the standard of performance and other
matters incidental to the performance of such services, and the control of
personnel so employed shall remain in the COUNTY. In event of dispute between
the parties as to the extent of the duties and functions to be rendered
hereunder or the level and manner of performance of such service, the COUNTY'S
determination thereof shall be final and conclusive as between the parties
hereto.
Such service s"211 i--Iud- +"° -force�ent of State statutes and such
municipal animal control ordinance as the CITY may adopt that is equal to
COUNTY'S Ordinance.
b. To facilitate the performance of said functions, it is hereby agreed
that the COUNTY shall have full cooperation and assistance from the CITY, its
officers, agents, and employees.
c. For the purpose of performing said functions, COUNTY shall furnish and
supply all necessary labor, supervision, equipment and supplies necessary to
maintain the level of service to be rendered hereunder. In all instances
where special supplies, stationery, notices, forms and the like must be issued
in the name of the CITY, the same shall be supplied by the CITY at its expense.
d. The CITY eF 99UNTY may terminate those animal licensing services
provided by the COUNTY to the CITY at any time during the term of the contract
upon providing the other party with thirty (30) days advance written notice.
Such notice shall be delivered by registered mail.
II . LIABILITY
a. All persons employed in the performance of such services and functions
for CITY shall be COUNTY employees, and no CITY employee as such shall be
taken over by COUNTY and no person employed hereunder shall have any CITY
pension, civil service, or other status or right.
b. CITY shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct
payment of any salary, wages, or other compensation to any COUNTY personnel
performing services hereunder for CITY, or any liability other than that
expressly provided for in this agreement.
Except as herein otherwise specified, CITY shall not be liable for
compensation of or indemnity to any COUNTY employee for injury or sickness
arising out of his employment.
c. The CITY will assume liability and pay cost of defense and hold the
COUNTY harmless from loss, costs or expenses caused by the negligent or
wrongful act or omission of CITY officers, agents and employees occurring in
the performance of this agreement to the extent that such liability is imposed
on the COUNTY by the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the
-2-
State of California. In addition, when liability arises pursuant to Section
830, et seq. , of the Government Code, by reason of a dangerous condition of
public property of the CITY, the CITY shall assume liability and pay cost of
defense and hold the COUNTY harmless from loss, costs or expenses caused by
the negligent or wrongful act or omission of CITY officers, agents and
employees arising in the performance of this agreement.
d. The COUNTY will assume liability and pay cost of defense and hold the
CITY harmless from loss, costs or expenses caused by the negligent or wrongful
act or omission of COUNTY officers, agents and employees occurring in the
performance of this agreement to the extent that such liability is imposed on
the CITY, by the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the
State of California. In addition, when liability arises pursuant to Section
830, et seq. , of the Government Code, by reason of a dangerous condition of
public property of the COUNTY, the COUNTY shall assume liability and pay cost
of defense and hold the CITY harmless from loss, costs or expenses caused by
the negligent or wrongful act or omission of COUNTY officers, agents and
employees arising in the performance of this agreement.
III . INSURANCE
Whatever insurance agreement between CITY and COUNTY is in effect
during the term of this agreement shall apply hereto and is fully incorporated
herein by reference.
IV. COST AND BILLING PROCEDURES
a. CITY shall pay COUNTY the actual cost to the COUNTY of services
provided under this agreement at rates determined by COUNTY in accordance with
the policies and procedures established by the Board of Supervisors.
b. The COUNTY shall bill CITY for services quarterly. The CITY shall pay
COUNTY within thirty (30) days from the date of billing.
If such payment is not received by COUNTY at the office which is
described on said billing within thirty (30) days after the date of delivery
of said billing, COUNTY is entitled to recover interest thereof. Said
interest shall be at the rate of one ( 1) percent per calendar month or any
portion thereof calculated from the date of delivery of said billing.
-3-
c. COUNTY agrees that all dog license fees which it collects for dog
licenses issued by COUNTY to residents of CITY shall be remitted to the CITY
quarterly.
d. CITY agrees that whenever animals from within the boundaries of the
CITY are delivered to animal shelters operated by or on behalf of COUNTY, the
CITY shall pay for the treatment and shelter of said animals, reptiles and
fowl at rates to reflect the cost of such shelter and treatment as determined
by the COUNTY. This provision shall not be effective whenever CITY contracts
separately for shelter services from COUNTY.
e. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, this
agreement shall be sooner terminated at any time that CITY fails to enact and
to maintain in full force and effect, including the amount of fees provided,
an animal control ordinance identical with the provisions of COUNTY'S
Ordinance.
f. The COUNTY agrees to keep separate records for CITY. Such records
shall be open for examination by CITY during all business hours.
V. DURATION AND TERMINATION
This agreement shall have an effective date of July 1, 1983, and
unless sooner terminated as provided herein, this agreement shall terminate
June 30, 1984.
ATTEST: CITY OF DUBLIN
By: By:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
William Mehrwein COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: By:
eputy Chairman, ard of upervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Richard �r�, u t I —i
try
4889C
-4-
'
�
' A lA / � May IO, 1983
' ^ '
COUNTY ADM | N | STRATOR
wsLmws STEPHEN *^~uL
="^TY ^"~'°'"`"°`°" May 4, 1983 ^"`='^"`COUNTY
^"-~"`"^'""
7' E (� � � V E [)
Honorable Board Of Supervisors
Administration Building K]A« q1Cg,
Oakland, CA 94612
cDy
Dear Board Members:
Subject: Review Of County Animal Control Services
RECOMMENDATION
In response to o number of issues raised by your Board related to the County' s
Animal Control Program and the overcrowding at the Santa Rita Animal Shelter,
it is recommended that the Sheriff' s Department be directed to prepare reports
addressing the following issues:
w Restructuring the County' s contracts with the Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton and San Leandro, including basing the charges On the cities'
percentage Of the workload rather than population by May 31, 1983;
* Increasing the County' s dog license and impound fees to d level comparable
with Other Counties by May 31 , 1983;
* Developing a detailed proposal for d remodeling of the Santa Rita Shelter
including adding an extension to the building and installing larger dog
cages by June 14, 1983;
e Assessing the cost-effectiveness of the dog license canvas program by
October, 1983; and
* Implementing a volunteer program at the shelter as soon as possible and
evaluate its cost-effectiveness by October, 1983,
SUMMARY
The County Administrator' s Office has undertaken d review Of the County' s
Animal Control Program in COOp2rdti0D with the Sheriff ' s Department to assess
alternative ways Of relieving the overcrowding at the shelter and address
Other concerns raised by your Board related to the County' s charges to the
Cities, the dog license program, making use of volunteer services and the
organizational placement Of the program.
'
The components Of the study include a review Of the history of animal control
services, current legal requirements, structure Of the present program, other
county programs and an analysis of alternatives for relieving the overcrowding
at the shelter and the program' s organizational placement ( See attached
report) .
1221 OAK STREET SUITE 555 OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 94612 (4151 874-6252
Honorable Board of Supervisors -2- May 4, 1983
It has been concluded that while County Animal Control Services has
experienced some operational problems in the last few years related to the
overcrowding at the shelter, the program has been relatively well managed and
cost-effective considering its resource constraints and in comparison with
other County-programs.
