The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.3 Animal Shelter Service AgreementHh0 off �> b I-drj) H w rl I-hwNF- H (D O> w E aH•E w H•rt0 9 (D 0 t-h �3'• rl r• H' �J, �3' G (D O -- -- -- H ::I' w Hh o G G O G �r 0 w m Cl) rh (D H O w m m m r• C H-A rt (D rl v G G rt n rt a n w cn rr r• C 0, w El (D F- O' -6-r G (D i-' r• rt N' ri rl- 0 n > r•H•cnrl, n 0300cnn''d > H"oa rraG(DH-cn0 H.0 HhrrmH• rl cnH-wmo r'GE�3'�j'w rrG (D-r--GQ GQwo�3'CcnrtG 0 o rr H• r• G ri G Cl) (D H• (D w 'C �Y' H• rt (D cn v cn w (D m rt H- ri P3 n O rt rt G G Hi rt El (D E3 rt G' (D It(D a H� El G o rt 00rt K0GQrtGQ(D w HH (D H. rt(DaGw 03r G'b`4 (Do (D(DG (DF- GGrr H,rtcnH•w(DGk-C(nkC (D Cl) H Z7 (D 0 rt rt x Hh rt rt (D n G cn rl rt - rt cn ,t w rt w (D r-" (D rt 0 cn 0 rr w m a w cn w Cr O n G 10 O ri r w H-4 H• (D w rh 0 Hh (D ri O' G ri G t-' t� O n H• rt (D rt H•'d rt rC w H. rt cn C n rl (D ri "Cl (D El w cn n G 'b 0 cn rt w rt b(D Gq C H. O (D rt (D n 0 rt I-' w rr I-h 0(D i-C 0 0 cn �:Yrt w r- �C o cn h7 ri (D O a (D H• cn H• E3 H. rt rt (D O Cl. (D H- o rt o E :' E ri m H w rt G H• a G rt o(D H. o rt co w H. cn cn G w (D w GH•rtG m 'd5• G Hh Cl) £k_,�n Grt 0G rto'rtG(D cn rt (D w rt rl O•' 0 n rt w rt H. H• r1 Hh a cn a En (D rt cn t� t7 rt F- O G m F- H• rt O cn rl O t� cn �3' a w - -6-, rt 14 (D Y G 0.03 I- cn I-h (D Hh O I-h w �.0 P' rr o C7' m G 0 N w cn cn a a ri ri -6-r El G 0o (D O G(D rr rt rt o r_4 Hh n m (D w$ o' v Hh rt C O 00 -E)- H. N H_ N (D w �r cn- Hh0" id H w w a. G o o (D w o �:r H• E�- rt rnE3 I rr rr aS rt (D rt rn w C G rt Hh Cl) rt (D n 00 :3' - w 00 (D �:;' w E� 7d H-'w rt t_l Sart w N, 0 (D (D rtw(D vt-'wrt (D VaH•H•n o GGQ n (D GQ H_ iEl rt acn n �l o _'i (D(D G rt o t-h a (D m O' Cn (n 'd H• o O (D (D o' > (D 0 H-` cn rt 0 n (D w G I- a cn w w G w C w G ao rt wGQ E o �1'O o G 0 rta -Ef> (D cn cn G t-j rt m a rt H• G C G It n w G Hh (D m ri :3 O y rt F✓ cn G H) rt w G Rr rr H• GQ (D O cn rt O r✓ -En rt rl w Q' G kC �O cn 'rJ o rt r GQ o t� (D E n (D (D G H• rt rr ,o cn (D rt rt< H- rt :Zm o rt nHh`C 0.0 (D Cl) E3 G UIG (D� GGQ �:Fl El rt w'l� w F✓ (D w H) w H• rl (D rr G GQ ri --d rh rt m (D rt w (D He'd H• • G 'o rt (D w rt N' �3' H• G kC a (D H. -,i rt a �:Fr' 0 -J'cJ (D w G a cn :3' w G 0 H, w G rt GQ G cn rh F� o V U) (D (D • rtcn (Drirr 0a ocn a (D rt n(D Elwrt�3• U)p O rt o w E rt w H• H• rt w(D Hi cn o(D n:3' rt 5C - h-h E P, a 0, 0 cn (D rt I-' w o rt H• H- o(D r r E (D r-h H• n w(D (D w a m ri G' cn n rt G H O H) rt n H N w(D rt cn cn C o (D O m G rt w art H) �r a �:F, rt cn G (DG t-h (D (D t t) 0 Gl rr (D G rt(D (D(D H• k4 r• a Q o ri w w Hh rt rt G (D n cn Q' rt o 0 cn rt C ri w cn 00 rt a I-'(D rtC)0 O rt(D1--<'ti :7' Crrt (D 'U 0- ',7 w (D kC cn (D o G G 0 'a w (D w