DISCUSSION
The major findings of the study include:
• The County Animal Control Services Program has been significantly reduced
in the last eight years; two animal shelters have been closed, and
contracts with five cities and seven staff positions phased out;
• The County is legally required to provide animal control services only in
the unincorporatea area; cities are responsible for providing services in
their own jurisdictions;
• While the number of animals handled by the shelter has decreased by 30%
since 1977-78, 60% fewer cages are available to house those animals;
• The number of dog licenses issued and revenue collected has decreased by
35% and 32% respectively in the last four years related to a reduction in
field officer positions and personnel vacancies;
• The County' s contracts with four cities for shelter services are based on
their percentage of the population of the area being served. A more
appropriate method for distributing costs, however, is to base those
charges on the cities' share of the workload at the shelter;
• The optimum capacity for dogs at the Santa Rita shelter is considered to
be 46 animals while in a recent 30-day period it was found that as many as
59 dogs were housed at the facility;
o The Sheriff' s Department recently implemented a license canvassing program
in the unincorporated area that is expected to result in the issuance of
more dog licenses and collection of additional revenue. The cost-
effectiveness of this effort, however, cannot be determined until a study
is completed in six months;
• In a survey conducted of five Bay Area counties, it was found that Alameda
County' s animal control program serves a much smaller geographic area than
other counties, is subsidized by the County at a much lower rate, has a
shelter facility at least as crowded as 50% of the other counties with dog
cages smaller and license fees lower than any County surveyed;
Honorable Board of Supervisors -3- May 4, 1983
• Remodeling the Santa Rita Facility by adding an extension to the building
is considered the most cost-effective alternative to relieving the
crowding at the shelter ( see attached table VIII) ; and
o The location of animal control services within the Sheriff' s Department is
considered to be the most cost-effective organizational placement of the
program.
FINANCING
The total financial impact of the recommendations proposed in this study
include an estimated $13,000 in additional dog license revenue if fees are
increased from $6 to $10 per license; and $16,000 in additional expenditure
requirements, representing $3,000 in additional County costs for the program
on an annual basis. The additional expenditures include the County' s share of
constructing the building addition ($22,000) , staffing costs ($4,000) and
$10,000 in savings resulting from restructuring the contracts with the
cities. The County would also incur an additional $41 ,000 in up-front
construction costs which are recommended to be amortized over a five year
period and charged to the cities.
i
Very truly `yours,
H I N G
UNTY ADMINISTRInJOR
MH:AF: lb
Attachment
cc: Sheriff' s Department
City of Dublin
City of Livermore
City of Pleasanton
City of San Leandro
SPCA
Public Works
County Counsel
2510C
TABLE VIII
Analysis of Alternatives for Relieving Overcrowding
at Santa Rita Animal Shelter
Add'l. Cost Pdd'1• Costs Implementation entation Increased Management
acit of 0 eration
Alternatives for County/Year to Cities/Year Feasibility Time Frame CA � y p
1. build extension $63,000 $25,293 High 6 Months 77% Continued at
(20 add'1. an adequate
to building at Up front costs for first 5 cages) level
Santa Rita. ofrwhich $22t050 decreases to
would be penta- 7,150.
nent costs and
$3,850 in add'l.
staffing costs/yr.
2. Open San $22,428 $70,088 High 2 Months 108 Coordination
°/
(28 add'1. Problems
Leandro Shelter cages)
and maintain
Santa Rita
facility.
3. Contract $245085 $69,915 High Imflediately 35% Coordination
with SPCA
for unincorp.
area and maintain
Santa Rita for
contract cities
2182C
REVIEW OF COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
Background
Alameda County Animal Control Services are currently administered by the
Sheriff ' s Department. The program consists of two basic components: a
shelter facility located at Santa Rita and a field operation. Field services
are provided _in the unincorporated area and for the City of Dublin under a
contract. Shelter services are provided for the unincorporated area and the
cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Leandro. The County is
currently contributing $200,000 to the total cost of the program, of which
$30,000 supports the shelter operation and $170,000 represents field service
and administrative costs.
Up until 1976, the County operated three shelter facilities and contracted
with eight cities for shelter services. The current program consists of one
shelter facility and contracts with four cities. Thus, the Animal Control
Services Program has been significantly reduced in the last eight years
related to a decrease in the number of jurisdictions the County contracts with
for shelter services.
County costs have increased by 85% or $86,000 in the same period from 1975-76
to the present or an average of 12% in each of the last eight years ( see Table
I ) . Those increased costs reflect inflationary expenditure increases and
reduced revenues related to a reduction in the number of dog licenses issued.
License revenue has decreased by 71% or $44,000 in the past eight years and
the number of dog licenses issued by 60% or 6,200, from 10,312 in 1975-76 to
4, 132 in 1982-83. Even for the period when the County' s field operation has
remained the same from 1978-79 to the present, the license revenue and
licenses issued have decreased by 32% and 35% respectively ( see Table II) .
The total number of animals handled by the program has decreased by 232% or
7,548, from 25, 107 in 1975-76 to 7,548 anticipated in the current year ( see
Table III) . Again, that decrease is related to a reduction in the number of
jurisdictions the shelter operation serves. However, the total number of
cages available to house the animals has been reduced at a greater rate than
the number of animals handled. For instance, the San Leandro and Santa Rita
shelters included a total of 150 cages up until 1978-79 and handled 10,824
animals in 1977-78. In 1982-83, it is anticipated that 7,548 animals will be
handled, a 30% reduction from 1977-78 but with 60 cages or 60% less than the
number of cages available in 1977-78.
In the month of February of the current year, an unfortunate accident occurred
resulting in the death of a dog that had been placed in a cage with three
other dogs. Placing more than two dogs in a cage has become a more frequent
practice at the animal shelter due to an increase in the number of animals
handled and reduction in available cages. Thus, the risk of such accidents
occurring has increased along with the level of crowding at the shelter. To
alleviate the problem on an interim basis, the Oakland-Dublin Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has entered into a temporary agreement
with the County tc handle the overflow of animals at the shelter. The SPCA,
however, has indicated that they are not interested in continuing this
agreement on G per:lianent basis even with reimbursement from the County.
Therefore, it is necessary to identify a more permanent solution to the
overcrowding a- t ,e- Santa Rita shelter.
In response to the unfortunate accident and repeated concerns voiced by the
community and County Grand Jury related to the overcrowding at the shelter,
the County Administrator' s Office has conducted a comprehensive study of the
animal control prcaram. The purpose of the study is to identify a solution to
the overcrowding problem at the shelter and address other concerns related to
the program raisec by the Board of Supervisors. The components of the study
include:
a A review o- the history of the program and current legal requirements;
• Description of the structure of the County' s animal control program;
Review of other county programs;
• Analysis o17 the alternatives for relieving the overcrowding at the shelter
and the prccram' s organizational placement.
History
The Alameda Count, Animal Control Program consisted of three shelter
facilities, contracts with eight cities, and a field service operation until
1976. In that ye::r, the County' s contracts with the cities of Fremont, Newark
and Union City were terminated when the Newark shelter was turned over to the
cities who electec to operate it themselves. The second shelter located in
San Leandro was closed in 1978 due to Proposition 13 funding reductions. In
addition, the County' s contracts with the cities of Piedmont and Emeryville
were terminated in that same year along with six staff positions, four of
which related to the field operation.
The final chance that has taken place in the program occurred in 1982-83 when
the City of Dublin incorporated and elected to contract with the County for
both shelter and field services. In summary, in the last eight years the
major changes experienced by the County animal control program have included
closing two shelter facilties, phasing out contracts with five cities, and
eliminating seven staff positions, resulting in a 40% reduction in program
personnel .
Legal Requirements
The current legal requirements governing Animal Control Service Programs
relate to the operation of public pounds, rabies control programs, vaccination
clinics, enforcement of laws concerning cruelty to animals, licensing and
impounding does. In regard to animal shelter services, the only County
-2-
mandate is that the Board of Supervisors is required to impound dogs running
at large, and arrange for their disposition in a humane manner (Agricultural
Code 30501 ) . The Board may appoint persons to impound and dispose of dogs or
enter into a contract with an organization. Government Code Section 25802
authorizes the County to operate a public pound and offset all expenses from
fines imposed and collected from owners of impounded animals or from County
general funds or both.
Under Penal Code Section 597, it is a duty of peace or humane officers to take
possession of abandoned or neglected animals and their owners are responsible
for the total costs of caring for the animal until it is redeemed. Health and
Safety Code Section 1920 requires every dog owner to license their animal
every two years and vaccinate them once a year with anti-rabies vaccine or as
provided by city or county ordinance. Each city and/or county is also
responsible for maintaining or providing for the maintenance of a pound system
and rabies control program. County Counsel has indicated that the County is
only responsible for providing such services in the unincorporated area.
Individual cities are responsible for providing animal control services in
their own jurisdictions.
Finally, the Alameda County Administrative Code authorizes the operation of a
County Field Services Department of which animal control is a component. The
program is responsible for enforcing county ordinance and state laws
pertaining to animal control in the unincorporated area. The Ordinance Code
also establishes licensing, adoption and impoundment fees as well as the
length of time stray and owned animals are re.-uired to be retained at the
shelter facility.
Description of Current Animal Control Program
The Alameda County Animal Control Services Program consists of two basic
components: a shelter facility located at Santa Rita and a field services
operation. The program is staffed by 10.70 full time equivalent personnel at
an estimated cost of $200,000 to the County for the current year, which is
$83,000 less than the budgeted level . Since 1978-79 when the San Leandro
shelter was closed, the program has remained essentially the same with net
County costs growing at an average rate of 7% per year or by 30% ($43,000)
from 1978-79 to the present. Total program expenses of $350,000 for FY
1982-83 reflect $170,000 in shelter costs and the balance of $180,000 for
field and adminstrative services. These expenses are 16% or $66,000 below the
budgeted level due to substantial salary savings related to vacant field
officer positions. Revenue collected by the program, estimated at $165,000
for the current year; includes $21 ,000 for dog license fees, $120,000 in
revenue from the contract cities and $24,000 in humane fees (adoption and
impoundment charges) .
The County contracts with the City of Dublin to provide both shelter and field
services and with the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and San Leandro for
shelter services. The cities are charged a prorated share of the cost of
operating the shelter based on their percentage of the total population being
-3-
served. For the current year, it was estimated that the cities would be
charged for shelter services as follows:
Percent of Total Estimated
Population Charoes
Dublin 5% $8,498
Livermore 18% 30,461
Pleasanton 13% 22, 152
San Leandro 23% 40,295
59% $101 ,406
However, those charges are offset with any revenue (adoption and impoundment
fees) attributed to the animals collected from the cities' jurisdictions. It
is estimated that in the current year, the cities collectively will be
credited with $18,870 in humane fees; thus, the County will receive $82,536
from the cities to offset their share of the cost of running the shelter.
Shelter Facility
The shelter at Santa Rita currently contains two kennel areas with a total of
60 animal cages. In addition, the facility includes a walk-in refrigerator
used for the temporary storage of dead animals euthenized at the shelter, or
picked up or surrendered by their owners and a corral area for large animals
like horses. Of the 60 cages at the shelter, 26 are suitable for use by large
or medium size dogs with interior and exterior areas with dimensions each OT"
3.5 feet by 4 feet. Thus, the total area of each large dog cage is 3.5 feet
by 8 feet. Six of those fixed cages are located in an observation area where
dogs are placed who have been involved in biting incidents, are suspected of
having rabies or have other behavioral problems.
The remaining 34 cages are semi-portable and suitable for use by smaller dogs
and cats. These cages have been placed on top of the fixed cages in each of
the two kennel areas.
The shelter is staffed by 2 assistants and a half-time senior field officer
who are responsible for feeding, housing and caring for impounded animals. It
is estimated that on an average daily basis, 70 animals are housed at the
shelter, of which 42 are dogs. In a recent 30-day period, it was found that
the number of dogs at the shelter ranged from 28 to 59 on a given day. The
maximum number of dogs placed in a single cage at any time is four, with the
exception of the observation area and litters which require separate cages.
The optimum capacity of the shelter is considered to be 26 dogs with a single
dog being placed in each cage. However, the Sheriff' s Department has
indicated that 46 dogs constitute the maximum desirable level for the shelter
operation considering the current funding restrictions. This would permit
placing 6 individually caged dogs in the observation area and no more than 2
dogs in each of the remaining 20 cages.
-4-
The total number of animals handled per year has decreased significantly since
1975-76 when the County had contracts with eight cities. The dogs handled in
that year totalled 25, 107, decreasing to 11 ,665 in the following year when the
Newark shelter was turn_c over to 3 cities, and to 7,242 following the closure
of the San Leandro shelt--r in 1978-79. It is estimated that in the current
year 7,548 animals will be handled, representing a 4% increase since 1978-79
when the program last underwent a major change ( see Table III) .
Of the total number of animals handled in the current year, 35% are from the
unincorporated area, 5% from Dublin, 39% from Livermore, 14% from Pleasanton,
and 17% from San Leandro. Because the number of animals handled each year
fluctuates somewhat from : jurisdiction to jurisdiction, a four year average of
the number of animals handled was computed and is reflected on the table below.
CO P, r2ISON OF CITIES' CZ RENT SHARE OF COSTS AT ANIMAL SHELTER
TO PERL`N'TAGE OF WYKLOAD
Variance
Share of Percent Share Percent Share Prorated Current &
Current of Current of Average Share of Prorated Share
Shelter Cost Shelter Costs Workload Shelter Costs of Costs
Dublin $8,498 50% 5% $8,566 $68
Livermore 30,461 19% 27% 46,257 15,796
Pleasanton 22,152 13% 14% 23,985 1,833
San Leandro 40,295 23% 19'% 32,551 (7,744)
County Unincorporated Area 69,915 41% 35% 59,962 (9,953)
Total $171,321 100% 100% $171,321 0
As previously discussed, the contracts with the cites are based on their
percentage of the population area being served, not the percentage of the
workload at the shelter or number of animals handled. Workload, however, is
considered a more appropriate method for distributing the costs of the shelter
operation. As the table reflects, using workload would not significantly
redistribute the costs of the shelter. If such a methodology were used for
the current year, the prorated share of jurisidictions' costs would
collectively increase by $9,953.
It is therefore recommended that this approach be considered in renegotiating
the contracts with the cities for fiscal year 1983-84.
-5-
Field Services
The County Field Service operation is staffed by 4.70 ecuiv.zlent field
officers that are responsible for responding to complaints related to stray,
unleashed or barking dogs. The officers are also required to impound -animals
that have bitten a person for quarantine if the owner is not located to
determine if the dog has been vaccinated against rabies.
As a result of Proposition 13 funding reductions, the stafl"ing of this
operation was significantly reduced resulting in a decrease in the emphasis
being placed on licensing activities. Priority attention has been given to
responding to citizen complaints and biting incidents which are considered to
be of a more critical nature.
The number of dog licenses isssued has decreased by 35% or 1 ,733 from 1978-79
to the current year. In addition, license revenue has cecreased by 32% in the
same time period. In the current fiscal year, it is anticipated that $20,508
in license revenue will be collected and 3,218 licenses issued (see Table
II ) . This estimate is somewhat optimistic for the Sheriff' s Department
recently hired 5 part-time personnel to do 'door-to-door canvassing in the
unincorporated area and expects to raise significantly more revenue than was
collected in the first nine months of the year.