cn t-"b w h o n H. O cn ri rt w o G cn 'b H• O G r- G :r rt N �.O'd rt n a) (D rr ( H. rl HhGcna wrtGcnGQ ort (D H. 000 00GH•(Drt(D0 N cn rt r• 0 o (D(D *1 H. H-4 H-' w X rC H- G G a o w w _C O rt I rr a Cl. w rt I-' I H. (D rr w GQ Cl) w T rnrrHh Gw Grt: (D 00aw�:Frr (Dort CD (D o �yl (n N, w w(D rt Hi rt V T_- w ri (D H• n Hh rt w o Q. rt G w (D rt 0 rt (D rt o H• rh w G rt cn £ (D H) O Cn (D H- n G rt (D cn n H-171w G H•rt rhaH•'rJ Eg rt (D G H'�.o0 H. (D G �JH• G H. w w rt �3 (D rt O �r rt (D 14 00 G (D cn '0 (D G U) h1 H-GQ :3(D (D o cn 'd E3 (D c n w G Cl) (D a C w 0 H• rt cn G rr G 0 r• (D -c_ 1 rt H cn rt -- (D Gw(D �r(Drtn HAG U) 0U) w00`C�0ow• rt H• t1 t-� O (D � H• OQ rt.0 w rr w (D cn a �a(D rt (D�J G rt�3' Eg m w o• n CO G cn r- w rC a `C G (D w H• (D rt o rr H_j o Y GQ H� (D M rt n (D rt o k.0 o w ri G' a rl m w w (D 0" 0 H. H rt O' rt G w w H rt (D (D cn rr H-� rt ri w rt H. w w (D � • rt cn m H. rt �3 GQ Cl) V w H- H C riaH•w rtwri O (DG (DH•(DGo'(Drt O nH�H• E3(D(Dcr (D H- a cnma�_w �i•rtG (D �.O0 F- Hcn aU) 0 .0 w rt G rt m H• w (D G 00 (D (D (D (D H) G m o x Hen rr w H•G rtcn 0 U) N cn cn rt o Hh 0 w rt G(D rt 0 P' Cl) n G Hh (D I cn (D Hh Hh o rh rt rt H• cn (D H• ri 0 H- 00 o rt P, rt w G rt G O(D(D rt rt w rt rt rt (D (D (D GQ n Hh w rt �J �3' 0 rt w o H• w cn rt o (D (D rt rt H- ri G H. rr G (D w Hh (D F� rt G 00 It w t7 It H (D rt W z n b� z n > an Z r y Cn(D b y m (Da H 9 cn �rH n O O y rt Cri ol �G rLn rJ (D t7l (D r•H H N H_j -CnaY F- a(nw-• o -- - m0GGmGm �.o w H. (D rt w G H• H• rt G rr 00 o w rr rtGEl-3rt(Drr w nGn O> > rtww(D (D I o H. G 11C 'b rt 00 (D acn�EnHhy HohkC � �� rt rt H• o rr o �r H• �J' rt H-r r-h �C > �' El rt w C 7O (D (D (D O ,O ri G G w 0 w H• Hh (D (D H- t - r-A � 000 H. rt H. Cl) o N Hh 'b rt a rr W El El 0 co (D w o(D (Dn- w w rt rt n GQ rl ri [n rt H. n rt r-A (D o v rt rt (D rt L-, o �� m cn(D o rt 0. m >rMtC (D � �3' H• ri GQ Eg G G H• ri o k.0 rt (D n(DC n Om (D ra0Ct-h I-C F_ H• r-4 (D H• I-' rt G (D H• N rt rr rt a rt rt w 0 rd N> (D m ~wwGQ m rt r.l rr n 1-1rT N � O �J" w 0 w E n rt rt > w H• Qo Hh cn m ll y O p H• O (D (D GQ cn %.o G (D 'o G m rt G a m rl w 00 H• TJ drta ri Gt-h �3' rt E3(DGw(n r- GCrt o rl, (D rtX(D(Drr- rt (D VH•w x rt El o w GF� o ri t-0rh H. H• O F�k4rt(DGL,w a r• (D rr G rt, a G G rr G cn w rt w t) rt a r_, O U) w rt rt o Hh H.- w kC ri (D Hh w G4 (D O' H• c rt - rt O G ri t_4 (D n H• H- (D N cn C rt a(DD av ( w O rt H. 00 0 n TJ>S �g G H. o w Y Hh (D H G(D N o rt 0 G cn H. G 01% G H- G n rr G G U) H• 000 GQ w w cn w rt GQ F- w(D ri `_4~ o o � m r_j a �C n cn Hh rt n w m o m o rt m (D rwi rt � � � H-� P.• rGr ri � cn m �o • • cn r- O H-' (D G 00 w 00 C m w I m a 0. Ll 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