In the last eight years, with the exception of 1981-82, such a spring
canvassing campaign has been undertaken where residents are asked if their
dogs are licensed and if not, licensing materials are le=t cehind and a
follow-up postcard mailed if the owner does not request a license within two
weeks. It has yet to be determined whether this effort will result in
sufficient dog license revenues to offset the additional personnel costs.
However, in FY 1981-82, when a canvassing campaign was not undertaken, the
lowest number of dog licenses were issued and revenue collected of any prior
year. The Sheriff' s Department has indicated that the canvassing program
should be evaluated in six months in order to determine its cost-effectiveness
and whether it should be maintained on a year round basis.
Another explanation of the reduction in the number of licenses issued and
revenue is related to field officer vacancies in the Sheriff' s Department in
both FY 1981-82 and the current year. These positions were recently filled
and are expected to result in an increase in licensing activity in the
unincorporated area.
Finally, the City of Dublin is currently contracting with the County for field
services at a cost of $22,363 for 1982-83. Those costs are associated with a
quarter-time field officer, part-time clerk and consumable supplies. While
the City has indicated they are interested in increasing the level of services
in their jurisdiction, it is anticipated that the current level will be
maintained in FY 1983-84.
-6-
The remaining costs of the animal control program are associated with an
administrative unit with three clerical personnel . Those staff are
responsible for compiling statistics, record keeping, accounting and selling
dog licenses.
Other County Programs
A survey was conducted of 5 Bay Area counties (Contra Costa, Marin,
Sacramento, San Mateo and Santa Clara) to collect comparable data on their
animal control programs. Each county provided information on the
organizational location of their program, geographic area served, method of
service delivery, annual county costs, staffing and more detailed data on the
operation of their County-operated or contract animal shelter facilities (see
Table IV) .
Of the five counties surveyed, two have separate animal control departments
(Contra Costa and Sacramento) , two administer the program in other county
departments (San Mateo and Santa Clara) , and one program (Marin) is managed
under the County Administrator' s Office. All five counties serve the entire
county with the exception of certain cities including Antioch in Contra Costa
County, the City of Sacramento in Sacramento County and Mt. View and Palo Alto
in San Mateo County.
Three of the counties contract with a Humane Society for shelter services
(Marin, San Mateo and Santa Clara) and three administer County shelter
facilities (Contra Costa, Sacramento and Santa Clara) . Annual county costs
for animal control programs range from a high of $1 .3 million in Santa Clara
County to a low of $0.5 million in San Mateo County. Staffing levels range
from zero to 43 employees in Marin and Contra Costa counties respectively.
The counties were also asked for more detailed data on their shelter
facilities related to the number of dogs handled per year and per month,
number of dog cages, an estimate of the capacity of the shelter, the maximum
number of dogs placed in a single cage, the dimensions of the dog cages and
their fee schedules ( see Table V) .
Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties handle the largest number of dogs per
year (26,000 and 18,400 respectively) and with the exception of San Mateo
County, also provide for the largest number of dog cages. The interior and
exterior dimensions of the dog cages range from 4 feet by 15 feet in Contra
Costa County to 4 feet by 18 feet in Santa Clara, Marin and San Mateo
counties. In Alameda County, the dimensions of the dog cages are 3.5 feet by
8 feet, significantly smaller than any county surveyed.
The questions posed were intended to reflect the extent to which other
counties are experiencing crowding at their animal shelters to a greater or
lesser extent than Alameda County. Three counties indicated that they place a
maximum of three dogs in a single cage while Sacramento and San Mateo counties
indicated placing a maximum of six and five dogs in a cage respectively. In
Alameda County, the maximum is considered to be four dogs. In addition, the
-7-
average number of dogs being placed in a cage (computed by dividing the
average number of dogs per day by the total number of cages) range from a high
of four in San Mateo County to a low of one in Marin County, with an average
of two dogs per cage. Alameda County' s average is also two dogs per cage.
However, sufficient data is not currently available to determine the frequency
of placing more than two dogs in a cage at Santa Rita. In addition, the
number of dogs housed at the shelter each day fluctuates greatly. It is
therefore difficult to determine, based on the data collected, whether Alameda
County' s shelter is more or at least as crowded as other County facilities.
The counties were also asked to indicate what they feel the capacity of their
shelters are in terms of housing dogs on a daily basis. Responses ranged from
50 to 300 with a maximum average number of dogs per cage of one to six. As
previously discussed, in Alameda County the capacity of the shelter is
considered to be two dogs per cage with the exception of the isolation area.
Finally, the fees being charged by the counties range from $10 to $12 for dog
licenses, $9 to $16 for adoptions and $15 to $25 for impoundment with an
additional fee of $2 to $5 per day. In contrast, Alameda County' s dog license
fees are $6, adoptions $10 and impoundments $15 and $3.50 per day ( see Table
VI) .
To summarize, the major conclusions of the survey conducted of other county
animal control programs are as follows:
• The two counties that operate large shelter facilities also have a
separate animal control department.
e Higher county costs and staffing levels appear to be related to programs
that handle a greater volume of animals and serve larger geographic areas.
a All five counties serve major geographic areas of their counties in
contrast to Alameda County.
• Fifty percent of the other County shelter facilities appear to be
experiencing crowding at a level similar to the Alameda County shelter.
o The dog cages in the shelter facilities of the counties surveyed are
larger than those in Alameda County.
• Alameda and Marin counties handle significantly less dogs per year than
the other four Bay Area counties.
e Alameda County dog license fees are the lowest of any county surveyed;
adoption fees are comparable and impound fees lower than three of the
counties surveyed.
• Alameda County' s per capita costs for animal control services are the
lowest of any county surveyed ($0.69) which range from a high of $3.14 in
Marin County to $.81 in San Mateo County ( see Table VII) .
-8-
Alternatives for Relieving Overcrowding at Shelter
A number of alternatives were identified and assessed to address the
overcrowding at the Santa Rita Animal Shelter. The alternatives include
remodeling the current shelter, opening the San Leandro shelter, phasing out
the contracts with the cities and/or contracting part or the entire operation
to a private organization like the Oakland SPCA.
These alternatives were assessed in terms of their additional annual costs to
the County, potential for relieving the overcrowding or increasing the
capacity at the shelter, feasibility, and the potential for improving the
management of the program ( see Table VIII) .
Remodeling Santa Rita Shelter
Two alternatives were considered that would involve a remodeling of the
current Santa Rita Shelter. Those alternatives include adding additional
cages to the present facility and adding an extension to the building.
A site visit was made to the shelter to determine the feasibility of adding
additional dog cages in the current building. The only area where such cages
could be placed is on top of the fixed dog cages to replace the existing
portable small cages. This alternative is not considered feasible for placing
larger dogs in raised cages would present logistical problems to the shelter
staff. Additional handling of the animals would be required, increasing the
risk of injury to shelter staff and present difficulties in lifting large
heavy dogs. There would also be no outside area for the dogs placed in the
raised cages. The building has not been designed to accommodate an exterior
platform for raised cages and the larger dogs require the additional exterior
area. Staff would also have difficulty cleaning the cages without being able
to isolate the animals in the interior or exterior areas. Thus, this
alternative of adding cages is not considered feasible and was not reviewed in
any additional detail .
The second alternative to remodel the shelter by adding an extension to the
building, is estimated to cost $63,000 on a one-time basis at the rate of
$70/square foot if an additional large kennel area is constructed comparable
in size to the current room that houses 20 fixed dog cages. However, the
County may want to consider installing larger cages in a new room for the
current ones are considered to be inadequate in size.
Building another kennel area would also require an additional half-time staff
position at an estimated cost of $11,000 per year. If these costs were passed
on to the cities based on their current share of the workload and the cities
share of the depreciation of the building extension over 5 years, their
additional costs per year would be as follows:
-9-
Annual
Revised Deprec. Variance
Contract & Add' l . from
Current Based on Staffing Total Current
Contract Workload Costs Costs Contract
Dublin $ 8,498 $ 8,566 $ 1 , 180 $ 9,746 $ 1 ,248
Livermore 30,461 46,257 6,372 52,629 22, 168
Pleasanton 22, 152 23,985 3,304 27,289 5, 137
San Leandro 40,295 32,551 4,484 37,035 (3,260)
$101 ,406 $111 ,359 $15,340 $126,699 $25,293
The County would be responsible for funding the up-front construction costs of
$63,000 and absorbing its share of $22,050 on a permanent basis. In addition,
the County' s current share of the shelter costs would increase by $3,850 on an
annual basis, reflecting the County' s share of the additional staffing costs.
This alternative is considered feasible, and would increase the capacity of
the current shelter by at least 77% with 20 additional cages, which would
significantly relieve the overcrowding problem. However, this alternative
would take up to six months to implement. Finally, building an extension to
the building would permit continued management of the program from a single
site, which is considered to be both cost-effective and beneficial from a
management perspective.
Opening the San Leandro Shelter
A second major alternative to relieving the current overcrowding at the
shelter is to open the San Leandro facility. The Sheriff ' s Department
estimates that the cost of staffing that facility would be $83,952 on an
annual basis or a total of $263,839 to run both facilities. The County' s
share of those costs would be $22,428 on an annual basis. If a share of those
costs were passed on to the cities based on their current share of the
workload or percentage of total animals handled at the shelter, their
additional costs per year would be as follows:
Variance
from
Total Current
Costs Contract
Dublin $ 13, 192 $ 4,694
Livermore 71 ,236 40,775
Pleasanton 36,937 14,785
San Leandro 50, 129 9,834
$171 ,494 $70,088
This alternative is considered feasible and can be implemented within a short
time frame, two months or as soon as staff can be hired. The capacity of the
-10-
County shelters would be increased by 108% with the availability of 28
additional dog cages, thereby significantly relieving the overcrowding at
Santa Rita. Opening another facility, however, would lead to coordination
problems in that animals would be sheltered at two different sites and is not
as cost-effective as the remodeling alternative in terms of additional
staffing requirements.
Contracting for Shelter Services
The third major alternative to relieving the overcrowding at the Santa Rita
Shelter is to contract with a private organization such as the SPCA for
shelter services. Such a contract could cover the entire current shelter
operation, just the portion of the operation the County is legally responsible
for (unincorporated area) or to only handle the overflow from the current
shelter. Whether the County could contract out the entire shelter operation
is not known at this time nor what the cost would be. The Oakland SPCA,
however, has indicated that they would be interested in contracting with the
County to shelter all animals from the unincorporated area ( see Attachment I)
at a cost of $94,000 per year. In addition, they are interested in also
contracting with the City of San Leandro for the same purpose, but a cost
estimate is not currently available.
In terms of contracting with an organization to handle the overflow from the
shelter, such an informal arrangement currently exists with the Oakland-Dublin
SPCA. However, they have indicated that they are not interested in continuing
this informal contract on a permanent basis even with reimbursement from the
County.
Thus, the only contracting alternative which can be assessed at this time, for
which information is currently available, is for the County to contract with
the SPCA to shelter animals from the unincorporated area. This would
represent $24,085 in additional annual costs to the County. In addition, the
cost of the entire Santa Rita Shelter operation would be prorated among the
current contract cities as follows:
Variance
from
Total Current
Costs Contract
Dublin $ 13,706 $ 5,208
Livermore 70,242 39,781
Pleasanton 37,690 15,538
San Leandro 49,683 9,388
171,321 69,915
This alternative is considered feasible, can be implemented immediately, and
would increase the capacity of the County shelter by 35%, although additional
cages would not be added. However, problems in coordinating shelter and field
services would result, including transporting animals from the unincorporated
area to the SPCA shelter facility.
-11-
In summary, remodeling the Santa Rita facility appears to be the most
cost-effective alternative to relieving the overcrowding at the shelter. In
addition, this alternative is feasible, would provide for continued adequate
management of the program, and can be implemented within six months time.
Building an extension to the facility would permit an increased capacity for
dogs at the shelter, would require minimum additional staff and permit
construction of larger dog cages, for the current ones are considered to be
inadequate in size.
Organizational Alternatives
A final concern raised about the County Animal Control Program is its
organizational placement. The organizational alternatives identified include
maintaining the program' s placement in the Sheriff' s Department, creating a
separate County department of animal control services or shifting the program
under another County department such as the Health Care Services Agency.
The organizational alternatives were assessed in terms of the additional costs
that could be incurred, opportunities for coordination with other related
county programs, achieving other cost savings and operational improvements
such as through recruiting volunteers and the experience of other counties.
Creating a separate animal control department would result in increased County
costs for the program would require additional administrative staff support
that is currently being provided through the Sheriff' s Department. Shifting
the program under another County department may also result in additional
costs, depending on whether the necessary administrative support could be
provided within existing resources.
Other County programs currently being coordinated with animal control services
include the Sheriff' s Department dispatch services, utilized by the field
officers and the Public Health Lab and rabies control programs in the Health
Care Services Agency. The health care programs,_however, are ancillary to
animal control while the dispatch services are a direct component of the field
operation. Therefore, of the three organizational alternatives, locating
animal control services within the Sheriff' s Department provides for the
greatest opportunity for coordinating the program with other related county
services.
Each of the three organizational alternatives could potentially achieve
operational improvements in the current program, such as recruiting volunteers
for the dog licensing effort, adoption program and other shelter services.
The Sheriff' s Department was asked to assess the potential use of volunteers
in the program to both achieve cost savings and make operational improvements
( see Attachment II) . The report indicates that volunteers could be
appropriately utilized at the shelter, in the office or in the field license
survey program. However, the need for adequate supervision is emphasized as
well as the potential concern for the displacement of County employees.
Supervision for volunteers may be available within the Sheriff ' s Department or
in another county department, but a separate department would require
additional staff support for such a volunteer program.
-12-
As the survey conducted of other animal control programs reflects, in all
cases where volunteers are utilized, cost savings have been achieved. It is,
therefore, recommended that the Sheriff ' s Department implement a volunteer
program as outlined in their report, perhaps also including an animal adoption
component, on a trial basis in order to determine its cost-effectiveness.
The survey conducted of other county programs also reflected that separate
departments of animal control services have been established in those counties
covering a large geographic area, handling a greater volume of animals, and
expending significantly more county funds. Alameda County' s program is the
smallest of any surveyed and thus seems more appropriately placed within a
larger county department structure.
In summary, although it is recognized that the County animal control services
has some operational problems, the Sheriff' s Department has maintained a very
cost-effective program in light of the funding reductions the program has
experienced. It is recommended that the program be maintained within the
Sheriff' s Department because it appears to continue to be the most
cost-effective organizational placement, provides for greater coordination
with a related county program and is consistent with the experience of other
county programs.
Conclusion
While the Alameda County Animal Control Program has experienced some
operational problems in the last few years related to overcrowding at the
animal shelter, the program has been relatively well managed considering its
resource constraints and in comparison with other county programs. A review
was recently conducted of the program to assess alternative ways of relieving
the overcrowding at the shelter and address other concerns raised by the Board
of Supervisors.
The major findings of the review include:
• The County Animal Control Services program has been significantly reduced
in the last eight years; two animal shelters have been closed, and
contracts with five cities and seven staff positions phased out;
e The County is legally required to provide animal control services only in
the unincorporated area; cities are responsible for providing services in
their own jurisdictions;
• While the number'of animals handled by the shelter has decreased by 30%
since 1977-78, 60% fewer cages are available to house those animals;
• The number of dog licenses issued and revenue collected has decreased by
35% and 32% respectively in the last four years related to a reduction in
field officer positions and personnel vacancies;
-13-
• The County' s contracts with four cities for shelter services are based on
their- percentage of the population of the area being served. A more
appropriate method for distributing costs, however, is to base those
charces on the cities' share of the workload at the shelter;
e The optimum capacity for dogs at the Santa Rita shelter is considered to
be 46 animals while in a recent 30-day period it was found that as many as
59 dogs were housed at the facility;
s The Sheriff ' s Department recently implemented a license canvassing program
in the unincorporated area that is expected to result in the issuance of
more dog licenses and collection of additional revenue. The cost-
effectiveness of this effort, however, cannot be determined until a study
is completed in six months;
• In a survey conducted of five Bay Area counties, it was found that Alameda
County' s animal control program serves a much smaller geographic area than
other counties, is subsidized by the County at a much lower rate, has a
shelter facility at least as crowded as 50% of the other counties with dog
cages smaller and license fees lower than any County surveyed;
e Remodeling the Santa Rita Facility by adding an extension to the building
is considered the most cost-effective alternative to relieving the
crowding at the shelter; and
• The location of animal control services within the Sheriff' s Department is
considered to be the most cost-effective organizational placement of the
program.
Recommendations
In response to a number of issues raised by the Board of Supervisors related
to the County' s animal control program and the overcrowding at the Santa Rita
Animal Shelter, it is recommended that the Sheriff' s Department prepare
reports addressing the following issues:
s Restructuring the County' s contracts with the cities, including basing the
charces on the cities' percentage of the workload rather than population
by May 31 , 1983;
• Increasing the County' s dog license and impound fees to a level comparable
with other counties by May 31 , 1983;
• Developing a detailed proposal for a remodeling of the Santa Rita Shelter
including adding an extension to the building and installing larger dog
cages by June 14, 1983;
• Assessing the cost-effectiveness of the dog license canvas program by
October, 1983; and
e Implementing a volunteer program at the shelter as soon as possible and
evaluate its cost-effectiveness by October, 1983.
2430C
-14-
Table I
ALANEDA COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83
Appropriation 313;580 329,849 341,854 272,950 295,694 321,671 341,627 351,187
Revenue (212,162) (165,697) (161,626) (128,392) (130,140) (124,227) (143,027) (164,066)
Net County 101,418 164,152 180,228 144,558 165,554 197,444 198,600 187,121
Cost
Percent
Increase
from Prior
Year 62'/ 1Cl/. (2(N) 150% 11/ 1% (6%)
FTEs 17.65 15.70 16.70 10.70 10.70 10.70 10.70 10.70
2182C
Table II
ALAMEDA COUNTY
TOTAL NUMBER OF DOG LICENSES ISSUED
AND LICENSE REVENUE
1975/76 - 1982/83
Licenses Issued License Revenue
1975/76 10,312 $61 ,600
1976/77 8,331 $51 ,093
1977/78 7,656 $47,944
1978/79 4,951 $30, 155
1979/80 5,229 $33,309
1980/81 4,800 $30,575
1981/82 4, 132 $26,223
1982/83 3,218 $20, 508
2182C
Table III
AL APEDA COUNITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF ANIM4LS NAMLED BY JURISDICTION
1975/76 - 1982/83
1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83
Unincorporated
Area 5,549 4,957 5,106 2,831 2,738 3,076 2,948 2,616
San Leandro 2,774 2,503 2,006 1,537 1,658 1,193 1,198 1,272
Fremont 7,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Newark 2,277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Union City 2,237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Livermore 2,790 2,339 2,323 1,780 1,834 1,673 1,736 2,205
Pleasanton 1,743 1,729 1,256 1,094 936 810 1,024 1,056
P i ecimnt 123 97 83 0 0 0 0 0
Emeryville 54 40 50 0 0 0 0 0
Dublin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3�6
Total 25,107 11,665 10,824 7,242 7,166 6,752 6,906 7,548
2182C
Table IV
COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
Organizational Geographic How Services County Number of
County Location Area Served Provided Costs/Year Count Staff
A ameda Sheriff's Dept. a Unincorporated s 1 County Approp. 0.2 Shel. 10.70 FTEs
area & Dublin shelter fac. 0.2 field 3.0 shelter pers.
shelter & field o County field 0.4 4.70 field officers
services services for Rev. (0.1) 3 clerical
a San Leandro, unincorporated Net Co. 0.3
Pleasanton & area & Dublin Cost
Livermore for
shelter Svcs.
Contra Costa Animal Control o Entire County a 2 County Approp. 0.6 she 1. 43 FTE s
Services Dept. with exception shelter fac. 1.4 field 21 field officers
of Antioch - e County field 0.1 mist. 7 kennel personnel
shelter and services 2.1 5 spay/neuter clinic
field services a contract with Rev. (1.1) 10 clerical
SPCA @ $400/ Net Co. 1.0
month for Cost
investigation
wori<
grin County in- a Entire County o Contract with prop. 0.8 H.S.
istrator's Office with exception Humane Society Rev. (0.2)
of disposition for field and Net Co. 0.6
of dead animals shelter Svcs. Cost
for cities a Contract with
private vendor
for disposition
of dead animals
Sacramento Animal Control e Entire County e I County shel. Approp. 1.3 32 FTEs
Services Dept. with exception e County field Rev. (0_6)
of City of services Net Co. 0.7
Sacramento Cost
San Mateo C=mnity Svcs. a Entire County a County dog Approp. 1.5 H.S. 3 rTEs
Department licensing prog. 0.2 Lic. 3 animal licensing
s Contract with 1.7 officers
Humane Society Rev. (1_2) 6-10 summer workers
for shelter & Net Co. 0.5
other field Cost
services
Santa Clara General Svcs. o Entire County e 1 County shel. Approp. 0.7 H.S. 40 FTEs
Department with exception facility 1.1 field 23 field officers
of Vt. View & a Contract with 0.2 Cty.
Palo Alto - Humane Society 2.0
shelter & field for shelter Rev. (0.7)
services services Net Co. 1.3
a County field Cost
services
2182C
Table V
COUNTY SHELTER SERVICE'S
FOR- DOGS
Number of Number of Average Capacity Size of
County Dog Cages Dogs/Year #/Day /Day Cages Max/Cage
Alameda 26 3,844 42 46 3.5 ft x 8 ft 4
Contra Costa 120 18,400 150 175 4 ft x 15 ft 3
Marin 72 5,000 60 100 4 ft x 18 ft 3
Sacramento 48 16,000 80 288 6 ft x 12 ft 6
San Mateo 60 11 ,700 250 300 4 ft x 18 ft 5
Santa Clara 177 23,000 200 260 4 ft x 18 ft 3
(Humane Society)
Santa Clara 20 3,000 40 50 N/A 4
(County)
2182C
Table VI
COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE FEES
County Licenses Adoption Fees Impound Fees
Alameda $ 6 $10 $15 + $3.50/day
Contra Costa $10 $10 $15 + $4.50/day
Marin $10 $16 $25 + $5.00/day
Sacramento $10 $10 $20 + $2.00/day
San Mateo $12 $10 $15 + $4.00/day
Santa Clara $12 $ 9 $25 + $3.00/day
2182C
Table VII
COUNTY PER CAPITA. COSTS FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
County Costs Population Served Cost Per Capita
Alameda $ 187, 121 272,600 $0.69
Contra Costa 1 ,018,558 603,550 $1 .68
Marin 700,000 222,900 $3. 14
Sacramento 564,000 495,800 $1 . 14
San Mateo 475,000 585,100 $ .81
Santa Clara 1 ,323,847 1 , 152,900 $1 . 15
2182C
TABLE VIII
Analysis of Alternatives for Relieving Overcrowding
at Santa Rita Animal Shelter
Add'l. Cost Add'l. Costs Implementation Increased Nonagement
Alternatives for County/Year to Cities/Year Feasibility Time Frame Capacity of Operation
1. Build extension $63,000 $25,293 High 6 Months 77% Continued at
to building at Up front costs for first 5 (20 add'l. an adequate
Santa Rita. for construction years, then cages) level
of 6hich $22,050 decreases to
would be perma- 7,150.
rent costs and
$3,850 in add'l.
staffing costs/yr.
2. Open San $22,428 $70,088 High 2 Months 108/ Cooraination
Leandro Shelter (28 add'l. Problems
and maintain cages)
Santa Rita
facility.
3. Contract $24,085 $69,915 High Immediately 35% Coordination
with SPCA Problems
for unincorp.
area and maintain
Santa Rita for
contract cities
2182C
Attachment I
�. k_1 .AY "._ AND,/DUBLIN S . P . C. A .
9= _ "T�ia^fa.:)ne: 569 0'v2
G
April 26, 1983
�. Mr. Mel Hi ng 7
County Administrator �� G
Alameda County
1221 Oak Street
Oakland, CA 94621
RE: Animal Control
Dear Mr. Hing:
Subsequent to the Board of Surervisors meeting on March 15, 1923, at
which time, the Board requested a determination in Oakland SPCA' s
interest in contracting for hcusino and disposal of stray dogs and
cats , we have this information for you.
The Board of Directors have convened and would entertain on separate
agreements with Alameda Count;, and San Leandro to house and dispose
of strays dogs and cats for your respective area and devote a portion
of our facility on Baldwin Street for this purpose. This would pro-
vide closer access to residents west of the Dublin grade, closer acc-
ess for retrieval of their lost animals.
Since the County is not interested in opening the facility in San
Leandro, we recommend that the County lease the Santa Rita facility
to Livermore, Pleasanton and 'ublin for their use to house stray ani-
mals in their area . The corrals for large animals at Santa Rita be
kept by the County for their use when needed.
The SPCA proposes to provide the housing and disposal service by inc-
orporating the following provisions:
1. Oakland SPCA provide holding kennels and cages for stray
dogs and cats to be held for 5 days. At the expiration date,
SPCA at its discretion will attempt to adopt or humanely
dispose of such animal .
2. Dogs and cats which have bitten will be held under observa-
tion for 10 days and will be humanely disposed of at the
expiration date.
3. Dogs which are licensed with valid licenses, owners will be
notified and dogs will be held for 10 days for owners to
reclaim and pay redemption fees.
4. SPCA will redeem lost animals and collect redemption fees to
be retained by SPCA. SPCA will also retain any adoption fee.
5. SPCA will sell dog licenses for unlicensed strays that are
redeemed and dogs adopted in the County area. All dog li-
cense fees will be returned to the County.
Kindness to all animals.
Since 7874
Page Two Continuation. .
6. County will deliver animals to SPCA shelter for housing and
will furnish forms completed on information about eachyanim-
als , one copy for cage and one for office use.
7. SPCA will also accept dead animals collected to be placid in
barrels in SPCA refer for disposal .
8. County and SPCA personnel will cooperate fully to prolperly cage and
identify all incoming animals.
9. SPCA will also accept strays dogs and cats brought to SPC.= from
County residents.
10. County will continue to provide radio dispatch service for SPCA
units , and large animal -holding facility in exchange for humane in-
vestigative services not charged to the County as provided in Calif.
Civil Code 607 E .
11 . For these services rendered, the County will reimburse SPCA at the
end of each month service on invoice.
By applying our unit costs to numbers of animals handled from the unincor-
porated area of Alameda County in fiscal year 1981-82 we calculate our cost
to be $94,100, rounded out to $94,000 a year or $7,833.33 a month. The
cost breakdown is as follows:
2948 Animals Housed 5 days $ 73,700.00
104 Animals Housed 10 days 2,600.00
3252 Dead Animals Disposal 2,800.00
Office & Adm. Expense 15,000.00
94,100.00
We would enter into a contract to be reviewed on an annual basis with a
sixty-day (60) termination clause by either party.
Please call for any assistance I can render to assist you.
Sincerely yours,
%;'..
`Charles B. Marsh
Executive Director
CBM/en
cc: Glenn Dyer, Sheriff
Attachment II
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ■ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
COURTHOUSE
SLENN DYER 1225 FALLON STREET
SHERIFF OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA 9»612
(415) 874-6439
v
C
r
l
April 25, 1983
Mr. Mel Hing, County Administrator
Administration Building
1221 Oak Street
Oakland, California 94612
Subject: ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
In response to your memo of April 15, 1983, regarding the above subject matter,
the following information is provided.
The current year budget provides for 15 authorized positions of Volunteer
Field Services Officer, Item #8160. No Volunteer Field Services Officers
have been used in the last two years, and according to Rick Gerber, none have
been used since 1978, Proposition 13 impact.
Any use of volunteer personnel in an organization will necessarily require
that the volunteers receive instruction, direction, and supervision from full-
time personnel. Volunteer personnel are not obtained without cost. The ob-
ject, then, is to obtain more service from the total volunteer force than
is required to provide by full-time, paid personnel.
In addition to the direct supervision requirement, there will be costs in-
curred in personnel records maintenance and processing of volunteers.
Limited protection from liability by the County for the acts of or injuries
to volunteers may be obtained through execution of a waiver as proposed in
the County Administrator's memorandum of January 7, 1983, concerning County
"Quasi Employees- " This is another cost potential factor.
A telephone survey was made of selected counties and cities within Alameda
County to determine the extent to which volunteers are used elsewhere. The
results of that survey are attached in a memo dated April 21, 1983, by Anne
Winter, Supervising Clerk I. Essentially, there is a wide range of non-use and
use of volunteers, ranging from not being used at all to using over 200 vol-
unteers in the shelter in San Mateo County. The survey shows only that the
use of volunteers is determined locally.
Mr. Mel Hing, County Administrator
April 25, 1983
Page Two
The use of volunteers in the field, enforcing County ordinances and picking
up stray and leash-law violation animals, is not recommended at this time.
To get the best benefit out of volunteer service, it is recommended that a
minimum of one four-hour period of volunteer service per week be required
and a maximum of five four-hour service periods per week be allowed of any
individual.
Volunteers may be used in the shelter to answer inquiries received by phone
and in person concerning lost and found animals, hours of operation, and other
general inquiries. Volunteers at the shelter may be used to prepare the
receipts for adoption of animals, redemption of animals, rabies certificates;
however, at this time it is not recommended that they execute the signature
on the receipt or handle the cash involved. Volunteers would also be able
to type the dog licenses issued at the shelter.
Volunteers may be used in the field license survey program in addition to
or in lieu of Assistant Field Services Officers (Services as Needed) , cur-
rently being used. Objections to the displacement of County employees may
arise if this alternative were implemented.
Volunteers could be used in the office operation to answer inquiries similar
to those received at the shelter. In addition, the volunteers could be used
to type dog licenses, renewals received in the mail, and by persons coming
to the office. A similar concern regarding the displacement of County em-
ployees may be applicable here.
A volunteer program will not be successful without support, direction, and
most of all, supervision.
A maximum number of volunteers can be utilized at any one time. In the office
setting, one volunteer at a time would be the maximum. In the shelter, a
maximum of three volunteers at one time would be appropriate. The field li-
cense survey would use a maximum of six volunteers at one time. Volunteers
could be used as ride-alongs with the full-time Field Services Officer as
an additional interest incentive to the volunteer.
Glenn Dyer
Sheriff
D. T. Vohl
Undersheriff
DTV:AHM:nac
CC: A. Mitchell, Chief
J. Thomas, ASO
YE: Hill, CAO
'
'
'
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
-__Anne JWinter. S ervisi-n_-Clezk I
-__- -Alfred_} . Mitchell.-J}ivision-�:hief
P
Sv __'VoIuoteer hj,c�� ---__--___- -- __ -_ __ ____-_-----_------- -_--- --- -- '
The following cities and counties were contacted and asked the following:
l' Do you use volunteers? If yea , how many volunteers and how many hours
per week?
2. �hat do they do?
3. U�� long have you used them?
4' Do they save money?
Alameda City
l . Yes. They use 4-8 members (insurance is paid by 4-8) . There are
19 volunteers and they must work 2 hours u week, most work 6 hours
a week (3 times a week 2 hours each time) . The comment was made
that the volunteers love the program and it has worked very well.
2. The volunteers work in the shelter only. They have no public con-
tact. They clean the kaooeIa, feed the animals, walk and groom
the dogs' A select few also do filing.
3. Over l year.
4' Yes.
Berkelev (includes Emeryville and Piedmont)
l' No volunteer program since 1976.
Fremont (includes Newark and Union City)
l' Yea' Three women work on atotatiug bdoia to cover all the hours
the shelter is open (3-4 bourn daily) .
2. The volunteers work in the shelter only and boo6le no animals. They '
help the public at the shelter, answer telephones and search the lost
and found.
3' 3-4 years.
4' Yes'
A,LAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
From: Anne Winter ---- -- -- - -- -- 11:,1, _ ri1.21 ,�983_—
Alfred H. Mitchell,-Division Chief
Volunteer Programs (page. 2)
Subject: ------ ----- — - - -- - - -- - ---
Hayward
1. Yes. They have volunteers from the Court Program, Dallecitos, and the
CETA student work program. The volunteers are there 7 days a week
and the number of volunteers depends on the amount of people available.
2. They help in all shelter and clerical work.
3. 1974 to present.
4. Definitely.
Oakland
1 . No volunteer program. The city will not allow this program.
Contra Costa County
1 . Yes. Up to 28 volunteers that usually work � day. Volunteers work 6
days a week 9:00 - 5:00 .
2. The volunteers work in the shelter only and do not handle animals.
They deal with the public, the telephones, and the lost and found.
3. 1976 to present.
4. Yes.
Santa Clara County
1. Yes. 39 volunteers, each person works 4 hours a week.
2. Volunteers in the shelter only. They perform shelter duties, pet
supplies, office work, and animal education.
3. 1981 to present.
4. Yes, to equal 1 full-time position.
Sacramento County
1. No volunteer program.
ML 37 (Rev. 8/71)
AL AMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
I'run,: Anne Winter
Apr 21.,_LQ43_
--- r
Alfred H. Mitchell, Division Chief
Subject: Volunteer Programs-(page 3)
San Mateo Countv
1. Yes. 225 volunteers in the shelter who work at least 4 hours per
week. They have used volunteers in the field but not recently
and not very of ten.
2. The volunteers work in the kennel, in the Veterinary Department,
in the Wildlife Volunteer Department, and in Canvalescent Homes.
They also are involved in pet supplies.
3. 1972 to present.
4. Yes .
Marin County
1 . Yes. No further information, we called three times and they did
not return our call
ML 37 (Rev. 8/71)
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M E M O R A N D U M
April 15, 1983
TO: Undersheriff Dan Vohl
FROM: Mel Hing, County Administra r
SUBJECT: Animal Control Services
This is to confirm discussions held between staff of the Sheriff' s Department
and my office regarding animal control services.
As you know, the County is required to notify the cities we are contracting
with for shelter services by May 1 of each year if we expect to modify the
contracts. A recommendation is being considered, by both my office and
Sheriff Department staff, to amend those contracts to base the payment
schedule on the cities share of workload rather than their percentage of the
population. Therefore, I am requesting that you notify the cities of
Livermore, Pleasanton and San Leandro by May 1 , 1983 that the County expects
to amend their contracts for fiscal year 1983-84.
In addition, the Board of Supervisors has asked my office to address the issue
of making use of volunteers in the animal control program. I would appreciate
it if you would assess the pros and cons and appropriate use of volunteers in
the program. Please make that information available to my office by
April 25, 1983.
Unless I hear to the contrary, I will assume that letters will be sent to the
cities and the above information submitted to my office. If you have any
questions, please notify Adele Fasano of my staff, or in her absence, Emmie
Hill . Thank you for your assistance.
MH:AF: lb
cc: Chief Mitchell _
Joe Thomas
Emmie Hill
2279C --
C
E D
JUNE 1983 CITY OF DUBLIN
Monti Jurisdiction
DA COU'L\TTY DEPARTMENT 'F -7:MD Ste_VICES
ncport o-."' Animal Conzrol Division
Animal-q- in CuStody Iai-S 1•1ont*L1 Yca,-:- '-o Date
Stray Do-s (licensed) 0 8
L� T_jW___
Stray Do rr S (unlicensed) 9
0t.Tned Do-s 5 80
S r_-y C a S 6 75
Owned Cats 15 53
S'_-_.-ay ocher 0 1
0'.'7ned a t:-_-r 0 0
5
.Animal Sites
Do.,-,- 20
8
Ot.ier 0 0
Home Confined 3 15
Vet:arinariaa con=ined 0 1
Animal Con-Z_-rol cc-.if-_' ned 2
Unable to locate animal n
Complaints
Received 1 9
Cleared 1 9
Prosecuted 0
Uncleared 0 0
Citations
A-Z-_ lar-e 0 11
License violation 3 26
Other n 2
Injured An4mals (traac3d)
Do-s 19
Cak-s 0 16
Other 2
Ambulance servica 0
Dead Animals
Stray Dogs 1 43
Owned Dogs 2 l ?
Stray Cats 6 7,0
Owned Cats 0 3
Stray Others 0 10
Owned Others A 0
Veterinarian pickup
Wildlif e h
Disposition of Animals
Redeemed
Dogs 4 0
Cats n 0
Others _0 1
Adopted or Sold
Dogs 0 !9
Cats 0 9
Others 0 0
Put to Sleep
Dogs
> >� _
Cats —22 142
Others 0 0
No_ of Dog Licenses Sold 69
Released to Adoption Services
Dogs 0 1
Cats 0 0